HomeMy WebLinkAbout022592 CC AgendaAGENDA
TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
A REGULAR MEETING
TEMECULA COMMUNITY CENTER -28816 Pujol Street
FEBRUARY 25, 1992 - 7:00 PM
EXECUTI~!SES810":. '5 i30 P~ Closed SeMjOi~ of' tlie 'city: (~'ounCli: 'purS"iint .to
Govemme~':.Cbde. Section 54956.9 ib) end (~)'to discuss potential litigation..'
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. 92-04
Resolution: No. 92-10
CALL TO ORDER:
Mayor Patricia H. Birdsall presiding
Invocation
Father Edward Renner, St. Thomas Episcopal Church
Flag Salute
Councilmember Moore
ROLL CALL:
Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks, Birdsall
PRESENTATIONS/
PROCLAMATIONS
PUBLIC COMMENTS
· Annual Report from County Library Committee Representative
- Barbara Tooker
· Introduction of T~mecula Branch Librarian Beth Ziegler
- Barbara Tooker
· Certificate of Appreciation - Marilyn and Buel Pettit
· City Council Appreciation Awards
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.
2/egendNO22682 I 02120/12
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be
enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless
members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent
Calendar for separate action.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Standard Ordinance Adoorion Procedure
RECOMMENDATION
1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions
included in the agenda.
2
3
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1
2.2
2.2
Resolution Aoorovin0 List of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
Approve the minutes of February 4, 1992.
Approve the minutes of February 5, 1992.
Approve the minutes of February 11, 1992.
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
Statue Report - Margarita Village Soecific Plan
(Requested by Councilmember Lindemans)
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Receive and file status report.
21.rageride/022612
02/20/12
5 Release of Monument Bond for Tract No. 21673-1
7
8
9
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1
5.2
That the City Council authorize the release of Monument Bond for Tract
No. 21673-1
Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.
"Soeed Checked bv Radar" Signs
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1
Approve the installation of thirteen (13) "Speed Checked by Radar"
(R48R) signs at various locations throughout the City of Temecula.
Reoulatorv and Advanced Warnina Sions
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1
Authorize Staff to purchase regulatory and advanced warning signs from
Central City Signs as the lowest responsible bidder.
Award of Desion Contract for Landscaoe Architect Services in Conjunction with the
Ynez Corridor (CFD 88-12)
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1
8.2
Award a Professional Services Contract in an amount not to exceed
$21,800.00 to the Alhambra Group to provide landscape architectural
design services for the median islands and replacement parkways to be
constructed within the Ynez Corridor as part of Community Facilities
District 88-12.
Authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement.
Award of Contract to NBS/I, owrv - Western Bypass Corridor
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1
9.2
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.
Direct the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the agreement.
21sg~nde~226e2
o2/2o/e2
10
Final Vestino Tract Map N~. 231
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1 Approve Final Vesting Tract Map No. 23142, Amended No. 1, subject
to the Conditions of Approval.
11
Revised Vesting Final Tract Moo No. 23267-9
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1 Approve Revised Vesting Final Tract Map No. 23267-2, subject the
Conditions of Approval.
12
Final Vestina Tract MaD No. 26861-9
RECOMMENDATION:
12.1 Approve Final Vesting
Conditions of Approval.
Tract Map No. 26861-2, subject to the
13
Memorandum of Understandino - Bedford Properties Regardino Amendment to
Develooment Aoreement Paloma Del Sol
RECOMMENDATION:
13.1 Approve the attached Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding
Paloma del Sol.
14
Execution of 17th Year Community Development Block Grant Supplemental Aareement
RECOMMENDATION:
14.1 A~thorize the Mayor to execute the Supplemental Agreement for the use
of Community Development Block Grant Funds.
21egendd022612 4 02120/~2
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
15
16
Old Town Historical Boundarv t=xoansion Ordinence
RECOMMENDATION:
15.1 Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO, 92-02
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
EXPANDING THE OLD TOWN HISTORICAL DISTRICT BOUNDARY
Ordinance Amendina Chapter 1 ~,08 Regarding Parking in Front of Fire Hydrants
RECOMMENDATION:
16.1 Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 92-03
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
AMENDING CHAPTER 12,08 AT SECTION 12,08,223 REGARDING PARKING
IN FRONT OF FIRE HYDRANTS
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public
hearing or may appear and be heard in sdpport 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.
17 Vestino Tentative Tract 23372 - Buie Margarita Village
(Continued from the meeting of 1/28/92)
RECOMMENDATION:
17.1
Reaffirm Environmental Assessment No. 32547 for Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 23372.
17.2
Approve the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
23372, based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report,
and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
21egemldO22Se2
02120/12
18
Vesting Tentative Tract 93373 - Buie Margarita Villat~e
(Continued from the meeting of 1/28/92)
RECOMMENDATION:
18.1
18.2
Reaffirm Environmental Assessment No. 32547 for Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 23373.
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.
19
Mitioated Negative Declaration and Condemnation of Prooertv (AP No. 921-300-006)
RECOMMENDATION:
19.1 Continue to the meeting of April 28, 1992.
20
Ordinance to Reouire Fire Resistive Roof Coverings
RECOMMENDATION:
20.1 Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 92-01
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 457,
"UNIFORM BUILDING CODE" ADOPTED BY REFERENCE BY THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, BY AMENDING SECTION 3203 FOR THE PURPOSE OF REQUIRING
FIRE RESISTIVE ROOF COVERING.
20.2
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SETTING
FORTH THE LOCAL CONDITIONS UPON WHICH A DETERMINATION HAS
BEEN MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT MODIFICATIONS TO ORDINANCE
NO. 457, "UNIFORM BUILDING CODE" AMENDING SECTION 3203 FOR THE
PURPOSE OF REQUIRING FIRE RESISTIVE ROOF COVERINGS ARE
REASONABLY REQUIRED BY LOCAL CONDITIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF
TEMECULA
2-/,eendd022692 e 02/20/82
21
Plot Plen No. ~4~ - Tentative Parcel MaD 96664 - Coastline Eauitv
(Business Park Drive and Rancho Way)
RECOMMENDATION:
21.1 Adopt the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 242.
21.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 242 TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF THREE (3)
INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS TOTALLING 104,577 SQUARE FEET LOCATED AT
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF RANCHO WAY AND BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
COUNCIL BUSINESS
22 Community Services Funding Reouests
RECOMMENDATION:
22.1 Approve or revise the attached recommendations for the Community
Services funding requests.
23
24
Operation and Maintenance of Storm Drain Facilities Serving Tovota of Temecula
RECOMMENDATION:
23.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
REGARDING AUTO MALL PROJECT
Status Report on the French Valley Airport
(Placed on the Agenda at the request of Councilmember Mur~oz)
RECOMMENDATION:
24.1 Receive and discuss.
21egendN022612 7 02/20/92
CITY MANAGER REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
ADJOURNMI:NT
Next regular meeting: February 26, 1992, 7:00 PM, Temecula City Hall, Main Conference
Room, 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California
21egende/022i82 8 02/21/*g 2
TEarfUl ~ ~OM~UNIT~ S~VI~ ~IST~ICI' MEL~I'IN~ - ITo ~e ~el~ et ~:001
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. 92-01
Resolution: No. 92-01
CALL TO ORDER:
President Ronald J. Parks
ROLL CALL:
DIRECTORS:
Birdsell, Lindemans, Moore, Muftoz, 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 end address for the record.
DISTRICT BUSINESS
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of the meeting of February 11, 1992.
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT - Dixon
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT - Nelson
BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT: Next regular meeting March 10, 1992, 8:00 PM, Temecula Community
Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California
21agende/022612 I 02/20/12
TFMFCUI ~ RJ=nFVFt OPMFNT A~FNGY MFFTINn
Next in Order:
Resolution: No. 92-01
CALL TO ORDER:
ROLL CALL:
Chairperson J. Sal Muftoz presiding
AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks,
Muftoz
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 February 4, 1992.
1.2 Approve the minutes of February 11, 1992.
2
Acauisition Aoreement for Drainage Facilities - Toyota of Temecula
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve Agreement for Redevelopment Agency to acquire drainage
facilities from Toyota of Temecula;
2.2 Approve Cooperative Agreement between Agency and City;
2.3 Approve an appropriation of $32,000 for the acquisition of storm drain
facilities.
2/Nend~O22Ee2 10 02J20m2
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
AGENCY MEMBER'S REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT: Next regular meeting March 10, 1992, 8:00 PM, Temecula Community
Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California
21eeende/022612 11 02121/~2
PROCLAMATIONS
AND
PRESENTATIONS
Cera~cate of Appreciation
The City Council of the City of Temecula
on behalf of the citizens of the City of Temecula,
commends the outstanding contributions
of
Matilyn and Buel Pettit
who have served the Senior Center in Temecula since 1977 and 1980 respectively. They are
to be complimented for their generous donation of time and effort, and for the innovative and
worthwhile programs they have instituted for the Senior Citizens in the Temecula Valley.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto
affixed my hand and official seal this
251h day of February, 1992
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
ITEM
1
ITEM
2
MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
HELD FEBRUARY 4, 1992
A regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 7:05 PM in the
Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California· Mayor Patricia H.
Birdsall presiding.
PRESENT 5
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Lindemans, Moore, Muf~oz,
Parks, Birdsall
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Also present were City Manager David F. 'Dixon, City Attorney Scott F. Field, and City Clerk
June S. Greek.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Councilmember Parks.
PRES ENTATI ONS/PR O CLAMATI ONS
Lori Snow and Amie Gafney, presented a T-Shirt to the City Council from URGE (Union For
River Greenbelt Environment), which was designed by a student from Temecula Valley High
School Earth Club.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None given.
COUNCIL BUSINESS
Discussion of Alternatives for the Imorovement and Flood Control of Murrieta Creek
(Raced on the agenda at the request of Councilmember Mur~oz)
Ken Edwards, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District,
introduced Frank Peirce of the District to present the staff report.
Mr. Peirce reported on the history of the flooding of the channel and outlined the
elements of the Mitigated Trapezoidal Channel recommended by the Flood Control
District·
Councilmember Lindemans questioned the source of the fees for the flood control
improvements. Mr. Edwards stated this fees are spread over the entire area.
Minutes~2~4~92 -1 - 02/07/92
CiW Council Minutee FebNew 4. 1992
Councilmember Lindemans asked how much this project will cost. Mr. Peirce answered
the latest estimate is $53 Million, which will cover the area from Clinton Keith to just
south of First Street.
Councilmember Lindemans asked where money will come from? Mr. Edwards
responded that the fees are development based, and currently 3.7 million dollars has
been collected. He stated the City is in Flood Control District, Zone 7, which has a tax
base of e647,000 per year, but basically primary beneficiaries will pay for the project.
Mayor Birdsall called a brief recess at 8:05 PM to change the tape. The meeting was
reconvened at 8:06 PM.
Councilmember Lindemans asked why the bottleneck, at the end of the Murrieta Creek
Gorge, has not been addressed. Mr. Edwards answered that although altering the
Gorge would help somewhat, improvements would still be necessary and
environmental problems associated with blasting the Gorge are insurmountable.
RECESS
Mayor Birdsall called a recess at 8:13 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 8:25 PM with all
members present.
Ron Knopp, 41843 Shorewood Court, speaking on behalf of URGE (Union for River
Greenbelt Environment), requested that the City Council support their request for a
grant application in the form of a Resolution. He further asked that this area be
developed as a multi-use management plan and the area along the river be designated
as a greenbelt.
Evelyn Ashton, 2980 Los Alisos Drive, Fallbrook, representing the Santa Margarita
Foundation, requested the creek be preserved in a natural state.
Nancy Backstrand, 32725 Jerome Lane, Murriete, asked that the Council seek a
second opinion on this $53= million dollar project. She spoke in favor of preserving the
creek in a natural state.
Greg Ballmar, 5894 Grand Avenue, Tri County Conservation League, read a letter into
the record from Phil Bedient of the University of Houston.
Jay Lund, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California at Davis, addressed
the City Council, stating there is no way to completely control a flood. He also stated
there should not be a problem working with all concerned parties to implement a multi-
use program.
Mirmtes%2~4~92 - 2- 02/07/92
City Council Minutes FebNew 4. 1992
RobertWheeler, HC1 Box 360, Anza, representing Elsinore-Murrieta-Anza Conservation
District, read a letter into the record which spoke in favor of preserving the creek in
a natural manner that also addresses water retention.
Mayor Birdsall called a brief recess at 9:15 PM to change the tape. The meeting was
reconvened at 9:16 PM.
James Marpie, addressed the Council speaking in favor of retention/detention of rainfall
on site.
Merrilee Fellows, 35 North Lake Avenue, Pasadena, representing the Nature
Consarvancy, distributed a letter to the Council and requested that whatever design
is passed will be safe and environmentally sound.
Norm Thomas, 30535 Avenida Buena Suerte, presented a proposal of an Alternative
Cross-Section Plan designed by RANPAC Engineering, and suggested the City Council
look at one more alternative, have graphic art-work done and construct 8 model so
citizens can see how this will impact the community.
Councilmember Muftoz asked if this concept works as well with a soft bottom. Mr.
Thomas stated that the bottom of the lower level needs to be concrete to move the
water through and minimize the build up of silt.
Mayor Birdsall expressed concern about the plan proposed by RANPAC, stating the
river bed is now only 150 feet wide through Old Town end this plan would require
additional right-away.
Councilmember Mu~ioz stated he would like. to see the Council support the academic
study and analysis of these alternatives and support the grant application that has been
proposed.
Councilmember Lindemans stated he would like to see Council allocate $100,000 of
Redevelopment Funds toward this project.
Councilmember Moore stated the property along the river bed is owned by private
individuals and must be acquired before this project can commence.
Councilmember Parks stated he does not have a problem with obtaining a second
opinion, however, he does not want this process to hold up what Flood Control has
been working on for two years. He also expressed concern that any plan approved
does not take too much property out of Old Town.
Mayor Birdsall asked Mr. Edwards if the application for 404 Permit could proceed, even
though the City is requesting a second opinion? Mr. Edwards stated he can move
forward to get the 404 Permit, and receive verification as to habitat and wetlands
information. He stated this must be addressed regardless of the plan that is chosen.
Minutes\2%4%92 -3- 02/07/92
Ciw Coundl Minute Febmaw 4. 1992
Councilmember Moore stated she is pleasantly surprised with The District's
presentation. She stated i it provides for open space and a green belt down the
channel, which lends itself! to mixed uses. She also stated that s list of alternatives
have been studied.
It was moved by Mayor PrO Tam Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Mufioz to
extend the meeting until 10:30 PM. The motion was unanimously carried.
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Councilmember Moore to refer
this to staff with directions to come back with a recommendation as to who is best
to study the flood control .concept and to get a proposal from the consultant who
presented the alternate plan. The motion was unanimously carried.
City Manager Dixon stated staff would report back in three weeks to identify the scope
of work and provide choices of consultants for the Council's consideration.
Mr. Edwards stated he will go forward with 404 Permit, with the understanding that
amendments to the plan can be made after the Permit has been received.
Councilmember Mur~oz asked that the Council allocate funds for this project, and
support the grant application that has been made.
City Manager Dixon stated if Council would like to appropriate funds, and support the
grant application in the form of a resolution, both items need to be placed on the next
agenda, as the item on this agenda is for discussion only.
Mayor Birdsall called a recess at 10:16 PM to change the tape. The meeting was
reconvened at 10:17 PM.
CITY MANAGFR REPORTS
None given.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS
None given.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
None given.
Minutes\2%4\92 -4- 02/07/92
City Council Minute Febmaw 4, 1992
ADJOURNM;NT
It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Moore to adjourn at
10:23 PM to a meeting on February 5, 1992, at the Main Conference Room, City Hall at 7:00
PM. The motion was unanimously carried.
ATTEST:
PATRICIA H. BIRDSALL, MAYOR
JUNE S. GREEK, CITY CLERK
Minutes%2%4%92 -5- 02/07/92
MINUTES OF A JOINT MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
AND THE TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
HELD FEBRUARY 5, 1992
A joint meeting of the Temecula City Council and the Temecula Planning Commission was
called to order in the Main Confere~ce Room, Temecula City Hall, 43174 Business Park Drive,
at 7:05 P.M., Mayor Patricia Birdsall presiding.
ROLL CALL
Temecula City Council
PRESENT: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS:
Lindemans, Moore, Munoz, Parks,
Birdsall
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Temecula Planning Commission
PRESENT: 2 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Chiniaeff
ABSENT: 3 COMMISSIONERS: Fahey, Ford, Hoagland
Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, Planning Director Gary Thornhill and City
Clerk June S. Greek.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Councilmember Karel Lindemans.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
COUNCIL BUSINESS
1. General Plan Progress Reoort
Gary Thornhill reviewed the agenda and provided the Commission and the City Council
with an update on the General Plan process.
Jim Ragsdell of the Planning Center briefly outlined what has been happening with the
General Plan over the past few months and where they are in the General Plan
process. Mr. Ragsdell explained that the purpose of the meeting was to review and
discuss some urban form alternatives, which will direct the overall growth pattern of
the community.
Minut~d215/92 -1- 2/08192
City Council Minutes February 5.1992
2. Presentation of Alternative Urban Form Conceots
Randy Jackson of the Planning Center explained that the intent of the slide
presentation was to show some concepts to the Council and Commission, and then
discuss how they can be incorporated in the overall growth plan for the community.
Commissioner Ford arrived at 7:15 P.M.
The slide presentation highlighted the urban core concept and the village center
concept. The presentation included examples of good and bad design characteristics
in various areas.
3. Discussion of Urban Form Conceots
Councilmember Lindemans expressed a concern that what was being presented to the
Commission and the Council is not what the citizens have stated they would like to
see for the future development of the City.
Gary Thornhill said that there are still some large areas within the City that are not
developed and the Commission and the Council may want to intensify development in
these areas.
Commissioner Fahey arrived at 7:45 P.M.
Jim Ragsdell said that in terms of the relationship to the concepts that were being
presented, and the input that has been received from the citizens, circulation, traffic,
intrusion into single family home zones, lack of park and recreation facilities and
density, were key issues relayed many times during the meetings.
Councilmember Munoz said that what he wanted to hear in the presentation was what
could be done with Temecula and how to enhance what is already here.
Jim Ragsdell told the Council and Commission that if development continues with no
plan, the City will see what they have seen in the past, in terms of growth and design.
Gary Thornhill stated that there are still opportunities in the City, especially in the areas
of commercial, were some of the ideas presented can be incorporated. He added that
the purpose of the meeting: is to get direction from the Council and the Commission
to take back to the technical subcommittees for further work and refinement.
Councilmember Parks stated he feels the City needs to be open to unique planning
solutions within the City of' Temecula. He added that he felt that the City needs to
look at tying residential with shopping and commercial areas through access to the
trail system.
Minu~s/2/5192 -2- 2108192
City Council Minutes February 5.1992
Commissioner Chiniaeff said that the Planning Center has asked the City Council and
the Commission to tell them what direction they wish to go in. The maps and slides
were examples and now it is the Council and Commission's turn to give them their
opinions.
Commissioner Blair stated that she felt one of the objectives should be to preserve
some of the unusualness of Temecula.
Commissioner Fahey said that the Commission continues to hear projects every two
weeks, and the Council end the Commission need to decide on concepts for
development to assist with these decisions.
Councilmember Munoz stated that it was his opinion that the people of the community
do not want the urban core concept, they would rather see the village center concept.
Commissioner Fahey said that what the City currently has is a strong urban core
developing randomly and what has to be done is to give direction for a combination
effect. She added that opportunities are available in future developments to enhance
the village center concept and to remedy some of the problem areas that have been
developed.
Randy Jackson stated that some of the main concerns derived from the community
meetings was that there is a lack of parks, trails, and continuity.
Councilmember Parks said that with the understanding there are many approved
Specific Plans that have not been developed within the City, tying them together with
green spaces might get away from the walled community concept.
Mayor Birdsall stated many cities that have found having the commercial and
residential in the same complex is very convenient and looking forward, this may be
an innovative way of looking at our City's alternatives.
Councilmember Lindemans said that he liked the garden approach and particularly liked
the idea of tying what we have now together with future development.
Gary Thornhill asked that the Councilmembers and Commissioners submit their
comments and suggestions to him as soon as possible.
4. Policy ReQarding Change of Zones While General Plan Program is in Process
Gary Thornhill advised the City Council that a substantial number of re-zones are
coming before the Commission and the City Council and re-zoning decisions could
compromise some of the issues that have been addressed in the meeting tonight.
Minutes/2/5/92 -3- 2/08192
City Council Minutes Februarv 5.1992
Commissioner Fahey stated that it is becoming more and more difficult for the Planning
Commission to make the findings that projects will be consistent with the future
general plan without specific direction from Council on how the general plan is going
to be structured.
Councilmember Munoz stated that he would feel more comfortable if the City did not
approve any more zone changes until the General Plan process is complete.
Larry Markham, 41750 Winchester Road, Temecula, asked if the Planning Director was
still accepting zone changes, which Gary Thornhill responded yes to.
Councilmember Parks stated that as the City moves further along in the General Plan
process, the Planning Commission will be able to see more and more the direction the
Plan is going in; however, unless non-conformance can be pointed out, the
Commission will have to pass items on to the City Council.
5. Review of Next Joint City Council/Planning Commission WorkshoD
Gary Thornhill advised that the next joint meeting will be held Wednesday, February
26, 1992, 7:00 P.M. at the Main Conference Room at City Hall.
CITY MANAGER REPORT
NONe
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
None
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
Councilmember Lindemans asked that someone check into the hours of the traffic directors.
He stated that he had received complaints that their shifts appear to be irregular.
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to adjourn
at 9:20 P.M. to the next regular :City Council meeting on February 11, 1992, 7:00 P.M.,
Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California. The motion was
unanimously carried.
Minutes/2/5/92 -4- 2/08192
City Council Minutes February 5.1992
It was moved by Commissioner Chiniaeff, seconded by Commissioner Blair to adjourn to a
special meeting of the Planning Commission on February 24, 1992, 6:00 P.M., at Vail
Elementary School, 29915 Mira Loma Drive, Temecula, California. The motion carried
unanimously with Chairman Hoagland absent.
PATRICIA BIRDSALL, MAYOR
JOHN E. HOAGLAND, CHAIRMAN
ATTEST:
JUNE S. GREEK, CITY CLERK
Minuu~s/2/5/92 -5- 2/08/92
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
HELD FEBRUARY 11, 1992
A regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 6:12 PM in the
Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California. Mayor Patricia H.
Birdsall presiding.
PRESENT 5
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Lindemans, Moore, Muf~oz,
Parks, Birdsall
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, City Attorney Scott F. Field, and City Clerk
June S. Greek.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mayor Parks declared a recess to an executive session pursuant to Government Code Section
54956 (b) and (c) to discuss potential litigation at 6:13 PM.
The meeting was reconvened at 7:10 PM in regular session by Mayor Birdsall with all
members present.
INVOCATION
The invocation was given by Minister Sofia Sadler, Harvester Church of Temecula.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans.
PROCLAMATIONS
Mayor Birdsall proclaimed the month of February "Daffodil Days Month" and encouraged
businesses and individual citizens to join in the program by purchasing daffodils from the
American Cancer Society.
City Clerk June S. Greek swore in Deborah Holliday as the new Public Safety Commissioner.
PUBLIC FORUM
Cathy Smyth, 44005 Northgate, addressed the City Council regarding noise and vibrations
generated from the Valley Beat Nighclub. She asked that this disturbing noise be stopped.
Police Chief Rick Sayre, reported this matter has been investigated and some of the problem
may be due to leaving doors open. He stated residents concerns are being addressed, and if
Minutes\2\11 \92 - 1 - 02/18/92
City Council Minute. FebNew 11.1992
the noise persists another solution will be sought. He also stated that concerns identified by
Mayor Pro Tam Lindemans regarding safety windows have been addressed.
Sydney Vernon, 30268 Marsay Court, requested a new position, an Ombudsmen, whose chief
task would be to provide another channel for the public, be created. He suggested this person
should have direct access to all department heads and report to the City Manager.
Coralyn Knopp, 41843 Shorewood Court, representing the Union for a River Greenbelt
Environment (URGE), requested that the Council consider funding a study by Professor Lund
at the University of California, Davis, on alternate flood control methods.
Mayor Pro Tam Lindemans explained that RANPAC Engineering is currently doing a study,
working primarily on hydraulics, at no cost to the City.
CONS;NT CALENDAR
Mayor Pro Tam Lindemans the decrease of $422,000 in local transportation funds by the
State which is detailed in Item 5, is unacceptable, and asked that the Finance Officer follow
up on that issue in writing.
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tam Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve
Consent Calendar Items 1-8. The motion was unanimously carried·
e
Standard Ordinance Adoot~on Procedure
1.1
Waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included
in the agenda.
Minutes
2.1 Approve the minutes of January 28, 1992.
Resol-tion ADoroving Iist Of Demand~
3.1
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
Minutes%2\11 \92 -2- 02118/92
Ciw Courtall Minutee
e
FebNew 11. 1992
AnOrOVal Of Service Agreement - Designating Nuisance Abatement Hearing Officer
4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO, 92-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DESIGNATING JUDICIAL ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION SERVICES, INC.
{J.A.M .S .) AS HEARING OFFICER FOR NUISANCE ABATEMENT PROCEEDINGS
e
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures for Six Months Ended December 31.1991
5.1 Receive and file report.
Fiscal Year 1991-92 Mid-Ypar Budaet Review
6.1
Approve the Mid-year Budget as set forth in Attachment "A", which the
Finance Committee has reviewed and approvad.
6.2
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-05
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1991-92 ANNUAL BUDGET FOR CHANGES IN
ESTIMATED REVENUES AND APPROPRIATIONS
Acceotance of Public Improvements in Tract No. 23128
7.1 Accept the Public Improvements in Tract No. 23128
7.2 Authorize the reduction of street, sewer and water bonds and accept
the maintenance bonds in the reduced amounts.
7.3 Approve the subdivision agreement and direct the City Clerk to so
advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
Minutes\2\11 \92 -3- 02118/92
City Council Minute FebNew 11, 1992
Resol, ~tion Fndorsing tin ADolication for an Urban Streams Restoration Rrant
8.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ENDORSING AN APPLICATION FOR AN URBAN STREAMS RESTORATION
GRANT, CONDITIONALLY ACCEPTING A GRANT IF OFFERED AND
DESIGNATING CONTRACT MANAGER AND FISCAL AGENT
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Channe of 7one 19-Exoan8ion of Old Town Historic Area Boundaries
Director of Planning Gary Thornhill presented the staff report.
Councilmember Parks asked what restrictions would be placed on those properties
south of Santiago Road. Mr. Thornhill stated they would be subject to review by the
Old Town Architectural Committee but explained that zoning in the South would be
transitional and different from that in Old Town proper.
Mayor Birdsall opened the public hearing at 8:40 PM.
Don Nelson, Chevron ProdUcts Company, P.O. Box 2833, La Habra, requested that
his commercial property on the North Side of Rancho California Road, not be included
in the Historical District He explained he believes the entry into Old Town starts when
making a left hand turn from Rancho California Road to Front Street and his service
station is on the right.
Fay. Glover, 28801 Pujol Street, Manager Temecula Villas Apartments, asked if being
included in the Historical District would enhance the area?
Evelyn Hark.r, 31130 South General Kaarny Road, spoke in favor of extending the
overlay on Pujol Street south to the point where the Western Corridor is planned to
come in.
Mayor Birdsall closed public hearing at 8:46 PM.
Director of Planning Thornhill stated in regards to the Chevron Station parcel, the
natural gateway is probably as you make a left hand turn, and it makes sense to
eliminate the two lots north of Rancho California Road.
Minutee~2\l 1 \92 -4- 02118/92
CiW Council Minutes Februmv 11, 1992
Councilmember Parks asked if there is an opportunity for property owners to obtain
low interest loans if they are in the Old Town Historic Area.
City Manager Dixon explained there are programs the City can establish in the form of
grants and low interest loans that can be used in a Redevelopment Area. He stated
he has seen architectural standards imposed that are tied to grants and loans, which
have been successful.
Mayor Birdsall stated that the Main Street Program will also have a bearing on the
revitalizetion of Old Town.
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans to
approve staff recommendation with an amendment to the boundaries to exempt the
two parcels north of Rancho California Road and Front Street and the parcel at the
south-east corner of Rancho California Road end Front Street.
9.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 19 TO EXPAND THE OLD TOWN
HISTORICAL DISTRICT BOUNDARY
The motion was unanimously carried.
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Councilmember Moore to read
by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 92-02
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
EXPANDING THE OLD TOWN HISTORICAL DISTRICT BOUNDARY
The motion was unanimously carried.
10.
Chanoe of Zone 5631 -Tentative Tract 95320 Bedford Prooerties
It was move by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans to
continue Change of Zone No. 5631 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map 25320 to March
10, 1992.
The motion was unanimously carried.
IVinutes~2\ 11 \92 -5- 02118/92
CiW Cound Miratee Febmew 11.1992
RFCESS
Mayor Birdsall called a recess at 8:00 PM to accommodate the previously scheduled
Community Services District meeting. The meeting was reconvened following the CSD
Meeting at 8:18 PM.
11.
Aooeal No. 18. Administritive Plot Plan 19~ - Creekside Car Care Center
(Appeal of a Planning Commission denial of a 45 foot high freeway sign)
Director of Planning Gary Thornhill presented the staff report.
Mayor Pro Tam Lindemans stated that in November it was suggested that the applicant
contact Caltrans regarding .a freeway sign, (Gas, Food, Lodging) at the I-15/Highway
79 south off ramp, and asked if this suggestion had been followed up. Mr. Thornhill
stated that to his knowledge the applicant did not pursue this type of sign.
Mayor Birdsall opened the public hearing at 8:28 PM.
Lou Kashmere, 19555 Camino de Paz, Murrieta, applicant, requested that the City
Council allow a 45 foot sign to be placed on his property to allow visibility from the
freeway. He explained that without a sign it will be very difficult to begin a successful
business and a 45 foot sign is allowed under the current zoning ordinance.
Councilmember MuPioz asked why the applicant had not contacted Caltrans for a "Gas,
Food, Lodging" freeway sign. Mr. Kashmere stated that a sign currently exists but it
is covered by trees and he had hoped to work with staff on a sign advertising Old
Town.
Larry Markham, 41750 Winchester Road, Ste N, representing the applicant, stated
when Mr. Kashmere purchased the property he did so with the understanding that 45
ft. sign would be permitted since his property is no more than 650 feet from the
freeway. He stated the Sign across the freeway is 35 feet high and due to the
elevation of the property will appear to be approximately the same height.
Mayor Pro Tam Lindemans stated that since the applicant is willing to work with the
City a 55 foot sign, with review in two years should be permitted. Director of Planning
Thornhill stated s request for s variance has not been filed and the only action the
Council can take would be to allow a 45 foot sign.
City Attorney Field stated it is much more difficult to have a sign removed than to
prohibit the usage from the beginning.
Mayor Birdsall closed the public hearing at 8:57 PM.
Miratee\2~l 1%92 -6- 02118/92
City Coundl Minutes FebNew 11. 1992
Councilmember Moore said she is opposed to this sign since she feels it will not be
consistent with the City's General Plan when it is completed.
Councilmember Parks stated he is in favor of granting this appeal since a 45 foot sign
is allowed under the current ordinance and it is vital for the success of this business.
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans to grant the appeal and allow a 45 foot
sign for a period of two years and suggest to the applicant that he file a variance for
a 55 foot sign.
Mayor Parks stated he is opposed for limiting the sign for two years and stated he
feels the 45 foot sign should be allowed, without a time limit being imposed.
Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans amended his motion, seconded by Councilmember Parks
to adopt a modified resolution which grants the appeal and allows the installation of
a 45 foot high sign.
RESOLUTION NO. 92-O8
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
GRANTING APPEAL NO. 18, ADMINISTRATIVE PLOT PLAN NO. 192, TO
INSTALL A 45 FOOT HIGH FREEWAY SIGN AT AN APPROVED AUTOMOTIVE
SERVICE FACILITY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF FRONT
STREET AND HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH, 29115 FRONT STREET
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES:
3 COUNCILMEMBERS:
Lindemans, Parks, Birdsall
NOES:
2 COUNCILMEMBERS:
Moore, Mufioz
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Councilmember Mufioz stated he voted against the motion since no time limit was
imposed and it may jeopardize the appearance of the community.
COUNCIL BUSINESS
12.
Amendment to City MuniciDal Code - Fire Hydrant Parkina Distances
Police Chief Rick Sayre presented the staff report.
Minutes\2%11 \92 -7- 02118/92
City Courmil Minutee FebmeN 11. 1992
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve
staff recommendation as follows:
12.1
Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO, 92-03
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
AMENDING CHAPTER 12,08 AT SECTION 12,08,223 REGARDING PARKING
IN FRONT OF FIRE HYDRANTS
The motion was unanimously carried.
13.
Aooeal of Planning Commission Decision - ADDeel No. 21 - Plot Plan No. 86 - Revised
No. 1
Director of Planning Gary Thornhill presented the staff report.
Thomas Unglaub, 28739 Dyon Court, Menifee, representing Inland Valley Cablevision,
stated the generator is necessary to provide reliable and additional cable service to
Temecula.
Councilmember Parks asked when the generator would be used. Mr. Unglaub
answered that it would be used only during outages and once a week test would be
conducted during business hours.
Christian Nyby, 41395 Bitter Creek Road, spoke in opposition to the addition of a
structure and generator on La Serena Way.
John Cloughen, 41304 Bravos Court, Ridgeview Homeowners Association, spoke
against the expansion of facilities, and stated that notification of surrounding residents
is not sufficient.
Thelma Nyby, 41395 Bitter Creek Road, spoke in opposition of the addition and stated
a sign was posted on the site, but was removed after only a few hours.
Evelyn Harker, 31130-85 So. General Kearny Road, stated she lives in the mobile park
behind the site and she received no notification.
Frank Oxandabourn, 30909 Calle Pina Colada, spoke in opposition to the proposed
addition.
Minutes\2%11 \92 -8- 02118/92
CiW CounQil Minutee Febmaw 11. 1992
Councilmember Mufioz asked the applicant if Inland Valley Cable has future plans for
expansion. Mr. Unglaub stated at the present time there are no plans for expansion.
Councilmember Muf~oz asked if a roof over the facility would further mitigation the
noise problem. Jerry Sander, Director of Engineering of Inland Cable, responded that
roofing would probably result in more noise.
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve
staff recommendation follows:
13.1
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 92-09
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE
PLOT PLAN NO. 86, REVISED NO. I TO CONSTRUCT A 225 SQUARE FOOT
ADDITION TO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE, A 120 SQUARE FOOT GENERATOR
PAD (WITH GENERATOR) AND A 1,000 GALLON PROPANE TANK SITE (WITH
PROPANE TANK) ON A PARCEL CONTAINING °68 ACRES LOCATED AT
30975 LA SERENA WAY (EAST SIDE OF LA SERENA WAY, APPROXIMATELY
500 FEET NORTH OF SOUTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD) AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 946-050-015
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Moore, Parks, Birdsall
1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mur~oz
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans
Councilmember Muftoz stated he voted "no" in support of the surrounding residents
and their concerns.
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Parks to extend the
meeting until 10:30 PM. The motion was unanimously carried.
RECESS
Mayor Birdsall called a recess at 10:13 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 10:21 PM with
all members present.
Minutes\2%11%92 -9- 02118/92
City Council Minute FebNew 11. 1992
14.
Citv Promotional ProOram
Councilmember Mufioz stated he placed this item on the agenda for clarification of the
program and the expenditure of &260,000.
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemens, seconded by Councilmember Parks to
extend the meeting until 11:00 PM. The motion was unanimously carried.
Councilmember Muf~oz asked if a specific amount of money has been set aside to
promote Old Town. Councilmember Moore stated that this campaign is directed
mainly at attracting business. She stated other specific programs, such as the Main
Street Program, will specifically address Old Town.
Councilmember Parks requested that a periodic report be made to Council updating the
progress of this program.
City Manager Dixon detailed the magazine ads to be placed and the groups which they
are targeted to attract, and production of a video. He stated that two members of the
Council have been working on this committee, Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans end
Councilmember Moore. He stated that "mock ads" and a theme are now available and
these will be brought before the entire Council.
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.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS
None given.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS
None given.
CITY COUNCIl REPORTS
Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans requested that the Planning staff add e check-off to the
development checklist contained in staff reports that indicates if a project is consistent with
the specific plan or the City's future General Ran.
Mayor Birdsall announced she will be available to meet with citizens in the Community Center
on the second and fourth Monday preceding City Council Meetings, from 1-4 PM. She stated
that appointments will not be scheduled and citizens will be seen on a first come/first served
basis.
Minutes\2\11 \92 - 10- 0211 e/92
CiW Council Minutee FebNew 11, 1992
ADJOURNMI:NT
It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Lindemans to adjourn
at 11:04 PM to a meeting on February 25, 1992, 7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center.
ATTEST:
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
Minutes\2~l 1 ~92 -11- 02/18/92
ITEM
3
RESOLUtiON NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN
CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN
EXHIBIT A
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE,
DETERMINE AND ORDER AS POLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A have been
audited by the City Manager, and that the same are hereby allowed in the amounts of
$1,489,927.87
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution.
APPROVl,,I~ AND ADOPTED, this 251h day of February, 1992.
ATTEST:
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
239
CITY OF TEMECULA
LIST OF DEMANDS
0~04/92 TOTALCHECKRUN:
$.915,875.84
0~07/92 TOTALCHECKRUN:
$41,047.42
02/11/92 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
$18,304.52
02/14/92 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
$413,310.76
~13/92 TOTAL PAYROLL:
$101,389.33
TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 2/25/92 COUNCIL MEETING:
$1,489,927.87
DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND:
CHECKS:
001
014
019
029
PAYROLL:
001
019
GENERAL
COMMUNFI'Y DEV. BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
TCSD
CAPITAL PROJECTS-TCSD
GENERAL (PAYROLL)
TCSD (PAYROLL)
$2,123.65
$.,56,445.26
$4OO.0O
$78,673.52
$22,715.81
$101,389.33
TOTAL BY FUND:
$1,489,927.87
PREPARED BY KARMA MCINTYRE
I, MARK OCHEND "K'(~ I NAGER
,HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
,HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
.... Ck Reelstot S:ati:-.: 3l.E:
Fiscal Year: i?72 ~== *' .
IcyDice Bate P/O Date DescriDtio~ 8ross
~HB~255 ~2/II/~2 OLSO~/DO FINAL TOUCH MARLET
-~ 8384/28-~2 ~1/25/~2 855~ 12/17/91 PROMOTIONAL PROGRA~/FE~.
038~-~2 ~I/2~R2 e3~ 12,'171~! PROMOTIONAL PROGRAM/JAN. ~2Y 7,510.H ~.80 7.~IL~B
Check Totals:
H~1~272 t2114i92 ALLENCOR ALLEN CORPORATION SUPPLY CO.
9~58 82/~7192 110~5 1!I22/~1 DESk NODEL SEAL W/CITY LOGO
!5,768,92 ~,H 15.760.~2
274.58 B,B8 274.58
HH9273 821!4!92 ALLIED ALLIED BARRICADE
128~91-H 81/29/92 11191
128432-H 81/28/92 11191
128721-8~ ~2/61/92 11171
12~787-86 82/86/92 11191
Check Totals:
B!/82/92 OPEN ACCOUNT;NISC. MERCH.
BI/B2R2 OPEN ACCOUNT;NISC. MERCH.
EI/12/92 OPEN ACCOUNT;NISC, HERCN,
8!1821~2 OPEN ACCOUNT;NISC, NERCH,
274,58 8.H 274,58
lle.al 8.H 110.~1
9!.95 . B.B 91.05
187.71 !,H 18T.71
5~5,~7 9.H 593,97
HH9274 E2/14/92 AVP AVP VISION PLAN
6287~2 ~2/07R2
Check Totals:
~2!~7/~2 INSURANCE PREHIUM FOR FEB 92
984,24 toe 984,24
615,65 ~.90 ai5,65
Check Totals:
8H89275 ~2!!4/72 BENEFIT BENEFIT A~ERICA
8207~2 ~2/~7/92 ~2/67I~2 MEDICAL/DEPE~D CARE jAN ~2
615.65 ~.Be 615.65
1,~16.12 ~.8~ I~916.12
Check Totals:
909~9276 02/1~t92 BRATSCHi BRATSCHt, MICHAEL & JEANNIE
~21192 02/11R2 ~2/11R2 8~% CONTRACT CLASSi~8LF
Check Totals:
eH~9277 02/14/92 CADET CADET UNIFORM
6185~6 ~1/~I/~2 1~625 ~8/~RI RUGS;RNTLS!WASTE FEEtl/3IR2
1,916.12 8.B 1.716,12
500.80 ~,88 3eLOB
24.9~ ~.80 24.e~
8889~278 ~2I!4/92 CALIFORN CALIFORNIAN
2457/899~ 81/23I~2 1~626
Check Totals:
87/61t91PUBL~LGL NTC091/82/~2
24.08 8.0~ 2~,80
464.64 O.H 464.64
00009279 02/14/92 CALWEST
07a~lGA
Check Totals:
CAL WEST RENTAL CENTER
01122/92 11245 01122172 LAWN ROLLER
464.64
8.~8 8,~0 8.08
8H69288 62114i92 CERAMICS CERA~ICS n STUFF
021172 82/111~2
Check Tota!s:
~2111t~2 88~ CONTRACT CLASSICERAHIgS
8,88 0.00 8.08
H009281 82/14/92 CiTY/IND CITY OF INDIO
8285?2 02I~5/~2
Check Totals:
62/05!92 CDNFERENSE/2/22iPM
68.oe 0.09
17.00 0.00 !7,0~
8080~282 02/1~/~2 CITY/MV
821!~2
Check Totals:
CITY OF MORENO VALLEY
82/1t/92 02/11/92 REGiSTRATION/3/12/D~
17.00 0.00 17,00
Check Totals:
"'",B~283 ~2/14/72 CDLO~:~L COLONIAL Li:E & ACCIDENT
82~7~2 ~2/87/~2 ~2/~7/~? iNSUrAnCE PRDi!U~ FCR FEL ~2
Ch~ck Totals:
1.082.75 ~.BO 1.8~2.75
S0~0~28:C2/14/92 COMSE~C~ CD~SERCC
Fiscal Year: :??: Check Re~ister Station:
Check Date Vendor Name
Invoica Dat~ P/O Date Description Gross Discount Net
A157~a8 ~2/~1tg2 11227 ~i/1~R2 REPAIR TO ~0TORCYCLE RADIO 125.~ ~.H 125.H
Check Totals: I25.H 8.H 125.~
HH~285 02/14R2 COUfiTSUN COU~TS UNLINITED
28!~ ~1!18/92 1121~ ~I/m~R2 W/B LA SERENA;LAS COLINAS 265.H 8.8~ 2~5.H
Check Totals: 265.H B.BO 2aS.H
H88928~ C2114/92 CPRS CA PARK & RECREATION SOCIETY
~21292 82112192 e2t12/92 FEE REPLACE IND ATTEND CONF 25.88 8.H 25.H
Check Totals: 25.61 I.!! 25.H
HHt287 ~2/14R2 DAVLIN DAVLIN
8%23:146 81/22R2 1124~ 81/22R2 TAPE PARKS i REC, I115/t2 !3B.H !.!! 136,H
8g-2~:151 i2/!a/~2 11212 12/17/t! AUDIO/VISUAL FEB. 4 612,71 e,ie 612,71
Check Totals:
88889288 ~2/14!t2 DENTICAR DENTICARE OF CALIFORNIA
82~7t2 82/~7192 ~2187/t2 INSURANCE PRE~IU~ FOR FEB. t2
742.71 8.6~ 742.71
847.9~ 8.H 847.H
Check Tota!s:
88Hg28g ~2/14R2 DOOBLETR 11 DOUBLETREE HOTEL
~214q2 82i!4/~2 ~2/!~tt2 LODSINSI315-3!&IRS
847.H 8.88 847.88
l~.BB ~.BB !3~.g
Check Totals:
e008~2~8 ~2i!4R2 GLENNIES 8LENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS
87&~8-~ ~21Z3/~2 11246 ~!13~/92 PENS,PENCILS PUOL!C WORKS
8~228-1 02/~7!92 11258 ~I/$1R2 BOOKSHELF FOR PLANKING DEPT.
57733-8 ~1/81/~2 1H~2 ~9/2~/91 0RBAN!ZER;~ARKER GEl
8~151~7CR ~lie~/~2 i88~2 e~/23191 CREDIT MEMO/ITEMS ETURNED
87813-~ 82/05/t2 11248 el/set92 PENS,PENCILS PUBLIC I!ORKS
4~.55 ~.80 4E.55
%.77 ~,08 %,7..7,.
57.~7 8.88 57
6,52- e.~e
~ ~ 23.23
I~689291 ~2.~14/92 GREAT 6.R.E.A.T. TRUST
82~792 121~7/92
Check Totals:
~2107R2 PREHIU~ FOR FEB. g2
2!1.20 8.0~ 2!1.20
H88~292 82114192 8TEBILL GTE
678-~932F 82/07192
~99-8&32F E2187!92
Check Totals:
~2/~7R2 714-676-Bg32/JAN. CHGS
82/87/92 714-579-8632/3AN CHUG.
8~e.~e ~,88
!8.17 e.e~ 18.17
02/14R2 HANKSNAR HANKS HARDWARE
1231H e1/~2/92 le~t~
125518 e1/~3/~2 le9~3
I251~1 81/~2/~2 !8~S
127~84 81/28!~2 159~3
Check Totals:
18/16ftI CREDIT ~ENOS
I~tI&RI STREET HAINT.SUPPLIES:PUB,WKS
18/16/~I STREET ~AINI.SUPPL!ES;PUB.WKS
!8/16/~I STREET HAINT.SUPPL!ES:PUB,~KS
48.86 ~,Oe 48,86
9.54- I.B9 ~,34-
9,76 B,H 9,76
28,73 e.8~ 28,73
1.55 e,Be 1,35
HSe?2g4 82/14192 HERHANL HERHAN~ LISA
028~2 e2/84192
Check. Totals:
KIDS IN RHYTHM/CANCE,LED
27.8~ B.0~ 27,e~
~5 ~/'~inn
.......... :,,:~ HONARD BOBBY HOWARD
Check Totals:
~2,'11/~2 88% CONTRACT CLASS/HGRSEMENSR
27.gg C ......
24C,G~ g.g 24~,,,
~ ....~,,. HUETTER HUETTE, ROBERT K.
Check ' "~ '
IO~=IS,
F;scal Year: 1992 Cnec.~r Rez:star Stat:~r.; .T.:=~
Check Date VenOor Naee
Invoice Date P/O Date Description Gross Discount Net
..................................... ~,~8 24.8~
~2~&~2 ~2/~4i~2 ~21841~2 REFUNMEXCURSION CANCELLE~ 24.~
888~q297 1211~/92 HYATT HYATT REGENCY
~21192 ~2/11/92
Check Totals:
~2/!i192 LDDOIN6f$11B-3/20/TS E
~88~298 ~2f14f92 JOHNSONS aOHNSON~ SHARON
~13192 81/31R2
Check Totals:
~1/51192 ~ILEAGE REIMBIII25-2/I
Check Totals:
86ie~29~ ~2/14/92 KING 1K9 KIN6 ONE K-g ACADEMY
~21192 ~2/11/t2 62/11/V2 B~I CONTRACT CLASS/)O~ OBED.
~8~3~ ~2!14/92 LEAGUE
G2!192
Check Totals:
LEAGUE OF CALIF. CITIES
~2/11/92 02iil/92 CONFERENCE/2/28/TS,DS
8~88~381 82114/~2 MG~ASSOC MGM ASSOCIATES
PTEMgl.8~2 01i~!I~2
Check Totals:
~1/~1/92 SERVICES FOR 11I~1 BE
888093~2 82/14/82 PRESSENT PRESS ENTERPRISE
CRL2~SB2 ~I12i/72
CRL2~7~I ~1/21/72
Check Totals:
~!/21/92 P~ ~1-~4 !/2~I/~!/i~i/2i
81/2!/92 PW 9!-~5 I/2,1/~2,1/8%!/16
~21!4/~2 PROLOCK PRO LOCK & KEY
~1123192 11224
Check Totals:
81/23/92 EERGENC~ LOCK REPAiR;SPI PRK
Check Totals:
88089584 ~2114i92 R.B.EXPR R.B.EXPRESS MESSENGER SERVICE
12~191 ~i/~1/72 6306 11/13/9! PICK-UP & DEL./EC. CHSS
~13192 ~I/3!/92 ~386 1!/!3/91PIC~-UP & DEL./JAN. CHGS.
Check Totals:
80809386 82/14i92 RAMTEK RAMTEK
58921 ~1/29/92 8554 ~1129192 ROUTINE BRAINABE ~A!NTENANCE
3~05 81129/92 8354 ~1/29/92 ROUTINE DRAINAGE MADiTENANCE
3~7 8i129/92 ~35~ ~I/29/92 ROUTINE DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE
3988 81/29!~2 ~354 81/29/92 ROUTINE DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE
3887 Blf29192 ~354 ~i129/92 ROUTINE DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE
3888 81129i~2 ~55~ 01/29/~2 ROUTINE STREET MAINT
3872 ~!/2W92 ~35~ CI!27/~2 ROUTINE DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE
387~ 81/29/V2 ~554 ~1/29/V2 ROUTINE DRAINAGE ~Ait~TENANCE
587! ~i/29!92 ~554 ~1/2~t72 ROUTINE DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE
3880 ~1/29/~2 ~554 81/29/~2 ROUTINE DRAINAGE ~AINTENANCE
388~ 0!/29192 0358 ~i/29t~2 ROUTINE STREET ~AiKTE~ANCE
~o~ ~1/29/92 e~5~ -~,~Q,o~ Rn, T E EET
~,~,,~,~ ~U IN STR MAINTENANCE
5~! Ci/27/82 855~ ~!/2W~2 ROUIi)~E STREET ~A!NTEi~ANCE
5~g~ 01/2~/~? 055~ ~I/27/97 ROUTINE STREET ~AINTENANCE
-- 3~ Ci129/~? ~5~ ~I/5/72 ROUTINE STREET ~AI~TE~AHCE
7?it ~i/2~/72 G55~ 81/2~/92 ROUTINE STREET MAiNTEi~ANCE
72~. ~'.:SB~o* ~'=~ ~i,'2q/~2 ROUTINE STREET ~AINTE!~ANCE
Check Totals:
24.00 B.8B
172.88 ~.00 172.80
172.88 8,8~ 172.8~
68.&8 ~.ll 68.6B
676.8i ~,~B 676,~
676.il ~.Se 676.~8
288,80 I,e~ 2S~,e0
BB2.~B O.~ BB2.~
55.0~ ~,~ 55.80
275.~8 8.80
45~,8~ 8.~
69.6~ ~.8~ 69.6~
i,428.49 ~.00 1.428.49
7~019.13 0.~B 7.~19.1~
5 %i 6~ ~.BB 5,261.&7
35~.91 LiB 55E.91
2,U4.56 ~.8~ 2.U~.56
4,894.46 ~.80 4.89A.46
45~.63 ~.~ 435.65
604.96 8.B~ 604.g6
I.~49.4! ~.08 i.?A~.4:
779.44 E,B~ 779,!4
3!,~59.~5 ~,8~ 3i.559.05
Fiscal Year: 1992 Check
Check Date Vendor Name
Invoice Date P/O Date Description Bross Discount Net
88989397 82/14/92 RIVERFIR RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARl
9219~2 82/19/~2 82/I~/V2 2 TICKETS DINNERtS/281PB,D~ l~.H
Check Totals: I~.H 9.8~ 1~.9~
8998~398 92114/V2 RDWLEY CATHERINE RONLEY
~211V2 ~2/11It2 ~2111R2 B~X CONTRACT CLASS/TAP DANCE 2BB.B9 9.H 288.H
~2/14/92 SAWREYLD LINDA SAWREY
921192 92/111t2
Check Totals:
82/11/g2 BIX CDNTRACI CLASS/QUILT1NB
Check Totals:
eeeegs19 92/14/t2 SHEULOFF SHEULDFF, RICHARD
926492 92/94/t2 92Ig4/t2 KIDS IN RHYTHm/CANCELLED
288,89 9.H 288.9;
22B.H 9.98 22~,H
229,69 B,H 229,89
27.99 9,9B 27,g9
Check Totals:
10~9~311 ;2/14/~2 SHINA~UR SHI~A~URA~ DONN~ H.
828492 92/94/92 ~2/84/92 REFUND/CLASS CANCELLED
27,99 B.H 27,H
27.H 9,H 27.9~
HOSV312 ~2114172 SDLANO
~21192
Check Totals:
SOLAN0 PRESS BOOKS
~"/'1/q~ ~2/1!I~2 PUBLICATIONSIPLANNINS DEPT
27.H e.l;
9,B0
98e09~13 ~2/14/92 SOUTHCED SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
85H2944F ~1/21/92 81/21/92 a677795B&62~39H?/12/!9-91/21
8576479BF ~I/19/92 91/19/92 5977416HBBB2He3/12/19-1/1e
39B476369F 91/11/92 81/11/92 59778951e21e39H1/12/19-1/11
398343275F 91IB7192 91107192 56777557VH82H87112t6-1t7
3884~4551F 01/93I~2 BI103192 5377BB618I!83BH7/1215-91193
5,90 0.0e 5,~
58.87 ~.90 5B.B7
188.11 9,99 18S.u--~
29.95 9.99 20.95
9,~8 8,90
80909314 92/14192 STUPPY LAURENCE STUPPY
e21192 92111192
Check Totals:
B2111/92 Bit CONTRACT CLASS/BUITAR
284.55 0,H 286.55
324.99 8.H 324,H
Check Totals:
HH9315 02114/92 TEMVLYTK TEMECULA VALLEY TKD
921192 82/11/92 92/11/~2 Bit CONTRACT CLASS/~DENS SD
HH~3!6 ~2/!4192 TOWNCTR
14981-9
15714-9
Check Totals:
TOWN CENTER STATIONERS
01/~9/92 11144 1219~/91CALENDERS;LABELS;PRINT~HEELS
92/12/92 11262 91/31/92 ORGANIZER BOXES;CITY COUNCIL
56,99 0.90 56.9;
23.64 8.99 23.64
42,&7 ~,9~ 42.67
998e9517 92/!4!72 TUHBLEJU TUMBLE JUNGLE
~21t92 92111192
92/II/!2-! 92/!t/92
Check Totals:
~2/11/92 891 CONTRACI CLASS/GYMNASTiCS
~2/i1/V2 80~ CONTRACT CLASS/SYMNAST!CS
66,31 9.99 66.31
~97,6~ ~.9~ 397.6~
64~,20 9.H 643,2~
~2/!4/92 UNIONLD
821892
B~0095!? e2/i4/92
~28792
UNION LAND TITLE
02/1~/92
Check Totals:
~2/IB,/92 TITLE REPDRT/COM~U~i!TY REC
Cheo Totals:
UNU~ LIFE INS. CC. OF AMERICA
82187/92 ~2/07/92 F'RE~,IUfi FOP: FEBRUAF'Y
I,~4~.8~ B.B~ !.848.88
Fiscal Year:
Check Date Vendor
Invoice Dat~ PIO Date Description
Check Totals: "'~ ~ ~.0~ 2.2Z.2~
~9328 $2/!4/92 VANDDRP VANDORPE CHOU ASOCIATIO~
4584 ~1131192 811~1192 SERVICES JAN 92 B&E 857.26 ~.88 857.26
Check Totals:
B)~9321 82114192 VIRACKM VIRACL MARSANN M.
02~492 ~2/84/~2 82/~4/92 SUPERSITTERS/CANCELLED
857.2S 0.00 857.26
8HI9522 82/14/92 WILLlAMB KAY WILLIAMS
821!~2 )2111/~2
Check Totals:
82111/~2 881 MODEtINS CLASS
8.88
Check Totals:
HH9~23 ~2/14/92 WIMBERLY WIMBERLY, VALERIE 8.
~211~2 ~2/11/~2 ~2!!11~2 REFUND/DANCE CLASS
1,64g,00 8.H
45.H 0.H 45.9~
88H9~24 02125/92 ALLCITY
1238
Check Totals:
ALL CITY MANAGEMENT
ll/28/~2 9293 19/98191 TRAFFIC CONTROL/I/12-1/25
45.00 {.fi 45.86
4,98B.54 8.09 4,98Q.54
Check Totals:
09099525 82125t92 BURKE,WM BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN
88~33 81/21/92 81/21/~2 LEBAL SERVICES/DEC
88430 81/22/92 8!/22/92 LEBAL SERVICES/DEC
88845 ~1/22/92 81/22/92 LEBAL SERVICES/DEC·
4,98~.54 ~.88 4,988.54
5,15~.H ~.98 5,158.H
2,!18.25 8.H 2,1!8.23
i!,157J6 B.H II,I~7.~6
Check Totals:
.0009326 ~2125/92 CALIFLAN CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE
3~851183~ ~!/~!/92 IQ758 89/~3/911~STALL IRR!G.SYS~.SAM HICKS
3H~2~! ~1/~9/92 @2~2 88/28/91 MAINTENANCE/JANUARY 92
!6,3V7.29 O.fi 1&,397.29
..... 5 9.99 2.125.45
29,~26.48 S.Oe 29,824.4~
Check Totals:
~2/25/92 DEPHEALT iIDEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
NOV. 91 ~1/~1/92 9199 1~/~1/91 ANIMAL CDNiRDL/NDV. 91
DEC. 9! ~I/31/V2 alV9 16/81/V! ANIMAL CONTROL/DECEMBER
5,94~.72 0.9~ 5,~4~.72
5,534.48 ~.H 5.334.48
8H89528 62/25t92 ESBILCOR ESGIL CORPORATION
3/qi/V2CR
3/91/92 ~1/~1/q2
4/tl/g2CR ~1/~1/92
1/91/92CR ~1/~1/92
1/V1/~2 ~1/~i/92
Check Totals:
01i~1/92 CREDIT ~EMO 1!I!-11/38/91B&S
~1/81/92 SERVICES 111!-1115~/72 B & S
81/~1/92 CREDIT MEMO 12/1-12/31/91
~1/~1/92 SERVICES 12/!-12/3!/71B& S
~1/~!/92 CREDII MEMO 9/!-9/~/9! B & S
81/01/92 SERVICES V/!-9/3~/91B & S
11,284.28 U.H 11,284.2U
4A.47- 9.98 44.47-
1,088.16 8.H 1JOB.16
1,181.~2- ~.98 1,181J2-
9,488.38 B.8e 9,481.38
159.77- e.H 159.77-
4,557.53 ~.06 4,557.53
,.~ SHERIFF
96562
Check Totals:
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
81/~1192 8!/e1192 LA~ ENFORCEKEN!/DEC.
15.549.B1
9.99 15,54~.81
8.08 269,2).66
Check Totals:
~euor~ l-t '-:
~ ah
4!3,3!~.76 0.8~ 4!385!g.7~
Writer
FUND CHECK NUHBE~
991 96899274
eel HH7277
691
991 99999281
981 HH~282
991 9H8~28~
991 H909294
e91 eeeB~285
991 99999287
991 9H8~288
981
881 99809386
Bel
~01
eOl 00~325
e~i 0~9325
~'+'
CHECK DATE
e2t11192
B2111/92
82/14192
g2114R2
62114/92
92/14/92
e2/14/92
82/14/92
92/14/92
92/14/92
92/14/92
92/14/92
92/14/92
92/14/92
92/14/72
~2/14/92
82114!92
e2/14/92
82/!4/92
92/14/92
92/14!92
e2/14/92
{2/14/92
~2/14/92
82/14/92
B2/14/92
92/!4/92
e2t14/92
82/14/~2
82/14/92
82114/92
8211At92
92114/92
92i14/92
e2/14/92
~2/14/72
~2/!4/92
02/!4/92
82/14/92
e2/14/92
92/14/92
~2/14/92
02/!4/92
82/14/92
~2/14/92
;2/14/92
82/14/92
e2/14/92
~2/25/92
~21251~2
~2i~5~o2
B2/25/72
~2!25!~2
~2/25/~2
~2/25/92
~2/25/72
CHEC): LISTING BY
VENDOR NAME
FINAL TOUCH MARKET
FINAL TOUCH MARKET
ALLEN CORPORATION SUPPLY CO.
ALLIED BARRICADE
AVP VISION PLAN
BENEFIT AMERICA
CADET UNIFORM
CALIFORNIAN
CITY OF INDIO
CITY OF NOREND VALLEY
COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT
COMSERCO
COUNTS UNLIMITED
DAVLIN
DENTICARE OF CALIFORNIA
{~ DOUBLETREE HOTEL
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS
BLENNIEG OFFICE PRODUCTS
GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS
BtENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS
G.R.E.A.T. TRUST
BlE
HANKS HARDWARE
HANKS HARDWARE
HANKS HARDWARE
HYATT REGENCY
LEAGUE OF CAtIF. CITIES
MBM ASSOCIATES
PRESS ENTERPRISE
PRESS ENTERPR!SE
R,D,EXPREBS MEGCENSER SERVICE
R,B,EXPRESB MEGCENSER SERVICE
RAMTEK
RAMTEK
RAMTEK
RAMTEl
RAMTEK
RAMTEK
RAMTEK
RA~TEK
RAMTEK
RAMlEK
RAMTEK
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEBARI
SOLANO PRESS BOOKS
TDWN CENlER SIATIONERS
TOWN CENTER STATIONERS
UNUM LtFE INS. CO. DF A~ERiCA
VANDORPE CHDU ASSOCIATION
ALL CiTY MANABEMERI
BURKE, ~ILLIAMS & SORERSEN
BURKE, WILLIAHS & SDRENSEtl
BURKE. WiLLIAMS & SONEMBER
BUR[E, V]LLIAMS & SORENSE~
1,DEPAR!MERT OF HEALTH
IIDEPARTENT DF HEALTH
ESGIL CORPORATION
ESGIL CORPORATION
DESCRIPTION
PROMOTIONAL PROGRAM/JAN. 92Y
PROMOTIONAL PROBRAN/FEB. 92
DESK MODEL SEAL W/CITY LOGO
OPEN ACCOUNT{MIGC, MERCH,
INSURANCE PREMIUM FOR FEB 92
HEDICAL/DEPEND CARE JAN
RUBS;RNTLS}WASTE FEE/1/$I/t2
PUBL,LBL NTC:{I/~ZR2
CONFERENCE/2/22/PM
REGISTRATIDN/S/12/DD
INSURANCE PREMIUM FOR FEB.
REPAIR TO MOTORCYCLE RADIO
W/B LA BERENA;LAB CDLINAB
AUDIO/VISUAL FEB, 4
INSURANCE PREMIUM FOR FEB. 92
LODBINBI)I54i&IRS
BOOKSHELF FOR PLANNING DEPT.
CREDIT MEMO/ITEMS RETURNED
PENS,PENCILS PUBLIC WORKS
ORBANIZER{MARKER SET
PREMIUM FOR FEB.
714-699-B632/OAN CHBS.
STREET NAINT.SUPPL!EB:PUB.WKS
CREDIT MEMOS
STREET MAINT,SUPPLIEB=PUB,WKS
LODBINBI$1!B-S/21/TB DS
CONFERENCE/2/ZB/TB,DB
SERVICES FOR 11/91B&S
PW 9!-93 1/2,1/92~1/9%1/16
P~ 91-B4 1/2,1/9,1/16,1/21
PICK-UP & DEL./DEC. CHGS
PICK-UP & DEL./OAN. CHBS.
ROUTINE DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE
ROUTINE STREET MAINI
ROUTINE STREET MAINTENANCE
ROUTINE DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE
ROUTINE STREET MAINTENANCE
ROUIlNE DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE
ROUTINE STREET MAINTENANCE
ROUTINE DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE
ROUTINE STREET MAINTENANCE
ROUTINE DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE
ROUTINE STREET MAINTENANCE
2 TICKEIS DINNER/S/2B/PB,DD
PUBLICATIONS/PLANNING DEPT
CALENDERS;LABELS~PRINTWHEELS
ORGANIZER BOXES;CITY COUNCIL
PRENIU~ FOR FEBRUARY
SERVICES JAN 92
TRAFFIC CONTROL/1/12-1/2~
LEGAL SERVICES/DEC. 91
LEBAL SERVICES/DEC
LEGAL SERViCES/DEC.
LEGL HERVICES/DEC 9!
ANIMAL CONTROL/DECEmBER 9~
ANIMAL CONTROL/NOV. 91
CREDIT MEMO 121>i2/51/9! B&S
SERVICES 9/1-9/3~/91B ~ S
AKOUNT
B,45e.92
24.9~
464.64
78~.25
125,H
265.09
612.71
95.77
6.~2-
~5.7B
57.97
18j7
38,49
l,S5
172.80
280.~
552.8U
175.88
275.89
5,522.95
3,591.79
2,H7.46
484.%
4,251.Gi
779.44
19,ZB{.BB
2,1B~.~2
5.B~
25.64
:2.67
857.26
4,98~.54
'~ 426.9:
i~5.4c
5.~4.4~
~.SV.ST
FUND CHECK NUMBER CHECK DATE VENDOR NAME DESCR!F'TIOK
08! 08~07328 82/25/92 ESSIL CORPORATION SERVICES 1!/!-!!/38/92 B & S 1.885.!s
00! 88~09328 82/25/92 ESSIL CORPORATION CREDIT MEMO 9/i-9/58/91B & S 15~.TT.
881 8888~328 82/25/92 ESGIL CORPORATION SERVICES 12/!-12/31/91B& S
001 88889528 02/25/92 ESGIL CORPORATION CREDIT MEMO 11/1-11/58/91
081 ~88~52~ ~2/25/~2 COUNTY DF RIVERSIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT/DEC. 91
eB1
814 8888526 02125192 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE
INSTALL IRRIS.SYSM.SA~ WICKS
2,125.&5
019 88889274 82/14/92 AVP VISION PLAN
819 8880q275 82/1(/92 BENEFIT A~ERICA
819 88889278 82114/92 BRATSC~I, ~ICHAEL & JEANNIE
8!9 88089279 82!14/92 CAL NEST RENTAL CENTER
819 88889288 82/14/92 CERAMICS n STUFF
819 888892B3 02/14/92 COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT
017 888e9286 82/14/92 CA PARK & RECREATION SOCIETY
0!9 88889297 02/14/~2 DAVLIN
819 8888~288 82/14/72 DENTICARE OF CALIFORNIA
~19 88889291 82/14/92 G.R.E.A.T. TRUST
01q 88089292 82/14/92 GTE
0i~ 0888~294 82/14/92 HERMAN, LISA
817 888892?5 82/14/92 BOBBY HOWARD
819 888892% 82/14/92 HUETTE, ROBERT K.
~19 880872~8 82/14/92 2DH~2SDN. SHARON
8!e 8800~2~ 82/1&/~2 KING ONE ~-9 ACADEMY
019 08~893~3 82!14!92 PRO LOCK ~ KEY
~19 88089388 82/i4t92 CATHERINE RO~LEY
)19 08889389 82/14/92 LINDA SAWREY
81g 0808~318 82/i4/e2 SHEULDPF, RICHARD
019 88~093!1 82/14/92 SHI~A~URA. DONNA M.
819 ~008513 82/14/92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDtSDN
819 80087313 82/!~/92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
019 ~888~313 ~2/14/92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
819 88001313 82/14/92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
817 80089313 ~2/14/92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
81~ 88889314 82/14/92 LAURE~CE STUPPY
81~ 8008931~ 82/14/92 TE~ECULA VALLEY TKD
81~ 80089317 82/14/92 TUMBLE jUNGLE
~!9 88809~19 82/I~/92 UNU~ LIFE INS. CO. OP AMERICA
019 8~889321 82/14/92 VIRACK. ~ARGANN M.
819 8~889322 02/14/~2 KAY WILLIAMS
819 88~$23 82/14/92 WIMBERLY, VALEPIE S.
019 00889325 02/25R2 BURKE, ~!LLIAMS & SDRENSEN
819 80889328 82/25R2 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE
INSURANCE PREMIUN FOR FEB 92
~EDICALIDEPEND CARE JAN 92 476.2~
801 CONTRACT CLASS/SOLF 3~.e8
LAWN ROLLER
BOX CONTRACT CLASS/CERAMICS
INSURANCE PRE~IU~ FOR FEB. 92 2%.~
FEE REPLACE IND ATTEND CDNF
TAPE PARKS & REC. 1/13/92 1~.8~
INSURANCE PREMIUM FOR FEB. 92 2~S.0~
PREMIUM FOR FEB. 92
7!4-67&-ODS2/JAN. CHGS
KIDS 1N RHYTH~/CANCELLEB
8E~ CONTRACT CLASS!HORSEMENSP 240.80
REFUND/EXCURSION CANCELLED 24.80
~ILEAGE RE!MS!I!23-2/3 85.8~
8~1 CONTRACT CLASS/DOS OWED. 67~.8~
EMERGENCY LOCK REPAIR:SPT PRK B~.~
88X CONTRACT CLASS/TAP DANCE
88; CONTRACT CLASS/OUILTING
EIDS IN RHYTHM/CANCELLED 27.0~
REFUND/CLASS CANCELLED 27.80
5977A188888820805112118-1/18 18~.II
5~778851021058881/12/18-!/11
~777958482838809112/19-81/21 58.87
53778881811038087/12/3-01/83 ~.g~
567775599888288~7!1218-II7 2~.~5
80~ CONTRACT CLASS/GUITAR
88~ CONTRACT CLASS/NOMENS SD
88% CONTRACT CLASS/GYMNASTICS
PREMIUM FOR FEBRUARY 92 38~.28
SUPERSITTERS/CANCELLED
88% MODELING CLASS
REFUND/DANCE CLASS
LEGAL SERVICES/DEC. 91 B24.63
MAINTENANCE/JANUARY 92
019
UNION LAND TITLE
TITLE REPORT/COMMUNITY REC
Check Date Vencor Name
Invnice Date PIO Date ~escri:tie~ Gross Dis;eunt NEt
020672-? 02106/~2 02/06/~2 TRAVEL/SE~I~A~/2/20-2/21 140.00 O.OO i4t.O0
Check TotaXs= 140.00 0.00 14G.~.
0000926~ 02/11/92 WPCDP. POR WD~D PERFECT CORPORATION
8~112 01/03172 01103/92 SALES TAX O~ITTED DN ORDER I4.50 O.OO 14.50
Check Totals: 14.50 O.O0 14.50
0000~265 02/25R2 CALINS CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, INC
10372?3 01/24R2 01/24/92 BONDS
Check Totah:
00009266 02/25/92 TEMECULA T~ECULA CREEK INN
112~/92 01/2~/V2 01/23192 RECOGNITION PROGRAH
1~54.00 0.00 !~54.00
4,149.11 0.00 4,149.11
Check Totals:
4,149.11 0.00 4,149.11
~e)ort Totals:
!8.504.52 0.00 18,504.52
Re,oFt Writer CHECK LiST!N~ BY
FUND CHECK NU~iBEF: CNESK DATE VENDOR NAME ~ESCR!F'T!ON A~OUNT
001 00009182 02/05/?2 FRANKLIN C. A, STUART ADDRESS NUMBERING:CITY 52C.00
001 ~',^Aago-: 02/!!/92 HCKNELL TRAVEL CENTER TRAVEL/CDNF. 2/20-2/21J~ 11E.00
f'--001 0000923~ 02/!I/92 CALIFORNIA ~ILDING INDUSIRY SEHINAR/3/20 C.V. 115,00
oOl 00009237 02/11/92 CA HOMICIDE INVESTIGATOR ASSD CONFERENCE/INVESTIGATORS 200.00
001 0000?238 02/11R2 COUNTY ~EPT OF PURgHASING/GSA BINDERS/NISC DFFICE SUPPLIES 30.40
001 0000?239 02/!1/?2 DAVUN AUDID PRODUCTION/I/27/?2 MEET
001 00009240 02111192 DAVID F, DIXON REIMB CONFERENCE 32.2?
001 00009241 02/11/92 HOLIDAY INN LODGING/CONFERENCE
001 00009242 02/11/92 . HYATT REGENCY LODBINB/CONF/2/20-2/21 OH 105.S
001 00009245 02/!I/?2 .INTERNATL CO!iF. OF BLDG. DFFL SEMINARI31111PS 95.00
001 00009244 02/11/92 JOBS AVAILABLE JOB AD FOR; TRAFFIC ENGINEER 57.20
001 000092~5 02/11/?2 LEAGUE OF CAtIF. CITIES SEMINARI2/1BIJH 145.00
001 0000?246 02i11/92 LUNCH & STUFF CATERING DINNER FOR COUNCIL 90.00
001 0000?247 02/11/92 NAURICE PRINTERS QUICK PRINT ARTWORK FOR CITY STATIONARY 11~.53
001 OOOO?2~B 02111192 NAYORS OFFICE FOR DISABLED SEMINARI21141~B 95.00
00! 0000924? 02/11/92 ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER JOB AD FOR; TRAFFIC ENGINEER 231.4B
OO! 00009251 02111192 RAN-TEC RUBBER STAMP MFG NAMEBADBES;COUNCIL~EMBERS B.OB
001 0000?252 02/11/92 RANCHD BLUEPRINT OPEN ACCT~BLUEPRINTS!PU~,WRKS B!.67
001 00009254 02fi!/92 RANCHD WATER 0199-01390-0t00T. CHG 544.B;
001 0000?255 02111192 SO CALIF ASSDC OF GOVERNMENTS SEMINARI2127-212BIGT 50,00
001 00009256 02111192 SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BAN 4798020000010856112/13-12/23 384.92
001 0000?260 02/1!/92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 6677585B06S020002/12/20-0!/21 155.05
001 0000?260 02i!it92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 6~77585B060010001t12120-01/21 443,1~
00i 0000?260 02/!I/92 SOUTHERN CALiF EDISON 6677585BO5501000G/12/20-1/21
00! 0000~260 02/!I/92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 6679585BOS501000B/12/20-01/21 6!,~I
gOT O00092aO 02/1i/92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 6~77585505~010003/12/20-01/21 792.29
001 0000?260 02/1i/92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 6677585B064010007/12/20-01/21 523,16
001 0000?260 02/ii192 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 6677585B06~020004112/20-0!12! 585.06
Ol 00009%2 02111/92 TOWN CENTER STATIONERS OFFICE SUPPLIES; PLANNING !2.B4
00! 00009263 02/I!/92 UNIGLOBE BUTTERFIELD lRAVEL TRAVEL/SEHINAR/2/20-2/21 140.00
','~ 00009%~ 02/1i/92 ~DRD PERFECT CORPORATION SALES TAX OMITTED ON ORDER
00i 0000~265 02!25i~2 CAL-SURANCE ASSOCIATES, INC BONDS 1.954.00
00i 000092~6 02/25/?2 TEMECULA CREEK INN RECOBNITIDN PROGRAM 4,149.!1
00I
019 0000?250 02/11/92 PETTY CASH REIMB PETTY CASH JAN 279.50
019 0000925( 02/11/92 RANCHD WATER 0>24-00090-2/11/25-12/23
019 00009254 02/1!/92 RANCHD WATER 0t-15-01500-2/11/21-12/19 61.85-
019 0000?254 02/11/92 RANCHD WATER 0!-2~-00015-2/11/25-!2/23
019 00009254 02/11/92 RANCHD WATER 0t-24-00020-2/11/25-!2/23
019 00009254 02/11/92 ~ANCHD WATER 01-~!-50111-1/11/25-12/23 211.08-
0!9 00009254 02/I1/92 RANCHD WATER 01-24-007~2-2/11125-12/23 73.~4
019 00009254 02/1!/92 RANCHO WATER 01-24-46000-1/!1/25-12/23 I12.5B-
019 0000?254 02/11/92 RANCHO WATER 11121-12t19191
019 0000925~ 02/ii/92 RANCHO WATER 1iI25-12/23/91
019 O000q254 02/II/?2 RANCHD WATER O1 24 O0 40,5B
'- - 970-1/11/5-12/23
0!9 0000925i 02/11/92 RANCHO WATER 0!-24-00002-2/11/25-12/23
019 00009254 02/11/92 RANCHO WATER 0!-24-02500-!/11/25-12/25 185,66
019 0000925~ 02/1!/~2 RANCHO WATER 0>15-0010!-2/1!/21-12/19 203.89
01~ ~fi~OQ?~ ~iiliO~ RANCHO ~ATER Al-i~-2OObO-O/tl/iB-l~f~
............... ~ ............. 55,~3
Olq 0000~254 :' ~'~
i? 0~)?25~ 02/Ii/~2 RANCH9 ~ATER Ci-!>2~'j200-2'!!i!~-.2/!?
015' 0000~254 :'~/li'?~ RANCHO ~ATER ni'oi"'~i°i~'i/li '?s- ?~:'~
0i? oOt(c25~ 02/Ii/~2 RANCNO ~ATER 0!-24-0i897-1/10/24-11/25 67.2:
019 riOAAC": .... "~ili ;C~ R~CHE .. E
,. ,.'-.,--'~ "- ":~TE ,~_n4_,.,^,n,~ ~,,,,n=
Raoorz ~riter CHECK LiSTI~ B'f* FUND
FUND CHECK NUHBER CHECK DATE VENDOR NAE DESCRIPTION A~DUNT
0!9 00009254 02/11/92 RANCHO WATER 01-15-05010-1illt2!-12/19 80.SI
019 00009260 02/li/92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 59778025414030000/12/10-1/li IC.67
019 00009260 02/11/92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 5777566532402000511219-II9192
019 00009260 02/11/92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 60774117649020005112/11-0!111 9.50
019 00009260 0211it92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 66774051040020008t12120-01t21 241.55
0!9 00009260 02/11/92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 6677795991502000~112119-01121 27L24
019 00009260 02111/92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 59777994085050006t12110-1110 9.89
019 00009260 02/11/92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON. 60774117670050006112112-01/I1
019 00009260 02/11/92 SOUTHERN CAL!F EDISON 4~770771467021111~0-12151 20.48
019 00009260 02111!92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 59774162~07020006112110-1t10 200.90
019 00009260 02111192 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 57775656802030009112107-01109 9.90
019 00009260 02111192 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 5777565095402000411217-119192 9.90
019 00009260 02/11i92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 56777551975010005112/06-01/07 46.12
019 00009260 02111192 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 59774160080011655112126-31121 141.08
019 00009260 02111192 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 5977416008001165516111-7i1119 171.57
019 00009260 02/11R2 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 577778024890~000711217-1!9192 9,90
019 00009260 02Ili/92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 59778025422050000!12110-1111
0i9 00009260 02/!1/92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 6077411001!020000112/!1-01111 ~,~0
019 00009260 02II1192 SOUTHERN CAtIF EDISON 59774160080011655/519-6/I1/91 194,59
019 00009260 02IIll92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 4577077146602t11/~0-!2/5! 192!
019 00009260 02/11192 SOUTHERN CAL!F EDISON 597741645050!0005lllI16-1/10 4~9,87
019 00009260 02/11f92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 5377850930!010004ilil20-01/05 241.25
019 00009260 02/11/92 SOUTHERN CAL!F EDISON 4577077516102!!II50-12/31 44,69
019 00009260 02/11/92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 597741600800!1655t7/il-8/9/9i 172,%
019 0000?260 02/11!92 SOUTHERN CAL!F EDISON 59777992504050005/12/10-01/I0
0!9 00009260 02i11!92 SOUTHERN CAL!F EDISON 69776780107020004/12/26-01/27 ~,60
019 00009%0 02111/92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 4577077510502l!I/50-12/51 52.50
019 00009260 02/Ili92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 66774050677020000/12/20-01/21
019 00009260 02Ili/92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 4377077515802/10!51-11150 0.90
0!9 00009260 02/!I!92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 4577077i4650211!/50-12/51 41.54
017 00009260 02111192 SOUTHERN CAL!F EDISON 57775656!0102000211217-1!9192 9,90
019 0000~260 02/11/92 SOUTHERN CALF EDISON 597779925580~0005!12/!0-01/10 9.50
019 00009260 02i11/92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 597741600800!165/5/!2-4/I1/91 179.B4
019 00009260 02111/92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 57775650934020004109i06-10104 8,40
019 00009260 02/11/92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 5777780874005000911217-I19192 9,90
0!9 00009260 02/11t92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 59774!600B01!655/4/11-5/9/9i 165.75
019 00009260 02/11/92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 66~T795BOBO040000/12/19-01/21 2).2!
019 00009260 02/1i/92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 57777B08742030007/12/07-01/09 9.90
019 00009260 02/1i/92 SOU!HERN CAL!F EDISON 66775850900020001/12/20-01/21 226.4?
019 00009260 02/!I/92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 55771267543010006/!2/5-1/6/92
019 00009260 02/11/92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 4577077515802111/50-12/5! 44,87
0!9 00009260 02111/92 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 59774160080020003f11108-12/10 19~.16
0i9 00009261 02/i!f92 STADIUM PIZZA TEEN COUNCIL ~EETING 75.00
019
5,767.60
iS,504,52
Fiscai Year: 1972 Check Register Statie~: ZS~:
Check Date Vendor Name
Invoice Date P/O Oat~ Descriotion Gross Discount
0000919~ 02/05/92 RIVERHAS RIV. CO. HABITAT CONSERVATION
01~192 01/51/92 01/51/92 ~ANUARY K-RAT 8,560.59 0.00
000091~5 0210~/q2 ASSESSOR COUNTY ASSESSOR
020492 02/04/92
Check Totals: G~5~0,59
02/04/92 LIST OF COUNTY PROPERTY/TEHEC 45,00
0.00 ~ ~ ~o
0.00 45.00
Check Totals: 45.00 0.00 45.00
00009197 02/07192 BSN SPO BSN SPORTS
D171064 01/27/92 11205 01/02t92 TENNIS TABLES ETC,TEEN CENTER 763,% 0.00 765.96
Check Totals: 76S,% 0,00 76~.96
00009198 02/07t92 CERANICS CERANICS n STUFF
01128/92 01128/92 01128/92 REINS FOR SUPPLY FEE 25.00 0.00 25,00
00009199 02/07!92 DPRPUBLI DPR PUBLICATIONS
020~92 02/03t92 11228
Check Totals:
01/21 92 HISTORIC PRESERVATiON:BOOK
/ .
5.00 0,00 25.00
37.00 0.00 37.00
00009200 02/07/92 FASTSIGN FAST SIGNS
1645 01/21/92 11215
Check Totals:
01/2!R2 BLUE/WHITE BANNSR:CSD
57.00 0.00 ~7.00
137.~2 0.00 137.92
Check Tctals:
00009201 02!07/92 GLENHIES GLENN!ES OFFICE PRODUCTS
82089-~ 01/16192 10582 07/~IR~ OFFICE SUPPLIES
86~08-0 0112~/92 10815 09110/91 INDEXES;PRINTER:CARD PUNC~
Check Totals:
00009202 02/07/72 GREATGRA GREAT GRAPHIC & FRAMING
01~!q2 0!/3!/92 11153 !2/12/91 FRAMES FOR HAPS;C~TY HALL
00009203 02/07/92 GTEBILL GTE
699-2509F 01i28/92
~95-~539F 01128/92
Check Totals:
0!/28!92 714-&99-2509/~AN BILLING
0!/28/92 714-695-55~91~AN BILLING
A~.,92 0,00 ~ Q~
195.94 0.00 ~o. 04
2~.S 0.00 26.~
220.87 0.00 220.87
700.00 0.00 700.00
700.00 0.00 700.00
24.51 0.00 24.81
35.99 0.00 35.99
00009204 02/07192 HANKSHAR HANKS HARDWARE
122297 01/22!92 11242
122586 01/22/92 11242
122830 01/22/~2 11242
121080 01/22/92 11242
122084 01122R2 11242
015192 01/51/92 11242
i;~i. 0i122/92 11242
Check Totals:
01/22/~2 OPEN ACCT. HIS. ITEMS: TCSD
01/22/92 OPEN ACCT. H!SC. iTEwS· TCSD
01/22/92 OPEN ACCI, HIS, ITEHS; TCSD
0!/22/92 OPEN ACCT, HIS, ITEHS; TCSD
01/22/9'2 OPEN ACCT. HISC. ITEMS: lCSD
01/22/92 OPEN ACCT, N!SC, ITEMS: TCSD
01/22/92 OPEN ACCT, ~!SC. ITEMS: TSSD
00009205 02!07/92 HiNDERL
!005
Check Totals:
HINDERL!TER~ DE LLA~G & ASSO
0210!I92 0307 11/0i/9! SALES TAX A'jDIT & DATA BASE
&0,50 0.00 60,50
6,53 0,00 6,53
67,66 0.00 67,66
1.71 0,00 1,71
2!,18 0,00 21,IB
21.24 O.O0 21.24
269,12 O,O0 2~9,12
20,60 0,00 20,60
408.04 0.00 408.04
900.00 O, 00 900,
*~00.e. 206 02/07/92 L"N!EF;.D nENISE L~NIER
020592 02i05/92
ChEck Totals:
02/03/92 REIMB FOg: CLAS
900.08 0,00 ~0rJ.,:.C-
35.06 0.00 53.0C
'/',C/r-,~r,~ (s21{,7/92 LE~,GUE LEAGUE OF
0.00
Cried: Date Vsndor Naee
Invoice Date PIO Date Descrintion Sross Discount NEt
020~92 02/04192 02/04/92 RESISTRATION BRQWTH MANABE~EN 290.00 0.00 290.00
Check Totals:
00009208 02/07R2 MARILYNS hARILYN'S COFFEE SERVICE
i~75 02/05/92 11195 12/17/91 BREAKRODH SUPPLIES
290.00 0.00
77.46 0.00 77.46
0000~209 02/07/92 MOBIL MOBIL
930379A2 01/31/92
Check Totals:
0i1311~2 BB3505792/JAN SERV,
77,46 0,00 77,46
544,87 0,00 544,87
Check Totals:
0000~210 02/07R2 NELSDN&S NELSON E SONS SANDBLASTING
6305 01/09/t2 11230 01101/92 SANDBLAST BRAFFITI;SAH H1CKS
544,87 0.00 544,87
30,00 0,00 30,00
Check Totals:
00009211 02/07/92 PERSRETI PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT
2PERR,66 01/30192 01t30/92 Normal PIR,01130192
013!~2 01/31192 01/31/92 RETIREMENT FOR
30.00 0.00 30.00
255.!7 0,00 255.17
12~978.37 0.00 12,~7B.37
00009212 02/07/~2 POSTMAST POSTMASTER
011092 01/!0/92
Check Totals:
011!0/92 924462 12119-1/?
15.231.54 0.00 15.231.54
127.50 0.00 127.50
00009213 ~-~.~ U
0617
0000~214 02/07/92 RAN-TEC
006684
006732
Check Totals:
QUALITY TONER SUPPLY
01101192 11234 01/0i/92 RE-CHARBE TONER CARTRIDBES
Check Totals:
RAN-TEC RUBBER STAHP MFG
01~28i92 11200 01107/92 IDEAL 2 STAMP
02i0if~2 11249 01131f9.2 HAND STAMP
127.50 0,00 127.50
147.00 0.00 i47.00
!47.00 0.00 147.
17.24 O.OO 17.24
26.40 0.00 26.40
00009215 02i07!92 ROMERO ROMERO, LUCI
020492 02i04/92
Check Totals:
02/04t92 REIMB AMERICAN DISAB. WRKSHP
43.64 0.00 4~.64
86.3! 0.00 86.3i
0000~216 02/07/92 SAFETYLI SAFETYLINE
5563 01/20f92 11179
Check Totals:
!2110/9! REFLECTIVE VESTS;PUB.~ORKS
86.51 0.00 86.31
196.75 0.00 196.75
00009217 02/07!92 SAYRERIC RICK SAYRE
020592 02t05192
Check Totals:
02/05/92 REFUND FOR AWARDS
196.75 0.00 196.75
127.65 0.00 127.65
000092~8 02107/92 SIRSPEED SIR SPEEDY
4710 01/3!/92 11251
Check Totals:
01t28/92 20,000 SHEETS OF CiTY LTRHEAD
127.65 0.00 127.63
873.37 0.00 875.37
Check TotalE:
02/07/?2 TENVL¥-2 TEMECULA VLL¥ SCHOOL DISTRICT
?I-!92 01/0i/92 0i/01/92 CUSiODIAL CHARGES/4/!-i2/91
%-20~ 01/0~/92 0~/01/92 12/19/P! FACiLiTY
Yi-!93 Oi/Oi/~2 0i/01!92 CLASSROOMS USED/!O/i-12/~!
873.37 0,00
112,50 0.00
525.00 0.00 52~'~
0,00 o~c
0,09 16 =~
Fzscai ~ear: i972 Cneci Re~is:er Station:
Check Date Vendor Name
Invoice Date PIO Date Description Gr~ss Discn, unt Net
8771570124 01124/92 0331 12/1019! UNIFORM RENTALS/jAN 1992 12.50 0.00 12.50
04258~ 01/17/92 11180 12115!9! UNIFORM RENTALS:COMM.~ERViCE 240.00 0.00 240.00
042586-! 01!17/92 0531 12/10/91 UNIFORM RENTAL SERV.PUB.WORKS 5!I.~0 0.00 :11.60
Check Totals:
00009221 02/07/92 NASTEMSM NASTE MANABENENT INC.
000442 02/01/92 02/0iI9'2 891880/0009414 FEB SERVICE
000205 02/01/92 02/01/92 891880/0002908 FEB SERV.
580.~3 0,00 580.~5
49.78 0.00 49.78
49.78 0.00 49.78
Check Totals:
00009222 02125192 CALIFLAN CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE
508520130 01/~0/92 11124 !I/26/91 INSTALL SPRINKLER NEADS;SP-PK
99.5~ 0.00 99.5~
8,83&.80 0.00 8:GSA.80
Check Totals:
00009223 02/25192 6OLDENST GOLDEN STATE TRADING CO.
14190 02102/92 11241 01/24/92 COMPUTER WORKSTATION
8,856.80 0.00 8.836.80
2.876.92 0.00 2,876.92
Check Totals:
2,876.92 0.00 2.87~.92
Report Totals:
41,047.42 0.00 41,047.42
ReDoft Writer CHECK LISTING .P,? FUND Station:
FUND CHECK NUMBER CHECK DATE VENDOR NAME DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
001 00009193 02/05t92 RIV. CC. HABITAT CONSERVATION aANUARY K-RAT 8.560.5?
001 00009199 02/07/92 DPR PUBLICATIONS HISTORIC PRESERVATION;BOOK
001 00009201 02/07/92 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES
001 00009202 02/07/92 GREAT GRAPHIC & FRAMING FRAMES FOR MAPS;CITY HALL
001 00009203 02/07/92 GTE 714-699-2309/JAN BILLING 24.51
OO! 00009203 02/07t92 BTE 714-G95-..15391JAN BILLING ~5.99
001 00009205 02107/92 HINDERLITER, DE LLAMAS & ASSO SALES TAX AUDIT & DATA BASE 900.00
O01 00009206 02/07192 DENISE LANIER REIB FOR CLASS 35.06
001 00009207 02/07/92 LEAGUE OF CALIF. CITIES REGISTRATION GROWTH NANABEEN 290.00
001 OOOO920B 02/07/92 MARILYN'S COFFEE SERVICE BREAKROOM SUPPLIES 77.46
OO! 00009209 02/07/92 MOBIL BB39303792/JAN SERV. 361.1B
001 00009211 02/07t92 PEPS EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT RETIREMENI FOR 1130192 5,643.06
001 00009211 02/07/92 PEPS EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT NormaX PIR,OlI~OI92 25;,17
001 00009211 02/07/92 PEPS EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT RETIREMENT FOR 1/30/92 4,743.0B
001 00009212 02/07192 POSTMASTER 924462 12/19-1/7 107.60
00! 00009213 02/07192 DUALITY TONER SUPPLY RE-CHARGE TONER CARTRIDGES 147.00
00! 00009214 02/07/92 RAN-TEC RUBBER STAMP MF6 HAND STAMP 26.4(
O0t 00009215 02/07/92 RDHERO, LUCI REIMB AMERICAN DISAB. WRKSHP B6.31
00! 00009216 02/07/92 SAFETYLINE REFLECTIVE VESTS;PUB.WORKS !96.75
001 00009217 02/07/92 RICK SAYRE REFUND FOR AWARDS 127.63
001 00009218 02/07/92 SIR SPEEDY 20,000 SHEETS OF CITY LTRHEAD 873.37
001 00009220 02107/92 UNITDB RENTAL SERVICE UNIFORM RENTAL SERV.PUB.WORKS 5!1.60
001 00009220 02/07t92 UNITOS RENTAL SERVICE UNIFORM RENTALS/JAN 1992 12.50
00! 00009223 02125/92 GOLDEN STATE TRADING CO, COMPUTER WORKSTATION 2,876.92
001 26,6!9.12
019 00009195 02i06!92 COUNTY ASSESSOR LIST OF COUNTY PROPERTYITEMEC -.~5.00
019 00009197 02/07/92 BSN SPORTS TENNIS TABLES ETC.TEEN CENTER
0!9 00009198 02/07/92 CERAMICS n STUFF REIHB FOR SUPPLY FEE 25.00
019 00009200 02/07/92 FAST SIGNS BLUE/WHITE BANNER;CSD 1~7.92
019 00009201 02107192 6LENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS INDEXES~PRINTERICARD PUNCH 26.93
019 00009204 02/07/92 HANKS HARDWARE DPEN ACCT. MISC. ITEMS; TCSD
019 00009209 02/07/92 MOBIL BB39505792/JAN BERV. 1B~.69
019 00009210 02/07/92 NELSON & SONS SANDBLASTING SANDBLAST BRAFFITI;SAM HICKS 30.00
019 00009211 02/07/92 PEPS EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT RETIREMENT FOR 1/~0/92 2,592.23
0!9 00009212 02107/92 POSTMASTER 924462 12119-1/7 19.90
019 00009214 02/07i92 RAN-TEC RUBBER STAMP MFB IDEAL 2 STAMP 17,24
01~ 00009219 02/07/92 TENECULA VLLY SCHOOL DISTRICT CLASSROOMS USED/IO/!-12/31 417.00
019 00009219 02107!92 TEMECULA VLLY SCHOOL DISTRICT CUSTODIAL CHARBESI411-12191 34B.00
019 000092!~ 02/07/92 TEMECULA VLLY SCHOOL DISTRICT CLASSROOMS USED/lO/!-12/31 108.00
0i~ 00009219 02/07/92 TE~ECULA VLLY SCHOCL DISTRICT 12/19191 FACILtlY USED 112.50
019 00009220 02/07/92 UNITOS RENTAL SERVICE UNIFORH RENTALS/JAN 1992 !6.5~
019 00009220 02/07/92 UNITDG RENTAL SERVICE UNIFORM RENTALS;COMM.SERVICE 240.00
019 00009221 02/07/92 WASTE NANAGBENT INC. 891880/000290B FEB SERV, 49.78
019 00009221 02/07/92 WASTE MANAGEMENT INC. B91880/O009414 FEB SERVICE 49.7B
01~ 0000~222 02/25/92 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE INSTALL SPRINKLER HEADS;SP-PK
019 14,428.50
, .n47.42
Fiscal Year: !~92 Lneck Register Station:
Check Date Vendor Name
Invoice Date P/O Date Descriotion Gross Discount Net
000091~2 02/~5/92 STUARTFR FRANKLIN C. A. STUART
012772 01127!92 0346 01/15t92 ADDRESS NUMDER!NG:CITY 520.00 0.00 520.00
Check Totals:
00009235 02/11/92 DICKNELL DICKNELL TRAVEL CENTER
020692 02106192 0210a/9~ TRAVEL/CONF. 2/20-2121 ~
520.00 0.00 520.0C
118.00 0.00 118.00
Check Totals:
0000923~ 02/1!/92 CADUILDI CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY
020692 02f0~/92 02/0~/92 SE~INAR/U20 C.V.
llB.O0 0.00 118.00
115.00 0.00 I15.00
000092U 02/11/92 CNIA
020792
Check Totals:
CA HOMICIDE INVESTIGATOR ASSO
02107/92 02107192 CONFERENCE/INVESTIGATORS
115.00 0.00 115.00
200.00 0.00 200.00
Check Totals:
00009258 021111~2 CDUNTYGS COUNTY DEPT OF PURCHASING/GSA
i~9985 0i/10192 01/10/92 DINDERS/~!SC OFFICE SUPPLIES
200.00 0,00 200.00
50,40 0.00 S0.40
00009259 02/1!/92 DAVLIN DAVLIN
89-23:148 01/~0!92 10942
Check Totals:
09/27191 AUDIO PRODUCT!ONtl/27/92 ~EET
50.40 0.00 30.40
!48.40 0.00 148.40
00009240 02ili!92 DIXON DAVID F. DIXON
012792 0~7to~
00009241 02/11192 HOLIDAYI HOLIDAY INN
020792 02/07/92
Check Totals:
0i/27t92 REI~ CONFERENCE
Check Totals:
02/07/92 LODGING/CONFERENCE
148.40 0.00 148.40
52.27 0.00 52.27
~2.27 0.00 52.27
165.00 0.00 !65.00
00009242 02/11/92 HYATTSAC HYATT RESENCY
020672 02i06192
Check Totals:
02/06!92 LODGINSICONFI2/20-2121 aM
165.00 0.00 165.00
!05.95 0.00 105.S
Check Totals:
0000~245 02/11/92 INTERNAT INTERNATL CONF. OF BLOC, OFFL
020692 02/06/92 02106192 SEHINAR/UlltP8
105.93 0.00 105.93
95,00 0.00 95.00
00009244 02/ILI92 JOBSAVAI JOBS AVAILABLE
125086 01/01!92 11219
Check Totals:
12/16/9! JOB AD FOR; TRAFFIC ENGINEER
95,00 0.00 95,00
57.20 0,00 57,20
00009245 02/11/92 LEAGUE
020692
Check Totals:
LEAGUE OF CALIF. CITIES
02/06/S2 02/06!92 SEMINAR/2/18RM
57,20 0.00 57.20
145.00 0.00 145.00
Check Totals:
00009246 02/11/92 LUNCH~ST LUNCH & STUFF CATERING
02'092 02/!0/~2 DINNER FOR COUNCIL
I 02/10/92
145.00 0.00 145.00
90.00 rJ,O0 90.00
Check Totals:
i4AUR!CE PRINTERS ~UiCK PR]HT
rj!/2~/~2 1i227 01/01/72 ART~O~[ FOR CITY STaTiONARY
90.00 0.00
Check Totals:
0(i0092~8 ~,/~zo~ HA'/ORS~F M,.v,v.* OFFICE FOR B, [
Fis:ai Year: 1992 Cnsck
Check Date Venoor Name
Invoice Date P/O Date Descriptio: Gross Discount
020692 02/0~/92 02/06/92 BEMINAR/2/14/MB 95.00 0.00
Check Totals: 95.00 0.00 95.00
00009249 02/11/92 ORANGERE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
401¢170 01/01/92 11220 !2/08/9100B AD FOR; TRAFFIC ENBINEER 231.48 0.00 231.48
Check Totals: 231.49 0,00 231,48
00009250 02111192 PETTYC PETTY CASH
020692 02/06/92 02106!92 REIHB PETTY CASH ~AN 279,50 O.O0 279,50
Check Totals: 279.50 0.00 279.50
00009251 02/11/92 RAN-TEC RAN-TEC RUBBER STANP HFG
00675~ 02/06/92 11243 01/14/92 NANEBADGES;COUNCILEHBERS 8.08 O.OO 8.08
00009252 02/11!92 RANCHOBL RANCHO BLUEPRINT
39588 01/28/92 I1011
39599 01130192 11011
Check Totals: 8,08 0.00 8.08
10/24/91 OPEN ACCT;BLUEPRINTS;PUB,WRKS 65,94 0,00 65.94
10/24/91 OPEN ACCT;BLUEPRINTS;PUB.WRKS 15.75 0,00 15.75
00009254 02/11/92 RANCHWTR RANCHO WATER
!2~01897!~ 01/15/92
1160335ilf 01/05/92
116036451F 01115/~2
012400022F 01/15/92
124000152F 01/15/92
124000970F 01/15/92
124025001F 01/15/92
124019181F 01/15/92
124465001F 01/15/92
I150010!2F 0!/15/~2
124000202F 01/15!92
124000902F 01115/92
115015002F 01/15/92
I~1501111F 01/15/92
1244~¢00!F 01t15/92
13i170052F 01115!92
124007522~ 0!/!5t92
124006002F 01/15/92
113200002F 01/08/92
I15202002F 01/08/92
115050101F 01/15192
124018971E 01/01/92
012992 01/29/92
Check Totals: 81.67 0,00 81.67
01115/92 11/25-12!25!91 31,66 0.00 31.66
01105/92 II/21-12/19/91 76,85 0.00 76.85
01115/92 01-16-03643-1/II/2!-12/19 52,08 0,00 52,08
01/15/92 01-24-00002-2/!I/25-12/25 80.14 0.00 80.14
01/15/92 01-24-00015-2II!/25-12/25 66,62 0.00 66.62
0!/!5/92 0!-24-00970-1111/25-12/25 40.58 0.00 40"
01t15t92 01-24-02500-1/11/25-12/23 185.66 0.00 185,,,
01/15/92 01-24-01918-1/11/25-12/25 101.87 0.00 101.87
01/!5/92 01-24-46500-1/11/25-12/23 100.55 0.00 100.55
01/15!92 01-15-00101-2/!1/2!-12/19 205.89 0,00 20~.89
01/15/92 0!-24-00020-2IlI/25-12/2~ 26.09 0.00 26.09
01t15192 0!-24-00090-2111125-12/25 372.98 O,O0 372.98
01t15/92 01-15-01500-2/1112!-12119 61.85- 0.00 61.85-
01/15/92 01-51-50111-1/11/25-12/25 211.08- 0.00 21!,08-
01/15/92 01-24-46000-!/i1/25-12123 112.58- 0.00 !!2.58-
01/15!92 01-51-17005-2111/25-12/23 54.!> 0,00 54.1>
01/15/92 0!-24-00752-2111/25-1212~ 75,64 0,00 73.64
0i/15/92 01-24-00600-2/11/25-12/25 38,25 0.00 58.25
01/08192 01-15-20000-2IIl/1~-12/17 35,45 0,00 55.45
01/08/92 01-13-20200-2111119-I2117 596,70 0.00 596.70
01115/92 01-15-05010-1/11/21-12119 80.81 0.00 80,81
01101/92 01-24-01897-1110/24-I!/25 67,23 0.00 67,2~
01/29/92 0199-01590-0/0CT. CH~ 544.85 0,00 544.83
0000?255 02/11/92 SCAB
020692
Check Totals:
SO CALIF ASSOC OF GOVERNMENTS
02/06/92 02/06/92 SEMINAR/2/27-2128/ST
2,53~.20 0.00 2J36.20
50.00 0,00 50,00
0000?256 ¢2/II/~2 SECUR!TY SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL
0856F 0!/04/92 01104/92
v~.:.,;~ ~,.,~_~ SOUTHERN ~A .F EDISON
E57~479OF 0iI01192 0!10i192
85764790E OliOi/?2 0i/0i!92
Check Totals:
BAN
47980~00000!0856/12/I>12/25
Check Totals:
597741600800!I~55/12/26-5/12/
5977416008001165/5/12-4/11/91
~.v~ 0.00 50,00
584,92 0.00 584.~
384,92 0.00 384.?Z
i*~.,~ ~.~ 14!.08
!78.8~ 0.00 178.84
F:sca! Year: ,De-. Check R~ois:~r S:ation:
Check Date Vendor Name
invoice Date P/O Date Descripti:~ Gross Discount Net
857~4179~d 0!/0!/~2 0!/01/92 59774160080!1G55/~/II-5/9/91 IG5.75 O.O0 1~5.75
857647900 01/01/72 01/01!92 39774160080011655/5!9-6/11/91 194.39 0.00 194.S9
857647900 01/01i92 01/01/92 59774160080011655/6iI!-7i!II9 173.S7 0.00 17i.37
85764790A 0!t01192 01/01/92 59774160080011655/7/I!-819/91 !72.98 0.00 172.98
85759053F 01113192 01/15f92 %77755i975010005/12106-01107 46.12 0.00 4~.12
85817~85F 01/08/92 01/08/92 537785093010100041!1120-01103 241,23 0.00 241.23
Y7174289BF 01/27/92 01127/92 ~&7758580~020004/12120-0112I 585.06 0.00 585.06
Y717507~F 01/27t92 01127R2 ~87758580~4010007Z12120-0!121 523.16 0.00 32~.1~
Y71744~50F 01127/92 01/27192 ~775859055010008!12120-1121 779.24 0.00 779.24
YTIT~99!7F 01/27/72 01/27192 &~775858068020002!12120-01121 155.08 0.00 155.08
YTI750833F 01127R2 01/27R2 ~67758580&0010001!!2!20-0112! 443,14 0,00 443.14
Y7!750850F 01t27t72 01127/92 &G7758580&~OlO008!I2120-01/21 ~1.81 0.00 G!.81
Y717i7ai4F 01/27/92 01/27/92 ~775855056010005/12/20-01/21 782,27 0,00 782,27
7082~1~6~ 01/I4R2 01/14/92 57775~332402000511219-119R2 39.25 0.00 39.25
20~404529F 01114/92 01/14/92 5777565~101020002/1217-119192 930 0.00 9.90
~0842~227F 01/14/92 01/14/92 577778087400~0009!1217-119192 ~.90 0.00 9.90
30847~7&iE 01114R2 01114192 57777808742030007/12107-01109 9.90 0.00 9,90
85689458F 01114/92 01/14/92 57777802489030007/1217-1!9192 9.90 0.00 9.90
~084~5420F 01/23/92 01/23t92 557712~7543010006!!215-11~192 9.~0 0.00 %a0
~08393819F 01/I~/92 01t1~I92 59778025422030000/12110-1111 9.60 0.00 9.60
508517680F 01/17/92 01I!7/92 ~07741100!1020000/12/I1-01/II 9,50 0.00 9.30
85750562F 01/16/~2 01/IG/92 597779~2504050003/~2!10-01110 6.00 0.00 6.00
8695745~ 01/17/92 01/17R2 6077411767005000~/12l!2-0!/1i 9.00 0.00 9.00
NI0SlB~F 0!/27/92 01t27t92 ~777~58080040000/12!I~-01/21 23,21 0.00 25,2!
308517215F 01/17!92 01!17/92 60774117649020005/12/11-01/11 9.50 0.00 9.30
203005~24F 01/27/92 01127/92 66777959913020005/12!!9-01121 27~.24 0.O0 27~.24
208~43010F 01127192 01127192 66775850900020001112120-01121 226.47 0.00 2%.47
N17012012F 0!t27i92 01/27/92 66774050677020000/12120-01121 285.49 0.00 23~.49
208452!01F 0!/27!92 01/27/~2 66774051040020008;!2/20-01!21 241.55 0.00 241,55
8576417908 01/01/92 01/01t92 5977416008002000~/II/08-12/10 193.1~ 0.00 193.1&
85~94574F 01/01/~2 01101/~2 57775650934020004/0910~-10104 8,40 0.00 8.40
85~94374FF 01/01/92 01i01192 57775~509~4020004/12!7-1!9192 9,90 0,00 9.90
208430094F 0i/16/92 0t11~192 59777992358030005/~2i10-01110 9.30 0.00 9.30
85680~63F 01114t92 01/14/92 57775~5~802030009112t07-01109 9.90 0.00 9.90
5387957F 01/01/~2 01/01192 4377077146702/11!50-12/~I 20,48 0,00 20.48
539!301F 01/01!92 01/01R2 4~77077146~02IlI/30-12131 19.21 0.00 19.21
5117722F 01/01/92 01/01!92 457707714~50211!/50-12131 41.54 0.00 41.54
208434540F 01101192 01/0i/~2 4~77077515802110/5!-!1!~0 40.90 0.00 40.90
20845454FF 01101/92 01101f92 45770775!58021I1/30-12/31 44,87 0,00 44.87
87~4803F 01/01R2 01101192 4377077510502111130-12/31 32.50 0.00 32.30
208435753F 01/01/92 01/01/~2 4577077516102111130-12131 44,69 0.00 44.69
55i00917F 011!0/~2 01/10R2 597779940850~000~/121!0-1/I0 9.B~ 0.00 9.89
51!~486F 01111R2 01/11/~2 59778025414030000/12/10-1/1! 10.67 0.00 10.~7
85737116F 01t27192 01/27t92 69776780!07020004/12/2~-01/27 9.60 0.00 9.60
208446989F 01110192 01/10/92 5977416250702000~/12110-!/10 200,90 0,00 200.90
85793292F 01/10/92 01110/92 59774!~45050!000~/!!/16-I/I0 469.87 0.00 469.87
00009261 02!11192 STADtUMP STADIUM P!ZZA
026792 02107/92
02107192
Check Totals: 6,751.49 0.00 6,751.49
lEEN COUNCIL MEETING 75.00 0.00 75.00
"0009262 02/!i/92 TQW~CTR
25570-~
TOWN CENTER STATIONERS
~2/06/92 11252 01/10/92
Check 75,00 n -.^ '5 ?~
., . Totals: .,.vv , ..v
OFFICE SUPPLIES; PLANNiNS 12.84 0.00 12.84
C~eck Totals:
02/!!/92 ONiBLOBE UNISLOBE BUTTERFIELD TRAVEL
12.84 0.00 !2,84
Fiscal Year: 1772 Check Register Station:
Check Date Vendor Name
!nYoice Date P/B Date Description 6ross Discount Net
00009188 02/0U92 EVANS ~OANNE EVANS
0205~2 02/03~92 02/05192 ;~C~EO~ ~5.00 0.00 55.0~--~
Check Totals:
00009189 02104192 INLANDSN INLAND E~PIRE SHOkCASE
020~92 02/05/92 02/05/92 BOOTH LOCATION
~5.00 0.00 35.00
2~000.00 0.00 2~000.00
Check Totals:
00009190 02104/92 INTERNST INTERNATIONAL BISTRO
01~192 01/31/92 0!131192 DINNER FOR SPECIFIC PLAN EET
2,000,00 0.00 2,000,00
83,44 O.OO 85.44
Check Totals:
00009191 02104192 PROVENCI LEONARD PROVENCIO
020592 02103192 02103192: REFUND
85.44 0.00 83.44
55.00 0.00 35.00
00009192 02/04/92 ROSENOOD ROSENOOD ESCRON
020392 02/0~/92
Check Totals:
02105192 ESCRD~ COSTS FOR 6TH STREEl
~5.00 O.O0 55.00
915,724.40 0.00 913,724.40
Check Totals:
913,724.40 0.00 913~724.40
Report Totals:
915,875,84 0,00 915,875,84
RePort Writer CHECr, LISTING BY FUND
FUND CHEC[ NUHBER CHECK DATE
001 00009188 02/04/92
001 00009189 02/04/92
At 00009190 02/04/92
.4 00009191 02/04/92
001 000091t2 02/04!92
001
VENDOR NAME
JOANNE EVANS
INLAND EMPIRE SHONCASE
INTERNATIONAL BISTRO
LEONAB PROVENCIO
ROSEHOOD ESCROII
DESCRIPTION
:UNCHEON
BOOTH LOCATION
DINNER FOR SPECIFIC PLAN MEET
REFUNB
ESCRO~ COSTS FOR ~TH STREET
2.000.00
35.00
91~.724.40
915,875,84
915~875.84
ITEM
NO.
4
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Planning Department
February 25, 1992
Margarita Village, Status Report
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the City
Council: Receive and File the Status Report.
DISCUSSION:
On January 28, 1992, the City Council requested Staff to review the status of all activity
relative to the Margarita Village Development Corporation.
Relative to the existing maintenance facility, Staff has reviewed a file from the Riverside
County Planning Department. Plot Plan No. 11518 was approved by the Riverside County
Planning Department on February 5, 1990. The approved County Plot Plan was for a
permanent golf course maintenance facility, including parking, landscaping and a permanent
building. The building was to be stucco with a red clay tile roof.
After visiting the site, Staff has determined that the existing facility is not in conformance
with the approved Plot Plan. Currently there is a mobile trailer on site which, according to our
records, has not been permitted. In addition, the project site has not been improved relative
to the Plot Plan, and landscaping and parking areas have not been installed. Staff is
responding to these issues and the applicant has been put on notice that corrective actions
are required.
The Buie Corporation currently has three projects in the Margarita Village Specific Plan area.
The three projects are Vesting Tentative Tracts 23371, 23372 and 23373.
The following matrix is a description of activity that has occurred relative to Tract 23371.
Tentative Tract Map No. 23371 was approved by the Riverside County Planning Commission
on October 5, 1988. It was then approved by the Board of Supervisors on November 11,
1988. The map has been divided in to 14 phases. Phases 1 through 5 have recorded as of
October 10, 1990.
$~STAFFRPT~IARGVILLCC
The following bonds and/or agreements have been filed relative to Tract No. 23371:
Final Maos
Tract 23371-1
Tract 23371-2
Recorded 4/5/90
Recorded 6/11/90
Recorded 8/7/90
Recorded 8/7/90
Recorded 10/10/90
Tract 23371-3
Tract 23371-4
Tract 23371-5
Bonds/Agreements
Filed with the Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors 3/27/90
Filed with the Clerk of the
Board of Supervisors 5/13/90
Accepted/Approved by City Council 7/24/90
Accepted/Approved by City Council 7/24/90
Accepted/Approved by City Council 9/4/90
Tentative Tracts 23372 and 23373 are currently being considered for First Extensions of
Time.
Development Agreement No. 5, Amended No. 1 for Specific Plan No. 199 was executed and
recorded on November 7, 1988. Flood Control Bonds/Agreements were approved by the
County of Riverside in November 1989.
Grading permits have been issued for the Specific Plan area in two parts. Mass grading area
"A" incorporates the golf course. A $258,500.00 landscape and erosion control bond was
posted in April of 1989. Mass grading area "B" was approved by the County of Riverside for
the balance of the project area. The grading permit was approved in August of 1989 with a
$915,000.00 bond. All grading permits for Specific Plan No. 199 are expired at this point.
S~STAR:RPT~GVILLCC 2
ITEM
NO.
APPROVAI~~,
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council/City Manager
4'~Dep t of Public Works
February 25, 1992
Release of Monument Bond for Tract No. 21673-1
PREPARED BY: Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council AUTHORIZE the release of monument bond for Tract No. 21673-1 and
DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Riverside County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.
DISCUSSION:
On December 22, 1987, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision
agreements with:
Mesa Homes (formerly Kaiser Development Company)
27555 Ynez Road, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92591
for the improvement of streets, the installation of sewer and water systems, and survey
monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by
Insurance Company of the West.
On November 9, 1989, the County of Riverside accepted the public improvements, and
reduced the security amounts for street improvements, water system, and sewer system to
provide the required guarantee and warranty securities for the one (1) year maintenance
period. The County of Riverside then released the Material and Labor Bonds on May 9, 1989
and the Faithful Performance Guarantee and Warranty Securities on February 7, 1990.
-1 - Pw02\agdrpt\92\0225\21673-1 021292
No action was taken on the monument bond on those several dates as several technical
requirements had not been met. The necessary requirements have now been satisfied.
The inspection and verification process relating to the above item has been completed by the
County of Riverside Transportation= Department and City staff, and the Department of Public
Works recommends the release of the monumentation bond. Therefore, it is appropriate to
exonerate this bond as follows:
Bond No. 02 85 39 in the amount of 912,000.00
to cover Survey Monumentation.
AKC:clh
Attachment
Location Map
-2- pwO2\agdrpt%92\0225\21673-1 021292
Project Site" ~""" -~
77~ACT NE ~ZiG,7~ - ~ /
(7 / .
To San Diego
SA/~ a56g, AIAg, OI, VO
-- Location Map
ITEM 6
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council/City Manager
Department of Public Works
February 25, 1992
"Speed Checked by Radar" Signs
PREPARED BY:
Scott Harvey, Traffic/Engineering Technician
RECOMMENDATION:
The Traffic and Transportation Commission recommends that City Council approve the
installation of thirteen (13) "Speed Checked by Radar" (R48R) signs at various locations
throughout the City of Temecula.
BACKGROUND:
The Traffic and Transportation Commission requested that staff evaluate locations for the
placement of "Speed Checked by Radar" Signs throughout the City. At the January 22,
1992 Traffic and Transportation Commission meeting, the Commission approved staff's
proposed locations of the "Speed Checked by Radar" signs.
DISCUSSION:
Staff conducted a field survey and found thirteen (13) locations where a motorist would be
entering into the City from a major street or a State Highway System, and could be notified
of the existence of speed radar enforcement within the City limits. Exhibit "A" (attached)
shows the roadways which are, at the present time, posted with speed limits and have had
a radar study within the last five years. Exhibit "A" also shows the proposed locations of the
"Speed Checked by Radar" signs.
-1- pw02~agdrpt\92\0225\radar 021492
The Police Department is in agreement with the placement of the "Speed Checked by Radar"
signs but did state that these signs are only a courtesy to the general public. If approved,
Public Works staff will have its own Street Maintenance Division install the proposed signs.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Thirteen (13) signs at $80.00 ea. = $1,040.00 (Account No. 001-165-999-42-5244).
Attachment:
Exhibit "A"
-2- pw02\agdrpt\92~0225\radar 021492
I- PO~7'ED ~PEEP
BOARD'::OFj:'
EXHI ~,L'T' "A"
ITEM
7
APPROVAI~~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
/f'~J Department of Public Works
February 25, 1992
Regulatory and Advanced Warning Signs
PREPARED BY: Brad Buron, Maintenance Supervisor
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council authorize Staff to purchase regulatory and advanced warning signs from
Central City Signs as the lowest responsible bidder.
BACKGROUND:
The 1991/1992 Program of Services for the Public Works Maintenance Services Division
includes the repair and installation of regulatory and advanced warning signs which are
maintained 100% by City crew. The most cost-effective method of obtaining the new signs
is to order in bulk. Attached is a list of signs needed by Public Works for stock, new
installations, maintenance, and to have necessary signs for special events.
The following details the quotes obtained from three vendors for the purchase of these signs:
Allied Barricade Company
Western Highway Products
Central City Signs
$14,866.03
9,783.03
9,318.76
Central City Signs is the lowest of three responsible bidders, therefore Staff recommends that
the City purchase the required signs from Central City Signs.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Funding for this project will be funded through Account #001-165-999-42-5244 (Signs).
Attachment: List of Signs
-1 - PwO2~agdrpt\92\0225\RegSigns 021492
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
LIST OF SIGNS
STOCK, INSTALLATIONS, MAINTENANCE, SPECIAL EVENTS
6 C5 (RT) 36 x 12 "Detour Right"
4 C7 30 x 18 "End Detour"
10 C19 36 x 36 "Road Closed Ahead"
15 C27 30 x 30 "Open Trench"
10 Rll 36 x 36 "Do Not Enter"
10 R7 (LT) 24 x 30 "Keep Left"
10 R7 (RT) 24 x 30 "Keep Right"
5 W53 36 x 36 "Not A Thru Street"
10 C2 36 x 24 "Road Closed"
10 C3A 36 x 24 "Road Closed To Thru Traffic"
20 Type 'K' 15 x 6
10 SR4 24 x 48 "25 mph When Children Present"
10 R18 (RT) 36 x 36 "Right Lane Must Turn Right"
5 R17 30 x 30 No Left Turn "Symbol"
5 R17A 24 x 18 "No Left Turn"
10 R26 12 x 18 "No Stopping Anytime"
3 P-Markers Left 12 x 36
3 P-Markers Right 12 x 36
5 W-65-1 "End" 36 x 30
5 W-65-1 "Begin" 36 x 30
20 Epoxy Mounted "K" Marker
6 I GAL "A" & 'B" Epoxy $28.56 per gal
150 12' Quick Punch Post
10 R21-SP 6' Guide Post
10 W31 30 x 30 "End"
5 W5 {RT) 36 x 36
5 W5 (LT) 36 x 36
5 W41 36 x 36 "Signal Ahead"
5 W63 36 x 36 "School Crossing"
5 W66 36 x 36 "School Crossing"
50 W55 24 x 24 "Flooded"
6 C1 30 x 30 "Detour Ahead"
6 (LT) 36 x 12 "Detour Left"
-2- pwO2\agdrpt\92\O225\RegSigns 021492
ITEM
8
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Department of Public Works
February 25, 1992
Award of Design Contract for Landscape Architectural Services
Within the Ynez Corridor, Community Facilities District 88-12
PREPARED BY:
Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works, City Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council award a Professional Services Contract in an amount not to exceed
$ 21,800.00 to the Alhambra Group to provide landscape architectural design services for the
median islands and replacement parkways to be constructed within the Ynez Corridor as part
of Community Facilities District 88-12 and authorize the Mayor to sign the Contract·
BACKGROUND:
During the widening of Ynez Road within the boundaries of Community Facilities
District 88-12, the existing parkway landscaping will be removed and replaced; and new
landscaping will be provided in the proposed median island. A Request For Proposal to
perform the necessary landscape architectural services associated with determining the
feasibility of replanting the existing landscaping, retrofitring or replacing existing irrigation
systems, and developing a landscaping theme along with the plant material and irrigation
systems for the median islands was sent to the following firms:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Cardoza, DiLallo, Harrington
J.F. Davidson Assoc., Inc.
Alhambra Group
Mr. Robert E. Weaver
WYA
After reviewing the proposals, all the responding firms were invited to orally present their
proposal before an interview panel consisting of representatives of the Finance, Planning,
Community Services, and Public Works Departments. Based on their proposal and
presentation, negotiations were conducted with the Alhambra Group to arrive at the attached
Contract and Scope of Work (Exhibit "A").
-1- pwOl~gdxpt\92~O225\rfpOO6.awd 021892
The Alhambra Group will prepare the necessary construction plans, specifications, and
estimates to allow the landscaping construction to be publicly bid with the street construction.
The landscaping construction will involve only those areas that are currently landscaped and
new median islands. The undeveloped areas will be conditioned as part of the development
process to install landscaping that is consistent with the approved landscape theme developed
by the Alhambra Group under this Contract.
In addition, the scope of work includes a Forester's report detailing the condition of the
existing landscaping and provides assistance in evaluating the construction bids.
Prior to proceeding with the construction drawings, the Alhambra Group will present a
conceptual landscape plan to the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The scope of work will be completed on a time and material basis in accordance with the
hourly rates established in the Contract (Exhibit "B") for an amount not to exceed
$21,800.00. The entire Contract amount will be funded through the sale of bonds by the
Community Facilities District 88-12. The Alhambra Group has agreed to bill the City for only
40% of the Contract amount until the bonds sell. Therefore, 40% of the Contract
amount ($8,720.00) will be appropriated from the Street Maintenance Account No.
001-165-999-42-5402, which will be reimbursed at the time the bonds sell.
Attachment:
Professional Services Contract with Alhambra Group
-2- pwOl~sgdtl~92~O225h-fl~)O6.awd 021892
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Agreement was made and entered into this day of
19 , by and between the CITY OF TEMECULA ("City"), a municipal corporation, and
ALHAMBRA GROUP ("Consultant"), a general partnership.
The parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
1. Services. Consultant shall perform the tasks set forth in Exhibit A
attached hereto.
2. Performance. Consultant shall at all times, faithfully, industrially and
to the best of his ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks described herein.
3.' Payment. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, at the hourly
rates set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto, based upon actual time spent on the
above tasks. This amount will not exceed 921,800.00 for the total term of the
Agreement unless additional payment is approved by the City Council; Drovided that
the City Manager may approve additional payment not to exceed ten percent (10%)
of the Agreement; but in no event more than $10,000.00.
Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed.
Invoices shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, for
services provided in the previous month. However, Consultant agrees to limit the
billing amount. to forty percent (40%) of the total Contract until such time as the
bonds for Community Facility District No. 88-12 are sold.
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. OwnershiD Of Do, cuments. Upon satisfactory completion of, or in the
event of termination, suspension or abandonment of, this Agreement, all original
documents, designs, drawings and notes prepared in the course of providing the
services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property
of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the
permission of the Consultant.
6. Termination. The City may terminate this Agreement without cause so
long as written notice of intent to terminate is given to Consultant at least three (3)
days prior to the termination date. In the event of termination, Consultant shall be
paid for the services performed.
2/forms/ARG-O5 Rev 01/22192
-1-
pw01 ~rfp\006~agmt 021892
7. Indemnification. The Consultant agrees to indemnify and save harmless
the City of Temecula, its officers, officials, eml~loyees and volunteers from and
against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense cost, or liability of any kind or
nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or
which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to
property arising out of Consultants acts or omissions under the terms of this
Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the sole negligence of the City.
8. Status of Consultant. Consultant is an independent contractor in all
respects in the performance of this Agreement and shall not be considered an
employee of the City for any purpose. No employee benefits shall be available to
Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement.
Except as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or
other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City
shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or
sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.
9. Term. This Agreement shall commence on February 25, 1992, and
shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed.
10. Subcontracts. The Consultant shall not enter into any subcontracts for
services to be rendered toward the completion of the Consultant's portion of this
Agreement without the consent of the City. At all times, Robert Grina shall be
primarily responsible for the performance of the tasks described herein. Upon such
notice, the City shall have the option to immediately terminate this Agreement. Upon
termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be for the value
of service rendered to the City.
11. Default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the
terms of this Agreement, the City shall have no obligation or duty to continue
compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default. Default
shall include not performing the tasks described herein to the reasonable satisfaction
of the City Manager of the City. Failure by the Consultant to make progress in the
performance of work 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
2/formslARG-05 Rev 01/22/92 -2- pwO1 \rfp\OO6\agmt 021892
hearing shall be conducted according to California Code of Civil Procedure Section
1280, et seo. City and Consultant shall share the cost of the arbitration equally.
12. Notices. Notices shall be given pursuant to this Agreement by personal
service on the party to be notified, or by written notice upon such party deposited in
the custody of the United States Postal Service addressed as follows:
a. City:
Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590-6606
b. Consultant:
Alhambra Group
27412 Enterprise Circle West, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92590
(714) 676-0226
The notices shall be deemed to have been given as of the date of personal
service, or three (3) days after the date of deposit of the same in the custody of the
United States Postal Service.
13. Entire Agreemerit. This Agreement and any documents or instrument
attached hereto or referred to herein integrate all terms and conditions mentioned
herein or incidental hereto supersede all negotiations and prior writing in respect to the
subject matter hereof.
In the event of conflict between the terms, conditions, or provisions of this
Agreement and any such document or instrument, the terms and conditions of this
Agreement shall prevail.
14. Liability. Except as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay
salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services
hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to
Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.
Consultant agrees to indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its
officers, agents, employees, and representatives for all claims or losses the City may
suffer resulting from any negligent actions or omissions by Consultant.
Consultant shall secure workman's compensation insurance. Upon request
of Consultant, the City shall add Consultant to the City's workman's compensation
2/forms/ARG-05 Rev 01/22/92 -3- pw01 \rfp~006\agrnt 021892
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.
na,rincipal
CITY OF TEMECULA
By:
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
2/formslARG-05 Rev 01 ~22~92 -4- pw01 \rfp\006\agmt 021892
EXHIBIT "A"
SCOPE OF WORK
The Alhambra Group shall provide professional design, construction documents,
estimates and consultant services for the landscape development and rehabilitation
of parkway and median areas described in the RFP #006 dated January 2, 1992.
Elements to Be Addressed Are As Follows:
Renovation of existing landscape and irrigation systems along frontage areas of
commercial businesses.
Partial screening of proposed retaining walls to minimize harsh visual character
of such walls along frontage slope areas.
Evaluation of tree relocation or replacement options for existing street trees and
frontage tree plantings adversely affected by street widening.
Cohesive design theme for parkway area that takes into consideration all existing
plantings,
Installation of new landscaping and irrigation lines in new median islands.
1.
2.
3.
Preliminary Design to Include:
Base sheets and schematic design studies.
Colored presentation plan of Ynez Road Design Concept.
Preliminary Budget Study.
C_~. Construction Documents Shall Include the Following Drawings:
1. Base sheets.
2. Existing landscape renovation plans.
3. Existing irrigation retro-fit plans.
2/formslARG-05 Rev 01/22/92 EXHIBIT "A" - Page 1 .wo~ \rfp%oo6\agmt 021892
4. Construction Details
5. Planting plans.
6. Irrigation Plans.
7, Planting and Irrigation details per City standards.
8. Landscape and Irrigation specifications per City standards and/or boilerplate.
9. Water use calculations,
10. Final budget estimate.
D,_,. Reproductions
(To include mylars, vellums, enlargement and reduction costs, bonds, xerox copies
and handling.)
Bidding
Qualified staff to answer questions during the bidding process, including but not
limited to, issuance of any and all addendures to Contract Documents, and/or
Plans and Specifications; to attend a preconstruction meeting and other meetings
with the City as required; to be available for clarification of plans during
construction.
(Site Observation will be provided under separate contract per request by City.)
21formslARG-O5 Rev 01122/92 EXHIBIT "A" - Page 2 .wo~ \rfp\oo6~agmt 021892
EXHIBIT "B"
ALHAMBRA GROUP
CURRENT BILLING SCHEDULE
January 1, 1992
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
Principal
Project Manager
Project Designer
Senior Draftsperson
Draftsperson
$95
$80
960
~45
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
Administrative Assistant
Word Processing Operator
$40
MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES AND EXPENSES
Mileage
Subsistence
Outside Services
Materials & Other Expenses
0.35/mile
Cost
Cost plus 10%
Cost plus 20%
PROJECT FEES
Hours
Rate X
Costs Total
Reproduction
Principal Principal Project Drafts- Admin. Word
in-Cha. Pri. Ma.r. DesiGner person Asst. Process.
31 55 109 115 6 13
95 80 60 45 45 40
............................................................. $19,850
............................................................ J1,100
NOT-TO-EXCEED TOTAL FEE ................................................. $20,950
FEES FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES
(To be selected by City)
Urban Forestry General Field Report $850
Consultants
Rates:
Certified Arborist $105/hr.
21forms/ARG-05 Rev01/22/92 EXHIBIT "B" - Page I of 1 pwOl\rfp\OO6\agmt 021892
ITEM 9
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICE~
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM: ,,1"1:).~
City Council/City Manager
Department of Public Works
DATE:
February 25, 1992
SUBJECT:
Award of Professional Services Contract to NBS/Lowry for a
Preliminary Route Design for the Western Bypass Corridor
PREPARED BY: ~uglas
RECOMMENDATION:
M. Stewart, Deputy City Engineer
That the City Council 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.
BACKGROUND:
In late 1991, the Staff of the Department of Public Works solicited qualifications from
interested engineering firms to provide the City with information to establish grade, alignment,
and traffic capacity criteria to be .used in establishing the location of the Western Bypass
Corridor. It is envisioned that the end result of this project will be used to condition local
development for the purpose of constructing a street along the to-be-adopted alignment. This
project consists of developing a traffic study and preliminary design from the intersection of
Front Street and State Route 79 South, across Murrieta Creek, proceed northerly across
Rancho California Road to the northern boundary of the City.
Eleven firms responded to the Request for Qualifications and the responses were evaluated
by Staff. The top three firms were interviewed and NBS/Lowry was selected as the most
qualified firm. A Contract with a defined scope of Work and fixed budget of $19,810.00
have been negotiated.
It is expected that the project will take three months to complete. The preferred
recommendation is scheduled for a public hearing to obtain input with the City Council prior
to a hearing at the City Council for final adoption.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This effort is being funded from a $10,000.00 Community Development Block Grant allocated
for the Fiscal Year 91-92, and $10,000.00 from Account No. 001-164-000-42-5248
(Consulting Services).
pwOl~qdrpt\92\O225~prclinut.wbc 021892
AGREEMENT
FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 19 ,
between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "City"
and NBS/Lowry, Incorporated, hereinafter referred to as "Consultant".
The parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
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.
PERFORMANCE. Consultant shall at all times, faithfully, industrially and to the best
of his ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks described herein.
PAYMENT. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, at the hourly rates set
forth in Exhibit B attached hereto, based upon actual time spent on the above
tasks. This amount will not exceed $19,810 for the total term of the Agreement
unless additional payment is approved by the City Council; provided that the City
Manager may approve additional payments not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the
Agreement, but in no event more than $10,000.00.
Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices
shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, for services
provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of
receipt of each invoice.
SUSPENSION, TERMINATION OR ABANDONMENT OF AGREEMENT. The City
may, at any time, suspend, terminate or abandon this Agreement, or any portion
hereof, by serving upon the Consultant at least ten (10) days prior written notice.
Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all work under
this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. Within thirty-five (35) days
after receiving an invoice from the Consultant, the City shall pay Consultant for
work done through the date that work is to be ceased pursuant to this section.
If the City suspends, terminates or abandons a portion of this Agreement
such suspension, termination or abandonment shall not make void or
invalidate the remainder of this Agreement.
BREACH OF CONTRACT. 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
-1-
default. Default shall include not performing the tasks described herein to the
standard of care of the Industry. 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 Consultam, shall not be considered
a default.
If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant defaults
in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it
shall serve the Consultant with written notice of the default. The Consultant
shall have ten (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure
the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the
Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall
have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to
terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any
other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this
Agreement.
TERM. This Agreement shall commence on , 19 , and shall
remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no
event later than ,19__.
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 arbltrator's decision shall be
final.
Consultant shall select an arbitrator from a list provided by the City of three
retired judges of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. The
arbitration hearing shall be conducted according to California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1280, et seq.' City and Consultant shall share the cost
of the arbitration equally.
OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS. Upon satisfactory completion of, or in the event
of termination, suspension or abandonment of this Agreement, all instruments of
service, including 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.
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The Consultant is and shall at all times remain
as to the City a wholly independent contractor. Neither the City nor any of its
officers, employees or agents shall have control over the conduct of the Consultant
or any of the Consultant's officers, employees or agents, except as herein set
forth. The Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or
-2-
10.
11.
12.
any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or
agents of the City.
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.
LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of State and
Federal laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or
in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The
Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such laws and regulations.
The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity
occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section.
NOTICE. Whenever it shall be necessary for either party to serve notice on the
other respecting this Agreement, such notice shall be served by certified mail,
postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the City Manager of the
City of Temecula, located at 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California
92590 and the Consultant at 40925 County Center Drive, Suite 120, Temecula,
California 92591 unless and until different addresses may be furnished in writing
by either party to the other. Notice shall be deemed to have been served seventy-
two (72) hours after the same has been deposited in the United States Postal
Services. This shall be valid and sufficient service of notice for all purposes.
ASSIGNMENT. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this
Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without the prior
written consent of the City.
Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall
be the value to the City of the services rendered.
LIABILITY INSURANCE. The Consultant shall maintain insurance acceptable to the
City in full force an effect throughout the term of this contract, against claims for
injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection
with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, his agents,
representatives, employees or subcontractors. Insurance is to be placed with
insurer with a Bests' rating of no less than A:VI!. The costs of such insurance shall
be included in the Consultant's bid. The Consultant shall provide the following
scope and limits of insurance:
-3-
Ae
Minimum Scope Of Insurance.
1.
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
Insurance Services Office form Number GL 0002 (Ed. 1/72) covering
Comprehensive General Liability and Insurance Services Office form
number GL 0404 covering Broad Form Comprehensive General
Liability; or Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability
coverage ("occurrence" form CG 0001).
Insurance Services Office form no. CA 0001 (Ed. 1/78) covering
Automobile Liability, code I "any auto" and endorsement CA 0025.
Workers' Compensation insurance as required by Labor Code of the
State of California an Employer's Liability insurance.
4. Errors and Omissions insurance.
Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits of insurance
no less than:
General Liability $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for
bodily injury and property damage.
Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 combined single limit per accident
for bodily injury and property damage.
Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability: Worker's
compensation as required by the Labor Code of the State of
California and Employers Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident.
4. Errors and Omissions Insurance. $1,000,000 per occurrence.
Deductibles and Serf-Insured Retentions. Any deductible in excess of
$1,000 must be declared to and approved by the City.
Other Insurance Provisions. Insurance policies required by this contract
shall contain or be endorsed to contain the following provisions:
All Policies. Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be
endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided,
canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after
thirty (30) days' prior written notice to the City via United States First
Class Mail.
General Liability and Automobile Liability Coverages. The City of
Temecula, its-officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be
covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities
performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and
completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied
or used by the Consultant, or automobiles owned, leased, hired or
borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special
limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers,
officials, employees or volunteers.
With regard to claims arising from the Consultant's performance of
the work described in this contract, the Consultant's insurance
coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City of
Temecula, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any
insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers,
officials, employees or volunteers shall apply in excess of, and not
contribute with, the Consultant's insurance.
Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policies
shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials,
employees or volunteers.
The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured
against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect
to the limits of the insurer's liability.
Worker's Compensation and Employers Liability Coverage. The
insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the City
of Temecula, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers for
losses arising from work performed by the Consultant for the City.
Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish the City with
certificates of insurance effecting coverage required by this clause.
The certificates for each insurance policy are to be signed by a
person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf.
The certificates are to be on forms provided by the City and are to
be received and approved by the City before work commences. The
City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all
required insurance policies, at any time.
Consultant shall include all subconsultants as insureds under its
policies or shall furnish separate certificates for each subcontractor.
All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the
requirements stated herein.
-5-
Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and
approved by-the City. At the .option of the City, either: the insurer
shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self insured retentions.
as respeCts the City, its officers, officials and employees; or the
Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and
related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.
13.
INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to indemnify and save harmless the
City of Temecula, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against
any and all claims, demands, losses, defense cost, or liability of any kind or nature
which the City, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which
may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to
property arising out of Consultant's negligent performance under the terms of this
Agreement, excepting only liability arising out of the sole negligence of the City.
14.
ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement and any documents or instrument
attached hereto or referred to herein integrate all terms and conditions mentioned
herein or incidental hereto supersede all negotiations and prior writing in respeCt
to the subject matter hereof.
In the event of conflict between the terms, conditions, or provisions of this
Agreement and any such document or instrument, the terms and conditions of this
Agreement shall prevail.
EFFECTIVE DATE AND EXECUTION: This Agreement shall be effective from and
after the date is signed by the representatives of the City. This Agreement may be
executed in counterparts.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be
executed the day and year first above written.
CONSULTANT
Michael J. Stearns, Vide President
CITY OF TEMECULA
By:
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Scott F. Field, City Attorney
A'I'rEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk -6-
EXHIBIT i1~11
CITY OF TEHECUI~
WESTERNBY-PASS CORRIDOR STUDY
2COPE OF WOP~
PROJECT INITIATION
Kick-Off Meeting - Meet with City Staff to refine the
project schedule, establish key meeting dates and obtain
pertinant mapping.
RESEARCH
Data Collection - Research proposed and existing
development plans, proposed and existing roadway
alignments, flood control studies and existing utilities
and rights-of way within the study area. Sources will
include;
City of Temecula
Riverside County Transportation
Riverside County Flood Control
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Data Review - Review information obtained during the
previous task. Identify and summarize potential
constraints for use during presentation of the proposed
alignment and its variations.
Field Review - Conduct field reviews to identify physical
features which could impact potential alignments.
ILIONMENT ANALYSIS
Preliminar3[ Alignment - NBS/Lowry will recommend a
preferred alignment, and a minimum of 3 variations, based
on physical constraints, grading and impact of the
intersections. Based on the information obtained during
data collection and utilizing available topographic maps,
prepare horizontal and vertical design for the preferred
alignment.
Opportunities/Constraints - Develop an
opportunities/constraints summary and prepare variations
to the preferred alignment.
-1-
Interim Meeting - Meet with City Staff to discuss the
preferred alignment, variations of the alignment,
preliminary intersection design, and opportunities and
constraints.
Existing Conditions - Known right-of-way, utility lines,
and easements of record will be shown along the preferred
alignment.
Publio Workshop - Conduct a public workshop, jointly with
City Staff, to present the project, and its impacts and
goals, to the development community and other interested
parties.
Forecast Traffic Volumes - Collect and review previously
performed or current traffic analysis work to determine
appropriate sources for use in development of forecast
traffic volumes. Modifications will be made as necessary
to account for potential diversion of traffic from area
roadways to the preferred alignment.
Development of forecast traffic volumes will include
daily link volumes and an estimate of peak hour turning
volume conditions for the intersections at Rancho
California Road and Interstate 15/Highway 79/Front
Street.
Corridor level of Service - Analyze daily roadway levels
of service to determine whether the corridor, as
proposed, will operate at acceptable levels of service.
Depending on the results of this analysis, modifications
of roadway geometrics will be recommended.
This analysis will use City roadway capacity criteria
developed as part of the General Plan circulation
analysis.
Intersection Level cf Service - Examine daily approach
volumes at Rancho California Road and Interstate
15/Highway 79/Front Street to determine whether
signalization is required under Caltrans signal warrant
criteria.
Utilizing the Highway Capacity Manual level of service
methodologies for the appropriate type of stop control,
peak hour levels of service will be calculated. As part
of this analysis, various alternatives for intersection
geometrics will be tested to identify the geometric
required to accommodate projected peak hour turn volumes
within the acceptable levels of service.
-2-
Intersection DesignAlternative - Based on the results of
the level of service analysis various design alternatives
for the intersections at Rancho California Road and
Interstate 15/Highway 79/Front Street will be enveloped.
Potential design alternatives will be examined to
determine the ability to provide safe movement of traffic
through the intersection.
Final Staff Presentation - Meet with City. staff to review
the preferred alignment and accept input prior to
finalizing the corridor report.
CORRIDOR REPORT
* Alignment Analysis - Finalize the preferred alignment
based on comments from City staff.
Intersection Design - Finalize intersection design based
on modification of the preferred alignment.
Right-of-Way - Prepare estimated costs associated with
the acquisition of additional right-of-way.
Construction Cost Estimate - An engineerrs estimate of
probable construction cost will be prepared utilizing
historic construction costs and the quantities derived
for the preferred alignment.
Document Report - The product of the Western By-Pass
Corridor Study will be a report documenting the
methodologies for development of the preferred alignment,
traffic analysis and cost estimates. Included in this
document will be the final graphic presentation of the
preferred alignment.
Council Hearings - Attend necessary City Council
Hearings in support of City staff.
Ha=Z\~est~yPs2. pro
-3-
Ex~_IBIT B
CITY OF TEMECULA
WESTERN BY-PASS CORRIDOR STUDY
FEE ESTIMATE
Task/Activity
Estimated Fee
Total
Research
Alignment Analysis
Project Report
Direct Costs
$ 1,880
$11,760
$ 5,920
$ 250
$19,810
Mazt\WesByPs. Pro
-4-
ITEM
lO
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
,/~eepr~nt of Public Works
uary 25, 1992
Final Vesting Tract Map No. 23142
PREPARED BY:
R ECOMMEN DAT I ON:
Kris Winchak
That the City Council approve Final Vesting Tract Map No.
23142, Amended No. 1, subject to the Conditions of
Approval.
DISCUSSION:
Vesting Tract Map No. 23142 was originally submitted to Riverside County Planning
Department on December 17, 1987. The Tentative Tract Map Amended No. 1 was
approved by the County Planning Commission September 28, 1988 and by the Board
of Supervisors on October 25, 1988. The City of Temecula Planning Commission
approved the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tract Map No. 23142 on May 6,
1991. which extended the map~s original expiration to October 25, 1991. An
application for a Second Extension of Time was submitted prior to the First Extension
of Time expiration date, and is being processed at this time. Under the Subdivision
Map Act. Section 66452.6, an automatic 60 days is added to the current expiration
date, during which time the map may be recorded if a timely filing of the final map
is made to the City Engineer. A timely filing of the map has been made during the
referenced 60 day period. Fu.rther, under the same section of the Subdivision Map
Act, once a timely filing is made, subsequent actions by the City including
processing, approving and recording of the map may lawfully occur after the date
of expiration noted on the map itself.
Vesting Tract Map No. 23142 contains 20 single family residential lots within 6.01
acres. The tract is located north of Rancho California Road and west of Butterfield
Stage Road. This project is surrounded by, but not part of, the Margarita Village
Specific Plan No. 199 ISP 199). This tract is part of Change of Zone No. 5115, Lot
Line Adjustment No. 3252, and Lot Line Adjustment No. 3253. The applicant is Costa
Construction, Inc.
Agenda Report
February 25, 1992
Page Two
The following fees have beeni paid (or deferred) for Vesting Tract Map No. 231~2:
Signal Mitigation Fee (Deferred to Building Permit) $ 3,000.00
Area Drainage Fee $ 11,820.00
Fire Fee (Deferred to Building Permit) $ 8,000.00
Quimby Fee $ 23,310.00
Requirement of Quimby Fees (park fees) is not listed as a County of Riverside
Condition of Approval for Tract Map No. 231L~2, however, with the approval of the
first extension of time, thee City Planning Commission adopted Condition No. 1
requiring the implementation of Quimby Fees for this project.
The City Planning Commission adopted additional Conditions of Approval relative to
the issues concerning the erosion and storm water damage that has taken place at the
site and adjoining properties. The developer has complied with all the conditions
regarding repairs concerning storm water damage and has received department
clearances for compliance of all work.
The following bonds have been posted for Final Vesting Tract Map No. 231L12:
Street and Drainage
Water
Sewer
Survey Monuments
Traffic Signal
Faithful Labor and
Performance Other Material
Bonds Bonds Bonds
$187,000.00
31,500.00
28,500.00
$ 8,500.00
3,000.00
$ 93,500.00
16,000.00
1~,500.00
SUMMARY: Staff recommends that the City Council APPROVE Final Vesting Tract
Map No. 231~2 subject to the Conditions of Approval.
KW:mph
Attachments:
2.
3.
Development Fee Checklist
ProLject Location Map
Map Reduction, TTR 231~2
Planning Department Staff Report,
TTR 231~2 First Extension of Time
Conditions of Approval
Fees and Securities Report
AGENDAS/AR001
ATTACHMENT 1
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
ENG\WH231z,2. STF
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
CASE NO.: Vestira3 Tract Map No. 231~2
The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this
project.
Fee
Habitat Conservation Plan
(K-Rat) Paid in conjunction with
underlying PM 19580
Parks and Recreation
( Quimby )
Public Facility
Condition of Al~l~roval
Condition No. 18. h.
( County Conditions)
Condition No. 1
Condition No. 2
Traffic Signal Mitigation
Condition No. 10
Library Fee
Condition No. 20a
( County Conditions)
Fire Mitigation
Condition No. 15
~ County Conditions)
Flood Control
(ADP)
Condition No. 16
Regional Statistical Area
(RSA)
N/A
Staff Findings:
Staff finds that the project will be consistant with the City's General Plan once
adopted.
The project is not a part of a specific plan.
ATTACHMENT 2
PROJECT LOCATION MAP
ENG\VTN231~2.STF
CITY OF TEMECULA
./
VICINITY MAP ) CASE NO.'I"'['f~[4Z ~
: ~~;~,.N,m~-,I
ATTACHMENT 3
MAP REDUCTION
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 231~2
ENG\VTIq231e+2.STF
Ifi
I-
2:
I,,,,
', z
'; !
/
/
/
/
/
ATTACHMENT 4
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23111.2 FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME
ENG\VTN231 b,2. STF
TO:
FROM;
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning Commission
Steve Jiannino, Senior Planner
May 6, 1991
First Extension of Time for Tentative Tract Map No. 231q2
This project has been continued by the Planning Commission from the April 1 and
April 15, 1991 Commission meetings to gather extra information about the previous
grading and erosion that has occurred on the site. The Commission has requested
additional information on the bonds in place on the tract and the erosion damage that
has taken place on the site a d adjoining properties. The extension, if approved,
would continue the map appr~n~al to October 25, 1991, approximately six (6) months.
Staff was directed to meet with the developer and individual property owners to
assess what issues needed to be resolved related to erosion and stormwater runoff
damage which occurred during the past rainy season.
Staff had reviewed the site on previous occasions prior to the April 15 meeting and
had determined that damage to properties adjacent to Tract 23142 had occurred, and
said damage was directly related to the developer's failure to comply with the
conditions of the original grading permit issued by the County of Riverside.
Staff has been provided with repair estimates prepared by a licensed contractor for
two of the property owners. The amounts are as follows:
Brownell Residence
Bentley Residence
$ 7, L~00.00
$ 5,750.00
Physical inspection of damage to other adjacent properties and to improvements
within the City right-of-way are estimated by Staff to be in the approximate amount
of $10.000.00. Thus. the total repair and restoration work to be performed may
amount to approximately $23,000.00.
Staff has determined that there are presently two bonds in place in the following
amounts:
Grading and Erosion Control
Landscaping
$ 22,500.00
$ 31,000.00
If needed, these bonds can be liened by the City to perform the necessary work to
protect adjacent properties from future erosion and stormwater runoff damage
attributed to this site.
A:TR231b,2-A ~
Planning Commission
May 6, 1991
Page 2
On Friday. April 26. Staff met with the Huberts, the Brownells, and the Bentleys
to review their specific concerns and determine what repairs and restoration were
needed on each specific property. In an effort to 'identify more specifically the work
to be performed, a second meeting was held on Monday, April 29, between Mr.
Robert Henderson of the Costa Group and residents of the Hubert, Brownell and
Holliday properties. The following time table was constructed from the discussions
which occurred at this meeting, and the Costa Group has informed Staff that they
are willing to comply with this schedule:
PRIOR TO PLANNING COMMIFSSION OF MAY 6, 1991:
1. Costa Group shall continue to comply with all conditions of their original
grading permit.
2. Costa Group shall repair all damage to Mr. Brownell's garage wall and
electrical box to homeowner's satisfaction.
Costa Group shall repair rear yard damage to the Davis and O'Malley
properties, as well as relocate the existing brow ditch onto Tract 23142 and
connect it to an adjacent ditch on Marlborough DevelopmentJs property.
Costa Group shall execute new agreement for grading, erosion control and
landscaping with the City of Temecula.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
Costa Group shall continue to compiy with all conditions of their original
grading permit.
Costa Group shall have complied with all bonding requirements for Tract
23142.
Costa Group shall initiate exploratory work to determine extent of damage
within City right-of-way and adjacent properties.
Costa Group shall initiate clean up and continue maintenance of all erosion
control and drainage devices related to Tract 231LI2 and protection of all
downstream properties.
An iron grate shall be firmly installed in place over the existing inlet
structure at the end of the brow ditch adjacent to the City right-of-way as
directed by the City Engineer·
A:TR231q2-A
Planning Commission
May 6, 1991
Page 3
WITHIN 45 DAYS AFTER FINAL MAP APPROVAL:
Costa Group shall hydroseed slope at the rear of the Hubert property and will
repair and install a sufficient irrigation system to maintain the landscaping per
the original conditions of approval of Tract 20879.
Costa Group shall reloCate the existing drainage swale within the Hubert
property along Metlot !Court closer to the existing City right-of-way in
conformance with City ~)rdinance and to the satisfaction of the property
owner.
Costa Group shall complete repair and restoration of all damaged facilities and
improvements within the public right-of-way and adjacent properties, as
deemed necessary and approved by the City Engineer.
Costa Group shall continue to comply with all conditions of their original
grading permit.
In summary, Staff has determimed that the Costa Group has failed to comply with the
original conditions of their grading permit. If continued in place and bound with a
new agreement, the existing :bonds should be sufficient to cover all repair and
restoration work that has currently been identified. A scheduled program has been
constructed to resolve existing issues between the Costa Group and the adjacent
property owners.
R ECOMMEN DAT I ON:
Staff, recommends that the Planning Commission ADOPT
Resolution 91- approving the First Extension of Time
for Tentative Tract Map No. 231q2 subject to the attached
Conditions of Approval.
SJIRR:ks
A:TR231~2-A
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City of Temecula Planning Commission
Gary Thornhill, Planning Director
April 15, 1991
First Extension of Time for
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23142
The above referenced case was continued from the April 1, 1991 Planning Commission
meeting to the April 15, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. The project was
continued to allow the Engineering Department to develop conditions of approval
regarding the grading of the site and erosion control of the existing graded slopes.
These conditions were to include bonding for grading repair and erosion control of
existing slopes with time limits set for the bonding and for the completion of tl~e
grading.
The applicant was also requested to appear or to have a representative present with
the authority to accept additional conditions of approval.
First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23142 is a proposal to
subdivide 6 acres into 20 residential lots. The site has been previously mass
graded. The neighbors attended the April 1, 1991 Planning Commission meeting to
protest the extension because of the existing unsafe condition of the site.
The Staff Report and draft Planning Commission minutes dated April 1, 1991 are
attached and incorporated into 'this report by reference. An update on the grading
and erosion control concerns and conditions will be presented at the Commission
Hearing. If the issues have not been addressed to Staff's satisfaction, Staff will
request a continuance of the project to May 6, 1991.
GT:ks
Staffrpt\ V TM23142 \mb
STiAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
April 1, 1991
Case No.: Vesting Tentative Tract No. 231q2, Extension of Time
Prepared By: Scott Wright
Recommendation: ADOPT the Resolution approving the extension of time for
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23142.
APPLICATION INFORMATIO~
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Staffrpt\VTM231 ~2\mb
Costa Group
ALBA Engineering
The applicant requests an extension of time for a 20
lot R-1 subdivision.
Bonny Road north of Zinfandel Avenue
R-1 and R-5
North:
South:
East:
West:
R-R
R-1
Specific Plan 199, 2-5 du/ac
Specific Plan 199, 2-5 du/ac
Not requested
North: Vacant
South: Single family residential
East: Vacant, graded
West: Vacant
No. of Acres: 6 acres
No. of Lots: 20 single family lots, 2
open space lots
Min. proposed
lot size:
7,611 square feet
The applicant requests an extension of time for
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23142. The
project is to create a 20 lot single family subdivision
on a 6.0 acre site. The lots range in size from 7,611
square feet to 18,183 square feet. The landscaped
slopes on both sides of the street at the entrance to
BACKGROUND:
the site are designated as open space lots to .be
maintained by a landscape assessment district or s
homeowners association.
The Riverside County Board of Supervisors
approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23142
and Change of Zone 5115, from R-R to R-1 and R-5,
on October 25, 1988. On the recommendation of the
County Planning Staff, the Board of Supervisors
added the stipulation that the landscaped slopes at
the entrance to the site, lots 21 and 22, should be
zoned R-5. The site has been graded for street
improvements and building pads, and concrete lined
bench drains have been installed along the
southerly and easterly boundaries of the site. The
City received the request for a time extension on
October 5, 1990.
ANALYSIS:
Lot Size and Dimensions
The lots are between 7,611 square feet and 38,183
square feet in area and conform to the R-1
standards requiring a minimum of 7,200 square feet,
60 feet of average width, 35 feet of street frontage
on knuckles or cul-de-sacs, and 100 feet of depth.
Site Access
Each lot takes access from Bonny Road which
provides access to the site from Zinfandel Avenue.
The proposed single means of ingress and egress is
consistent with County Fire Department policy
which only requires a second access where there are
35 lots or more, or the street exceeds 1,320 feet in
length. Vesting Tentative Tract 23142 contains 20
residential lots, and Bonny Road is 6~10 feet long.
Drainaqe and Slope Stability
Lots I0 through 17 have tops of slopes which are not
at the property line resulting in areas which slope
downward toward adjacent properties. Concrete
lined bench drains have been installed along the
property line abutting said lots in order to prevent
impacts to adjacent properties due to water runoff
from the site. County Condition No. 5 requires
submittal of a soils report addressing soils stability.
County Condition No. 6 requires compliance with
Ordinance q57 which stipulates that all slopes
greater in height than three feet must have erosion
control planting.
~ Staffrpt\ VTM23142\mb 2
Compatibility with Adjacent Land Uses
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23142 is compatible
with the existing R-1 development south of the site
and with anticipated future development at a
density of 2-5 dwelling units per acre east and west
of the site. The R-R parcel northwesterly of the
site contains a steel tank water reservoir.
Archaeoloclical and Paleontoloqical Resources
The Archaeological Report prepared for this project
stated that no artifacts were found on the site. The
site is located in an area known to contain fossil
resources. Condition No. 19(e) requires that the
developer retain a qualified paleontologist to
evaluate the impacts of grading and implement
measures necessary to recover and preserve any
fossil resources found on the site.
Additional Facts Not Included in the Oriclinal
Conditions of Approval
The original Conditions of Approval did not include
provisions requiring the developer to satisfy the
requirements of the Quimby Act or to agree to pay
public facility fees. Staff has recommended that the
developer agree to pay these additional fees not
originally included in the Conditions of Approval for
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23142.
Kanqareo Habitat Conservation Fee
Pursuant to Condition of Approval No. 19(a) in the
attached County Staff Report, Kangaroo Rat Habitat
Conservation fees were paid prior to the issuance of
grading permits by the County.
Processinq Time
This staff report was completed in draft form and
set aside because recordation of the map seemed
imminent, and recordation of the map would make
action on the extension of time unnecessary.
However, after several weeks the final steps
required for recordation have still not been taken.
Therefore, Staff is proceeding with the time
extension request.
Staffrpt\VTM231~2\mb
ZONING AND GENERAL
PLAN CONSISTENCY:
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
FINDINGS:
The size and dimensions of the lots are consistent
with the requirements of the R-1 Zone, and the
proposed density of 3.3 units per acre is consistent
with the Southwest Area Community Plan
designation of 2-q dwelling units per acre.
On October 25, 1988 the County adopted a Negative
Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 3235q
in conjunction with the approval of Vesting
Tentative Tract No. 231q2.
Extension of Time for Vestinq Tentative Tract No.
231q.2
The proposed density is consistent with the
Southwest Area Plan land use designation.
The proposed density of 3.3 units per acre is
within range of the SWAP designation of 2-~
units per acre.
Vesting Tentative Tract 231q2 is compatible
with the surt'ounding zoning and adjacent
existing land uses.
Adequate public street access will be
provided to every lot. The legal owner of
record has offered to make all required
dedications.
Staff finds that site access will be adequate.
A second means of access is not required for
subdivisions of 35 lots or less.
There is a reasonable probability that the
project will be consistent with the City~s
General Plan once adopted, in that the
proposed density is consistent with the
Southwest Area Plan land use designation,
and the revised map is compatible with
surrounding zoning. existing land uses in the
vicinity, and approved subdivisions.
It is unlikely that the proposed revised
tentative map will constitute a substantial
detriment to the future General Plan if the
proposed subdivision is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan. Surrounding
zoning, existing land uses, and approved
subdivisions are all residential.
Staffr pt\ V TM231 q.2 \rob
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The project will not have a significant
adverse affect on the environment. The
County of Riverside Board of Supervisors
adopted a Negative Declaration in conjunction
with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract
231q.2.
The site is I~hysicnlly suitable for the type
attd dettsity ol the development proposed·
The proposed project makes adequate
provision for future passive or natural solar
heating opportunities in that all proposed
parcels have adequate southern exposure.
10.
The project meets the requirements of
Ordinance 3q8 and q60 in that all lots conform
to the minimum size and dimension
requirements of the zoning code and abut
upon dedicated street.
11.
12.
The lawful conditions stated in the project's
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the health, safety, and welfare.
These findings are supported by minutes,
maps. exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with these applications and her·in
associated by reference.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution 91 - approving a first
extension of time for Vesting Tentative Tract No.
231q2 through October 25, 1991 based on the
analysis and findings contained in this report
subject to the Conditions of Approval in the
attached County Staff Report and the attached City
of Temecula Conditions of Approval·
SW: mb
Attachments:
2.
3.
q.
ReSolution
Conditions of Approval
CoUnty Staff Report
Exhibits:
Vicinity Map
VeSting Tentative Tract Map No. 23142
Fee Checklist
Staffrpt\VTM231 q2\mb
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVI NG A FIRST EXTENSION OF
TIME FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23142
TO SUBDIVIDE A SIX ACRE PARCEL INTO 20 SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS LOCATED ON BONNY ROAD
NORTH OF ZINFANDEL AVENUE AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 9~6-060-00q
WHEREAS, Costa Construction, Inc. filed a time extension request for
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23142 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 Extension of Time
for Vesting Tentative Tract Map on May 6, 1991, 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 approved said Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 231q2;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findinqs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following fin~ngs:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly
incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
( 2 } The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of building
permits, each of the following:
There is a reasonable probability that the
land use or action proposed will be consistent
with the general plan proposal being
considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
Staffrpt\VTM231 q2\mb
6
Ib)
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.
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
Southwest Area: Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted
prior to the inCorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the
southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within
the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan.
C. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the
SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the
Government Code, to wit:
(1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a
preparation of the general plan.
( 2 ) The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects
and taking other actions, including the issuance of
building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the
following:
There is reasonable probability that Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 231q2 will be
consistent with the general plan proposal
being considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
(b)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
(C)
The proposed use or action complies with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances.
D. (1) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No.
~160, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are
made: '
Staffr pt\ V T M231 q2 \mb
a)
That the proposed land division is consistent
with applicable general and specific plans..
c)
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·
d)
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.
f)
That the design of the proposed land division
or the type of improvements are not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
gl
That the design of the proposed land division
or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at
large, for access through, or use of,
property within the proposed land division.
A land division may be approved if it is found
that alternate easements for access or for use
will be provided and that they will be
substantially equivalent to ones previously
acquired by the public. This subsection
shall apply only to easements of record or to
easements established by judgment of a court
of competent jurisdiction.
( 2 ) The Planning Commission in approving the ExtensiOn
of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 23142, makes the following
findings, to wit:
The proposed density is consistent with the
Southwest Area Plan land use designation.
The proposed density of 3.3 units per acre is
within range of the SWAP designation of 2-~&
units per acre·
Vesting Tentative Tract 23142 is compatible
with the surrounding zoning and adjacent
existing land uses.
Staffrpt\VTM23142\mb
8
10.
11.
Adequate public street access will be
provided to every lot. The legal owner of
record has offered to make all required
dedications.
Staff finds that site access will be adequate.
A second means of access is not required for
subdivisions of 35 lots or less.
There is a reasonable probability that the
project will be consistent with the City's
General Plan once adopted, in that the
proposed density is consistent with the
Southwest Area Plan land use designation,
and the revised map is compatible with
surrounding zoning, existing land uses in the
vicinity, and approved subdivisions.
It is unlikely that the proposed revised
tentative map will constitute a substantial
detriment to the future General Plan if the
proposed subdivision is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan· Surrounding
zoning, existing land uses, and approved
subdivisions are all residential.
The project will not have a significant
adverse affect on the environment. The
County of Riverside Board of Supervisors
adopted a Negative Declaration in conjunction
with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract
231q2.
The site is physically suitable for the type
and density of the development proposed.
The proposed project makes adequate
provision for future passive or natural solar
heating opportunities in that all proposed
parcels have adequate southern exposure.
The project meets the requirements of
Ordinance 348 and 460 in that all lots conform
to the minimum size and dimension
requirements of the zoning code and abut
upon dedicated street·
The lawful conditions stated in the project~s
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the health. safety, and welfare.
Staffrpt\VTM23142\mb
12.
These findings are supported by minutes,
maps. exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein
associated by reference.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Tentative
Tract Map is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
SECTION 2. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves a First
Extension of Time for Vesting 'Tentative Tract Map No. 231q2 for the subdivision of
a 6 acre parcel into 20 single family residential lots located on Bonny Road north of
Zinfandel Avenue and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 9~16-060-00q subject to the
following conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION 3.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of May, 1991.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by
the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held
on the 6th day of May, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
Staffrpt\VTM23142\mb
10
, CITY OF TEMECULA
0 DITIONS OF APPROVAL
C N
Planninq Department
Prior to recordat,on, the subdivider shall satisfy the requirements of the
Quimby Act by payment of fees and/or contribution of land or shall provide
an agreement approved by the City Council providing for payment of fees
and/or contribution of land.
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 EIRINegative Declaration for the
project, in the amount i:n 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 the developer requests its building permits
for the project or an.y phase thereof, the developer shall execute the
Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been
provided to the Developer· The developer understands that said agreement
may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming
benefit to the project in the amount of such fees ) and specifically waives its
right to protest such increase.
The first extension of time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 231q2 shall
expire one year from the expiration of the original approval unless extended
as provided by Ordinance 460. The expiration date shall be October 25, 1991.
Lot 21 shall be combined with Lot 20 to form one (1) lot, and Lot 22 shall be
combined with Lot 1 to form one ( 1 ) lot. The slope areas are to be maintained
by the individual lot owners.
Enqineerinq Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways. and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration·
The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act,
and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered
Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California
Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No· 460.
Staffrpt\VTM231 ~2\mb
11
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District:
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control district;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department:
Engineering Department:
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise;
CalTrans: and
Parks and Recreation Department.
The following perimeterr landscaped parkways are required to be annexed into
the landscape maintenance districts:
Lots 21 and 22.
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.
10.
a. 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. Sewer and domestic water systems.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation
towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time
of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written
agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a
building permit.
11.
12.
13.
A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
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.
Developer shall repair and replace any and all damage to adjacent properties
along the southerly tract boundary due to erosion and runoff as determined
by the City Engineer. All work shall be complete within ~15 days of this
approval.
Staffrpt\VTM23142\mb
12
14.
Developer shall have in place s bond for grading, erosion control and
landscaping for slope protection. Any existing bonds shall be continued in
force by the developer until acceptance of all improvements by the City
Engineer.
15.
Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of
the Intent to Develop. :Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time
of street improvements,.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
16. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to
this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT:
17.
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for
review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil
Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final
Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
18.
The existing brow ditch and energy dissipation along the southerly tract
boundary shall be reloCated out of lots qO, 41 and 42 of adjacent Tract No.
20879, and onto the deVeloper~s property. The brow ditch shall be extended
to connect with the existing drainage structure along the northeasterly tract
boundary. All reconstruction of the brow ditch and associated grading shall
be as approved by the City Engineer.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
19.
Construct full street improvements including, but not limited to drainage and
erosion control, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive
approaches, parkway trees and street lights, including the extension of
Bonny Road to Zinfandel Avenue.
Transportation Enqineerinq
PRIOR TO RECORDATION:
20.
A signing plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved
by the City Engineer for Bonny Road and shall be included with the street
improvement plans.
21.
Prior to designing any of the above plans. contact Transportation Engineering
for the design requirements.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
22. All signing shall be installed per the approved signing plan.
Staffrpt\ VTM23142 \mb
13
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTNENT
SUBDIVISION
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23142
DATE:
AIRENDED NO. I
EXP IRES:
STANDARD CONDITIONS
~rhe subdivider shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County of
:1vet·ida, its ·gent·, officers, and employees frm ·~y claim, action. or
[~~roceedtng ·gainst*the County of Riverside or Its agents, officers, or
mplo es to attack, set ·stde, votd, or annul an approval of the County
}f ~verside, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body
Covermerit Code Sectton 66499.37. The County of Riverside will promptly
notify the subdivider of any such cl·tm, actton, or proceeding against the
County of Riverside and vill cooperate fully tn the defense. If the
County fails to promptly notify the sulxliv~der of any such claim, action,
or roceeding or fails to cooperate fully tn the defense, the subdivider
shaY1 not, that·aft·re be responsible to defends indannify. or hold
harmless the County of Riverside.
The tentative subdivision shall comply vith the State of CoJifornia
Subdivision Nap Act and to ·11 the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule
A, unless modified by the conditions 11sled belov.
This conditionally ·ppreved tentative amp vill expire t~o years after the
County of Riverside Board of Supervisors approvll date, unless extended as
provided by Ordinance 460,
4. The final asp shall be p~epared bye 11cansad land surveyor subject to
A
the requirements of the State of Collforni· Subdivision IMp :t and
Ordinance 460. '
The sutxitvtder shall submtt one copy of ·sotls report to the Riverside
Coent~ $urvejmr's Office end t,o copies to the Department of Building and
t stabflit). and geolog'ical
Safety. The report shell address the so ls
conditiOnS Of the site.
If any gradtrig ts proposed, the subdivider shall su~lt one print of
comprehensive grid1~ plan to the Department of Buildtrig end Sife~. The
plan shall comply~Vtth the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, is amended
by Ordinance 457 end Is maybe additionally provided for tn these
comlitlons of approval.
VF. TnnG TDfTATZVE 11MCT I0~ Z3H2o ha. fi
Cendltiens ef/iRwin1
Page 2 :
7. A grading Ikemtt shall be obtained from the Department of Building and
f
h ely prior to consencement of any grading ~Jtsjde of count~ maintained
road right of nay.
8. My delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recorderion ot' the
final asp.
9. The subdivider shall comply wtth the street improveneat recoe~endations
outlined in the Riverside Count~ Road Deparbnent's letter dated 3-23-88, a
copy of vhtch ts attached.
Legal access as requtred by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract
map boundar~ to s County mtntalned read.
All road assents sha~l be offered for dedication to the publlc and sha~l
conttnue in force unit1 the overntng bed~ accepts or abandons such
offers. All dediclt, tons abeT1 be free from 811 encumbrances as approved
b the Road Commissioner. Street names shall be subject to appreval of
~e Road Commissioner.
Easements, ~ehen requtred for roadray slopes, drainage facilities,
utilities etc., shall be shown on the ftnal map if theY are located
within &he land division boundary. All offers of dedication and~
conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the Count~
Surveyor.
Valet and seerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance
with the prevtstons set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's
letter dated 4-04-88, $ copy of ~hich is attached.
The subdivider shall: comply with the flood control recommendations
outlined by the RIverside County Flood Conire1 District's letter dated
3-29-88, I col~ of ihlCh is attached. Zf the land dtvtsion 11as vithin an
adopted fieod central dratnage area pursuant to Sectton lO.2S of Ordinance
460 appre lets fees for the construction of are dretnage facilities
sha~il be c°ol~lected by the Road Coentssioner.
The subdivider shall cmPl~ vtth the fire Improvement recommendations
outltnel tn the Connil Fire Flershal's letter dated 3-23-88, a copy of
~htch ts attached.
Subdtvtstee Idmstng, Including any proposed consort open space area
Improvement phasing, tf applicable, shill be subject to Planning
Department aNtore1. Any IN'oposed phasing shall preyIda for adequate
vehicular access to is11 lots in each phase, and shall substantially
confore to the intent and purpose of the su 1viSion spprevel.
Lots crated by thts subdivision shall comply with the folioring:
YESTIE TBITATIVE 11tACT I). :E3142, ~md.
Conditions of
Page 3
a. All lot len~lth to vtdth ratios shall be tn conformante with Section
C
3.8 of Ordinance. 460.
Graded but undeveloped land shall be mtntalned in a iced-free
condition and shall be etther planted vtth tnterim landscapjn9 or
provtded vith other erosion control measures as approved by the
Dlrector of Bullding and $afelky.
Prior to RECORDATZOR of the final map the lollwing conditions shall be
satisfied:
Ce
Prior to the recordation of the final map the applicant shall submit
~itten clearances to the Riverside County bad and Survey hpar~ent
that all pertinent requirements outlined in the attached approval
letters from the following agenctes have been met:
County Fire Department
County flood Control
County Health Department
County Planning Deparl:ment
Prior to the recordatton of the final map, Change of Zone No. 5115
shall he approved by the Board of Supervisors and shall be effective.
Lots created by this land dhiston shall he In conformante with the
develoiznent standards of the zone ultimately applied to the property.
Prior to recordation, the subject property shall he annexed into CSA
Z43.
d. Prior to recorderton of the final map, the subdivider shall convey to
the County fee stmple tttle, to all Common or common open space areas,
free and clear of lll liens, taxes, Issessment, leases (recorded and
unrecorded) and easements, except those easements which tn the sole
discretion of the County are acceptable. As I condition precedent to
the County accepting title to such. areas, the subdivider shall submit
the following documents to the Planntng De rimant for review, vhich
documents shall be subject to the approvl~iof that department and the
Office of the County Counsel:
1) A declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions; and
2) A sample dacemerit conveyJ tttle to the purchaser of an
individual lot or untt ~h~ch provides that the declaration of
covenants, conditions and restrictions Js Incorporated therein b~
reference.
VE:STZlIG TEIfTATZVE TIACT IO. ~)142, kid. #1
Condltiens el. Approve1
Page 4
The declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions submitted
for revise shell i(a) royida for a term of 60 years, (b) provide for
the establtsrenent o~ a prolar~ weirs' Isaactartan comprised of the
oreera of each tndividull lot or unit and (c) contain the following
provisions verbatim:
*Notalthstanding any provision in this Oeclaretlon to the
contrary, the folioring provision shall apply:
The property oaners' association established barein shall,
dormant, be activated, by Incorporation or otherwise. st the
request of the County of Riverside, arid the property
associations'shall unconditionally accept frm the County of
Riverside, Upon the County's alemind, title to all or any pert of
the 'camon ares', more particularly described on Exhibit 'A°
attached hereto. The decision to require activation of the
property owners' association and the decision to roqu~re that the
association unconditionally accept title to the 'common
shall be st the sole discretion of the ~ounty of R~verside.
In the event that the common area, or any pert thereof, is
conveyed to the property okraits' association, the association.~
thereafter she11 mm such 'consort ares ', she11 manage anL
continuously minteta such 'comeon ares' and shall not sell or
transfer such 'consort area' , or any pert thereof, absent the
prlor witten consent of the rlanning Director of the County of
Riverside or the County's successor-in-interest. The property
owners' association shall have the rtght to assess the owners of
each individual lot or ontt for the reasonable cost of
mtntaintng such 'consort ares', and shall have the right to l~en
the propertat of any), such okmer ~ho defaults tn the pe~ment of a
maintenance assessment. An assessment 1ten, once crested, shall
be prior to all other liens recorded subsequent to the notice of
assessment or other docmnent creating the assessment 1ten.
Thts Declaration shell not be laminated, 'substantially* amended
or property deannexed therefree absent the prior vrttten consent
of the Planning Dtrector of the County of RIverside or the
CountJf*s successor-in-Interest. A proposed amendment shall be
f
considered 'substantial' tf it I facts the extent, usage or
mlntenance of the 'conm)n Ires'.
In the event of any conflict between this Declaration and the
Articles of Incorporation, the Bylavs, or the ro ray owners'
association Rules and Regulations, tf any, thls gc~earat~on shall
control ,0
VESTING TENTATIVE TIACT I0. 23142, And. #1
Conditions of Apprwal
Page S
Once approvedo ithe declarltion of covenants, conditions and
restrictions shall be recorded at the same time that the flnal map ~s
recorded.
The developer shall be responsible for mintenance and upkeep of all
slopes, landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as
those operations :are the responsibilities of other parties as approved
by the Planning Director.
Prior to recorder·on of the final nap, an Environmental Constramnts
Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the final nap tO
delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be permanently
filed with the office or the County Surveyor. A copy of the ECS shall
be transmitted .to the Planning Department for review and approval.
The approved ECS shall be lonerdad with copies of the recorded f~nal
map tq the Planning Department and the Department of Building and
Safety.
The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints
Sheet: "County Biological Report No, 189 was prepared for thss
property and is on file at the Riverside County Planning Department,
The applicant shall participate in a fee prngrmm and shall pay the
ultimate fee imposed for mitigation of impacts to the Stephens
Kangaroo Rat. Prior to final sap approval or issuance of grading
permits, whichever occurs ft-rst, the applicant shall enter into a
deposit a reamant with the County and shall deposit monies based on a
rata of ~750.00 per residential 1or to be used towards payment of the
fee, or if an ordinance implementing the fee is in effect, the
applicant shall lay the fee.
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
a. Prior ta the issuance of grading permits, the biological mitigation
b. Prior te the issuance of grading permits htailed common open space
area landscaping and irrigation plans shall he submitted for Planning
De tment approval for the phase of develofmnent in process. The
plmP~ssshe11 he certified by s landscape architect, and shall provide
for the fol 1 owtng.
1. Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall he installed on all
landscaped areas requiring irrigation.
2. Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be opaque
i
up to a m nimum height of six (6) feet at mturity.
VESTZIIG TENTAtiVE TItACT I0~ ~3142, ~ld. #Z
rand ! tim of Apprwal
Page6
All utlltty. service' erras and enclosurrs shell be screened from
win with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffqe
trratments, as approved b~r the Planning Dtrrctor. Utilities shall
be placed underground.
biberr sirrat trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of
interior streets end roJect rke~s due to insufficient road
right-of-way, they s aT1 be p~antnd outside of the road
h
right-of-amy.
plants ~herr
All extsttng specimen trees and significant rock outcroppings on
the subject property shill be shoun on the proJect's grading plans
and shall not~, those to be removed, rrlocated and/or retained.
7. All trres sha!l be mintmum double staked.
1 k
gracing trees: shall be stew sis ed.
Weaker and/or slow
All cut slopes locatnd ad3acent to ungraded
exceeding ten (10} feet in vertical height shell
incorporating the" following grading' techniques:
naturll terrain an""-
be contour-grade~
aThn~1ea:~10 ef the reded slopo shall be gradually adjusted to the
the naturl~ terrain.
2) Angular forms; shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect
the natjJral ~}Onded terrain.
n~ tops of slopes shaq1 be rounded wtth curves ~ith
drainage and shbtli~ ~mtt such ~undlng.
4) tlerr cut or ftll slopes exceed 300 fat tn hertzontal length, the
hortzcmtal cantours of the slope shall be curved In · continuous,
umlulattng faishton,
Prior to the tssJance of redtrig pemtts, the developer shall provide
evidence to the Itrector o~ Butldtng end Safety that all adjacent
off-site menuhcturld slopes have recorded slope easements and that
slope maintenance rrsponstbllities have been assigned Is approved by
the Director orbtiding and Safety.
e. Prior to the tSsueece of grsdtq pemtts, e qualified paleontologist
she1.1 be ratathe( by the developer for consultation and comment on the
proposed grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts~
VESTlIE TEMTATIVE TIUCT IB. Z3142, kid. #1
· Condfttoes el. Approval
Page 7
Should the paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to
significant reso, rces, a pre-grade .meeting between the Paleontologist
and the excavation and grading contractor shall be arranged. lihen
necessary, the paleontologist or representative shall hive the
authority to tempOraft1 divert, redtract halt grading activity to
allow recover), of .fosslJfs, or
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERNITS the follomng conditions sha~l
be satisfied:
No butldtng pemtts shall be issue by the County of Riverside for any
residential lot/uOtt wtthln the project boundary until the developer's
successor's-in-interest provtdes evtdence of compl iance with pub1 ~c
facility ftnancln measures, A cash sum of one-hundred dollars ($ZO0)
per lot/untt shal~, be deposited with the Riverside County Department
of Building and Safety as mitigation for public library development.
b. A plot plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department pursuant to
Section tB.30of Ordinance No. 348 accompanied by all applicable
filing fees, as a plot plan that is not subject to the California
Environmental Qualtty Act and is not transmitted to any governmental
agency other than the Riverside County Planning Department. The plot
plan shall ensure the conforminca of the flnal site developMnt with
the tract's apprOved Design IMnual (Exhibit Iq), and shall contain the
fol 1 owl ng el eraants:
1. A final site plan sho~tng the lots, building footprints, all
setbacks, fences Ind/or malls, and floor plan and elevation
assignments to individual lots.
2. One (l) color and mtertals smple board (nextnee size of 8 X Z3
inches by 3/t 1rich thick)contltnln precise color. texture and
matarts1 swtches or photographs (whtc~ my be from suppliers'
brochures). lndtcate on the board the name, address and phone
numbers of both the sample board prepafar and the project
applicant, tract number, and the manufacturer and product numbers
where posstble (trade names also acceptable).
3. One (1) copy of the architectural elevations colored to represent
the selected color combinations, irlth symbols keyed to the color
and mtertals board. The artfinn color and alerts1 descriptions
shall be located on the elevation.
4. Stx (6) coptes of each of lossy photographic color prints (stze 8
X 10 Inches) of both coTor and nmterlals board and colored
architectural elevations for peranent ftltng, heartrig body review
and agency distribution. All vrtting must be legible.
VESTIN 1T)ITATIVE 11UkCT I0, ~3142, illd, fl
Conditions ef ARmwe1
Page 8
Satd plot plan shall requtre the approval of the Planning Director
tot to the 1saullee of me), ktldle permtts for lo13 lncluded within
Crh~plot plan. The submittal of plo~ plans prior to the issuance of
building permits lky be phased provided:
t. A separate plot plan shall be saletiled to the Planntng Department
for each phase, which shall be accompanied by appropriate filing
fees o
2. Each Individual plot plan shall be approved by the Planning
Director prtor to the Issuance of buildtrig peruits for lots
Included within that plot plan.
c, Prior to the IssUance of building pemits, composite landscaping and
Irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval.
The plans shall saddross 811 areas and aspects the tract requiring
landscaping and Irrigation to be Installed Including, but not limited
to, parkw~r planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual
front yard landscaping.
d. All dwellings to ix constructed within thts subdivision shall be
destgned and constructed with fire retardant (Class A)roofs as
Ipproved b), the Co. anty Fire Mirahal.
e. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shill not be permitted within the
sulxl~vtston, however solar equipment or any other energy saving
devices shill be permitted with Planning Department approval.
All front yards shill be provided with landscaping and automatic
i trigalton.
g. A fenctng plan shill be sutetttod for Planning Department approval.
Prior to the Issuance: of OCCUPANCY PERFliTS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
I. 1kll end/or fence !ocittons shall confoe to approved plans.
6N:sc
All landscaping and Irrigation shall be Installed In accordance with
epproved plans prior to the tssuence of 0ccupanc~r pareits. if
seasonal conditions de not pemtt planting, Intorim landscaping and
erosion control me~suros 11811 be uttltzed Is approved by the Planning
Director and the D' rector of Butldtng and Safety.
OFFICE OF ROAD CONMIS~IOP, ER ~. COL'A'TY SL'RvEYOR
-~ .,., o.
Parch 23, 1988
RIverside County Planning Coentsston
4080 Lemon Street
RIverside, CA 92501
Re: Tract Pap 23/42 - Amend #1
Schedule A - Team 1
:
Ladtes and Gentlemen: '
Utth respect to the c~ndittons of approval for the referenced tentative land
dtviSton map, the Road Departmat recQmmendS that the landdivider provide the
following street Improverent plans and/or rMd dedications tn accordance w~th
Ordinance 460 end liverside County Road improvement Standards (Ordinance 461).
Zt ts understood that the tentative map Correctly Shows acceptable cen:erllne
profiles, 811 extsttng easements, traveled ways, and dratnage courses wtth
appropriate Q's, and that their omtsSton or unacceptab41tty may requtre the map
to be resubmttted for further consideration. These Ordinances and the fOllOw~-~
conditions are essential parts and i requirement occurring tn ONE ts as bind'. ~
aS though OCCurring tn a11. They are intended to be complementary and to
descrtbe the conditions for a codplate destgn of the inprovernent. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the Conditions Shall be referred to the Road
Comm~sstoner's Office.
The landdivider shall protect downstream properties from damages
caused by alteration of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentra-
tion of diversion of flow. ProteCtion shall be provided by
constructing adequate drainage facilities including enlarging
easements ,,,Y~ , ,,o.n o. th. f~nal mp
and noted es fallmesa "Drainage Easement - no building,
obStructlons, oo encroactvnents b~ land f~11s are allowed". The
protection shill be is epproved b~ the Road Departmat.
The landd~vdder'shall accept and preperl~ dtspose of all offstte
drainage fiowtn- onto or through the stte. In the event the
Road Comedsston-r pamtts the use of streets for drainage
purposes, the Iravisions of Article XZ of Ordinance No. 460
kri11 apply. Should the quantities exceed the street
capactt~ or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage
purposes, the sUbddv~der shall provide adequate drainage
flC~14111S IS el)proved by the Road Department.
Iract Map 23142- Ammcl #1
· March 23, 1988
Page 2
ilJor drainage ts tnvolved on this landd~vtSion and its resolution
Shall be as approved by the Road Department.
=A" Street (including $ny offsite right of way) Shall be improveo
rlthtn the dedicated right Of way in accordance with County
Standard No.' %05, Section A. (36'/60'}.
C~ncrete stdevalks Shall be constructed throughout the lined,vision
accordance with County Standard NO. 400 and 40Z (cur= sidewalk).
6. RR ICCISS rOid to the nearest plved road maintained by the County
shall be constructed within the INbltc rt ht of way in accordance
~rtth County Standard No. 106, Section B, ~32'/60') at a grade anQ
&qtgnment as approved by the Road Commissioner.
Prtor to the recordatton of the final map, the developer shall
aepostt with the Riverside County Rold Department, a cash sum of
$tSO.O0 per lot is mitigation for trlfftc stgnal impacts. Sno~la
t~e developer choose to defer the time of payment, he may enter
into I written agreement with the County deferring said payment
to the time of issuance of I INtldtng permt t.
Zaprovement plans shall be based upon e centerline profile
extending a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at
· grade and alignment as approved by the Riverside County Road
Commissioner. Completion of road Improvements does not imply
acceptance for maintenance by County.
Electrical and communications trenches shall be provided in
accordance with Ordinance 461, Standira 817.
Aspbaltic enNlston (fog seal) Shall be applied not less than
fourteen dayS following placement of the asphalt surfacing an~
shell be applied at m rate of 0.05 gallon per square yard.
Asphalt emulsion shall confom to Sections 37, 3g'and 94 of the
State St4ndard Specifications.
Standard Imuckles and offset cul-de-sacs shall be constructed
throughout the division.
Carrier cutbacks in confonMnce with County Standira No. 805 shall
tim ShOal on the ftnal map and offered for dedication.
Trot-T. IAaP 23~42- Amend #1
retch 23, 1988
P.a~e 3.
Llncldtvts¶ons creating cut or ftll slopes adjacent t.o the s~ree=s
Shall provide ernston control, Stght distance and slope easements
aS appraved by the Road Oilarrant..
]4. The landdivider Shall provide uttlJty clearance from Rancho Cal~f.
Hater Company~ prior to the recordorion of the ftnal map.
15- The mx~mm centerline gradient shall not exceed ~5~.
16. The m~n~num lot frontages along the cul-de-sacs shall be 35 fee~.
17.- Street trees shall be planted tn conforminca w~th the provisions
Of Article 13a of Ordinance 460,53 and their location(s) snell be
ShOe1 on firfit t~q)rovlelnt pla,ns,
18, All drtveilys shall confore to the applicable RIverside County
Standards-
19. The minimum glTage setback Shill be 30 feet emlsured from the face
of curb.
20, All centerline intersections shall be st 90® with a minimum 50'
tangent measured from flow line,
21. The street design and improvement concept of this project snell oe
coordtnlted v/tab HB 169/16-19.
Street 119htlng Shall ~e required tn ac=ordanca wlth 0rdinance 400
and 46~ throughout the SubdiviSion. The County hrvtct Ares (CSA)
AdminiStratOr dialmintS whither this prOpOSal qualifies under an
extsttng assessment etstrt~t or not. if not, the land Owner
Shall file In application vtth LARGO for annexation into or
creation of a "Lighting Assessment Otstrdc~" tn accordance w~th
GovernmentiT CoOl Se£tton 5~0C0.
Very truly yours,
//~'1, ,,-.I
Gus Hughes
had Dtvtston Endtheir
GH:lh
(Doun of R xrex-m d
RTV~R~DF COUNTY PTANNT~Q;; ~I~PT. D,B.~o ~r~l ~. 1988
TRACT P~P 231~2. Amended, No. 1
Environmental Health Services has revieved Trace Pep 231~2,
Amended No. 1 daEed Nmrch 21, 1988. Our currenE comencs
remain as seated in our lec~er dated February 18, 1988.
SM:cac
t. APP, O~ 198
RiVERSID=_ COUNTY
pLANNING DEPARTMENT
OfN. FOeIM 4, I/el
·
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
eeo SS~m?N I~'ITI I1'.
&All ILllit
fILl
1110 ISSOJIl'Z4MC,iMI
ew!llelN
t418
DEPARTMENT
"-, ___ of HEALTH
' ~ wv- melt iimu. c~ow4 ~im~ m?m. en4m, oc,~m. samoa
. ~8. 1988
exvs:ns2 cow, rry p AN z NO =srr.
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92502
A1TN: Grog Heal
P""":.:' .f-
KI Tract Map 23142: Being t subdivision of s portion of th
Rancho Tomeogle, vhich was granted by the government of the
United States to Luis Vignes by Book 1, Page 37 of patents
dated JanUary 18, 1880 recorded in the Office of the Count)
Recorder Of San Diego. State of Celi/ornia.
(20 Lots)
Gentlemen:
The Department of Public Health has reviewed Tentatzv,"~lap
No. 23142 and recommends that:
A water system shall be installed according to
plan0 and specification as &pproved by the water
company $nd the Health Department. Permanent
prints of the plans of the water system shall
be submitted in triplicate, with a minimum scale
not less thin one inch equals 200 feet, along vzth
the Original draving to the County Surveyor. The
prints shall shov the internal pipe diameter.
location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe and
3oint specifications, and the size of the ma~n
at the 3unction of the nov system to the
existing system. The plans shall comply in
all. respects vith Div. S, Part l, Chapter 7 of
the California Health and Safety Code, California
Administrative Code, Title 22, Chapter 16, and Oenera
Order 14o. 103 of the Public Utilities Commisszon of t:
State of Californi&,vhen applicable. The plans shall
be signed by I registered engineer and valor company
vith the folioring certification: "l certify that the
design of the valor system in Tract Map 23142 zs in
accordance with the valor system expansion plans of t]
Rsncho C, liforni& Valor District ,nd th&t the valor
,errice.storage and di,tribution ,y, tem viII be ~
,dequ, te to provide v, ter ,errice to ,uch tr,ct.
RIverside County Planning Dept.
Page Two
Attn: Greg Neal
February 18, 1988
This certification does not constitute a guarantee that
it will supply water to such tr,ct ,t any specific
quantities. flows or pressures for fire protection or
any other purpose"- This certification shall be signed
by , re,pon, ibie offici,l of the water comp*ny.
£e m£ s mmu_g _tbe_ Xus _msm-
This Department has ,st&tement from the Rancho CalXfornia
Water Distract agreeing to serve domestic valet to each and
every lot in the subdivision on demand providing
satasf&ctory financial arrangements are completed vxth the
subdivider. It viii be necessary for the financial
arrangements to be made prior to the recordarson of the
final map.
This Department has , statement from the Eastern Municipal
Water Distract agreeing to allow the subdivision sewage
system to be connected to the sewers of the Distract. The
sewer system shall be installed according to plans and
specifications as approved by the Distract, the County
Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the
pi,ns of the sewer system shall be submitted an triplicate.
along with the original drawing, to the County Surveyor. The
prints shall show the internal pipe diameter. location of
manholes, complete profiles, pipe and 3oXnt specifications
and the sale of the sewers at the 3unction of the new system
to the examtang system. A single plat indicating location
of sewer lines and water iines shall be a portion of the
sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be szgned by
registered engineer and the sewer district with the
following certification: 'I certify that the design of the
sewer system in Tract Nap 23142 is in accordance with the
sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern Nunicipai Water
District and that.the waste disposal system is adequate at
this time to treat the anticipated wastes from the proposed
tract.'
Riverside County Planning Dept.
Page Three
ATTN: Greg Neal
February. 18, 1988
It viII be necessary For financial &rringeaents to be side
prior to the recor~atXon or the final map.
It viii be necessary for the annexation proceedings to be
completely finalized prior to recordalien or the final mip.
Sincerely,
~ani t&rian
Environmental Health Services
SH:tac
IkINNItH t_ IIIWARDI
lace MARiCier
P. O. BOX toaa
I'~ONE (7J4)
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
Riverside, California
Attention: Ragtonal Team~42~.~aL
Area:
R~R~DE COUNTY
IR. ANNING DEPARq'MENT
,6,a,,.,ofo/t,f4vo ,,V'o./
have revte~cl thts case and have the follwtng com~nts:
Except for nutsanco nature local runoff ~htch may traverse portions of the
property the project is considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard.
The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural water-
courses ~htch traverse the property. There is adequate area outside of the
natural watercourses for building sites. The natural watercourses should be
kept free of buildings and obstructions in order to maintain the natural
drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new buildings.
A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stating, "All new
buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum of
]8 inches above adjacent ground surface. Erosion protection shall be provided
for mobile home supports.'"
This project is tn the
drainage plan fees shall be paid tn
regulations,
accordance with the applicable
Area
r~j1 es and
---_ The proposed zoning is Consistent with existing flood hazards. Some flood
control facilities or fl0odprooftng may be required to fully develop to the
tmplled denstry.
.. I//The Dtstrtct's report dated ~-~o~ is still current for this project.
The Dtstrfct does not object to the proposed minor change.
____ The attached com~nts apply.
Very truly yours,
KENNETH L. EDWAROS
Cht ~~,
I
ICENNITI4 L_ EDWARDI
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Har~2, 1988
fill llAIIf~l, I1118?
P. O. ~ ¶088
I~NI ('/14) '/l`/-IlilS
ILLveratde Co~y
PZannXni Departaen~
CcHaty Adminis~ratSve Center
]Ltveraide, ca~Xforala
A~tention: ReiZonaZ TNm No. 1
Gre~ Nea~
],wdies ark2 Gentlean: h: Vest2z~ Tract 231z&2
This is a proposa~ to divide 6 acres in the TemeeuZa Valley area. The proper-
ty ls between South General Kearny Roagl and hncho California Road about 2000
feet west of ~utterfield Sts2e Road.
The property is located st h12h iround and receives very little offsite storm
rtmoff. (~s~te storm rtaoff ~ould be conveyed by the proposed Bonny Road and
dischsrSed st the aite'$ southwest corner throup an offsite storm drain
system.
Follokrln2 re the Dlstrict's reeomnendstions:
This vestln2 tract map ts located .wLthln the limits of the Hurrteta
Creek/Tmecula Valley Area Drainale PIn for hitch drainage fees have
been adopted by the Board. Dralns2e fees shall be paid as set forth
under the provisions of the w~uleS sad Regulations for Admtnistratio~
of Area Drainale Planset mmnded July 3, 198z1:
Dralns2e fees shall be paid to the Road Comissioner as pert of
the fllln2 for record of the subd%vision flnal sap or parcel map,
or If the recording of a final parcel sap ~s weived, drainage fees
shall be ;mid sss condition of the waiver prior to recording s
certificate of compliance evidenc~nl the Halvet of the parcel map;
At the option of the laxl dlvlder, upon filing a required af-
fidavit requesting defermerit Of the payment, of fees, the drainage
fees all be peld to the Buildin2 Director st the tlse of 1s-
sumac of a Iradin2 permlt or building permit for each spproved
piteel, vhlehever m2y be first obte:lfled 2fvcer the recording of the
subdtvlslm flnal map or parcel amp; bobever,
Drslns2e fees shall be ;mid to the Road C~mnlsstoner sss part of
.12e filial for record of the subdivision final sap or parcel map,
or before recelvin2 a watvor to record s land division, for esc~'~
lot wtr~dn ~J~ land dlvlslon ahere oonstruotlon activity as evi-
denced by me of the followln2 aetlons has occurred since Hay ~,
Riverside Co~mty -2- March 2, 1988
Planning l:)epar~ment
Re: Vesting Tract 231~2;
(a) A grading permlt or building permlt has been obtained.
(b) Gradlng or structures have been inttlat~d.
2. Offsite drainage facilities should be locgced within publicly dedicat-
ed drstnqe easenents obLatned frctn the affected property owner(s).
The doc~t(s) should be recorded and a copy sutxntt~ed to the
District prior ~ re~ordatico of l~e final map.
3- All lo~s should be graded to drain to the adJacen~ s~reet or an ade-
quate ou~let.
The 10 year stem flow should be contained within the curb and t~e 100
year rcorm flow should be contained ~ithin the street right of ~ay.
When either of these criteria is exceeded, additional drainage facili-
~ies should be ins~alled.
5- A drainage easement should be obtained from the affectad property
owners for t~e release of concentrated or diverted storm flows. A
copy of the recor_ded drainage easemen~ should be sutxnitted to the
District for rev!iew prior ~o the recordatton of the final map.
6. Evidence of a viable maintenance mechanism should be su~nitted ~o the
District and CoUnty for review and approval prior ~o recorda~ion of
the final map.
7- A copy of the lmprowement plans, Fading plans and final map along
with supporting :hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be sub-
mi~ted to the District via the Road DeperUnent for review and approval
prior ~o recordatico of the final map. Grading plans should be ap-
proved prior to issuance of Fading permits.
Questions concerning this maCtar may be referred Lo Rober~ Chiang of this
fice gc 71q/F87-2333-
Very truly yours,
c,c: Rar~ho Pactrio F~gineerir~ Oorp,
1 :f~~
%.~~c~H ' ClvtlKAS~ineer
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEP&RTMEKr
CALIFOIINIA DEPAITTM ENT el~ FOIIEITRY
3-23-88
ATTNt TrAM I ~
ME: ~ 23J.42 - AJNZlTDED I1
Plannine & Ealineednl O~ce
4060 Lean lace. Suim ] l
IUveukk. CA 92S0|
(714) 7174406
With respect to the conditions o£ approval for the above referenced land divisXon,
standards:
FIRE PR~rz~-x-xON
Schedule "A" fire protec~ion approvod standard fire hydrants, (6"x4wx2J") located
one at each street intersection end spaced no more than 330 feet apart in any
direction, with no porttom of any lot frontage more than 165 feet from a hydrant.
MinXmum fire flo~ shall be 1000 6PM for 2 hours duration at 20 PaX.
Applicant/developer shall! furnish one copy of the water lyltem plans to the FIre
DeparUsent for review. Plans shall conform to firm hydrant typel, location and
spacing, end, the system Ihall most the fire flow requirements. Plane shall be
signed/approved by m regiltered civil engineer and the local water company with
the following certifications "Z certify that the design of the water system is
in accordance with the requirements preecrLbed by the Riverside County Fire
Depar ant. · .
The required water system, including firm hydrants, shall be installed and accepted
by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building material being
placed on an individual iOt.
Prior to the recordmelon of the final q, the developer shall deposit with ~he
Riverside County Firm Department, a cash sen of $400.00 per lot/unit as mitigation
for fire protection impacts, Should the developer choose to defer the time of
payment, be/she my enter into a written agreement with the County deferring said
papmot to the time of issuance of s building pernit,
&IX ~oeetionm regarding the mear~Lng of the conditions shall be referred to the
· ire bpartamnt Planning and v-ngineering staff.
April 27, 1988
Mr, Richard MacH~t, Supervising planner
Riverside, CA 92501
SUBJECT: Vineyards Vesting Ten~a~ive Trac=
Map Number 23142
Dear Mr · MacHo~:~::
The following summarizes our findings regardln~ =he fiscal
a pendi i t~a~ ~hese results re~lec= ~he
Fiscal Year 1986 a~dlgAaudi~or,Con~roller review of oper =ud
an~ Depar~en~a2 ~or services rev~ewe~ us g n~
and fBcili~ CQS=i O~h F=Scal Impac~ Task F
findings Ir os= cases should =he desir ~o~e~ l~ would
developBen= -
FISCAL IMPACT
AFTER BUILDOUT
COUNT/FUND
(Operations end
Maintenance) $1,414
County General ($1,336) ($554)
Fire
Free Librsr~ $789
SUBTOTAL COUNT/
($421) ($421)
Road Fund $368
C. deANDTOTAL ($2,382)
CUMULATIVE FZSCAL
ZMPACT AT BUILDOUT
~-~-~T. Andersen M.~n~s~ve Center
........ e...,cnl e (7741 767-2F~.4
The {ollowin~ special circumstances apply to this projec
1. The developer assumptions included a factor of 1.1
persons per dwilling unit. CAO staff utilized a factor cf
2.69 persons par household, which is closer to ~he
countywide average for this type of unit.
2. Please note the attached letter, dated March 28° 1988,
from the Riverside City and County Public Library concerning
this project.
3. Flood COntrol staff has indicated tha~ flood control
facilities cDnstructed within Zone 7 are unlikely ~o be
sufficientlY' funded for maintenance costs. Curren~
estima~es indicate that funding shortages should occur for
the next te~ years. Suggested mitigation measures include a
cash deposit by the project developer or use of an
assessmen~ mechanism. The asount of deposi~ would be
determined by a present value analysis and project timing.
The cost of maintaining flood control faclliCies will
not be kno until final design phases, when facility needs
have been ~ullY identified. Flood Control staff will,
therefore, Condition pro~ect approvals to iden~ify a means
of financing facility maintenance and operation (if
necessarY) prior to recorda~ion of subdivisions. "'~',
Based on the analysis and assuming that the average sales
price of the units will be $125,000, overall Vineyards
(Vesting Tentative Tract Map Number 23142) will have a
positive fiscal impact at buildout of $368. After buildou~,
this project will have an annual negative fiscal impact ~o
the County of $2,382 at current levels of service.
Xnitial Re~lew By: ~ /
ReviewApproved BY: l~"~'~~
;i
ii
:.--_. ,,. :,,,. 'J
c~wv:.
Riverside City and County Public Librar
2988'
Mr. Keyin Rughem
~ancho Pacific Engineering
27447 Enterprise Circle West
Temecula, CA 92390
Dear Mr, Hughes=
SUBJECT= VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 23142-RANCHO CALIFORNIA AREA
! am writing in response to your request for information re-
garding the impact of a proposed project upon library service.
The proposed project would adversely affect existing library
services. The increase in population to be served would require
an increase in funding to the County Library to maintain the
current level of service.
However, the current level of service has been recognized as
substantially inadequate. The attached charts show how the
current number of volumes per capita and the current square
feet per capita are inadequate and have declined during the
last decade due to the impact of rapid ~opulation growth
throughout the County. See attached charts ppendix C and D)
· he fiscal impact of an additional 42 persons (20 dwelling
units) is stated below in 1988 dollars in amounts needed to
1)maintain the current, inadequate level of service only and to
2)provide the desired level of service. The desired level is
inclusive of the current level.
Facilities
(one time cost only)
Collection (volumes)
(one time cost only)
Maintain Current
Level of Service
$ t64
Provide Desired
Level of Service
1,377
Subtotal for Facilities
and Collection
(one time cost only)
$ 1,918
4,359
Services
(annual ongoing cost)
386
$ 794
Ljn~ M, WOC4. Director
Letter to RAHPAC, TraCt 123142, 3/28/88, Page 2.
These costs might be mitigated by=
The assessment of a library facilities sad collections fee
in 1gee dollars at s cost of $~6 per residential unit to
maintain the current level of service, or t218 per residen-
tial unit to provide the desired level of earvice.
be
The determination that the proJact's estimated assessed
valuation will rovide at least $386 per year in 1988
dollars to the C~unty Library District to finance o going
n
expenses at the current level of service, or $794 per yea:
to finance augsing expenses at the desired level of
service,
Feel free to contactme st (714)782-5213, if you have further
questions,
Sincerely yours,
Billie E. !)ancy.
Head of Branch Services
BEDzm~b :
Enclosuresz Appendix C and D
co: Linda Wood, Librlry Director
Norm Caouette, Senior Administrative Analyst
· IlOIIleg
Apt11 21, 1988
Lind Development Co,etttee
RIverside County Planntn Department
4080 Lemon Street, gth ~Toor
RIverside. California g2501
Wm G Akl~qe
~ C Gd~e~
SUBJECT: VESTING TRACT 23142/ZONE CHANGE 5115
The Dtstrlct ts respOnding to 3four request for co,nents on the subject
proJect(s) relative to the provision of water and sewer servtce. The 1tams
checked belov apply to this project review.
The subject project:
Is not vtthIn ENk;'s:
X water servtce Irll
sewer servtce Ires
Flust be annexed to thts Dtstrtct's Zmprovement Dtstrtct No. tn order
to be eligible to recetve domesttc weter/santtery se~er serve.
X W111 be requtred to construct the following facilities; tf serviced by EM~
a. ) Mater Servtce
b.) Seer Servtce
and participate tn regional
along lot lines.
Onstte/offstte regionally sized gravity sewers
sewer facilities. No sewers allowed now or future
Very Truly Yours,
EASTERN MUNICIPAL HATER DISTRICT
Planning Department
March 9, 1988
t.',AR 10 1988
RIVERSIDE CO'J.~ITY
pLANNING DEPARTi,..:-':';T
BoeddDimctmx
Beebard D. Smffey
JmA. Dsrby
Rdph Daily
Dana Kulber$
Joe A, Lmnd~n
Jeff~y L Mbdde
T.C. Rowe
Officex
Stn T. Mills
General Manefar
Phi!lip L. Forbes
Director d FLUsAce
Nan L. Theme
Dixm:tmr d £nmmm'inZ
Thomas R. McAIkatm'
BarbazmJ. Red
Directs, of A,4,,~wl
Dimtri~ Smcmtm, y
Rutms ud Tmdsm'
Riverside County Planning Department
4080 Lemon S~reat, 9~lm Floor
Riversib, California 92501-3657
Sub~ectg Water Avallmbllity
Refermncex Vesting Tract 23342
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that the above-referenced
proper~y is loomted within the boundaries of Ranthe
·
~ completion of financial
arrangements between RCWD and the propex'cy owner.
Water availability would be contin~ent upon the
property owner signing an Agency Agreement which
assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD. ~'
If RCWD can be of further service to you, please
contact this office.
Very truly yours,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Senga' P. Deher~y
Em/ineering Services Representative
TOX2/Jkw07S
L
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRIG
28061 DIAZ ROAD - _IW)ST OFFICE BOX 174 · TEMECULA, CA 92390-0174 · (714) 676-4101 · FAX (714) 676-06
RiVERSiDE county,
PL&nninG DEPARCfi EnC
DATE: January 15, 1988
TO: Assessor
Building and Safety
Surve~mr - Dave Duds
Road Department
Heal th - Ralph Luchs
' Ft re' Protectl on .....
Flood Control Dtstrlt:t
Ftsh & Sims
LAFCO, S Patslay
U.S. Postal Servtce- Ruth E. Illvtdson
Rancho Caltforn4a Water Co
Eastern Hunttips1 Water Distrtct
Southern Ca14fornta Edison
Southern California Gas
General Telephone
Temecula Union School D~st
Elsinore Unton Htgh School Otst
Temecula Chamber of Comerce
Ha. Palemar Observatory
Sierra Club
County Parks Department
Commissioner iresson
CHANGE OF ZONE Sll~ - (Tm-1) - E.A. 32354
- Costs Construction Inc. - Ranthe
Psctftc Enptneertn~ - hncho Callfronts
Area -Ftrst Supervtsortal Rtstrtct
North of Rsncho Calfornts Dead and ~;est
of Butterfield Stage - 6 acres - Request
Zone Chan~ from R-R to e-1 - Concurrent
Case Tract 23142 - Hod 119 -
923-210-n15
Please review the case described above, along wtth the attached case map. A Land
Dtvtston Conntttee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for~4rch 3t ZO88. If tt clearS,
tt will then go to publlc heartrig.
Your ce~nents and recommendations are reouested prtor to February 18, lgR~ tn order that
we may tnclude the tn the staff report for thts particular case.
Should you have any .suesatoms rN. ardtn.q thts ttaq, please do not hesttate to contact
I;re;i Nee1 it 787-1373
Planner
COHHENTS:
The rite Departwent hal no
comments or conditions*
'u,,j'E: 3-1-88 SIGHATImE
PLEASE prtnt name and tftle
sORe LEMON STREET. 9~" FLOOR
RECEIVED
GBORGI I. TATUM, Planning Officer
46-209 OASIS STREET. ROOM 304
Ri.sgex. tmide
Riverside County 'PlanninS Deparment
A~tn: Greg Neal
#
n r, Sanitarian, Enviror~ental Health Services
Change of Zone SllS
February 17, 1988
The ~nvironsentsl Health Services has reviewed this change of
zone case and has no objections, Sanitary s~er and water
services are available in this area,
SH:slw
!: E 5 ! '7
GEM. erORs a. ~es
PINKS
SUBMITTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CAUFORNIA
FROM: THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBMITTAL DATE: ."-:~
SU~IECT: CHANGE OF ZONE N0. 5115 - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23142 -
Costa Construction ~- First Supervisorial District - Rancho California
Area - 6.0 Acres -'j22 Lots - Schedule A - REQUEST: R-R to R-1
RECOMMENDED MOTiON:
The Planning Co.mnisSton and Staff Reco~nend:
ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No.
32354 based oni the findings incorporated in the environmental
assessment and! the conclusion that the proposed project will not have
a significant effect on the environment; and
DENIAL of CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5115 from R-R to R-1 in accordance with
EXhibit 2, but
APPROVAL of CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5115 from R-R to R-1 and R-5 in
accordance with Exhibit 4, based upon the findings and conclusions
incorporated in the Planning Camission minutes dated September 28, 1988;
APPROVAL of VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23142, AMENDED NO. 1 subject
to the attached conditions, based on the'findings and conclusions
incorporated in the Planning Cammission minutes dated September 28, 1988.
~jiNG:: sc
.1/88
llOllltl&fllilll
Prey. AI~. tel DelRL Com~ls DIet. AGENDA t
Zo~tng Area: Rancho ColtfoPnta
First SupervisefiaT District
E.A. Number: 32354
Regional Teb~ NO. !
CiINEOFI!IEIIO- HIS
TENTATIVETRACTNO. 23142
NO, l
P1anntn Coaentssjon: 9-28-88
Agenda Flea No. 3-5
CD
9. Comprehensive General Plan
Designation:
10. Land Divtston Data:
11. ~enc~ Recamendattons:
12. Letters:
13. Sphere of Influence:
ANALYSIS:
Costs Construction, Inc.
RanPac Engineering
Schedule "A" subdivision and zone
change from R-R to R-l.
NOrth of Ranca California bad and
Vest of Butterfield Stage bad.
R-R
R-R, R-l, R-2, R-S, C-l/C-P, &'l-TO
Vaunt
Vacant land, single family ho~es
under construction, vineyards and
horse ranches.
Land Use: Coteglory lI
ar
Density: 2-8 DU/c e
Tote1 Acreage: 6.0
Tote1 Lots: 20 stngle famtly lots, ~
2 open space lots.
DU Per Acre: 3.3
Proposed Hi n. Lot Size:
ft.
be letters dated:
CZ SllS
Road: No Connine
Heal th: 2-17-88
Flood: NO Comment
Fire: 3-01-88
7200 sq.
VTR 23142
3-23-88
4-04-88
3-29-88
3-23-88
Oppastng/Supparttng: None received
NOt wtthtn a City Sphere
.J
Project bscrt~tto~
Change of Zone No, 5115 Snd VesttngTentettve Tract NO. 23142 are re ests to
cha · the zontng on 6.0 acres of land in the Rancho California are ~om R-R
to n[~l and to create 20 stjngle fmtly lo13. The proposed pro act vill have an
· vetage density of 3.3 dveT11ng untie per acre uJth · mintan ~ot sin of 7200
square
~ Of ZlXE NO. SZI. S
VESTZIIE TEXTATZVE TIACT IB.
Staff' Mart
Page ~
The project site is located north of Ibncho California bad and ~st of
Botterfield Stage Road. T~e project site ts surrounded by, but not a part of,
the Ibrgarite Vlllege Soectfic Plan ($.P. 199). The pro3ect site also lies
adjacent and north of Tentative Trlct No. 10879, ,htch wee approved on November
26. 1985 by the Board of Sdpervisors and ,bach created 140 R-1 lots dn 45 acres
of land.
The project site ts presently vacant. Surrounding land uses include single
f/rally houses under construction on Tract NO. 20879 to the south. a inter 1~nk
to the northwest, and vineyards and a horse ranch to the east. The mnaintng
surrounding area is vacant.
Zontng on the property ts currontly R-R. Surrounding zoning includes R-Z to
the south, A-1-10 tn the vtneyard area to the east and R-R, R-2, R-Z, R-5 and
C-1/C-P zoning in the area encompassed by the Iqargartta Village Specific Plan.
IMsi;/n Consideratto~s
The proposed project his been designed tn accordance with the R-1 single family
residential development standards, end ell other pertinent standards of
Ordinance 348 and 460.
Due to the tracts vestitng status, additional mtertals were submitted for
review In accordance with Ordinance 460. A drainage plan, a hydroloa_y study,
and a grading plan were Submitted and found to be adequate. These plans will
be implemented through the:conditions of approval.
As is the Ippllcant's Optton, · design mnual addressing architecture,
landscaping aM irrigation, and fenctng wee submitted and revie,d. These
develoi~ent guidelines ~tll be implemented through an Ordinance 348. Section
18.30 plot 1an ,htch wtll need to be subBatted and approved by the Planning
Delar~nent pr~r to the issuance of any bui]ding perBitS.
Pro:]oct Cons1 sttncy/Compattbl l tty
The project site 11as itthtn the Pancho California/Ten·cull Sub·re· of the
Southwest Terrtte Lands Use Planning Area. Land use pollcles for this ires
state that future Fevelopment shell generally be Category Z end ~Z, wlth
Cate9o~ I1;2 develop·ant in the out trig ereas. The project stte lies adJacen
to a R-I subdivision (TR 20879) wt;~ a denstry of 3.1 dwelling antes per acre,
n the Iirgelrtta Vtlllge Specific Plan, with adJoinin~
aM Is surrounded by
property designated for Ibdtua density daveloin·hi (2-5 dwelling
proposed density of the project and wtth ~he availability of ell the necessary
services and facilities, the pro:loci is considered consistent with the
Coe;rehenslve General Plan and ts compatible vtth area dew·loin·at.
· :fiNICE OF ZOIIE I0. SItS
VESTlIB TEITAllVE TItACT I0, 23142
,mllE~llO. 1
Staff Rapere
Page3
The applicant is proposing ~R-1 zoning for th. entire tract. Because two open
space lots are being created with this tract, stiff feels it would be more
appropriate to place R-5 zoning on these t~o lots. Therefore staff would
rectum,end m change of zone from R-R to R-1 and R-S.
Fiscal Analysis
Under current poltcy regarding processing of vestt tentative maps, m fiscal
analysis Is required to be:submitted to the eCounty n~or review. The fiscal
analysis prepared for finis project shad a net benefit to the County of
$368.00 upon buildout of the project, lad a net annual deficit of $2,382.
r reached by us ng an
These figures we · t assumed average selling price of
$125,000 per house.
Envi romnental Assessment:
The initial study for Enwtronmental AssesSment No. 32354 indicated these
tentail environmental concerns: 1. erostoe potential; 2. impacts to Stephens
~ngaroo Rat; 3, Paleontologtcll Resources; 4, let, Pilemar Impacts; 5, l ibrary~
impact.
The biological report prepared for this project found that Stephens Kangaroo
Rats were inhabiting portions of the reject site. Since this report
prepared, the County h-s established an interim Stephen· Kanga.roo Rat
mitigation program. The ~ppltcant is condittoned to participate in this
program, with participation to include payment of $750 per unit toward
establishment of habitat area, so therefore the impacts are considered
ml t i gated.
Erosion impacts will be mitigated through erosion cohere1 landscaping and
adherence to pro r Court gradtrig standards. Paleonto oglcal resources will
be mitigated tCer~ugh tt~ conditions of approval w~ltch will require that a
t~ealtfted Paleontologist be consulted prtor to grading and any recQmmendations
adhered to, Pit, Palmmr impacts will be mitigated by adherence to County
Lighting Ordinance No. 655" Any telacts to library services will be mitigated
through pailBent of a $100.~0 par unit library mitigation fee.
FTNDIIBS:
1, The applicant proposes changing the zoning on 6.0 acres of land in the
single M open space lots,
2, The pro;}ect will have~ a density of $,3 dwelling units per lore.
CHARGE OF ZONE I10. SI1S
VESTIN6 TENTATIVE TRACT I0. 23142
Staff Report
P·ge 4
The project Is located adjacent to Tract IIo. 20879 (Board of SuPervisors
· pproved November 26, Z985) which created 140 single family lots on 45
acres.
4. The project is surrounded by the Ikrgarita Village Specific Plan (S.P.
199 . AdJacent areas are designated for meriturn density residential (2-5
DU/j~ro).
S. Surrounding land uses ~nclude singJe fmtly homes, vineyards, a horse
ranch and vacant land.
Surrounding zoning tncludes R-R, R-l, R-2, R-S, C-:I/C-P and A-I-ZO.
The project is located within the Rancho Californt·/Temecula Sub·re· of
the Southwest Territory Land Use Planning Are·.
The two open space lots ·re proposed to have R-I zontng.
The f~sc·l an·qysts indicates
$368.00 at buildout and a net
theref tar.
· financial net beneftt to the county of
annual deftcjt of $2,382 every year
Environmental concerns tnclude erosion, biological impact, hleontologjcal
resources, lit. Paloomr resources end library impacts. All environmental
concerns can be mitigated by the conditions of approve1.
CONCLUSIONS:
i. The project ts consistent wtth the Comprehensive General Plan.
2. The proposal is compatible with area develolamnt.
3. R-S zontng ts · ere appropriate zone for the two Open Space lots.
4. The project vtll not have · significant effect on the environment.
RECOleq!DIDATIOlI$:
ADOPTIN of · Nagsthe Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 32354,
based On the conclusion that the project mll not have · significant effect on
the environment; and,
DENIAL of CHARGE OF ZORE I10. SIIS from 841o 11-1, in accordance with Exhibit
2; but,
CHAJIGE OF ZONE IIO. SXZS
VESTING TENTATT~ llACT IO. Z3X4!
IEI)E])RO. X
Staff bport
APPROVAL of ~ QF l'lQ. 5115 from It-R to R-1 mad R-5 in accordance with
Uhibit 4; and.
approval, end dt :conclusions incorporated in th~ s
staff report.
6N:sc
9/13/88
i
·
dee
· {2
.VAC.
b
LOCATIONAL MAP
:I"-~,-'~:!r:;i'e:.KP.I~/)'STAGERO. MTERIAL I10' (~,M.~ ~. ~ ~
_--.._--": lid. IL PII. SOC Din* 1/e~/.88 Dawn iV Jew
· · ....
m
12 5115 1 111 ~
RIIIBR
-
m
,~z,,,, R-2
R-2 -- ':
fT.~.:--, COSTIe, ~.]:l--~t~J:.td~..::, INC.
it',E :' l-n ,TO .n~' ....' ....:- '-" . ............. m
i.~-~T~!I;T:~[~'[.I:['i=CILJF.. lID. ARTERIAL I10'
· lTAli
M~~
.... . ....
CZ 51151TFI ~314~ lIECOMMENDED Z(INItt~
APPLICATION FOR LAND UIE AND DEVELOPMENT
C0fdDR1OflP* USE
i~ladfT NO.
PARCEL MAP
PLOT PLAN NO.
C) PUI. K::UEPEmmTNO.
3Qk]PMCTMAPNG VBSTZMG
D TEMK)RARY USE PERMff NO.
D V&%'J~',E NO.
INFORMATION
1..e~e! ~reNeme:
Tee~ Na:
: earnersleans:
3. ikp..ll!.~1'A:
Medea Adage:
TelleRaRe N~:
1987
~OeTA CONS~RgCTXON, XNC ·
ai/~S0 canlie vZO& mog~g,
( SXl ] 438-3833
sale me above,
la~h~ PaCifiC gnaineer~no CorD,
( ?]4 ) 6?6-4024
JAN 12 1968
aVERaN COUNTY
PLANNING DEPNFrMEiiT
A, Caclabad, CA 920(
g23g0
NOl'i:lfmommeno~epemeeimvoive4i~me~ofU~eWope6,ylamgclevelooeclemparme m
I. ImOJ!Cl' mFORMAI1ON
20 single family lots.
lrnct 224?3
1. MeeMerelNe~NNek g23-210-002
Iorth of lancho California Reed and Neat of Butterfield Stage Road
lancho-Te~ecule Portion
~ t~, '~ ': ONIIQ: 6 Acres
t Thema lmemsPageNo. andC4~,-~' Page 126-C-1
lIIIAllJIIOFNiIqJCANT .)88 Art&ClaD ~BTtBR Or AUTI01XS, DAT! 12-17-17
Ilek~111~ OF I I',Orl. n
(7'14) 7874111
4~;01 OAgdS STREET. ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNL& e2101
(61~ 3424277
C,~e,g NO.
E IO.
I',~"F fJ~ ONLY
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORIIA TION FORM
~ ~ Pll2111~l:l el Of ~ lOtfit ~ M III Ot fill I~KlitiOftll lilltlfilll teQIdeltM m Part Ill F/duel to Go lo filly
~ I0 OOeU Be Planning I:)ll~lflnM~ll It ~1 7174411
IqUrrl: ~ I~s.-~,
I. lllilllllllWTOIIIk:sllglil~allmf? · acre~
lieYea,' peelde Case Numaer. Ale peovee tie ~ Aeeeumem Numee. il ~ end Ermr~m~ntaf
lleeoeNwmer. lfeepeae~
GAlE NO. {It22473 (PemecldalkZoeeCW. etc.)
IA ~ If Knowrl, EIR ~ (W sm~ecslMe)
I A~Mi~:~mm~et~y~dm~y~tt~w~g~ifd~ngy~wpf~CL{Att~c~'t~nK~dd:~nat~ti~n~c~mry)
PARTII: EIwIilmnllfitll
1. lemelniclmthinanAI0ulf-PdoloS0ecilltu~esZone9 YES(:) NOD(
To dltlfiewllLil your ~ I IOClIICl m · SIIicml 81uclll Zont aonfa~ Ihe PuBl~c InfOrmm~On Sea,on. or rete, to me
if · fear lllllkl ~ il nlcllllry. oo411piltl thl im41ti~lliOR DIiOf 10 I&lDmillln0 your IDOICl tree le0 Proe0e 6 cot,el
thl fl~ d thi lOfill. lf l wlNlr Of tht r.lQ,lire~ erlt& l Ofln~ lUbmd l GOpy Of tRi wlwer ~ thm t~
2
menf Tectmmll Illlaerr'? ~l I:) ~ IX
TO 01temunl I )qlw Ifoect l lulNcl Io ffl gl01oF: hlzlMI
Eitllfit TIClIlt~II ~ ~ l I~ It ~ PuINIC I~bOl~ bflllf OI ~ PIIn~eng Deperte~nt
ff IM mnmm~r K) ~amt,o~ at2 s 'Yle,' cornact me almwoo~m GeoerUhac PSann,ng Ttlm Siclion lo OAKUM aPOroDnale
IIIIIWl tO ~ Ill h&Tlfil. IntO,, ear.,, ete any illit~lllioe
tiOn of indmlle m IIt IDIcl Drovicle bltow thl mulll ed lmuf de with the P&lnn,ng TIIm.
3. IfWMimtlldlllfilfll, illwithinllliOwllndllllmlell? ~S~ NO~X
ff your DfellCl l lutilCl I0 I~Wralnd hl,llf~l, lUteRll ·
afOrllmlnce 4e(k if your P'OIICt all plmel flip or
4. II eler Itnncl ~ I11ti Ixojecl lile9 YEM NO
If"No,'ltowfli*multfftmlterlihe(I) ll/memJedtoMBervme?
WofJooteatilm
Fuelher
II'Nt'llowllirmummemmerllneWllmexlen~41oWovkleMfmm?
WelleeermOee
PART m: ~tllUor41 rl&le, e~
k ll~mdomemeeWeeml~rm,. )~
lelfillrIMllllmlM~MffllMlionlinMiiMiiindfftlnmmlmlMlr~lGo~tollmmtymy
UV DE COU
PLA[.'IiI DEPA I'3'il
APPLIOA TION FOR LAND UIi AND DIVELONE~
& A/IqLIGAIIT !lk/.O(' --?teal
1. ~/y' he: COr~Jk,GDMs~IIDCTZON, ZNC,
D W%'_'~:l NO. .,,__,..
JAN .!.2 1988
PIjQINING Dt'PAKTMENT
MiIBtMmm: 2310.,il~NO YZDA ROIT..S, SU'rT.' A, CARL. SIAD, CA
, ,_.,
TwillleaNs: | t,~e: -tm_tm~m'~
~, OlIMII1B~: em~-m me
1. itvqNae MIbevat(Sesc,lieFelectl:(O~iaece341ei. ne.)
Change of Zone from R-R to l-2
~ iNibl~Rl~l~~end veat~n~ tract 2~242
I. JlV':lliflllllllNIl). 92.3-220-002
lertb of Innthe California load and welt of Butterfield Stage Road
leek Iip'~
~IE OF INiOl~ll?Y OWNIRII
dOSe MaN ITelEI'. f" FLOOR
OASIS STREET.
INDiC).
t61l~ 3d
IITIIIONIIENTAL INFORMAtiON pORII
I. mmmmmmmmmmm'''mpP -..~llmmmmmmmmmmm~
W,vm,,.lmmmRlm~,mmmN~mmlm'.NmmlmlmmlemlmmE.~-L'#-~ m-.' '-~ ' ..m.dNWm~m. lm~Efw, mememmt~mm,-.
Ilmmmm~Mmmmmlmm',l~
C, md~N~. TR 224?3 emmmlMm&zmmmolmm~er'J
IAMO. IldllliBllMCJ, I1~ I "11
INkliT M; ·
li,Ne.omlmmm4ml
NueUmmmllleeleemmmlme
I. ldemmmlC'-. r ':
mmmmllksmd,~d~drmmm~:
· Tlmmmmmmelmmmmm,mm~emm~Pm:P'mm'kmemmmme
Ik Tlmmmmd~mm~pmmmmlfml: P .mlmlmeieedlmUl,~mmmldmllm~mmeYm'me"mne~'mmP'N'""'
...,..,.... -,
lemeWftelll~/k,,_ %~f,,-dlMeummlmMImRdllmdlMmemesame el
.... '.m , ;
OFFICIAL HEARING NOTICE
IUVERSZD[, CAL:FOIUIZA 'IZSOZ-HS7
llger 5. Sirsnear, Plainleg 91rector
A FIJI~ZC IEJt&IIG has M~n scbeduled before the FLAIlKIN CI)IIZSSZQII to
r, onstder the application(s)described Iralow. The Planetrig Depa meet his
tontattvelJr found tl~t the proposed project(I) wtllnhev~onol:tgntflcsnt
environmetal effect and has tetottvely completed Mpttve dec ,rattonCs).
The Planntng Coralssloe wtll constrict vhether or not to apt the nqittve
declaration along v4th the !proposed project at thts beer1 g.
Place of Hearing: Board Iqem. 14th fieor. 4010 Leeon Street. liverstale. CA
Bite of liesring: IIEDIIESDAY. SEPTBIEI
The tim of Iraring Is indicated vtth each Upllcatlon listed belw.
Any porsm amy subida ,rttten comets to the Phnnteg Departsent before the
hearing or sky appear end ;be heard In sup rt of or opposition to the adoptton
of the negative declirettof end/or approve~ thts project at the ttme of
ratsin
described tn thts nottce. or t~ artteen correspondence delivered to the
Planntng Coralssloe at, or :prior to, the publlc hearing. The environmental
finding along wtth the proposed project appllcetton
tnformtton counter Nonda~ through Friday from 9:00 i.e. unit14:00 p.m.
CHANGE OF ZONE 5ZZS, E.A. 32354, liceted In the Pancho California Ares Ind
First Supervisortel Dtstrlct ts an application submitted to amend
Ordinance No. 348. RIverside County Lend Use Ordinance. hid amendment
vould change Zone I-R (Rural Residential) to R-z ($tngle Femtly
IM111ng) or other'such zones as ta Planntng Comisslon ,~y find
appropriate for propert~ Sanerally described as north of Pancho
Callforote bad, west of Jutterfleld .align Road.
MD
VESTING TIMTRAP 23~42, E.A. 3Z3Sl, tsen application suittied by Costa
ramtroc~loe, lsc~' for properlOt locaM tn the hncho Coltfornte lru
and First supervl~O~tel DIstrict whiCh proposes to divide 6.0, acres
Into tO lots in' properV 9enerelTY described as north of bncho
California bed, best of letMrfleld Stage told.
~ OF HEAPING: lO:O0
:
RANCHO CALIF. DEV. CO.
P.O. BOX 755
TEMECULA, CA 92390
923-210-008
923-210-014
VINEYARDS TRACT NO 20879
% COSTA CONSTRUCTION
2380 CAMINO VXDA ROBLE A
CARLSBAD, CA 92008
RANCHO CA~IF. DEV. CO.
P.O. BOX 755
TEMECU~,A, CA 92390
923-210-O08
923-210-014
VINEYARDS TRACT NO. 20879
% COSTA CONSTRUCTION
CAR~SBAD, CA 92008
923-210-012
923-210-016
: VEq>iDE county
PLAnnir DEPA mER
knended E.A. 9-2-88
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM: ITANDARD EVALUATION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (E~) NUMBER: 32~5/I MODULE NUMBER(N: ] 1
PI~C)JECT CASE TYPE(I) AND NUMBEFIS(I): Ve~t4qg Trart Ida_ ?~la? and r'kt~el O~ 7one N;. 5115
AP~JCAIf~ NAME: Cost, .Co-structten. Inc.
NAME OF PEFISC~a) PREPRRING F.~ Rr..Ig N'lel
L PROJECT INFORMATION
A. DESCRIPTION (include Ixo~led: minimum lot size and uses as toDlical~): quhd~v4~, Of 6
acres tnto 20 lots vtth a mtnteum of 7200 square feet. Chanoe of 7one from
Rural - Residential (R-R) to one famtly dwelllnq residential (R-J1
B. TOTAL PROJECT AREk ACRES
C. ASSESSCR~ PARCEL NO.(s):
R n
D. EXISTING ZONING: R-n B THE PROPOSAL IN GONFORMANC~? ~
E PROPOSED ZgNING: e.1 B THE PROPOSAL IN CONFORMANCE? YF~
F. ~TREETREFERENCE~ NOrth o~ Dmncho Cmltfernim Read m,d Uest ef
Butterfield Stage Road.
~. ~ECTION, TOWNSHIP. RANGE DESCRIPTION CRATrACH A LEGALDESGRIFTION: Portton of Rancho TemeCula
H. BREFDESCRFTIONOFTHEEXISTNGENVIRONMENTAL~'1TNGOFTHEPROJECT~/TE~$~RO~DING~
Vacant p~operty tn Mttve grassass and brush. Sur~o,,nd~g area
vacant, but w~th ra~td develoment occurr~no to the west.
' IL COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN OPEN IPACE AND CONSERVATION DESIGNATION
Check the er4~of, iste option(a) below ~ [A~CeKf acca-,~r, OlY.
r'! AI or Dart ol the iN'oJect Iltl b in "Adopted Specific M' "REMAP' or "Rancho Villges Community
PoIcy AtoM". Comp~e '. t:~OM It N (B end C .riM, v and V~
rrl MorpefiolNprojectlltlllb"AmiNotDesignNedelOPenSPl~e"' Complete Sections ""4V
(A. Bend Donl~Vere VL
r'i M or peal Of N prOlid MII hll Ifi Oplfi SpIoI Ifid CCa~strdt~on i:lolignlticm offte titan those mentioned
above. ~SoCBonB I~iN(A I, Bed EonlY~V end VL
,,-
it
A
ENVIIONMENTAL HAZARDI AND RF,,JOURGII AIIEIIMENT
bdicab em rmum of lhe f,,~f~awa d lend um u Me ,,i-,tf from the ,4n:r~Otiong MiOund in Cck,(.,ahanMi GeneraJ Pan Figure
N4 - Noe ,V,fr ~t: Cdeci '-~e~t*-' n: ..V ~ugh nmk ( NormS-Low ~mk )
B. tnckmw~haym(y)orno(N)wtmherenyonvkmmmmlhumrdmml/ormou~iuummmYM0~'can~~Ht~
UyteproJxM. M,~k~or~ed~gqmmmmmmtmb~inthoC~,,,~'ihm~veQ4m~dPtft- FormnyMauenwrkoclm(Y)wmo
~d~1j~`.~tm~ex~.a~~m~M*~ndjng~H~Ct~nduwm~t~u~nm~sur~sund~rS~ct~nV* Noo. vd~re indicatod.
CldelheaOr,,c4~" Imndueeeultm~lty4xnoleet:ctP' '-iUtymtmg(s~ bd~rdtjons~tbOttomOftMm~).
HAZARDS
1- N
(
4 N
S- N
8- Y
e,_g_ wmcf Smoeion Sekmwnnd Fig. vt.1,'RME3
Ord. 4aO, k14.2&Ord. 484)
11- N FIoodp~i,18(Fig. l,l.7)
(NA) u s (F'e. vta)
Nquim-PdmSpeclStudmorCouNYFeat
Hu~d Zonm(fig. VL1)
HA) PS u n (fi; VL3)
I.~uM~ _t~n P%JB~j-' Zone (Fig. VI.1)
NA ) 8 PS u , n (riO. ~.4)
Gm, ndshak~0Zone(fig~l) CLASS T!
NA ) S PS u R (Ire. VLS)
Landa:kle nMk Zone (lq~. Co. 8o0 8els
Seismic Mare cx ~n-~te I~.wlxcklon)
NA) 8 P8 U R
Floclddl Hazard (On-dr8 Irll:l:ti~)
Conserva~on ~ Son
Sm~o- ~.S.D~ km Co..~Uo. S0I LS
Se~ce bl Surveys) ArC2
12. ~ Ab~od Noiee (Fig. It.18.S, IL18.11
&~.12 & 1964 NCUZ Repo~ M~F.B.)
( NA A B C D (Fig, Vt.11)
13. H P4koedN~m(Ire.~.13-~.16)
( NA ) A m C D (F~,
14. _~( kig~.~y N~m (re. ~.17 - ~q29)
) D vt.11)
NA A I C (F~.
15.
,e. N
17. Y
I&N
19. Y
20. N
21..U..
22. N
2& N
24.__
25.
OlherNoe
NA A B C D (Fig, V1.11)
Project G;ne, atecf Noime Affecting
Noime Sensitive UMs (Fig. vi.11 )
NoiN Sensitive Proiect (ire. V1.11 )
Water QuNity IfTIpBCtS From PrOjeCt
Project SefiBltive to Wmer Quality
L. Wardous IdNeri/s e~d Wutes
Hezedoue Fire Aree (Irtg. Vl.2C) - VI.31)
RESOURCES
~e. N Agdmakss(Fig. VL34-VL,lS)
27. N InofNeeren~l~&sK,4
(Rk.C~Aed~LandConv~
Conb~ Mepe)
2~ Wddme (Fig. VtJe - VI,TT) Stephen' s K-Rat
2e- v VegmaUon(F~VLM-VLa0) Potential
001 Minemlneeoumes(Fi~VL41-VL42)
81._K_ ~Reeoufce~Vl.4a-Vl.44)
Scenic Higheays (lrt~. Vl.45)
HMtodc RNOUmM (Fig. VL32 - V!~3)
kchmmolagicf Resoumes
~ VL32 - VL33 & VI.4S - VI.48)
Pkf~ontolegicll Reloumes
(l~eontoloeicll Rlsources Map)
OtlleF, Mt PelDqr
Definlticma for Land UN Suitability and Noise Acceptability Ratings
NA - Not ATprcrhle 8 - ~)l~l.ily'Suitable PS - PTovtldonatly SuitsHe
U - Geeeml~~ R - ~:lm, M~..~ A - Generally Acceptable
I - Conditionsfly Accsptable C - Gener~t~tccm/~'hle O - Land Use Diecoumged
1. OPEN 5PACE AND CONSERVATION la~ DESGNATIC~ Not de~tgnat~l a~ fiDen ~Dace
USE PLANNING AREA: .,~ULtbd*t~ Terrt tnry
street 11ghttq ~11ctes
~U~ ~ ~~T~s~ F ~:
SUIdMARyOFP(XJCF. SAFFECTINOPROPOSAL: Fuf,,re lan~ Ilte~ gene~aqqy r:at.gnry T
or %% with Cat~ory %%:I in tl~ outer I~tons.
Ht, Pslomar ObservatOry Poltctes epply ms the property lies within their
3C)-mtle radtus. Low pressure sodtum ltghttng and appropriate shielding should
be iEplmented.
B, Form pm)ctk inidcate wltm Yes(Y)oe no(N)whotheeny jNl~ic fv'iltjos and/°r mevices jssues may~~ey~
or be eflm:tt:l by the r..4X:0mm~- M referenced figures me centmine in b C.,r.,,,rw,~..mhm~ ~ Plan. For any imu"
ImUBUC FACILITIES AND SERVICES
1e
2- N
4. N
5, N
7, Y
I. II
CimulNion (F~ N.14V.11. Dimcams in
Se~ V ~ Iqevmd & Req~md Roede)
Bke Tmi8 ~ N.1I - N.13)
Weef(AgencVLaWm)
Se~(AgenQyLeemm)
Fire ~lr~l! ~ N.18- N.11)
M :rd;_ I {tqg N,11 - N.18)
8didl fl~ N.11. N.11)
Sold Wail ~ N,11 - N,11)
Pads and It_, ~a~ {1~ IV,19 - N2O)
10-N
1_9-Y
lsJL_
Fqummti8~ Train (r~ N.19 - N.241
FIk~. CA). 80{) M F. qum mtMn Trail Maps)
Uemies (It; N25 - N26)
i (Fig. N.I? · N.18)
Heer~ Seevices (F~. N.11, N.18)
Aiflxxll (Fi~ IL 182 - IL114,
ILIM - 1.18.10 · N27 * N36)
DialtM
W d or pen et the Wole~ is lotmerlin "# ~:;te d Speck Plens-. 'REMAP' or ')wJe Vmege Commun~y Pe~y
ken'. mdew In deal te efdc poicae epplying to a rAc;oeeL end oomplele the fo~:
1. 8lmM~mk. mn~lmndm,~eeignmtioe{m):
2. BeeedontdekdlelldudY, isthe ~C-;Va~QOnSislentwiththep°licieend'dmmiQnatk~°ftheappr°priated°r'''4Fw
end IP. mr~k; ._ ccrmisent edth NP~j.6.mhm''~sk.m 6enerma;Plen? IlnoL ex~mdn:
endTlllinaCemmun~P~. ' '
(LS meidentil, {mmmen]iL el~ CategOry TT - Ite~,n+4al
Currant land m calgary(l) I~ tl Mi bead an existing cendlt~'k& Also indicate land use ~
(Ls ,.-~11~1~ exmm~z~i~ er.) CategDry T! - Rtgidtntia~
3. I D.1 elllien fnxn D2, MII ~e dilb.,_r~m be reeolved at the .;IMI;l:.,.ent stage? ExlNe~:
4. Genm'umlty Plea clesigrmltc~s~
.~ Is the Ixc;oss~ project ¢mlslnt ~ the IxNieies end designations el the Commun~ Plan?
~ r.X. exlNein:
~ II Ihe ~1 coml;~tible with exiting IrN:l )~pelSd surrounding lind ules?
If na~ exlNe~
Based ~n N Mil study, Is the p,~::nuV ~xmeieent with the ComlxoJm General Ptsn?
If net ~slsrsncs by Sect~ end Issue Numbe thee issues i:lentllyir~ irNxxuistst, im:
Yes
L I d or pert of the IxQsCl ~lt M in m ~ Slxu:e end C, enservatien designation, complete the following=
1. Sl81eihe~8)c
Based ~n this inll/I study. is the r,,...(cef censbent with the CAk,,IXShSnSIV~ Generl Pan?
if not. ,.,4e~sncs by Seceon and lama Number e'eee U ~tnUfyin9 incensimencies:
SECTION/
ISIJE NO.
6-28
Ill B-34
Btologt c81 Report
Archaeological Report
DATE DATE ADEQUAC' ~'~
2-5-88 4-88
2-5-88
For with isaac Ratted ym (Y) under k;,t:gM I~.l end HI, idenUfy ~ie Section and lilac number and do the
Igf~l.~h~, ill the k)rmlt M IhOwll bllOw:-
1. UltalleddlJeilrlle. T%tCJitlloume~indudinglOe~CielOl:llldll4.
2. 94ateell~OfflCtmgardini anvkonmentN~oncl,,&
3. Still ~ mitigation meuuf~, If i~lntlF-~le without requiting an anvironmentll imlact ~x~rt (E.I.R.)
4. If additional inbnndion is requ.md Ix4om the envlnmmentai assessment can be completed, refer to
S~sectk, n A.
5. ~d~iti~h~M~Niededk)~;m1~M~tN~eCt~Ch~CkNb~x~tth~ed~fth~eCti~nand~tt~ch
the oscee'v~/m
11! B-8
11! B-17
80URCES, AGENCIESCONSULTED. FINDINGSOFFACT, M~IGATION MEASURES:
HIlt;alton for eros!on s~all occur throuqh SlOPe landscaping and propel
erosion control technique during gradleg.
There era no existing notes produces vhtch wtll tmpact the site. some
mitigation ts proposed.
11% B-26&:29 BIological Report No. 189 prepared for this project found that SteDhen~
Kangaroo rats tnbiblt the site. I)eve:lopment of the SIte would result tn
the loss 'of tbts heattat. so therefore the. project may have a s4Qntftcant
effect on the environment.
111 B-33&34 Requested lnformat~oe concerntea in erchmeologtc.1 report hms not been
III B-35
,Ill B-36
l:V B-7
%V B-12
submitted for ravtiv.
Potential Psleontolglcml resources v!11 reoulre e Dsleontologtst be on
site durteg gradleg activity.
fit. Pmloear tapacts mittoiled by utilization of low pressure sodfum 11ghttRg-
__7_7_7_7_7_7_7_7_7~CtS tO schools:mitigated thoruqh sc~)ol fees. ~-
This project vtll ~e reautred to pv 11brmrv mitigation fees.
"' V. INFORMATION SOURCES, ~8 OF FACT AND MITtGAllON MEABURES (continued)
*III B- 28 & 29
*Ill8- 33 & 34
SOURCES. AGENC{SCONSULTED. FINOINGSOFFACT. Mffl0ATIONMEASURES:
After thts E.A. was found to have a postttve declarat4on, a focused
[IR was reauested to address 'Stephens Kanaaroo Rat impacts. Since the
N.O.P. ~:s ~,,ef4. the Country hat ~stab14shed ~n interim nrogram for
the mitigation Of impacts to Stephens. Because the applicant will be
rLgU~4rLd tO p-r~tcipate 4n th4s Dragram, 4nel,,~tng payment of $750
Hlltnq unit. 41 iS determined that this project has mtttqated the
DotenUn1 impacts and that a negative declaration may be prepared.
The ArchaeolHt;a] Report orepared for this project was submitted for thi{
prOdact. Thtm report indicated no resources were found. to therefore
no mitigation ~is necessarY.
OSeeaUachedpage~
VI. ENVIRONMENTAl, IMPACT DETERMINAI'ION'-
r'l The project will not Iteve · elrlicett effect on the envkonment and · Negative Declaration may be
E1 The pfolec't could have · Igetkant ellect on the envi, gr=,ant. hovavmr, them wgl not tx a significant
effect In this case because the mltlgltion measures daleflied in Section V hive been kopl~ed to t~e
prolec~ and a Negative Declarelion my be Ixepemd.
~ ~ Gr4dlyry A. Weal
' 9 '
CITY OF TEMECULA
ITE
,
,
./
VICINITY MAP
CASE NO,rrN ~.t
P,C, DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
The followin9 fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this
project.
Fee
Habitat Conservation Plan:
(K-Rat) Paid in conjunctio. with
underlying PM 19580.
Parks and Recreation
( Quimby )
Public Facility
( Traffic Mitigation )
Public Facility
( Traffic Signal Mitigation )
Public Facility
( Library )
Fire Protection
Flood Control
{ADP)
Condition of ADDroval
Condition No. 18h
Condition No. 1
( City )
Condition No. 2
[ City )
Condition No. 7
| Roads Division )
Condition No. 20a
Condition No. 15
Condition No. lq
Staffrpt\VTM231 ~2\mb 1 ~
ATTACHMENT 5
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
ENG\VTN231~2.STF
City of Temecula
43172 Business Park Drive ,Temecula. California 92390
Ronald J. Parks
Mayor
Patricia H. Birdsall
Mayor Pro Tern
Karel R Undemans
CouncdmernDer
Peg Moore
Councdrneml3er
J. Sal Mur~oz
Counolrnember
David E Dixon
C.~ Manager
(714) 694-1989
FAX (714l 694-1999
May 13, 1991
Terry Backer
The Costa Group
2380 Camino Vide Roble, STE A
Cadsbad, CA 92009
SUBJECT: Tentative Tract 23142,
ExtenSion of Time
Dear Applicant:
On May 6, 1991 the Planning Commission approved an extension of time far
Tentative Tract 23!142. The extension will expire on October 25, 1991. The
Planning Commission made the following changes to the conditions of Approval:
Additional Conditions Nos. 2-4 originally to be satisfied prior to May
6, 1991 became Additional Conditions Nos. 6-8 to be satisfied prior
to recordaton of the final map. Additonal Condition No. 1 prior to -~
May 6, 1991 is deleted due to redundancy.
There is a 10 day period for filing an appeal to the City Council from the Planning
Commisssion's action and for the Conditions of Approval. An appeal must be filed
with the City Clerk's office no later that May 16. 1991.
If you have any questions, please contact the Planning Department at (714) 6911-
6400.
Sincerely,
Scott Wright
Gary Thornhill
Planning Director
cc: Case File
PLANN I NG\ 2 3 1 ~,2. TT\cc ~,
ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OFTHE FINAL MAP:
Costa Group shall Continue to comply with all conditions of their original
grading permit.
Costa Group shall have complied with all bonding requrements for Tract 231q2.
Costa Group shall initiate exploratiory work to determine extent of damage
within city right-of-way and adjacent prOp·rites.
Costa Group shall initiate clean up and continue maintenance of all eriosion
control and drainage devices related to Tract 231~2 and protection of all
downstream properties.
An iron grate shall'be firmly installed in place over the existing inlet
structure at the end of the brow ditch adjacent tathe City right-d-way as
directed by the City Engineer.
Costa Group shall repair all damage to Mr. Brownell:s garage wall and connect
it to an adjacent ditch on Marlborough Developmentsms propaty.
Costa Group shall repair rear yard damage to the Davis and O:Malley
properties, as well as relocate the existing brow ditch onto Tract 231~2 and
connect it to an adjacent ditch on Marlborough Development*s property.
Costa Group shall exacuta new agreement for grading, erosion control and
landscaping with the City of Temacula.
WITHIN ~5 DAYS AFTER FINAL MAP APPROVAL:
Costa Group shall hydroseed slope at the rear ofthe Hubert propety and will
repair and install a sufficient irrigation system to maintain the landscaping per
the original conditions of approval of Tract 20879.
Costa Group shall relocate the existing drainage swale within the Hubert
property along Metlot Court closer to the existing City right-d-way in
conformance with City Ordinance and to the satisfactionof the property owner.
Costa Group shall romplate repair and restoration of all damaged facilities and
improvements within the public right-d-way and adjacent properties, as
deemed necessary and approved by the City Engineer.
Costa Group shall continue to comply with all conditions of their original
grading permit.
PLANN I NG\ 231 ~2. TT~cc
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planninc~ Department
Prior to recordati0n, the subdivider shall satisfy the requirements of the
Quaruby Act by payment of fees and/or contribution of land or shall provide
an agreement approved by the City Council providing for payment of fees
and/or contribution of lend.
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 mite ation as required under the EIR/Nagetive Declaration for the
project, in ~e amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim
or final public facility mitigetion fee or district has not been finally
established by the date on which the 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 the DeVeloper. The developer understands that said agreement
may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming
benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its
right to protest such increase.
The first extension of time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23142 shall
expire one year from the expiration of the original approval unless extended
as provided by Ordinance q60. The expiration date shell be October 25, 1991·
Lot 21 shall be combined with Lot 20 to form one ( 1 ) lot, and Lot 22 shall be
combined with Lot T to form one ( 1 ) lot. The slope areas are to be maintained
by the individual lot owners.
Enqineerin{; Delaertment
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act,
and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered
Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California
Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. 460.
· -- Steffrpt\VTM23142\mb 11
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
,
The developer shall receive written clearance from the following acjencies~-~
Rancho California Water District:
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Flood Control district:
City of Temecula Fire Bureau:
Planning Department:
Engineering Department:
Riverside County Health Department:
CATV Franchise:
CelTtans: and
Parks and Recreation Department.
The following perimeter land,cq~tJ parkways are required to be annexed into
the landscape maintenance districts:
Lots 21 and 22.
The subdivider shall constructor post security and an agreement shall be
executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements
in conformanca with applicable City standards.
be
Street improvements, including, but not limited ta: pavement, curb
and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, street lights, signing,
striping, and other traffic control devices as appropriate.
Sewer and domestic water systems.
10.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shell deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation
towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time
of payment of traffic signal mitigation fee, he may enter into a written
agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a
building permit.
11. A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
12.
13.
The subdivider shell protect downstream properties from damages caused by
alteration of the drainage patterns: i.e., concentration or diversion of flow.
Protection shell be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities,
including enlarging existing facilities or by securing a drainage easement.
Developer shall repair end replace any and all damage to adjacent properties
along the southerly tract boundary due to erosion and runoff as determined
by the City Engineer. All work shall be complete within q5 days of this
approval.
Staffrpt\VTM231 ~2\mb
Developer shall have in place a bond for grading, erosion control and
landscaping for slope protection. Any existing bonds shall be continued in
I
force by the developer unti acceptance of all improvements by the City
Engineer. :
15.
Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of
the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time
of street improvements.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
16.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to
this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT:
17.
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for
review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil
Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final
Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
18.
The existing brow ditch and energy dissipation along the southerly tract
boundary shall be relocatad out of lots q4), ~1 and ~2 of adjacent Tract No.
20879, and onto the developer:s property. The brow ditch shall be extended
to connect with the, existing drainage structure along the northeasterly tract
boundary. All reconstruction of the brow ditch and associated grading shall
be as approvad by the City Engineer.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
19.
Construct full street improvements including, but not limited to drainage and
erosion control, icurb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive
approaches, parkway trees and street lights, including the extension of
Bonny Road to Zinfandel Avenue.
Translaortation Erminwincl
PRIOR TO RECORDATION:
20.
A signing plan shalFI be designed by a ragisterad Civil Engineer and approved
by the City Engineer for Bonny Road and shall be included with the street
improvement plans.
21.
Prior to designing an.y of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering
for the design req,Ulrements.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
22. All signing shall be installed per the approvad signing plan.
Staffr pt\ VTM231 ~2\mb 13
lIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBDIVISIOei
CONDITIONS OF APPleOVAL
VESTING TENTATZVE TRACT NO. 23242
DATE:
MENDED NO. Z
EXPIRES:
STANDAJtD CONDITIOeIS
~tverstde. its 8gents. of tears, and amp oTees frm a~y c a m. action. or
roceedtng against the County of Ittverstde or its agents. off,cars. Or
fn r h rr r
notify the subdivider of any suc elate. actiN, or proceeding against the
I County of liveraNn and v111 cooperate f,11y tn the defense. Zf the
Couty fltls to promptly notify the subd~vlder of any such claim. action.
or nod ing or fails to cooperate f, lly In the defense, the sutxf ivider
she l~not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indenn~fy. or hold
harmless the Co, nty of Ittveretde.
The tentative subdivision shall coRD1 utah the State of Calsfornja
Subdivision Ikp Act and to lll the req,~ eelfits
of Ordinance 460. Schedule
A. unless modified by the conditions 11said below.
This condiagonally ipproved tenbttve mp vtll expire the 7ears after the
County of liverside Ioerd of lepervisors approval date, unless extended Is
provided by Ordinance 460.
4. The final mp stall be prepared by I licensed land surveyor subject to all
the reclutremnts of the Sate of Coltforntl Subdivision IMp Act aid
OrdJMnCe ,460. '
Tim robdivider site11 setrata eel coFy of · sot11 report to the tlversjde
COunty Survtyor's Office led tm copies to the Oelartmnt of luJlding and
Safety. 11m re rt Shill address the so 18 sUblltty and geological
conditions of ~1~ i to. 1
t
If any gradtog ts proposed, the subdivider sial1 subeta one print of
c rehenSlvl grading plan to the himrant of luridleg led Safety. The
p~IPe shall caq)ly idth the Uetfom luridleg Code, Chapter 70, as amended
by 0rdtnlnce 4S7 and-as m~no iddJtloellly provided for tn these
cbndjtions of approval.
W. STIIE TDITATIVE TRACT I10. Ell42, Mid,
CondJtJem of RpFFwal
Pete!
A gradtrig peratt shill be obtained from the Department of kfldtng and
h ely prior to caneencanent of IKY grading outatde of county mtn~a~ned
ro~fd rtght of my.
8. My delinquent property taxes shill be paid prior to retardation of the
final rap,
The subdivider shall crop1)' vtth the street improvement recoenenda~tons
outlined to the ItfVorstde County Road Departaent0s lottar dated 3-23-88. a
cop), of ~hich fs attached.
LOgal access as are~ntr~ b)' Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract
map boendlr~ to Binrained road.
All road easefits shell be offered for dedicatio~ to the publlc and shall
continue tn force Until the ,yoretrig body accepts or abandons such
OfferS. A11 dedlcations sha~l be Iris frm all encumbrances as approved
b the Road Camfelt,net. Street names shall be subject to approval of
~e Road CollujSsjoner,
Easements, ,hen re(Ivfred for roadva:y slopes, drainage facilities.
utilities. etc.. shall be sho~n on the final asp if they are loca~ed
within the land dtvtsiem beandefy. All offers of dedication and
conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the County
'Surveyar.
biter and seerago disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance
with t:he preWflfonS lit forth tn the RIverside County IMalth Depirtmnt's
letter dated 4-04-88, I cop)' of ,hfch ls attached.
The subdivider sill11 caeq;1)' with the flood control recamendations
outlined by thl RIverside Count)' Irtood Co~trol Otstrict's letrat dated
3029-88, I cow Of !lhlch Is attached. If the land division lies within an
adopted flood control drainage am pursuant to Section Z0.2S of 0rdinance
460 ~fllJ for the construction of area drainage facll,ties
TIn subdivider shuT1 cmply vtth the fin improvement recmmendattons
ovtltned |a the CounV Fire Nirshal's letter dated 3-23-88, a copy of
· htch ts attached.
Subdivision Id~sf , Including any proposed camon open spice area
1sir,vernal tilst~gng, tf applicable, shill be subject to Planning
IMpartsNet aplroval!. M)' proposed piestag shall provide for adequate
vehicular access to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially
conform to the Intent and purpose of bdt I .
the su via on approval
Lob crated by this subdivision shall camp1)' vJth the fall,ring:
VESTIN TBITATIVE TUCT I0. ~142, led.
Coeditlem ef allN~al
Page 3
All lot lee th to vtdth rattoe shall be tn
3.8C of OralThence 460.
conformante vtth
Section
Graded but umieveloped lend shill be maintained In I seed-free:
coedttfo~ led shall be etther planted :rith triterim landscaping or
provtded arlth other eroston cohere1 measures es epproved by the
Dtrector of Bulldiet end Safety.
Prtor to RECORDATION of the fine1 asp the foiltoeing conditions shell be
satisfied:
Prior to the recordalton of tJm fin/1 map the applicant shell submit
~rttte~ clearances to the liverside County lied and Survey tapertmen~
I reclutrments outltned tn the attached IpprovaT
that I 1 pertinent
letters frm the following egenctes have been Bat:
CountJr Ftre Delarment
County Irlood Control
County leeslib tapertruant
County Planeleg taperant
Prtor to the recordalton of the final asp, Change of Zone No. ills
shall be epproved bJr the Board of Supervisors and shell be effect~.
Lots created bJr this lied dirtatom shell be in conformrice vlth ,
developmet standards of the zone vlttmtelJr applied to the property.
c. Prtor to recordmelon, the subject proper~y shell be annexed into CSA
143.
Prior to recordatton of the fens1 asp, the subdivider shell convey to
the County fee staple tttle, to lll crusoe or camon open space ireas,
free end clear of 811 1tees, toes, assesemeet, leases (recorded and
unrecorded) eel easements, except those easements ~htch In the sole
discretion of the County ere acceptable. k e condition precedent to
the County accepting tttle to such. eras, the subdivider shell su~t
the ollo~lng dccments to the Plenntng De rent for raytea, vhich
documnts shall be subject to the epprove~eof that departmet end the
Office ef the County Counsel:
I) A declaration of covenants, conditions led restrictions; end
A sample decant conveJrt tttle to the purchaser of in
Individual lot or ante ~hn~ch provtdes that the declaration of
covenants, co~lltl~s and restrictions ts Incorporated therein b~
reference.
VESTtill TENTAtiVE 11ACt I0. 13142, kid.
Conall·tens of. Mprwal
Pile 4
The duel·re·ton of covenants, conditions end restrictions submitted
for raytee sh 11 ~·) royida for · tom of 60 ~esrs, (b) provide for
the estoblts~n o~ · propert~ oNeera' association comprised Of the
o~ners of rich Individual lot or unit end (c) contain the following
prov~stons verbatim:
'Natal·ha;landing any provlsiae tn this Declaration to ~he
contrary, the fallwing provision shall apply:
The property·nears' IS·actS·lOft established hereta shall,
dormant, be activated, b 1nearpore·taft or otherwise, st the
request Of the County of ;~vlrstde, led the property ·earS"
isaac teflOn shell uncoMtttfi·lly accept free the County of
Rtverstdo~ upon the Countj,'s dee·rid, title to ell or any pert of
the 'ccanmon Ires', ere perttcullrly described
attached hernia. The decision to require activation of the
property Oiners' association led the doctslon to require that the
association unconditionally ·ccept title to the 'camon area'
shell ba St the sole discretion of the Court·dr of Riverside.
In the event that the cannon Ires, or ·fly pert thereof, is
conve~ed to the property ·nears* association, the association,
therein·or SKi11 ·in such 'canon ares ', she11 manage and
continuously maintain 'such 'cameon area' end shill not sell or
tr·nsfer :such 'camon Ires* , or lay pert thereof, absent the
rtor writ·on consfit of the Planning Dtrector of the County of
ltvereido~ or the County's successor-In-tea·rest. The property
each t lot or unit for the reasonable cost of
mint·thing such 'cannon ·rel', led shill have the right to lien
the proper·/of sky such o~nor vho defaults tn the peFnent of e
mint·nieCe ·sees·men·. M assessment 1ton, once created, shall
be prtor.to Ill other 1tea recorded subsequent to the no·tee of
assess·ant or otler documnt creating the ·ssessment 110n.
This Declairltlfi shall not be tonal·ted, 'substantially' amended
or pert4, daneaxed ·hererr/absent the prior writ·on consent
ef t~°Planntng Director of the Country of Riverside or the
Count/'· successor-in-let·rest. A IF·posed uendment she]l be
considered 'labs·on·tel' 1f It affects the extent, usage or
minion·riCe of the 'calnon Irol',
In the Went of aeF conflict be·woe this Declare·Ion and the
association Rules and lingoil·lone· 1f any, this Itton shall
control .'
VESTING TDfTATIVE TIACT I. ~3~4~o And.
Condttiees of AeFfwal
Page S
Once ipproved, the dec1 afar·on of covenants, cond ~ t z on· anl~
restrictions shell he recorded at the same time that the final map ~S
recorded.
The developer shall he responsible for maintenance and upkeep of
slopes, landscaped arHs and irrigation systems until such
those operatiOnS are the responsibilities of other parties as approve~
by the Planning Director.
Prior to recorder tOn of l~he final rap, In Environmental Cons~ra:n~s
Sheet (ECS) shell he prepared in conjunction with the final map So
delineate identified Onviantel concerns end shall be permanently
filed with the offtel of the Conely SurvlJmr. A copy of the ECS shall
be iraemitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.
The approved ECS shall be for~ercled with copies of the recorded renal
map tq the Planning DeparNnt IN the Deparl:nent of Building and
Safety.
g. The fo110utng note shall be placed on the Envlromental Constraints
Sheet: 'County Biological liepart No. 1eJ ass prepared for ~hss
propart3 and is On file it the RIverside County Planning Deparl:nen~-~
he'
The opplican~ shall participate te · fee program ·rid shall pay the
h
ultimate fee imposed for mitigatiOn of lapacts to the Step ens
rangeroe list. Prtor to ftn·l mp approve1 or tssusnce of grading
perutie, ahichever occurs first, the applicant shall enter into
depastt · recreant vtth the Caent~ end shill clap·sit monies based on
rate of 17S0.00 per residential Iol; to be used temrds paFnent of the
fee or tf ee erdtnaecl tmplemnttog the fee ts in effect, the
~t n 1
ape ca t she1 pe~ the
Prior to tim tsseaece Of. GRADING PErmiTs the following conditions shall he
satisfied:
a. Prier te the tssueece of gradtag pamtts, the biological mitigation
b. Prier te the Issuance of redtag peruits lietailed coneon open space
area landscaping and 1,1gallon plans sk$11 be submitted for Planning
De t approval for the phase of development in process. The
pla~s~a11 be certified by · landscape architect, and shell provide
for the tel 1 e~t ng.
1. Penanent automatic Irrigation systms sbe11 be installed on a11
ireas reclutrlog litget on.
landscaped
2. Landscape screwrite ~here requtred shall be des1 ned to be
up to · mtntnmm heTght of stx (6) feet It mturt~y.
VD111E TgITATIVE 11iACT I10. ~3H2, AId.
klein Of MIters1!
Pile 6
via r:a~ and enclosures shall be screened
1 decorative barriers or baf~
trealxentS, IS el)proved b), the Plannlng Director. Ll~tlities shall
be placed underground.
Idhere street trees cannot be planted wtthtn right-of-way of
Interior streets end reject rkiaJr; due to insufficient road
rtght-Of-k~y, the7 shuT1 M
p~inted outside of the road
right-of-meT.
S. Landscaping plans shall incorporate native end drought tolerant
plants shire appropriate.
M1 existing specimen trees end significant rock outcropping· on
the subJeCt propert~ shall be shein on the proJect's grading plans
end shall note those to be rmoved, rilecared end/or retained.
7. All trees shall be aleImam double stoked.
graftrig trees shall be steel stoked.
bieaker and/or slow
c. All cut slopes_ located ad3acent to uegraded natural terrain and
exceeding ten (ZO) feet tn vertical height shall be contour-graded
f hn
Incorporating ;the ellrating gradtrig toc tq. es:
The an le of the reded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the
angle o~ the natura~ forrata.
2) Angular form shall be discouraged. The graded fern shall reflect
the natoral rounded terrain.
3) The toes and ten of slopes shall be rounded idth curves vjth
radii ~r~Inag~dge tn. properfloe te the total height of the slopes
,hera end stability pemtt such rounding.
4) libera cut or ftll slopes exceed 300 feet tn horizontal length, the
f
hertzeats1 co·tours · the slope shall be ~rved tn a continuous,
endelating fashion.
de
Prior te the Issuance of redt ;emits, the developer shall provide
evidence te Ue Dtracter o~ latinSing and hfet~ that ell adjacent
off-site manufactured slopes have recorded slope easments and that
slope eatntenooce responsibilities have been assigned Is approved by
the Diretier of lutldtng lad Safety.
Prior te the Issuance of gradtag permits, · qu·ltfted paleontologjst
she1.1 be ratateed b~ the developer for consultation and comment on the
proposed gridtag vtth respect te potential poleontological impacts.
VESTIS TBITATIVE ~ IB. BSI4Z, Asd. #1
· Conditions of Apprwal
Page 7
Should the laleontolngtst find the potential is high for 1apace to
significant resources, a pre-grade mettq betran the paleontolngist
and the excavation and gradtn contractor shall be arranged. teen ~
NcessarT, the NleaotolngTst or representative shall have the!
authortt~ to tamperart1 divert, redtract or belt gradtrig activity to
a11o~ racewarT of fossi(s.
Prior to the issuance of 9UILDINS PERFlITS the follomn9 conditions shall
be satisfied:
No latldt mils shall be issued b~ the Count~ of Riverside for any
reltdenttaf~ ~ot/untt within the project boundarT until the developer's
successorel-In-interest provides evidence of compliance with public
factlilly ftaect eelfires. A cash of one-hundred dollars ($ZO0)
per lot/unit shale1 be deposited with SUm
the Rhlrltdl County Deplrbnent
of Deriding and hfet~y as litigation for public library, developme t.
n
b. A plot plan shall be subattend to the Planntng Department pursuant to
Section Xl.30of Ordinance No. 348 accoNanled by all applicable
filing fees, as I lot plan that ts not subject to the California
Environante1 Qualilly ~t and tS not transmitted to a~y governmen 1
a ee~y other than the RIverside Country Planning Department. The ;T~.
pT:n shill ensure the confermince of the ftnal site develolxnent with
· the tract's approved Design Iqanual (Exhibit FI), and shill contain the
fol 1 owl ng el eraants:
1. A final site plan sho~tng the lots, building footprints, all
setbacks, fences and/or Wlls, end floor plan and elevation
asstgmMntS to Individual lots.
2. One (Z) color and intertale sample board (maximum size of 8 X ~3
Inches iUP 3/8 tnch thick) centlint precise color, texture and
alerts1 atelies or Idiotographs (tlhtCn~ ~ be from suppliers'
brochures), Indicate on the beard the nine, address and phone
nedare of bOth the sample bcard praparar and the project
Ippllcant, tract number, end the runelecturer and product numbers
d~ere possible (trade Is Ilso acceptable).
3. ON (t) cep~ of the arckttectural elevations colored to represent
the selected celor combinations, with spabole kneed to the color
and roterills board, The erJttaR celor and rotarts1 descriptions
shall be located on the elevation,
Stx (6) coptea of each of loss3r photographic color prtnts (size 8
X Z0 1acheS: of cedar and Bate ale board and colored
) bOth
architectural elevations for pormnant ftllng, hearing body review
and agenC~ distribution. All .rfting Ilult be lngtble,
VE3Tlll TDITATIVE 11iACT I10. ~!142, AId,
CondltJens If
btd plot plan hall requtrl the approval of the Plannlng Director
prior to the tie:lace of any bufldf peaits for lots Included within
the plot plan. The su!llttal of pl~ plans prior to the issuance o~
building peruItS my be phased provided:
A separate plot plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department
for each phlse, which shall be accompanied by appropriate
2. Each tedtvldual plot plan shall be el;roved by the Planning
DIrector p'tor to the tssuance of butldlng permits for lots
Included within that plot plan.
Prior to the I~SUInCl Of butldJng permits, composite landscaping and
trrtgltlon plan shall be Subatttal for Pllnntng Department Ipproval.
The plans lhl~l kidroll Ill IreIS led aspects the tract requiring
landscaping ands Irrigation to be InStilled lncludln , but not 1mired
to, plrkuly planting, street trees, slope plantTrig, and individual
front )lrd lindSoaping.
M1 dwellings tO be constructed within this subdivision shall be
designed led Constructed with fire retardant (Class A)roofs is
Ipproved b7 the ~Count7 Fire Hirehal,
e. Roof-mounted mechanical equipant shall not be permitted within the
SubdiviSion, hewever Iollr equipant or any other energy Slvin;
devices shill II- ;emitlid with Pllnntng Deparlmnt approval.
~. All ~ront)lrdl;lhall be provided with llndscaptng and automatic
Irrigation.
g. A fencing IllIn the11 be letsilted for Planntng Delarlaent approval.
Prior to the Issuance of'OCCUPANCY PIKRI41TS Use fo110wiq coedltlons shall
he lattlftlil:
a. 1i111 and/or face Incalions shall conform tO approved plans.
A11 landsol leg :led Irrigation skill be Installed In accordance with
b. approved pTlnl~ Irtor to the Issuance of occupancy, permits. Zf
seasonal ceedttlonl do not IS_rail pSinil , Interim landscaping and
oreston central ~nolSUrel Shell be uttlt~ln~ U Ipproved I;7 the Planning
DIrector led the DIrectOr of luridleg led hieft.
GII:sc
I
OFFICE OF ROAD COMMI$~IO/~ER
Ibrch 23, ].988
RIverside Count~ Planning Can-t satan
4080 Lean Street
RIverside, CA IZSOZ
Ladtea end Gentlamn::
Tract Pep Z3i42- Amend
Schedule A - Team :Z
kitth respect to the coedtttons of approval for the reference tentative lied
dtvtlton map, the lload~t:)epar~e~t recommnds that the lencldtvtaer provide t~e
follmftng street tmroverent plans end/or road dedications tn accoraance witn
Ordinance 460 end Itlverstde County bed Zerovent Standards (Ordinance 46Z).
It ts understood that the tentative rap COrreCtly ShOwS acceptable centerlice
prefSles, ell extsttng'easemnts, traveled Nays, end drainage courses rich
appropriate Q'st end that thetr omtsslon or unacceptabtltty ray reclu~re the rdD
tO be resubmttted for further consideration. These Orcltnances end the fo110w~n~
coedttto~s ire essential pirts end I reQuiremet occdrrtng tn ONE ts as OlnQing
as though occurring tn a11. They ere threaded to be complemnT. ar~ aria to
descrtbe the toedtitanS for 1
a coee eta destan of the i~provenint. All questions
regarding the true maintrig of the Conditions Shall be referred to tee Roa4
Confit sstoner'S Office.
tton of diversion o~ flOw. PrOtecttoe shall be provided by
constructing iadequate aretesta fact1 tttes Including enlarging
fixtat1 facilities or by securtn I erataste easement or by
beth. fiX11 d~atnage easeants sheIll be ShOkm On the ftnel nip
and noted el :fO11M: 'Orateage Eelant - no bullcling,
obstructtoes~ or encroacMents by land ftlls ere a110ked'. The
prOteCtIOn aM11 be es epproved bJ~ the bed OeHrTMnt.
11m landdivider shall accept end peoperlJ~ dtspose of all offslOe
dretnage flOwleg onto or through the stag, Zn the event tee
Mid Cimntsstoner pereats the use of streets for dratnage
purposes, the provisions of Arttcle XZ of Ordinance No. 460
kr111 appl~. huld the quantities exceed the street
capictty or the use of streets be prehtbtted for dratnege
purposeS, the subdtvtcler Shill prOvtdt adequate dratnage
facilities el aPeroved b~ the bed Oeperment.
TCracz IMp Z3X42- Ammd #Z
· Parch Z3, IM8
Pqe Z
3. nmJor drainage is tnvolved on ChtS landdtvtS~on an{l 1is resolution
Skill be as ap~roved b~ the Road DeDarmenC.
"J' Street (Including any offstte rtght of Nay) Shall be ~mprove:
,dthtn the de~acsted rtgnt of Nay
Standard NO. ZOS, Section A.
S. Concrete stdeNalks Shill be constructed throegnout the lan(l(l~v~SiOn
ill aCcOrdance ,d th County St, In{lar{l No. 400 and 40~ (curd
~11 access raid to the nearest paved rel{l Ntnt;atnea by the County
shall be constructed ~thfn the pMI)11C rt fit Of Nay In accordance
vlth County Standard NO. ZOG, Sectton l, ~32'/G0') at I grade and
&ligament aS spUrnveal by the Road Commissioner.
Prior to the retardation of the final alp, the developer Shall
clepoStt erlth the Riverside COunty RI)ld DeNttruant, s cash sum
SISO.O0 per lot as rlttgltto~ for trefftc stuns1 tmpicts. Should
W developer choose to defer the time of paTment, he m~v enter
into I ,rttten agreement vtth the County deferring sa~{l paymen~
ta the tim of issuance of a butldtng permit.
bnproveant plans shell be lleled upon
extending a tunamum of 300 feet beyond the project bonn{aeries
· Fade and olt rimeat as approved by the qtvors~{le Countlv
Coanasstoeer. F~xqml/)letaon of road iaq)rovt~entS does not impl.v
acceptance for a ~ filehence by County.
L'Jectrtcal end cantonItalians trenches snell be prevtde{l tn
accordance ,rith Ordinance 4il, Standard 8~7.
MphelttC emulSton (fog seal) Shell be appl'te, not less than
fourteen dl)l telloving plaCemat of the asphalt Surfacing aria
1 She11 f
Con Om to Sections 37, 39' and 94 of the
State $t4nclird Specifications.
Standard Imuckles and offset cul-de-sacs Shall be constructed
tiredghOul the division.
elmer cutbacks tn COnformeKe kdth County Standar{l No. 805 shall
be sheen o~ the ftnal asp and offered for dedication.
Trac-t Hap Z]X42- Amend
Landdivisions creating cut or fil1 slopes ad,~aceht to the streets
Shall provJde erosion control, S~ght titstance and slope easements
as apprand by tN Ikad DepartBefit.
The landdivider Shall provide uttltty clearance from I~inc~o
blazer Company prior to the reedrelation of the final map.
2S. The mextmum centerline gradtent shall not exceed
The m~n~num lot frontages along the cul-de-sacs shall
St~t t~s shall H planted ~n conloaned ~th the
of ~ttcle lh ~ ~tnance 460.53 and t~tr location(s) snal~ ~e
sho~ on firfit tmprovnnt plans.
18. All driveNays Shall COnfOrm tO the applicable Riverside Count~
StandardS.
2g. The mtnfmue garage sett~ck Shill be 30 feet assure from t~e face
of cvr~.
All centerline Intersecttons shell be at gOe vtth a minimum 50'
tangent assured from flow 1tel.
The street destgn and Improvement concept of thts project snell ~e
coordinated vIth fib
Street lighting shall be required tn accordance wttn 0rainsrice 400
and 46X throughout the subdivision. The County hrvice Area (CSA)
~dmfnfltrator determines whether ghtS proposal cluelilies under an
extsttng assessment 41strtct or not. if not, the lind owner
shall ftle an application wtth LAFC0 for annexit;ion into or
crestton of e 'LIghting AsSessment DIstrict* tn accordance
Governmental COde Se£tton SIi~CO.
Very truly yours,
Road Dtvtston Engineer
gH:lh
1tTV~1Ie:TDW ~(X?IeTY 1--ANNTNG NrPT. DA~o ~rf.14. 1988
~~~~l~ nlll~lc~r~.-s. w~vtro~Bencal lie-lob Services
TRACT M~P 231&2, Alandee llo, 1
Bnv4rouaeucal Jkalth Services has {evieved Tract Map 231~2,
Amended No. I daced March 21, 1988, Our currut cornenos viXl
rmaLu as acecod in our letcar dated February X8, ~988.
SM: cac
1988
RIVERS1 DE COUNTY
pI. ANNING DEPARTMENT
Oged. FOlim 4. J/el
COUNTY oF RIVE RSI DE
eeo wor~w It,,'ll
Illll. Ca ellll
&all
I1? lOIt'w "l'
DEPARTMENT
-. __ of HEALTH
~lre jl
IIVIBISII:I:COUNTY Pr, M4NINO DI:PT.
4010 Lemon Street
liversBde, CA IIS0I
ATTN: Ores Ne&l
leE; Tries Nap 21141: Being · subdivision of m portion of
Rimthe .'emecull, which vim griLLed by the government of t
United StiLes to LuZs Vignes by Book 1. Page 37 of patent
dlted Janulry Zl. 1860 recorded in the Orrzce of the Coun
Recorder of San Diego. StiLe of C&li/ornzi.
(20 LoLl}
Oent I omen:
The Department of Public Hellth hms royloved Tentative Ha
No. 2314Z itd recommends thiS:
A valor system shill be inst&lled accord,mS to
plans Ind specification &s &pproved by the water
coBpity ind the Hellth Department. Permanent
prints or the plans or the visor system shill
be'submitted in tripltclte, with I min,m~m scile'
mot lees thin one inch equlls 200 reeL, &long with
the originll driving to the County Surveyor. The
prints shill ihov the interniX pipe dilmeter.
loCitieR or viiyes IJld rite hydrlnts; pipe and
joint specificiLlumE, itd the size or the main
it the 3unction st the nov system to the
existing system. The pllnl Ihlll comply in
ill' respects vtth Dtv. l, PIrt l, Chapter 7 or
the Ciltfornil Hotlib end litely Code. Cilsforn~a
ldltnZsLr&ttve Code, Title IX, Chapter Zg, and Genej
Order Me. i0l st the Public Utilities Commission of
It&to of Cali/ornia,vhen appltclble. The plans SAm.
be signed by a regzotered engineer and vlLor compam
vith the relieving certification: 'l certify tha~ t~
design or the vlLor system in Trict MIp 23142 Is xr
iccord&Ace vith the vlLor system expansion plans or
Ranthe Clltrornil Slier District lnd that the va~er
service.storlge and distribution system vzll be
adequ·te to provide vaLor service to ouch tract-
MID-'
Xiverszde County Pltnn~ng Dept.
Page Tvo
Attn: Grog Nell
This certification does not constltute a guarantee that
it viII supply valor to ouch tr&ct at any specific
quantities. flora or pressures for flre protect,on or
any other purpose". This certlflcatzon shall be signed
by a responsible official of the valor company.
~'bl_ B~BOI_IMIL_il IMtl&L~ld_~g_~bl_GggO~X
£ggvga _gg£_ bg
71tie Department has a statement from the Rigthe Californ,,
VaLor District &gree~ng to ,errs domest,c v, ter to each and
every lot in the subdivision on demand providing
satis~&ctory f~nanc~al arrangements &re compZeted
subdivider. It viII be necessary for the financial
arrangements to be made prsor to the record&Lion of the
f~n&l map.
This Department has a sLitsmint from the Astern
VaLor District agreeing to alloy the subdivision soyage
lyltem to be connected to the severs of the Distract. The
sever system lh&ll be installed according to plans end
specif~catio~s as approved by the District. the County
Surveyor sad the Health Department. Permanent prXnts of the
plans of the sever system shall be submitted ,n triplicate.
&~ong vsth the original draving. to the County Surveyor. The
pr,nts shall ahoy the internal pipe diameter. location of
manholes. complete profiles. pipe and 3sins spec~fications
and the size of the severs &t the 3unction of the nov system
to the existing system. A liBtie plat indicating locaL,on
or sever lines and valor lines shall be 8 portion of the
soy&go plane and profiles. The plans shall be s,gned by a
registered engineer and the sever district vith the
telloving certification: 'Z certify that the design of the
sever system tn Tract Map ~3~42 il in accordance vith ~he
sever system expansion pleas or the Astern Municipai VaLor
District end that the vaste disposal eyetom is adequate
this time to %rest the inttcipated yamLos from the proposed
tr&ct.' :bt_aisug_uva _bt_tvbEi td_Le_ bt_Gevu x
tgvtl _Ce£_ bt_gtse£diL&eO_eg,Lbt_gios _isn-
Riverside Cowmay Pietaming Dept.
Page TAres
AT~I: Grog Heal
February. IS, 1988
It. viii be necessary for tinanczaZ arrangement0 to be made
prior to the recOrdat. ion of the final Rip.
It viii be necesesry for %he annexation proceedings to be
compieteZy fins~ted prior to recordsLion of the tins~ map.
Sincerely,
EnvzronmentsX HeaLth Services
SM:t&c
P. e. I~
RIVERSIDE COUNTY Ill,COD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
IIIIIIIIK f, AL/PlIINIA
Riverside County
P1anntng Department
County Acbmlntstrattve Center
RIverside, California
Attention: Itegtonal Teami~f%.,~aL
Area: ,, J/f,, .- y
APR 06 1988
,&,~,~'~ ,ifAo/V,./
have revtevecl this case and have the follmtng coalants:
Except for nuisance nature local runoff vhtch may traverse portions of the
propert~ the project ts considered free from ordinary store flood hazard.
However, · store of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc-
tion should compl~ utth all applicable ordinances.
The topography of the area constats of wll defined ridges and nature1 water-
courses ~hich traverse the property, There is adequate area outside of the
natural watercourses for butldtng sties. The natural watercourses should be
kept free of buildings and obstructions to order to maintain the natural
drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood damage to new buildings.
A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stating, "Al~aew
buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum of
18 inches above adjacent Jround surface. Erosion protection shall be provided
for mobile home supports.
This project ts tn the Area
dratnage plan fees shall M paid tn accordance with the applicable r~les and
regulations.
The proposed zo~tng tl consistent with existing flood hazards. Some flood
control facilities or floodproofing nay be required to fully develop to the
teplted density,
The Otstrtct's report dated ~-.~oM ts sltll current for thts project.
The DIstrict does not object to the proposed rot nor change.
The attached cants app17,
Very truly ye. rs,
P. I. ~el lollet~
V~m~mJeOeel ('/14)
RIV!:RSiDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROl- AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
.m'~ ~, 1988
Riverside Count1
Flannin~
Cotm~y Adsinis~ra~ive Can, t
~iverside, California
Attention: G~l,to~Tem No. 1
Lad ies and Gen~lemep:
Re: Vestinl Tract, 231~2
This is · proposal T~_ divide 6 acres in the T~ecula VaZIey area. The proper-
~y is between South! General Kesrny Mad md hncho CaZifornia ~oad a~o~c ~000
£eeC bast Of ~utterfield Me load.
The p~ope'ty is located st hl2b 2ro~d and receives very little offsite stors
~ff. ~i~ mm ~ff ~d ~ ~vK ~ ~ ~o~ ~ny Road md
di~Mrl~ ~ ~ site's ~ws~ ~ ~ m offsi~ ~m drain
sys~.
FoilsinS re the Districtts reocmendstions:
1. This vestin2 tract map is located within the limits of the Nurrieta
Drainage fees shall be paid as set fortJn
under the Wovisions of the qules mat Regulations for Adminis~raCien
~f area Drainage Plms', landed July ~, Wag:
Drainage fees 2oll be paid to the lead Ccenissioner as of
final Imroel map is mmived, drainsic fees
scroll tm paid 8s · condition of tIM umivmr IFiOr tO recording ·
oertifioste of oomplisnee evidenein~ the umiver of tho parcel rap;
At time olgion of the land divider, Won ftlinl · rsquirod af-
ridsvii; requesf.212 defermerit of tbo payment of fees, the drainage
fees shall be paid to the Mildin2 D~re~tOr st the tlae of is-
suance of s Irs:$inl permit or buildinS permit for esch approved
Fareel, .hichmvor ma~ be first obtained after the reeerdin2 of the
roedivision final sap or parcel ms~; !xamver,
Draina2m fees shall be paid tO the Mad Ccs~issioner as s part of
the filinl far reoord of tho subdivision final map or parcel m ,
or Mfore re~eivin2 · waiver tO record · land division, for ea~
lot within the land division dwre oonstruetioQ activity as evi-
denced by me of the foilwing actions has occurred since ~ay
1981:
P~Lverside Co~y
pZmm~nl Department
b: Vest~nl Trac~ 2~142
-2- Hatch 2, 1988 ~
(a) i Iradial permit cr building permit Ms been obtained.
(b) Grmdlal or stru~urem have been
Offaira drainale facilities should be locfced u~t~Ln publicly dedicat-
81 drainage easets aKttned fraa t~e affected property o~nerCa).
The doc~ent(s) should be recorded and a copy aulmitted to the
Diatriot Ir~or to reoordatioe oF the t'lzal map.
3- DZ lotJ ahould be IrBded ~o drlSn to the ed3acent street or u ade-
quate outlet.
4. The 10 yeBr atom flw should be coremined vt~in ~ curb md the 100
year storm fie mould be oonf41ned wl~lmin l~e ~rcot r~ilmt otP wmy.
When tLther of l~ese criteria ~l exceeded, eddit~onal drainage fac~l~-
tAea should be ~t~alled.
S- A drainale easeMat should be obtained frm r~e affected property
o~nera for ~e reXease of oor~en~rated or divert4d storm flows. A
copy of l~e recorded draJ, nale eaasent alxxAd be aumitted to the
DLstrict t~r review prior to the re~ordatim of the ~,na~ map.
6. Evaderico of · viable maintenance machanSm atmuld be autxn~tted to
District md Co~m~y for review and 8pproval Irior to recordat~on oz
~e final Bap.
7- i copy of the laprovemen~ plans, F'edt~t~ plana and final map along
wS~h supporting hydrololtc and hydraulic calcula~%ons should ~e sub-
gLtted to l~e DLltric~ via l~e load Dapartment for review and approval
prior to recorda~ian of t~e final map. ~redSnl plana should be ap-
Questions oDn:ar,-~nl titta ma~ter may be referred to !k~ert C~ang of
floe a~
Very truXy ymra,
Imam Pm~lfto Enflxmer~nZ C:rp.
IN CCC~KATION WIl14 TNI
CALIFOIqNIA WARTMINT O; POlalITIqY
FUll
3-Z3-88
PZANN~NG DDJd~I(Dr~
TB 23~42 - JUGSDE/) #Z
With respect to the cOnditions or spprovex for the above referenced land division
the Fire Department recessno·de the following r/reprotoctionueisures be provided
in accordance with R~Vers/deCountyOrdinances sad/or recognized fire protection
standards=
ScheduLe 'A" fire protection spproved standard fin hydrants, (6"x4"x2{") iotated
one st each street intersection and spaced no more than 330 foot apart in any
direction, with no portion of any lot frontage sore than 16S feet from · hydrant.
Minimum fire floe ahal~ be ~000GIN for 2 hours duration at 30 PJZ.
Applicant/developer shall furnish one copy of the valor system pLans to the F~Fe
Department for review. Plans sha~l confoz~ to fire hydrant types, location and
spacing, end, the system shall moot the fire floe requirements. Plans ahaZ~
signed/approvsd by a rewtstered civil engineer and the local water coalany v~th
the following certifications "Z cotairy that the design of the valor system
in accordance With the requirements prescribed by the liverside County Fire
hpartsent."
The required valor symtm, including fin hydrants, shall he installed and acoepc
by the appropriate valor slonLTprior to uy {ssdmotibZebu/Xding satetier being
placed on an individual lot.
Prior to the retardation of the final map, the developer shsl]. deposit with the
Riverside County Fire l}epartaent, a cash mm of 8400.00 per lo~/unLt as mitigated
for fire protection LmpactJ. Should ~he developer theant to defer the tire of
payment, he/she say enter into a written agreement with the County deferring sa~d
payant to the t.:Lm. of issuance of · building larm. l,t,
All questions reWarding the meaning of the ~onditions shaLL be referred to the
Firs De~artsent Planning and Engineering staff,
stub
Mr, Richard MacHete, 8upe~vis~ne planner
4080 Lemon Street, ira floor
R~vers~de, ~ 92501'
S~~: V~neyards Vesting Tentative Tract
MaP N~er 23142
Dear Mr* MacHete:
The fol~owing sunsarises our findings reger~ing the fisca~
appendix attached sunsarises the basic assuaptions used in
the analysis. please note that these results reflect t~
and Departsaural and Auditor-Contro:~ler review of operations
and facility costs for services reviewed using case study
ana~ysis* Staff to She 6ro~h r~scaX sapact Task Force and
8i~if%c~gXY increase the costs aeeoc~ate~ w~h ~h~s
developsent ·
(Operations and
Ha latehence )
County General
f~re
free L~braf3'
Road rand
($X,336)
(82,382)
CUI4ULATZVS FZSCAL
XI4~&CT AT IUZLDOUT
(S7~)
$368
The following special circusstincas apply to this project:
1. The developer assumptions included a factor of 2.
persons per dwllltngunt~- CAO staff utlllzed a factor o
2.69 persons per household, which is closer to ~h,
countywide average for this type of unit.
2. Please note the etaached letter, dated March 26, ~988
from the Riverside City and County Public Library concern~n
3. Flood Control staff has indicated tha~ flood cohere
facilities constructed within Sons ? ere unlikely ~o ~
sufficiently funded for maintenance costs. curTen
estimates indicate that funding shortages should occur fc
the next ten years. Suggested ni~iga~ion seasurea include
cash deposit hy the project developer or use of f
assessment mechanism. The amount of deposi~ would ~
determined hy a present value analysis end pro~ect timXng.
The cost of maintaining flood control facilities
not he known until final design phases, when facility naec
have been fully identified. flood Control staff
therefore, condition pro3ect approvals to identify a
of financing facility maintenance and operation
necessary) prior to recorde~ion of subdivisions.
Based on the analysis and assuming that the average sal,
price of the units will he 0125,000, overall V~neyar
(Vesting Tentative Tract Map Number 23142) will have
positive fiscal lapact at buildout of 1361. After bulldon
this pro3ect will have an annual negative fiscal impact
the County of 02,382 st current levels of service.
Review Approved IF: . .- ~
;i
Is,
Riverside City and County Public
2 , lllr
Nr. levis RuShes
Ranthe Pacific Engineering
27447 Interprime Circle West
temecula, Ck 92390
Dear Mr. Bughess
SUI3ECTs VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 23142-RANtHe CALIFORNIA AREA
Z am vriting in response to your request for information re-
garding the impact of a proposed project upon library service.
The proposed project vould adversely affect existing library
services. The increase in population to be served vould require
t
an increase in funding to the County Library o maintain the
current levee of service.
Heyever, the current level of BeryLco hal been recognized as
substantially inadequate. The attached charts Show how the
current number of volumes per capita and the current squart
feet per capita are inadequate and have declined during the
opulation
last decade due to the impact of rapid rAppondix C grovth
and D).
throughout the County. bee attached charts
The fiscal impact of an additional 42 persons (20 dvelling
units) is stated below in Ills dollars in amounts needed to
l)maintain the current, inadequate level of service only and to
2)provide the desired level of service. The desired level is
inclusive of the current level,
Facilities
(one tinesoat only)
Collection {vetuses)
(one time coat only)
NaSafain Current
Level of berries
I 964
Provide Desired
Level of Service
· 4tli~
1,377
lubtotat for Facilities
and Collection
(one tim coat only)
lerv ictl
(annual artgoing coat)
I 1,91e
386
I 4,359
$ 794
IJalI MWIaI. DbIII~
P.O. Seam
Ri~*~'M. CHffI~Iil r~-o411
Letter to lUdlPAC, tract 123142, 3/28/88, Page 2.
These costs might be n/t/Sated
ae
The assessment of a library facilities end collections fee
in laSS dollars st s cost of 196 per residential unit to
saintsin the current level of service, or $218 per residen-
tial unit to provide the desired level of service.
be
The determination that the proJect's estimated assessed
valuation viII provide at least 1316 per year in 1988
dollars to the County Library.District to finance onesing
expenses at the current level of service, or $794 per year
to finance sagsing expenses at the desired level of
service,
Feel free to contact me at (?14)?12-5213, if you have further
questions.
Sincerely yours,
nillie Z, Dsncy
Head of Branch Services
Enclosurest Appendix C and D
cc: Lands Need, Library Director
Norm Cassette, Senior Administrative Analyst
· IlO/llel
Aprt 1 21, 11 ~...
Lend D~velol~nt
liverstie ClvntJr Plenninf Delertaent F;; ,'. ,.., ...
f
we G ~
r'mkew
SUBJECT: VESTING TIKT 13142/ZOIIE I:NAIIGE Slls
.,. ,,.,-,. ,. ,..,,,..,,.,..,,.. ,.... ,0. :.~.::, ..,,
proJect(I) relettwe to the provision of water end v~c ~h:u
checked hel~v apply to lhts project rlvtew.
The subject project:
Is not erlth4n Elel's:
;( utter serv4ce eroa
sewer service Irol
Must be annexed to this Dtstrtct's Improvement District No. in or~e~
to be eligible to rocetve domesite water/sanitary sewer serv'4~.
X Vtll be required to construct the following facilities; tf serviced by !
a. ) Miter krvtce
b,) Sever krvtce Onstte/offstte regtoeelly stzed greytry seers
and participate in regtoeal sewer facilities. No sewers ellowed nov or future
aloeg lot lines.
VeryTruly Yours,
EASTERN MUNICIPAL iNTER DISTRICT
Planning Depertaent
March 9, X988
f..IAR Z 0 1988
RIVERSIDE COUN?Y
PLANNING DEPARTiv:Z:.;'
Suet MBM
Gmmd Manapt
P!d!ilp L, FedNo
Thomas R. Mt4dlemte
Bedma J. Idml
Riverside County Planning Dopefluent
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, California 9250X-3657
Mater Availability
Gentlesen:
Please be advised that the above-referenced
property is located within the boundaries of Ranthe
Mater mary co, therefore,
M
California ater District.
wetlid be available upon completion of f~nanc~al
arrmm/ements betroan RCMD end the property owner.
Mater availability would be contingent upon the
property mr signing an Agency Agreement which
assigns water management rights, if any, to RCWD.
If RCMD can be of further service to you, please
~ontmct this office.
Very truly yours,
RANCliO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
xoxa/Jkvo?s
RANCHO CAL~IFORNIA WATER DISTRI
20061 DIAZ ROAD · Pelf OFFICE! BOX 114 · TEMECULA CA N390~174 * (714) 6~emtl01 · FAX i?t4t
DATE: danoar7 15, 1988
TO: Assessor
8utldtng end hfety
SurveJmr - Dave Ducl~
Road Department
Health - Ralph Luchs
* fire'PrOtection .....
Flood Control*!)tstrJT:t
FfSh & M
LAFCOe S PatsleJr
U.$. Postal krvtce- Ruth E, Ilmvtdlo~
Rancho California Mater Co
Eastern IddanlClPel Mater D4strtct
Southern California Edlso~
Southern California ks
General Telephone
Tealcull LMton Schsol Dtst
Els4nore Unton HIgh Schsol Dtst
Tewlcula Chamber of Camarcs
IRt. Palemar Observatory
Sterra Club
County Parks Department
ComJ ss loner Iresson
C~ANGE OF ZONE SII~ - (Tm-1) - E.A. 32354
- Costs Construction Inc. - Ranthe
Pactftc En.otneertn~ -eancho Callfronta
Area -Ftrst Supervisortel Dtstrtct -
North of Runthe Calfemil load and Hast
of Ivttorfteld Sta~ - 6 acres - Request
Zo · Chants from R-R to l-1 Concur~t
Case Tract 2314! - b 11.Q - A.~.
923-210-,IS
Please review the case described above, along wtth the attached case map. A Land
h e ,
Dtvtston Connfttee mettn9 has hewn tontatfvely sc eduled for ~iirch 3, I 8tq. If tt clears
then go to pvbllc MarIN.
Your co~nents and recomenchtfouS are rsouested prtor to Februnt7 18, 19U tn order that
w my tnclvcle the In the staff report for thts particular file,
Should you have any .suesiteM reMrdtng thts ftem, plea.se do not hesitate to contact
6reg Nell at 787-1373
Planner
C~HENTS:
The TLro De~artmen~ has
comaease or conditions.
REC _IVED
GIORGB I. ~A~UM, tABunine Officer
OASIS STREET. ROOM 304
ATTACHMENT 6
FEES F., SECURITIES REPORT
ENG\VTM231 z,2. STF
C I TY OF TENECULA ENG I NEER I NG DEPARTNENT
FEES AND SECUR I T I ES REPORT
TRACT NO. 23142 DATE:
( Revised 2/11/92)
July 17, 1991
FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE
SECURITY
IMPROVEMENTS
Streets and Drainacle
187,000.00
31,500.00
28,500.00
247,000.00
Water $
Sewer $
TOTAL $
*Maintenance Retention (10% for one year)
*( or Bonds if work is completed)
Monument Security
City Traffic Signing and Striping Costs
Fire Mitigation Fee
RCFC Drainage Fee
Signalization Mitigation Fee - SMD #9
Road and Bridge Benefit Fee
Other Developer Fees ( Quimby )
MATERIAL S LABOR
SECURITY
$ 93,500.00
$ 16,000.00
$ 14,500.00
$ 123,500.00
$ 24,000.00
S 8,500.00
S -0-
S 8,000.00
S 11,820.00
S 3,000.00
S 23,310.00
Planning Department Fee
Comprehensive Transportation Plan Fee
Plan Check Fee
Inspection Fee
Monument Inspection Fee
Total Inspection/Plan Check Fees
Less Fees Paid To Date {Credit)
Total Inspection/Plan Check Fees Due
AGENDAS\AR00~
$
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
121.00
8.00
9,772.75
8,070.75
276.25
18,248.75
- 18,248.75
-0-
ITEM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
-1/'[21~e a ent of Public Works
Fj~ 25, 1992
Revised Vesting Final Tract Map No. 23267-2
PREPARED BY:
Kris Winchak
R ECOMMEN DAT I ON:
That City Council APPROVE Revised Vesting Final Tract
Map No. 23267-2, subject to the Conditions of Approval.
DISCUSSION:
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 was originally approved by the Riverside
County Planning Commission on October 19, 1988, and the Riverside County Board
of Supervisors on October 25, 1988. Change of Zone No. 5150 was also approved by
the County Board of Supervisors on October 25, 1988. However, the zone change
was not given a second reading and, therefore, was not officially adopted at that
time.
Following incorporation of the City, Presley Homes of San Diego submitted a revised
map for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267, along with Change of Zone No. 5,
which is identical to the original Change of Zone No. 5150.
Revised Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23267 and Change of Zone No. 5, with an
Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 281, was approved by the City
Planning Commission on April 1. 1991. and the City Council on May 1LL 1991. A
second reading of Zone Change No. 5 was approved on May 28, 1991.
Revised Vesting Final Tract Map No. 23267-2 contains 185 residential lots and one ( 1 )
open space lot with L~8.99 gross acres. The tract is located on the south side of
Highway 79 between Pala Road and Margarita Road
The following fees have been paid (or deferred ) for Revised Vesting Final Tract Map
No. 23267-2:
* Area Drainage Fees
* Fire Mitigation Fees (Deferred to Building Permits)
* Traffic Signal Mitigation (Deferred to Building Permits)
* Stephen~s K-Rat Fees (at Grading Permits)
-0-
$ 73,200.00
$ 27,450.00
$ 95,530.00
The following bonds have been posted for Revised Vesting Final Tract Map No.
23267-2:
Faithful Labor and
Performance Material s
Streets and Drainage
Water
Sewer
Survey Monuments
$2,175,000o00
456,000.00
312,500.00
$2,750.00
$1,087,500.00
228,000.00
156,500.00
SUMMARY:
Staff recommends that City Council APPROVE Revised Vesting Final Tract Map No.
23267-2. subject to the Conditions of Approval.
KW/T N: ks
Attachments:
2.
3.
Development Fee Checklist
Location Map
Copy of Map
Planning Commission Staff Report
dated April 1, 1991
Conditions of Approval
TCSD Agreement
Fees and Securities Report
ATTACHMENT 1
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
Revised Vesting Final Tract Map No. 23267-2
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
Condition of Approval
Condition No. 24
Condition No. 25
Condition No. 54
Traffic Signal Mitigation
Condition No. 42
Fire Mitigation
See Fire Department Letter
Dated 1-29-91
Flood Control
(ADP)
Condition No. 49
Regional Statistical Area N/A
(RSA)
Staff Findings:
Staff finds that the project will be consistant with the City's General Plan once
adopted.
The project is not a part of a specific plan.
ATTACHMENT 2
LOCATION MAP
CITY OF TEMFCULA
THE MEADOWS J "'
SP 211 .' ' I :
·
,,
·
;,-
.:::..; ,.; .~.: -. ~....-
"/
,:'
,~.':: ,
VA
.//
HAWI,
t17
ATTACHMENT 3
COPY OF MAP
SHEET 2 OF ? SHEETS
IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RiVERSiDE, STATE OF CALXFORNZA
TRACT NO. 25267- 2
BEING A SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF PARCELS 3 AND 4 AND LETTERED LOTS BANO C OF PARCEL HAP
NO, 16993 AS RECOI~(D IN BOOK 3,34 PAGES 3,3 THROUGH j,8 OF PARCEL HAPS AS RECORDED IN THE
OFFZCE OF THE COUNTY RECOfiDER, RXYERS~)E COUNTY, CALZF01~IZA; ALSO LOCATED ZN THE LZ?TLE
J'EHECULA RANCII0
CROSBY. HEAD. BENTON & ASSOCZATES APRZL. 3.989
PARCEL
P.M. NO. 18993
P.M, L14/13-18
TRACT A:c~ ,
23'~ "': - '
/~ ~
IENSINEER'S NOTES
lie NIT NQ. I
P M NO 5756
PM 34/34-35
FOUNO I
PtR P-M.
,NO, ZEbSJ-Z
44~ ~ o 400 . Ioo
GRAPHIC SCALE: f':400'
M.R, 212
TAIJLATED MTA TAa: w ~ ' ./:,) PARCEL 4
""- P.M. NO. 24332
DISTN4C, E jP.M. ,L58/~- 103
Tl (NIIe36'43'N Zl9.40')
T2 4NIleSI'S0°N l$?.lr) ul ~
TI '
TS (N OoIO'I$'M Sil.t2*) N
T$ 'QIIIoSI'49*II Z41.44') g 'ErI.~'I~I4° P~R
TI 4NTOoO0'Z$'ll :l!.$t*~ ( j ! :!t. S6' F;. IMllS-18
TI
T, ~S:|.t:~°;:~ m.,' r,,,.,,.,.,
]'SO.nO*)NIOoS3*SIeM)
TI0 'Qd3'01't&'M
/.4i.I/'*~.
,,, ,,,.,,.,,., '|',';;'.' ~,,:o,:,;:~!.~i:I'. '
*""""""!
y:s ~,..|,'.', r~|:'~:', ~,'~",'-',, ~-:,,: .
Tl& ,NI/oSi'I$'M tNI?oSt*M*M
TIT ~,~iIP4?S'0??eIM 4qll:l$4:~ 4J~::']: I4D r~t, At,& TRACT NO,
*" 'i.; """"'" t I .o.-2
,,,i,,!-i|,",'i°:;"'0""""
tl0 ~ ~ N4Ie Jl' 40*i
~,~::]4::$J:ld Z01ZlS'l. NI4*l/'SSell) NI4oll'Zl't~) · . 220/30-30
TII 5.13' Nl'le!*l'O:uE 3:5.13'
;ti o | """" """" {r 02 :~ '| o; ||;,,
,...', m,x-.'.o'x . : : :: .
'" "°""""""'
T,", .~.':f|:|f:i
T:, ~x:.:u*"""
T,)Q ~lltl· 34* 43 elf
4N:leH,'45'le
131
4tJ.lt')
T3S
,, ~o°:~:~:| .-.-',
TRACT t~. 23'267-1
TRACT NO. ~083-~
M.B, 222/~ - H
FO. 4"zG' FE~E ~T
NITN ill S TAG
RM.~. le~a ·
ATTACHMENT ~.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DATED APRIL 1, 1991
STAFF REPORT - PLANNINC
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
April 1, 1991
Case No.: Revised Vestin9 Tentative Tract Map No, 23267
Prepared By: Richard Ayala
Recommendation: Forward the following recommendations to the
City Council:
RECOMMEND adoption of the addendure to
EIR No. 281 for Revised Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 23267; and
APPLICATION INFORMATION
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Revised Vestin9 Tentative
Tract Map No. 23267.
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
I=ROPOSAL:
LOCAT ION:
PresleyofSan Diego
Crosby Mead Benton ~ Associates
Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 is a
proposal to subdivide 189.0 acres of land jr. to 601
residential lots with approximately 57.8 acres of
open space. This project is being processed
concurrently with Change of Zone No. 5.
SURROUNDING ZONING: North: R-A-5
South: A-1-10
East: SP
South side of Highway 79 between Pala Road and
Margarita Road.
EXISTING ZONING:
R-R ( Rural Residential )
( ResidentialAgricultural,
5 Acre Minimum)
( Light Agricultural, 10
Acre Minimum)
(Specific Plan 217, Red
Hawk )
West: R-R I Rural Residential )
A: \VTM23267 1
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND:
R-3 IGeneral Residential) lq.68 acre~
R-I~ JPlanned Residential) i~ o~, ~= 4
R-5 IOpen Area Combining Zone.
Residential Developments) 57.8 acres
Vacant/Graded Land
North:
South:
East:
West:
Low Density Single Family
Tract Under Construction
Vacant
Single Family
Total Lots: 601
Total Acres: 189
Min. Lot Size: ~,500 sq.ft.
Density: 3.19 DUIAC
On March 18. 1991. the Planning Commission
continued this item in order to allow Staff the
opportunity to provide additional information
regarding open space maintenance.
The subject property was originally a portion of the
Old Vail Ranch. It is located along the south side of
Highway 79 between Pala and Margarita Roads. The
original application, Change of Zone No. 5150 was a
request to change the zoning on 221.2 acres of land
from R-R (Rural Residential). and R-5 (Open Area
Combining Zone). This zone change was approved
by the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors on
October 20. 1988. However. due to an oversight by
the County. the zone change was never given a
s.cond reading and. therefore. was never officially
adopted. The applicant submitted a new
application, Change of Zone No. 5, to the City of
Temecula Planning Department on September 2~,
1990.
Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 was
submitted to the City of Temecula on December 21.
1990.
On January 17, 1991, this project was reviewed by
the Preliminary Development Review Committee
(Pre-DRC) in order to informally evaluate the
project and address any concerns, as well as
suggesting possible modifications. The comments
by the Pre-DRC included the following:
:'-~ ~ A: \VTM23267 2
Open Space Maintenance
Traffic Impacts
Access/ Circulation
Subsequent to the Pre-DRC meeting, Staff met with
the applicant to discuss possible design
modifications in order to address the Pre-DRC's
concerns.
On March 7. 1991, Revised Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 23267 was reviewed at a Formal
Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting;
and, it was determined that Revised Vesting
Tentative Tract No. 23267 met the DRC's concerns.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This tract includes 189 acres of land with proposed
R-~ and R-5 zoning. This subdivision contains 601
single family lots with 57.8 acres of open space.
The minimum lot size is ~,500 square feet. The open
space acreage contains 33.9 acres consisting of the
Temecula Creek Flood Channel, which may have as
joint use as a park in the future, two (2)
neighborhood parks totaling 10. 2 acres. and an 11.8
acre preserve for native vegetation and the original
adobe ranch house.
ANALYSIS:
Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267
situated along Highway 79 and will incorporate a 20
foot buffer between Highway 79 and the subject
tract. The subject site along Highway 79 consists
of approximately 1~8 single family lots with a
minimum lot size of 11,500 square feet. The applicant
is also proposing a one acre neighborhood park ( Lot
605) for this section of the project. This area is
proposed to be zoned R-~ and R-5.
The entire tract is bisected by the Tamacula Creek
( Lot 60q ) which consists of approximately 33.9 acres
and is zoned R-S. Subsequently, the possibility
exists for the creek to be used by future residents
as a regional park, but the joint use as a flood
control system and park must be discussed and
developed by and between the City and the
Riverside County Flood Control District.
A: \VTM23267 3 '~
A: \VTM23267
The area south of the Temecula Creek is else zoned
R-~ and R-5 and consists of ~53 single family lots
well over/4,500 square feet. This portion of the
project is also incorporating a 10.7 acre regional
park and a 1.1 acre lot for the old historic adobe
house (Lot 603 and 609). In addition, the applicant
is also providing a 9.1 acre neighborhood park [ Lot
602) and may incorporate the existing secondary
treated water reservoir for the adjacent sod farm
into the park design. The secondary treated water
is to be upgraded to tertiary treated in the near
future.
The revised map was submitted in order to change
the grade of the development and to change the cul-
de-sacs designed off of 'S" Street in order to create
a more efficient design. The revised map is not
proposing any major circulation or lot changes.
Instead, the revised map will aid to eliminate the
need for a Home Owners Association (HOA).
Currently the applicant is working with the CSD in
order to determine the maintenance of the proposed
open space lots and down slopes at property lines.
Open Space
The Temecula Community Service District has been
in direct c~ntact with the applicant in regards to the
proposed open space maintenance issue, and has
determined that the following dedicated lots are
acceptable for City maintenance by means of an
irrevocable easement deed:
Lot No. 606
Lot No. 607
Lot No. 608
Lot No. 610
Lot No. 611
Lot No. 612
As for the well sites (Lots 185 and 57/4), the
Community Service District recommends that these
well sites be dedicated to the serving water district
by means of a grant deed.
Traffic Impacts
The Transportation Engineering Staff has reviewe
and accepted the findings and mitigation measures
as specified in the traffic impact analysis prepared
for revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267
and has determined that the proposed project will
have an impact to the existing road system.
However, given the proposed mitigation measures.
there will be no adverse unmitigable significant
traffic impacts resulting from the development of
this proposed project.
Access and Circulation
The portion of the project that abuts Highway 79
will have vehicular access via 'A' Street (a 100'
street) which in term has access to Highway 79.
Additional access to the northern portion of the
project will be provided by "B" Street (an 82~ street
with a 15~ bike lane) which runs parallel to the
Temecula Creek. Internal, 66~ and 60' wide streets
will provide access through this portion of the
project.
Access to the portion of the project south of ~he
Ternecula Creek will be provided by Loma Lynda
Road (a 66' street) which has access to Pala Road
110~ street). In addition, Via Cordoba la 66' street
will provide access to the southeast portion of the
project which will integrate with the existing Red
Hawk Development. Internal 66' and 60~ wide
streets will provide access through this portion of
the project.
Both the Engineering and Traffic Engineering Staff,
as well as the Planning Department Staff, have
datermined that the applicant,s proposed access and
circulation are acceptable.
Gradinq
The majority of the area south of Temecula Creek
has been mess graded with some major
infrastructure already being completed within the
proposed street sections. The 10.7 acre open space
is mostly sloping hillside and very little grading will
occur within this area. The area north of Temecula
Creek is rather flat and will require minimal grading
for the project development.
A: \VTM23267 ' 5
GENERAL PLAN/SWAP
CONSISTENCY AND
COMPATIBILITY:
A: \VTM23267 '
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 has an
acreage density of 3.2 units per acre. However,
SWAP designates the entire flood control channel as
recreational open space and therefore, this area is
not included in the 2 to 5 unit per acre area. The
portion of the map north of the flood channel
maintains an average density of I&. 8 units per gross
acre. The area south of the channel maintains an
average density of I&.0 dwelling units per gross
acre. These densities conform to SWAP. This
project does conform to the surrounding land uses
in the area. The two approved specific plans to the
east and south contain similar residential densities
and minimum lot sizes as the subject property.
These projects were approved under the plan
previous to SWAP which allowed a slightly higher
density. In addition, they contain over '6,000
housing units with similar characteristics to the
proposed subject property. These plans have
average densities between S and 6 DUIAC. The
applicant is proposing to have an average density of
only ~ units/acre. The properties to the west _are
currently designated for commercial in SWAP, along
with the land along the south side of Highway 79
between the subject site and Margarita Road. Staff
feels that by breaking the cc,,,,,crcial strip along
the highway with residential, the commercial will be
concentrated at the corner of Margarita and
Highway 79 where it is more desirable. Another
specific plan, Murdy Ranch, is directly west of the
subject site and it contains similar residential
densities. The properties to the north are
designated commercial in SWAP along Highway 79
and existing low density rural residential beyond
(Santiago Estates). Staff feels that there will be no
significant impact from the higher density
residential along the south side of Highway 79 due
to the physical break of the roadway and the
commercial barrier along the north side of Highway
79. To provide a barrier to noise for the proposed
development along the highway, Staff will require a
significant landscaped buffer of 20 feet minimum.
Therefore, Staff feels that the proposed
development is logical and is consistent with the
type of residential development that is found in the
area.
6
ENVIRONMENTAL
DETERMINATION:
In conclusion, the proposed Revised Vestinc~
Tentative Tract Map No. 232f;7 will like,> b~
consistent with the future adopted General Plan f~"
the City of Temecula. This proposal is a logical
extension of residential development in the area and
with the implementation of traffic mitigation
measures for the development, there will be no
significant impact on the surrounding area.
Environmental Impact Report No. 281 was completed
on the subject property for Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 23267. The report indicated a number of
mitigation measures that must be implemented in
order to reduce the impact of the project below a
level of significance. These mitigation measures
included a new I&-Iane bridge on Pale Road over
Temecula Creek, the channelization of Temecula
Creek, and several other significant measures that
have not currently been implemented. Therefore,
Planning Staff recommends that an addendure to
Environmental Impact Report No. 281 be adopted.
A copy of which is attached.
FINDINGS:
The proposed density is consistent with the
Southwest Area Plan land use designatiop-,
The proposed density of 3.19 units per
is within the range of the SWAP designation
of 2-5 units per acre.
. The proposed revised vesting tentative tract
map is compatible with surrounding zoning,
existing land uses in the vicinity, and
approved projects. The proposed R-~ and R-
3 portions of the project adjacent to Highway
79 consist of higher densities and abuts
future office commercial SWAP designation
land uses. The lots situated south of the
Temacula Creek are substantially larger than
~,S00 square feet and abut specific plan areas
such as Red Hawk, Vail Ranch and Murdy
Ranch, which in term are similar in density
and design.
A: \VTM23267 7 '-
A: \VTM23267
e
The lot design and internal street t;,vol,t ~-F
acceptabl~ to the City F'~:,r,i~,~ ,.' ._
Engineering Departments. All lots conform to
the standards of their respective zones, and
proposed street alignments are adequate to
accommodate projected traffic volumes.
Adequate public street access will be
provided to every lot. The legal owner of
record has offered to make all required
dedications.
Staff finds that site access will be adequate.
Assessment District 159 will provide for
street improvements on Pala Road and
Highway 79, and four 1~4) access points to the
site are shown on the map.
There is a reasonable probability that the
project will be consistent with the City's
General Plan once adopted, in that the
proposed density is consistent with the
Southwest Area Plan land use designation,
and the revised map is compatible with
surrounding zoning, existing land uses in the
vicinity, and approved subdivisions.
It is unlikely that the proposed revised
tentative map will constitute a substantial
detriment to the future General Plan if the
proposed subdivision is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan. Surrounding
zoning, existing land uses, and approved
~ubdivisions are all residential.
The project will not have a significant
adverse affect on the environment. The
County of Riverside Board of Supervisors
certified EIR No. 281 in conjunction with the
approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos.
23267, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23299
and Change of Zone No. 5150. Revised
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 will
not result in any new or substantially
increased environmental impacts.
The proposed project makes adequate
provision for future passive or natural solar
heating opportunities in that all proposed
parcels have adequate southern exposure.
8
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
10.
11.
12.
13.
The project meets the requirement.~ of
Ordinance 3/48 and/460 in that all lots conform
to the minimum size and dimansi, "'
requirements of the zoning code and abu~
upon dedicated street.
The proposed project includes adequate
dedication for public parks in that it provides
for 10.2 acres of public parks and 10.7 acre
preserve for native vegetation.
The lawful conditions stated in the project's
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
These findings are supported by minutes,
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with these applications and her·in
incorporated by reference,
Based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the
Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions
of Approval, the Planning Department Staff
recommends that the Planning Commission:
RECOMMEND adoption of the addendum to EI~a-I
No. 281 for Revised Vesting Tentative Tra~
Map No. 23267; and
ADOPT Resolution No. 91- recommending
approval of Revised Vesting'~entative Tract
Map No. 23267.
RA:ks
Attachments:
Resolution f Revjsed VTM No. 23267)
Conditions of Approval
IRevised VTM No. 23267)
Addendure to EIR No. 281
Exhibits
A. Revised Vestin Tentative Tract
Map No. 23267 ?Site Plan)
A: \VTM23267 9 ---
ATT,~.C'H:~r N1 I
RESOLUTION :,tO. 91-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANF~!NL; COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECO~,:~IENDING APPROVAL OF
REVISED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23267
TO SUBDIVIDE A 189 ACRE :'.,~RCEL INTO 601 SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 5 OPEN SPACE LOTS
LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79
BETWEEN PALA AND MARCAR ITA ROADS AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 926-016-002, 003, 012, 017,
AND 025.
WHEREAS, Presley of San Diego filed Revised Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 23267 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 Revised Vesting
Tentative Tract Map on April 1, 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 Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findin{Is. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby
makes the following fin~ngs:
A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newlV
incorporated' city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months
following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city
is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the
requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the
general plan, if all of the following requirements are met:
~1 ) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of the general plan.
| 2 ) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and
taking other actions, including the issuance of buildin~
permits, each of the following:
A: \VTM23267
10
(a)
There i.~ a reasonable probahilltv that th~
land use or action proposed will be 'consistent
with t.l~e general plan proposal
considered or studied or which will
studied within a reasonable time.
Ib)
There is little or no probability of substantial
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan,
|c)
The proposed use or action complied with all
other applicable requirements of state law and
local ordinances,
B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the
southwest potion d Riverside County, including the area now within
the ~undaries of the City, At this tim, the City has adopted SWAP as
its General Plan guidelines while the City is pr~eeding in a timely
fashion with the preparation of its General Plan,
C. The proposed Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map and is
consistent with the SWAP and meet the requirements set forth in Section
65360 of the Government Cede, to wit:
(1) The city is proceeding In a timely fashion with
preparation of the general plan.
· 12) The Planning Commission finds, in recommending
approval of projects and taking other actions, including
(a)
There is reasonable probability that Revised
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No, 23267 will be
consistent with the general plan propos~i
being considered or studied or which will be
studied within · reasonable time,
Ib)
There is little or no probability of substantia:
detriment to or interference with the future
adopted general plan if the proposed use or
action is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan.
A: \VTM23267 11
(c)
ThP prolnns~d use or action compile.. ~,sl~ all
ott~: ;~i :F'';< nblF. requirements of stal. I .... '~r.d
local ordinances.
D. I1 ) Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordina,,, No.
q60. no subdivision may be approved unless the following findistals are
made:
a)
b)
That the proposed land division is c~,,,.l~tent
with applicable general and specific Id-ns.
That the design or improvement -I the
proposed land division is consisteelt with
applicable general and specific plan~.
c).
That the site of the proposed land division is
physically suitable for the type of
development.
d)
That the site of the proposed land division is
physically suitable for the proposed density
of the development.
e)
That the design of the proposed land division
or proposed improvements are not Ilkely to
cause substantial environmental dm~m9e- or
substantially and unavoidably injur~ fish or
wildlife or their habitat.
f)
That the design of the proposed land division
or the type of improvements are not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
g) That the design of the proposed land division
| 2 ) The Planning Commission in recommendin9 approveI
of the proposed Tentative Tract Map, makes the following findh~gs, to
wit:
\VTM23267 1 ?
property within the proposed land division.
A land division may be approvecl 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 subfaction
shall apply only to easements of rec~rd or tn
easements established by judgment of I cour
of competent jurisdiction.
or the type of improvements will not c~nflict
with easements, acquired by the Pul>lic at
large, for access through. or u~e of.
A: \VTM23267
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
The proposed density is consistent with the
Southwest Area Plan land use designatic,,.
The proposed density of :;3.19 units per
is within the range of the SWAP designatioe,
of 2-5 units per acre.
The proposed revised vesting tentative tract
map is compatible with surrounding zoning,
existing land uses in the vicinity. and
approved projects. The proposed R-q and R-
3 portions of the project adjacent to Highway
79 consist of higher densities and abuts
future office commercial SWAP designation
land uses. The lots situated south of the
Tamecull Creek are substantially larger than
q. S00 square feet and abut specific plan areas
such as Red Hawk, Vail Ranch and Murdy
Ranch, which in term are similar in density
and design.
The lot design and internal street layout are
acceptable to the City Planning and
Engineering Departments. All lots conform to
the standards of their respective zones, and
proposed street alignments are adequate to
accommodate projected traffic volumes.
Adequate public street access will b~__..
provided to every lot. The legal owner ~
record has offered to make all requirecl
dedications.
Staff finds that site access will be adequate.
Assessment District 159 will provide for
street improvements on Pall Road and
Highway 79, and four (~) access points to the
site are shown on the map.
There is a reasonable probability that the
project will be consistent with the City~s
General Plan once adopted, in that the
proposed density is consistent with the
Southwest Area Plan land use designation,
and the revised map is compatible with
surrounding zoning, existing land uses in the
vicinity, and approved subdivisions.
13
A: \VTM23267
It :_ L, nJik,ly that the proposed revised
tentative map will constitute a substantt~t
detriment to the future General Plan if the
proposed subdivision is ultimately
inconsistent with the plan. Surrounding
zoning, existing land uses, and approved
subdivisions are all residential.
h)
The project will not have a significant
adverse affect on the environment. The
County of Riverside Board of Supervisors
certified EIR No. 281 in conjunction with the
approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos.
23267, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23299
and Change of Zone No. 5150. Revised
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 will
not result in any new or substantially
increased environmental impacts.
i)
The proposed project makes adequate
provision for future passive or natural solar
heating opportunities in that all proposed
parcels have adequate southern exposure.
j)
The project meets the requirements _of
Ordinance 3~&8 and 1180 in that all lots conform
to the minimum size and dimension
requirements of the zoning code and abut
upon dedicated street.
k)
I)
The proposed project includes adequate
dedication for public perks in that it provides
for 10.2 acres of public parks and 10.7 acre
preserve for native vegetation.
The lawful conditions stated in the project's
Conditions of Approval are deemed necessary
to protect the public health, safety, and
welfare.
m)
These findings are supported by minutes.
maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with these appilcations and herein
incorporated by reference.
E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Revised
Vesting Tentative Tract Map is compatible with the health, safety and
welfare of the community.
SECT ION 2.~. Environmental__C.ompliance.
The County of Riverside Board of Supervisors certified EIR No. 281 in
conjunction with the approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267. Revised
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No'. 23267 will not result in any new or substantially
increased environmental impacts. An addendue to EIR No. 281 is hereby
recommended for adoption.
SECTION 3_~. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves
Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267 for the subdivision of a 189 act-
parcel into 601 single family residential lots and 5 open space lots touted along the
south side of Highway 79 between Pals and Margarits Roads and known as Assessor's
Parcel No. 926-016-002, 003, 012, 017 and 025 subject to the following conditions:
A. Attachment I I I, attached hereto-
SECTION ~._=
PASSED. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of April, 1991.
DENNIS CHINIAEFF
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted b'/
the Plannin Commission of the City of Temecula at · regular meeting thereof, he~d
on the 1st ~ley of April, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANN I NG COMMISSIONERS
A: \VTM23267'
15
ATTACHMENT 5
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
ATTACHMENT I I
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267
Project Description: Revision to VTM 23267 to allow
for 2 additional lots and 7 open space lots to be
maintained by TCSD
Assessor's Parcel No.: 926-160-2, 3, 12 and 17 and
a portion of 926-160-011
Plannincl Department
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision
Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance ~60, Schedule A, unless
modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in
accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request,
if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordat·on of the final
map.
Legal access as required by Ordinance ~60 shall be provided from the
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
division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall
submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer.
Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space are~
improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department
approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular
to all lots in each phase. and shall substantially conform to the intent
purpose of the subdivision approval.
A maintenance district shall be established for maintenance of Lots Open
Space, the .developer/applicant shall pay for all costs relating to establishment
of the district·
A: \VTM23267 16
Delete Riverside County Condition No. 18(d}.
Prior to the recordation of the final map, Change of Zone No. 5 shall be
approved by the City Council and shall be effective. Lots created by this land
div~slon styall be in coniormance with the development standards ot the zone
ultimately applied to the property.
10. ~ P 'or to recordation of the final map, the project site shall be annexed into the
rl
Temecula Community Service Distict I TCSD ).
11.
12.
13.
15.
16.
A copy of the final grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department
for review and approval. All on-site cut and fill slopes shall:
Be limited to a maximum slope ratio of 2 to I 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.
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 camply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined
in the County Fire Departmantle letter dated January 29, 1991, a copy of
which is attached.
All proposed construction shall comply with the California Institute of
Technology, Palmar Observatory Outdoor Lighting Policy, as outlined in the
Southwest Area Plan.
The applicant shall comply with the recemmendations outlined in the Eastern
Municipal Water District transmittel dated March 8, 1991, a copy of which is
attached.
Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
a. Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the
development standards of the R-~ I Planned Residential ) zone.
be
Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained in a wed-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.
A:\VTM23267
17
17.
The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of ell slopes,
landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those ope~
are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director.
18.
19.
20.
Prior to recordatlon of the final mRD, an Environmental Constraints Sheet
IECS) 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, Palmar Observatory outdoor lighting
policy.
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
Prior to the issuance of grading permits detailed common open space
area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning
Department approval for the phase of development in process. The
plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide _for
the following:
Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all
landscaped areas requiring irrigation.
Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be
opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity.
All utility service ~reas and enclosures shall be screened from
view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle
treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall
be placed underground.
;i' d. Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or"
transition into the primary use area of the site, LandscaP~
elements shall include earth barruing, ground cover, shrubs ano
specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees
: e. s shall be submitted for the project perimeter and along
' Highway 79 and Lime Street. Wooden fencing shall not be allowed
~ on the perimeter of the project. All lots with slopes leading dowr,
from the lot shall be provided with gates in the wall for
maintenance access.
A :\VTM23267 18
..r
.~,
Landscaping plans s~,-~t' ;;~rnrporate the use of specimen accenl
trees at key visual focal ~>,,;,,ts within the project.
Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of
interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road
right-of-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-of-
way.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant
plants where appropriate.
All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow
growing trees shall be steel staked.
If the project is to be phased. prior to the approval of grading
permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to
the Planning Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a
guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual
phases of development and shall include the following:
Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and
sedimentat,on during and after the grading process·
Approximate time frames for grading and identification of
areas which may be graded during the higher probab_ility
rain months of January through March.
3. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations·
Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase.
All cut slopes located adjacent to ungraded natural terrain and
exceeding ten |10) feet in vertical height shall be contour-
graded incorporating the following grading techniques:
The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjust,
to the angle of the natural terrain·
Angular forms shall be discouraged· The graded forn
shall reflect the natural rounded terrain.
The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded with curve~
with radii designed in proportion to the total height of
slopes where drainage and stability permit such rounding.
Where cut or fill slopes exceed 300 feet in horizont.~'
length, the horizontal contours of the slope shall he
curved in a continuous, undulating fashion.
A :\VTMZ3267
19
21.
22.
Prior to the issuance of .cJlrariing permits. the developer shall
provide evidence to the Director of Building and Safer). ti,a: all
adjacent off-site manufactured slopes have recorded
easements and that slope maintenance responsibilities have bee/.
assigned as approved by the Director of Building and Safety.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be
retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed
grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the
paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a
pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading
contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or
representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt
grading activity to allow recovery of fossils.
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential
lot/unit within the project boundary until the developarts 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 Buildihg
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 reduc/'~t
ambient interior noise levels to q5 Ldn.
All building plans for all new structures shall incorporate, all required
elements from the subdivision~s approved fire protection plan as
approved by the County Fire Marshal.
dt
Prior to the issuance of building permits, composite landscaping and
irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department approval.
The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring
landscaping and irrigation to be installed including, but not limited to,
parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front
yard landscaping.
All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed
and constructed with fire retardant ( Class A ) roofs as approved by the
Fire Marshal,
fe
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within thr.
subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy savin9
devices shall be permitted with Planning Department approval.
A: \VTM23267
20
23°
26.
g. All street side yard setbad:s shall br a minimum of ten I10} fr r~
All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic
irrigation.
Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with
approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal
conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion
control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director
and the Director of Building and Safety.
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with
approved plans and shall be verified by City field inspection.
Not withstanding the preceding conditions, wherever an acoustical
study is required for noise attenuation purposes, the heights of all
required walls shall be determined by the acoustical study where
applicable.
Prior to the issuance of 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.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall submit to the
Planning Director an agreement with the Community Services District which
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the land divider has satisfied
Quimby Act requirements in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance No.
!160. The agreement shall be approved by the City Council prior to the
recordation of the final map.
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 Revised
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23267, which action is brought within th~
time period provided for in California Government Code Section 661199.37. TI ~,
City of Temecula will' promptly notify the subdlvider 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.
A: \VTM23267 21
27.
The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required
property interests. and if he or she should fail to do so. the developer sl,a~
at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval. enter
an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code
5action 66~62 at such time as the City acquires the property interests
required for the improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payment by
the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property
interests required in connection with the subdivision· Security of a portion
of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an
appraisal report obtained by the developer, at the developer's cost. The
appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the
appraisal.
28.
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.
29.
All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions/Reciprocal Access Easements:
30.
The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions I CC&Rts) shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department prior to final approval of the tr~-t
maps. The CCF, Rts shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining
the open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, all buildingl-~
in common open areas, and all interior slopes.
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 ell 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 tn
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 requireu
by the City as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidenc~
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 tc
the City for public purposes.
Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such
dwelling unit or lot, either 11 ) 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.
A: \VTM23267 22 ~'
33.
Maintenance for all landscaped and opPn-areas. including parkways, shall
provided for in the (,C~,F~'s.
Within forty-eight'(q8) 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.q(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 1~ Cal. Code of
Regulations 1509~. If within such forty-eight (1~8) 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 .~lc).
Enqineerinq Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency, All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to-be
resubmitted for further consideration,
35.
The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act,
. and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered
Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California
Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No, q60,
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
37.
As deemed necessary by the City Engineer or his representative, the
developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District:
Eastern Municipal Water District:
Riverside County Flood Control district:
City of Temecula Fire Bureau:
Planning Department:
Engineering Department:
RiverSside County Health Department:
CATV ~-ranchise:
US Army Corps of Engineers:
US Fish and Wildlife; and
California State Department of Fish and Game.
A: \VTM23267
23
38.
39.
Street "T" shall be improved with ~ feet of asphalt concret, p;~vernent r
bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the dedicated righ~-
of-way in accordance with County Standard No. 103, Section A
Street 'DD' and "FF" shall be improved with I~ feet of asphalt concrete
pavement, or bonds for the street improvements may be posted, within the
dedicated right-of-way in accordance with Count Standard N . , '
A (t~'/60') with 3 foot wide utility easements. Y o 103 Secbon
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
The subdivider shall construct or post security end an agreement shall be
executed guaranteeing the construction of the following public improvements
in conformance with applicable City standards.
a. Street improvements, including, but not limited to: pavement. curb
and gutter, medians, sidewalks, drive approaches, street
lights,
signing, striping, traffic signal systems, and other traffic control
devices as appropriate.
b. Storm drain facilities.
c. Landscaping.
d. Sewer and domestic water systems.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the develops; shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum as established, per lot; as mitigation
towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time
of payment of traffic stgnBI
mitigation fee, he my enter into a written
agreement with the City deferring said payment to the time of issuance of a
building permit.
The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan t-
the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Buildin~j
Code, Chapter 70, and as my be additionally provided for in these Conditions
The subdivider shall submit four copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
A: \VTM23267
A drainage study shall be subrnit,,~ '-, -'~d approved by the City Fn,clineer.
All drainage facilities shall be in.-.f-~1,.,~ :.5 required by tht City F. nginet~.
Portions of the site are in an area identified on the Flood Hazard Maps as Flood
Zone A subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of
any plans, this project shall comply with the rules and regulations of FEMA for
development within .a Flood Zone "A" which may include obtaining'a I~tter o"~F"
map revision from FEMA for the affected areas.
Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City~s CAT~ Franchises of
the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV'~.~dards at time
of street improvements.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Engineering Department prior to
commencement of any grading outside of the City-maintained road right-of-
way.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing
Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The
charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits.
If the full Araa Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to
this property, no new charge needs to be paid.
50.
A permit shall be required from CalTrans for any work within the following
right-of-way:
State Hiclhway 79
51. A permit from the County Flood Control District is required for work within
its right-of-way.
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT:
52.
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for
review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Ci,;':
Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Finax
Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
53.
Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb an,I
gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees ant4
street lights on all interior public streets.
A: \VTM23267 25
5q.
Developer shall pay any r. apital fep f-0. , -,-! !mprovements and public facilities
imposed upon the property o-' pro,j, .-'~. i,,cluding that for iraflit a,,cl i...,I.~i,
facility mitigation as required under the FIR/Negative Declaration for the
project, in the amount in effect at ti~ t;me of payment of the fee. If an interr'~
or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally
established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for
the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement
for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to
Developer. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the
payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees ) and specifically waives its right to protest
such increase.
Transportation Enclineerincl Department
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
55.
56.
57.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and approved by the City Engineer for Loma Linda Road, 'DD' Street, and
"S' Street, and shall be included in the street improvement plans.
t
A signing plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved
by the City Engineer for all internal streets with q0 feet or less of curb
separation and can\be shown on the street Improvement plans.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a r~gistered Civil Engineer
and approved by the City Engineer and CalTrans for State Route 79 South,
"A" Street, and 'B' Street, and shall be included in the street improvement
plans, Condition 132 of the County Road letter dated October 7, 1988 shall t,~
deleted.
58.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering
and CalTrans for the design requirements.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY. ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
59.
A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil
Engineer and approvecl by the City Engineer for any street closure and detou:
or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the City Engineer.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
60.
All on-site signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing,
and striping plans,
A: \VTM23267 · 26
61.
in the event that the reqbired improy. '~., 'nt', on-Stwt~~79~ut~-and~Q'a~
R~wcl for the Pale Road reati~,_:_~ -~ ,d ~hs bridcle over '[emef. ula (_ r ~L; are
not completed by-Ass&ls..ent~)istrict.-t59 prior to the issuance of certificate
of occupancy. the developer shall be required to enter into a reimbursement
agreement with the City of Temecula for the construction of the necessary
improvements bestq~i-on-the. The developer's percent of contribution toward
the facilities within the reimbursement aclreement shall be as per the approved
Traffic Study. Construction of necessary improvements shall be based upon
the following dwelling unit occupancy levels (Amended per Planning
Commission March 18, 1991 ):
A. For unit one hundred and one (101) or more:
A 750 foot minimum right turn lane with an adequate transition
for east bound travel on State Route 79 South for Pale Road shall
be designed and constructed to CelTtans specifications and
requirements and shall be approved by CelTtans and the City
Engineer.
Multi-Way stop controls shall be designed and installed, when
warranted and approved by CelTtans. at the north bound and
south bound on and off ramps of Interstate-15 and State Route 79
South.
For unit two hundred and forty (2110) or more:
1.
A minimum q50 foot north bound left turn lane with transition and
a minimum 125 foot north bound right turn lane with transition on
Pale Road at State Route 79 South shall be designed and
constructed to CelTtans and City requirements and
specifications. and shall be approved by CelTtans and the City
Engineer.
imp,x/v&,,,e, ,t fmf withi~-AE~ 459~.
C. For unit five hundred and eleven 1511 ) or more:
The signal at the intersection of State Route 79 South and Pale
Road shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer. The
signal shall be installed and operational. as warranted. per the
special provisions and the approved traffic signal plan as
approved by CelTtans and the City Engineer.
A: \VTM23267
27
lhe signal at the intersection of State Routt 7~ 5uutt, and
Interstate 15 north bound and south bound on and off ranv"~
shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer. The sign,.
shall be installed and operational, as warranted. per the special
provisions and the approved traffic signal plan as approved by
CelTtans and the City Engineer.
The signal at the Intersection of Rainbow Canyon Road and Pals
Road shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer. The
signal shall be installed and operational. as warranted. per the
special provisions and the approved traffic signal plan as
- approved by the City Engineer. BestcF~rrthe-addenduwrlf:ter
dated--F ebrtrsr~- - q~ - -14J9 ~ - ~ronr - eJ R~xJrke - 'Engineering; - ~hi s
.devd opmef~ - -shs H - - t~m, ribtrte- - ~ - 4sword - - thes · - - fredway
.np, ov~.,,~,,t costs. (Amended per Planning Commission March
18. 1991. )
Full road improvements, including all required signing and
striping, on State Route 79 South from Interstate lS to Pals Road
shall be in place in accordance with CelTtans requirements as
approved by CelTtans and the City Engineer.
Full road improvements, including all required signing and
striping, on State Route 79 South from Pals Road to Margarita
Road shall be in place in accordance with CelTtans requirements
as approved by CalTrens and the City Engineer.
Realignment of Pals Road with State Route 79 South ~
conjunction with h
t · construction of a multi-lane bridge across
the Temecula Creek.
The Pals Road Bridge over the Temecula Creek shall be
designed, constructed and operational as approved by the City
Engineer. Tt~trdtvckq~,,ent-shttl--em~tribJee-Gtr-towsrd-~l,,
eanstrtfetiqm'l. -eeskt -of.- ~ kw-idgr.- ..based -taperr -the "adde~
let~ fl,,r.,... ~'Ratrke'Engi..u.. i.,,a.:'d'eecl"Du..e,,,E,r.~ 6:-1.99e~.
Design and construction of dual left turn capabilities at the south
bound Interstate 15 off ramp at State Route 79 South in
accordance with CalTrans requirements and specifications and as
approved by CalTrans,
The signal at the intersection of Loma Linda and Pala Road shall
be installed and operational, as warranted, per the special
provisions and the approved traffic signal plan as approved by
the City Engineer·
A: \VTM23267 28
10.
The signal at the ipt.~,*¢Prtinn nf State Route 79 South and "A"
Street shall be desjoined by a registered Civil I-ngineer.
signal shall be installed ;nd operational, as warranted, per the
special provisions and the approved traffic signal plan as
approvecl by CalTrans and the City Engineer.
11.
Design and construction of a dual right turn lane for east bound
travel on State Route 79 South at Pala Road and a dual left turn
lane for north bound travel on Pala Road at State Route 79 South
in accordance with CalTrans and City requirements and
specifications as approved by CalTrans and the City Engineer.
Department of Buildinq and Safety
62.
Submit approved Tentative Tract Map to the Department of Building and
Safety for addressing and street name review.
63.
School fees shall be paid to Temecula Unified School District Prior to permit
issuance.
6q. Lighting on site poo! area and recreetion area shall comply with Mount Palomar
Lighting Ordinance: tl655.
..
~ 65. Submit pool plans to Riverside County Health Department for review prior to
, structural plan review by the Department of Building and Safety.
I~ I 66. Pool excavation area shall be fenced immediately the same day as excavation
is complete. All plumbing trenches shall be fenced.
· ' 1~7. Obtain clearances from land Use and from Building and Safety Departments.
68. Provide a geological report at time of submittal for plan review.
A: \VTM23267 29
RIX'FRKII~i ' ' ' "I ~'
FIRE I~l.!'.x!{ i Xli .~. I
AND FIRF Fc~ rEC'IC',
(~1 I..~; 1%l xv%l.~x
FIRE CHIE!
r
pLANNING & ENGINEERING
46-209 OASIS STREET. SL'iTE 405
INDIO. CA 92Z01
(619))42-8886
RIVERSIDE. CA 9zsQi
(714) 787.6606
DATE:
TO:
ATTN:
RE:
January 29, 1991
City of Temecula
Planning Department
Tract No, 23267
With respect co the conditions of approval for the above referenced land
division, the Fire Department recommends the following fire protection
measures be provided in accordance vith Riverside County Ordinances and/or
recognized fire protection standards:
FIRE PROTECTION
Schedule A fire protection approved standard fire hydrants, (6"xA"x2½')
located one at each street intersection and spaced no more than 330 feet
· apart tn any direction, vtth us portion of any lot frontale more than 165
feet from a hydrant. Hinimum fire flov shall be 1000 GPH for 2 hours
duration at 20 PSI.
Applicant/developer shall furnish ~ne copy of the racer system plans
to the Fire Department for revtev, Plans shall be signed by a registered
civil engineer, containing a Fire Department approval signature block,
and shall conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire
flov. Once plans are signed by the local vater company, the originals
shall be presented to the Fire Department for signature.
The required racer system, including fire hydrants, shall be installed
and accepted by the appropriate vater agency prior to any combustible
building material being placed on an individual lot.
Prior to the recordsglen of the final map, the applicant/developer shall
provide alternate or secondary access as approvtd by the City of Tametunis-
Engineering Department.
NITIGATION
Prior to the recordsteen of the final map, the developer shall deposit vith
the City of Temecula, a cash sun of $&O0.O0 per lot/unit as mitigation for
fire protection impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of
payment, he/she may enter into a vritCen agreement rich the City deferreal._.
said payment to the time of issuance of the first building permit,
RE: TR 23267 Page 2
All questions regarding the meaning ei conditions shall be refezz~ L,
the Planning and Engineering staff.
RAYHOND H. REGIS
Chi f F$ D Pr~~
Laura Cabral~ FSre Safety Specialist
I
March 8, 1991
~,.,,d './f)f,, .e ·
Re~IKrr |~ ~e
~,*m C AidhUge
.),ehn M CouJure,
CedeI A Tea,at
Juaneta L Machek
Richard Ayala
City of Temecula
P1 anntrig Department
43180 Business Park Ortve
Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92390
SubJect: Tentate ve Parcel llp IIo. 23267
Dear Mr. Ayala:
As requested, we have reviewed the subject project and offer the following
conmerits:
Santtary Sewer
The subject project ts tributary to the Dtstrtct's Rancho California Regto-~l
t
Mater Reclamation Facility, vta a sewer' system to be cons ructed by Assessn. ~
Otstrtct No. IS9. .The developer ts expected to submtt a proposed conceptual
plan of santtary siwer servtce to the Otstrtct's Customer Service and Planning
Oepartments for review and approval. This plan shall provide for a system
of gravity-flow sewerlines located within road right-of-way according to EM!~O
.standards.
It must be understood that the available capactty of the Dtstrlct's sewer syste.~.
are continually changing due to development wJthtn the 01strict.' As such,
servtce wtll be provided based on the ttmtng of the subject project, the service
agreement with the Otstrtct, end the status of the Otstrtct's permit ~o operate.
Shodld you have any questions regarding these cmmnents, please contact Rut;.
Newsham or me at (714) 766-1850.
SIncerely,
f,~H. A1 Spencer ' '
co: John Frtcker, EHW/O
Presley of San Diego, 150%0 Avenue of Science, Ste. 200, San Diego, CA 9~-~
91-240
7/M
ATTACHMENT I I
ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NO. 281
The Riverside County Board of Supervisors certified Environmental impact Report
measures to reduce environmental impacts to levels of insignificance-
Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 which supersedes Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
23299 has 87 fewer residential units than Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23299 and
therefore, will generate less traffic and result in reduced impacts to the environment
and to public services and utilities. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 will
involve minimal grading and therefore, is unlikely that any additional amount of
earth movement will result in any increased significant impacts. The Conditions of
Approval are adequate to mitigate any potential impacts regarding drainage and non-
renewable fossil resources to levels of insignificance.
pursuant to Section 1516~ of the California Environmental Quality Act, this addendure
has been prepared to demonstrate that the changes resulting from the proposed
Change of Zone and New Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Revised Tentative Tract
Map will not result in new or substantially increased significant impacts. that there
have been no changes in the circumstances surrounding the project that would
require important revisions to the EIR 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
~mpacts. By reducing the number of residential units, the new project will reduce
the level of impacts on the environment and on public facilities and services.
A: \5. CZ
~ FRdM: THE PLANNING DEPARTHENT SUBMITTALDATE: October 2,0, 1988 ,t.~~~;:.
SUIMECT'w~'-''CHANGE OF ZONE 5150, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT N0, 23299, ~
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO, 23267 - THOTEN ANERXCA CORP, - First,6uperviso 1
District - Rancho California Area - 221 Acres ,596 Lots,232 Condominium Units -
RECOMIqENDEDMOTION: Schedule A - CHANGE OF ZONE from R-R to R-3, R-4 and R-5
The Planning Comnissfon and Staff Recc~mnend:
CERTIFICATZON of Environmental Impact Report No. 281 based on the
finding that the Environmental impact Report ts an accurate, objective
and complete document which complies with the California Environmental
Quality Act and the Riverside County Rules to implement CEQA; and
APPROVAL of CHANGE OF ZOfiE NO. 5150 from R-R to R-3, R-4 and R-5
in accordance w~th Exhibit 2, based upon the findings and con-
clustons Incorporated in the Planning Commission minutes dated
OCTOBER 19, 1988; and
APPROVAL of V[ST/NG TENTAT/VE TRACT. NO. 23267, N4ENDED NO. 2 subject
to the attached conditions, based on the findings and conclusions
Incorporated in the Planning Commission minutes dated OCTOBER 19 1988;
and '
APPROVAL of YEST/'NG TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23299 subject to the attached
conditioes, based on the findings and conclusions incorporated in the
Planning Comnission minutes dated OCTOBER 19, 1988.
Ro er treeCe nning Director
· . Tel, , ;';:-' "! ."-' ~.'. Depls, Comments
Diet. AGENDA .':.:
~.' ~:ontng Area: Rancho ~811fornta C]!ARGE OF ZOnE NO. SISO
First. Supervlsort81 District VESTING TENTATIVE TItACT NO. 23267
E. ! .R:* leo. 281 VF_~IRG 'ITJITATZVE TRACT NO. 23299
* Regtonal Team No. I Planning Commission: 10-19-88
' , Agenda Item No, 1-6
STAFF REPORT
1. Applicant: ThotemAmertcan Corporation
o~ Engtneer/Rep.: RanPac Engineering R d
Z TTpe of Request: Change of zone from R-R to R-3, -4 an
R-5, 232 untt condomtntum project and a
m schedule "A" subdivision.
]~ ~ Location: South of HIghway 79, West of Hargartta
· Road.'
~ ~! Extstlng Zontng: R-R
Surrounding Zont g: R-R, A-1-10, R-A-2~, R- -
Extsttng Land Use: Generally vacant, a cou~l~ of residences
'...-:-.-. .... and structures, horse and cattle
o ';" ....:~';:"' grazing,
Scattered stng·
horse ranch, 8 turf farm and vacant
': land,
g. 'Comprehenstve.Geheral Plan :
Designation: Land Use: Category [ - Z!
Density: 2-20 d~elltng units per acre
]0. Land Dtvtston Data:
]1. Agency Recm,,endattons:
12. Letters:
13. gphere of Influence:
Total Acreage: 221.2
VTR 23267 VTR 23299
Total Lots: 601Sgle Fam. 232 Units
DU Per Acre: 3.01 du/ac 16.02 du/ac
Proposed Htn. Lot Size: 4500 sq.
See Letters dated:
VTR 23267 VTR 23299 CZ 5150
Road 10-07-88 10-11-88. 3-ZZ-8~
Health: 09-12-88 8-29-88 no coenent
Flood: 10-18-88 10-18-88 4-18-88 (Addt*r; .**
Ftre: 09-09-88 8-24-88 no comment P.e
Opposing/Supporting: None rocetved 1.~ ~''
Not wtthtn a Ctty Sphere
HINTSIS:
ProJect Description
Change of Zone No. 5150 ts a request to change the zontng on 221.2 acres of
land ¶n the Rancho CalifOrnia area from R-R to R-3, R-4 and R-5. Vesttng
Tentative Tract No. 23299 seeks to establish a 232 unit condomtntum project on
~4.3 acres of the overall stte, Vesttng Tentative Tract 23267 seeks to
OPJ~E OF ~ 110. 5150
V~TXm lZ)rrAT]lZ TRACT BO. ~13267
VESTING .l'E/rrATIlII~ 1PACT NO. 23299
St~ff Report.
Page 2
subdivide the remaining acreage tnto 601 stngle family residential lots with a
minimum stze of 4500 square feet, t~o ~ell site lots. and 4 open . space lots
totaltng 57.9- acres. Two of the open space lots are ~etghborhood arks
totaling 10.2 acres. One open space lot includes Temecula Creek and wtl~ be
made into a regional park totaling 35.9 acres. ,The remaining open space lot of
11.8 acres will preserve ~n existing adobe house and some ~attve vegetative
areas ·
The project stte ts located south of Highway 79 and west of 14argartta Road.
Thts site used to be a part of the Old Vat1 Ranch. Currently the site ts used
for horse and cattle graztng, and contatns a couple of stngle family residences
Surrounding land uses include vacant land to
and turf farm are located to the west along Pala Road. The turf ram is
currently under Agricultural Preserve contract (Temecula No. 2). However, this
Agricultural Preserve Contract had a notice of non-renewal filed on it on
September 20, 1979, so the Agriculture Preserve Contract is due to expire on
january'l, 1989. ,.
Zoning found in the surrounding area currently includes R-R to the north, east,
south and west,. A-1-10 to the east and south, and R-A-2~ and R-A-5 to the
north..
General Plan Coeststency/CeapattbllttY
The project site is located wi'thtn the Southwest Territory Land Use Planning
Area, Just to the south of the Rancho Caltfornta/lemecula subarea. Policies
within the Rancho Caltfornta/Temecula subarea call for Care ory I and II land
Uses within the 1-15 corridor, transittoning to Category ~II land uses on the
eastern end. These policies can be extrapolated down to apply to the proposed
proJect's location.
Category I and II land uses now exist to the south of Highray 79 and west of
Pala Road Road. This trend towards urban development has been established tn
the area south of Highway 79 and Is continuing to be extended through the
approval of several spectftc plan; tn the area. Twe specific plans adjoin the
project site to the east. The Redha~ 5pectfic Plan (S.P. 217) was a proved by
the Board of Supervisors on October 6, 1988. Tht$ spectftc pTan cal~s for a
mixed use development ~th residential densities rangtrig from; to 14 dwelltrig
untts er acre. Thts s ciftc 1an alTows up to 4,188 dwelltrig units. The
Vat1 ~nch S~edftc ~an (S.~- 223) adJotns the project on the northeast and
vas also a proved by the Board of Supervisors on October 6 Z988. This
spectftc p~an has approved 2,43T dwelltrig un.tts wtth a denstry r~nge of 2 to 20
being processed on it (S.P. 228, Iirphy Ranch) but is g ·
(31RXGE OF ZORE R0. 5150
VESTING TENTATIVE 11tACT R0. 23267
VESTING TE!ITAT/YE 11UtCT II0. 23Z99
Staff Report ,
Page 3
Category ] and Z] levels of servtces and facilities are currently at the stte
or wtll be extended to the stte through the Rancho vtllage Assessment District,
of which thts project wtl1 participate. Vesttng Tentathe Tract 23267 has an
overall denstry of 3.01 dWelltng untts per acre and so falls wtthtn Category I!
densities, Vesttng Tentative Tract 23299 has a proposed denstry of 16.02
dwelling units per acre and so ts vtthtn Category ! densities. The proposed
tracts are considered compatible with existing area development and with
projects approved tn the area. The pro osals are therefore found to be
c~nststent ~th the Comprehens ve General *'~lan.
T~e proposed zone chang~ application proposes zoning which ts consistent with
tke land uses proposed under the two Vesting Tentative Tracts. The zone change
request ts therefore considered consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan.
Deslqn Considerations
The proposed tentative tracts have been designed tn accordance with their
respective residential development standards, and all other pertinent standards
of Ordinances 348 and 460. The applicant ts requesting the waiver of lot
lenclth to ~rldth ratio requirements on a number of lot~ within Vesting Tentative
leng=
Trac~ No. Z3267. This request ts necessary due to design and or physical
constraints associated wtth the stte. Staff feels thts requested waiver ts
acceptable.
Due to the tract's vesting status, a'ddtttonal materials were submitted for
review tn accordance with Ordinance 460. All submitted materials were found to
be adequate. These plans ~111 be Implemented through the conditions of
approval.
Architectural elevations and materials were submitted tn conjunction wit,
Yesring Tract 23299. These tt~11s were reviewed and approved and will be
i'mplemented through the conditions of approval.
As (s the applicant's option, a design manual addressing archttecturs.
landscaping, Irrigation and fencing was submitted ~th Vesting Tract 23267.
These development guidelines will be implemented through an Ordinance No. 348.
Section 18.30 plan plan which ~tll need to be submitted and approved by the
Planning Department prior to the tssuance of any bulldtng permits.
I~ANGE OF Zi)[ NO. SXSO
VESTZNG TEXTATIVE .11ACT NO. 23267
VESTZ~ TENTATZVE llACT NO. 232~9
Staff lieport
Page 4
E:nv~ ,(x,~,,tal Rev~ev
in accordance vtth the procedures of the Callforn4a Env4ronmental Qualtty Act
(CEQA), Environmental impact Report No. '281 was prepared tn connection with the
proposed project. All significant effects of the project on the environment
and measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen such ~ffects have been
evaluated tn accordance wtth the Riverside County Rules to Implement CEQA. The
following Ftndtn and Statements of Overriding Consideration are based upon
that EnvtronmentalrsZmPact Report.
Avoided Zmpacts and Impacts m(t~gated to ~n ]ns~qntf(cant level
Seismic Safety
a. Potential Impact: The site could be subjected to setsmtc event hazards
such as groundshaking, ground rupture, and liquefaction. The Wtldomar
fault ts located on-site along the western most edge. This fault
could have a highest magnitude of 7.0 on the Richter scale during a
seismic eve t, A moderate to high liquefaction potential exists near
n
Temecula Creek.
i'
--~,b. Required Mitigation: A ftfty (50) foot setback area will be placed on
to'act site shall be tn accordance vith the latest (1985) Uniform
~ut~dtng Code and County Grading Ordinance and shall be destgned to
withstand earthshaking from the maxtmum credible earthquake that can
be expected. LIquefaction hazard can be mitigated by over-excavation
and replacement of recompacted fill.
c. Ftndtng: All potential setsmtc tmpacts can be mitigated to a 1eve1 of
insignificance.
Slopes and Erosions
a. Potential Impact: Erosfort hazard and slope tnstabtlltyvrl11 tncrease
during gradtrig. S1ltation of the reservoir and drainages may occur.
b. Htttgatton: All grading activities v¶11 be tn conformance w~th a13
County grading standards. All coun:y erosion control practices shall
be adhered to including slope planting and sandbagging A destltatton
bastn will be provided in the open space area to reduce stltation of
the creek during times of peak run-o f.
Ftndtn: Potential tmpacts can be mitigated to a level of
c. tnsignlftcance.
CHARGE OF Z!IE !10. 5150'
VESTIRG TEXTATIVE TRACT I0. 23267
VESTING I*~XTATZVE TRACT* NO, 23299
Staff Report
Page S
Floodlnq
a. Potential Impacts: Increased runoff potent4a3 through construction of
Impervious surfaces, potential trapacts to downstream · properties
through the concentration and diversion o~ stom flows. Potential
trapacts to areas of :development within the 10 year floodplain.
b. Mitigation: Temecula Creek will be tmproved through the Rancho
Villages Assessment Otstrtct o~ which this project ts a part.
Improvements to Temecula Creek tnclude'a 400 foot wide, soft bottomed
channel with concrete sides. All areas wtthtn the 100 year floodplain
will be removed from said floodplain through Improvement of Temecula
and box culvert will convey stom flows
Creek. A dra(nage channel
under State HIghway 79. In addition, all reclutroments found in the
County Flood Control Dtstrtct shall be adhered to.
c. Findtag: All potential flooding Impacts can be mitigated to a level of
~nsigntftcance-
Nots~ /'
a. Potential Impacts: Noise from Ht hway 79 wtll Impact the stte, ~th
noise roJected tO be 74.8 dBtA) at a dtstance of 100 feet frem the
centerlgne of Htghway 79. The entire area of residential development
north of Temecula could experience noise levels tn excess of 65 dB(^).
b. Mitigation: Landscaping and block walls w111 be used tn areas adjacent
to roadwe s. A six foot high or higher decorative block wall and
earthen ~m will be required along HIghway 79, adjacent to t e
project stte. Interior noise levels can be reduced to under 45 dB(~)
through use of double glazed windows, mechanical ventilation and
mandatory air conditioning units. In addition TItle 24 standards w~11
be complied ~th.
Ftndtn: The potential noise tmpact can be mitigated to a level of
c. Insignificance.
Water Qualtty
a. Potential Impacts: A potential stltatton of natural drainages and
Temecula Creek my occur during ratny periods. Pollutants from street
runoff could enter 'waterways. Introduction of Impervious surfaces
could slow any recharge of groundwater In the area.
41
(flANGE OF-ZONE I0. 5150
VESTZNG TEXTATTVE TRACT m3. 23267
YESTIE TERTATTVE TRACT nO. 23299
Staff Report
.Page 6
b. Ktttgatton: Compliance wtth County Grading standards, Including the
use of sand baggtng and destltatton basins durtng rainy ~eather wtll
be utilized. 1he project ts retaining manY dratna · areas and slopes
to act as natural filtering system for street.runo~f..
c. Ftndtng: Potential lmpacts can be edtIgated to a level of
Insignificance. '
Veqetatton/1fildllfe -. "'.' ·
a. Potential Impacts: Sensitive species occurring on site include
Blackshoulder ktte, Coopers Hawk, Northern Hottier, and Nevtn's
Barberry. In addition, the San Diego Horned LIzard has a high
probability of occurring on stte. Potential tmpacts to these
sensitive spectes my occur With develoinent of this project. The
rtpartan area wJthtn Temecula Creek wtll be disturbed upon Improvement
of the Temecula Creek Channel, with the loss of four (4) acres of
unconsoltdated rtpartan scrub.
b. MItigation: The ripaHan area Will be disturbed through the
Improvement of the Temecula Creek Channe~ by the Rancho Vtllages
Rssessment District. Approximately 24.5 acres of rtpartan habttat'
wtll be removed along the length of the Creek. The biological
enhancement program associated with the creek improvement Will
establish 70 acres of revttaltzed habitat, which will off-set any
lnlttal loss of rtpaHan hab¶tat. The subject property ts part of the
Rancho VIllages Assessment 0tstrtct and Ntll participate tn the
program.
The rtpartan area near the existing reservoir will be retained tn an
open space lot. The pro3ect has designated approximately S8 acres of
open space, Nhtch Ntll help mtttgate Impacts to the existing sensitive
btrd spectes and whtch wtll preserve most of the Inland sage scrub
plant community found on site. Of the two extsttng specimens of
Nevtn's Barberry found on site, one Nil1 be preserved wtthtn the open
space area. A professional horticulturist wtll also take cuttings of
the Nevtn's Barberry found adjacent to the existing residence and
replant these tn the Open Space area near the other Nevtn's Barberry-
Hargtn areas of designated open space wtll be planted wtth nattve and
drought tolerant vegetation, Including large trees to provide perching
opportunities for raptors. After channelIzatton of the Temecula
Creek, this area vt11 be retatned as Open Space, with suttable habttat
for the San DIego HJrned 11zard thereby existing.
OULNGE OF ZOE I10, 5150
VESTING _TENTATIVE TRACT NO, 23267
VESTING TEXTATZVE TitACT NO, 23299
Staff Report
Page 7
c. FIndings: Potential tmpacts to sensitive
mitigated to a level of Insignificance.
Enerqy Resources
biological spectes can be
Potential Impacts: Short tem energy use ~'11 occur durtng
construction with the use of fuels by construction equtpmenL.
Long-tem energy use v!11 occur through home heattrig and 11ghttng and
automobfie fuel use. Energy consumption after butldout wt11 be the
following:
1. Gasoltne- 522 vehicle gallons per day.
2. Natural Gas - 30,392 cubtc feet per day.
3. Electricity - 13,811 ktlovatt - hours per day.
Ntttgation: A Class ! bicycle trail w111 be provtded adjacent to the
proposed channel. Tttle 24 energy conservation practices wtll be
Incorporated tnto the destgn and development of the houses.
Find(rigs: Potential energy impacts vr111 be 'mitigated to a level if
Insignificance. ,'
$centc Hfqhways
a. Potential Impacts: Htghway 79 ts an eltgtble scenic hJghway.
Development.of the proposed project could tmpact the scenic quality of
the area.
b. Htttgatton: LandsCaped entry nodes v111 be provtded throughout the
ro ect and a landscaped buffer strip wtll be butlt adjacent to
~jg~way 79. LandsCape plans w111 be revtewed by the Planntng
Deparbnent to ensure:adequacy.
c. Findings: The potentfal tmpacts to the eltgtble scentc htghway are
mitigated to a levellot Insignificance.
Archaeoloqtcal Resources
Potential Impacts: A stte of prehistoric Indtan Habitation ts found on
the north stde of Tenecula Creek on the first stream terrace. The
ex~stlng htstortc two story adobe "wtnter residence" of Halter Vat1 ts
also located on stte. Disturbance of these sttes could impact these
resources.
b. Prtor to any disturbance on stte, a qualified Archaeologist shall
revtew the registered Indian stte and collect any data as necessary.
CHARGE OF 2]DRE I10. 5150
VF~TIIIG TEIITATXVE TRACT N0. 23267
VESTIll; TENTAT/VE TItACT II0. 23299
Staff Report
Page 8
C4m
Data collection methods shall tnclude test bortngs and excavations as
found necessary by the archaeologist and as approved by the Planntng
Department. The extsttn9 adobe house on stte wtll be preserved on so
no trapacts wtll occur.
Ftndtn s: Al1 archaeological trapacts can be avoided or mitigated to an
tnstgn~lflcant level.
Paleontoloay
a. Potential Impact: ProJect site Js located near Pauba formation land
which Is known to produce significant paleontologtcal resources.
Potential ~mpacts my occur during grading and trenching.
b. Mitigation Neasures: A qualified paleontologist shall be consulted
prtor to any gradtng and shall monttor the gradtng activity.
'SIgnificant ftnds Shall be 1dentilted, ltemIzed and conclusions
presented by the qualified paleontologist.
c. FIndings: Any Paleontologtcal tepacts can be avoided or mitigated to a
level of Insignificance. .,
CtrcuTatJon
ae
Potential Impacts: the proposed project combtned wtll generate 7,392.
trip ends per day.
MItigation: All tnternal street systems wtll be put tn place by the
developer of thts project. KaJor circulation roads tn the area wtll
be tmproved by the Rancho Vtllages Assessment DIstrict, by whtch thts
project wtll participate. Roads to be tmproved Include HIghway 79 to
a 142 foot R.O.M. stx lane road, lIargartta Road south of Highway 79 to
a 134/100 foot R.O.W. arterial, and Pale Road south of Htghway 79 to a
110 foot R.O.M. arterial. A btke land ts also betng provtded adjacent
to Tenecula Creek.
c. Traffic tmpacts can be mitigated to a level of Insignificance,
Water and Sewer
a, Potential Impacts: The proposed project vtll ha~e an estimated datly
water consumption of 547,800 gallons per day, wtth the creatton of
273,900 gallons of wastewater.
b. Mitigation: Pancho California Mater Dtstrtct and Eastern Hunictpal
.Hater Dtstrlct have expressed a posttive ab111ty to serve the proposed
Cl~RGE OF ZORE 10. 5150
¥ESTXIG TERTATIVE TieACT RO. 23267
VEST]RE TERTATIVE TRACT I0. 23299
Surf Report
Page 9 ·
c. Ftndtng: /rapacts
significant.
Fire.
project. Ptpeltne fadllttes will be Installed through the Rancho
Villages Assessment District by which this project will parttdpate.
Hater conserving methods will'be included tn the development of the
roJect In accordance wtth Title 24. in addition, drought tolerant
~andscapIng and automatic Irrigation systems will be provided tn the
project. '
to water and sewer servtce~ are not considered
Potential/mpact: Development of thts project vtll incrementally
lncrease demand for ftre services.
Htttgatton: The project shall comply with all applicable fire
prevention and emergency response provisions contained tn RIverside
County Ordinances. In addition, the developer wtll pay $400.00 per
untt to go toward fire protection impacts,
Findtng: Impacts to fire services can be m!ttgated to a level of
insignificance. '
Shertff ~ervtce
a. Potential |mpacts: Development of this project will add an estimated
1743 people to the area, vhtch will have an Incremental impact on the
need for police services.
b. Htttgatlon: Crime prevention methods wt11 be destgned into the
development of this project. Nanpower increases are at the discretion
of the Board Of Supervisors. however, thts project pay county wtde
mitigation fee ,f which a portton can go toward adding additional
poltce protect~ion-
c. FInding: Po'tenttal Impacts to pollce servtces can be mitigated to d
level of tnstgntftcance.
School s
Potential Impacts: Development of thts project wtl1 generate an
estimated total of 450 new students.
Httigatton: The project developer will be requtred to pay schoul
edtIgatton fees In accordance with State Law.
CHNIGE OF ~ I10. 5150
VESTING TEXTATIVE IIACT nO. 2)267
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 2)299
Staff Report
Page 10
c. Ftndtng: Impacts to schools can be mitigated to a level of
1fistgrit ftcance.
Parks and Recreation
a. Potential Impacts: The state Qutmby Act requires 3 acres of park stte
~e.~ one thousand people. I)evelopment of thts pro;iect ~ould requtre
acres of park st te. :--
b. Hlttgatton: The proposed project ~111 provide'two parks totalling 10.2
acres of land. An approximately 1.0 acre Dark stte is located in the
northern port¶on of the project site and a 9.2 acre park stte ts
located tn the southern ttp. In addttton, a 35.9 ac~e regtonal park
ts betng proposed by the Rancho Villages Assessment Dtstrtct for the
Temecula Creek area. This regtonal park Ntll tnclude· equestrian
tratls and bike paths. Another 11.8 acres of Open Space area whtch
tncludes the "old adobe structure" ts proposed..
c. Findtng: Provision of the two park sttes totalling 10.2 acres and wtth
the proposed regtonal parks, tepacts to park and recreation services
are mtttgated to a level of tnstgntftcance. '
Utilities
a. Potential impacts: incremental tncrease in demand for uttltty
services. Tempora~ creatton of dust and notse from constructton of
uttltty 1tries.
b. ~!tigation: The developer w111 be ~equtred to extend all. utilities as
necessar/. Dust shall be controlled during construction activity
h use of ~ater~ng trucks. Vegetation losses wtll be
through t ·
replaced v(th appropriate plantSrigs tn areas damaged by trenchtng-
Sandbagging shall be used to prevent runoff.
FindIn st Impacts to utt1¶ttes can be mitigated to a level of
c. Insignificance.
Solld Maste
a. Potential tmpacts: Thts p~oject vtll create 19,626 pounds o~ solld
vaste per day. Adequate capactty ts currently available to handle
this need.
b. MItigation: No E!~tgatton required.
OIARGE OF ZOIIE RO. 5150
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT RO. 23267
IESTIRG TENTAtiVE TRACT I0. 23299
Staff Report
Page 11
c. Findtrig: There
factltttes.
wt11 be no significant trapact to solid waste
LIbraries
a. Potential
Incremental
b, Htttgatton: The
mitigation fee,
Impacts: Developnent of this pro;jec~ w111 have an
trapact on ltbrar~ services.
developer wt11,. be requtred to pay $1oo.oo per untt
c. Findtrig: Library
insignificance-
tmpacts can be mitigated to a level of
Health Services
a. Potential Trapacts: Development of thts pro:~ect wtll have an
Incremental 1acreUse tn demand for health servtce, Current and
planned facilities tn the area .appear capable of meeting bny
additional demand, .*
b. MItigation: No mitigation recNtred
c. Ftndtng: There ts no significant tmpact to health services,
Atrports
a. Potential Impacts: Htntmal tmpact to area atrports ts anttctpated-
b, Mitigation: No ett4gatton required,
c. Ftndlng: There ts no significant trapact to area airports.
Dtsaster preparedness
a. Potent4al Impacts: H~ntmal tmpacts
Preparedness ts anticipated,
b. HIt~gatton: No mitigation required,
are no stgntflcant
c. FInding:' There
Preparedness-
to the ~ounty's Otsaster
trapacts
toward Otsaster
I
°e 11
GLANCE OF ZONE I10. 5150
VESTING TENTATZVE IRACT I10. 23267
VESTZE TENTATIVE 1RACT 10, 23Z99
Staff lieport
Page 12
Ftscal Impacts
a. Potential Zmpacts: The fiscal study found krlthtn the E/R states'that
the enttre project wtll have a net postttve tmpact to the County of
approximately $56,008 annually. ,
b. MItigation: No mitigation proposed. ~'
c. Ftndtng: No significant Itseel negattve'flscaT Impact wtll occur.
II. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines require
the consideration of alternatives to the proposed project. Three alternatives
were considered yithtn thts EXR. These are the "No ProJect Alternative", the
'Decreased Scope Alternative", and the 'increased Scope Alternative."
no Project Alternative
a. Analysts: The No ProJect Alternative '*would a11o~ the land to remain In
.on-intensive uses such as the existin horse and,* cattle ranch and the
existing limited residential uses of ~ge property owner and workers. GIve,"
this.scenario. none of the tmpacts of the proposed project would occur.
The No Project Alternative ts considered the environmentally supertot
a]ternattve due' to the least environmental tmpacts. Impacts associated
vJth seismic safety, gradtng, notse, air quallty, water quallty, loss of
Agricultural land, vegetation and wildlife, energy resources, public
services and utilities, and traffic M3uld not occur or would be
substantially less.
b. Reasons for ReJection of No ProJect Alternative: Thts alternative would
negate the benefits associated with development of the 600 detached
dwelitng units and Z30 condomtntum untts. These untts are proposed to
reflect anticipated mrket needs and publlc demand by proVIding detached
dwelltrig untts that wtll be mrtetable wtthtn the ragton. Long-term use of
the stte ts not considered economically feasible and ts not mandated by the
General Plan. In 11ght of the approved urban land uses tn the heal-
vicinity, continued Intensive agricultural uses could lead to
tncompattb|11ty of land uses.
CHARGE OF Z(HIE I). 5150
VESTING TBfTATgVE TRACT IO. 23267
VEStiNG TEITATZYE TIACT I10. 23299
Staff Relxlrt
Page 13
Decreased Scope A1 ternathe
ae
Analysis: This alternative w111 assume the ropetry ts developed out in
accordance with the extsting R-R zone (Rura~ ). With
Residential the
property developed at one dwelling unit per ~ acre., this alternative
addresses development of 550dwelling units.
Development of thts stte under the Decreased Scope Alternative would have
t ac~ on seismic safety, Air Quallty, Hater Qualtty, Energy Resources,
Pum~11c Servtces and Utilities that would be less than the
, and Traffic
proposed project. Potential impacts upon Slopes and Eroston, Flooding,
Notse, Agricultural Resources, Vegetation and Wildlife, Archaeological
Resources, and Paleontologtcal Resources would be about the same.
Zncreased tmpact to Water Qualtty mtght be expected due to use of septtc
systems.
b. Reasons for Reject(on of the'Decreased Scope Alternative: Although the
Decreased Scope Alternative contatns incrementally reduced impacts tn
certain above mentioned areas, ttts not considered to be s gntftcantly
· environmentally superior" to the current development proposal. The
elimination of the Smaller lot product inhibits the provision of homes
· ~thtn a more affordable range. The costs of roadway Improvements as well
as costs associated w~th water, sewer and flood control facilities are not
proportionately decreased under this alternative, maktng the* project
economically difficult. For these reasons, the Reduced Scope Alternative
was rejected.
increased Scope Alternative
a. Analys~s: The Increased Scope Alternative would assume building out the
pro'ect site with mlti-famtly dwelling units at a denstry of 12-14
dwelling untts per acre. With this sort of density, more than 3,000
dwell'lag untts could be butlt.
The Tncreased Scope Alternative would have greater Impacts upon Seismic
Safety, Slopes and Eroston, Floodtn ,Notse, AIr quality, Water Qualtty,
Energy Resources, Land Use, PubY|c Servtces and Utilities, and Traffic.
/mpacts on Agricultural Resources, Vegetation and Wildlife, Archaeological
Resources, and Paleontologtcal Resources would be about the same.
impacts are .icapated with the $ncreas traffic, noise, air qual~:
seismic safety, and public servtces and facilities. Land use contrl
between such an intense project and surrounding approved land uses could be
significant. Because all impacts under this alternative are either equal
to, or greater than, the proposed project, this alternative ts
C!!ANGE OF/ORE NO. 5150
VESTING TENTAtiVE 11t/leT llO. 23267
VESTING TERTATIVE 1RRL'T llO. 23299
Staff Report
Page 14
environmentally lnfertor than the proposed project. For these reasons,
thts alternative yes rejected.
ReJected Conditions of Approval
The'conditions of approval or the proJect's design tnclude "all reconRended
mitigation measures set forth In Environmental impact Report No. 281, except
that measure vhtch requtres a regtonal application and ts beyond the scope of
the Individual developer. Thts measure ts the requirement of park and ride
facilities tn the area to mtttgate energy trapacts.
1V. Stqntftcant Unavoidable Adverse impacts and Project Benefits
ProJect Benefits:
Development of the project as proposed will provtde the following benefits to
the region:
1) I,~roved Traffic Circulation: Traffic c~rculatton wtll be ~mproved ~n the
project area by the project's Inclusion within the Rancho Villages
Assessment DtstHct. Improvements include widening of Rancho California
Improving
Road to a 142 foot R.O.W., mek~n9 tt a s~x lane expressway.
Hargartta Road to a 134 foot arterial, and Improvement of Pala Road to 110
foot R.O.W.
2) improved Flood Control: Pa.rttctpatton of thts project site tn the Rencho
Vtllages Assessment Dtstrtct wtll go towards Improvement of Temecula Creek
tnto a 400 foot wride, soft bottomed, concrete stded channel. ·
acre Open Space/Regional Park. Participation of this project tn the Rancho
Villages Assesmat Dtstrtct also w~11 see the Temecula Creek Channel area
developed tnto a 35.9 acre open space area and regtonal park, w4th
equestrian tra~ls and bicycle paths Included. HhSle the neighborhood park
sttes are betng developed primarily for the residents of the project, the
amount of park acreage far exceeds that amount whtch would be required under
the Qulmby Act, and, along wtth the regtonal parks, can be uttllzed by
residents already tn the tomunity.
SIgnificant Unavo¶dable Adverse Impacts:
Environmental Impact Report No. 281 1denttried the following significant
unavoidable adverse impacts.
CHARGE OF ZDliE NO, 5150
.YEST3NG TERrAT~VE TRACT RO, 23267
YESTIE TBITATZVE TRACT RO. 23299
Staff Report
Page 15
Atr Qualtty:
a. Potential Tmpacts: Veh4cle exhaust entss~on and dust durtng construction
vtll contribute to atr quallty reductions tn the area on a short-term
basts. The long-tem tmpacts wtll be Increased motor veh4cle emissions by
more people betng dram tnto the area and from Increased power plant
emtss¶ons due to the demand for electricity and natural~. gas.
b. Requlred Htttqatton: Mater trucks vtll be. used to reduce dust. On-stte
parks rill create on-stte trtp destinations.. A Class T btke tratl ts
lncluded tn the Regtonal Park. TItle 24 'standards vtll be adhered to
duHng construction... Transtt facilities such as benches, shelters, and
turnouts vtll be destgned tnto develolxaent.of the parks to facilitate any
· future mass transtt systee.
c. Unavo?dable Adverse Impact: A temporary degradation of atr qualtty wtll
result In the project vtctnlty durtng construction act]vtty wtth an overall
signtf?cant Incremental regtonal degradation due to project Implementation.
d. Overr?d]nq F?ndtng: The publlc benefits of the proposed project tn terms'of
public improvements to road and flood facflttles and by the develofxnent of
neTghborhood and regional parks out~etgh the proJect's adverse tmpact upon
a~r quaTtty.
Aqrlculture '
a. Potential Impacts: Development of the propO. sed project w~11 result tn loss
of current agricultural uses and the loss Of 27 acres of prtme agricultural
land {Class ] and ~! sotls).
b. MItigation: No mitigation measure available to mtttgate these impacts.
c. Unavoidable Adverse 1_mpact: Loss of 27 acres of prtme farm land
considered cumulatlvel~ significant.
d. OverrSdtnq Ftndlnq: AgHcultural production in thts area ts becoming, or
has become, economtcall~ tnfeasfble. Contfnued use of the land for
:ttces could lead to land use tncompat$btllttes tn 11ght of
agricultural prac
approved and extsttng projects tn the area. The project beneftts
substantially outwetgh the unavoldable adverse tmpact caused by the loss of
these prtEe solls.
CHJUIGE OF ZX)RE NO. 5150
VESTZNG TEXTATXVE TRACT NO. 23267
VESTING TERTATIYE TRACT NO. 2:3299
Staff Report
Page 16
YIRDINGS:
1. Change of Zone rio. 5150 seeks to change the zoning on 221.2 acres from R-R
to R-3, R-4 and R-5.
2. Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23299 seeks to create 232 condomtntum units on
14.3 acres of the site.
3. Vesting Tentative Tract no. 23267 seeks to create 601 single famtly lots
and 4 open space lots on the rematnder***of the stte.
4. The site is located south of Highway 79 and West of Margarlta Road.
5. The project stte ts currently used for horse and cattle grazing. A couple
of residences and assorted related structures are found on stte.
6. Surrounding Land Uses tnclude stngle ~ramtlY residences, a horse ranch, a
turf farm and vacant land.
7. Surrounding zoning includes R-R, A-I-IO,"R-A-2~ and'R-A-5.
B. The project site lies adjacent to two approved specific plans (S.P. 217 -
Redhawk and S.P. 223- Vail Ranch). These specific plans are located to
the east and south of the project site.
9. The turf faro located to the southwest currently has a specific plan being
processed on it (S.P. 228- Murphy Ranch).
10. The agricultural preserve contract on the adjoining turf faro (Temecula
No. 2), will expire on ~anuary 1, 1989.
1.1. The project site is located within the Southwest Territory Land Use
Planning Area.
12. Environmental Xmpact Report No. 281v as prepared for the proposed project.
FIndings, Httt atton Fleasurea and Statements of Overriding Consideration
are found in ~hts staff report on pages 4 through 15 and are Incorporated
hero by reference.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The proposed zone change and vesting tentative tracts are consistent
the policies of the Comprehensive General Plan.
2. The proposals are compatible with area de.velopeent and zoning.
with
dI ·
DIAlICE OF ZONE NO. 5150
YESTII TEXTATZVE TItACT llO. 23267
vEsn~ 1131TAT]VE TItACT leO. 23299
Staff Report ,
Page 17 ;
3. The pro~Ject conforms to all appl¶cable county ordinances.
4. Overriding flnd.tngs necessary to approve this pro:Ject are found vtthtn the
staff report ....
RECIIq4ENDATIOKS:
CERTIFICATION of Environmental Zmpact Report No. 281 based ~n the finding that
the Envlronmental impact Report is an accurate, objective and complete document
which com lies with the California Environmental Quality Act and the Riverside
County Ru~es to Implement CE~A; and, '
APPItOVAL of OIA!ffiE OF ZONE.NO- 5150 from R-R to R-3, R-4 and R-5 tn accordance
with Exhibit 2; and
APPROVAL of VF_%7~NGTEXTATIVETRACTIIO- 23267, J~E]I)ED NO- 2, subject to the
conditions of approval; and,
APPItOVAL of VESTING TE!fTATZVE TIIACTIO- 23299, subject to the conditions of
approval and 4n accordance with Exhtbtt A,/b~ended No. 2~ and based upon
findings and conclusions Incorporated tn this staff report.
GN:sc
10/]2/88
... j'CZ :5'ffiO/VTR
-.:=,'.:~ \
o.
HORSE
RANCH
232991VTR 23~6 / I LAND USE I1-Z--
.../,"
VAC. .> ---
...~.. -%.../""
/
/'
../
· . -%,...~'
, .... ~-. "VAC,
...... f o
..... .~.~..: :::::. :'· ·
:...~.: ./'
..- :........ ",~.
,' ...::!.~i.%;!~.:~....:?.:....., "~...
· ..': I~l.l~'=J~ "" """' ~
. ...'...: ...'~:.". .\
'~=='==.
:. '~:.
. ....".. L.
.-. t .'.'.'.' ....
· . , ·
~..
TURF FARM
AQ. PIllS.
R ES,
MAP fMI
VAC.
MR BRYAN HAYWOO(:) " · U>CA~,ON,L =AP
App.. ~VT
· ......,.,
~ SIC. T. 8 $.,R. 2W ~ll0r'l Bk. 926 PO. 16 ...
7 '1 ~:~ R~ Bk: ~.56A Dale 3117188 ~own By SS
I'- 1200' ~E~IDE COU~ ~~NIN8 DEPARTM~ .o' }cmLE
~' J CZ 51501V '|
C-P-I
-2
R-A-5
RIllR
,/
A-1-10
ee
lapp.
Use R-R TO R-4, R-.,,-I', AND R-5 ~ _
Area TEMECULA RANCHO Sup. Dist. I '- .-..
Sac, T. 8 S.,R. 2W Assessor's Bk. 926 Pg. 16 ~, '.
· Circulation (~ EXPWY VARIABLE ""-'~,
~q ' Element
Rd, Bk. Pg, 56 AI)ate 3117188 Drown By SS
; I" - 1200' RIVERS/DE COI./fVTT PLANNING DEPARTMENT N0i SGALI~'
e1-11..I - ~me.w
o~
I:1)
i'll
II"
I
m
,: II
-RiVERUDE count-u
PLAfiFliI ( DEPLXR IBE
DATE: yebruary 29, 1988
Usessot
Building and Safety
Surveyor - Dave Duda
Rod Department
Health - Ralph Luchs
Ylre Protection
Flood Control District
Fish & Game
LAYCOs S Paisley
U.S. Poeul Servdce - Ruth l, bvtdsou
Comj ss~ oner ~resson
Rancho Caltf. Idatar
Eaturn Iquntctpal bfater
5outhem Callf. Edtson
Southern Callf. Gas
General Telephone
Dept. of Transportat4on #8
Temecula Unton H4gh School
Temecula Chamber of Connerce
Rt. Palsmar
Sierra Club
Yal leyw4de Parks
County Parks
County Av4atJon
Plume revfra the case described above, along vfth the attached case map. A Laud
Division Committee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for April 28, 1988. If It
clurse It will then go to public bearlug,
Tour c~entl end recommendations are requested prtor to Apt41 l&, 1988 in order that
my luclude the In the staff report for thds psrticul~r use-
Should :you have any questions regarding this 4tern, please do use headtare to contact
Greg !Jam1 a.t 787-1363
Planner
/
C!!~GE OF ZONE 5150 - (Tm-1) - E.A. 325AA
-Thotemimerieau Carp, - Rancho Paciflc
- Rancho California Area - First
Supervisorial District - South of Highray
79 and Vest ,of Karlaries Road -bR Zone
- 207,6 acres - ~EqUES Change of Zone to
s-2, R-4 and R-5 - Concurrent cmsesrr~
23267, ~ 23299 - Hod 120 - A-P*
926-160-010 to 013; 926-160-002-00J
DATE: :SIG/kTURZ
&
T.EASE print name and title
anRn I FMON STREET. 9TM FLOOR
46-209 OASIS STREET, ROOM '~":
KENNETH I_ LrDWARD!
Illl Id&Rlrr Itllllt
II. II. BOX loll
TILIPNONI (7ldl tit-lOt
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Riverside, California
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
III~I~RIIDI, gALIIrORNIA IlIOl
Attention: Regional T~2.
Are a: ~ YF_HZ>
have revtewed this case and ~ave the fo11,o,wtng comments:
Except for nuisance nature local runoff which may traverse portions of the
' property the project ts considered free from ordinary storm flood hazard.
However, a stone of unusual magnitude could cause some damage. New construc-
tion should comply with all applicable ordinances.
The topography of the area consists of well defined ridges and natural water-
courses whtch traverse the property. There is adequate area outside or the
natural watercourses fur buildtrig s~tes. The natural watercourses should be
kept free of buildings and obstructions tn order, to eatntatn the n~tura]
drainage patterns of the area and to prevent flood,damage to new buildings,
· ,I
A note should be placed on an environmental constraint sheet stattng, *All new
buildings shall be floodprnofed by elevating the finished floors a minimum of
18 tnch*es above adjacent ground surface. Erosion projection shall be provided
for mobile home supports.'
This project is tn the
dratnage plan fees shall be paid in accordance with the applicable r~lesArea
regu3.attons.
The proposed zoning IS coaststent with existing flood hazards. Some
control facilities or floodproofing may be requtred to fully develop to th~
lmplted denstry.
The 0tstrtct's report dated ts st111 current for this project.
The District does not object to the proposed minor change.
The attached comehis apply.
Very truly yours,
KENNETH L. EDUARDS
ApriX 5, 1988
R;VER.-.'Lt-2 .':.,:: ,.j-. T','
PLA:dNING
Bored of D~mctorE
James A. Derby
St. Vke Pmskkm&
Ralph D'sly
D~I Kulberf
Joe A. budln
Jeffre/1. Miakkr
T.C. Kowe
Stma T. Mills
Phillip L.
Dictator d Fia~ -
~ssu~
N~msn ~
~omss R.
~ M~nmne~
Deb~a J. ~
Djm~ d Ad~ *
Rutau and
Riverside County Planning Department
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, California 92501-3657
Subject: Water Availability
Reference: Change of Zone 5150
Vesting Tract 23267
Gentlemen:
Please be advised that the above-referenced
property is located within the boundaries of Rancho
California Water District. Water service, therefore,
would be available upon completion of financial
arrangements between RCWD and the property owner.
Water availability would ..be contingent upon the
property ovner signing an .Xgency Agreement which
assigns water management rights, if any, to
Sites for additional water production facilities
be required within the proposed development depending
upon the level of increased demand created by the
proposal.
If RCWD can be of further service to you, please
contact this office.
Very truly yours,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Senga P. Doherty
Engineering services Representative
F011/dpmll3
RANCHO CALIFORNIA W-A. TER DISTR ;~
28061 DIAZ ROAD * POST OFFICE BOX 174 · TEMECULA~ CA 9239~0174 · ~FI4} 67HI01 · FAX rrl4), ,t;
RiVERSiDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTHENT
SUBDIVISION
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23267
DATE:
N4EXD; NO. !
EXP i RES:
STANDARD CONDITIONS
The subdivider shall defend, tndemnSf , and hold hamless the County of
RIverside, Its agents, officers, and employees from any c11t , Iceton, or
proceeding agetest th County of liverside or 1as agents, officers, or
emplo es to attack, si~ lstde, votd, or innel an approval · ththe County
of &~vverstde, 1as advtsory agencies, appeal boards or leg sleety, body
concerning Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23267, ,htch actton IS brought
about vlthln the time period provided for tn Coltfornta Government Code
Section 66499.37. The ~County of RIverside wtll promptly notify the
subdivider of any such. claim, actton, or proceeding against t e County of
RIverside and will coo 'rate full tn the defense. if the County fatls to.
promptly nottry the surfrider oYany such clltm, actton, or proceeding or
fat1, to conl~_.ratl fully te the defense, the subdivider shall not,
thereafter, be responSIble to defend, tndenmtfT, or hold hamless the E
County of RIverside.
2. The tentative sU~tvtsion shall compl vrlth the State of .California
Subdivision Pap Act and to I11 the re framenee of Ordinance 460, Schedule
A, unless mdtfted by the conditions tiered below.
3. Thts condltlonally e proved tentative map vtll exptro t,o years after the
County of Riverstde~ard of Supervisors approval date, unless extended as
protided by Ordinance 460.
4. The final mp shall be prep,rod by e 11cansad land surveyor subject to all
the requirements of the State of California Subdivision Pap Act sad
In
Oral inca 4;0.
The subdivider shell sutatt see copy of e sot1, report to the RIverside
County Surveaer*l Offl e and two copies to the Department of lutldlng and
Safety. The re rt shl~l address the sotls stab11113r and geological
conditions of T~ st~.
6. If any Fading ts proposed, the subdivider shall suMIt one print of
c_omprehenstve gradtrig pile to the Department of Buildtrig and Safety. The
plan shall compl~ utah the Untfom Buildtrig Code, Chapter 70, as amended
by Ordinance 4S7 and as mTbe additionally protided for tn these
conditions of approval. '
VEStiNg TENTmITE 11LMT no. 23H7 Aid.
Coedltlem ef Jigfinal
Page ! .
7. A gradtel permit shall be obtained from the Department of Building and
Safety pFter to ca·once·ant of any grading outside of county maintained
h
road rig t of wy.
8. My delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordslion of the
final map.
g. The subdivider shell coe;ly vrlth the street Improvement recoenendattons
outltned tn the RIverside County bad Deparment'l letfor dated 10-07-68,
a copy of ahich Is attached.
10. Logs1 access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tract
alp boundary to I County maintained road.
All road easeeats shall be offered for dedication to the publtc and shell
centtone In force until the overotng body accepts or abandons such
offers. AI1 dedications sha~l be free from III encumbrances as approved
Easements, vhon required for roadway slopes, drstnage facilities,
utilities, etc., shall be shove on the ftnal map tf they ar~ located
wtthtn the 1aM dirt·ton boundary. A11 offers of dedication and
conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as tit rooted by the County
hrfe~r.
Mater and severage disposal facilities shall be Installed tn accordance
vlth the provisions set forth tn the RIverside County Health Deportmnt*s
letter dated 9-12-88, · copy of uhlch ts attached.
The subdivider shell comply vlth the flood control roconeendatlons
outltned by the Itlversfde Count flood Control MstrJct*s letter dated
10-18-M a copy Of uh~ch ts attached. If the lied dtvtston 1tea
vlthln te adophd flood control drltnage area pursuant to Sectton 10.2S of
Ordinance ~sha~l appro rtato tee for the construction of eros drstnige
facilities bl c~lected by the Itold Commissioner. (Mended It P.C. on
iS. 1he subdfrlder she11 c ly with the fire Improvemona rocomendations
ontllned te the GNnty FeTFre
~rshaltl letter
dated 9-948, a copy of ~htch
is attached.
Sekllvlsloe phasing, Including any proposed co·on open space area
Improvement phulng, tf applicable, shill be subject to Pllnntng
IMiartaet aWroval. M proposed phasing shall provtde for ade_qvate
vehicular access to 8~1 lol3 to each phase and shall substantially
conform to the talent and purpose of the subdtvtslon approval.
Lob cram by this subdivision shall comply vfth the follovring:
VESTIGE TEXTATIVE IIACT I0. 23267 AId.
Celditiees ef
PIll 3
18.
a. AI1 lots shall have a elsieurn size of 4S00 square feet net.
b. Graded but underale ed land shall be m~ntatned tn a wed-free
condition and Shl~ be etther planted vith tntertm landsca (rig or
revtded vith other; erosion control measures as lpprovld C~ the
~lrector of lutldlng end hfoty. '
Prtor to RECORDATXOII. :of the ftnal mp the folioKing conditions shall be
satisfied:
a. Prtor to the recordSlion of the final map the applicant shell submit
withe clearances! to the RIverside CIrjnty Road and Survey Departme t
that ali pertinent requirements oetltned tn the attached approval
letters from the folioring Igenctes have been met:
County Ftre Department Countjr Ilealth De armfit
Countjr Flood afro1 Counl~ Planntng ~:partmnt
CountJr Parks ~partmnt
b. flier to the retardation of the fln~l rap, Change of Zone No. SlSO 4
shill be lpproved b' the hard of Supervisors end shill be effective.
Lots created It/~hll lind division Shill be tn conformrice ~th the
developnest standards of the zone ultimately Ipplted to the propertjr.
Prior to recordstie of the ftnll. alp, the project site shell he
annexed Into C.S.A. 143.
Prior to recordeft of the final map, the subdivider shell convljr to
the Cone fie Ilsql_~e tttle, to 811 cOnsan or canines open space a lass
free ln~y clear of 811 1tens, taxes, islesmat, loisIs recorded lad
the Coee_tJr acceptIF title to such areas, the subdivider shall subm
the follWl documents to the Plonnlng De rtmnt for revtev, vhtch--~
decusento sheaf1 be subject to the approval ofthat department and the
Office of the Count/Counsel:
X) A declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions; and
2) A s.a~p. 1 document conve trig tttle to the-purchaser of an
lndlVtdU:T 101 Or untt vht:~ proVIdes that the declaration of
covenants, conditions led restrictions tl Incorporated therein by
reference. .
lie.declaration of Covenants, conditions and restrictions satflitted
for royleaf SIll11 a) provide for I tom of 60 are, (b I~, evtda for
4be-e-crab!tel=Bent O~ .I pPeflel"l~'-e~.kl' .llano_litton e~lla4 of t~.l
lssllni TEXTROVE TUCT I. Z32S7 And. I!
Candlelees ef lllWfwal
Pap 4
o~_...., ~f Jck lndhlkal la't or usIt and C~) ~v,,fal,, I.h. fullakins
-trevhtenl vl~
cohere:
ng an)' provision tn this Oeclaratlon to
the f~11mdng provision 1
shill app 7:
The owners' association established hereIn
dormnt, l:tvated, klr Incorporation or
reqWest I aunt), of RiversIdle and the
association unconditional17 accept free
liverside, Countl*l and Utll to 111
the 'conao~ particular()' described
attached hernia. decision to reWIre
prepare oanerl' as: and the decision
assactS{Ion untohalt1 accept tttll
she, be at the sole d
1, tf
It the
owners*
of
of
blt'A'
on of the
that the
'coheres area*
:rattan of the RIverside.
the evet that the
coeve3~! to the
tiertatter she31 Ohm
COetJnuOuSlJr mtntatn such
transfer such conme area,
written consent of the
liverside or the Count)"s
oreera' asset1 ttoe shall hay;
each tndJvtdua~ lot or
of an)' such
aria, or thereof, ts
assc the association,
'cannon .', Shall manage and
and shall not sell or
thereof, absent the prtor
Of the Count)' of
garest. The propert
to assess the owners o~
reasonable cost of
have the rtght to 1tan
In the I~Jment of a
sulntenance assessment. 1line once created, shall
be Irtor to all ether lfl ' b~equent to the nottce of
assessment or other d( cWd C creating assessment lien.
This boleration sial/;d be terminated, ubstantf111)" amended
or Prow deam~t J~ ~e .fral absent tar ~rl teen consent
®f the I~anntnl o:1 ' of the Court of Rharstde or the
mintnuance ;f }~/ect4cmmi~ area'..
In the ev; in~ conflict betaan this Oecla tton and th,e
Once approyed, the declaration of covenants, conditions and
restrictions shall be recorded at the sme tim that the fine1 amp Is
recerdedo
VESTING TEKTATiVE ~ I0. 2357/bed.
Condttlens ef Approval
Page S
e. The developer shell be responsible for maintenance end upkeep of all
slopes, landscaped areas and trrt letart s~stems unit11such ttme isI
those operations are the responsibilities of other part es as appreved
by the Plaintrig Director.
f. Prtor to recorderIon of the fine1 map, an Envtromntsl Constraints
Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared tn conjunction with the ftnal map to
delineate 1denttiled envtrumntal concerns and shall be peranent1
fried with the office of the County Surveyor. A copy of the ECS shal~kr
be trsnmtttod to the Planntng Department for raytee and approval.
The approved ECS shall be lonerdad with coptea of the recorded ftna
map to the Planning Departmot and the Department of Butldtng and
.~fety.
9- The notice appearing tn Section 6.a. of Ordinance No. 625, the
RIverside County RIght-to-Faro Ordinance, shall be placed on the
Environmental Constraints Sheet, with thts. tract 1denttiled thereto,
tn tM tamer protided tn sltd Sectton 6.a., as betrig located partly
or wholly vithtn, .or withtn 300 feet of, land zoned for prinarlly
agricultural purposes by the CountJr of Rtvers
h. The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints
Sheet: 'Count), Environments1 Impact Report No. 281 Met prepared for
thts property indts on file at the RIverside County Planntng
Departmont.'
t. The [.C.S. notes feued tn the letter from the Count halattar dated
October If, 199t, a Copy of ahtch ts attached, shall ~e placed on the
Envtrormental Constraints Sheet.
Prtor to the 1saulnee ef gUDtIIG PERHITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
a. Prtor to the issuance of redlog permits detailed canon open space
re landscaping n trrTgattee plans shall be submitted for Planetrig
~pertmont approval ~or thi phase of develolamnt te process, The
lens stroll be certified by · landscape architect, and shall provtde
~or the felledng. ~
1. Perrennet autom~tc Irrigation systems shall be Installed on all
landscaped areas. requiring Irrigation.
Pariwp and 1' ndscaped tmtldtng setbacks shall be landscaped to
provide vt us1 s~reontng or a transition 1eta the prtm use area
of the s~te. Landscape elements shill tncludt ear~ bemtng,
grinrod cover, shrubs and spoctmn tree tn conjunction with
meanderin sidewalks, benches and other dlltrtln mOltill where
apprelria~e Is approved bY the Planning Cimrtment.
laSTinG TENTAtiVE IlMT I10.
Cendltlous ef Aplnmal
Pages
3. Landscaping plans shall Incorporate the use of specimen accent
trees at key visual focal points within the project.
4. i~ere street trees cannot be planted vithln rl ht-of-way of
Interior streets led project perkNays due to insufficient road
right-of-ely, the7 shall be pllntsd outstdl of the road
right-el-toUr.
S. Landscaping plans sbe11 Incorporate native ·ed drought tolerant
plants .here appropriate.
6. All existing specimen trees and significant rock outcroppings on
the subfact pro rty s ·11 be shoe on the proJect's grading plans
adshal noto~ h
n
· so to be removed, rolecited and/or retained.
7. AI1 trees shall be atetaMe double staked. ileaker end/or slov
groutal trees shall be steel staked.
oak tree removed vie four 4) 1rich or
Planning OTroctor. Iteplacemnt trees shill be noted on epproved
landscaping plans.
t,;lmentattoe of biological ,dtt aftoff ensures ·s found tn County
Environmental bnpect*Report No. 181. Important resources tncludl the
1
fievies lirberr). found on site. This p an Shall be substiled to the
Planetrig Department for raytee led approval.
DurlW rultn activities, a qu·11fied biologist shall be retstned by
the dive~eper ~ mailer the grading activities and to see that the
· d Iol 1ca1 rosere-3 protection plan ts 1spleented. Proof of
~P~lv~p~11 be sdmttted to the Department of lutldt~ end
order to beplment the biological resource protection plan.
· . Prier to Issuance of redfag rot tee in tn depth survey or the
axistin Jirchaeologfcal s~es sha~ be undertaken by · qualified
ArcinseT·list. This survey shall tnclude data collection, test
herlegs ud excavation as deemed necessar~ the conclusion of the
approval by the Plsnnfmg Department. ~t~ the Arches·l· 1st eed as
investiptlon, · report prop·red by the Archaeologist shall be
saltted to the Plannan Department and the Archaeological Research
eMIt at tie lintvarsity ef ~alifornt· of Itiverstde, for- raytee end a '
MS·TIM 1TXTATWE 11aCT gO. 2367 kmd. I!
Coedltlmm of )fprwval
page 7 ·
dateminutiae of cue;lateness. Foliovine approval of the report, the
Planning Department wtll Issue Clearance for the release of gridlag
permits.
f. If any erclmeologfcal resources' are uncovered during grading
activities or trenching, all activities shall cease a~d an
archaeologist shell! be consulted. Any recomMndmttonS of the
archaeolegt. st shall be adhered to.
g. The old adobe structure found viabin OFen Space lot 603 shall be
preserved.
h. All existing nattve specimen trees on the subject property shall be
h
preserved aberover feasible. bibere they cannot be preserved t my
shall be rulecited or replaced vlth specimen trees as approvad by the
Planning Director. lieplacement trees shall be noted on approved
I andstaping pl ins.
I. Grading plans shall cooform to Board adopted HIllside Development
Standards: MI cut and/or ftll slopes, or Individual coatnations
therug, ,bach exceed to· feet in verttcel height shall be ,edified by
an appropriate combination of I spectal terracing (bunching) plan,
Increased slope rette (t.e., 3:1 retutntng ~11s, and/or slope
planttag combined vtth Irrigation. ~ll driverays shall not exceed a
ftfteen percent grade,
J. All cut slopes located adjacent to ungreded natural terrain and
exceeding tel (10) hit in vertical height shall be contour-graded
incorporating the gelloving grading techniques:
l) The an le of the reded slope shell be gradually adjusted to the
angle :3 the Mture~ tarrata.
2) Mgvlar forms shall be discouraged. The graded foe shell reflect
the Mter·l reuaded tartar·.
3) 1he toes end tufa of dopes shell be rounded idth curves vlth
in I)9 Ion to the total bet ht of the slopes
hre cot or fill: ale s exceed 300 feet in horizontal length, the
4) horizontal contours ~rthe slope shall be oureed in · continuous,
k~lulattng fashion.
Prier to tim Issuance of grading peat:t·, the developer shall provide
evidence to the DireCtor of ktldtng and Safety that all adjacent
the Director of Iutlding and Safety.
VESTiNg TEITATTVE TRRCT IO. 23217 Red. l!
Conditions of Apprgnl
Prtor to the tssuence of gridtrig peaits, a qualified Paleontologist
sh·11 be retained by the developer for consult·lion and cement on the
proposed gridleg tdth respect to potent1·1 peleontologtc·l tapacts.
Sheald the pale·at·Toilet find the potential t8 high for impact to
stintfie·at resources, · Ire-grade meettrig betwen the Paleontologist
and the excnetfon ·rid grid1 contractor she, be ·rr·nged. then
necessirT, the peleontolog~st or re resentstire shill hive the
Prior to the tssu·nce of gUILDIN6 PEaITS the follontng conditions shill
be satisfied:
t~ buildtng petsdes abel1 be tssued by the County of RIverside for
sew residestill lot/unit viehie the project beund·~ until the
developer's successor's-In-tee·rest provtdes evtdence of corn 1fence
dth public facility ftnanct ensures. A c·sh lull Of one-~ndred
dollars (SIN) per Io unit 1~1 be deposited vith the RIverside
nty .Department o~ ktldtng and Safety el mlttgltton for public
~eb~'ir7 develop·ant.
Prior to the sub·tile1 of betldtng plans to the Department of lutldtn
and Safety ae acoustical stu4y shall be performed by an icousttca~
engineer to estobllsh spire rtato mitigation measures that shall be
ap tied te Individual dvel~ units Viehie the subdivision to reduce
IPmCtont Interior notle levolsqto 4S Ldn ·rid exterior noise levels to
iS Ldn.
c. A11 street lights and other outdeer 11ghtin sh·11 be shwn on
electrical p!·ns suba4tted to the De art·eat of Lfldtng and Safety
for plan kbeck approval and sha~l conplF vtth the requireants of
Riverside County Ordinance fie. 6SS and the Rherltde County
Calrobale beers1 Flu.
Prior te Issuance of tmJlding pearls, detailed perk site and rtplrtan
ire devel.epgent ~lens shall be submitted to the Plsnntng Department
far approve1. T~eise plans shall confoe vith guidelines found tn the
approve desI anus1' ([xhibtt N). The I~rks shill tnclude active
recreittonal ~eaturos such Is ptc Ic tables, barbecue
n
areas, tot lots,
etc. Recamendatfons found in the letter free George lilterie of the
County Parts Department, · of ,htch 18 attached, shall be
Included !mthe destin of the p:or'~ a
and Open Sp ca Areas.
OeeloFment ef this project abel1 confoe to the recaanendatfons found
le County Geologic Report Re. 488.
VESTInS TaTXlT~ 11ACT no. 232s7 lad.
Coditteas d lWreval
PigIt t
For the security and safety of future residents, the following crime
p. reventton measures shell be considered during site and latld¶ng layout
ileslp.
buildings&
c. Factrig belghts and roterills;
d. MeWate off-street perktog; end
e. A clearly understood method of street
mrgency response.
Proper ltghtlng In open areas;
Ytslblllty of doors end viedoe from the street and between
numbering to facilitate
1. A find stte plan shevan the lots latlding footprints, all
setbacks, fences and/or vaFls, end ~{oor plan end elevation
esstgrments to Individual lots.
roterie1 eastthee or phot rapIn (vhtcb my be ;ram sup_pliers'
brechures). Indicate on the°~a~d the name, address ant phone
t. All front/are shall be provtded vith landscaping end automitt
Irrigation.
J. A llet plan shell be sulmtttod to the Planning De rimant rsuant to
Sectton 18.30 of 0rdlnance NO, 348 accompanied by sl~uaPPllcable
filing fees, as e plot plan that ts not subject to the California
Ejwlrerdmtel Quality ktts not transmitted to ant govermntal
aleact other he th~ RIverside huntif Planning Departmot. l~e plot
lm shell ensure the conformrice o~ the find site development idth
{he tract's appreved Design liBned (Exhtblt g), end shill centeta the
tellacing elmants:
lte.udsgPr~n~l:rn~l;: strut trees..1ot~c1,~:tn~'. d tndlv,~.,
irene land landscaping, end shell confern to t~ sla~ar~ sit forth
tn the tract's approved Destge Penal1 (Exhtbtt II).
h. lieof-mounted inchanted eclutpment shall not be permitted viibin the
suMhtston, hoevet sol'st equt nt or other ene.rgy saving
device shall be permitted vith P~tng Depararn~nt approve1.
VESTING TBITATIVE 11tACT I. 23ff7 lml. I!
COedttlOM ef Amprwal
Pep SO
19
eaters of both the sumle board preparor end the project
a pitcant, ire neebar, led the mnvfacturor led product numbers
~ere posstblec~trade as also acceptable)'.
and mtertels board. The written color end matarts1 descriptions
shall be located on the elevation,
architecture1 elevations for permanent filing, heartrig body review
and agency distribution- All wrtting must be legtble.
Satd plot plan shell roqutro the approval of the Plenntng Director
prior to the Issuance of any latldtng pemtts for lots tncluded vlthtn
the lot plan. TIm suemitts1 of lot plans prtor to the tssuanca of
butld~ng pe tel may be phased prowTried: rE
i. A swimrate p.lot plan shall be submitted to the Planntng hpartmnt
for rich phase, whtch Shill be accompanied by appropriate ftllng
feel,
2. Each Individual plot plan shell be epproved by the Planntng
Otroctor rtor to tM 1sivarice of Imtlding peaIts for lots
Included w~thtm t
the Wlot pl
k. A fenctng plan shall be satmilled for Planning Department approval.
Thts plan sial1 be tn substantial conformrice with the Destgn Pineva
(Exhibit IQ led tab Into account lay rocmmendlttonl of the requtre~
noise study.
Prior to the 1seeante of OCCUPANCY PERHITS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
be
All landscapitol ud Irrigation shall'be 1natalled tn accordance vtth
approved plans prior to the 1sivanee of occupanCy permits. If
seasonal cbedtttonl do not parole plantin , interim landscaptn! end
erosion control maesuros shall be uttltz~ el epproved by the Planning
Director and the Director of ktldtng and Safety.
Prior to occupancy, walls and fences shall be 1natalled tn accordance
with approved plans.
Wotadthstaedtng tim preceding conditions, vlerover an acoustical stud
tl recletred fro" ~otje attenuation purposes, the bet his of
requital Malls shall M dotemined b~ the acousttca~ study ~hero
appltcoble.
lESTIS mn~ 1'1s6"1' m. Z:lzS7 Awl. I!
~lttons ~ AWlmsl
h~e 11
d. Prior to occupaKF, the net h~orhood rk stte associated v4th that
p_~ of developcent she~l be developed tn accordance vtth approved
I
peas.
e. Prior to eccelanc3r, the yell site open space lots associated vlth that
hue dayale nt shall be Improved tn accordance with the Design
A:null ~ftxhtbtt n~and epproved Landscaping Plans.
gN:sc;bc
10/12/88
.**
' """' "" 4,9'Gi'y&,e1988
~P~;r F) · OFFICE OF ROAD CONNIS$1ONER ~ COU
;~ '"' ' RIVEH~IuI: COUNT~
October 7, 1988 PLANNING DEPARTMEN1
LeRo~ D. Smeee
liverside Coun~ Iqennlng Cosmission
4060 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA IfiO[
lie: Tract Nap 23267 - Amend
khedule A - Tea X
Ladles and batlama:
IIIth respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced tangalive land
division asp, the Road Depart;ant recommends that the landdivider provide the
folioring street laerovemn'. plans and/or road dedications In accordance vttn
Ordinance 460 and Riverside Count~, Road lerovmmnt Standards (Ordinance 461). _
It Is understood that the tentative mp correct13r shod acceptable centerline
profiles, all existing easemats, traveled ma:ys, end dratnage courses vlth iLil
appropriate Q's, and that their eMilion or unacceptabllI~ m~ require the nap
te be resale t e for further'conSIderation. 1less Ordinances and the follovln~l
conditions are essential parts and a vequtrmmnt occurring In ONE Is as binding
as though occurring in a11. They are Intended te be coeplmaenter~ and to
describe the conditions for · camplato design of the Improvemat. All questions
regarding the true ranleg of the coalaloes shall be referred te the Road
COmISSlOMr'I Office.
I. 1he laMdfvlder shell protact doMestram properties from aimages
cause ~ alteration of the drainage_ pitterns, I.e., contentru-
n, till facilities .or b/liCetin I drainage easemat or b~,
both. aXll drainage easemats sha~l be shove on the find flap
and fietad as fo11N: el)rllnlge Easement - fie belldlnge
· ektrectloas, or .m_~;_roaclmenta b land fills are allcede, The
protection sin11 be .as appreved ~ the Road Deportmat,
2. The landdivider she1 acce t and properl~ dispose of all offsets
drainage flaring onto or ~rough the site. hi the event the
Mad Comdsstoner pemlta the use of streets for drainage
pu as, the rovlslons of Article Xl of Ordinance No. 460
vli~app11. S~uld the quantities exceed the street
capectt~ or the use of streets be prohibited for drainage
purpose, the subdivider shall provide adequate drainage
facilities ea approved b~ thl bad Departmat.
-act;
3. IbJer drainage is Involved on this landdivision end its resolution
shall be as approved I~ the bad Department.
4. eAe Street shall be improved within the dedicated right of k~y In
accordance with Count)' Standard No. XOI, (TI'/XO0).
S. "Be Street (~aes ~venue) shell be Improved within the dedicated
right of vs~ to accordance with Hodiliad Counf4r Standard No. 10~
(64'18~').
6. °S' Street and 'Ca Street (south of Creek Lane) shell be improved
within the dedicated right of v~r tn accordance with Con ~y
Standard llo. 103, Section A. (44'/6S')- n
7. The mining interior streets Shall be Improved within the
is
attached), prior to the recordslion of the final rap.
h landdlvJdor shall provide clenranco free liancho hllf-
vtlllt~ lion
orals Ibter District prior th the recorda of the find asp.
10. A cepy of the final map shall be submitted to Celtrsas, District 08,
Post Office Box R31, Sen kreardino, California gR403; Aftalton:
ProJect Develolaent for review and approval prtor tO recorderion.
11. 11s -axle centerline gradient shall at exceed XSI.
12. The minion centerline radii shail be 300' or as approve by the
Road Dslsrlset. //-
Tract IMp 13267 - Mt~d 12
October 7, ]MI
paving| raconstructtton~ or r~surfactng of existtag paving as
datemined bX ColtrUns KithIn a 7~ feet half Kidth dedicated right.
of mLIr tn accordance ~lth Slot, $tend,rd No.
All drlv~m~ shall ~conform to the apFltcabTe Waverside Country
Standards and shall ,be shoun on the street I ovamerit plans. A
minis of four fat of f.11. height curb slidimP'be constructed
betwee drivevm),s.
debris retention wall shall be constructed at the street
vm~ 1lee to prevent silting of sldevalks as approveHi bl the had
heamtssloner.
The minis garage Setbeck shill be 30 feet mainred from the face
of curb.
17. 'T" Street shall be! improved Kith 34 feet of esphalt concrete
pavement within I 4S foot part width dedicated rt ht of eY I
2 3n
iccordincl Kith Count/Standard No. Z03, Section [. (Z '/3 ').
18. Concrete ltdevalkl Shall be constructed throughout the linddivision
tn according Kith County Stand/rd No. 400 and 401 (curb stdevalk).
lg. &u access reed (located north of Tamscala Creek along The extension
of "B= Strut, Jams Avenue to the east) to the nearest paved road
maintained b), the C0unt~ shall be constructed KiThin the pub1 c
rt~t of w in accordance Kith Coun~ Standard No. J0S, Section
I, (H'/60*~ at a grade and alignment as approveHi by The liosd
CaemlssloMr. l~tl is necessary for circulation purposes.
20. Prlmr~ and secondary access roads (at the locations of Los Llnda
Strut end the extension of Perk Avenues 'S° Street) to the nearest
be constructed Kithin the
Trac~ lisp 23217 - bed I!
4~l~r 7,
Prior to the recordstiDe of tht final map, the developer shall
sit vlth the RiVerside Count~ bad Department I fish sum of
$ld~.O0 per Iot as Illgallon for traffic signal | acts. Should
the developer choosl to defer the tIM of eJaent,m~ my enter Into
a witten agreement: vlth the hunt)' deferrTn9 said pa~aent to the
time of Issuance of a talldiet permit.
eellltonancl b)' Count)',
k"lectrlcal and comuntcatlons trenches shell be provided In
accordance vlth Ordinance 41, Standard 817.
Aspbaltic eaulston (fog seal) shall he applied not less than
fearteen diJs followtn placement of the asphalt surfacing end shall
be ap 1led at a rate ~T O. OS gallon per square 3ard. Asphalt
emlsV~ shall conjoin to Sections 37t 38 end 14 of the State
bard Specifications.
bard eel-de-sacS and knuckles and off-set col-de-sacs shell be
censtrvctnd throughout the landdivision-
H. Garner cutbacks in Deformrico with Count)' Standard No. 80S shill
be shone ea the ftn~l mp and offered for dedication.
27. I~t access $hell M restricted on State Hi _g!nm~_ 79, nan Street end
· 8· Street (~ees Avenue) led $o noted on the finD1 rap.
Laaddlvtslens creating cut or f111 slopes adjacent to the strea~s
shall provide erosion conare1, sight distance tenfro1 and slope
assameels es approved b~, the bad DepartBent.
All cantorline Intersections shall be st 90· via I minime SO'
tangent measured from fee line,
1he street desi e end leeBent concept of this project shell be
and T
coordinated ~ Itsecho Villages Assessment District 1138 it
rac~, Ha ~32S7 - Mend
ctolar ~, 1900
Street 1libring shall be reevlrad in accordance with Ordinance 460
aM 461 tbrovghwt tM subdivision. 1hi Coun~ Service Area (CSA)
Administrator deto~mtnes whetbar thll proposal qualifies under an
existing alesmet district or not. If note the land owner shall
file an application with LUCO for annexation Into or creation of
be the ras t~ll~t), of the applicant. Traffic ~gnlng and
striping s~ be done by Coety forces vtth a11 incurred costs
borne b,y the applIcant. '
Vet/tral,y ,yours,
eko:dH~Tvl s t on [net ne~
· " County of R~verside
ROMz
RZVIISZ:DE COMITY I'.~INIIIG DEFT. DATEr September 12, 1981
ATTN~Ut(rtauo bvtroumeutal lealtb Services
TRACT nA~ 23267, Aredad Is, 2
bvtromestil beltb Services bee revieved Treat Hap 23267,
Auended !1o. I dated September 60 1981. Our current
cosann vtl.t retain as stated in our letter dated April 12, 1988,
...'/
FORM 4. free. I/ITI
i
· COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
I
,-.eslssm~sm
limasis
/-~ss samsay fmsn
.all Isisell
said Ismssld, ms lasSO
ssmsm. r,s bess
I
DEPARTMENT
of HEALTH
APR 18 19H
II~l~ CO~ P~I~ ~. RIVERSIDE COLIN~
4080 Lea~ Street ~NNING ~EPARTM;NT
~tvereide. CA 9250~
AtLas 6rel Heal
till Track Map 23267; That portion of Parcel I. ~. 3 and 4 of
Parcel Map 18993 recorded in Seek 134. Pages 13 through 18
of ParceJ Maps In Riverside County, California.
(SIJ Lots)
The Department of Public Health has revieved Tentsflue Hap
No. ]JJ17 and recommends thaL:
X rarer system shall-be installed according to
plans and specification as approved by the valet
comp.iny and the Health Department, Permanent
primdis st the plans of the valor system shall
be submitted in triplicate. vlth 8 minimum scale
not ISle the one inch equals a00 feet. along vlth
the original drmving to the County Surveyor. The
prints shall ihov the tatemil pipe diameter,
location of valves and fire hydrants; pipe sad
Joint specifications, and the site of the main
st Use Jmetiee of the nov system to the
existing system. The plsns shall comply in
all respects vtth Dtv. l, Part l, Chapter t of
the California Health end 'Safety Code, CslSfornis
Administrative Code, Title ~, Chapter 18, and general
Order No. lOI of the Public Utilities Commission of the
State of California, vhen applicable.
ill
.... Tmt betms
' mS-DfJtriet
II
"' "~viem - Ruth l, Davidsou
'~. I~mter
...... · ipal Water
If, Edison
If, ks
,done
_port, tton f8
..~
-~n High School
~ mr of
County Aviation
Comiss loner Iresson
,_u AP!~07 lb88
RIVERlID) C
plANNING DEPA-~.
VESTIN TRACT 13261- (to-i) -I.A. 32 &&
- Fasten Axetitan Corp. - lanehe Feetflu
- hades California Area - rifle
hparv/morial District - loath of ILlbye7
and Meet of &irisrite load - I-I Sees
- Idledale A - 193,7 mares fats SiS 1o :m
- Comestreat Cameo CZ 5154, ITR 23291
Nod 120 -A,P, 926-160-010 to 013l
ease described above, aloeI viii: the steadied ease asp, A bed
· matinS bee bees tentatively mdteduXed for April 28, 1988, If it
,-~u p to pobXle beamS. ,
...4 reeoeeeedatious are requested prior to ApRil l&, t911 is order that
,- the staff report for this particular use, ·
'7 questions rsaardta~ this irene plume do mot bes4tats to easiest
1363
.... Teethe8 Tract 23267. should be required to annex to an appropriate
--aleeL7 wbidt provides park and retreatIra suffices, Annumtin Mill
· " milliner tapseta of Lucremad petalsties to be served and fees (perk
'dmloiment), shell be used to squire and develop 8 perk sits,
leiversxdo County Planning Dept.
Page Two
AtOm: Grog Noel
Apri i 12, 1988 '
The plans shall be signed by I registered engineer and
water company with the relieving certiftcationz "!
certify that the design of the valor system in Tract
Map ~3267 is in accordance vtth the valor system
expansion piano of the Rancho Californil Water Diotr~ct
and that the valor service.storage and distribution
system will be adequate Lo provide water service to
such tract. This certification does
guarantee that it viii supply valor Lo such tract
· ny specific quinttrios. flow0 or pressures for fire
protection or any other purpose'.
shill be m~Sned ~y I remponm~bie orriczm1 or the vmter
This Department has a statement from the Ranthe Calzfornxs
VaLor District agreeing to serve domestic water to each and
every lot in the subdivision on demand prowldin9
**tXsfactory financial ,rr,ngement, are completed with the
,ubdivxder, It viii be nece**ary for the fin,nci&l
,rr,nSement, to be made prxor to the recordation of the
ftn, I map,
This Department has I statement from the Eastern Municipal
VaLor District agreeing to alloy the subdivision sewage
system to be connected to the severl of the District, The
sever system shall be instilled according to plans and
specifications as spproved by the District, the County
Surveyor and the Health Depsrtsent, Permanent prints of the'
plans of the sever system shall be submitted in triplicate,
siena with the original driving, to the County Surveyor, The
prints shall show the internil pipe diameter, location af
sanholes, complete profiles, pipe sad Joint specific&siena
sad the size of the severs st the Junction of the new sysLs:
to the existing system. A single pill ledlolling location
of sewer lines and valor lines shall be a portion of the
sewage pleas end profiles. The plans shall be signed by a
registered engineer end the sever district with the
following certtftclttont 'I certify that the design of the
sewer system in Trlct Nip 23207 is in accordance with the
sever system expansion plane of the Eastern Municipal VaLor
District Lad that the waste disposal system is Idequate at
this time to treat the anticiplted vastms from the proposed
It,verside County Planning Dept.
Page Three
All'N: Greg NeaJ
April ~2, ISiS
lur~_txe~'_s_~gList_Li_rtx~tv_sL_ltsiL,L_ve,_vttbl_erSe£-LLLbt
r !gMti~_fg/_~bt_£tS 9 r d a& JL on_9~_ ~b t_ ( ~nl~_llO.
will be necessary for financial.arrangements to be made
prior to the recordarSon of the final asp-
it viII be necessary for the annexation proceedings to be
camplately finalsLied prior to recordarson of the final map.
Environmental Health Services
SM:tac
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
October 18, 198~
Riverside County
Planning Duperesent
County Administrative Center
RIverside, California
Attentions Regional Teem No. 1
Grog Meal
ladies and Gentleseas
Rot Vesting Tract 23267
Amended lie, 2
This is · proposal to divide approximately 194 sores for single
family housing in the Tomsouls area, The ·its is located along
both ·ides of Tsseeuls Creek about 1200 feet vest of Mergerits
Road,
This project is located On the floor of Tamsouls Valley and is
subject to both riverins :flows from TamSouls Creek and .sheeting
offsite storm flows from two other sources, The main course of
Tomsouls Creek flows through the center of the tract. Storm
water from · 800 acre watershed to the north traverse· the north-
ern half of t. hi· project, Due to poorly defined drainage pot-
terns, it is probible that large amounts of ·term water emanating
from tributaries aorta of TernscoX· Creek and from far to the east
may sheet vest, generally peraXial to Tomsouls Creek, and across
the ·1to. Unless these s~orm flows are dealt with by upstream
development in the Watershed, the developer will have to con-
struct drainage flcilittes to protect this proSect,
Oneits storm runoff Is proposed to be conveyed vie both streets
and storm drains to Tomsouls Creek Channel. Several ·ores of
onsets area at the southeastern tract boundary Is proposed to be
diverted to the mmighboring dlvelolsuent. The applicant (Theism
America Corp. J bus submitted decent·teen that the developer to
emit (Great American Duvslolsseat Co.) plans to accept this run-
off. A dealt showing evidence of this agreement should be
submitted to the District! for review prior to reoordstion of the
final map.
The inprovesentj to Tamecalm Creek are proposed as m port of
Assessment District 159, The District*s interest in the con-
figuration of the main channel Is limited to its adequacy as a
flood protection facility. it' should be noted thee the present
design does not allow for !habitat mitigation within the channel,
nor does it specifically l~rovids for Joint use of the facltity
(a,g** equest~tsm or bicycle tralX·). A change in channel con-
figuration or right of way width may require redosign of this
propose X.
Riverside County
Planning Department
Rat Vesting Tract 23267
Amended ~Jo, 2
October 18, 1988
The developer*s Exhibit 'Be proposes to collect storm flows from
the 800 acre canyon at De Portals Road and convey them to
Tensouls Creek in a trapezoidal channel, Two collection dikes
are proposed on the east side of PMrgarita Road to capture storm
flows traveling parallel to Tomscala Creek, These flows would
combine with the northern stream Just north of Highway 79,
Following are the District*s reconn·ndationst
Temecula Creek Channel should be constructed throught
this tract as shown on the tentative map,
Both Temecula Creek Channel and the drainage facilities
proposed to convey storm flow· from the north and east
should be built to District standards, Rose of .these
facilities are proposed to be constructed by Assessment
District 159, If these have not been installed by the
time grading permits ·re requested, it will be necessary
for this tract to ~onstruct drainage structures necessary-
to protest it from tributary lOS-year storm flows,
Evidence of · viable mintshence mechanism should be sub-
matted to the District and County for review and approval
prior to recorderion of the final map,
0
Apartion oft he proposed project is in a flood plain and
may affect avatars of the United States°, ewefiendsa or
aJurisdictional streambodes, therefore, in accordance
with the requirements of the National Flood Insurance
Program and Related Regulations (44 CFR, Parts Sg through
73) and County Ordinance No, 458s
a,
k flood study consisting of KEC-2 calculations, cross
sections, maps and other data should be prepared to
the satisfaction of the Federal Emergency Management
Age:/(lq34A) and the District for the purpose of
raising the effective Flood Insurance Rate Pep of
the project site, The submittal of the study should
be concurrent with the initial submittal of the
related project improvement plans and final District
approval will not be given until a Conditional Letter
of Nap Revision (CLOMA) has been received from FEHA,
be
A espy of appropriate correspondence and necessary
permits from those government agencies from which
approval is required by Federal or BUts law (such as
.COrps of Engineers 404 trait or Department of Fish
and Game 1603 agreement~ should be provided to the
District prior to the final Dietriot approval of the
project,
RAver side County
Planning Department
Rot Venting Tract 23267
Amended No, 2
October 18, 1988
ge
Oneits drainage facilities located outside of road right
of way should be contained within drainage easements
shown on the final map, A note should be added to the
final sap stating, °Drainage easements shall be kept free
of buildings and obstructions®.
Offsite drainage ~cilitiee should be located within
publicly dedicated drainage easements obtained from the
affected propertiC. owners, The documents should be
i
The 10 year storm flow should be contained within the
curb and the 100 year storm flow should be contained
within the street right of way, When either of these
criteria is exceeded, additional drainage ~cilities
should be installed.
Drainage facilities outletting sump conditions should be
designed to convey the tributary 100 year storm flows,
Additional emergency escape should also be provided,
The proparty*s street and lot grading should be designed
in a mnnar that perpetuates the existing natural
drainage patterns with respect to tributary drainage
area, o~tlet points and outlet conditions, otherwise, s
drainage easement should be obtained from the affected
property o~ners for the release of concentrated or
diverted storm flows, A copy of the recorded drainage
easement should be submitted to the District for review.
priort~ the re~ordation of the final map,
Development oft his property should be coordinated with
the development of adjacent properties to ensure that
wtercoursee remain unobstructed and stormwaters are not
diverted f~mmene watershed to another, This may require
the construction of temporary drainage facilities or
offsite construction and grading,
A copy oft he improvement plans, grading plans and final
map along with supporting hydrologic end hydraulic
calculations should be submitted to the District via the
Road Department for review and approval prior to
recordation of the final map. Grading plans should be
approvedprior to issuance of grading permits.
Riverside County
Planning Department
Rot Vesting Tract 23267
Amended So, 2
October ~8, ~988
Questions concern/rig this matter may be referred
this office at 714/787-2333,
ccs RAMPAt:
Betbah
tO Bob Cull,n of
Very truly yours,
OHa H, ~SHUBA
enior Civil Engineer
b
AND ttll pIIOIICllC~
RAT IDKAIID
· nl~al!l]'
9't'81
!,!,Aml]lo DD,Alt~.
'FIAC:Z 2.3267 - A)!I34'DD 12
I~itb respect to the conditions of approval for the above referenced land division,
the fire hpartuent racemends the feZlevieS fire protect/on seasurea be provided
in eccordnce vith Riverside County Ordinances and/or retain/sod fire protection
standardat
TIll II~OTECTIOI
Schedule wan fire protection alproved standard fire hydrants, (6ez "x2J") located
one st each street intersection and spaced so note than 330 feet apart in any
direction, vith no portion of any lot frontale nora than 165 feet floe a hydrant.
)tinbum fLre floe eba~l be XO00 Gfil for 2 hours duration at 20 PSI,
ApplicantSdeveloper oh&iX furnish sue copy el the valor eyetea Flaws to the Fire
Department for revise. Plane oh&IX confers to fire hydrant types, location end
opectug, and, the eyetea grail noel the firs flay requirenests. liens shall be
silned/approved by a reiterated civil salineor and the local eater coupany rich
the foilwinS certifications el certify that the deslie of the eater eyetee b
In accordance vith the tsqu/rmnts prescribed by the liverside County Fire
l)epar Umnt.e
b requird eater eyetea, luciadinS fire hydrants, abeIX be leatailed end accepted
by the eplrol~iate water aleBey prior to any ceabnstibls buildinS meettaX be/El
placed on m Individual lot.
IrAor to the recordsties of the final nap, the applicant/developer shell provide
&Itsrusts or secondary access an alproved by the County load Departmet,
HITIGATIMI ·
friar to the retardation of the flealeap, the developer shall deposltvitb the
Riverside Coney firs Department, a cash sum el 1400.00 per lot/unit an nitSlet/on
for fire protection infects. Should the developer choose to defer the tf~e of
pa~uent, he/is nay enter into a witten airessent vith the Count7 deferrtnl said
paymet to LIar tim of benace of 8 hulldinl peruit.
All quaslim rclerdin8 the ueauin8 of. eonditioue ehaXX be referred to the
pluminS and Enlineertn8 etaff,
BAYHOIIDB, RF. GX!
Chief Fire Departmat Planner
teeram S, Tatme rlanuin8 Officer
October lZ, 19~
Sa~ kralrdlne, CA 9Z408
Attention: 14r. Itobe~t C. 14anntrig
lit. liarTen L. Shetithe
fir. lit|Ilia T. Altae~er
$Ukl[CT: Alqutst-Prtolo/Ltquef
APII:gZ6-OlS-S02,003,OIO,OII
Rancho California Area
Gentleness
have raytweed 3~ur rapoFt entitled *Fault Hazard and Prelfmtnar~
Gearechelon1 !eesttptton, 242~ kqs, hutheat of ~e inte~ectton of
~rl~ led Ind State H1ghe~ ~, hncho h11fo~tl, RIverside County, CA,*
Fd~a~ 3, lg~, led r ~s~sl Coun~ sll~lc/geologtc revtevs
died ~] 3~e lg~e I~ ~7, 1988. tO ,
Vovr re;art defendned that:
1. Ex;Iorater7 fault trenches 1,3 end 4 exposed fault offsets associated
etth the active Vtldomr fault. The location of thts fault ts sho~m on
Plate IA, batechoiCe1 Nip of Jrour report.
lk seismic data for the Elstnore (bllldomr fault) Fault Zone located
site is as fallors:
Peek keed kceleretten - 0.63g
Duntim If Strong Nottoe - 30 seconds
3. The settlecent oteettal under setsatc loadtog for the on-sSte and
kdred aiterlal~l IS noderata to ve~ lay, respectively.
el ilolf Valleys en the site.
L! electtoe laF occur tn thl form of cliffirene¶a1 settlenone, sand
k;~s, ud lateral spreading.
LEMON STIF. Lrr, F" FLOOR
FIVF. FISIDF.. CRLIFG~ 92901
7874181
46-209 OASIS STr~EET. ROOM 304
INDIO, CALIFORNIA
(819) 342-P-~ :'
Ntghlind Sotls Enllnelrtnl
October IZ, Zeal
S. A miner latdallde aTsl my be located at the central portion of the
sitst IbM on Plate IA, Geetechnical ~p.
S. The alleytel soils geMrally ire considered to have a low expansion
· potsnell1. The liltatones within the Plubl formation on site can he
mderatel~ to highlit expansive.
7. The fie grained I11uvtll 10111 tn the major drainage courses 'ire
gener111J~ cmprustble In the upper five feet.
l. The current area designated as the 100-ynar floodplain for ~emcula
Creek exceeds the seismic-Induced flood Inundation Ires .that would
rueIt daring Instantaneous failure of Skinner or Vltl Reservoirs.
0ll~ the levist irel of Plubl VIlli~ would be affected.
9. Ground fissure developrant tl considered I ltgntflclnt hlzlrd within
the souMt portion of the sits, due to the presence of active
faulting la this area.
Your report ricemended that:
I. A SO foot setlack zone Ira beth sides of the billdealt Fault Zone tl
required for huron ecc anCy structures. This litlack tl designated on_
Plats LIt, kotechlnCalu~p.
The following will mittgila the llqsefactton potential el this site:
e. A cmRctsd ftll met Ilong with I gravel blinker lad Iddttlonal
should he used f~r structures.
footing reinforcement a
b. Structural setbacks frog tops of 'ftll ~iolas towing Into
h
llqnefacttu prone areas s ould be used.
c. Latsral spredtng haxards-olelg Paube Creek are mttt ated b), the
placerant Of tom LIel Ilrtve and the SO0 foot wide iutldlng
Setback area. Thts affects Lots 490-B03
d. GrudJ alan Tamcull Creek will Involve the placerant of upwards
of lSnFeet :~ compacted ftll oar the l-J0 felt ef rectumended
allhie1 remuslie In order to ellflit eliminate the potential for
lirafaction Induced loll of bel tn or lind hill.
· - ,
i I~nll et~r the Imllding letl!ack lh4uld be Increased to twic
~ lira beilh_t er Imt-tunsloned I11bl and a~ltlonal foundation
relaterant for lote ll)S-lil.
f The geeU_cbelcal en tnoor should review the plans
te dunlop Iq/fear design InformtiN, project grading
Allewlal soils sbeul.d be everexcavate tn the la r existIn drainage
end carera ereas to I minimum depth of S feet. ~re fealtbTt total
remval Of 1oo10 111Uvt11 10111 to bedrock tl moanended. As an
alternative, 10tileaunt mania and monitoring my be used In the
am viii thick ellaVInE.
· Highland Sotls Entngeertng
October
0
Mdtttonal 1evesliBatiOn of the posstble landslide located at the
central puritan of the :stte ts recomended prtor to Stto gradtrig.
S. The SO foot huron occupancy setback to the northeast and the property
bounds to the southvest of the located active fault vtll Btttgate the
portentis1 hazard of ground fillers develoFeent on the stte.
It ts our oplnton that the raPart ~is prspered tne competent manner consistent
vith the present *state-ef-the~lrt" and satisfies the rsqutrsmnts of the
A1 tst-Prlolo Special Studtes Zones Act, the associated RIverside County
O~:utnance No. S47, and Idditlonll Information required under the California
Envtrommntal Quality Act raytoy. Final approval of this raPart Is hereby
given. ,
t~B v~co.uend that the folloutng coudttious be satisfied before recorderton of
the final parcel mp or County peruIts associated etth this project:
l. The °Fault Hazard Zone° shown on Plato IA, (6eotechnical ~p) tn your
report shall be delineated on the Envtrenmntal Constraints Sheet
([.C.S.), and the area tn between the setback 11nes shell be labeled
°Fault Hazard Area.·
2. A note shall be placed on the E.C.S. sating:
· Thts property ts affected by earth eke faulting. Strvcturss for
hunan occupancy shall not be a11we~uln the Fault Hazard Area. Thts
constraint affects parcels 490 through S04, 60! and 603.·
3. Notes shall be placed on the final land division mp stating:
· County halo tc Report In. 488es prepared for this property on
(a) Febrear7 3, 1~88, and tl ou the RIverside CountJr Planhie9
file at
Oe rtmnt. SPacarlo ttm of concern In thts report ars as
factors: acttve earthWake faulting, 11Wetaction, ground
fissures. lindsliding. SeiSmiC 1educed flooding, and uncoepacted
trsnch backfill."
0
· This property ts affected by earthquake faultin . Structurss
for lame occupancy shall not be allcmd tn the ~ault Hazard
Area, The constraint affects parcels 490 through S040 60! and
/Ole as shmm on the accoamnytng Envlrsnmntal Constraints
Sheet, the orlgtnal of vhlch ts on file at the office of the
liarside County Surveyor.
A copy of the ftnal amp and Envtrnnmntsl Constraints Sheet shall be
submitted to the PlanntnO Department Engineering halattar for raytoy
and apprunl.
Htghland Soils Enlngeertng
October 3Z, ~g88
S. The exploretot7 trenches ere beckfilled, but not compacted, end shell
be coalacted under the direction of the project orechoice1
ef Ume trenches.
SAIC:al
c.c. Itanpec - Dee D111o:
Vtr3r trvlJr Jrovrs,
RZVERSZDE COUNTY PLMNZN6 DEP~ThENT
Roger S. Stroeter - P1 eteg Dt motor
En theering ho t t
C[~3ZOS
13)fig - FJrl Hart
ktldtng & hfety - Nora Lostboa (Z)
Grog Nee1 - Teem I
NOV 8 1989
iVE iDE COU i
PLANNING DEPA Cr/IE
Novenber 2,1989
Geo Soils, Znc.
5751 Palmar I~ay, Suite D
Carlabed, Ca11 fornta 92008
Attention: Nr. Robert 6; Crtsman
Mr. Paul L. NcClay
fir. timothy E. Netcalf,
SUBJECT:
Alqufst-Prfolo Special $tudtes Zone
li. O. gg4-SD
Tentative Tract 23267
APIh 926-016-002,1)03,010,011,012,013
County Geologic Report No. 488 (update)
II~ncho Cel Ifornta Area
Gen tl emen:
He have reviewed your report entitled "Fault lnvestI artart,
Vii1 Ranch, Riverstall County, CA," dated August 24, ~98g.
Your report dot, mined that:
Tract 23267, Old
The Wlldomar fault, as previously 1denttried by HIghland Soils
Engineering, ts not present on the project site.
2. The fault contacts Indicated by Htghland Sotls Engine, ran ere actually
erostonll/strlttgrlphtc contacts produced by deposition o~ recent
a11uvtum or colluVtum against bedrock of the Plubl fomatton along the
margin of the Wolf Valley alluvtal platn.
3. There ts a lack of geomorphtc expression characteristics of faulting on
the site.
Based on aerial photographs, the active trace of the ~11domar fault,
northvest of Pauba Valley, appears to bend eastyard tn Pauba Valley end
die out east of the project site.
Your report cocomended that there ts no need to place any fault related
setback or restriction tn the study area.
4080 LEMON STREET. 9'" FLOOR
46-209 OASIS STREET. ROOk`' lt? ~
Iw,;t'~'''''qb f"' ~' eCf"~C}&~t, Q,) h.
Geo Sotls, Znc.
- 2-' November 2, 1989~ e
It ts our optnton that the report was prepared tn a competent manner consistent
with the present "state-of-the-art* and satisfies the requirements of the
Alqutst-Prtolo Spectal Studies Zones Act end the associated RIverside County
Ordinance No. 547. Ftnal approval of thts report ts hereby gtven.
kle recommend that the following condition be satisfied before tssuance of any
County penntts associated wtth thts project:
Uncompacted exploratory trench backfie.1 shall be addressed by the ProJect
Geotechntcal Engineer prior to Issuance of project grading permits.
It should be noted that County Geologtc Report No. 488 anttried "Fault Hazard
and Preliminary Geotechnfcal Investigation, Z42t acres, Southwest of the
Intersection of Hay artta Road end State HIghway 79, Rancho California,
RIverside County, CXt" diced February 3, 1988was previously prepared for this
property. Your report now supercedes only the fault setback aspects of that
report.
Very truly yourst
Engtnee lng 6eolog st ~'/
CE6-1205
SAK: rd
c.c. Crosby, Heed, Benten & Assoc. - Engineer
CDPI6 - Earl Hart
6utldtng & Safety - Norm Lostboa (2)
Planntng TeaE 1, KtE Johnson
I
INTIII-DIIIAIITMINTAi. LITTIN
·
dt COUNTY OF RIVERBIDE
October 7, 1988
Greg Nee1, Plansin Department
George lilterie, Chief Park Planner
SOlSECT: TT 23267,23Dt 01d Vat1 Ranch, [Zl 281
111 County Parks Department has revhwd the above referenced document and
offers the following recomendations.
Parks and Recreation .
0Or department supports the extension of I regional open space/natural green
belt along the Timecull Creek. Thtl t· consistent vtth other spoctftc plans
end development along th;fl creek. Our department e111 rewire an offer of
dedication of this am be made to the Parks Department on the ftnal tract
ms- (Regional Park 'Am.)
Rigtonal Park 'B' t· actoally · Inca1 park end ts located in a strategic
position to serve as e comunltJr park. It des not qualify Is I regional park
am due to its 1teSted stzo; hovevet', the htstortc adohe contained vlthtn
thts area can be successfu11Jr preserved vtth· canunity park seattog and
Interpreted.
Overall, the parks canrained within this development shoe a lack of tar e
t and
sports fields capable of accmmodatlng organized sports actIv ties th~l
m.y nee to be erafried.
Cornunity and neighborhood parks should he developed to the' satisfaction of
tim local coonay service area (CSA).
kreatton Trails
latlonal Park "A" alo the Tale Creek corrnctly Identified the Ned for a
rtmry equestrian t~ae~l as shoe, The trill locitton and development should
cellIV maxlards.
As Indicated, on the attached exhibit No. 1., a Class ! bicycle lane needs to
be provided for along thl Timecull Creek. This should be developed to county
I
standards and have connecting Iccesl to 1oc I street Class t! bicycle lanes.
fir. Grog live1, Planntng Department
On the attached exhibit lie. 1, provision for access to the Temecula Creek by~ 4
secondary riding and hiking trail Bust be Incorporated Into the project. Th..
I
vtll utilize the proposed reinforced concrete box cv vert under State
Htglmay 7g and provide access to the trails in the creek for residents to the
mrth of this project. This access/secondary trail should be developed to ·
mintme width 1! feet ·ed to countJr standards.
Coordination of the reposed undercrossing Improvement ts roWestud by our
depart·eat, i.e., rrp rap, laceant and access, and miniBum overhead
clearance. (See attached deta~r.)
Cultural/Historic ResourCes
'lee proposed site of the Old V·II Ranch pre3ect is tn an extremIJr sensitive
t Xe the thorough cultural resources assessment he
area for ca1 ur·i resources.
prepared, archaeologist Christopher Drover discusses the historic two-story
adobe Vat1 Ranch House and · large Letserie Xndlan archaeological site.
The Parks I)epartaent's History Division coomuds Ranpac Engineering
Corporation for its sensitive consideration of these cultural resources tn the
EZR. le concur vtth the reposed BitItalian measures of recovering artliners
free the archaeological spies end
asking then available to the public in an
Interpret tve cater, end preserv Ing the Va I I Ranch House th rough
rehabilitation and adaptive rouse. A library, comunltJr center, sail museum
or restaurant would a11 be appro rfite vies for the house, as would'be
antineed residential use tf preperT~ maintained. ~ .~l
In eddJtta to the Bittgation measures mentioned tn the fIR, the Par~
Depart·eat requests full-tim monitoring by a Wslttted archaeologist durln
the grading process. This Is essential due to the extreme likelihood oW
unknmm archaeolwgtcal resources existing on the site.
If any historic resources surface, Diana Solder, Htstor3e Dirtsloe Director,
should be notified at (714)787-2SS1. Should you have Westions regarding
parks, recreatta, or trill Batters, please contact me or Harc Brewer of this
deparmtnt.
68110186
c: Pmel Rmero, DIrector, Parks Depart·ant
Sam Ford, Deputy Director, Parks 0epartmntrk
Ifua hfder, HtstorJr Dillsion Director, ra s Departant
Hare Ireere Assistant Planner, Parks Department
·
· I
N3Zz Yebruar7 29, ZgSI
iVE )iDE COU~Cu
PL M
' anflinG DEP C lr
&illlist
hi%dial and Safety
SutveTor - Dave Dub
load Departmast
HoaXtit - ea~h Lethe
YLzs Protecttee ·
Yleod CoatteL District
Yioh & b
LAPCOt S Paisley
U.I. Postal Service-Ruth g, Davidton
Ran~o b11f. Hater
Eastern Runictill brater
Southern COllf. Edison
Southern Caltf. Gas
General Te10pJone
Dept. of Transportation 18
Tentcalm [lem~
Eliinert Union High School
Teemcalm Chamber of CaroMrat
fit. Palemar
S40rra Club
Va]le~ide Parks
Count~ Aviation
Castes loner Iresson
,_u AF'I 0'i 1 88
RIVERSlD~ C.'.'. :K-Y
pLANNING DEP;...r.
YISTIJIO IT, ACT 23267 - (in-Z) - g.A, 325&
Thetea Americas Cot7. - huehe Pacific
lanehe bitfoaM Area - first
SupervisortaX District
,, .- ,....,
- lehnduZa A - 193,7 acre into-596 lot-
- Conetreat bona CZ SIS0, V11 23299
Ned 120 -A.P. t21mlS0-0i0 to Ol3l
926-016-002-003 ~--,
County Parks
tleaae Taylor the case describe above, aZonl vitb the attached case map. A Land
Division Committee maria8 bee beam temtstivoXy scheduled for April 21, 1959, If it
clears, it vtlX then ga to public banfinS, ·
Tour comments and rectumedition are requested .prior to April Z&, Ztl8 In order that ve
may include them in the staff report for this partionlar usa,
SheuZd you have any questions regardLaB this lion, pZoaee do not beeirate to contact
Gram IleaX at 717-1363
eisner
Toottel trnst 23267. sbouZd he required to amax to on appropriate
qoncy tebteh provides park and recreation seErtoes, Annexation rill
titagate tapacts of Leereased population to k send and fees (park
developseniD, ehaZZ be used to sequin and deveZop a park site.
print same at
4080 LEMON STREET. F" FLOOR
tV I~
OCT13 E88 ..=,
,9 R/Vl:ub~ue: UUUNTy
LANNING DEPARTMENT
Ocl;ober 13, 1Ill
Nr. Rtchsrd NscHott, lupervtetng i~lenner
RIverside County P18nntng DepertJnent
4080 Lemon ltreet. 9t;11 Floor
Riverside, CA IfgOI
SUBJECT: Vesting Tentative Tract~ Hap Number 232e7
Dear Mr. HaoHott:
The following 8mmmrtze8 Our fiNalnee regarding ~he ftsc81
impact analysts for l~e proJeo~ 1dent, t fINS above. The
appendix attached emrtzes ~he basic assumptions used in
· he analysts. Plme note th81; these resul~8 reflect the
current levels of. 8ervtce provtded by the Counl;y based on
Ftecal Year 1911 - 1tl7 80Su81 costs (per c8pt~8 factere)
end OepsrUental and Audtter-Controller review of operations
and fact 1 try ¢ceta for servtcee revtewed u81ng use amy
in81ysie. Iteff to the Srowl'~ FteGel XBOeCi Task Force end
[apartsent8 are ¢,rrently reviewing 8errtee level8 provided
'end the need te tneresse~ the level8 of servtce. Current'
ftNdtngs are that extsttng level8 of service 8re not
adequate tn ,met cases. Should the deetred level of service
be u~lltzed tn ~he ftacal analysts performed, tt Nould
8tentftMly Inoreue ~he ;oe~e usocteted wt1~ ~hts
de ve 1 opmenl.
COUNTYFUNO
(Operations
IM|ntenence)
FZICAL ZI4PACT
AFTER tUILDOUT
CUHULATZVI FZICAL
Zi4PACT AT IUZLDOUT
Count;y 6enef11
FIr~
Free Ltbrary
(see,s11)
(91o,88o)
(s18,4ze)
(S10,720)
(SeEs)
SUBTOTALCOUIGY
( $3e, 104 )
1load Fund 81,230 $1t,4eO
(873,790)
RdmtT. AndEm At ,hi htlve Cente
4g~LBIBIS111ZLrr · LTnIFUXll · IV!llll,~llil · C/1411W/4S44
The folloeeinl ·pectll c~rcuset~ncee ·OOly r,o ~hfe Dr·Jest,:
1. The developer aseumtJon8 tncluded · factor of 2.1
persons per dwelltng unit. CAO Itoff uttlJzed · factor of
!. 81 DerIon8 per houIeho 1 d, wh ~ ch J · c 1 oeer ~0 the
countywide average for ~hJ8 type of unit.
2. CAO et~ff has revtetmd 1 tbrary costs irt~h Ltbrsry
personnel 8rid Incorporated actual operations and maintenance
costs tn~o the analysts. Using LtbrIry stiff emitBite8 of
the coat8 of proY 1 d tng the current 1 eve I of mary tce,
considering the 1norease tn Population, thtl project should
raIul t tn one-ktme capt,81 fact 1 try costs of $7e, 263
(11brary 8pace, volumes) and ·nOsing ennui1 operations 8rid
Bitntenencm cost8 of 114,814. Ltbriry stiff hie 1ridtoiled
that the currant level of 8errtee ti net adequate.
I. Flood Control stiff has lidteemed ~het flood control
facilities constructed wt~htn Zone 7 ·re unltkely ~o be
Buff I c t ant1 y funded for B81 ritehenCe coet~. Current
estimates indicate ~hl~ funding shortages should occur for
the next ten yen. Suggested mitigation measures tnclude·
cash alepoe t t by ~he p roJ act dave I ·per or use of an
assessment BeGhen t n. The amount of alepea t r, wou 1 d be
atemined by · present value an81y·te end project ttmtng.
The coat of mtntetnlng flood conr,rol feo111r,1e8
nor. be known until firm1 clestgn phimew. ,hen fgGtllty
have been fully 1clantilted. I:1oo4 Conr,rol staff
therefore, condid, ton pro3ocr, IDprovm18 te 1denttry ·
of financing feet 1 try Bethtenants and 'operation
necessary) prlor te recordltton of eubdtvtwtons.
needs
~t11.
Beinl
bed on h enmlyltl end assuming t, her, the Iv·rage sales
prtce of the unite Ntll be 8142,888, overall Vesting
Tent4ttve Tract 23217 wtll hive 8 negative ftlce1 Impact It
butlckMof 124,344. After buildout, th18 proJeer, will hive
M IODMI~ neEstirs fllG81 IBpIGr, te the County of 173,170 at
current levels of service.
lnlttll Revtev By:
Revte, ADDroved By:
ATTACHMENT I I I
ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT NO. 281
The Riverside County Board of Supervisors certified Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) No. 281 in conjunction with the approval of Change of Zone No. 5150 and
Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 23267 and 23299. The EIR included mitigation
measures to reduce environmental impacts to levels of insignificance. Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 which supersedes Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
23299 has 87 fewer residential units than Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23299 and
therefore. will generate less traffic and result in reduced impacts to the environment
and to public services and utilities. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 will
involve minimal grading and therefore, is unlikely that any additional amount of
earth movement will result in any increased significant impacts. The Conditions of
Approval are adequate to mitigate any potential impacts regarding drainage and non-
renewable fossil resources to levels of insignificance.
Pursuant to Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act. this addendure
has been prepared to demonstrate that the changes resulting from the proposed
Change of Zone and New Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Revised Tentative Tract
Map will not result in new or substantially increased significant impacts, that there
have been no changes in the circumstances surrounding the project that would
require important revisions to the EIR 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. By reducing the number of residential units, the new project will reduce
the level of impacts on the environment and on public facilities and services.
A: \VTM23267 30
CITY OF TEMECULA
/ \
o/
VICINITY MAP
P.O. DATE 3- /S'-'~''' i
' i
CITY OF TEI~ECULA '*~
ZONE MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA '~
THE MEADOWS
S 219,,, -
//
VA
.~;
O HAWI~
8P'117
IWAP MAP ~ CASE NO
P.C. DATI .~'-/Ir )/
ATTACHMENT 6
TCSD AGREEMENT
1989
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive · Temecula, California 92590
IIm~ald .L leld~
May~
Pltrlcla H. Birdsill
Mayor P~ Tem
~ R Llndemans
Councilmember
Councilmember
J. $al Mu/te~
Councilmember
Davtcl F. DIxon
CK'y Manager
(714) 694-198~
FAX (714) 694-1999
September 30, 1991
Ray Casey
Presley of San Diego
15090 Avenue of Science, Suite 201
San Diego, CA:92128
RE:
TRACT MAP NO. 23267 AND 26861 CLEARANCE AS TO PARK
LAND DEDICATION AND/OR IN LIEU FEES.
Dear Mr. Casey:
TCSD Staff has reviewed the conditions as set forth in the County of
Riverside/City of Temecula Conditions of Approval and recommend that
the City Council APPROVE Tract No. 23267 and 26861 subject to the
developer or his assignee entering into an agreement with the Temecula
Community Services District to conform to the following:
Neighborhood Park "A' which consists of a One acre park located
within Sub Tract No. 23267-4 shall be developed to TCSD
standards and the attached conceptual design prior to the
issuance of the 50th building permit.
Neighborhood Park "B" located within Sub Tract No. 23267-2
consists of an approximate 2.9 acre reservoir which the developer
has agreed to drain and level to be contiguous with the remaining
6.3 acres of proposed park land to meet his current Quimby
Requirement and to allow for a total land dedication within this
tract of approximately 9.2 acres. The total 9.2 acres shall be
developed to TCSD standards and the attached conceptual design
prior to issuance of the 50th building permit for Tracts No.
23267-1,2, and 3.
e
To date, all known interior slope areas are hereby conditioned to
be maintained by an established Home Owners Association (HOA).
Exterior slopes bordering an arterial street may be dedicated to the
TCSD for maintenance following compliance to TCSD standards an
completion of the application process·
Should you have further questions my telephone number is (714| 694-
6480.
Applicant or his assignee agrees to the aforementioned conditions as
signified below.
,.- lt, / ifq't'
A t '. Date
Yours truly,
CITY F TE
s Administrator
m
ATTACHMENT 7
FEES AND SECURITIES REPORT
CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
FEES AND SECURITIES REPORT
TRACT MAP NO. 23267-2
DATE: December 27, 1991
IMPROVEMENTS
Streets and Drainacle
Water
Sewer
TOTAL
FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE
SECURITY
$ 2,175,000.00
$ 456,000.00
$ 312.500.00
$ 2,943,500.00
MATERIAL I; LABOR
SECURITY
1.087.500.00
228,000.00
156.250.00
1,471,750.00
*!laitdmmx~ Retention (1~ for one Jeer)
*(or Bonds if work is oapieted)
294,350.00
Monument Security
City Traffic Signing and Striping Costs
Fire Mitigation Fee
RCFC Drainage Fee Due
Signalization Mitigation Fee - SMD #9
Road and Bridge Benefit Fee
Other Developer Fees I Quimby)
55,500. O0
-0-
74,000.00
N/A
27,750.00
-0-
N/A
Planning Department Fee
Comprehensive Transportation Plan Fee
Plan Check Fee
Inspection Fee
Monument Inspection Fee
$
$
$
$
$
288.00
8.00
105.024.53
96.704.53
2,755.50
Total Inspection/Plan Check Fees
Less Fees Paid To Date I Credit)
Total Inspection/Plan Check Fees Due
204,780.56
204,780.56
-0-
AGENDAS/ARO03
ITEM
12
APPROVAL
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council / City Manager
D artment of Public Works
~eb:uary 25, 1992
Vesting Final Tract Map No. 26861-2
PREPARED BY:
Kris Winchak
R ECOMMEN DATI ON:
That the City Council APPROVE Final Vesting Tract Map No. 26861-2 subject to the
Conditions of Approval.
DISCUSSION:
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 was approved by the City of Temecula
Planning Commission on May 20, 1991, and the City of Temecula City Council on July
2, 1993.
Vesting Final Tract Map No. 26861-2 is a 30 unit single family detached condominium
development on approximately 3.27 acres located on the south side of Highway 79
between Pala Road and Margarita Road. The total site is roughly 14.68 acres. The
site is currently vacant and has been graded. The applicant is Presley of San
Diego.
The following fees have been paid (or deferred) for Tract Map No. 26861-2:
* Traffic Signal Mitigation Fees
* Fire Mitigation Fees
* Stephen's K-Rat Fees {at Grading Permit)
$ !&, 500. O0
$ 12,000.00
$ 6,377.00
The following bonds have been posted for Vesting Final Tract Map No. 26861-2:
Faithful Labor and
Performance Materials
Streets F, Drainage $ 61,000.00
Water '0-
Sewer '0-
Survey Monuments
880.00
$ 30,500.00
-0-
-0-
SUMMARY:
Staff recommends that the City Council APPROVE Vesting Final Tract Map No. 26861 -
2 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
AC:ks
Attachments: 1.
2.
3.
5.
6.
Development Fee Checklist
Location Map
Copy of Flnal Map
Conditions of Approval
TCSD Agreement
Fees and Securities Report
ATTACHMENT I
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
CASE NO.: Tract Map No, 26861-2
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
Condition of Approval
Condition No. 20
Condition No. 21
Condition No. 47
Traffic Signal Mitigation
Condition No. 51
Fire Mitigation
Condition No. 12
Flood Control
IADP)
Condition No. 68
Regional Statistical Area N/A
(RSA)
Staff Findings:
Staff finds that the project will be consistant with the City~s General Plan once
adopted.
The project is not a part of a specific plan.
ATTACHMENT 2
LOCATION MAP
CITY OF TEMECULA '~
'\
/~
L
VICINITY MAP
· ~rv~_cLI Y/Y/
CASE NO. ~,~-4~
P.C. DATE
ATTACHMENT 3
COPY OF FINAL MAP
ATTACHMENT ~.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Ronald J. Parks
Mayor
Patricia H. Birdsall
Mayor Pro Tern
Karel E Undemans
Councdrnefnber
Peg Moore
Councdmember
J. Sal Muf~oz
CounalmemOer
David R Dixon
Ci,'y Manager
{714) 694-1989
FAX (714) 694-I 999
City of Temecula
43172 Business Park Drive .Temecula, California 92390
.July 11., 1-991
Mr. Raymond A. Casey
Presley of San Diego
15010 Avenue of Science, Suite 200
San Diego, CA 92128
SUBJECT: Final Conditions of Approval
For Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861
Dear Mr. Casey:
On July 2, 1991, the City of Temecula Planning Commission approved
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 subject to the enclosed Conditions
of Approval. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861 is a proposal to
develop 142 single family detached condominium units on approximately 14
acres located on the south side of Highway 79 between Pala Road and
Margarita Road.
This approval is effective until July 2, 1993 unless extended in accordance
with Ordinance 460, Section 8. ~. Written request for a time extension must
be submitted to the City of Temecula a minimum of 30 days prior to the
expiration date.
If you have any further questions regarding this subject, please contact
the Planning Department at (71q) 69~-6400.
Sincerely,
Richard
Case Planner
Gary Thornhill
Planning Director
RAIGT:ks
CC:
Engineering Department
Fire Department
Case File
PLA/,I I NG\TPI26861 \ks
ATTACHMENT I I
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861
Project Description: Development of 1L~2 sinqle
family condominium units on approximately lq. 68
acres of land situated south of Hiqhway 79 between
Pala Road and Marclarita Road.
Assessor~s Parcel No.: 926-016-025
Planninq Department
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision
Map Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance q60, Schedule A, unless
modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved.in
accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request,
if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
This conditionally approved vesting tentative tract map will expire two years
after the approval date, unless extended as provided by Ordinance ~60. The
expiration date is July 2, 1993.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prior to recordation of the final
map.
Legal access as required by Ordinance ~60 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.
Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area
improvement phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department
approval. Any proposed phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access
to all lots in each phase, and shall substantially conform to the intent and
purpose of the subdivision approval.
A:26861-~.V'I'NX I
e
10.
11.
12.
13.
15.
16.
Prior to the recordat/on of the final map, Change of Zone No. 5 shall be
approved by the City Council and shall be effective. Lots created by this land
division shall be in conformance with the development standards of the zone
ultimately applied to the property.
A maintenance district shall be established for maintenance along Highway 79,
the developer/applicant shall pay for all costs relating to establishment of the
district.
A Homeowners AssoCiation shall be established for maintenance of Open
Space/Common Area;and the developer/applicant shall pay for all costs
relating to establishment of the Homeowners Association.
The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations
outlined in the County Health Department's transmittal dated January 2~,
1991, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the fire improvement recommendations outlined
in the County Fire D.epartment:s letter dated March 7, 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.
Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
ae
Lots created by this subdivision shall be in conformance with the
development standards of the R-3 (General 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.
The developer shall · responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes,
landscaped areas an~ irrigation systems until such time as those operations
are ~he responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director.
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
(1)
Prior to the issuance of grading permits detailed common open space
area landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning
Department approval for the phase of development in process. The
plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall provide for
the following:
Permanent automatic irrigation systems shal.I be installed on all
landscaped areas requiring irrigation.
Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be
opaque up to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity.
All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from
view with landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle
treatments, as approved by the Planning Director. Utilities shall
be placed underground.
Parkways shall be landscaped to provide visual screening or a
transition into the primary use area of the site. Landscape
elements shall include earth betruing, ground cover, shrubs and
specimen trees. Front yards shall be landscaped and street trees
planted.
Wall plans shall be submitted for the project perimeter and along
Highway 79, "A" Street, and Via Rio Temecula. Wooden fencing
shall not be allowed on the perimeter of the project. All lots with
slopes leading down from the lot shall be provided with gates in
the wall for maintenance access.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent
trees at key visual focal points within the project·
Where street trees cannot be planted within right-of-way of
interior streets and project parkways due to insufficient road
right-of-way, they shall be planted outside of the road right-of-
way.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant
plants where appropriate.
All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow
growing trees shall be steel staked.
If the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of grading
permits, an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to
the Planning Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a
guideline for subsequent detailed grading plans for individual
phases of development and shall include the following:
Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and
sedimentation during and after the grading process.
Approximate time frames for grading and identification of
areas which may be graded during the higher probability
rain months of January through March.
3. Preliminary pad and roadway elevations·
Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase.
~ A:26861-~.VTIf~ 3
17.
18.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall
provide evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all
adjacent off-site manufactured slopes have recorded slope~
easements and that slope maintenance responsibilities have been
assigned as approvad by the Director of Building and Safety.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be
retained by the developer for consultation and comment on the proposed
grading with respect to potential paleontological impacts. Should the
paleontologist find the potential is high for impact to significant resources, a
pre-grade meeting between the paleontologist and the excavation and grading
contractor shall be arranged. When necessary, the paleontologist or
representative shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect or halt
grading activity to allow recovery of fossils.
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
ae
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 ~5 Ldn.
All building phans 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 submittad for Planning Department approval·
The plans shall address all areas and aspects the tract requiring
landscaping and irrigation to be installed including. but not limited to,
parkway planting, street trees, slope planting, and individual front
yard landscaping.
All dwellings to be constructed within this subdivision shall be designed
and constructed with fire retardant I 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.
g. All street side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of ten {10) feet.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
All front yards shall be provided with landscaping and automatic
irrigation.
Prior to the issuance ~f OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with
approved plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal
conditions do not permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion
control measures shall be utilized as approved by the Planning Director
and the Director of Building and Safety.
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with
approved plans and shall be verified by City field inspection.
Not withstanding the preceding conditions, wherever an acoustical
study is required for noise attenuation purposes, the heights of all
required walls shall be determined by the acoustical study where
applicable.
Prior to the issuance of 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.
Prior to recordation of a final map, the subdivider shall submit to the Planning
Director an agreement with the Community Services District which
demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City that the land divider has satisfied
Quimby Act requirements in accordance with Section 10.35 of Ordinance No.
460. The agreement shall be approved by the City Council.
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 Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 26861, 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.
Prior to occupancy of Phase One, the construction of the recreation area shall
be completed·
A:26861-tR.V'I'NN
5
25.
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 int,-'-
an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Cod,
Section 66462 at such time as the City acquires the property interests
required for the improvements, Such agreement shall provide for payment by
the developer of all Costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property
interests required in connection with the subdivision, Security of a portion
of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an
appraisal report obtained by the developer, at the developer's cost. The
appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the
appraisal.
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
prorider. 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 (CCaR~s) shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department prior to final approval of the tract
maps. The CCF, R~s shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining
the open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, all buildings~,.
in common open areas, and all interior slopes.
28.
29.
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 CCF, 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 CCF, R's shall permit enforcement by the City of Provisions required
by the City as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence
of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the City prior
to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to
the City for public purposes,
Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such
dwelling unit or lot, either ( 1 ) an undivided interest in the common areas and
facilities, or (2) as share in the corporation, or voting membership in an
association, owning the common areas and facilities.
I:26861-1R.V'I'NN 6 ~
30.
The front yard landscaping shall be maintained by the Homeowners Association
and shall be identified in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions
(CCSR's).
31.
Maintenance for all exterior walls, landscaped and open areas, including
parkways, shall be provided for in the CCF, R's.
32.
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 1~ Cal. Code of
Regulations 1509~. 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 .~(c).
Enqineerincl Department
The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this
project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions
regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering
Department.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled
ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be
resubmitted for further consideration.
33.
The Developer shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act,
and all applicable City Ordinances and Resolutions.
3Lt.
The final map shall be prepared by a licensed land surveyor or registered
Civil Engineer, subject to all the requirements of the State of California
Subdivision Map Act and Ordinance No. 460.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
35.
As deemed necessary by the City Engineer or his representative,
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;
Engineering Department;
Riverside County Health Department:
CATV Franchise:
the
26861 -AR. ~ 7
36.
37.
38.
- CalTranS: and
- Parks and Recreation Department.
All road easements and/or street dedications shall be offered for dedication to
the public and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such
offers· All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the
City Engineer.
B, C, D, E, F, and G Streets shall be private streets and shall be improved
with 33 feet of asphalt concrete pavement including rolled curb, or bonds for
the street improvements may be posted, 5 foot utility easements shall be
dedicated running parallel on both sides of street. A 5 foot sidewalk shall be
constructed on one side minimum of all private streets.
Dedication shall be made or shown to exist to provide for a 71 foot half street
right-d-way for State Highway Route 79 (lq2' right-d-way).
Construct half street improvements in a 39 foot dedicated right-d-way plus
one 12-foot lane, or-~bonds for the street improvements may be posted, in
accordance with County Standard No. 111 (78~156~). The improvements for
street "A" may be phased per the approved phasing plan and as directed by
the City Engineer.
In the event that State Highway 79 is not constructed by Assessment District
159 prior to issuance of Certificates of Occupancy for Phase One, the
developer shall design and construct a doleration lane west of Street "A"
and an acceleration lane east of Street "A", per CalTrans standards. State
Highway 79 improvements shall be bonded for prior to Final Map.
"A" Street access shall be limited to right turning movements in and right
turning movements out only. There shall be no left turns permitted and no
provision for such movements shall bo provided for on Highway 79 South.
Vehicular access shall be restricted on Highway 79 and so noted on the final
map with the exception of approved public road connections as approved by
the City Engineer.
Dedicate a 38 foot minimum easement for public utilities and emergency
vehicles access for all private streets and drives.
Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard
No. 805.
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 divlsi~on boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances
shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the City Engineer.
~:26861-~.fi~ 8 ~
A declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCF, R's) shall be
prepared by the developer and submitted to the Director of Planning, City
Engineer and City Attorney, The CCSR's shall be signed and acknowledged
by all parties having any record title interest in the property to be developed,
shall make the City a party thereto, and shall be enforceable by the City.
The CCSR's shall be reviewed and approved by the City and recorded. The
CCF, R's shall be subject to the following conditions:
a. The CCSR's shall be prepared at the developeris sole cost and expense.
The CCF-R's shall be in the form and content approved by the Director
of Planning, City Engineer and the City Attorney, and shall include
such provisions as are required by this approval and as said officials
deem necessary to protect the interest of the City and its residents·
Ce
The CCSR's and Articles of Incorporation of the Property Owner's
Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering
Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrent
with the final .map, A recorded copy shall be provided to the City.
The CCF, R's shall provide for the effective establishment, operation,
management, use, repair and maintenance of all common areas and
facilities.
ee
fe
The CCF-RIs shall provide that the property shall be developed,
operated and maintained so as not to create a public nuisance.
The CCF, RIs shall provide that if the property is not maintained in the
condition required by the CCB;R~s, then the City, after making due
demand and giving reasonable notice, may enter the property and
perform, at the owneris sole expense, any maintenance required
thereon by the CCF, 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.
i. The declaration shall contain language prohibiting further
subdivision of any lots, whether they are lettered lots or
numbered lots.
ii.
All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently
maintained by homeowneris association or other means acceptable
to the City. Such proof of this maintenance shall be submitted
to the Planning and Engineering Divisions prior to issuance of
building permits.
III.
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 CC8;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.
~ A:26861-AR.V'M~ 9
50.
51.
52.
53.
55.
56.
The developer, or the developer's successor, shall execute' a current Public
Facilities Agreement With the City of Temecula which provides for the payment
of the sum of money per residential unit then established by Resolution of thr-~
City Council, prior to the issuance of any building permits for any individua~
lots.
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. Storm drain facilities.
c. Landscaping.
d. Sewer and domestic water systems.
e. Undergrounding of existing and proposed utility distribution lines.
The street design and improvement concept of this project shall be coordinated
with adjoining developments.
Street lights shall be provided along streets adjoining the subject site in
accordance with the standards of Ordinance No. ~61 and as approved by the
City Engineer. ~
Prior to recordation of the final mop, the developer shall deposit with the
Engineering Department a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation
towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developor 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.
Street names shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineering
Department.
The minimum centerline radii shall be 300 feet or as approved by the City
Engineer.
All street centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the
City Engineer.
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a
minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment
as approved by the City Engineer.
A minimum centerline street grade shall be 0.50 percent.
a:2~l-aa.vT~ 10 -~
57.
58.
Street improvement plans per City Standards for the private streets or drives
shall be required for review and approval by the City Engineer.
The subdivider shall submit four prints of a comprehensive grading plan to
the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building
Code, Chapter 70, and as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions
of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 2~4" x 36" mylar by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
59.
60.
A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and
submitted at the time of application for grading plan check.
The subdivider shall submit four copies of a soils report to the Engineering
Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological
conditions of the site.
61.
62.
A drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer.
All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
On-site drainage facilities, located outside of road right-d-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."
63.
A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans and final map, along with
supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations should be submitted to the
Riverside County Flood Control District for review.
The subdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage
flowing onto or through the site. In the event the City Engineer 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 Engineering
Department.
65.
66.
Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface
drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
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.
67.
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
-- A: 26861 -~. V'~ 11
this Agreement, Developer shall pest a bond to secure payment of the Public
Facility Fee. The amount of the bond shall be $2.00 a 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 GRADING PERMITS:
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.
69.
A permit shall be required from CalTrans for any work within the following
right-d-way:
State Hiqhway 79
PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT:
70.
A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for
review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil
Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final
Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions.
71.
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 EIRINegative 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 pest a bond to secure payment of the Public
Facility Fee. The amount of the bond shall be $2.00 a 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 Fight to protest the
reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
A: 26861 -~. ~ 12 ~
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
72.
Construct all street improvements as conditioned, including but not limited to.
curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees
and street lights on all interior private and public streets.
73.
Existing city roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all
times with adequate detours during construction.
Asphaltic emulsion {fog seal) shall be applied not less than 1~ 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
9~ of the State Standard Specifications.
Transportation Enclineerinq
PRIOR TO RECORDATION:
75.
76.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Traffic
Engineer, and approved by the City Engineer, for State Route 79 and
Street. and shall be included in the street improvement plans.
Prior'to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering
for the design criteria.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
77.
A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered
Traffic Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure
and detour or other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the City
Engineer.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
78.
All signing and striping shall be installed per the City requirements and the
approved signing and striping plan.
79. A stop sign shall be installed at the following location:
"A" Street at State Hiclhway No. 79
80.
A secondary paved access road shall be constructed with a 28' minimum width
of asphalt concrete pavement within the dedicated right-d-way, in accordance
with CalTrans and Riverside County standards, to the intersection of SR 79
and Lime Street or SR79 and Margarita Road to facilitate left turning
movements on to and from SR79.
81.
The developer shall contribute 50 percent 150~) of the cost for design and
construction of the signal at the intersection of State Route 79 South and Lime
Street minus the assessed traffic signal mitigation fee.
Department of Buildincl and Safety
82.
Submit approved Tentative Tract Map to the Department of Building and~
f
Safety or addressing and street name review.
83.
School fees shall be paid to Temecula Unified School District prior to permit
issuance.
Lighting on site pool area and recreation area shall comply with Mount Palomar
Lighting Ordinance ~t655.
85.
Submit pool plans to Riverside County Health Department for review prior to
structural plan review by the Department of Building and Safety.
86.
Pool excavation area shall be fenced immediately the same day as excavation
is complete. All plumbing trenches shall be fenced.
87. Obtain clearances from Land Use and from Building and Safety Departments.
88. Provide a geological-report at tim of submittal for plan review.
A:~861-AR. VTIt!~ 14
MINUTE ACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
DATE:
July 5, 1991
TO:
MEETING OF:
Gary Thornhill
City of Temecuh Planning Department
July 2, 1991
AGENDA ITEM
No.:
Item 10'
SUBJECT:
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 26861
The motion was made'by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore
to approve staff recommendation with the modification in the conditions of appwval to
remove "exterior building walls as well as" from Condition No. 30 and to add "exterior
walls" to Condition No. 31.
10.1
Adopt the addendum to EIR No. 281 for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
26861.
10.2
Adopt a resolution entitled:
P~'-~OLUTION NO. 91-70
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.
26861 TO DEVELOP A 14.68 ACRE PARCEL INTO 142 SINGLE FAMrLY
DETACHED CONDOMINIUM UNITS LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTH
SIDE OF HIGHWAY 79 BETWEEN PALA AND MARGARITA ROADS
AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 926-016-92~
The motion was carried by the following vote:
4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Moore, Mufioz, Parks
NOES: 1
COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDH) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY,
under penalty of perjury, the forgoing to be the official action taken by the City Council at the
above meeting.
IN WITNSS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 5th day of luly, 1991.
IUNE , CITY CLERK
[SEAL]
Minias Oslst 0~',~91
ATTACHMENT 5
TCSD AGREEMENT
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive · Temecula. California 92590
Ronald J. Parks
Mayor
Patrlcla H. lidsall
Mayor Pn~ Tern
Karel F. UNmans
Councilmember
CouncilmemDer
J. Sal Mufloz
Councilmember
D~u¢d F.
City Manager
FAX (714) 694-1~rr~
September 30, 1991
Ray Casey
Presley of San Diego
15090 Avenue of Science, Suite 201
San Diego, CA 92128
RE:
TRACT MAP NO. 23267 AND 26861 CLEARANCE AS TO PARK
LAND DEDICATION AND/OR IN LIEU FEES.
Dear Mr. Casey:
TCSD Staff has reviewed the conditions as set forth in the County of
Riverside/City of Temecule Conditions of Approval and recommend that
the City Council APPROVE Tract No. 23267 and 26861 subject to the
developer or his assignee entering into an agreement with the Temecula
Community Services District to conform to the following:
Neighborhood Park "A' which consists of a One acre park located
within Sub Tract No. 23267,4 shall be developed to TCSD
standards and the attached conceptual design prior to the
issuance of the 50th building permit.
e
Neighborhood Park "B" located within Sub Tract No. 23267-2
consists of an approximate 2.9 acre reservoir which the developer
has agreed to drain and level to be contiguous with the remaining
6.3 acres of proposed park land to meet his current Quimby
Requirement and to allow for a total land dedication within this
tract of approximately 9.2 acres. The total 9.2 acres shall be
developed to TCSD standards and the attached conceptual design
prior to issuance of the 50th building permit for Tracts No.
23267-1,2, end 3.
To date, all known interior slope areas are hereby conditioned to
be maintained by an established Home Owners Association (HOA).
Exterior slopes bordering an arterial street may be dedicated to the
TCSD for maintenance following compliance to TCSD standards an
completion of the application process.
Should you have further questions my telephone number is (714) 694-
6480°
Applicant or his assignee agrees to the aforementioned conditions as
signified below.
pp 'ca t Date
Yours truly,
CITY F TE A
~ es Administrator
ATTACHMENT 6
FEE5 AND SECURITIES REPORT
CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
FEES AND SECURITIES REPORT
TRACT MAP NO. 26861-2
DATE: January 21, 1992
IMPROVEMENTS
FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE
SECURITY
Streets and Drainage $
Water $
Sewer $
TOTAL $
*!laintemnce Retention (10it for one 3fear)
*(or Bofids tf work is campleted)
61,000.00
-0-
-0-
61,000.00
MATERIAL F., LABOR
SECURITY
$ 30,500.00
$ -0-
$ -0-
$ 30.500.00
$ 6,100.00
Monument Security
City Traffic Signing and Striping Costs
RCFC Drainage Fee Due
Fire Mitigation Fee
Signalization Mitigation Fee - SMD #
Road and Bridge Benefit Fee
Other Developer Fees
880.00
-0-
-0-
12,000.00
4,500.00
-0-
-0-
Planning Fee
Quimby Fee
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Plan Check Fee Due
Inspection Fee Due
Monument Inspection Fee
Fee Paid To Date {Credit)
Total Inspection/Plan Check Fees Due
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
102.00
-0-
8.00
8.996.25
8,176.25
250.00
17,532.50
-0-
AGENDAS / ARO0 2
ITEM 13
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICEI~4~~..
CITY MANAGER'
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
Mayor and City Council
David F. Dixon, City Manager
February 25, 1992
Approval of Memorandum of Understanding Regarding
Paloma Del Sol
PREPARED BY:
Scott F. Field, City Attorney
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council approve the attached Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) regarding Paloma del Sol.
DISCUSSION:
1. Background
The County approved a Specific Plan and Development Agreement for Paloma del
Sol in 1988, without providing for Quimby fees. The County Quimby Fee
ordinance was not adopted until 1989.
Typically, once a subdivision is approved without Quimby Fees, it is not subject to
any later ordinance imposing the Fees. However, because the Development
Agreements for Paloma del Sol authorized collection of subsequently adopted
development fees and exactions, it is our opinion that Quimby Fees may be
collected on these developments. Bedford disputes this contention, claiming, in
part, that it has already met its Quimby Fee requirements through private parkland
required under the Specific Plan.
The Paloma del Sol Development Agreement also established impact fees of
approximately $4,700/dwelling unit. It further states that even after Incorporation,
the County would receive $2,1 00/unit, leaving the City approximately $2,600. It
is the City Attorney's opinion, however, that the City is entitled to the full amount
of the fee as successor in interest to the County under the Agreement.
2. MOU
In brief, the MOU directs that, subject to public hearing and Planning Commission
and City Council approval, the Development Agreement be amended as follows:
a. Residential Impact Fees. The City will agree to a cap on fees to
,~3,000 per residential unit for two years, after which time the fees will increase to
the then, current City rate. Fire, library, K-Rat and traffic signal mitigation fees will
also be assessed at their current rate for each residential unit.
All fees will be paid to the City. Should the County sue, the City and
Bedford will share equally the cost of defense and any resulting liability.
b. Parkland. No additional Quimby Fees will be assessed, even if the
County should successfully sue over impact fees. Instead, Bedford will dedicate
parkland to the City equaling approximately 65 acres. These 65 acres (which does
not include parks required under recent map approvals) are made up of the
following five major recreation areas as well as smaller internal greenbelt paseos:
(1) One 9-acre park which will consist of two baseball
diamonds/soccer field combination with lights, restroom and concession
building, group picnic area, drinking fountains, trash receptacles, parking lot
etc, improved at the cost of ~ 1,000,000.
(2) One Paseo Park of 11.5 acres, to consist of tot lots, basketball
courts, tennis court, volleyball court, picnic area with tables and barbecues,
walkways/bikeways with lighting, at the cost of $1,800,000.
(3) One Paseo Park of 5 acres, to consist of tot lot, basketball
court, picnic areas with tables and barbecue, walkways/bikeways with
lighting, at the cost of $550,000.
(4) One 7-acre park to consist of combination soccer/baseball field
with lights, restroom and concession building, group picnic area, drinking
fountains, trash receptacles, parking lot, etc., at the cost of $1,000.000.
(5) One Paseo Park of 4.5 acres, consists of basketball court, tot
lot, volleyball court, picnic areas, walkways/bikeways with lighting, at the
cost of $550,000.
The remaining greenbelt paseos, both East and West side of the
Project, will cost approximately $3,300,000 to develop with additional tot lots,
-2-
basketball courts, walkways, lights, landscaping, irrigation, etc. All perimeter
greenbelts would be maintained by the TCSD. All areas will be improved by
Bedford, except for the first and fourth parks listed, which the City will credit
Bedford's fee in the amount of ~ 1,000,000 per park. These will be the only parks
generally accessible to the public.
It should be noted that by taking this parkland out of the Homeowners
Association (HOA) and into the TCSD, the marketability of the Project will greatly
improve, because the HOA dues will decrease substantially.
c. Engineering Fees Protest. Bedford previously protested over $2.2
Million in engineering plan check fees. Bedford will waive this protest.
d. Commercial Iml;)act: Fees. The MOU will preserve the City's option to
assess commercial impact fees on projects built prior to the time the fees are
established.
e. Fastside Tract Maps. The City will have the right to add conditions to
the tract maps not inconsistent with the Specific Plan.
The principal benefits and burdens of the MOU are as follows:
Benefits Burdens
· City receives ~3,000/unit,
rather than $2,600 under
the old County Agreement,
and there are no additional
County impact fees burdening
development
· should County prevail in
litigation and the Court
requires fees of $2,100/unit
to be paid to County, City
will be precluded from seek-
ing additional Quimby Fees
· by amending agreement, City
improves its position should
the County sue to recover fees
· City shares costs of defense
and judgment with Bedford
should County sue
· the marketability of the project
improves, resulting in payment of
impact fees
ATTACHMENTS:
Memorandum of Understanding for Paloma del Sol
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
CITY OF TEMECULA
and
BEDFORD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
and
MESA HOMES
(Park Fees)
~l~EX
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Paqt
Amend Development Agreement .............. 4
Eastside Tract Maps .................. 6
cost of Litigation ................... 6
Public Facilities Fees Shortfall ............ 7
Reimbursement of Fees' . ................ 7
Parks, Greenbelts and Paseos .............. 7
Timing of Park Improvements and Transfer to City .... 9
Fee Credits ...................... 10
Standstill Agreement .................. 10
10. Park Fee Obligation .................. 11
11. Jurisdiction and Attorneys' Fees ............ 11
12. Severability ...................... ll
13. Entire Agreement .................... 11
14. 'Construction ...................... 12
15. Amendment of Agreement ................. 12
16. Time of the Essence .................. 12
17. No Precommitment .................... 12
17a. Pay Under Protest .................... 12
18. Counterparts ...................... 13
EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT "A" - MAPS OF PARKS, PASEOS, GREENBELTS
EXHIBIT "B" - LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ASSOCIATION PROPERTY
M~QRANDUM OF UNDF. RSTANDING
(Quimby Park Fees)
This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is entered
into by and between the City of Temecula ("City") and Bedford
Development Company and Mesa Homes (collectively "Bedford") to be
effective on January 31, 1992, with reference to the following:
A. Pursuant to California Government Code Section
65864, ~t seq. ("Development Agreement Statutes"), Bedford and
the County of Riverside ("County") entered into Development
Agreement No. 4 recorded in the Official Records of Riverside
County on November 7, 1988, as Instrument No. 325513
("Development Agreement").
B. The Development Agreement encompasses a project
formerly located within County approved Specific Plan No. 219
known as "Paloma Del Sol", a mixed use subdivision project to be
developed on property oWned by Bedford which became a part of the
municipal boundaries of the City when the City incorporated on
December 1, 1989.
C. Pursuant to the provisions of the Development
Agreement Statutes, the City became the successor-in-interest to
the County under the Development Agreement upon incorporation of
the City.
D. A dispute has arisen between the City and Bedford
over the amount of fees or land dedication for park or
recreational purposes Bedford is required to provide to City'as
allowed under Section 66477 of the California Government Code
("Quimby Park Fees").
01 -)0-9'Z 1~21-001)69
G: %.IXX:\I 5~r%.920101)26 .NO?
E. On May 20, 1987, the County amended Ordinance
No. 460 authorizing the imposition of Quimby Park Fees.
Ordinance No. 460 required adoption of an implementation
resolution designating a recipient of the Quimby Park Fees. On
June 28, 1988, pursuant to Resolution No. 88-218, the County
designated CSA 143 as the recipient of Quimby Park Fees subject
to the adoption of a master plan. On June 27, 1989, pursuant to
Resolution No. 89-331, the County adopted a master plan for
CSA 143, establishing the Quimby Park Fees at three (3) acres per
1,000 new residents ("County Park Fee Standard").
F. Pursuant to Resolution No. 99-53, adopted on May
8, 1990, City has adopted Quimby Park Fees of five (5) acres of
land for parks and recreational purposes, or payment of fees in
lieu thereof, for every 1,000 people to reside in the proposed
subdivision ("City Park Fee Standard").
G. The City interprets the Development Agreement to
permit the imposition of increased Quimby Park Fees computed on
the City Park Fee Standard and has required Bedford to pay Quimby
Park Fees based on the City Park Fee Standard as a condition of
issuance of building permits for Paloma Del Sol. Bedford
disagrees with this position and interprets the provisions of the
Development Agreement to limit the City's authority to impose
Quimby Park Fees based on the park and open space requirements of
Specific Plan No. 219 as approved by the County and incorporated
into the Development Agreement.
H. In order to avoid a legal challenge to the Quimby
Park Fees and to prevent the running of any relevant statutes of
limitation while attempts are being made to resolve this dispute,
Bedford and City have entered into a Standstill Agreement
effective on April 9, 1991, as amended ("Standstill Agreement").
01-30-9z 1~',~1-000/,9
G:%,D(X:\lSZ%9'ZQ1QO~6.NQ?. 2
I. City and Bedford acknowledge that development of
Paloma Del Sol will result in a generation of significant
municipal revenue, public infrastructure facilities and the
enhancement of the quality of life, including recreation
facilities for present and future residents of the City. The
benefits to the City and Bedford contemplated by Paloma Del Sol
include:
(2)
the opportunity for a high quality
residential-commercial project creating
significant job opportunities, sales tax
and ad valorem tax revenues for the City
payment of substantial impact fees to be used
to solve City and regional traffic
infrastructure demands
(3)
(4)
(5)
a payment of public facilities fees
participation in special assessment and/or
community facilities districts to finance
City and regional infrastructure improvements
the creation of significant park, recreation
and open space dedications for public use and
the protection of significant natural
resources
The City and Bedford acknowledge that due to the present
recession, none of these benefits to the City are possible unless
the Paloma Del Sol project goes forward. The parties further
acknowledge and agree that the present structure of fees and
private recreation and open space creates substantial impediments
to development of Paloma Del Sol.
01-30-~ 1z~21 -ooo/9
G: ~IX]C\15~9~OlOO?.6.NQ2 3
J. Without admitting or determining any rights or
obligations as between. City and Bedford, each to the other, with
respect to the amount of the Quimby Park Fees, and solely to
avoid the potential expense and inconvenience of protracted
litigation, and to balance the needs of the City to provide
adequate parks and recreational facilities with the difficulty of
land development in today's economy, City and Bedford agree to
se=tle this.matter based on the terms and conditions of this
Memorandum of Understanding.
1. Amend Development Aureement. In accordance with
the procedures set forth in the Development Agreement Statutes,
City and Bedford shall commence the necessary proceedings to
consider amending the Development Agreement to:
eliminate the County Public Facilities and
Services Mitigation Fee and replace it with a
City Public Facilities Fee;
provide that for a period of two (2) years
from the date of recording the amendment to
the Development Agreement, the City Public
Facilities Fee shall be paid in lieu of the
Regional Statistical Area Fee ("RSA Fee")
established by County Ordinance No. 659
adopted by the City;
provide that for a period of two (2) years
from the date of recording the amendment to
the Development Agreement, the City Public
Facilities Fee shall be Three Thousand
Dollars ($3,000.00) per each residential unit
("Interim Public Facilities Fee") exclusive
01 -:So-9~ 1~21 -OOO~9
G: '4XX:\lS:'\9'~OIOO~.NO~ 4
of all other fees, including but not limited
to K-Rat, fire, traffic signal, and drainage
mitigation fees as applied to the development
of Paloma Del Sol whether constructed by
Bedford or any other merchant builder
purchasing Paloma Del Sol tracts from
Bedford;
provide that after said two year period the
amount of the Interim Public Facilities Fee
shall be increased up to the amount of the
City's Public Facilities Fee imposed on all
projects in the City at that time. In the
event the City has not adopted a City Public
Facility Fee by the end of said two year
period, Bedford shall continue to pay the
Interim Public Facilities Fee until such time
as the City adopts a City Public Facilities
Fee.
provide that Bedford will be subject to
paying a City Public Facilities Fee for non-
residential development in the Paloma Del Sol
project in accordance with the provisions of
the City's non-residential Public Facilities
Fee ordinance. In the event the City has not
adopted a Public Facilities Fee for non-
residential development at the time of
issuance of building permits for commercial
construction, Bedford agrees to abide by the
City's procedures relating to payment of
future non-residential Public Facilities Fees
applicable to all projects in the City in
effect at that time.
01-3o-e,'a 1~21 -ooo49
6JUXX:~15Z~9'aOlOOZG.NQe 5
provide that the park land and recreation
facilities to be dedicated to the City as
contemplated by this MOU shall fully satisfy
Bedford's obligation to pay Quimby Park Fees
and to provide parks and recreational
facilities for the Paloma Del Sol project
consistent with Specific Plan No. 219 and
this MOU.
2. Eastside Tract Maps. City shall commence the
necessary proceedings in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act
to extend the Paloma Del Sol "Eastside" Tentative Tract Maps Nos.
24182, 24184, 24185, 24186, 24187 and 24188 with no new
conditions inconsistent with the terms of Specific Plan No. 219
and this MOU. Neither party waives its rights as to what
constitutes "consistency" with Specific Plan No. 219.
to challenge the right of City and Bedford to enter into this MOU
or to amend the Development Agreement and institutes an action,
suit or proceeding to challenge this MOU or invalidate and/or
enjoin the enforcement of this MOU or the amendment to the
Development Agreement or take such other action(s) which result
in unreasonable delaysin the development of the Paloma Del Sol
project, the parties agree to cooperate and participate in a
joint defense in any action against the parties, their officers,
agents and employees, from any and all such obligations,
liability, suit, claim, loss, judgment, lien, resulting from such
action(s) brought by County (but excluding actions to expunge any
lis pendens) and to share equally the costs associated with
attorneys' fees, costs and damages that the parties may incur as
a result of any such actions or lawsuit to challenge City and/or
Bedford's legal authority to enter into this MOU and/or amend the
Development Agreement. In the event the County prevails in any
such litigation after exhaustion of any procedural appeals, the
Cost of Litiuation. In the event. the County seeks
01-30-~ lZ221-00049
G:~DQC~lS~9'~O1OO~6.NOZ 6
provisions relating to the payment of Interim Public Facilities
Fees as set forth in this MOU and/or the amendment to the
Development Agreement shall terminate.
4. Public Facilities Fees Shortfall. In the event
the County prevails in any legal action or other proceeding to
challenge, set aside, or enjoin the enforcement of the amendment
to the Development Agreement and a court or other tribunal having
jurisdiction over the matter after all appeals are taken,
determines that Bedford and/or the City is liable to make up any
shortfall in the amount of the Public Facilities and Services
Mitigation fees owned by City and/or Bedford to County, then City
and Bedford shall each share equally in paying any such
shortfall.
5. Reimbursement of Fees. If prior to the amendment
to the Development Agreement and in the event Bedford is required
to pay public facilities fees and/or RSA fees in an amount
greater than the amount set forth in the amendment to the
Development Agreement, Bedford shall be entitled to reimbursement
of the difference in the amount of the fees paid within thirty
(30) days of the'date of recordation of the Amendment to the
Development Agreement.
6. Parks° Greenbelts and P~seos. As additional
consideration for entering into this MOU, Bedford agrees to
dedicate, or cause to be dedicated, and City agrees to accept,
park land, greenbelts, slopes and paseos to the City equalling
approximately one hundred eighty six (186) acres subject to the
approval of the Paloma Del Sol Association ("Association") and
the California Department of Real Estate ("DRE") only as to those
parcels within the 186 acres shown on Exhibit "B" attached and
made a part hereof by this reference which are owned by the
Association or subject to an irrevocable escrow in favor of the
Association. If the Association and/or the DRE fail to approve
the transfer of the Phase I Parcels shown on Exhibit B to the
01-30-9z 1~1 -ooo49
G: VXX:~15~9'~OlOO~6.NO~.
City and therefore such property is not conveyed to the City,
such failure to convey'shall not prevent Bedford from satisfying
its Quimby Park Fee obligation nor affect any other provision of
this MOU. The 186 acres are made up of the following five major
recreation areas as well as fifty five (55) acres of smaller in-
tract greenbelt paseos and eighty seven (87) acres of roadway
paseos, public parkway and slope landscaping. These areas are
shown on the attached Exhibit "A" incorporated herein and
described as follows:
(a) A seven and seventy-four hundredths (7.74)
acre park located in Tract 24133-2, Lot 114 ("7.74 Acre Park")
which consists of two baseball diamonds/soccer field combination
with lights, restroom and concession'building, group picnic area,
drinking fountains, trash receptacles, parking lot.
(b) A thirteen and eighty-four hundredths (13.84)
acre paseo park located in Tract 24133-3, Lot 106 ("13.84 Acre
Paseo Park") which consists of tot lots, basketball courts,
tennis court, picnic areas with tables and barbecues,
walkways/bikeways with lighting.
(c) An approximate five and nine tenths (5.9)
acre paseo park located in Tract 24134-3, Lots 68, 69, 70, 71 and
a portion of Lot 83 of Tract 24134-F ("5.9 Acre Paseo Park")
which consists of a tot lot, basketball court, picnic areas with
tables and barbecue, walkways/bikeways with lighting.
(d) A seven and forty-four hundredths (7.44) acre
park located in the EaStside (future) Tract 24186-4, Lot 1
Acre Park") which will consist of a combination soccer/baseball
field with lights, restrooms and concession building, group
picnic area, drinking fountains, =rash receptacles, parking lot.
ol -~-~ lml -ooo&9
G:%DOC%lS~9'ZOlOOZG.NO2 8
(e) A nine and thirty-five hundredths (9.35) acre
paseo park located in the Eastside (future) Tracts including:
Lots 159 and 160 of (fUture) Tract 24186-1; Lots 121 and 129 of
(future) Tract 24186-2 and Lot 121 of (future) Tract 24187-F
("9.35 Acre Paseo Park") which will consist of a basketball
court, tot lot, picnic area, walkway/bikeways with lighting
landscaping and irrigation.
(f) The remaining 142 acres of greenbelt paseos,
roadway paseos, public parkway and slope landscaping, both east
and west sides of Paloma Del Sol.
(g) Alk perimeter and interior greenbelt paseos,
roadway paseos, parks and slopes will be maintained by the
Temecula Community Services District ("TCSD"). All assessments
for maintenance shall be in compliance with the standards and
formulas imposed by the TCSD on a city-wide basis.
(h) The approximately one hundred eighty six
(186) acres of parks, greenbelts and paseos shall be transferred
to the City by grant deeds from Bedford and the Association,
depending on ownership. The City shall be responsible for
establishing any maintenance obligations with the TCSD associated
with the parks, paseos and greenbelt areas described in this MOU.
7. Timing of Park Improvements and Transfer to City.
(a) The 7.74-Acre Park shall be fully improved
and transferred to the City on or before August 31, 1992.
(b) The 13.84-Acre Paseo Park shall be fully
improved and transferred to the City within sixty (60) days of
the effective date of the amendment to the Development Agreement
and the 5.9-Acre Paseo Park within sixty (60) days after approval
of the DRE and the Association.
(c) Improvement to the 7.44-Acre Park shall
commence at the time of development of the adjoining tracts
01 -:30-92 1~221 -OOO4,9
6:'UX)C\ISZ%.9'ZO1QOaG.NQ~ 9
(Tract Nos. 24186-1, 2, 3, 4 and Final). Improvements to the
9.35-Acre Paseo Park shall commence at the time of development of
the adjoining tracts (Tract Nos. 24186-1, 2 and Final).
Improvements to the 7.44 Acre Park and the 9.35-Acre Paseo Park
shall be completed and the parks transferred to the City on or
before the issuance of 50% of the certificates of occupancy for
the dwelling units constructed in the adjoining tracts.
(d) Improvement to and transfer of the remaining
142 acres of greenbelt paseos, roadway paseos, public parkway and
slope landscaping, both East and West sides of Paloma Del Sol
shall occur with the completion of development of the adjoining
tracts.
(e) Bedford may extend the improvement completion
and park transfer dates as set forth in this MOU with written
consent from the City.
(f) City shall receive and approve all park and
recreation facilities improvement plans in accordance with the
City's park standards, procedures and specifications except the
City shall accept without any modifications the improvements to
the 13.84-Acre Paseo Park and the 5.9-Acre Paseo Park as
currently constructed and installed.
8. Fee Credits. At the time of completion of the
improvements and transfer of the 7.74-Acre Park and the 7.44-Acre
Park, respectively, Bedford shall receive a credit against
payment of the future Public Facilities Fees based on the actual
improvement cost incurred by Bedford for each of said parks up to
a maximum credit of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for each
park for a maximum total of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000).
City shall have a right to review, audit and verify all costs
associated with said park improvements under procedures to be
mutually agreed upon between the parties.
9. Standstill Agreement. Until the Development
Agreement is amended ae contemplated by this MOU, the Standstill
ol -30-9'a lz221-00049
G:,4)QC%.lS:P\9201QQ26.NO~ 10
Agreement shall govern the rights and obligations of the parties
with regards to Quimby Park Fees associated with the Paloma Del
Sol project, except that it shall be amended to remain in full
force and effect until a certificate of occupancy is issued by
the City for the 500th residential dwelling unit in the Paloma
Del Sol project.
10. Park Fee Obligation. Upon execution of this MOU
by the parties, regardless of undue delays or the outcome of any
lawsuit or action brought by County or terms of settlement of any
action or proceeding which may be instituted by the County
against City and/or Bedford relating to this MOU or the amendment
to the Development Agreement, Bedford's Quimby Park Fee
obligation for the Paloma Del Sol project shall be satisfied
based on the requirements provided in Specific Plan No. 219, and
Sections 6, 7 and 8 of this MOU.
11. 'Jurisdiction and Attorneys' Fees. This MOU is
made and entered into in the State of California, and this MOU,
and any rights, remedies, or obligations provided for herein
shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of
the State of California.
12. Severabi)itv. If any portion, provision or part
of this MOU is held, determined, or adjudicated to be invalid,
unenforceable, or void for any reason whatsoever, each such
portion, provision, or part shall be severed from the remaining
portions, provisions, or parts of this MOU and shall not affect
the validity or enforceability of such remaining portions,
provisions, or parts.
13. Rnt~re Agreement. This MOU contains the entire
understanding and agreement between the parties hereto with
respect to the matters referred to herein. No other
representations, covenants, undertakings or other prior to
contemporaneous agreements, oral or written, respecting such
01 -)0-9"Z 1ZZ:Z1-00069
G:'ux]c%l.sz'~eraolooas.noe 11
matters, which are not specifically incorporated herein, shall be
deemed in any way to exist or bind any of the parties hereto.
The parties hereto acknowledge that each party has not executed
this MOU in reliance on any such promise, representation, or
warranty.
14. Construction. This MOU shall not be construed
against the party preparing it, but shall be construed as if both
parties jointly prepared this MOU and any uncertainty and
ambiguity shall not be interpreted against any one party.
15. AmendmeDt of Aareement. This MOU shall not be
modified by either party by oral representation made before or
after the execution of this MOU. All modifications must be in
writing and signed by the parties, and each of them.
16. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence for
the performance of each and every covenants and the satisfaction
of each and every condition contained in this MOU.
17. No' Prec0mmitment. City and Bedford understand and
agree that certain actions of the City contemplated by this MOU
will require compliance with legal procedures regulations and
public hearings accompanied by discretionary decisions. The
parties acknowledge that nothing contained in this MOU shall be
construed as a precommitment or requiring the City Planning
Commission or City Council to approve any discretionary actions
contemplated by this MOU.
17a. Pay Under Protest. Bedford agrees to withdraw its
notices of payment of permit fees under protest and will
terminate the Standstill Agreement relating to said fees upon
execution of this MOU.
01-30 -e'a 122~1
e: v)oc~Isz~oloo~.le~ 12
18. Counterparts. This MOU may be executed in any
number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
original.
ATTEST:
CITY OF TEMECULA
June Greek, City Clerk
By:
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Scott Field, City Attorney
BEDFORD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,
MESA HOMES,
a California corporation
By: __
01-30-92 12221-00069
6: %IXX:%1SL~9'aOlOOZS.NOU 13
/.
III
FC, At nI:-qCRIPTION
Association ProVetO,
PARCEL t:
PARCEL 2:
PARCEL 3:
PARCEL 4:
PARCEL 1:
PARCEL 2:
Lots 67 to 71, inclusive, of Tract Map No. 24134-3, as r map filed in Book 231. Pages 1.
to 8. inclusive, of Maps, Records of Riverside County, ~ifornia.
Lot 83 of Tract Map No. 24134. as per map filed in Book 232, Pages 42 to 49, inclusive.
of Maps, Records of said County.
Lots 86 to 88, inclusive, of Tract Map No. 24134-1, as per map filed in Book 230, Pages
84 to 92, inclusive, of Maps, Records of said County.
Easements for the maintenance of the landscaping and any imgation facilities appurtenant
thereto over that real property depicted on Exhibit F of the Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions for Palores del Sol recorded on August 5, 1991, as Instrument
No. 91-267231 and re-recorded on September 5, 1991, as Instrument No. 91-307877, all of
the Official Records of said County.
Easements for th~ maintenan~ of the !andscapml[ and any irrigation facilifi~ appurtenant
meteto over that real prq,~ty depicted On ExhibR F of the Supplementary Declaration of
Covenants, Conditions and Itstritons for Paloma del Sol Pha.~ II rr, orded on August 5,
1991, as Instrumant No. 91-267232 and re-r,~:otdr. d on SeplP. mber 5, 1991, as Instrument
No. 91-30787S, all of the Official Reconts of said County.
11-114t
-15-
ITEM
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
February 25, 1992
EXECUTION OF 17th YEAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
BLOCK GRANT SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute the
Supplemental Agreement for the use of Community Development Block Grant Funds.
DISCUSSION:
Approving the aforementioned recommendation is the final act required by the City
Council so that staff can seek reimbursement for the 17th Year City Community
Development Block Grant activities approved by the County Board of Supervisors and
the Housing and Urban Development Agency in July, 1991.
OTHER INFORMATION:
In March, 1991, the City Council approved the CDBG project activities and forwarded
these recommendations to the County for consideration. Nine projects totalling
$170,000 were submitted. Three of the nine projects .were found not to qualify for
funding, but a $173,700 monetary request was approved. The excess funds for the
three disapproved projects were applied to the Sixth Street Improvements Project so
they could be reserved for Temecula use, not reallocated to some other jurisdiction.
These monies will be credited to the CDBG fund balance, and staff will submit
recommendations for their use at a future City Council meeting. The attached sheet
displays the difference between 17th Year CDBG fund requests and approvals.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This action will enable the City to be reimbursed for the ,~173,700 of project costs
as they are incurred in implementation of the 17th Year Program.
a:CDBG.agn
e
9.
10.
Requested Project
Fire Department Equipment
(Emergency generator,
other equipment)
Sam Hicks Monument Park
Improvements
Sixth Street Improvements (1)
Old Town Specific Plan
Seismic Hazard Identification
Program
Riverside County Alternatives to
Domestic Violence
Child Abuse Prevention Project (2)
(Senior Outreach-Against Rape)
Boys and Girls Club Modular Building
Western Corridor Bypass Study
Administrative Costs (3)
CITY OF TEMECULA
17TH YEAR CDBG PROJECTS
Requested
Al~l;)ropriation
$ 5,820
ADDrOved
Appropriation
$ 0
35,000 37,090
30,000 72,610
30,000 30,000
15,000 15,000
5,000 5,000
4,000 0
31,000 0
10,000 10,000
4,180 0
TOtal $170,000 $173,700
1)
Notes:
The total funding request for the City of Temecula projects was approved, but
the fire department equipment, and Boys and Girls Club modular building
projects were not accepted· To be received, monies for these projects had to
be allocated to another approved project. Therefore, they were allocated to the
Sixth Street Improvements Project, and will be placed in fund balance for other
use at the conclusion of the project.
17TH YEAR CDBG PROJECTS
2)
Riverside Area Rape Crisis provides child abuse prevention and Senior Outreach
Against Rape programs. The Child Abuse Program was found not to qualify for
CDBG funds. The Riverside Area Rape Crisis Center agreed to use some of its
discretionary funds for the Child Abuse Program if the $4000 for this project
could be used for the Senior Outreach Against Rape Program (an activity that
qualified for CDBG funding).
3)
Administrative costs cannot be separately invoiced, but may be applied to
appropriations for each approved project.
a:l 7th .cdb
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
File No: 1.TM002, 1.TMO03, 1.TM004,
1.TM005, 1.TM006, 1.TM007, 1.TM008
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE USE OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE of the State of California, herein called,
"COUNTY,"_and the City of Temecula, herein called "CITY," mutually
agree as follows:
1. GENERAL. COUNTY and CITY have executed a Cooperation
Agreement dated AuguSt 28, 1990, whereby CITY elected to participate
with COUNTY, which ~as qualified as an "Urban County" for purposes
of receiving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, and to
assist and undertake essential community devel-opment and housing
assistance activities pursuant to the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974, as amended, hereinafter' referred to as
"Act". Said Cooperation Agreement dated August 28, 1990, is
incorporated herein by reference and made a part of this Agreement
as if each and every provision was set forth herein.
2. PURPOSE. CITY promises and agrees to undertake and
assist with the community development activities, within its
jurisdiction, by utilizing the sum of $173.700, CDBG Entitlement
Funds, as specifically identified in Exhibits "A, B, C, D, E, F, and
G," respectively, which are attached hereto and consist of 19 pages,
and by this reference are incorporated herein, for the projects:
Sam Hicks Monument Park Project ($37.090). 6th Street
Improvements ($72.610). Western Bypass Corridor/Front Street
Intersection Study ($10.000). Old Town Temecula Design Guidelines
($30.000). Seismic Hazard Identification Program ($15.000),
Alternatives to DomeStic Violence ($5.000]. Senior Outreach Against
1
2
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Rape ~$4.000).
CITY shall obtain COUNTY's approval, through its Economic Dev .-
opment Agency, of the projects, plans and specifications prior to
CITY's construction of same. CITY.promises and agrees to utilize
and maintain the projects for a minimum period of twenty (20) years
or the life of the projects, whichever is less.
3. TERM OF AGREEMENT. The term of this Agreement for the
projects shall be for a period of one (1) year commencing upon the
date of the execution of this Agreement and proceed consistent with
the completion schedules set forth in Exhibits "A, B, C, D, E, F,
and G." If substantial compliance with the completion schedule, due
to unforeseen or uncontrollable circumstances, cannot be met by
CITY, the schedule for the projects may be extended. If substantial
progress toward completion, as determined by COUNTY, of projects is
not made during the term of the Supplemental Agreement, the entitle-
ment funds associated with the projects may be reprogrammed by
COUNTY after appropriate notice ~s given CITY.
4. DISPOSITION OF FUNDS. COUNTY's Board of Supervisors
shall determine the final disposition and distribution of all funds
received by COUNTY under the Act consistent with the provisions of
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Agreement. COUNTY, through its Economic
Development Agency, shall: (1) make payment of the grant funds to
CITY as designated in Exhibits "A, B, C, D, E, F, and G," and (2)
monitor the project activity to ensure compliance with applicable
federal regulations and the terms of this Agreement. City shall
comply with timely drawdown of funds by submitting monthly requests
for reimbursement. All disbursements of grant funds will be o~a
reimbursement basis and made within thirty (30) days after the CITY
2
has submitted its letter identifying payments made and requesting
reimbursement.
3
5. COOPERATION WITH HOUSING ASSISTANCE ACTIVITIES. CITY
4
shall cooperate with COUNTY in undertaking essential community
5 development and housing assistance activities, specifically urban
6 renewal and public assistance housing, and shall assist COUNTY in
7 carrying out its housing assistance plans and other requirements of
8
the Community Development Block Grant Program. CITY shall adhere to
9 Housing Policy as set forth in Exhibit "H__P."
l0
6. LEAD AGENCY FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL OUALITY ACT (CEOA]. Pursuant to Section 15051(d) of
Title 14 of the California Administrative Code, CITY is designated
13
as the lead agency for the projects that are the subject matter of
]4
this Agreement.
]5
7. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNIFICATION. CITY shall comply
with all applicable laws, rules and regulations, and shall indem-
17 nify, save and hold harmless COUNTY and its agency members and their
respective agents, servants and employees of and from any and all
]9 liabilities, claims, debt, damages, demands, suits, actions and
20
causes of action of whatsoever kind, nature or sort including, but
not by way of limitation, wrongful death, expenses of the defense of
said parties, and the payment of attorney's fees, arising out of or
23
in any manner connected with the performance by City under this
Agreement.
8. RECORDS AND INSPECTIONS.
a. CITY shall establish and maintain records in
accordance with 24 C.F.R. Part 570 and Part 85 and OMB
Circular A-87 as applicable and as they relate to the
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
acceptance and use of federal funds under this Agreement.
b. CITY shall maintain a separate account for
Entitlement funds received as set forth in Exhibits "A, B,
C, D, E, F, and G."
c. CITY shall, during the normal business hours, make
available to COUNTY and to the Department of Housing and
Urban Development for examination and copying all of its
records and other materials with respect to matters covered
by this Agreement.
d. CITY shall retain all program income as defined in
Section 570,500 of Title 24 of the Federal Code of Regula-
tions. Said program income shall be used only for the
acti-vity that is the subject of this Agreement. Further,
all provisions of this Agreement
activity.
9. FEDERAL REOUIREMENTS. CITY
shall' apply to such
shall comply with the
provisions of the Act and any amendments thereto and the federal
regulations and guidelines now or hereafter enacted pursuant to the
Act. More particularly, CITY is to comply with those regulations
found in Part 85 and Part 570 of Title 24 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. CITY is to comply with OMB Circular A-87, or any
subsequent replacement. CITY is to abide by the provisions of the
Community Development Block Grant Manual, prepared by COUNTY and
cited in the above-mentioned Cooperation Agreement.
10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. CITY and its agents, servants
and employees shall act at all times in an independent capacity
during the term of this Agreement, and shall not act as, shall D~t
be, nor shall they in any manner be construed to be agents, officers
4
I
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
or employees of the COUNTY.
11. TERMINATION.
a. CITY. CITY may not terminate this Agreement
except upon express written consent of COUNTY.
b. COUNTY. Notwithstanding the provisions of Para-
graph 11a, COUNTY may suspend or terminate this Agreement
upon written notice to CITY of action being taken and the
reason for such action:
(1) In the event CITY fails to perform the cove-
nants herein contained at such times and in such manner as
provided in this Agreement; and
(2) In the event there is a conflict with any
federal, state or local law, ordinance, ~egulation or rule
rendering any of the provisions of this Agreement invalid
or untenable; or
(3) In the event the funding from the Department
of Housing and Urban Development referred to in Paragraphs
1 and 2 above is terminated or otherwise becomes
unavailable.
c. Upon suspension of this Agreement, CITY agrees to
return any Unencumbered funds which it has been provided by
COUNTY. In accepting said funds, COUNTY does not waive any
claim or cause of action it may have against CITY for
breach of this Agreement.
d. Upon suspension of this Agreement, CITY agrees not
to incur any additional cost with regard to the projects
that are cited in the written notice as necessitating the
suspensions.
5
I
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
12. NONDISCRIMINATION. CITY shall abide by Sections
570.601 and 570.602 of Title 24 of the Federal Code of Regulati
which require that no person in the United States shall on the
grounds of race, color, national origin, or sex, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination under any program or activity funded in whole or in
part with Community Development funds.
13. PROHIBITION AGAINST CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
(a) CITY and its assigns, employees, agents, consul-
tants, officers and elected and appointed officials shall become
familiar with and shall comply with the CDBG regulations prohibiting
conflicts of interest contained in 24 CFR 570.611, attached hereto
as Exhibit "CI" and by this reference incorporated herein.
(b) CITY and its assigns, employees, agents, consul-
tants, officers, and elected and appointed officials shall bec,..e
familiar with and shall comply with Section A-11 of the County's
CDBG Policy manual, attached hereto as Exhibit "CI" and by this
reference incorporated herein.
(c) CITY understands and agrees that no waiver of
exception can be granted to the prohibition against conflict of
interest except upon written approval of HUD pursuant to 24 CFR
570.611 (d). Any request by CITY for an exception shall first be
reviewed by COUNTY to determine whether such request is appropriate
for submission to HUD. In determining whether such request is
appropriate for submission to HUD, COUNTY will consider the factors
listed in 24 CFR 570.611 (e).
(d) Prior to any funding under this Agreement, CI-~Y
shall provide COUNTY with a list of all employees, agents, consul-
6
] tants, officers and elected and appointed officials who are in a
l position to participate in a decision-making process, exercise any
3 functions or responsibilities, or gain inside information with
4 respect to the CDBG activities funded under this Agreement. CITY
5 shall also promptly disclose to COUNTY any potential conflict,
6 including even the appearance of conflict, that may arise with
7 respect to the CDBG activities funded under this Agreement.
8 (e) Any violation of this section shall be deemed a
9 material breach of this Agreement, and the Agreement shall be
l0 immediately terminated by the COUNTY.
]| 14. PROJECT ELIGIBILITY. As to CITY or its claimants,
]2 COUNTY shall bear no liability for any later determination by the
13 United States Government, the Department of Housing and Urban
]4 Development or any other person or entity that CITY is or is not
]5 eligible under 24 C.F.R. Part 570 to receive CDBG funds.
~6 15. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. It is expressly agreed that this
~7 Agreement embodies the entire agreement of the parties in relation
]8 to the subject matter thereof, and that no other Agreement or under-
]9 standing, verbal or otherwise, relative to this subject matter,
20 exists between the parties at the time of execution.
16. MINISTERIAL ACTS. The Director of the COUNTY's
22 Economic Development Agency or his or her designee(s) are authorized
to take such ministerial actions as may be necessary or appropriate
to implement the terms, provisions, and conditions of this Agreement
as it may be amended from time to time by COUNTY.
//
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
17. MODIFICATION OF AGREEMENT. This Agreement may be
modi-fied or amended only by a writing signed by the duly authori
and empowered representative of COUNTY and CITY respectively.
DATED:
ATTEST:
GERALD A. MALONEY
Clerk of the Board
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
By:
DATED:
Deputy
(Seal)
By:
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
CITY OF TEMECULA
DKM .... pga
KP.
(SU
By:
Mayor
8
EXHIBIT A
Page 1
FILE NO: 1.TM002
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT
Cooperative Agency: City of Temecula
Address: 43174 Business Park Dr.. Temecula. CA 92590
Project Title: Sam Hicks Monument Park Project
Location: Sam Hicks Park at the intersection of Mercedes & Moreno
Description: Installation of concrete walkway throughout the park including
park lighting and benches. The walkway will provide safe and effective
circulation from the perimeter sidewalk areas to the interior park amenities as
well as enhance passive recreational opportunities for neighborhood residents.
The park is located at Moreno and Mercedes Streets in "Old Town" Temecula.
Project Budget:
1) Architect/Engineer Design Costs $
~) Administration Costs
3) Planning Costs
4) Acquisition Costs
5) Construction Costs 30,000
6) Relocation Costs
7) Equipment Costs
8) Other Costs
9) Operation/Maintenance
10) Contingency 4,090
TOTAL $ 37.090
Cost CDBG ApDroved
3,000 $ 3.000
30,000
4,090
$ 37,090
EXHIBIT A
Page 2
File:
1.TM002
Timetable Implementation Schedule
Milestone
Begin Design
Prepare Bid Documents
Submit Bid Documents for Review
Advertise for Bid
Award Contract
Begin Construction
Start Date
1115192
3/15/92
4/30/92
6/1/92
711192
7/31/92
Completion Date
3/15/92
4/30/92
5/15/92
6/30/92
10/31/92
EXHIBIT A
Page 3
File: 1.TM002
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
ANNUAL COMITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
1. NAME OF APPLICANT
County of Riverside
PROJECT SUMMARY
PERIOD OF APPLICABILITY
FROM TO 4.
June 30. 1992
July 1, 1991
2. APPLICATION/GRANT NUMBER
B-91-UC-06-0506
X Original (each year)
Revision, Date
Amendment, Date
5. NAME OF PROJECT 6. PROJECT NUMBER 7. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS
Sam Hicks Monument Park 1,TM002 Categorically Excluded
Walkway and Lighting Project
8. ENTITY WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR CARRYING OUT THE PROJECT 9. TELEPHONE NUMBER
City of Temecula (714) 694-6480
10. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Installation of concrete walkway throughout the park
including park lighting and benches. The walkway will provide safe and effective
circulation from the perimeter sidewalk areas to the interior park amenities as
well as enhance passive recreational opportunities for neighborhood residents.
The park is located at Moreno and Mercedes Streets in "Old Town" Temecula.
ELIGIBILITY: 570.201(c) BENEFIT: 570.208(a)(1)
11. CENSUS TRACT(S)/ENUMERATION DISTRICT(S)
CT 432; ED 713 75% L/M
12. ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: This program will improve the pedestrian access
within the park through the installation of concrete paths. New lighting will
reduce vandalism and improve public safety.
13. CDBG COMPONENT ACTIVITIES PROGRAM YEAR FUNDS(in thousands of $)
(List component activities using names CDBG OTHER
-- of activities shown in Part A, COST Low/Mod Other Amount Source
SUMMARY. Form HUD-7067.] Benefit Benefit
(a)
Public Facilities & Improvements
(b) (c) (d) (e)
$37.090 $
14. Totals $37.090 $ $
15. Total Costs To Be Paid With Community Development Grant Funds
(Sum of Columns b and c) $ 37,090
EXHIBIT B
Page 1
FILE NO: 1.TM003
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT
Cooperative Agency: City of Temecula
Address: 43174 Business Park Dr., Temecula. CA 92590
Project Title: 6th Street Improvements
Location: 6th Street in downtown Temecula
Description: Design and construct road improvements on 6th Street between
Mercedes Street and Front Street. Improvements will include grading, base,
paving, curbs, gutter and sidewalks. This project will improve vehicular traffic
circulation within Temecula's "Old Town" as well as pedestrian traffic and parking
congestion.
Project Budget:
1) Architect/Engineer Design Costs $
2) Administration Costs
3) Planning Costs
4) Acquisition Costs
5) Construction Costs
6) Relocation Costs
7) Equipment Costs
8) Other Costs
9) Operation/Maintenance
10) Contingency
TOTAL $
Cost CDBGApproved
12.000 $ 12,000
60,610 60,610
72,610 $ 72.610
EXHIBIT B
Page 2
File:
1.TM003
Timetable Implementation Schedule
Milestone
Begin Design
Prepare Bid Documents
Submit Bid Documents for Review
Advertise for Bid
Award Contract
Begin Construction
Start Date
1115192
3/15/92
4/30/92
6/1/92
7/1/92
7/31/92
Completion Date
3/15/92
4/30/92
5/15/92
6/30/92
10/31/92
EXHIBIT B
Page 3
File: 1.TM003
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
ANNUAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
FROM
PROJECT SUMMARY
PERIOD OF APPLICABILITY
TO
July 1. 1991
5. NAME OF PROJECT
6th Street Improvements
1. NAME OF APPLICANT
County of Riverside
B-91-UC-06-0506
4. X Original (each year)
Revision, Date
June 30. 1992 Amendment, Date
6. PROJECT NUMBER 7. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STAT~S
1.TM003 Categorically Excluded
8. ENTITY WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR CARRYING OUT THE PROJECT 9. TELEPHONE NUMBER
City of Temecula (714) 694-6480=
10. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Design and construct road improvements on 6th Street
between Mercedes Street and front Street. Improvements will include grading,
base, paving, curbs, gutter and sidewalks. This project will improve vehicular
traffic circulation within Temecula's "Old Town" as well as pedestrian traffic and
parking congestion.
ELIGIBILITY: 570.201(c)
BENEFIT: 570· 208 (a) (1)
11. CENSUS TRACT(S)/ENUMERATION DISTRICT(S)
CT 432; ED 713 75% L/M
12. ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: This project will improve downtown traffic
circulation as well as pedestrian sidewalk access and parking congestion.
13. CDBG COMPONENT ACTIVITIES PROGRAM YEAR FUNDS(in thousands of $)
(List component activities using names CDBG OTHER
of activities shown in Part A, COST Low/Mod Other Amount Source -~
SUMMARY, Form HUD-7067.) Benefit Benefit
(a)
Public Facilities & Improvements
(b) (c) (d) (e)
$72,610
14. Totals $72,610
15. Total Costs To Be Paid With Community Development Grant Funds
(Sum of Columns b and c) $ 72.610
EXHIBIT C
Page 1
FILE NO: 1.TM004
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT
Cooperative Agency: City of Temecula
Address: 43174 Business Park Dr., Temecula, CA 92590
Project Title: Western Bypass Corridor/Front Street Intersection Study
Location: "Old Town" Temecula
Description: Funds will be used for an engineering feasibility and design study
for the intersection of Front Street, "A" Street, SR79 South, 1-15 south bound off
ramp and the proposed western bypass corridor within "Old Town" Temecula. The
western bypass corridor is an unconstructed circulation element street being
studied by the City of Temecula for the purpose of alleviating congestion within
the city. This proposed study is necessary to develop a workable design concept
for the intersection of these streets and highways in "Old Town" Temecula.
Project Budget:
~ Cost
1) Architect/Engineer Design Costs $
2) Administration Costs
3) Planning Costs 10,000
4) Acquisition Costs
5) Construction Costs
6) Relocation Costs
7) Equipment Costs
8) Other Costs
9) Operation/Maintenance
10) Contingency
TOTAL $ 10,000
CDBG Approved
$
10,000
$ 10,000
EXHIBIT C
Page 2
File:
1.TM004
Timetable Implementation Schedule
Milestone
Begin Planning Study
Submit Draft
Revise Report
Complete Final Report
Start Date
1/15/92
6/1/92
Completion Date
6/30/92
5/31/92
6/30/92
6/30/92
EXHIBIT C File: 1.TM004
Page 3
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
ANNUAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT SUMMARY
PERIOD OF APPLICABILITY
TO
1. NAME OF APPLICANT
County of Riverside
2. APPLICATION/GRANT NUMBER
B-91-UC-06-0506
FROM 4. X Original (each year)
Revision, Date
July 1, 1991 June 30, 1992 Amendment, Date
5. NAME OF PROJECT 6. PROJECT NUMBER 7. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS
Western Bypass Corridor/ 1.TM004 Exempt
Front Street Intersection Study
8. ENTITY WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR CARRYING OUT THE PROJECT 9. TELEPHONE NUMBER
City of Temecula (714) 694-6480
10. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Funds will be used for an engineering feasibility and
design study for the intersection of front Street, "A" Street, SR79 South, 1-15
south bound off ramp and the proposed western bypass corridor within "Old Town"
Temecula. The western bypass corridor is an unconstructed circulation element
street being studied by the City of Temecula for the purpose of alleviating
congestion within the city. This proposed study is necessary to develop a
workable design concept for the intersection of these streets and highways in "Old
Town" Temecula.
ELIGIBILITY: 570.205
BENEFIT: N/A
11. CENSUS TRACT(S)/ENUMERATION DISTRICT(S)
N/A - Planning Study
la. ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS=: This project will assist in the development of
~ble transportation alternatives for the future design of traffic improvements
at this congested intersection within Temecula's "Old Town."
13. CDBG COMPONENT ACTIVITIES PROGRAM YEAR FUNDS(in thousands of $)
(List component activities using names CDBG OTHER
of activities shown in Part A, COST Low/Mod Other Amount Source
SUMMARY, Form HUD-7067.) Benefit Benefit
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
Planning Study $10.000 $ $
14. Totals $10,000 $ $
15. Total Costs To Be Paid With Community Development Grant Funds
(Sum of Columns b and c) $ 10.000
EXHIBIT D
Page 1
FILE NO: 1.TMO05
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT
Cooperative Agency: City of Temecula
Address: 43174 Business Park Dr.. Temecula. CA 92590
Project Title: "Old Town" Temecula Design Guidelines
Location: "Old Town" Temecula
Description: Funds will be used prepare a land use study containing design
standards and guidelines for development within the "Old Town" area of Temecula.
The study would recommend appropriate architectural styles for this historical
area of Temecula. In addition, it would contain recommendations for landscaping,
signage, walkways (including provision for handicapped access), curb and gutter
design, public parking standards, and appropriate materials for construction.
Project Budget:
Cost
1) Architect/Engineer Design Costs $
2) Administration-Costs
3) Planning Costs 30,000
4) Acquisition Costs
5) Construction Costs
6) Relocation Costs
7) Equipment Costs
8) Other Costs
9) Operation/Maintenance
10) Contingency
TOTAL $ 30,000
CDBG ApDroved ~
$
30.000
$ 30,000
EXHIBIT D
Page 2
Timetable Implementation SchedUle
Milestone
Commence Old Town Study
Submit Draft Design Guideline
Revise Draft Design Guidelines
Complete Final Design Guidelines
Adopt Design Guidelines
File:
Start Date
1/ 5/92
6/1/92
1.TM005
Completion Date
5/31/92
6/30/92
6/30/92
7/15/92
EXHIBIT D
Page 3
File: 1.TM005
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
ANNUAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT SUMMARY
PERIOD OF APPLICABILITY
FROM TO 4.
July 1. 1991
June 30. 1992
1. NAME OF APPLICANT
County of Riverside
2. PLICATION/GR NT NUm R
B-91-UC-06-0506
X Original (each year)
Revision, Date
Amendment, Date
5. NAME OF PROJECT 6. PROJECT NUMBER 7. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STAT~S
Old Town Temecula Design 1.TM005 Exempt
Guidelines
8. ENTITY WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR CARRYING OUT THE PROJECT 9. TELEPHONE NUMBER
City of Temecula (714) 694-6480
10. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Funds will be used prepare a land use 'study
containing design standards and guidelines for development within the "Old Town"
area of Temecula. The study would recommend appropriate architectural styles for
this historical area of Temecula. In addition, it would contain recommendations
for landscaping, signage, walkways (including provision for handicapped access),
curb and gutter design, public parking standard, and appropriate materials for
construction.
ELIGIBILITY: 570.205
BENEFIT: N/A
11. CENSUS TRACT (S) /ENUMERATION DISTRICT (S)
N/A - Planning Study
12. ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: This project will assist in the City's efforts
to insure that future development in the Old Town area will maintain historical
integrity and complement existing structures that meet a set of ident~ied
standards·
13. CDBG COMPONENT ACTIVITIES PROGRAM YEAR FUNDS(in thousands of $)
(List component activities using names CDBG OTHER
of activities shown in Part A, COST Lo~/Mod Other Amount Source
SUMMARY, Form HUD-7067.) Benefit Benefit
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
Planninq Study $30.000 $ $
14. Totals $30,000 $ $
15. Total Costs To Be Paid With Community Development Grant Funds
(Sum of Columns b and c) $ 30.000
EXHIBIT E
Page I
FILE NO: 1.TMO06
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT
Cooperative Agency: City of Temecula
Address: 43174 Business Park Dr.. Temecula. CA 92590
Project Title: City of Temecula Seismic Hazard Identification Program
Location: Citvwide
Description: Funds will be used to conduct a survey to identify and record
potentially hazardous buildings (as required by City Ordinance No. 91-4) and
occupancies in the City. A listing will be developed which will indicate
hazardous building requiring strengthening and reinforcing work as well as
occupancies and densely populated areas for consideration of rescue efforts during
major disaster occurrences.
Project Budget:
.) Architect/Engineer Design Costs $
2) Administration Costs
3 ) Planning Costs
4) Acquisition Costs
5) Construction Costs
6) Relocation Costs
7 ) Equipment Costs
8 ) Other Costs
9) Operation/Maintenance
10) Contingency
TOTAL $
Cost
CDBG Approved
$
15,000 $ 15,000
15,000 15.000
EXHIBIT E
Page 2
File:
1.TM006
Timetable Implementation Schedule
Milestone
Commence Seismic Survey
Submit Draft Report
Revise Report
Complete Final Report
Adopt Findings
Start Date
1/15/92
6/1/92
7/1/92
Completion Date
5/31/92
e/30/92
6/30/92
7/15/92
EXHIBIT E
Page 3
File: 1.TM006
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
ANNUAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT SUMMARY
3. PERIOD OF APPLICABILITY
FROM TO
July 1, 1991
JUne 30, 1992
1. NAME OF APPLICANT
County of Riverside
2. APPLICATION/GRANT NUMBER
B-91-UC-06-0506
X Original (each year)
Revision, Date
Amendment, Date
5. NAME OF PROJECT 6. PROJECT NUMBER 7. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS
Seismic Hazard Identification 1.TM006 Exempt
Program
8. ENTITY WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR CARRYING OUT THE PROJECT 9. TELEPHONE NUMBER
City of Temecula (714) 694-6480
10. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Funds will be used to conduct a survey to identify
and record potentially hazardous buildings (as required by City Ordinance No. 91-
4) and occupancies in the City. A listing will be developed which will indicate
hazardous buildings requiring strengthening and reinforcing work as well as
occupancies and densely populated areas for consideration of rescue efforts during
major disaster occurrences·
ELIGIBILITY: 570,202(c)
BENEFIT: 570.20S(b) (2)
11. CENSUS TRACT(S)/ENUMERATION DISTRICT(S)
N/A - Spot Slums and Blight
12. ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: This project will enhance public safety by
identifying seismically hazardous structures within the community.
~t. CDBG COMPONENT ACTIVITIES PROGRAM YEAR FUNDS(in thousands of $)
(List component activities using names CDBG OTHER
of activities shown in Part A, COST Low/Mod Other Amount Source
SUMMARY, Form HUD-7067'.] Benefit Benefit
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
Code Enforcement $15,000 $ $
14. Totals $15,000 $ $
15. Total Costs To Be Paid With Community Development Grant Funds
(Sum of Columns b and c) $ 15,000
EXHIBIT F
Page 1
FILE NO: 1.TMO07
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT
Cooperative Agency: City of Temecula
Address: 43174 Business Park Dr.. Temecula. CA 92590
Project Title: Alternatives to Domestic Violence
Location: Countywide
Description: This agency serves battered spouses who are victims of domestic
violence. Funds will be utilized to offset the costs associated with the
coordination and administration of the agency's toll free crisis line, three
regional outreach counseling centers, emergency shelter and community education
programs. Address: P.O. Box 910, Riverside
Project Budget:
Cost
CDBGApproved
5.000
1) Architect/Engineer Design Costs $
2) Administration Costs 768.064
3) Planning Costs
4) Acquisition Costs
5) Construction Costs
6) Relocation Costs
7) Equipment Costs
8) Other Costs
9) Operation/Maintenance
10) Contingency
TOTAL $ 768.064 $ 5.000,
,Note: This project is being administered on behalf of the City of Temecula by
the County of Riverside. See the Sponsor's Agreement between the County and
Alternatives to Domestic Violence governing the expenditure of these 17th Year
CDBG Funds (File #0.070).
EXHIBIT G
Page 1
FILE NO: 1.TM008
SUpPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT
Cooperative Agency: .CitV of Temecula
Address: 43174 Business Park Dr.. Temecula. CA 92590
Project Title: Senior outreach Against Rape
Location: Western Riverside County
Description: Program provides' outreach services to senior citizens in Western
Riverside County. This program is designed to provide education awareness and
prevention presentations to senior citizens. In addition, it addresses the need
for crisis intervention supportive services and prevention to victims of sexual
assault amongst the senior citizen population. Address: 2060 University Ave.,
Suite 104, Riverside
Project Budget:
~) Architect/Engineer Design Costs
2) Administration Costs
3) Planning Costs
4) Acquisition Costs
5) Construction Costs
6) Relocation Costs
7) Equipment Costs
8) Other Costs
9) Operation/Maintenance
10) Contingency
TOTAL
Cost CDBG Approved
$
4,000 4,000
4.000 $ 4,000
EXHIBIT G
Page 2
File:
1.TM008
Timetable Implementation Schedule
Milestone
Begin Program Services
Submit Quarterly Progress Reports
Complete Project
Start Date
1/15/92
4/15/92
Completion Date
6/30/92
EXHIBIT G
Page 3
File: 1.TM008
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND =URBAN DEVELOPMENT
ANNUAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT SUMMARY
3. PERIOD OF APPLICABILITY
FROM TO
July 1. 1991
J~ne 30. 1992
1. NAME OF APPLICANT
County of Riverside
2. APPLICATION/GRANT NUMBER
B-91-UC-06-0506
X original (each year)
Revision, Date
..Amendment, Date
5. NAME OF PROJECT 6. PROJECT NUMBER 7. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS
Senior Outreach Against Rape 1.TM008 Exempt
8. ENTITY WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR CARRYING OUT THE PROJECT 9'. TELEPHONE NUMBER
Riverside Area Rape Crisis Center (714) 694-6480
10. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Program provides outreach services to senior citizens
in Western Riverside County. This program is designed to provide education
awareness and prevention presentations to senior citizens. In addition, it
addresses the need for crisis intervention supportive services and prevention to
victims of sexual assault amongst the senior citizen population. Address: 2060
University Ave., Suite 104, Riverside, CA
ELIGIBILITY: 570.201(e)
BENEFIT: 570.208(a) (2)
11. CENSUS TRACT(S)/ENUMERATION DISTRICT(S)
Seniors, limited clientele
12. ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS: The project will provide senior citizens in the
area with a valuable program that was previously unavailable in this area of the
county.
3. CDBG COMPONENT ACTIVITIES PROGRAM YEAR FUNDS(in thousands of $)
(List component activities using names CDBG OTHER
'of activities shown in Part A, COST Low/Mod Other Amount Source
SUMMARY, Form HUD-7067.) Benefit Benefit
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
Public Service $4,000 $ $
14. Totals $4.000 $ $
15. Total Costs To Be Paid With Community Development Grant Funds
(Sum of Columns b and c) $ 4,000
EXHIBIT "HP"
HOUSING POLICY FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
The Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, encourage~ md
supports the development of decent, safe, and sanitary housing within a suitable
living environment that is affordable to low and moderate income persons.
The County is required under the Act to develop and implement an approved Housing
Assistance Plan (HAP) as part of its Community Development Block Grant Applicatipn
(Title 24) Code of Federal Regulations (Part 570,306). The Housing AssistanCe
Plan serves as a measure of the conditions of the housing stock and the needs of
low and moderate income persons for housing assistance. The HAP also serves to
establish goals for assistance best suited to meet the identified needs and to
further the revitalization of the community. The HAP must also provide general
locations for assisted housing, which promotes a greater choice of housing
opportunities and avoids undue concentrations of assisted persons in areas
containing a high proportion of lower income persons, and which furthers fair
housing and assures the availability of public facilities. In addition, all
communities are expected to share in providing expanded housing opportunities for
lower income persons and to participate in area-wide solutions of housing problems
through promotion of spatial deconcentration of housing opportunities for lower
income persons.
The County and its cooperating cities have reviewed and formally approved their
respective Housing Assistance Plans. As such, the local jurisdictions are
responsible for implementation of the Housing Assistance Plan in an expeditious
manner. This includes the timely achievement of all goals for assisted housing
and particularly those which address the needs of families and large families
requiring rental assistance. Local jurisdictions may be expected to take ar'~or
all actions within their control to facilitate the implementation of an app~ ~ed
Housing Assistance Plan, including:
* acquisition of sites and provision of site improvements for the
development of assisted housing;
adoption or modification of local ordinances and land use measures
to facilitate the development of assisted housing, including insti-
tution of local referendum actions, where necessary;
issuance of appropriate zoning changes, building permits, utility
connections and similar administrative requirements;
formation of a local housing authority or execution of an agreement
with a housing authority having powers to provide assisted housing
within the local jurisdiction;
, removal of local residency preferences for assisted housing;
promotional and assistance activities to encourage developers to
initiate assisted housing or to allocate a portion of their planned
unsubsidized developments for assisted housing, and to encourage own-
ers to make units available for Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments
Program;
measures to reduce the cost of housing development, such as tax
abatement, deferral, waiver or deferral of fees and other admin-
istrative costs.
EXhibit
Housing Policy for CDBG
County of Riverside
Page Two
promotional and assistance activities to encourage developers to
initiate assisted housing or to allocate a portion of their planned
unsubsidized developments for assisted housing, and to encourage own-
ers to make units available for Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments
Program;
measures to reduce the cost of housing development, such as tax
abatement, deferral, waiver or deferral of fees and other admin-
istrative costs.
The County of Riverside requires all cities and sponsors to contribute to the
implementation of the Housing Assistance Plan. Section I of the Sponsor's
Agreement states that Community Development Block Grant funds are to be used
to assist and undertake essential Community Development and Housing
Assistance activities pursuant to the Housing and Community Development Act
of 1974, as amended.
Failure to comply with these provisions, specifically any action on the part
of a cooperating city or sponsor taken to impede the development of publicly-
assisted housing, may result in that City or sponsor not qualifying to
receive Community Development Block Grant Funding.
State law also requires local government action to produce housing.
California Government Code, Section 65302 (C) requires that all jurisdictions
in the State of California prepare a housing element which identifies
~existing and future housing needs, and develops plans for meeting such needs.
Section 65008 of the California Government Code, as amended, prohibits,
inter alia, any city or county from enacting or administering ordinances
pursuant to Title 7 (Planning and Land Use, Government Code 65000 et.
seq.) which prohibit or discriminate against any residential development
or project because of the method of financing or the race, sex, color,
religion, national origin, ancestry, lawful occupation, or age of the
owners or intended occupants of the residential development.
The Code further provides that "the Legislature finds and declares that
discriminatory practices which inhibit the development of housing for persons
and families of low, moderate, and middle income, or emergency shelters for
the homeless, are a matter of statewide concern".
Discrimination against housing for low, moderate and middle income persons,
and especially families, is a~so a matter of local concern. Therefore, it is
the policy of the County of Riverside that Community Development Block Grant
funds shall be withheld from any sponsor or potential sponsor which
discriminates against, or inhibits the development of housing for low and
moderate income persons or families within its jurisdiction. Furthermore,
each sponsoring entity shall take actions within its capabilities to the
support of publicly-assisted housing. In addition to city and community
support, special districts, including school districts, are 'expected to
assist, contribute or set aside sufficient capacity where legally possible,
to accommodate the development of low, moderate, and middle income housing
within their jurisdictions.
Prohibition Against Conflicts of Interest
EXHIBIT CI , page i of 4
570.611 Conflict of interest.
(a) Applicability.
(1) In the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction, and services
by recipients, and by subrecipients (including those specified at
S 570.204(c)), the conflict of interest provisions in 24 CFR 85.36 and
OMB Circular A 110, respectively, shall apply.
(2) In all cases'not governed by 24 CFR 85.36 and OMB Circular A-110, the
provisions of this section shall apply. Such cases include the
acquisition and disposition of real property and the provision of
assistance by the recipient, by its subrecipients, or to individuals,
businesses and other private entities under eligible activities which
authorize such assistance (e.g., rehabilitation, preservation, and
other improvements of private properties or facilities pursuant to
~ 570.202, or grants, loans and other assistance to businesses,
individuals and other private entities pursuant to ~ 570,203, ~ 570.204
or ~ 570,455).
(b) Conflicts prohibited. Except for the use of CDBG funds to pay salaries
and other related administrative or personnel costs, the general rule is that
no persons described in paragraph (c) of this section who exercise or have
exercised any functions or responsibilities with respect to CDBG activities
assisted under this part or who are in a position to participate in a decision
making process or gain inside information with regard to such activities,
obtain a personal or financial interest or benefit from a CDBG assis~
activity, or have an interest in any contract, subcontract or agreement with
respect thereto, or the proceeds thereunder, either for themselves or those with
whom they have family or business ties, during their tenure or for one year
thereafter. For the UDAG program, the above restrictions shall apply to all
activities that are a part of the UDAG project, and shall cover any such
interest or benefit during, or at any time after, such person's tenure.
(c) Persons covered. The conflict of interest provisions of paragraph (b)
of this section apply to any person who is an employee, agent, consultant,
officer, or elected official or appointed official of the recipient, or of any
designated public agencies, or subrecipients which are receiving funds under
this part.
(d) Exceptions: threshold requirements. Upon the written request of the
recipient, HUD may grant an exception to the provisions of paragraph (b) of this
section on a case-by-case basis when it determines that such an exception will
serve to further the purposes of the Act and the effective and efficient
administration of the recipient's program or project. An exception may be
considered only after the recipient has provided the following:
(1) A disclosure of the nature of the conflict, accompanied by an assurance
that there has been public disclosure of the conflict and a description
of how the public disclosure was made; and
Prohibition Against Conflicts of Interest
EXHIBIT CI, page 2 of 4
(e)
(2)
An opinion of the recipient's attorney that the interest for which
the exception is sought would not Violate State or local law.
Factors to be considered for exceptions. In determining whether to grant
a requested exception after the recipient has satisfactorily met the
requirements of paragraph (d) of this section, HUD shall consider the
cumulative effect of the following factors, where applicable:
Whether the exception would provide a significant cost benefit or
an essential degree of expertise to the program or project which
would otherwise not be available;
(2)
Whether an opportunity was provided for open competitive bidding
or negotiation;
(3)
Whether the person affected is a member of a group or class of low
or moderate income persons intended to be the beneficiaries of the
assisted activity, and the exception will permit such person to
receive generally the same interests or benefits as are being made
available or provided to the group or class;
(4)
Whether the affected person has withdrawn from his or her
functions or responsibilities, or the decisionmaking process with
respect to the specific assisted activity in question;
(s)
Whether the interest or benefit was present before the affected
person was in a position as described in paragraph (b) of this
section;
(6)
Whether undue hardship will result either to the recipient or the
person affected when weighed against the public interest served by
avoiding the prohibited conflict; and
(7)
Any other relevant considerations.
Prohibition Against Conflicts of Interest
Exhibit CI, page 3 of 4 ~
Community Dvlpmt.~
Block Grant
Policy Manual
I.D. #
(pg. i of 2)
TOPIC:
CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODED
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
DATE: October 1989
This Conflict of Interest Code is written to comply with Federal Regulations
(24 CFR Part 85). These Regulations. "Administrative Requirements for Grants
and Cooperative Agreements to State, Local and Federally Recognized Indian
Tribal Governments" require that grantees and sub-grantees will maintain a
written code of standards of conduct governing the performance of their
employees engaged in the award and administration of contracts.
1) No employee, officer or agent of the grantee shall participate in the
selection, in the award or in the administration of a contract supported
Federal Funds if a conflict of interest, real or apparent, would be involve
2) Such a conflict will arise when:
i) The employee, officer or agent;.
ii) Any member of the immediate family;
iii)
iv)
His/Her partners, or;
An organization which employs, or is about to employ any of the
above has a financial or other interest in the firm's selection for
award.
3) The grantee's or sub-grantee's officers, employees or agents will neither
solicit nor accept gratuities, favors or anything of monetary value from
contractors or parties to sub-agreements except as noted in Section 4.
4) A grantee's or sub-grantee's officers, employees or agents will be
presumed to have a financial interest in a business if their financial interest
exceeds the following:
i)
ii)
Any business entity in which the official has a direct or indirect
investment worth one thousand dollars ($1,000) or more.
Any real property in which the official has a direct or indir,'~·
interest worth one thousand dollars ($1,000) or more.
Prohibition Against Conflicts of Interest
Exhibit CI, page 4 of 4
TOPIC:
DATE:
iii)
iv)
v)
Community Dvlpmt.
Block Grant
Policy Manual
I.D. # A-11
(pg. 2of 2)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
October 1989
Any source of income, other than gifts and other than loans by a
commercial lending institution in the regular course of business on
terms available to the public without regard to official status,
aggregating two hundred fifty dollars ($250) or more in value provided
to, received by or promised to the official within 12 months prior to
the time when the decision is made.
Any business entity in which the official is a director, officer,
partner, trustee, employee, or holds any position of management.
Any donor of, or any intermediary or agent for a donor of, a gift or
gifts aggregating two hundred fifty dollars ($250) or more in value
provided to, received by, or promised to the official within 12 months
prior to the time when the decision is made.
For purposes of Section 4, indirect investment or interest means any
investment or interest owned by the spouse or dependent child of an
official, by an agent on behalf of an official, or by a business entity
or trust in which the official, the official's agents, spouse, and
dependent children own directly, indirectly, or beneficially a 10-
percent interest or more.
ITEM
15
ORDINANCE NO. 92-02
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA EXPANDING THE OLD
TOWN HISTORICAL DISTRICT BOUNDARY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Public hearings have been held before the Planning Commission and City
Council of the City of Temecula, State of California, pursuant to the Planning and Zoning law
of the State of California, and the City Code, of the City of Temecula. The application land use
district as shown on the attached exhibit is hereby approved and ratified as part of the Official
Land Use map for the City of Temecula as adopted by the City and as may be amended
hereafter from time to time by the City Council of the City of Temecula and the City of
Temecula Official Zoning Map is amended by placing in affect the zone or zones as described
in Change of Zone No. 19 and in the above title, and as shown on attached Exhibit I and
incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 2. Notice of adoption. Within 10 days after the adoption hereof, the City
Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be
posted in at least three public places in the City.
SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of this
Ordinance to be posted and published as required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of February, 1992.
ATTEST:
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
3lOrds 92-02
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)
CITY OF TEMECULA )
SS
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. 92-02 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular
meeting of the City Council on the 11th day of FebrUary, 1992, and that thereafter, said
Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 25th day
of February, 1991, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: 5
COUNCILMEMBER:
Birdsall, Moore, Lindemans, Mu~oz
Parks
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
June S. Greek, City Clerk
ITEM
16
ORDINANCE NO. 92-03
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 11.08
AT SECTION 11.08.113 REGARDING PARKING IN
FRONT OF FIRE HYDRANTS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 12.08.223 of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended
by adding subsection (j) to read as follows:
"(j) within five (5) feet in either direction of a fire hydrant (ten (10) feet overall)
authorized by Vehicle Code Section 22514, when such place is approved by the Fire Chief, and
indicated by appropriate signs or by red paint upon the curb surface."
SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of this
Ordinance to be posted and published as required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 251h day of February, 1992.
ATr~T
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
3/oeds/92-03
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMEULA )
I, June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Temecula, HEREBY DO CERTIFY
that the foregoing Ordinance No. 92-03 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading
at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 11th day of February, 1992 and that thereafter,
said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City
of Temecula on the 25th day of February, 1992 by the following roll call vote:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS:
lune S. Greek, City Clerk
3lords/92-03
ITEM
17
APPROV.
CITY ATTORNEY ~
FIiNANCE OFFICER
C TY 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:
Mark Rhoades
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff Recommends that the City
Council:
REAFFIRM Environmental Assessment No. 32547 for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 23372, and;
APPROVE the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 23372, based on the Analysis and Findings contained
in the staff report, and subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
DISCUSSION:
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~23372-1 .CC
At present, a joint application is being pursued by Buie Corporation and 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 Palomar Village in between Buie's property and the Village.
As of this writing, no response has been received from Bedford.
S%STAFFRPT%23372-1 .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\STAFFRPT\23372-1 ,CC 3
VENTUNA COUNTY OFFICE
1310 pONDEROSA DRIVE
CAMARILLO, CALIFOI~NIA el3010
TEL[COPIER: 1806) 46~"e834
3200 BRISTOL $TRr[T
SUIT[ e40
COSTA MrSAt CALIIrORNIA e-eae
(714l S4lsoSISe
ONE WILlSHIRE BUILDING
624 SOUTH GRAND AV[NUir, elt14 FLOOR
LOS ANGELEls, CALIFORNIA S0017
12I"ll I3S.,.C)SO0
TELECOPIER: ¢113) 13G-2700
February 10, 1992
l,k'. Greg Erickson
BEDFORD PROPERTIES
28765 Single Oak Drive
Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92590-0736
Re: The Box Culvert under Palomar Village
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 Flood 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 "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."
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.
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 TEMECULA
CC:
Gary Thornhill, Planning Director
Tim Serlet, City Engineer
Dennis Klimmek, Esq.
d~I!07899.LTR
tv Council Minutes
motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS:
Lin,
~uarv 28.1992
Moore, Mu~oz, Parks,
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
:ILMEMBER~
None
RECESS
Mayor Birdsall called a recess
previously scheduled CSD Me
PM. Th~
at 9:00 PM.
ting was reconvened following the
PUBLIC HEARING
Councilmember Pa~ stated that although he was absent at the
review tapes an prepared to vote on the public hearings.
~uncil meeting, he did
Councilm, Mu~oz stated he would be absent from voting on Items 10
conflic! ~terest.
11 due to a
Birdsall announced that Items 10 and 11 would be heard concurrently.
10.
Vestina Tentative Tract MaD No. 23372 - Buie Corporation - Margarita Village Specific
Plan
11.
Vestinq Tentative Tract MaD No. 23373 - Buie Corporation - Marqarita Villaqe Specific
Plan
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.
Ninutes\l\28\~2
-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 Zinfandel 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 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 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
Minutes\l\28\92 -8- 02/14/92
City Council Minutes
January 28, 1992
Valley Wash. He explained that little of this material originated from the Villages, and
most came from Bedford and Buie Projects.
Jane Vernon, 30268 Mersey Court, stated the developers causing this damage need
to take responsibility for their actions and clean 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 and 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 Mu~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 Tem 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
Ninutes\1\28\92 -9- 02/14/92
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: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz
RECESS n/t
yor Birdsall called a recess at 10 36 PM The meetIng was reco h
' all bers present.
-No. 5631, Tentative Tract MaD No..-[5320 - Bedford Properties
'~~e "~;' '
It was moved by .~.. m Lindemans, S'~Conded by Councilmember Mu~oz to
./' I MEMBER . Moo e Mu~oz, Parks,
AYES: 5 ,~OUNC L S: e~, ,
. Birdsall '~.
.. ~-': '~~
NOES:/:"~ 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
NT: 0
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Minutes\l\28\92 -10- 02/14/92
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
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 Ordina. nces, 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:
S~,STAFFRPT~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 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 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:
S%STAFFRFP, 23372VTM.CC 8
Be
Ce
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 generals 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.
Ee
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.
Ge
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.
Ce
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%STAFFRPT~23372VTM.CC 9
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size
and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and density,
due to the fact that; adequate area is provided for all proposed residential
structures; adequate landscaping is provided along the project's public and
private frontages; and the internal circulation plan should not create traffic
conflicts as design provisions are in 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 appl,ication 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%STAFFRFT~23372VTM.CC 10
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could
have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case
because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to
the project, and the Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby reaffirmed.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves the First Extension of Time for
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 for the subdivision of 46.9 acres into a 66 lot
condominium project located northerly of Rancho California Road on the west side of
Meadows Parkway and known as Assessor's Parcel no. 923-210-014 subject to the following
conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION 4.
The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, 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
mSTAFFRPT~23372VTM.CC 11
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT.
City Manager/City Council
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
January 28, 1991
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372, First Extension of Time
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373, First Extension of Time
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff Recommends that the City
Council:
REAFFIRM Environmental Assessment No. 32547 for
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372, and;
APPROVE the First Extension of Time for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 23372, based on the analysis
and findings contained in the staff report, and subject to
the attached Conditions of Approval.
DISCUSSION:
Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village) was originally adopted by the Riverside County Board
of Supervisors on September 6, 1988. At that time Planning Areas 38, 40, and 41 were
approved for 803 dwelling units. Planning Area 39 is a commercial parcel.
Specific Plan No. 199, Amended No. 1, was approved by the County Board of Supervisors
on April 5, 1989. At that time the number of dwelling units in Planning Area 41 was reduced
from 234 to 232 units. At the same time the unit count was increased in Planning Area 40
from 221 to 237 units. This raised the total unit count of the three Planning Areas from 803
to 817.
The two Vesting Tentative Tract Maps (Nos. 23372 and 23373) were tentatively approved
by the County Board of Supervisors on October 5, 1988. The total unit count approved was
817. The current extension of time requests reflect the number of units approved under the
original Tentative Map applications and the approved Specific Plan No. 199 Amended No. 1.
S~°t,ANNING%23372.CC
Page 2
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372, First Extension of Time
As a matter of public record, a substantial amount of public protest has been received.
Residents in the vicinity of the two projects are opposing the granting of time extensions for
both maps. Several petitions are attached to this report.
However, the project is in conformance with the amended Specific Plan, and the originally
approved Tentative Maps. As a result, Staff's recommendation remains unchanged.
vgw
S\PLANNING\23372.CC 2
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
P!anning Department
January 14, 1992
First Extension Of Time Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372
PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDATION:
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
Mark Rhoades
The Planning Department Staff Recommends that the City
Council:
REAFRRM Environmental Assessment No. 32547 for
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372, and:
APPROVE the First Extension of Time for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 23372, based on the analysis
and findings contained the staff report, and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
Buie Corporation
Margarita Village Development Company
First Extension of Time for a 66 lot condominium map for
apartment or a congregate care facility with 469 total
dwelling units on 46.9 acres.
Northerly of Rancho California Road, on the west side of
Kaiser Parkway
Sl~ecific Plan 199 (Margari.ta Village)
S~$TAFFRP'P,23372VTM. 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:
Vacant
Vacant
Single Family Residential
Vacant
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Total Acreage:
No. of Lots:
Planning Area 40:
Planning Area 41:
Total Site Density:
46.9
66
25 D.U./AC.
6.2 D.U./AC.
10.66 D.U./AC.
BACKGROUND
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23372 and 23373 are portions of the Margarita Village Specific
Plan No. 199. The two maps were tentatively approved by the County of Riverside in
November of 1988. The City of Temecula Planning Commission recommended approval of
the First Extension of Time on November 4, 1991 by a vote of 5-0.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 is an application to subdivide 46.9 acres of land into
a 66 lot condominium project which will include senior citizen apartments or a congregate care
facility, with a unit total of 469. The project is 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, south and
west sides by vacant land. To the east is an existing single-family residential tract. The
proposed product will be limited to senior citizen residents.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Issues which were raised by the Planning Commission relative to the project included parkland
and erosion control. The park issue is mitigated as a result of the 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~$TAFFRIrr~23372V"rM-CC 2 -----
FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND* SWAP CONSISTENCY
The current SWAP designation for the proposed map is Specific Plan. The project is in
conformance with Specific Plan No. 199 and therefore will likely be consistent with the City's
future adopted General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Riverside County Environmental Assessment No. 32547 was previously adopted for the
proposed project. It is recommended that the City Council re-affirm the previous
environmental assessment.
FINDINGS
There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the City's
future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance
with State law, due to the fact that the project is consistent with existing site
development standards in that it proposes articulated design features and site
amenities commensurate with existing and anticipated residential development
standards.
There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the
future and adopted general plan, if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent
with the plan, due to the fact that the project is in conformance with existing and
anticipated land use and design guidelines standards.
The proposed use or action complies with state planning and zoning laws, due to the
fact that the proposed use conforms with those uses listed as "allowed" within the
zoning designation of Specific Plan 199.
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and
shade 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 CiW standards.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or
welfare, due to the fact that the conditions stated in the approval are based on
mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts of the
project.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it does
not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area, due
to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the current zoning of the
subject site.
~ S\STAFFRPT~23372VTM.CC 3
10,
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely effect 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 this application and herein incorporated by reference, due to the fact
that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report, Exhibits, and Conditions of
Approval.
vgw
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Planning Areas 40 and 41 Standards, Specific Plan 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~STAFFRPl'%23372V114,CC 4, ~
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PLANNING AREAS 40 AND 41
STANDARDS, SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199
~ S~STAFFRFT'~23372VTM.CC 5
39-.- FR'nrt4"~ Area 40
d. ~.,~-,~~Y'.E~t ~u-~/g"(~~ .~ -~4-z~x~ .
Plan Zone Ordinate Tab).
~. P~annina. 5tandar~s'
Access into plannim~Area-40'wi11* be ~i~e~'--foT an
access rvad =D the south which c~nnects t~
Parkway.
A landscaped buffer is planned bei~eem Planning Areas"-
38 and 39 to help sep~t. he. zsKidmn~=Lsl.-.~w~
the adjoining commercial uses-..
A major recreation and ac'civitTcsTrtmr-.is'
Village "A" adjacent to P1-~-v{~3-Area'3'r~ smrvm'the
residents of the retirem~nt'c~nn~ity. A variety of
facilities are planned; the center may include tennis
courts, lecture halls, sw~mm4na, ar~iatm~-~/fa~T{-
ties.
A Major Retirement Entry-l~,a~- ~r-a~--~.. is
planned at the entrance ~= P~ .... r-~.Arm~38
California Road. (See Ftgur--s"III&22'~'ITr--T3-) A
Minor 'Retirement EntzT- landscape treatment is planned
along Kaiser Parkway. (See Figures III-24 & III-25.)
Building height shall not exceed 3 stories, with a
maximum height of 40 feet.
Subject to approval by the Fire Chief and the
Department of Building amoS a/st]F, ch4~-~ys and/or
firelaces shall be ailowei=~encr~ralin=~ &idayards
a maximum of two (Z) fme=,.'
encroachments shall be ~rmit~red in the front, side or
rear yard except as providad =or in Section 18.19
Ordinance No. 348.2922.
Note: Numbers in italics .~1
Conformante number 1.
amended by Substantial
_Uma.-cs4=::tzemmn~' vi. LIaq~,:' malr-..m=~-q=VLF.'ezs:qm='cmmnt:s~
Ares*."
&Am s~andards ~ha~r'aFplY si~a--wide-
Please refer to Desi;=.~4~ 7~' S':hTee~Cign~'III/"fuT
design-rela~ed criteria.
--144 - """
h. T~nd Use and Devel
Please refer to Ora~-~-~- g~_..a4a.2s2~_ (See S. -~
Plan Zone Ordinance Tab).
c~. Plan~i~Strndardr
Access in~ Plaunizz/Ar~a' 4I' viII ~e Irr~vt~ed from
Kaiser Parkray and a local access. r~a~
(See Figure II-3O.)
A major recreation and ac~civit~ cen~T_ is p?...-a, in
Village "A" adjacent.'~2':N~----{~/:ATsa: 37'122-s~rvm-~=hm .=
residents of ~he reti=~_~L-', ............ +tit;:
facilities are planned~ the ~-n~-~y ~-~,,~.--~is
courts, lecture ha, ~~,~"~t-t~ facili-
ties.
A Major Retirement EnC~ landscape treatmen~ is
pla~ed at ~e entrance ~
· ~ltf~ ~. {g~ ~l~r;; III--22 · II1--23.) A
Minor Re~ir~en~ En=~
along Kaiser Parlay. (=~~=--24.&
Building heigh~ shalI.~"'~~ = ~lss, ~
m~im~ height of 40 fee=.
S~Ject ~o approval by ~e Fire ~ief and
Depamen= of Building and Safety, chi~eys and/or
fireplaces shall be allowed to encroach into sidey~
a maxim~ of two (2) fee~. No other s=nc=ural
encroac~en~s shall ~e p~~ ~~ ~.~, si~
rear yard except as pr~!d~ Z~ ~-~~ ~.~
Ordinance No. 348.2922
The maxim~ ratio of ~o~ area ~o lo~ area shall
be greater ~an two ~ o~s, no= including basem~
floor area.
Note: Numbers in italics' [1
Conformance number 1.
amended by Substantial
--145-
-14 6 - ~
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 92-__
~ S%STAFFRFT~3372V'TM.CC 6
ATi'ACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING THE FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23372 TO SUBDIVIDE
46.9 ACRES INTO A 66 LOT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT
LOCATED NORTHERLY OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD ON
THE WEST SIDE OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 923-210-014.
WHEREAS, The, Buie Corporation filed First Extension of Time for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No, 23372 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning,
Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map
application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said First Extension of Time
for Vesting Tentative Tract Map on November 4, 1991, at which time interested persons had
an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map;
WHEREAS, the City Council considered said First Extension of Time for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map on January 14 1992, at which time interested persons had an
opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Council hearing, the Council approved said
First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. 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 thi~rty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month
period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted
or the requirements of State law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan,
if all of the following requirements are met:
S%STAFFRPT%23372VTM,CC 7
e
The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general
plan.
The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
(1)
There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed
will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time.
-. (2)
There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference
with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
(3) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances.
The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community
Plan, (heroinafter 'SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the
'General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now
within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its
General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of its General Plan.
The proposed First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map is consistent
with the SWAP and meets the requirements set 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 approving projects and taking other actions, including
the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following:
(1)
There is reasonable probability that First Extension of Time for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 proposed will be consistent with the
general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be
studied within a reasonable time.
(2)
There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference
with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
(3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances.
Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460, no subdivision may be
approved unless the following findings are made:
S%STAFFRPT~3372VTM,CC 8
That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and
specific plans.
That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans,
That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of
development.
That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the
proposed density of fie 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 thSt 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 proposed use conforms with those uses listed as "allowed"
within the zoning designation of Specific Plan 199.
S\STAFFRFT',23372VTM.CC I 9
D$
'G.
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the
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 deigned 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 us. able by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project currat"-,
proposes access points from Kaiser Parkway which have been determineo .u
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 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 First Extension of Time for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
$\STAFFRPT~3372VTM,CC 10
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could
have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case
because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to
the project, and the Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby reaffirmed.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves the First Extension of Time for
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 for the subdivision of 46.9 acres into a 66 lot
condominium project located northerly of Rancho California Road on the west side of
Meadows Parkway and known as Assessor's Parcel no. 923-210-014 subject to the following
conditions:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION 4.
The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of January, 1992.
PATRICIA H. BIRDSALL
MAYOR
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the
City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 14th day of January, 1992 by the
following vote of the Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
JUNE S. GREEK
CITY CLERK
S\$TAFFRPT',23372VTM.CC I 1
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
~ S%$TAFFIqPT'~aa72VTM.CC 12
A'i'i'ACHMENT NO. 3
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372
First Extension of Time
Council Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Unless previously paid, 'prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall
comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set
forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions
of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance
No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as
implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
No building permits 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 sharl be deposited with the City as mitigation for public library
development.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this project, and
shall be Completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true
meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff person of the Department
of Public Works.
It is understood that the Developer has correctly shown on the tentative map all existing
easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project
to be resubmitted for further review.
The Developer shall comply with all Conditions of Approval as previously imposed or amended
and with the Conditions noted below.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part
of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section.
Delete Condition No. 24 of Riverside County Road Commissioner letter dated September, 30,
1988, and replace it with the following:
~ S\STAFFRPT~3372V'rM.CC 13
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 writl:en agreement with the City deferring said
payment to the time of issuance of a building permit.
An erosion control and slope protection plan shall be submitted to the Department of
Public Works for review and approval. The installation shall be certified by a registered
Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and site conditions shall be maintained to
protect adjacent properties from damage due to runoff and erosion. Developer shall
post a performance bond for erosion control and slope protection in an amount
approved by the Department of Public Works.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area
Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is
payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area
Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new
charge needs to be paid.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Rood Control District;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Department of Public Works;
Riverside County Health Department; and
CATV Franchise.
Community Services
Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CA'IV Franchises of the Intent
to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time of street
improvements.
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an
encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office, in addition to
any other permits required.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed
upon the property of project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as
required for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time
of payment of fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not
been finally established by the date on which developer requests its building permits
for the project or any phase thereof, the developer shall execute the Agreement for
S\STAFFRFT~3372VTM.CC 14
PRIOR
payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of which has been provided to developer.
Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, developer shall post security to secure
payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the security shall be $2.00 per
square foot, not to exceed $10,000. Developer understands that said Agreement may
require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees). By execution of this Agreement, developer will
waive any right to protest the provisions from this Condition, of this Agreement, the
formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any
traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; orovided that developer is not
waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the
amount thereof.
TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
10.
Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C.
pavement, sidewalk, dri!ve approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior
public streets.
11.
All street improvements striping, marking and signing shall be installed per the
approved plans and to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
12. Delete Condition No. 36 of Riverside County Road Commissioner letter dated
September 30, 1988.
13.
Traffic striping, marking and street name signing plans shall be designed as directed
by the Department of Public Works. Said plans shall include Rancho California Road,
Margarita Road and all streets conditioned under this subdivision.
14.
A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure and detour or other disruption
to traffic circulation as required by the City Engineer.
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT:
15.
Prior to recordation of the final map the applicant or his assignee shall pay the fair
market value of 5.49 acres of required parkland to comply with City Ordinance No.
460.93 (Quimby). The amount to be paid shall be determined by TCSD staff within
thirty (30) days prior to recordation of said map.
16.
Exterior slopes bordering an arterial street may be dedicated to the TCSD for
maintenance following compliance to TCSD standards and completion of the
application process.
$~$TAFFRPT~3372VTM.CC 15
)T.dTILT4)TT~ COiQ(TBeTOM XTZWTA~Ie
~ovember 4, lggl
CHaXRMANHOAGLANDopened the public hearing at 7:30 P.M.'~
ED BEECH, 44601 Harvey Way, Hemet, representing the
applicant, concurred with the modifications to the
Conditions of Approval.
COMMXSSXONER FORD moved to close the public hearing at
7:25 P.M. and recommend that the City Council Adopt the
Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No. 25408 and Adopt
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 COMMISSIONER FAHEY.
AYES: 4
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey, Ford, -,
Hoagland
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN:I COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff
CHAIRMAN HOAGLANDadvised 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:
( TPCMINll/4/91 -7- 11/6/91--~
~dAWNTMG COMMZBBZO~ XZ)IUT~B
November 4, 1991
8. V~BTINe TENTATIVE TI~CT NO. 23372-
Proposal for extension of time for a 66 Lot Condominium
and apartment subdivision. 469 dwelling units on 46.9
acres. Located north of Rancho California Road, westside
of Kaiser Parkway.
VESTING TENTATIV2 TRACT NO. 23373
9.9 Proposal for extension of time for 34S condominium units
on 23.5 acres with an additional 7.5 acres of commercial.
MARK RHOADEB 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 RHOADEB advised that the expiration date of the map
was November 8, 1991.
ROBERT RIGHETTI 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.
COMMISSIONER FAHEY questioned 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.
~ TPCMINll/4/91 -S- 11/6/91
.- ~T.p'NWTIIG COBg(ZBBZON RZNUT'eB
!loVmm~er 4, ¶99Z
MARK RHOADBB advised that due to the time constraint~'~
involved with the expiration, staff is trying to keep the
map alive to address these issues.
CHAIRMAN HOAGLANDopenedthe public hearing at 7:45 P.M.
CHARLES 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
~s part 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 byNovember 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 Extension of Time for VTT 23372 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 school~
and the developer's inability to provide adequate erosion
control to date:
CARL ABBOTT, 31987 Vineyard, Temecula.
ANA BLANCO, 31748 Corte'Tortosa, Temecula.
THOMAS BENTLEY, 41473 Zinfandel Avenue, Temecula.
RAPLH BROWNELL, 41487 Zinfandel Avenue, Temecula.
J.R. SHEKOSKI, 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.
STEVEN CURNOW, 41636 Chablis Court, Temecula.
CRAIG EVANS, 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.
( TPCMIN11/4/91 -9- 11/6/9L-
__.~TF CO)aq~agl0~ N~NU~8 =~ov-m~er 4. lgg~
COMMlSBlONZlt FaI~EY asked what the Commission's options
were in taking action on this item.
JOHN CAV~_NAUGH advised that 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 park 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 FAHEY questioned what findings the
Commission would have to make to deny based on a health
and safety issue.
JOHN CAVANAUGH 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 advised that 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.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to close the public hearing
at 8:45 P.M. and Adopt Resolution 91-/next) recommending
that the City Council APprove the First Extension of Time
for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23372, contingent upon
the implementation of corrective grading and erosion
control measures to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
prior to the City Council approval, seconded by
COMMISSIONER FAHEY.
CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND 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- 11/6/91
~.~a~l]~(I CO)n~TBBTON MX~8
stated that he had a problem accepting this.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF requested that his motion include
that ItemNo. 4-C-6 be deleted from the Resolution, with
concurrence by COMMISSIONER FAHEY.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff, Hoagland
" NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMIBBIONERCHINII~EFF moved to close the public hearing
at 8:45 P.M. and Adopt Resolution 91-(next) recommending
that the City CouncilApprove the First Extension of Time
for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23373, contingent upon
the implementation of corrective grading and erosion
control measures to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
prior to the City Council approval, and deleting Item
4-C-6 of the Resolution, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff, Hoagland
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
PLANNING 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.
PLANNING COMMISSION DISCU88ION
COMMISSIONER FAHEY asked for a list of Planning Department
employees and their functions.
COMMISSIONER 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
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
,--- S%STAFFRP'T'~3372V'TM.CC 16
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 4, 1991
Case No.: First Extension of Time Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372
Prepared By: Mark Rhoades
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff Recommends that the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT Resolution 91-__ Recommending that the City Council
APPROVE the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract
No. 23372, contingent upon the implementation of corrective
grading and erosion control measures to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer prior to the City Council approval, based on the
Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report, and subject
to the attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Buie Corporation
REPRESENTATIVE:
Margarita Village. Development Company
PROPOSAL:
First Extension of Time for a 66 lot condominium complex
and an al~artment or congregate care facility with 469
total dwelling units on 46.9 acres.
LOCATION:
Northerly of Rancho California Road, on the west side of
Kaiser Rarkway
EXISTING ZONING:
Specific Plan 199 (Margarita Village)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Specific Plan 199 (Margarita Village)
Specific Plan 199 (Margarita Village)
R-1 (Single-Family Residential)
Specific Plan 199 (Margarita Village)
PROPOSED ZONING:
Not requested
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
Vacant
Single Family Residential
Vacant
S\STAFFRFT%23372.VTM
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Total Acreage:
No. of Lots:
Proposed Density:
Planning Area 40:
Planning Area 41:
Total Site Density:
46.9
66
25 D.U./AC.
6.2 D.U./AC.
10.66 D.U./AC.
BACKGROUND
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23372 was originally approved by the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors on November 8, 1988. The First Extension of Time was filed in October of 1990.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Vesting Tentative Tract Map NO. 23372 is a portion of the Margarita Village Specific Plan No.
199. The Tentative Map encompasses Planning Areas 40 and 41.
Planning Area No. 40 proposes a 237 unit congregate care and/or apartment facility on 9.6
acres. The overall density of that project would be approximately 25 dwelling units per acre
at buildout.
Planning Area 41 is a 66 lot, 232 unit condominium development on 37.3 acres. The overall
density of Planning Area 41 is approximately 6.2 dwelling units per acre.
FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND ,SWAP CONSISTENCY
The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map is generally consistent with the approved Specific
Plan No. 199. The Southwest; Area Plan designation for this project is Specific Plan. It is
likely that this project will be consistent with the future adopted General Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 202 was previously adopted by Riverside County for
Specific Plan No. 199. Staff has determined that said EIR still applies to this subdivision.
FINDINGS
There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the City's
future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance
with State law, due to the fact that the project is consistent with existing site
development standards in that it proposes articulated design features and site
amenities commensurate with existing and anticipated residential development
standards.
e
There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the
future and adopted general plan, if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent
with the plan, due to the fact that the project is in conformance with existing and
anticipated land use and design guidelines standards.
The proposed use or action complies with state planning and zoning laws, due to :he
fact that the proposed use conforms with those uses listed as "allowed" within the
zoning designation of Specific Plan 199.
S%STAFFRFT~23372.VTM 2
10.
11.
STAFF
vgw
shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and density, due to the fact
that; adequate area is provided for all proposed residential structures; adequate
landscaping is provided along the project's public and private frontages; and the
internal circulation plan should not create traffic conflicts as design provisions are in
conformance with adopted City standards.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or
welfare, due to the fact that the conditions stated in the approval are based on
mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts of the
project.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 is compatible with surrounding land uses. The
harmony in scale, bulk, height, density and coverage creates a compatible physical
relationship with adjoining properties, due to the fact that the proposal is similar in
compatibility with surrounding land uses; and adequate area and design features
provide for siting of proposed development in terms of landscaping and internal traffic
circulation.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it does
not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area, due
to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the current zoning of the
subject site.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the EIR for the project, due to the fact that impact
mitigation is realized by conformance with the project's Conditions of Approval.
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
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.
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.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Department Staff Recommends that the
Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution 91-__ Recommending that the City
Council APPROVE the First Extension of Time for Vesting
Tentative Tract No. 23372, contingent upon the
implementation of corrective grading and erosion control
measures to the satisfaction of the City Engi. neer 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\STAFFFIPT'~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~STAFFRFT~3372,VTM 4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
S%STAFFRPT~3372.V'rM 5
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 91-109
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME
FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23372-A 66 LOT RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION ON 46.9 ACRES AND KNOWN AS A PORTION OF ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 923-210-014.
WHEREAS, The Buie Corporation filed the Time Extension in accordance with
the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City
has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Time Extension application was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Time Extension on
November 4, 1991, at which ti~e 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 li~le or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference
with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
(3)
The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances. ·
S\STAFFRFT~23372.VTM 6
The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community
Plan, (hereinafter 'SWAP') was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the
General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now
within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its
General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of its General Plan.
The proposed Time Extension is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements
set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit:
The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general
plan.
The-Planning Commission finds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the
following:
(1)
There is reasonable probability that the Time Extension proposed will be
consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or
which will bq studied within a reasonable time,
(2)
There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference
with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
(3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances.
Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no Time Extension may be approved unless the following
findings can be made:
The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with
all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances,
Be
The proposed subdivision does not affect the general health, safetY, and
welfare of the public, "
The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the proposed Time
Extension, makes the following findings, to wit:
(1)
There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with
the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable
time and in accordance with State law, due to the fact that the project
is consistent with existing site development standards in that it
proposes articulated design features and site amen,ties commensurate
with existing and anticipated residential development standards.
(2)
There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future and adopted general plan, if the proposed
use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact
that the project is in conformance with existing and anticipated land use
and design guidelines standards.
S%STAFFI~wT%23372'VTM 7
The proposed use or action complies with state planning and zoning
laws, due to the fact that the proposed use conforms with those uses
listed as "allowed" within the zoning designation of Specific Plan 199.
(4)
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of
the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access,
and density, due to the fact that; adequate area is provided for all
proposed residential structures; adequate landscaping is provided along
the project's public and private frontages; and the internal circulation
plan should not create traffic conflicts as design provisions are in
conformonce with adopted City standards.
(5)
The project as designed and condidoned 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)
Vooting Tontativo Traot Map No, 23372 i~ pampatibia with surrounding
Iond u~os. Tho harmony in apple, bulk, hoight, donpity and covcrogc
proarcs o pampatibia phyoiool rolationohip with adjoining proportics, duc
to tho foot that the proppool is :imilor in oompatibility with :urrounding
land u,3o~; and odoquotc prop and dooign footuroo providc for siting of
propo,acd dcvolopmont in torma of Iond.%,oping and internal traffic
oiroulotion. (Per Mark Rhoades after the PC mtg. on November 4, 1991 )
(7)
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property
because it. does not represent a significant change to the present or
planned land use of the area, due to the fact that the proposed project
is consistent with the current zoning of the subject site.
(8)
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the
built or natural environment as determined in the EIR for the project, due
to the fact that impact mitigation is realized by conformonce with the
project's Conditions of Approval.
(9)
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is
open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the
project currently proposes access points from Kaiser Parkway which
have been determined to be adequate by the City Engineer.
(10)
The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the
resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the property within the
proposed projects, due to the fact that this is clearly represented in the
site plan and the project analysis.
(11)
Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and
environmental documents associated with is application and herein
incorporated by reference, due to the fact that they are referenced in the
attached Staff Report, Exhibits, and Conditions of Approval.
As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 2, the Time Extension proposed conforms to the
logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future
development of the surrounding property.
S\STAFFRPT~23372.VTM 8
SECTION II, Environmental Compliance,
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby determines that the previous
environmental determination Adoption of EIR No. 202 still applies to said Tract MaD
(Extension of Time).
SECTION III. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council
approve the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 for a 66 Lot
residential subdivision on 46.9 acres and known as a portion of Assessor's Parcel No. subject
to the following conditions:
1. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
SECTION IV.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of November, 1991.
JOHN E. HOAGLAND
CHAIRMAN
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 4th
day of November 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONER
S%STAFFRIrr~3372.VTM 9
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
S\STAFFRPT~3372,VTM 10
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372
First Extension of Time
Commission Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
Planning Department
Unless previously paid, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall
comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set
forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions
of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance
No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as
implemented by County ordinance or resolution·
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~23372.VTM 11
Delete Condition No. 24 of Riverside County Road Commissioner letter dated September, 30,
1988, and replace it with the following:
Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Department
of Public Works a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation towards traffic signal
impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal
mitigation fee, he may enter into a writ'ten agreement with the City deferring said
payment to the time of issuance of a building permit.
An erosion control and slope protection plan shall be submitted to the Department of
Public Works for review and approval. The installation shall be certified by a registered
Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and site conditions shall be maintained to
protect adjacent properties from damage due to runoff and erosion. Developer shall
post a performance bond for erosion control and slope protection in an amount
approved by the Department of Public Works.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area
Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is
payable to the 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;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Rood Control District:
City of Temecula Rre 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 CATV Franchises of the Intent
to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time of street
improvements.
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an
encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office, in addition to
any other permits required.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed
upon the property of project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as
required for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time
of payment of fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not
been finally established by the date on which developer requests its building permits
for the project or any phase thereof, the developer shall execute the Agreement for
payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of which has been provided to developer.
Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, developer shall post security to secure
payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the security shall be $2.00 per
square foot, not to exceed $10,000. Developer understands that said Agreement may
S%STAFFRFl%23372.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; 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 street lights on all interior
public streets.
11.
All street improvements striping, marking and signing shall be installed per the
aDDroved plans and to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
12. Delete Condition No. 36 of Riverside County Road Commissioner letter dated
September 30, 1988.
13.
Traffic striping, marking and street name signing plans shall be designed as directed
by the Department of Public Works. Said plans shall include Rancho California Road,
Margarita Road and all streets conditioned under this subdivision.
14.
A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure and detour or other disruption
to traffic circulation as required by the City Engineer.
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT:
15,
Prior to recordation of the final map the applicant or his assignee shall pay the fair
market value of 5.49 acres of required parkland to comply with City Ordinance No.
460.93 (Quimby). The amount to be paid shall be determined by TCSD staff within
thirty (30) days prior to recordation of said map.
16.
Exterior slopes bordering an arterial street may be dedicated to the TCSD for
maintenance following compliance to TCSD standards and completion of the
application process.
$~STAFFRPT~3372.V'TM 13
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
STAFF REPORT FROM THE
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
S\STAFFRFT~3372,VTM 14
-.WUIMTITAL TO THE BO/'_RD OF SUPEA _.,ORS
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CAUFOR~!A
FROM: Planntng Department SUBMITTAL DATE: November 8, 1988
SU~IECT: VESTING TENTAT/VE and TENTATIVE TRACTS located tn the
Hargartta Vtllage Spectfic Plan (SP 199 Amendment No. 1) - Firs~
end Thtrd Supervtsortal DIstricts - Rancho California Zoning Area.
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
Receive-and Ftle the.Planning Comntsston actton of 9,28-88and
· 10-5-88: for .' '." ~
APPROVAL of Vesttng Tentative Tracts 23371 Amended No. 1, 23372
Amended No. 1, 23373 Amended No. 1, 23470 and 23471 and Tracts
22915, 22916, 23100 Amended No. 1, 2310~ 23102, and 23103 Amended
No. 1.
Rog~ Stree~er, Planntng *l~rector
R~V~DE: COUNTY RO~
& SURVEY DEPARTMENT
Prey. Agn. tel
Depu. Comments
AGENt
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING CCl4HZSSION HZNUTES
OCTOBER 5, 1988
(AGENOA ZTEJqS 5-Z, 5-3, 5-4 - REEL 1003, SZDE 1 - TAPE 6, SZDE 1)
VESTING TRACT It~ 23373 AHENUED NO. I - EA 32548 - Hargartta Vtllage
Development Company - Rancho California Area - First/Third Supervisortel
DIstricts - south of Rancho California Rd, wast of lOstset Parkway - 348
untie - 311 acres - $P 199 Zone. Schedule A
VESTING TRACT'HAP'23371AHENDED NO, 1'-.~EA 325~6 '- Hirgartta VIllage' "'
Development .Company - Rancho Celtfomta Area - FIrst/Third Supervisortel
DIstricts - rJrth of Rancho California Rd, east of Hatgirlie Rd - 2183 untie -
3gaz acres - $P lgg Zone. Schedule A
VESTING TRACT 23372 AHENDED NO. I - EA 32547 - Hargartta Vtllage Development
Company.- Rincho California Area - FIrst/Third .Supervtsortal DIstricts - north
of.Rancho. Celtfornta'Rd, wast of Kaiser. Parkway - 469 untts.on 66 lots , 441
acres - SP 199 Zone. Schedule A
The heartngs Mere opened at 6:50 p.m. and closed at 7:11 p.m.
STAFF RECOtfJENDATZON: Adoptton of the negattve declaratlons for'EA 32548, EA~
32546, and EA 32547, approval of Vesting Tract Hips 23373/a ended No. 1, 23371
Amended No. I and 23372 Amended No. I, all subject to the proposed condtttons;~
Ks. Glfford also recomended approval of a wetvet of the length to width ratio
for Vesttn Tract 23371/mended No. Z. The subject tract maps ware located
wtthtn V11Tlge A of the Hartarias Vtllage Spectftc Plan, and would create 1763
residential lots and a golf course on 254 acres. Staff had found the tract ~
maps to be cons¶siena with the adopted spectftc plan. Hs. 61fford recommeno,~
severs1 changes to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Purvtance asked
about a itscol tmpact report, and was tnfomed this report had been furnished
recently for Amendment No. Z to the spectftc plan.
Jtm Resney, representing the applicant, brtefly revtewad the developnent,
advtstng they ere proposing a state-of-the-art adult retirement coonunity
whtch tncluded· chenptonshtp 9olf course with a 37,000 square foot clubhouse
factllty tn the center of the project. He then referred to Condition 33(f)
for all three tract mps, which required front yards to be provtded wtth
landscaping and autoemttc Irrigation, and requested that thts requirement
deleted for larger lots, as tt was hts optnton that these homeowners would
prefer to do their o~n landscaping. The CCiRs would require the to comply
with spectftc standards. Fir. Resney requested that this condition be amended
by adding to the end "or shall be installed within 75 days after close of
escrow as prodded tn the CC&Rs tn the 45x100 square foot lot are·s".
Road Department Condition 21 for Tract Hap 2337Z and Condition Z4 for the
other t~o tract maps required a debrts retention wall where block walls ware
required at the top of slopes. fir. Resney requested that this condition be
amended by adding: 'if applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Road Co~ntsstoner that a Histar Homeowners Association or other anttry wtll
satisfactorily matntatn the slopes, the Road Commissioner may, at his optton,
watve thts reclutrement of a debrts retention wall," He thought that ~f they
could convtnce the Road Conw~sstoner that there would be no stlt~ng problems-,
and h 1
t at the slopes wou d be maintained, the debrts retention w;ll would no
53
_ RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COP. NISSION MINUTES
OCTOBER 5, 1988
be needed. For aesthetic reasons, he felt it would be better not to have the
small wall.
Road Department Condition 22 for Tract 2337Z and Condition 15 for the other
t~o tract maps' related to the mt'ntmum 30 foot.garage setback from face ~f
curb. Mr. Resney felt thts condition conflicted vtth'the spectftc plan
development standards which allloved 16 foot driveways with re11 up doors,
setback either frOm the back of curb or the back of sidewalk. He would prefer
to have the spectftc plan standards applled, but requested that the heartngs
not be continued.
Lee Johnson.adviSed the.'slump wall delineated.in Road Department Condition Zl
was a wall' they had been r~qutrtng for the pest three'or four years when the'
Planning Deparlinent requtred a block wall at the top of a slope. Depending on
the stze of the slope, the ROld Department Destgn Engineer could requtre a two
block htgh wall at the property 11ne to keep the debrts washtng down the slope
froe crosstng the stdeelk./hey would be wt111ng to constder any other
alternathe the developer mtght suggest, as long as tt accoepltshed the
purpose of thts condition. He requested that thts. condition be retained.
Co,w, tsstoner Donehoe asked whether addtrig to the end 'or as approved by the
Road Department" would give the developer the opportunity to provtde an
alternative plan, and Mr. Johnson agreed that tt would.
Mr. Johnson advised the garage setback required by Road Department Condition
22 for Tract 2337Z (Condition 15 for Tracts 23312 lnd23373) was the mintmum
setback requtred by Ordinance460. He had read the language requested by the
applicant, but would prefer tO retain the condition as originally proposed tn
the Road Department letter. Fir. Resney explained they had been discussing the
possibility of providing I 4 foot sidewalk, and would like to have a 24 foot
setback rather than the.26 foot setback requtred by this condition. However,
tf the Road Department preferred the existtag language, they Mould accept it.
Fir. Johnson advised the condition would not alter the width of the stdeelk In
any way.
Comtsstoner Beadllng referred to Hr. Resney*s request that front yard land-
scaptn and Irrigation not be requtred for the lar r lots, and stated she
felt ~ey should be requtred for all lots. Hr. GobedWin requested that the
condition be retatned as originally wffitten.
There was no further testimony, and the heartng ~as closed at 7:ZZ p.m.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: VeSttrig Tentative Tract llps 2337Z Amended No. Z,
23372 Amended No. Z and 23373Amended No. ~ are located wtthtn Vtllage A of
the Fiargartta Vtllage Spectftc Plan (No. %gg); the three tract maps wtll
provtde ~763 dwe111ng units and a golf course on 254 acres; Tract 23372
Amended No. Z has been condttloned wtth the spectfic plan's condition of
approval to mtttgate tmpacts to the Stephens Kangaroo Rat habttat; the-tracts
have been condtttoned to comply wtth Spectftc Plan lgg, Chang~ of Zone Case
5207, and Development Agreement No. 52 and a wetvet of the 1~ length to w~dth
ratlo wtll be needed for Vestlng Tentative Tract 23372 Amended No. Z. All
environmental concerns have been addressed tn EZRs Z07, Z02, and the tnit~al
54
· ·1
RZVERS]:DE COUNTY 'PLANNING COI~SSZON MZNUTES
OCTOBER 5, 1988
studtea for these tract maps, and no significant tmpacts have been found; the
trmct mps ere consistent wtth the Co,FrehmnstVe Generml Plan (ms amended by
CGPA Z50), Change of Zone Case St07, and Spectftc Plan Zgg Amendment No. Z;
and conform to the requ(reeents of Ord<.nances 460 and 348. The proposed
project w~11 not have a stgntftcantef~ect. on the environment.
'HOTION': Upon mtton'by cmmisstoner'D~nahoe, seconded byCeemtsStoner '8ressOn
and unmntmouslY cmrrted, the Co,mtsston adopted t.~e negettve declmrmttons for
EA 32546, EA 32547 and EA 32548, mnd mpproved Vmsttng Tmntmttve Tract IMps
23371 Mended No. 1 with m liver of the lot 1.ength to wtdth ratio, 23372
Amended No. ~, and 23373 Mended No. ~, all subject to the proposed conditions
amended ms follows, based on the above ftndtngs and conclusions and the
reco~nendmttons of.s~aff'....:' .. .-.
Trmc% No. 2337Z
9 - Mend to reflect the Septe,ber 30, Z988.Road Departsent letter.
23(2) and Z3(3) - Mend to require the developer to comply with the parkway
landscaping requirements ms shmm tn S~ectftc Plan No. 299
Mended No. Z unless mtntmnmnce ts provided by m
hammers association or other pabllc anttry.
26 - Delete the last sentence ("The ftnal sap for Vesttrig Tract 2337T shall
shw the park as a numbered lot"}.
33(c) - Roof-mounted mchantcml equtlxnent shm11 not be permitted vtthtn the
subdivision, except for the clubhouse vhtch my have screened
equipment ms mpproved by the Plmnntng Department; however, solar
eclutpment or any other ener saving devices shall be pemttted wtth
Plmnntng Departaent mpprovm~...
Condition 34(a) for Tracts 2337~. 23372, and 33(a) for Tract 23373
Add and my be phased wt~h t~e projet ". (to clartfy that wells mY be
phased with. the develoisent of the tra~ct.
Condition 33(d) for TractS 2337i and 23372, and 32(d) for Tract 23373
Buttdtng separation bel~een e|l buildings including fareplaces she1
less than ten fat ,~less aleroved by the Deparlzent of Bulldtng anld not be
Safety
and the Ftrt DeF4rlzent per Speclftc Plan ~99 Amended No. 1.
34(e) for Tracts 23372, 23372 end 33(e) for Tract 23373 - Delete
Road Departaent Cond¶tton 22 for Tract 2337iand 24 for Tracts 23372 and 23373
Add to the end "or as approved by the Road Department"
55
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COIeJISSXON HINUTES
SEPTEHBER 28, 1988
(AGENDA ZTEH 1'2 ' REEL 1002 ' SZDE 1 ' TAPE 1t SZDE I) v
NO. I ' EA 32318' Hit bo ough De . Corp. Rancho
TRACT HAP 23100 ENDED r
California/Skinner Lake Area i- Ftrst and Third Supervtsorta] DIstricts - west
of Butterfield Stage lid, north of Rancho California lid - 291 lots - 122.5~
acres - R-lISP Zones; 'Schedule A .. **. . ... .*.
TRACT HAP 23101 - EA 32533 -Marlborough Dev. Corp. - Rancho
California/Skinner Lake Area '- First end Third Supervtsortal Districts - east
of Kaiser Pkwy, west of Butterfield Stage Rd - 263 lots - 87t acres -
SP/R-2-6000 Zones. Schedule A
TRACT:' HAP '23tOZ - EA 32534- !Yarlb~roUgh 'i)ev.,**COrp;*- Rancho***
California/Skinner Lake Area :- Ftrst and Thtrd Supervlsortal DIstriCts -'north
of La Serena Nay, west of Butterfield Stage Rd - 37 lots - 16.4t acres -
SP/R-I Zones. Schedule A
TRACT HAP 23103 AHENDED NO. '1 - EA 32535 - Hirlborough Day. Corp. - Rancho
Cai I fornt a/Skinner Lake Area ,- Ftrst end Thtrd Superyt sort 81 DIstricts - west
of Butterfield Stage Rd, north of Rancho California lid - 18 lots - 29t acres -
SP/R-A-1 Zones. Schedule A
The heartngs wore opened at 9:49 a.m. and closed at 10:08 a.m.
STAFF RECOHHENDATION: kloptlon of the negatlve declarations for EA 32318,
f
32533, 32534 and 32535, and approval o Tentatlve Tract Hips 23100 Mended
No. 1, 23101, 23102, and 23103 Amended No. 1 wlth a mtver of the lot length
to width ratio, subject to the proposed conditions. The subject tract maps
were located wtthtn V111age 8 of the Hirgartta V111age Speclftc Plan, and
would dtvtde the 254 acres into 605 residential lots. Staff had found the
tract maps to be conslstont wlth the Comprehensive General Plan. Specific Plan
199 Amendment No. 1, and the:zoning whtch had been applted to the specific
plan through Change of Zone Case 5107. Hs. Gtfford recommended several
changes to the conditions for these tract maps, relating to requirements for
maintenance of the open space areas, pe~ requirements, useable yard areas,
and fenclng requirements. I1~. ICIotz suggested modifying the lest condition
for each tract map by beginning wtth the phrase "l)evelopieent of the".
Coneetssloner Bresson requested that changes be made throughout to refer to
etaher "publlc use tratls" or "recreational trltls" tnstead of "equestrian
tratls*; he felt these terms would more accurately des. tribe thetr use.
Batty Burnell, representing the applicant, accepted the condlttons as
amended. Zt was his understanding that in the event any portton of the
development agreement ms held to be tnvaltd (for any reason), the conditions
requiring compliance with that agreement would be null and votd; this was
confirmed by County Counsel.
There was no further testimony, and the hearings were closed at 10:08 a.m.
FZNDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Tentative Tract Hips 23100 Amended No. 1, 23101,
23102, and 23103 Amended No. 1 are located within Village B of the l~rgar~ta
RXVERSXDE COUNTY PLANNING COffiqXSSXON NXNUTE$
SEPTEHBER 28, I988
Vtllage Spectftc Plan; the four tract maps would dtvtde the 254 acres tnto 605
residential lots; the tract raps have been condtttoned tn accordance vtth the
spectftc plan's conditions of approval to mtttglte teaacts on the Stephens
Kangaroo Rat; the tract maps have been' condtttoned to comply wtth Spectfic
Plan 199 Amendment No', 1, 'Change Of-Zone Case 5107, and .Development. raiment.
No. 5; a River for the lot length to wtdth ratto wt11 be needed forA~ract
23103 Amended No.' i. All environmental concerns have been addressed tn [TR
107, EZR 202, and the tnttlal studtes for these tract maps, and no significant
impacts lave been found; the tract maps are conSIstent wtth the Comprehensive
Genera] Plan (as amended by Genera] P3an Amendment No. 150), Spectftc Plan Z99
Amendment No. 1 and Change of Zone .Case 5107; the tract maps confore to. the
requtrments' of Ordinances 348-and 460. The.proposed pr. oJects..wtl] not have a
significant effect on the environmenlO.
HOTZON: Upon morton b Cmmtsstoner Bresson, seconded by Co,etsstoner
Beadltng 'and unanimouSly'carried, the Commission adopted the negattve
declarations for EA 32318, EA 32533, EA 32534 and EA 32535, and approved
Tentative Tract laps 23100 Amended No. 1, 23101, 23102, and 23103 Amended
No. 1 vtth a waiver of the lot length to wtdth ratto, sub4ect to the proposed
1 based the above ftndtngs and conclusions
conditions, amended as fol ows, on
and the recommendations of staff,
Tract Map 23100 Amended No. 1
22.
23.
Amend to confom to Condition 24 (to provide for maintenance of the
common open space area by etaher a County hrvtce Area or a Homeowners
Assoctat on).
Prior to the issuance of occupancy pemtts for 160 untts on Tract
23100, the park area shall be developed per Specific Plan No. Amended
No. 1.
24. Replace with the standard alternative condition providing for
maintenance of the common open space area by etaher I County hrv~ce
Area or Homeowners Association.
37(b) Va11 and/or fence locations shall substantially confom to attached
Ftgure 1Z1-28 of Spectftc Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1.
8e
The develolxnent of Tentative Tract No. 23100 Mended No. I shall
comply wtth I11 provisions of Spectftc Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1 and
Development Agreement No. S
Tract Hap 23101
17(h) Rear yards an~ useable stde yards shall have an average flat area of
2000 square f, et.
22. Amend to confom to Condtttoh 24 (to provide for maintenance of the
common open space area by either a County Servtce Area or a Homeowners
Association).
3
RZVERSZDE COUNTT PLANNZNG CORqZSSZON HZNUTES
SEPTEHBER 28, 1988
23. Pr4or to the tssuance of occupancy permtts for 160 untts on Tract
23101, the park area shall be developed per Spectftc Plan No. Amended
No. I.
24. Replace* k"i*th the standard'*alternattve condition providing for
mintchance of the Camon open space area by e4ther a County Servtce
Area or Homeo~mers Assodatton.
37(b) Wall and/or fence locations shall substantially confom to attached
Ftgu.re III-28 of Spec!ftc Plan No, 199 Amendment No, 1,
38, The development of Tentative Tract'No,'23101 s'ha11 compl' wtth .a11.
provtslons of Spectftc Plan No, 199 Amendment No, 1 and ~evelopment
Agreement No, 5
Tract Map 23102
15
Amend to confom ~th Condition 33 (to provtde for mtntenance of the
common open space area by e~ther a County Serv4ce Area or a Homeowners
Association,
33.
Replace wtth the standard alternative condition providing for
maintenance of the camon open space area by etther a County Servtce
Area or Homeowners Association.
35(b) Wall and/or fence locations shall substantially confom to attached
Ftgure III-28 of Spectftc Plan No, 199 Amendment No, 1.
36, The development of Tentative Tract No, 23102 shall comply Wtth all
~rovtstons of $pectftc Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1 end Development
greement No. 5
Tract Map 23103 Amended No.,1
21. Amend to conform to Cond4tton 22 (to provtde for inatntenance of the
camon open space area by etther I County Servtce Area or a Homeowners
Association.
22. Replace wtth the standard alternative condition provtdlng for
mintchance of the ceanon open space area by etther a County Servtce
Area or Homeowners Association.
34(a) Wall and/or fence qocattons shall substantially conform to attached
Ftgure ZlZ-28 of Spectftc Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1.
5e
The development of Tentative Tract No. 23103 Amended No. 1 shall
comply w~th all provisions of Spectfic Plan No, 199 Amendment No. I and
Development Agreement No. 5
4
RiVERSiDE COUNTY PLANNING COI~qZSSION HZNIJTES
SEPTENBER 28, 198b
(AGENDA iTDIS 1-3 AND 1o4 - REEL 1002, SiDE I - TAPE 1, SiDE 1)
TRACT HAP 22916 - RA 32505 - Rancho California Dev. Co. - Rancho California
Area - First Supervisortel Dtstrtct- north of Pauba Rd, west of Butterf~eld'
Stage lid - 259 lots - 103.3t *acres.- R-R/SP'Zones. Schedule A
TRACT NAP 22915-- EX 32504 - Rancho* California Dev,'. Co.'-*Rancho Caltforn?a
Area - First Supervisortel Dtstrtct- south of Rancho fista lid, west of
Butterfield Stage lid - 287 lots - 91.6~ acres - R-R/SP Zones. Schedule A
VESTZNG TRACT HAP 23471 - EA 32518 - Kaiser I:)evelopment Co. - Rancho
California Area - First Supervisortel Otstrtct - south of Rancho Cal-tfornta
Rd, west of' Kaiser Pkwy - 155 lots - 44= acres -'R-Z/$P Zones. $chedule-A
VESTING TRACT NAP 23470 - EA 32517 - Kaiser Development Co. - Rancho
California Area - First Supervisortel District - north of Rancho Vista Rd,
west of Kaiser Pkwy - 325 lots - 106.3 acres - R-Z/SP Schedule A
The hearings were opened at 10:10 a.m. and closed it 11:10 a.m.
STAFF RECI:YlNENDATION: Adoptton of the negattve declarations for EA 32517, EA
32518, EA 32504, and EA 32505 and approval of Tentative Tract Paps 22915 and
22916, and Vesttng Tentative Tract Paps 23470 and 23471 subject to the
proposed condfttons, and · wetvet of the lot length to wtdth ratto for
four tract maps. These four tract maps were located tn Vtllage C of Spectftc
Plan 199 Amendment No. 1, and would dtvtde the 345 acres into 1020 residenat·]
lots, provide a 10 acre school stte, a 5 acre park stte and 3 tot lots. Staff
had found the proposed mps to be consistent wtth the Comprehensive General
Plan, the adopted spectftc plan, and the zontng whtch had been applted to the
property through Chan · of Zone Case.5102, Hs, Gtfford recommended several
changes to the conditions of approval; these changes related to the mtntmum
size, lot length 'to wtdth ratto requirements, perk requirementS,
landscaping/Irrigation requirements, and a requirement for development of the
tract raps tn accordance wtth the adopted spectftc plan and ·pproved
development agreement.
Con:nisstoner badling questioned P4. Gtfford's recomendatton for deletton of
the conditions for Tract Paps 23470, 22915 and 22916 requiring landscaping and
Irrigation. Iqs. Gtfford explained these three tent·rive naps roposed etntmum
7200 square foot lots and the County dtd not normally requtre ~andscaptng and
Irrigation for lots of thts size. Mr. Streeter felt thts condition could be
retained, as tt was County pollcy to require landscaping and irrigation for
7200 square foot lots tn the Rancho California area.
Robert Ktmble, representing the applicant, ·dvtsed they would prefer not to
provtde the front yard landscaping and Irrigation, and requested that the
condition be deleted. Commissioner Beadltng asked whether Nr. Ktmble had seen
the let,at submitted byHr. and Hrs. Pipher objecting to the denstty proposed
tn the Jrea adjacent to their estate type homes. At her request, Nr. Ktmble
located Nr. Ptpher's subdivision whtch was next to Rancho Vista Road. They
were proposing the 7200 square foot lots allowed by the specific plan for this
area. Hs. Gtfford advised the tract map was a reftltng of · previously
5
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COI~ISSION MINUTES
SEPTENBER 28, 1988
approved map, and there Was no .change in the density; the proposed tract map
~as wtthin the density range al~lowed by the specific plan. Commissioner
Beadltng quoted from the letter, whtch requested that the denstry be reduced
to the denstry originally proposed by the spectftc plan, She wanted to know
what thts denstry was, and was t~fomed there had been no change tn the
density..
Nr. Ktmble requested that Condition 4 of the Rood Control Dtstrtct's letter
for Tract 23471 be deleted. Thls condition requtred maintenance ramps in the
seN
thts channel for thetr underlying map
'deletion'of this condition, Fir, ltmb}e' then requested that. Road Department
Condition 26 for TraCt"22915 and .Condition 28 .for TraCt 22.916 be amended by
add.tng to the end '"or as approved'by the Road Co,,~tsstoner"; Nr., Johnson
agreed to this change for both tract RipS,
Condition 20 for Tract 22916 required the park to be fully improved and
developed prior to the tssuance of butldtng pemtts for Z50 units, and
Ktmble requested that this condition be amended to require the ark prior to
the issuance of occupancy for the 2591h lot. Providing the ful~ improved
park prior to Z50 untts would be a burden to the developer. Ha. Gtfford
advised Hr. KtBble's request voUld delay completion of the park unttl after
the enttre tract had been completed; staff felt t50 untts veuld afford the ·
applicant an opportunity to butld some untts, and at that potnt the Improve-
ments could be tted tnto road Improvements. The park.would also be useful for
the tract to the north, whtch was being developed by the sam developer.
Nr. Ktmble requested clarification of the new condition staff had sug ested
for Tract 22916 regarding mitigation for tbe-Stephens Kangaroo Rat. ~r.
Goldman explained this condition referred back to the specific plan condt-
ttons, whtch reclutred at.thor a HemorandLe of Understanding with the Department
of Fish and Game or that the ap 11cant comply wtth the Count3r~lde program
being established by Rherstde ~unty.
Robert Dudonay, also representing the applicant, advtsed he ~s acttvely
tnvolved with the task force appointed by the Botrd of Supervisors regarding
the Stephens Kangaroo Rat program. There was no set pro ram at the present
ttme, and he wanted to knme whether they would be charg~ the $750 per lot
fee, or whether they wauld be held up until a spectftc program was estab-
lished. He dtd n~t want to be dela ed, as th_ey ,ould be tea to pull build-
trig pemtts wtthtn the next few we~{s. Hr. Klotz explained ~e Board had
generally endorse the concept of having a developer mke a depostt of $750
per lot, accompanied by an agreement to pay the fee as ultimately adopted;
1 rd He d
this wou d allow the project to go forwa . felt thts optton woul be
available to the developer. He explained this was not necessarily the
ulttmate fee, but was on1 a securtty to be deposited a~atnst the ulttmate
m4ttgatton fee, Thts explanation satisfied Mr, .Oudonay s concerns,
Nr. Ktmble advtsed tt was their understanding.that tn the event Development
Agreement No. 5 should be held 'tnvaltd at some ttme in the future, the
approval of the four tract maps would sltll stand, but the condition for
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COI~4ISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 28, 1988
compliance wtth the development a reamant would be null and votd. Hr. Klotz
advtsed thts was explicitly provt]ed wtthln the development.agreement.
OPPONENTS:' · ....... ' '
Bob Ptpher, 41825 Greentree Road, Temecula, advtsed the development tn whtch
one-third of thts property. They had submitted the
letter requesting that the porttons of the subject tract mps adjacent to
thetr area be required.to create lots stmtlir .tn stze. Hr. Pipher had. a map
of the Flargartta V~l~age Spectftc Plan dated I~rch 30,' 1986, 'whtch 'showed the
density*In thts area to be approximately half of' the denstry currently..
t
proposed. Hr. Pipher advtsed this was an equestrian area, and people restd ng
tn the area needed rtdtng tratls. He requested a connecting tratl from Pauba
to Rancho Vtsta along the boundary between thetr subdivision and the subject
development or along Katser Parkway; thts would provtde an additional
landscaped buffer area.
Mr. Ptpher edvtsed they had no problem wtth the proposed school stte, but felti
the circulation system proposed to serve the scbool was tnadecFJate.
optnton, Street "B' should be extended to Kitsir Parkway; thtS would then
~rovtde access to both the school stte and the park from Ira~ser Parkway. At
he present ttBe there waS a steady flow of traffic, and providing an access
to the park stte and school from Katser Parkway would help everyone tn the
area, tn addttton to emktng the park Bore accessible. Because of the traffic
on Kaiser Parkway, Mr. Pipher thought tt would be difficult for people 11vtng
on the other s~de to reach the park. He therefore suggested that one or two
parks be required on the' other stde 'of Ka'tser Parkway, to benefit residents
that area.
Mr. Pipher requested a soltd wall along the bounder between thetr development
and the subject project. The people restd~ng tn th~s are were requesting a
buffer, and would appreciate anythtng the Comtsstoners could do to help
them. Zn answer to e questton by Comntsstoner Bresson, Hr. Pt her advtsed
there was no street betamen the area he was representing and U~e subject s e;
tt
the lots from the subject tract map were backtrig up agatnst the lots $n hts
subdivision.
V/hen Hr. P¶pher agatn requested equestrian trails, He. Gtfford brtefly
revtewed the proposed tre$1 system, whtch tnCluded a are11 along Rancho
California Road, gotrig up the Katser Parkway and klqD easement; no tratls were
proposed ~n the southern area as requested by Hr. Ptpher. Commissioner
8resson requested that these tratls be designated as publlc access or
recreational tretls tnstead of equestrian tratls. Hr. Burnell edvtsed that an
equestrian trail had been established all along Pauba Road, gotng east and
west. and there was a north/south trail tn the Hetropolttan v/ater Otstrtct
easement gotrig by the sc,,ool administration Stte. along Rancho California Road
to Katser Parkway. The .-eatdents of the Green Tree area could use the tratl _
along Paube, ~tch connected to ~e trail alon Green Tree Lane. This ~s a
regtonal trail system. established under the d~rectton of the Parks
Department.
7
I. I., LAND u~E' $P 1~9 MARGARITA VILLAGE
~VACANT ORCH&R~
RES vacarr ' "'*
VAGANT
HILLY
u.C.
RESIDENTIAL
VACANT
HII. L.Y
VACANT
" ....,,,e, .~. VACANT
Ap~ KACOR __ ,
Use SPECIFIC PLAN OF LAND USE
keg RANCHO CAL ~,~ I
tes.,tzv. s,e. 6. s.i I 8k.923 PC. to,Is,It
Circulolion RANCHO C~LIF. RD.,~RGARITA RD. It0'
Element SO. GENERAL ~ARNY, RANCHO VISTA
i ~ ecl. ek. I:g. :sAc- hfe 3-13-86 Ckmrn By i
; t~'trS~'~ CCXAr77 t:L.4/4tN/N~' :EP'4RTM~VT"I.e sc:L~
,,AL, lirORNIA
ROAD
RXVERSTDE COUNTY PLANNXNG COfeqXSSXON HXNUTES
SEPTHER 28, Xg88
Coffntsstoner Bresson requested Information on the type of buffer to be
provided. fir.' Burke11 advtsed there would be masonry walls tn the are north
and south of Rancho Vtsta Road; he thought thls would sattsfy Hr. Ptpher's
concerns.- Fir. Burnell advtsed the HitlerIts VtTlage Spectftc Plan had
· .They,
originally been approved'with'a slightly hlgher denst:ty.tn this'area. t t
had added land with the amended spectftc plan but had not Changed dens t as' 4n
the area of the subject tract maps. The exhtbtt presented by Mr. tipher was a
conceptual ixhtbit prepared by the engtneer for tntlrnal use only and had
never been presented to the County.
fir Ktmble responded to Hr. Ptpher's request 'for an additional park on the
· · ~rovtdt a park.
other's~de of Katser Parkway, by advising. CostItn Homes was; rigboth parks
upg e
· planned for Tract' 227X5 to 'the*north; Hey ware' pTanntng'to rid
over and' above the requirements of the spectftc plan.
Cmmtsstoner Donshoe asked whether staff was re eerieriding that a condition be
added to requtre the wall as a buffer between ~ subject tract mpa and the
area represented by ltr. Ptpher, and was tnfomed thts was a condition of the
splctftc plan.
Lee Johnson referred to Fir. Ptpher's aug fistton: that "8" Street be extended to
Itstsar Parkway, and advtsed beth he and ~hn ~ohnson (Transportation Planntng
Section of the had Departmnt) felt thts was e, excellent recommendation.
CIrculation tn thts are mtght be tapraved by mktng thts connection rather
than havtng the school served by a cul-de-sac street. Thts would also gtve
both the school and the park stte access frm a 66 foot vride street. tihen
Co~tsstoner 8resson asked whether thts could be accomplished without
redestgntng the mp, fir. 3ohnson reRl~ed he felt the nip would have to be
amended. Hr. Sireater felt thts provtde a ,-ch better access..'
Coa, tss4oner 8eadltng felt that a long cul-de-slc street gotng tnto a scbeol
was poor planning, as tt requtred the cars and school busses br4ngtng tn
chtldren to wrap around and come biT out the Sam way. Extendtn the street
would allow the vehtcles to drop off the children and go out a dt~ferentway-
Commissioner Bresson was concerned abeut creattng a 4-ey Intersection, and
Hr. Johnson agreed that a 3-way Intersection created les~ problems. Howaver,
he st~11 felt that provSdtng access to Katser Parkway would result tn better
circulation servtce to the school s el.
fir. Burnell dtd not feel It was necessary to extend "B" Street to Katser Park-
way tn order to provtde adequate circulation for the school. He was concerned
that the change tn the roadway mtght cause problems with regard to the sewer
lines. fir. Burnell was also concerned abeut a 4-way 1ntersectton at ICa~ser
Parkway; he felt retaining the extsttng 3-way Intersection would provtde an
overall better circulation system for restdante of the area· Coa~tsstoner
8resson preferred the cul-de-sac street because tt would not encourage through
trafftc along the school s~te. fir. Johnson po~nted out that there would be
less opportunity to eventually obtatn s4gnal';zatton for a 3-way Intersection
than for a 4-way Intersectton.
8
RZVERSZOE COUNTY PLANNZNG COI~ZSSZON Iqi:NUTES
SEPTENaER 28, 1988
· vtsed the had t with the school district and showed them the
well as the proposed st Y · ' rt
showed. the school/park site adjacent Ka s Y,.
Commissioner !Bresson supported the tract map as curran y
major street.
designed, as tt-was satisfaCtorY to the school district.
There was no further testimony, and the heart rig was closed at 11:10 a.m.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSZON$: Tentative Tract Paps 22915, and 22916, and Vesting
Tract Paps 23470 and .23471*are located wtthtn Vtilage C of .Specific Plan 199'
Amendment No. I (the Iqargartta Vtllage Specific.Plan); the four tract naps
would d~vtde the 345 acres into 1020 residential lots; design manuals have
been prepared for Vesttng Tentative Tract tips 23470 and 23471; the tract maps
have been condtttoned to comply w~th Spectftc Plan 199 Amendment No. 1, Change
of Zone Case 5107, and Development Agreement No. 5; a wetvet for the lot
length to width ratto w~11 be needed for 811 four maps. Al1 environmental
concerns have been addressed In EZR 107, EXR 202, and the tntttal studtes for
these tract maps, and no significant trapacts were found; the tract maps are
consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan (as mended by General Plan
Amendment 150), 5pectftc Plan 199 Amendment No. I and Chin of Zone Case
5107; and confore to the requirements of Ordinances 348 an~e460.
Upon motion Cornmiss-toner 5resson, seconded ,d the negattve
HOTION: and unantmou~y cartted, the Commission adoPteby Camntsstoner
Bead1 tng
declarations for EA 325t7, EA 32518, EA 32504 and EA 32505, and approved
Tentative Tract Paps 22915 and 22916, and Vesttng Tract Paps 32470 and 23 1,
all with a welver of the lot length to.w~dth ratto, subject to the propose4;
conditions and based on the above ftndtngs and conclusions and the recommenda-
ttons of staff,
Tract No. 23470
17(a) - All lots shall have a edntmum stze of 7200 square feet net.
17(b) - Deleto entirely
20 -Prtor to the Issuance of occupancy pemtts for 150 units, one tot
shall be Improved and fully developed.
21 - Prior to the tssuance of occupancy pem(ts for 275 untts, the second
tot lot shall be traproved and fully developed.
27 - Prior to the tssuance of building permits (balance to remaln the same)
36 The development of Vesttn Tentative Tract Pap 23470 shall comply w~th - Spectftc Plan No.
tts Destgn Panual', w~th a~l provisions of 199
Amendment No. 1 and wtth De.:elopment Agreement No. 5
Tract No. 23471
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COe~ISSION MINUTES
SEPTENBER 28, 1988
20 -Prtor to the tssuance of occupancy pemits for 200 units, one tot
shall be traproved and fully developed.
26 -Prtor to the issuance of building permtts (balance to rematn the same)
32(f) - All *front yards shall be pro;tdecl****With landscaping and man*ually*
operated, permanent underground Irrigation.
Flood Control Condition 4 - i:)elete entirely
35 - The development of Vesttrig. Tentative Tract Pap 23471 shall comply w~th
its Design Iqlnual, wtth el] provisions of 'Spectf.~c. Plan No.. 199
Amendment No. '1 and wri th Development Agreement No. 5 ·
Delete Condition 4 of tl~ Flood Control letter dated June 17, 1988.
Tract No. 2291S
24 -Prtor to the tssuance of tatldtng pemtts (talance to ranrain the same)
32 - The developme_nt of Tentative Tract Pap 22915 shall comply w4th all
provisions of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1 and Development
Agreement No. 5
Road Department Condition 26 - Add to the end "or as approved by the Road
Comtsstoner".
Tract No. 22916
2 - Add the following: except for the lot length to width ratio.
20 -Prtor to the issuance of occupancy permits for 1SO units tn Tentative
Tract 22916, the park shall be fully traproved and developed.
25 - Prior to the tssuance of butldlng penntLs (balanc.e to remtn the same)
32 - The development of Tentative Tract Pap 23916 shall comply vrlth all
provts(ons of $;ectfic Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1 and Development
Agreement No. S
33 - Prior to tssuance of 9redtng penntts, impacts to the Stephens Kangaroo'
Rat Habttat shall be mitigated per the spectftc plan conditions of
approval.
Road Oepartment Condition 28 - Add to the end "or as approved by the Road
Comt s s toner".
10
Zoning Area: hncho California
Supervisortel DIstrict: first and
E.A. NOs: 32S46, 32547, 32548
Spectftc Plan hctton
Vesttrig Tentithe Tract Nos.: 23371 Amd.
No. Z, 233 3 Md. No. 1
No. 1, 23372 Md. 7
Planntng Comtsston: 10-5-88
Agerid/item No.: 5-2, S-3, and 5-4
IIVEISZlM: CIX,eTT PLJIIIIIE DEPMTIIglT · . ~- .-STAFF roT. ' -.
e
0
t_
~ppl lcant:
Engt near:
Type of Request:
Location:
Ex.t, sttng Zontng:
Surround1 ng ZOntng:
Sl te characteristics:
Area characteristics:
Comprehensive Ge~erel Plan
10. Land Dtvtston hta:
Vesttrig Tract
23371 Md. NO. 1
23372 Md. No. 1
23373 Md. NO. X
Acreage
394
37
3Z
Iqargartta VIllage I)evel ol;men. t Co.
Rtck Engineering Creelany
The 3 tracts ~111 subdlvtde 47Z acres
into i763 residenttaT untts
East of Ha erita bad, north of Rancho
Callforntir~ad
R-It (Change. of Zone S107 heard by the&
hard of S~pervtsors on 9-13-88 proposest
SP ZFJ And. No. I zontng).
hatrig to the north and west ts R-4,
A-2-20, It-R, 9-Z; Zontng to the south ts
Vacant land traverse wtth lo~ htlls
Located on astern edge of Rancho
California coanuntt~
Rencho Vtllages (General Plan Amndmnt
No. IS0 proposes a eneral pl in
des1 natton of Spectftc P~an No. 199
Men~nt No. 1)
Denstt~ (On/k)
1183 3
232 6
348
IX. Agenc~ Ibcaamndattons:
2337). bd. N0. ).
23372 And. NO. 1 23373 Md. NO. I
Road ' 9-22-88 3-22-88 9-22-68
Ha 1 th 7-2 5.e8 9-7-88 7 -25-88
Flood 7-22-88 7-22-88 7-22-88
FQ re 8-).7088 8.).7088 8-17088
Shut1 ff 6-10-88 6-10-88 6-10-88
Sphere of Influence
Influence
12. Letters:
13.
None rece¶vnd as of thts vrtttng
Not vtthtn a CIty sphere
ANALTSI3:
Vesttng Tenlathe Tract Nos. 23371 .bd. No. 1, 23372 kJ. No. )., end 23373
No. I taplament Vt1189e as a plannnd retirerant commatOY tn the Ikrgartia
Vtllage Spectftc Plan (SP 199 Md. No- 1) Spectftc Plan No. 199 bendsriO
1, Change of Zone NO, SLOT, beetel Plan Amendment No, ).SO and Developm
Agreement No. S ere beard by the Board of Supervisors un Septomber 13, ).98 · "-
These tracts have Hen destgned to be consistent w~th these docueents-
The table below sunnartze the tracts* relatSonsMp end consistency with the~
'Spec4fIc Plan's planntng areas. As shown. none of the tracts exceed the
per24tted number of residential units.
CXWARISOR OF TRACT All) SPECIFIC PLM (NELLIN tINITS
Tract No. Proposed Spec¶ ftc P1 an Peru1 teed
No. of Untts Area No. of Untie
YTT 23372 And. No. I 1183 33-37, 42-45 1197
V'l'r 23372 Md. No, I 232 41 234
348
vl'r 23373 Md. No. I 3~8 38 *l'Yff
't"TU' '
A design mnual has been prepared for a11' three vesting raps ~htch IrovSdes
guidelines for landscaping, floor lies, ehvattons and zoning, MouseIce1
been proposed end v111~ be amplemental asrequired bY the
,.J.; ', ..
o t o no
th condtt
also tncluded tn e ·
cultural resources onstto.
Vesttrig Tentative Tract 23371, Amended I(o. I tncludes an 18 hole 9olf course-
As also required bY the spectftc plan conditions, the tract has been
tttoned to titova the .Fark tn planntng Rrea 45. Zn confor.inca wtth the
mt n N
for g
Zt should be rated that the flufiber of untts for congregate urn are on esttmate
and vtll be revteved at the developeerie plan stage.
nts hive been prelared un ell three tracts.
Rancho Village" Spectftc Irish and th rga re rts re are~!
three tracts- tie stgntflcanlt environment eP '
Fill)aRCS:
Yeseta Tentative TraCt tie.
23373 Xmended No. 1 are located
Specific Plu.
2. The three tracts rill provtde 1763 dvelltng units and gelf course open
5 .
spac.e on ~S4 164 acres. (Amended by Planning Commission
3.' Tract 23372 Mended No. 1. has been comitttoned r the Spectftc Plan's
condition of approval to mitigate tapacts to the ~ephens Kangaroo Rat.
4. The tracts have been condtttoned to comply vtth ectftc Plan NO.
Change of Zone No. 5107 and Developanne Agreement
5. A vatvet for length to vldth ratio vtll be needed fo Vesting Tentative
Tract 23371 ~ended No, 1.
C:Q~CLUSZQNS:
1. All environmental concerns hive been addressed tn EIRs 107, 202 and the
tntttal studies for these tracts aM no significant tapacts have been
found.
2. The tracts ire consistent vtth General Plan Mendmerit No. tSO Change of
Zone Ko, 52078 led Specific Plan No. 299, Amendment Ro.. t.
3. The tracts confore to 'the requirements of Ordinances 348 and 460.
ttECOt44E:XI)ATZOlIS :
JkDQPTXON of s Negative De laratton for EA ties. $2548, 32547, 32548 on a finding
effect
tnac the pro~ects ~111 ~C have a significant on the environment.
KG:mcb:mp
RZVEKSZDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTNEXT
SUBDZVZSZON
COiiDZTZONS OF APPN)VAL
VESTING TDITATIVE TRACT ltO. Z3371'
MENDED ND. 1
STANDARD CONDX-TIONS
1. The sulmltvtkr shall defend, tad,emil),, and hold ha·less the Count~ of
I frm erly claim, action, or
RIverside, 1is agents, officerS, end amp of, Is
proceeding against the County of Riverside or Its agents, officers, or
emplo es to attlCk, set ·stde. void, or annul ·n approval of the Count),
of ~verside, 1is advisor), agencies, appeal boards or legis]arty, bud),
concernIn VestIn Tentative Tract 23371 Amnded No.
brought a~out within the tim period provided for tn Clltfornt· Government
Code Section 6649g.37. The County of RIverside
subdivider of an~r such elate, action, Or proceeding against the COunty of
RIverside and will coo rate fu117 in the defense. If the County falls to
prompt1), notif7 the su~JvJder of ·n3r such claim, actton, or proceeding
fails to cooperate fu11~ tn the defense, the subdivider shall not;
f
thereafter, be responsible to defend, tndemt 7, or hold hornless the
County of R~verstde.
2. The tentative subdivision shall camp1 wtth the St·t, of Gilltorn',
Subderision IMp Act end to oll the re {re·ants of 0rdinence 460, Schedule
A, unless mudtiled bJr the conditions T~tstod below.
3. This conditionally epproved tentative mp wtl1 expire two pars after the
Counter of RIverside Board of Supervisors approval date, unless extended Is
provided bJr Ordinance 460.
4. The fine1 mp Shall be prep·red by · 1teensod lind surveyor *sub3ect to
the requSrmenl3 of the State of California Sulxllvtston Kep Act and
Ordinance 460.
The subdivider shall submit one cop~ of, soils report to the RIverside
County Surveyor's Office and two copies to the Depart·hi of Buildtrig end
Sat,tit. The report shell address the sotls stabtilt), and geological
conditions of the site.
If erUr Fading ts proposed, the subdivider shill submit one print of
c_omprehenltvt grading plan to the Department of klldIng lnd Sircry. The
plan shall coeplJr ~th the Uniform Building Code, Chapter 70, as mended -
by Ordinance 457 and as ea~rbe eddittone11~ provided for in these
conditions of approval.
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract Ro. D371 keendad No. 1
Page 2
rmtt shall M obtstned from the Department of Butldtng end
7. A gradt;igor~ cmmencment of any gradtrig outstde of county maintained
5aetyP . . ..
ro~fd rtght' of my, .. '-.,..' · · ....... * . · · .
8, My deltequent IropertY taxes shall be petd prtor to recordatton of the
ftnal mp-
9. The subdivider shall comply wtth the street Improvement rec~mendattons
outltned tn tM RIverside County load IMpartmnt*s letter dated
"9-3028 a'copy of lhlch ts attached,. · (Amended by pl.anntng Coralssign
10,5,88)+ * . . . ,' . . ..
10. Ijgal access as requtred by Ordinance 460 shall be provtded from the tract
amp boundary to a County mintstried road,
:11, A11 road easements shall be offered for ded¶cattofi to the publlc and shall
conttnue tn fore, until th, governing body accepts or abandons sucl~
offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as ~pproved~
b the Woad Cmmtsstoner. Street names shall be subject to approval
~{e Road Costssigner-
12. Easements, ~han requtr,d for roadway slopes, drainage factTitles.
uttltt?es, etc., shill be shorn on the ftnal mp tf they are located
wtthln the land dtvtston boundary. All offers of dedication and
conveyances shall be sutmttted and recorded as dt~ected by the County
Surveyor.
13. ~ater and sewerage dtsposal fectl'414es shall be Installed tn accordance
wtth the p~vtstons set fo~ to ~ RIverside ~un~ Heal~'~psr~nt's
letter a9d 7-2~g 8 ~P~ of ~tch ts at~cMd-
14. T~ su~tvtder she'1 c;ly ~ ~ fio~ ~n~rol ncmndattons
outltned by ~ ~ verstde ~unV ~ ~nt~l Otstrtct's letter i~
7-22~ a cow of ~' ~ ts athchd. tf tM land dtvtston 1tea ~thtn an
a~pted fi~ ~et~l dritnige ires ~lnt ~ kctton 10,25 of ~rdtnince
460 a p~prta~ fe~ for ~ const~ctt~ ~ am dritna~ facilities
s~l ~ n11ec~ ~ ~e bad ~tsstoner.
15. T~ su~tvtder shill cmplY vt~' t~ ft~ t~v~nt recmndattons
outltned In ~e ~unv FIre ~rshal's letter ate ~17-~ i copy of ~tch
ts attached-
vehicular access tent and rpose of the subdivision approval.
conform to the tnto all pu te
Conditions of & vel
Tentative Tract ~ 2337Z banded No. 1
Page 3
17.. Lots' creatod.'by thts. subdivision shall comp.ly. tdth the foil. re·lag:.
Corner lots led through lots tf any shall be rovtded with
additional area pursuant to hotton 3.88 o~ Ordinance 46g and so as
not eo contotn less net area than the least amount of net area tn
non-corner mad through lots,
.- b.~ Lots created by this' SubdtVtsf6n'Sha11 ~be tn..'confor!·rice vtth the
develoimnt"standards of 'the -.Spec fic Plan No. 1FJ Menbent No. l
zone.
c. khan lots are crossed by mJor publlc utt111~ easements, each lot
shall have a net usable ares of not less than 3,600 square feet,
excTesfve of the utility easement.
d~ Graded but uedeveloped land shall be maintained tn · weed-fra~
condition mad shall be either planted Vith Interim landscaping or
rovtded vtth other eroston control measures as approved by the
glrector of htldfng and hfety,
e. Trash bins, loedtng areas mad Incidental storage areas shall_
located away ned vtsually screened from surrounding areas with the use
of block w11s mad landscaping.
PrtoP to RECORDATION of the final map the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
e. Prior to the recordatton of the ftnel mp the applicant shall submit
writton clearances to the RIverside Coun~ had and Survey Department
that Ill pertinent requirements outltned tn the attached approval
lettore frm the fo11Mng agencies have been met.
.~_~ liars
" I t Pe~nrt Dtst,.
COunty ;He!I~ :b ramant.- ·
CounV' Irli~nlng' ~:Hrlaent
lancho Ilater
b, Prior ~vthe recordatton of the ftnel rap, briers1 rise Menbent
Sl~c. tftc.Plaa~RO,%~ZFJ Menbent IIo, T DeveloEmnt. Agreement. llo',, '~5,
eM , ne~No.~ SlOT shaJll be approved by tha"Boa~'Of
zone ultimately appl fed to the property.
Conditions of &Pitoval37 keendad No. 1
Tentative Tract No. 23 :L
Page 4
:~9. M1 mtsttng structures on the subject property shall be removed prtor to
.recordatto~.of..the final asp. ..
asp and shall be sanaged by a asstar property ovners association.
21.. Prter te recerdatten ef the flea1 subdtFIston rap, the sulxltvtder shall
SebBlt the fellwi_eg dOGeBefitS to the Planntn De r~eet'for*rovtev,
~1 tit documents shal I be subject. to the approval
the Office
1) A declaration 'of covenants, cOnd¶t¶ons and ristrtCttone; Ind'
A sBople documnt Conve~ed tttle to the purchaser of in Individual lot
or unit uhtch provtdes that the declaration of covenants, conditions
and restrictions tS Incorporated therata b~ reference.
Th~ declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions submitted for .~
revte4 shall (a) provtde for a mtntmum tim of 60 years, (b) provide i
for the establishment of · property owners' association comprised of the
okmers of each Individual lot or unit, (c) provide for ownership of the
con·on end (d) cont/¶n to folloying provisions verbatim:
· NothvSthstandtng. any provision in thts Declaration to the contrary,
shall app y:
the lollwing provision 1
The property whets' association established hereta shall manage and
continuously mtntafn the *common are·', Bore particularly described
on Exhtbtt 'IXZ-ZT' of the spectftc plan attached her·to, and shall
not sell transfer the 'con·non area', or any pert thereof, absent
vrttten:co sen of the Planning Otrsctor of the County of
the prtor n t
RIverside or the County's successor-In-Interest-
The property mmer's association shill have the rtghtto assess the
owners of each tnd¶vidual lot or unit far the reasonable .cost of
liter·thing the 'conynon area' and shill hive the rtght to 1ten the
assessment or other document c eat ng ·
Th¶s Declaration shall not be term¶mated 'substint¶ally' Bonndad or
roperay deannexed therefrGm absent the prTor vratten consent of the
;lanntng Dtrector of the County of RIverside or the County's
successor-inin~eFes~- & proposed amendment shall' be considered
'substantial' if it affects the extent, usage or m¶nCenance of the
'colm~on aroleo
Cond¶ttons of lip royal
Tentative Tract ~1. 23371 knendnd IIo. I
Page S
Zn the-went of any conliter between thts 'Declarelion end the Art.lcles
of Incor ratton, rue lyllv$ or tM propl 'owners' assoCIation lielos
and bgullI°lttons, tf InT, this Dec1&rltionsr~11 confro1."
Once a proved, the declaration of covenants, conditions end restrictions
shall I~ recorded at the fame time tint the final mp ts recorded.
Frtor. to recordat, ton of .tim find 'rap, clearance sbe.11. be obtained from
· Ratrole1 tten '.lietar. Dt strict- rilllive to ' tj,' .proteCtion of . appl t cab1 e
subJ!ct prepa Y. Lot line adjustments shall also
easements effecttrig t.he. rt
be coeplltnd,
4) The develoFer, the developar's successors-In-Interest or assignees,
shall be resimnstble for all parkway landscaping maintenance ant(1
such Ume as m¶ntenance ts taken over 117 *,Jm district.
'24. The developer sisal1 be responsible for ma(ntenance and upkeep of all
slopes, landscaped Irons and trrtgatto~ I~fstems until such time as those
o erairons are the responsibilities of other parties as approved by the
Pl~annlng D|recter.
25. Street lights -;hall be prov~ed ~4thln the sulxlhtston tn accordance ~tth
the standards of Ordinance 46X and the following: "
3) The develolar shell post a landscape potromance bond whtch shall ix
released concurrently with the release of sutxllvtSten performance
bonds, quaranteetng the vtabtltty of lll landscaping which ~dll ix
1natalled prtor to the assumption of tJm mintchance responstbtlttY by
the district-
2) Prior to the tssuance of tmtldtq pormtts, the developer shall secure
approval of proposed landscaping and Irrigation plans from the County
Rod aM Flanntng Departmet- All landscaping and Irrigation plies
end specifications shall be prepared tn I reproducible formt suttable
for permanent ftllng with the County Road Department.
23. The developer shall comply sdth the following
"~rements as Sham tF Spectftc Plan No. 199
mr~nhln~.l HOR or other Imbltc entity: (Amended b7 Plannf_.ng
588
Coat ss I on 10- - )
Conditions of ~proval
Tentative Tract IIo. 2337Z Mended No. :t
Page 6
Z) COncurrently .,~.th the"ftlfng of subdivision .tinproven·el plans vtt. h the
Ilold hpartmnt, the developer shall" secure ipprovll. of the .. proposed-
street 11ght 1·Foul first Ire the Road hparbNnt's traffic engtneer
and then from th~ appropriate utility purveyor,
2) Follwtng approval of the street lighttrig lajmut by' the Road
Del~_rtaent's trarfftc angle·ere the developer shall also f~le an
application vith. LAFCO for the .forest¶on of · street lighting
· district, .:or. · iMexa. t(on tO an existtrig 1.tgh~¶ng+ district,. unless ~,he
stte ts Vtthin an extsttng 11ghttng district.'
3) Prtor tO rotorclarion of the fteal rap, the developer shall secure
coedltlonal approval of the street 11ghting e p11catloq f~om LAFCO.
unless the stte Is etthle an extsttng 11ghttng dTitrtct, "
4).. All street lights and othe~ outdoor lighting shall be shown ~o
electrical plans submitted tO the De rtaent the requ~
litversed· County Ordinance IIo, 655 and the Ittverstde County
Comprehensive beers1 Plan,
The pilrk Ires (Planning Area No, 45) of the spectftc plan shall he
Prtor tO the Issuance of 6RADii(6 PERHITS the folioring conditions shall be
satisfied:
· , Prior tO the 1·suenee of. gradtrig peruIts, detatled common open space
ares p_arkt_ng landscaptq and Irrigation plans shall be satwit, ted for
Planntng Depart·ant approve1 for the phase of development In process,
The plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, and shall
provide for the foliosing,.
Peruanent autmattc Irrigation systems shall be Installed on all
landscaped areas requiring Irrigation.
2) Landscape screening where requtrod shall be destgned tO Ix opaque up
to a atntm~l he¶ght of six (6) feet at mturt~lf,
3) All uttllty servtce areas and enclosures shall Ix screened from vtew
vtth landscap¶rig. and decorative barriers or baffle treatments, as
approved by be Planntng DIrector, Utilities shall Ix placed
underground.
4
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract No. 23371 Mended No. Z
Page 7
"4) .Ikrbfays"ud landscaped.. 'lutld'~ng '.Seti~cks:'.shilT be landscaped to '.
vide' vtsual screening era f, ranlltton Into the p IBm use area of
~ site. Landscape elmeats 'shall tnclude earth bemtng, ound
cover, shrubs end splctmn trees tn conJunctt: wtath meandering
stde41ks, benches end other pedestrian amentries ~here pproprtate as
Ipprovnd the Planntng IMpatient end SIw:tftc Plan No.
)~,ndment ~. Z.
'S) Landscaping ~ent' slla11~ incorporate ;h Use 'Of'specimen accent 'trHS
at k~y vtsual focal potnts etthtn the project.
s)
7)
8)
I~ere streets trees unnot be planrod .4thin right-Gf-vay of Interior
streets end pro act perkva~s due f .,
they shall be ;;(anted wtstde of to InSufficient ro~cl right-of-ray,
the road rtght-o-vaJr.
Landscaping p!ans shall Incorporate nattve and drought tolerant plants
where appropriate.
Ali eststtng spectmen trees end significant rock outcroppings on the
",
g) All trees shall he ,tintBUm double staked. lleeker and/or slo~ grovtng
trees shall be steel staked.
Z0. Parking layouts shall comply .4th Ordinance 348, Section
2) Approxlmte tIN frames for Fading and Identification of areas whlch
mY be graded during the htjher p.robabtllty rain months of 3anuary
through ~rch. ~ ; ~--
3) Preliminary pad end roadway elevations.
1) Techniques Vhtch .411 be utt11zed la prevent eroston end sedtmentatton
durtng end after the grading process.
All extstSng native s ctmn trees on the subject property Shall be
28. preserved wherever feestaTe. lihere they cannot be preserved the shall be
29. Zf h p~ act ts ~ k phase, prior a ~ approval of gradtrig · ~mSts,
an me~l{ ~p~ll FadTrig plan shall H ~atttad a ~e Plinntng
shall tnclude ~ oF1 ng: -'
Conditions of' Approval
Tenlathe Tract I1o. 2337X Mended No. ~
Page 8
4) Areas of trapafar7 grading outstde of a larttcular phase.
:'
30. Gridtrig pllns' sh~11 contain' to loa~d 'adopted 'Htllstde' Develo;eent
Sea deeds: A1 cut !a/or fill slopes, or tndtvSdual comb nations theroF,
n nd 1
ahtch exceed ten fat tn vertical. hetght shall be modtfted by an
appropriate combination of a spaeta1 terracing (benchtrig) plan, 1norease
slo ratto (t.e., 3:1), retatnt walls, and/or slope p anttrig combtried
wttKetrrtgatton. AT1 dr!veways sh~l not exceed · flfteenlpercent grade.
3L 'All cut slopes' located adjacent 'to'ungcaded natural te'afn and exceeding'-
ten (ZO) . eat ~n .vertical hatthis shall be contour-graded Incorporating
the following gradtrig techniques:
1 ) The ant1 e of the graded sl ape she11
of the natural terrain.
2)" Angular fame shall be discouraged.
natural rounded terrain,
be gradually adjusted to the angle
The graded fore shall reflect the
3) The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded vdth curves wdth rad~t
deadgrind tn proportion to the total height of the slopes ~here
dratnage and stability pemlt such round¶rig.
4) tdhere cut or ftll slopes exceed 300 feet tn horizontal length, the
hortzontJ1 contours of the slope shall be curved tn i continuous,
undulatt ng fashion. ..
32. Prtor to the tssuance of gradTrig perutea, a qualified paleontologist shall
be roastned by the! developer for consultation and comment on the proposed
r t
g adtng ~lth respeci to IratenaTal peleontologtcal tapacts. ~hould the
paleontologist find the Imtenttal ts htgh for trapact to significant
resources, a pre-grade meettrig between the ialeontologlst and the
excavation end grading contractor shall be arranged. Vhen necessary, the
paleontologist or representsthe shall have the authority to temporarily
dhert, redtract or halt gradTrig acttvtt7 to allow recover, of loss ls.
33. Prior to the issuance of BUXLDXNG PERNITS the following canaltiTans shall
be satisfied:
In acco~lance wdth the vr¶tten roquest of .the developer to the County
of Rherstde, a copy of vhtch ts on ftla, and tn furtherance of the
agreement betw. en the develo r end the County of RIverside, nno
butldlng mtts shall be ~sued by the County of Rharstde for any
parcels v~thln the subject tract until the developer, or the
develo er's successors-In-Interest provided evtdence Of compile ce
wtth ~e terms of sa1~ D~ve'loFnent Agreement No. S for the financing
of publlc facilities.
Conditions of Ap
Tentative Tract ~..' 23371 Mended No. Z
Page
b. -eSth.th, subclara1 Of buildin! plans to' 'the Depirtment of ktldSng and."
Safet~ the developer e.1 demonstrate compliance with the acoustical
s Irepared for Vest1 Tentative Tract 23371 Mended No. Z vhf ch
es~t~'ltsh~ appropriate al~gatlon masures to reduce arCtent tritertot
noise levels to 45 IJn and exterior riotie levels below 6S'Ldn.
c, bof4ounted mochanice1 equiplent. shall not be permitted vtthtn the
.sutxltvSstOn, except 'for-the clubhouse 'ahtCh my 'have screened..
equipment Is Ipproved bY' Planning DIrectOr, 'Hewever Sollr equ'lpment'
or .In), other energy saving devices shill de permitted vith Planning
bpartaent approval, (Amended by Plannt.ng kisston 10-S-88)
d' 8utldtng separation betwen Ill litldlngs Including fireplaces shall
not be less than ten (10) feet unless epproved by Department e~
· ' Buildtrig . and Safe_t), end FIre Department P!r S ectftc Plan No. ll~J
Amendment No. , (Ame dad by Planning Commission ~;-S-88)
1 n ~
e, A11 street side yard setbacks shall be I ~tnlmum of 10 feet,
tr, All front yards shall be provtded ~th landscaping end autorot'~
t rrlgitlon.
Prtor to the Issuance of OCCUPANCY PEIINZTS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
Prtor to the final tmtldfng Inspection appreval, by the ktldtng end
Safl.ty De rant, 1111 shill be cOnstructed along Kaiser Plrkvay end
bncho Cl~fornll bade LI Serene Hi),, Kaiser Plrk Ida), end 14argartta
bad per the Desl ~nual, The required ,all shall be subject to the
by Plannlngng~issioe
b, rill ond/or fence locitills shall confore to attached FIgure III-17 of
Spoc:fic Plan no. 299 Amendment No. ~..
c. All landscaping and trrtgatto~ shall be Installed tn accordance .4th
appreved plans prtor to the Issuance of occupancy permits. Zf seasonal
· conditions de not mlt 1antifig, Interim landsca tng end erosion
control rossares shalrbe utiCtzed as Ipprovld by the PC:nnSng DIrector
and the Director of btldtng and hilt},,
d, All park¶rig landscaping and ~rrtgatton shall be Instilled in
accordance vith approved plans end shall be verb*led by a Planntng
Department field Inspection, _.
Cond4t~ons of Approval
Tentative Tract No, 23) 7~ Jimended No, 1
Page lO
e, --- b te re te-- s4 daws; ks - skal ~ - lie-sees 4~rec4;ed- Ckre, gkee4~- 4~ke- se hi4 v4 s4 ee- 4 n
· a~eerdanee.w4t~.the.stendards.ef,Ord4nanae.4is,.a~d-ipee4 f4e- -Plan--fie,
igg-bendmen~-lb~-&~ .(Oel. ea bY. Planning Cornmiss'tOn ~0-5-88)' ·
f, Street trees shalli be plinted throughout the sutxltvtston In.accordance
w~th the standards of OrdSnance 460 and Specific Plan No, ~99
&andaunt IIo. Z
3S, .'9eve3opuent of vesttrig .Tentative .Tract· No, 2337X Jimended No, .~ sh/~l
comply wtth all provtS4ons · SiaciftC' Pl'an 'No, ~,g9 Jl~mndment' IIo, · t 'and ..
Development Agreement No. S,f
.1 sP e9
· A-I-IO
A-I-IO.
R-S I
L~
/ R-R ~
Use SPECIFIC PLAN OF LAND USE "' ;
T~..:B..,,~.. _, Ied. ek. Pg. ::CA OOfe S-13-86 IX'own By M
Element SO. GENERAL KEARNY, RANCHO VIST& IE'
ANCMO
NI
AL|IrOR A
lOAD
OFFICE OF ROAD COMHI$SIOIVER & COUNTY SURVEyO,,'~
LeRey D. Smee4
SeptauNt 30. ZIg
Ilverslde'Co~ Irisfining ComisSlo.
4010 Lemon Street
liverlie, CA IZSOZ
Ladles and Gentleran:
Ite:"Trlct Nap :1337Z - Amend IX - Raid Cart;
"Schedule A - Toms SP Nap iX'
Ilith respect TO the' conditions of ipp~val for the referenced Tentative
division map, the Raid Oepirment recolunlnds that the linddivider provide
road'dedications In accordance
tailoring sirlet Improvement plans and/or
~,lnance 460 and Riverside County bad iMproverant Standards (Ordlnlnco..
Z~" Is understood that the tentative map carrotflit shovs acceptable centirlte
profiles, all existing easeants, traveled w~s, and drainage courser
appropriate Q's, and that their mailliOn or unacceptablliV 8U require the
to be resulxnltted for further consideration, 11use Ordinances and the fallOva'
conditions ere essential parts and a requirement occurring in ONE
as though occurring in a11. They arl Intended TO be coaplementar3r ..4
describe the conditions for a complete design of the Improveant. All questlot
;auditions shall be referred to the
The land~lvlder shall protect dwestroma prope~klos ira damages
caused by alteration of thl drainage petearose I.e.s concentra-
tion of diversion of fiN. Protection Ibe11 be provided by
constructing adequate drainage facilities Including enlarging
extsti facilities or by lacerim I drainage easeant or t)y
both, ~kll drainage easean.is Shl~l be sham on the final map
and noted Is fallova: =Oralgage hieant - no bolldiet,
obstructionIs or encroachanti by 1lad f1111 are siloends: The
protection shall be as el;roved iqr the had bei~lrteent,
The landdivider shall accept and properly dispose of all offsite
drainage flaring onto or through the site. Zn the event the
hid Comlssloner permits the use of Streets for drainsit
pu oses, the provisions of Article XZ of Ordinance Na. 460
vl~ apply. Should the quantities exceed the street
capacity or the use of streets be I)rohibited for drainlie
a '
purposes, the subdivider shall provide sdequ te drainage '
facilities as approved by the had Departmat.
regarding the true maiming of the c
Commissioner'S Office. "
T~ct'.Ki~"Z337Z ' Amend I1 - Jt~,..CorrectJon Nap tl
' ~p~r. ~, 1~
Fiber drainage Is Involved on this landdivision and its resolution
shall be as at)proved b~ the Road Oe;)srment,
:8. Street 'Ca (700'~ kesterly ef Kaiser ParkNay) shall be improved . in accordance with Ik)dlfled County Standard No, X02, (He/H*),
9. Street "X", Street "B" (from Street "Z" idly), Street "Fir.. (from
Street "Be to Street aSS") Shill M Improved in accordance vtth
tiodlfled County Standard I1o, X03, Section A, (44'/44:).
lO. Street 'it', shall be improved tn accordance with NodIliad County
Standard No, t04m Section A, (40'/400), ·
Streets "Do thru "He, ale; ado thru "Q", as' thru "lie, "Y" Zhru 'DO"
Street, 'EE", Street °FFo, "aGo thru eLL', Street "1414" (frm Street
· $S0 Sly), Streets "till' thru 'AAA' and eke unnamed streets running
beakdaWn Street "D" and asia led between Street abe and Street "CC"
shall be improved in accordance with Modified County Standard
10Se Section A. (36'/36*)- .
1.2, Sevih'~ ''~'' "eft.W JaDed.Shall be laproved within the dedicated
Z3, 1hi landdivider shall provide utlllV clearance from Ranthe Calif.
liBtar District prior to the retardation of the final
"'~c~¢~'kP 03371 - Amend II._. bad Correction ~p #1
Saptamer 30, IN8
Page 3
14. The maxIM centerline gradient shell not exceed XSZ.
IS,. 11:e minimum centerline radii' ~ha11 be as epproved by the bad
Department,
ZI,. Itsache Eallf,. Roed"end lie_rgerlta lioad abel1 be laproved with
"' I
cancrete curt; and getter etated 43'fail .ire cenzerTIno. and Rich
" ell asphalt concrete levi ; recO~structioe or resetfacing of
exist! laving as detainTeed b), the bd ~lssloner within a 55
foot half ~ldth dedicated right .of ely in accordance with County
Standard No. 100.
17, Prior to' the.ill leg of the flnol .map with .the County. Ilecor~er's
Office, the developer.' ·hilt provide evidence of conZ nuous
elntanance of 411 proposed private 'streets within the .develoi~ent'
as approved by the bad Comlssloner.
18. SIdewalks within the develoixaent shall'be es approved by the bid
Counts·loner.
The Binlena lot frontages along the cul-de-sacs end Imuckles shells-'
be 35 fat unless othanelse specified in the particular zoning
classification.
All driveways shall confore to the applicable Riverside County
Standards and shall be shove on the street improvement plans.
A minimum of four feet of full height curb shall be constructed
between driveways, ,,
k~en block~a~ls are required to be constructed on top of slope, a
debris retention ~811:shk11 be constructed st the street right of
way line to prevent silting of sidewalks as approv~d by the Road
Comalsslo~er.
The minimum garage setback shall be 30 feet measured from the face
I evidence of roll up doors on
of curb. Should the developer :prow de
the building plans, a reduction of 4' Bay be allowed bat in no case
feot ram back of sidewalk or
shell the garage be closer than 20 f .
curb in the absence of sidewalk,
23, Frimar~ and secondar~ access roads to the nearest paved road mln-
tolned by the County shall be constructed within the public rl ht
of way in accordance with County Standard No, Z06, Section 11, ~3Z'/
/60') st · grade and altgment as approve. d by the Road Comas·toner.
24. Prior to the recordalton of the final rap, the developer shall
de osit ,tth the Riverside County bad Department, · cash sun of
$1~0.00 per lot as mitigation for traffic signal impacts. Should
flee-el tenneco of e lutldfnf le It..
~~' Fllef~ shll'l be based upon e .cenarl inl' Profile extending
I'lllitmus of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries It e grade end
-elfgreene Is Ipproved by the Riverside County Reed CcHmissioner.
Completion of mid laprovemen~s does not imply accepT4~ce for
a latinanti ;by County.
Electrical lad con~unlclt4onl trenches chill .be provided In
accordance with Ordinance 4SZ, $tlndlrd '8~7. ~
27. Aspbaltic maUlsion (fog seal) shall be applied not less than
fourteen days followin placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall
be eppl led it a rite ~ D.DS gallon r square 3ard. Asphalt
emulsion shall conform to Sections 3~, 39 and 94 of the State
C)e
Standard Specifications. ~
Standard owl-de-sacs and knuckles and offset eel-de-sacs shell ~
constructed throghout the lenddivision.
Corner cutbacks In confornancevith County Standard No~IOSsha11
be sho~e on ithe fine1 mp end offered for dedication ere
eppl Icible,
Lot access shall be restricted on Itsache California:Reed, Ibrgartta~
Mid, raiser Parkway and LA Serne'ilF and sO noted bn'the final
31. Landdiviilons creating cut or f111 slopes adjacent to the streets
shell provide erosion control, sight distance control end sTope
easements as approvtd by the bad
32. A11 centerline Intersections shall be at
33..1k street design end Improvement concept of this project shall be
llll~tnltld with TR 23372 end TI ~.3373,
34. Street 1! htlng sha)l be re ired in accordance with Ordinance 460
and 461 t~roughout the subdivision, The County Service Arab (CSA)
Adminlstrltor debtmines v~ethlr Zhll proposil quiltfins under an
existtag assessment district or not. ZF not, t~o land ovner
file an ·Fi)l lc·tlon vt~h LAFCO for ·nnoxation Into or creation of
· =tl tlnl Assessaunt Dietflea" In accordance vlth Governmental
Code RotIon HO00.
35. All. erlVlte and publlc efitrlacos ind/or~ IntersectIOns opposite thls
· project shii l be coordinated wlt~' r~l s project end sham on
'street Itorovsment ellas.
36~"A strlllln plan Is required for liancho California bad. The removal
of the oxTsting I f the
striping shall be the responslbll ~y o
applicant. Traffic signing and striping .shell be done IW County
forces vith'.s11.:lncurred costs borne'tW. the epltcanl;.
37. The man 'entrance 'gate shal~ be located · minimum of ZSO" fro8 the
floe line of Pancho California Road.
GH:lh
V trul~ .
Iliad I)~v~s~on Engineer'
TIOM:
County of Riverside
RlliSRSIDE COUNTY PLAN~INI DEPARTMENT DATE~
Alto: .Clthv Sirford ......
~ ~ ~~ei~~ti[Sa~i~lrlen. Envlrofimntal Health Services
~ Tract 21)71. Amnded No. I
Tim tnvlronmntel Health Services has reviewed Tract Iqap 23371, Amnded IMp
IIo. I dated July 19, 1988. Our current commnts v111 remain as previously
elated In our letter dated June 13, 1988
JUL 2 'l 1988
RI~'ERS:D-a
PLArr.~f?~6 DEp/sGT;/,e,~%.F
"COUNTY RIVERSIDE
e~t, eeellv
dasmll. lab lllle
ee111
L
,.el
eeflrl'
kill ILlelM
seses el&ill I~.
LdUli I&lmmOml,
tim I~ ~a WIll
IIII leslieIll lull.
IsmlAle~., ~=j ellell
DEPARTMENT
r HEALTH
0
' '~ ~ '_~ mrs svmslv sssd, lsemv ~ m Iv~ · m~.~. runs
·
!_.June II. lS88
RIVI3eSlD~COUNTYPLANNINOEKPT-
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA IiS0Z
Attns let=by Sirford '
JUX 1 1988
RIVEM:imUE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
TRACT MAp JllYim That certain land situated in the
untncorporated territory of the County of Riverside, State
of California, being Parcels 1. J.l.4 and I of Parcel
21884 &s shown on · map thereof filed in look 144. PuBes
through 33 of Percol Maps in the office or the County ,
Recorder of said Riverside County together with & portion of
the !~ncho Tomsoul& grinted by the Government of the United
StiLes of America to Lute Ylgnes by patent dated Jimmary
1860 and recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of
San Diego County, Ciliforni·
{1.029 Lots)
'1"he Department of Public Health hem reviewed Tentative Map
No. 23371 and recommends thsts
A ruler system shill be installed according to
plans and specification so upproved by the water
company sad the Health Depsrtment. Permanent
prints of the plans of the valor system shall
be submitted in trlplic&t'e, with · minimum ~cmle
not Joss thin one inch equals a00 feet, &long with
the original drewinS to the County Surveyor- The
prints shall show the internal pipe dismeter,
location of valves.and fire hydrsnts~ pipe and
Joint specific&Lions, and the size of the mmin
&t the Junction of the new system to the
existing system. The plans shall comply in
a11 respects with Dtv. I, Pert 1, Chapter ? of
the Culiforni& Health grid Safety Code. Csliforniu
Administrative Code, Title J2, Chapter 16, and General
Order No. 103 ~f the Public Utilities Commission of the
State of California. vhen.epplicablo.
leeeel
I I I
.,
, }
Riverside County P~inningDep..t.
Page Two ' '.. . .... .
ALtar Kathy Oilford
,.
The plsa~s shall be signed by t registered engineer and
valor company vtth the folioring cerLtficat..ton: 'l
certify-tAiL. the design of the valor
'Tract. Map 2337Z.is'accord&nce vt~h the valor SySt.eR' "
expansion piano of the RsAcho California
and that the vat.or service,storage and distribution
system viii be adequate to provide vaLor service to
ouch tract. This certification does not. constitute a
.guarantee that tt viII loppAy valor to luch tract
· any specific quantities. flows or pressures for fire
protection or any other purpose'. This cert.tfication
shall be signed by a responsible official of the viter
company. Zbt_n sul_evt _kt_tvkei td, g_ bt_Cegu x_
h£ztxec:l_ggg~st_~g_£tYlt~_i&_~til~_~g,yttbt_i£~gc_~g
&bt_£tguti~_gg£_~bt_£tsg£di~Jgo_gg_~bt_gloiJ_ein.,'
This Department has s stit.ement from the X&ncho California
VaLor D/strict agreeing Lo serve domestic vat.or t.o eich sad
every lot in the lubdiYtston on den&rid proYiding
satisfactory financial &rringement. s ire completed vtth the
subdivider. It viii be necessary for the financial
arrangements to be made prior to the recordsLion of the
final
This Department has i stiLemeAt from the W4stern Municipal
VaLor D~strict &Oresing to alloy the subd~vtsion savage
system to be connected to the severs of the District. The
sever system shall be installed according to plans
specific&tieRs as opproved by the District, the County
Surveyor and the Health Departsent, PeriLneAt prints of the
plans of the sever system shall be substtt.ed in triplicate,
along vl%h the original driving, to the County Surveyor. The
prints shall shay the internal pipe diameter, location of
seAholes, cosplate profiles, pipe sad Joint specificst.ions
sad the size of the severs st the junta.ion of the nov system
to the existing system, X single pitt indicating loclt.ion
of sever lines sad valor lines shill be t portion of the
savage pl-~s and profiles. The plans shill be signed by a
registers,~ tAginset and the sever district viLh t.he
foilsring rsrttftcltton: "I certify t.hat. the design of the
sever system in Tract. Map 2337~ is in iccordsnce vith the
sever system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipil Vlter
District si~d that the v&st, e disposal system is idaquite at.
Pegs Three
ATTI4: Kathy OArford
June
%his %tme %o tro&t %he &nLicip&Lod v&oLo8 rron Lhe proposed
tr&cL.'
£tse d& eu_eg_ bt_g os -e&o-
1% viii be neoess&ry for finsnoteS &rringemsnts
priorks.the resord&Lion of Lhe ftn&l sip.
!:nvtronaent&l Heil%h gorYSees
to be m&de
I;, I~ Ill
Riverside County
Plannt'ng Oepartaent
County ASia1 struteve Center ·
Itlverstde, .California ..-
RIVERSIDE: C~UNTY Iq, QC)D CONTROL AND
WATF-R CONSERVATION DISTRICT
Attention: leglena1 Tess
Area: TImer-u/e,
Amended NI. I
Ve have reviewed this case and have the following cements:
EXcept for nut since nature local rUnoff vhtch. may traverSe'portions' of the
"' property the project Is considered free free ordtear ;tom flood hazard.
Henvet, a store of unusual magnitude could cause some labage. Nee cons~ruc-
ttea should conely wtth all applicable ordinances.
The topography of the area conststs of yell defined rtdges and natural usher-
courses vhtch traverse the ro arty. There 18 adequate area outside the
natural watercourses for bur~drneg sties. The natural watercourses she'd be
kept free of buildings and obstructions tn order to rotneath the natural
dratnage patterns of the area end to prevent flood damage to new buildings.
A note should be placed on an envtronmntal constraint sheet startrig, °All new
buildings shall be floodproofed by elevating the finished floors a mtntmum of
18 1riches above adjacent Urnend surface. Ernston protection shall be provtded
for mobile ha supports.
Area
This 'proJect 'ts'ln the and
go
dratnage plan f s shall be patd in accordance with the applicable r~les
rngulattons.
The proposed zoning ts consistent with existin flood hazards. Son flood
"control facilities or fledproofing an/be required to fu11.y develop to the
CO:
tap1 led densIt/.
The Distrlct's report dated ~-,e 9o. I~et ts e1111 current for t. hts project.
The DIstrict does eel object to the proposed airier change.
The attached cments applJr.
Vet/trull/ours,
KENNk';H L.
.,
.-, · )F~. H. KAS~BA
ntor Clvtl Engineer
· ee
R~
RIVIRSIDE COUNIY ~ CONTROl,,, AND
WATi:R CONSERVATION DISTRIC"I"
,3'une 20, lIB8
Riverside County
Planning Department
County Administrative Center
Alvaraids, California
Attentions. Ipacific Plans
.Xathy Gigford
L~dies end Gentlemen,
los Vesting Tract 23371
This is · proposal.to divide about 400 acres in the Tomecult
Valley area. The site is along the east side of Margar~ta
between Rancho CalLfornia Reed and L~ Boreas Way, This proJec~
Is a~ortion of Specific Plan 199 (MarSarias Village).
Offsite. flows from two major watersheds are tributary to the
sito's MrshoiSt end southeast corners, The applicant proposes
to accept end convey the fiwe frost he northeast vith a storm
drab a~stem, end the flows from the southeast with · golf co,~
grass channel from where the flows cross under Ranch, Californ,a
had ~n a culvert.
alto flows would be drained into the above two s~stems with
s~'roete and storm drains according to their natural drainage pat-
tern. According to the applicant, the site would be roughly
graded vith offsite and oneits flows directed into the proposed
golf course and temporary drainage facilities. This is allowable
if the natural drainage patterns are preserved end the temporary
facilities have the 100 you storm capacities,
Following are the DLetrict's recoemendations8
This tract la located vithin the limits of the Nutriots
Cxeek/Tomacula Valley Area Drainage ~lu for which
drainage fees have been adopted b~ the Board. Drainage
feet shall be paid ae sat forth under the provisions of
the "Rules and Regulations for Administration of Area
Drainage Plans®, amended February 16, 1988s
Drainage fees shall be paid to the Road Commissioner
as part of the filing for record of the subdivision
final map or parcel map, or if the recording of a
final parcel map is waived, drainage fees sha? l be
paid as a condition of the waiver prior to re~crd~ ·
· certificate of compliance evidencing the waive: -
the parcel mapf or
e
Riverside County
Planning bpartaent
Bet Vesting Tract 23371
June 20, lte8
b- At the option of the lind divider, upon filing a
quired affidavit requesting de ferment of the layneat
of fees, the drainage fees may be paid to the
Building Director at the Lima of issuance of a grad-
lag permit or 1miXdinS pc:nit for each spprovad l~r-
eel0 .v~iChever. may be .first obtained. after the.
provided bowever, this option to defer the fees may
"" not be exercised for any parcel where grading o:
structures have bee initiated on the l~rcel
the pr~or 3 year period, or perlies for either ac-
tivity have been leaned on that parcel which remain
aCtiVe · ..
Pads should be elevated at 'least I fe~t above the;100
year flood plain in the ad:Jacent drainage facilities,
Erosion protection should be provided for all fill slopes
exposed to the potent. taX erosion hazards,
Hydralogical and hydraulic calculations
perdry and ultimate drainage facilities
ted to the District for approval,
for beth the
Omelet drainage facilities laceted outside of road right
of way should be contained within drainage easements
shown an the final map, A note should be added to the
final map stating, '.'Drainage easements shall be..Xept..free
of buildings~ and ,obstructions" *
Offsite driinage facilities should be located viibin
publicly dedicated drainage easements obtained from the
affected property owners, The documents should be
corded ~nd .a e~py submitted to the District prior to
recordalien of the final map,
All lo~s should be graded to drain to the adjacent street
or an adequate outlet, .
The lO year storm flow should be contained within the
ourb and the 100 year atom flow should be contained
within the street right of way, When either of these
criteria is exceeded, additional drainage facilities
should be installed*
Drainage facilities outletting sump conditions should be
designed to convey the tributar~ 100 year storm flows.
Additional :emergency escape should also be provided,
Riverside County
Rot VastXng Tract 2337l
June 20, Z988
The proparty*8 street and lot grading should be designed
in a manner ~t perpetuates the existing natural
steal oU~Zet.points and outlet conditions, o~hervise,
drainage easement should he"obtained fr0mthe affected'
property owners for the release of concentrated or di-
verted e~oru noes, &~opy o£the recorded drainage
easement Should be semitied to the District for roylay
prior to the recordaNon oft be final map*
Zfthe tract is built in phases, each phase shall
tec~ad from the' lie 100 year tributary etorm. f~ovs. ..
Temporary erosion centrex measures Should be implemented
bedLately Lollowing rough grading to prevent deposition
of dabrim ootodownstreampropertieeordrainago
bvelopment oftALe property should be coordinated vith
the develolment of ed~mcant properties to ensure ~hst
valorcourses remain unobstructed and stormsalert arm not
diverted from me valorshed to another, This my require
the construction of temporary drainage facilities or
offsite construction end grading,
Evidence of t viable maintenance mechanism should be sub-
m~tted to the Dis%rict and County for reviev and appcoval
prior to recordalien of the final map,
14- A copy oft he improvement plans, grading plans and final
map along vith supporting hydraleVis and hydraulic cal-
culations Should be ourmatted to the District via the
Road OeparUent for review and approval prior to records-
lion of ~ho final map, Orading plans Should be approved
prior to issuance of grading peraLGa,
Questions ~oncern~ng this matter may be referred ~o Boberr Chitrig
V~ ~uly
X:Lck Engineering ComPanY
· KEHb'BTii L- EDWAXDS
enior Civil Engineer
IATIEI&AJID
lIE ClaY
1-17-11
1o8 !~ilm, ZlG I)DLI11(tSZ
eta S'RAC'r 23373. - AHtXDIi) I1, ROAD COU. BCTIOII
With roe,el to the' conditions of epprov&z for tl~e 'above referenced land taw/s/on,'
the Fire Department racemends the foXXoetnl fire protection measures be provided
tn accordance with RIverside County Ordinances and/or receSsteed firs protection
standardms
Tile PltOI1CrlOI
the water maine shall be capable of provedial a ,tenttel fire floe of 2500 Gel ..
and an actual fire flow available free any one hydrant shall be MOO GI~ for 2
hours daretAns at 20 PSi residual operatinS pressure.
Approved super fire hydrants, (6wx&~xi|ai|) shall be located at each street
intersection and spaced not more than 330 feet apart In any direction ~itb us
portion of ant 1ot frontsEe more than 165 feet from a hydrant,
·
Appltcautt{eveXoper shall furnish one copy of the water system plane to the Ytre
Department for review, Plans shell codore to fire hydrant types, Zocet~on sad
special, sad, the system shall meet the fire flow requiresante, ~lans shall be
stlned/approved by · reSistsred civil emituser end the local water campany v~tb
the fellovenS' certifiesclout el certify that the destin of the water system is
In accord&ace with the requirements prescribed by the gIverside County Fire
Debarmeat,e
YLre flows for the counts7 club viI1 be detersrued Sen plot plan is .reviewed.
The requires water ryeten, luciadial fire blarenee, shall be installed end accepted
by the a~ro~riate water aleheY prior to any canbusttbXe bulldinE uater~a~ bats&
placed on an ludivldua~ lot, "
iX1 bullfinis shall be constructed with fire retardant roofinS material as
described in Section 3203 of the UniforuSulldtnS Code, Any vend thinSleo
or shakes shall have a Class 'Iw ratInS and shall he spproved by the tire
Departsant Mr/or to installation,
~,~tt ~13n. ~,._, -D t'nge z i
~ 4iViltlO~l =elerdinl thl uaaul~l of condition iIIi:LL II"J referred .to the
life I)epertaeut tinning and Salinesring' muff, IA114OIID l, llGil
Chief Wife Departsout f:tanner
'lYborle I* Tail, ,:Lanatnl Officer.
Development Rev~ev
OS-RIY-1S-Q .98
Tmsr Reference **
VT 23371, 23372, end
233?3
Related t0' SP 199
Ntisrite Villsge
tlannSnl Department
Attention KethF Offford. '
County of.Riverside
a080 Lemon Street'
RAvereide, CA 92501
Deer 118, Qlfford t
Thank you for the opportunity to reviev the proposed Vestinl
Treats 23371, 2337Z, and 233?3 Zoomted easterif of X-15 end -.
Mar arias Rood between Ran,he California Road end Lo Serene
xn lee,he california-
Please refer to. the attached material on which our comments have
been indicated by the item ,hacked end/or by those items noted
under additional ,ammonia.
If any york ts necessary viahie the state highway rilht of way,
the developer Bust obtain"sn enoroac.hment permit from the Celtrams
D~etriot 8 PeralP .Offlee prior to beSinnin2 work.
If 8ddition81 informtiou is desired, piesso call Mr. Patrick M.
Cormally st (71Q)383-e38e*
Very truly yours,
a. m. LEWAN~OWSEI
Dietriot Permits Znlineer
Lee Johnson, Riverside County Road Department
ms=.essary ~ ~tip~ ~ ~ti~ ~et o~ ~ -"' W .~slMle ~ld ~
It appears taut the traffZs -- t ' be ,F lonersted by this prWosal could have
xtXnirXcmt errset on the saw hXSt~W systes of the era, any masures necc
to airlists the traffic ~ '--' Is impacts should be included with the
develcFmnt,
This ;grim or state htl~sy is lmZuded in the Califorula Kaster 'Plan of St·'
lUghays tllfibls far Offiolal henSo HilJw8~ Desiptie, 8ml in 'l~e future
a~ency my. vi.sh to have thZs routs officially desipted as s state scenic ~dl
This portion of state hl2bmy has been of rio·ally des·prod as · ststs seehie
MIFMaY, sad development in t~ts corridor should be c~latible with
.hll~sy cooce~t.
It" is ;.scoe;,tzed thst there is raiderable publie o~ca_ ~ sixat miss lives
IdJlOet; to heavily trsveled hi21~ly~, land developments in ardor to
with thZs e~ncerne my require special miSS Ittefalt%m rossurea. Dlrveloemen
property should include any necessary miss sttenus1:lon,
half-width m the state
half-v'idth ca the state hllt~s¥.
radius mrb returns be provided st intersections vith the ststs hll~ay.
]['~"tandard aheelche~r ramp sat be provided in the returns. .
a positive vehicular barrier aleel the property irontap be provided to
lt~sical assess to the ststa
VehlcuXar m not be developed dlre~cXy to the state hlf~dey.
Vd~lcubr seeus to the state hilh~8~ be pro.~.ded by rodstinS public road
~rehicu~ar eccess to the state hil~tr be provided by standard
drlv~taf~. '
T¥~cu~ar access ·ha3/not be provided viibin of the intersection at
Tsl~cu]Jr access to the state !ti2rr4y be provided by s road-type connection-
· Fefu 8-FJ)1.9 (Rev, 5/87) (Continued on reverse)
study lMScatiq en-~nd eft-site ~ ~mtterns and vol~s, Probable
stud 9rep~ed sdttlat/ee masm'ea be 2rq~red.
Ikndicap parkln2 not, be developed ~ t~ busy drtvmy entrance ~ru.
Care be taken when developIn2 this Iroper*.y to prmrve end perpetuate ~e exist
drsirmge pittern of the state hS2h~y. hrtieuler co·eiders·ice should be 2iven
· sale·iv· increased stcrs runoff ta leaure thst · hi2h~y dra~na&e Irobles is n
Fleas· refer to attached ·ddStSceal rants.
· eepy of say rants irovtdinl sddStferml stste hl2h~y ri2ht or way
record·tim g4' t~e imp.
Any lroposals to f~*t~er develop this IrolMrty.
a copy of the trarflc m' envlromental study, ff required.
ILlvet, ida County Planni~2 Deparment
e 0 $ 0 Idaon S~.eet, 9th Floor
RivefoLds, Californ~a 92503
RIVERIll)T:: COUNTY
PI,.ANNING DEPARTMENT
AttentXon: Xathy eLfford, Planner
l~elardXn2: Vestin2 Tracts: 23371,
flax,Sex,its Village
Dea.x" 'Ms .' G:Ltfox"d:
23172 mad 23173
We xre'Lu receipt of your letters dated June It llll t received by
this office on June It llll, 2x". Deputy hiS dare has reviewed
aa'teriil, and ve offe~ the follovin2 informs'alan for your upcomin2
report. ,.
Pro:~ec~ 23371, vl3l ~ncrease 'the popula'tion Irov~h by approxLmm'tely
a,?ll; p~o:~ec't 23372 Mill Lnc~ease tl~e population by ap:prox~metely
1,936l and p~o~ect 2137l Mill ~ncrease the pulerich by apprcxima'te'~
1,392. The combined pro~ectl, u n completion viii ~mpac't the Ranch.
California a~ea by an ~ncreale oFl,ll2 .pmons, Theme fl2ures
arrived at by asmum~n2 that all residences have · minimum of
bedx~oms. ..
The desirable residen't/deputy-~atio Is l.S deputies pe~ 1,000 persons.
This proJsc't, upon cable'teen of all three phases, Mill require 12.1
depu'tiee to ~acilita'tm law'enforcement pro'tee'alan,
It is of f~por'tance to note ~hat this area Is vLthin our desi2na'ted
Beat IX areas with an existin2 population of approximately ~1,000 per-
mo~. At ~em~tw ~ hvl one depu~ tO cove~ ~m ~a; ·
IZI 'you have
Lnformation
S.4.nc erely,
any fua~he~ quietSone or concerns Ln ~elards to the
offexude ~lease do not hesi'ta'te to con'tact this office.
lake Elsinore Station
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
EXHIBITS
""' S%STAFFRPT%23372VTM.CC 17
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I
, thtOflMl '* , ,,~ ·
~~
Io Sin O,e~o
VICINITY MAP
N.T.S.
CASE NO.~t~a~12
EXHIBIT NO.
~,P.C. DATE ti-H-ql
CITY OF TEMECULA
I]ARITA
TY PA
/,
THE MEADOWS SP_ 2~9 / ."
CASE
EXHIB: iF NO.
~P.C. DATE
|-R
CITY OF TEMECULA
-.U.I.L/t
EXHIBIT NO.
,y.c. DATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.~
EXHIBIT NO.
~,P.C. DATE lt..l~.~|
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
S\STAFFRP'r~23372VTM.CC 18
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
IT'EM NO.
18
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:
REAFFIRM Environmental Assessment No. 32547 for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 23373, and;
APPROVE the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 23373, based on the Analysis and Findings contained
in the staff report, and subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
DISCUSSION:
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\STAFFRPT%23373-1 .CC
At present, 8 joint application is being pursued by Buie Corporation and 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 Palomar Village in between Buie's property and the Village.
As of this writing, no response has been received from Bedford.
S~STAFFRP~23373-1 .CC 2 ~'
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 Humber Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
S~STAFFRPT~3373-1 .CC
VENTURA COUNTY OFFICE
1310 PONDEROSA DRIVE
SUITE I
CANANILLO, CALIFORNIA e3OIO
COOS) o87-1468
LAW
3600 IIIIITOl,. STl!EirT
IUITE 640
COSTA MESA, C. AL. IFONNIA
ONE WILlHIRE IUiLDiNG
el4 SOUTH GRAND AVZNUE, IITM FLOOR
LOG ANO[LES, CALIFORNIA
mira ue-oeoo
~CCCOtl=~: calm
February 10, 1992
Mr. Greg Erickson
BEDFORD PROPERTIES
28765 Single Oak Drive
Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92590-0736
Re: The Box Culvert under Polomar Village
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 Polomar 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, 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"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."
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.'GregErickson
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,
c~o~tF. Field
City Attorney
CITY OF TEMECULA
CC:
Gary Thornhill, Planning Director
Tim Serlet, City Engineer
Dennis Klimmek, Esq.
motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES:
5 COUNCILMEMBERS:
Moore, Mu~oz, Parks,
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
:ILMEMBERS:
;ILMEMBERS
None
RECESS
Mayor Birdsall called a recess
previously scheduled CSD
PUBLIC HEARING
Councilmember Pa~
review tapes
C
PM.
at 9:00 PM.
was reconvened following the
that although he was absent at the
prepared to vote on the public hearings.
Jncil meeting, he did
10.
Mur~oz stated he would be absent from voting on Items 10
~terest.
I due to a
Birdsall announced that Items 10 and 11 would be heard concurrently.
Vesting Tentative Tract MaD No. 23372 - Buie CorDoration - MarQarita Village Specific
Plan
11.
Vestina Tentative Tract MaD No. 23373 - Buie Corporation - Margarita 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.
I~i nutes%1%28%92 -1- 02/1 z,/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 Zinfandel Avenue, expressed concern that this development
remain a s'e~ior project end 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 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 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\1\28\f2 -8- 02/14/92
Citv Council Minutes January 98, 1992
Valley Wash. He explained that little of this material originated from the Villages, and
most came from Bedford and Buie Projects.
Jane Vernon, 30268 Marsay Court, stated the .developers causing this damage need
to take responsibility for their actions and clean up the wash.
Mike Fiducia, showed a video tape to the City Council of a rain storm before the
Palomar V'dlage Shopping Center was completed and before there was any erosion
control atethe 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 Tam Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Parks to
extend the meeting until 11:00 PM. The motion was unanimously carried, with
Councilmember Muf~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 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
Ninutes\1\28\92 -9- 02/14/92
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 V. esting 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: I
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Mu~oz
RECESS
yor Birdsall called a recess at 10:36 PM. The meeting was reconvened a PM with
' al bers present.
~! io. 5631, Tentative Tract MaD N< - Bedford Properties
It was moved by em
continue the public hearing t(
by Councilmember Mu~oz to
of February 11, 1992.
The motion was carried by th 6ilowin
AYES: 5 ~rI~CILMEMBERS:
NOES: ,"' 0 COUNCILMEMBERS:
MBERS
:
~"Lin'cl~~ Moo
Lin'ci~ , Moore, Mu~oz, Parks,
Birdsall
None
H i nut es \ 1 \28\92 - 10- 02/1
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
PARISWAY 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 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 stat.e law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan,
if all of the following requirements are met:
The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general
plan.
S~STAFFRPT~.23373VTM.CC 7
The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
(1)
There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed
will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time.
(2)
There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference
with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
(3) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances.
The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community
Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the
General 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 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:
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.
S~STAFFRFT~23373VTM.CC 8
That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of
development.
That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the
proposed density c~f 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.
The'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, 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 a~nticipated land use and design guidelines standards.
The proposed use or action complies with state planning and zoning laws, due
to the fact that the proposed use conforms with those uses listed as "allowed"
within the zoning designation of Specific Plan 199.
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size
and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and density,
due to the fact that; adequate area is provided for all proposed residential
structures; adequate landscaping is provided along the project's public and
private frontages; and the internal circulation plan should not create traffic
conflicts as design provisions are in conformance with adopted City standards.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public
health or welfare, due to the fact that the conditions stated in the approval are
based on mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate potential
S~'STAFF!qPl~23373VTM.CC 9
adverse impacts of the project.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property because
it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of
the area, due to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the
current zoning of the subject site.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or
natural environment as determined in the Negative Declaration for the project,
due~'~'o 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 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 First Extension of Time for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could
have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case
because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to
the project, and the Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby reaffirmed.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves the First Extension of Time Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 23373 for the subdivision of 29.3 acres into 348 condominium units
and 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:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
$~,STAFRqPT~23373Vl'M. 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:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
JUNE S. GREEK
CITY CLERK
S~STAFFRPT%23373VTM,CC 11
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Gar~;!'hornhill, Director of Planning
January 28, 1991
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372, First Extension of Time
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373, First Extension of Time
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff Recommends that the City
Council:
REAFFIRM Environmental Assessment No. 32547 for
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373, and;
APPROVE the First Extension of Time for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 23373, based on the analysis
and findings contained in the staff report, and subject to
the attached Conditions of Approval.
DISCUSSION:
Specific Plan No. 199 (Margarita Village) was originally adopted by the Riverside County Board
of Supervisors on September 6, 1988. At that time Planning Areas 38, 40, and 41 were
approved for 803 dwelling units. Planning Area 39 is a commercial parcel.
Specific Plan No. 199, Amended No. 1, was approved by the County Board of Supervisors
on April 5, 1989. At that time the number of dwelling units in Planning Area 41 was reduced
from 234 to 232 units. At the same time the unit count was increased in Planning Area 40
from 221 to 237 units. This raised the total unit count of the three Planning Areas from 803
to 817.
The two Vesting Tentative Tract Maps (Nos. 23372 and 23373) were tentatively approved
by the County Board of Supervisors on October 5, 1988. The total unit count approved was
817. The current extension of time requests reflect the number of units approved under the
original Tentative Map applications and the approved Specific Plan No. 199 Amended No. 1.
SM=l'ANNING~23372'CC
Page 2
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373, First Extension of Time
As a matter of public record, a substantial amount of public protest has been received.
Residents in the vicinity of the two projects are opposing the granting of time extensions for
both maps. Several petitions are attached to this report.
However, the project is in conformance with the amended Specific Plan, and the originally
approved Tentative Maps. As a result, Staff's recommendation remains unchanged.
vgw
S~t'ANNING~23372'CC 2
APPROVAL
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Subject:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Pl.anning Department
January 14, 1992
First Extension of Time Vesting Tentative Tract Map No, 23373
PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDATION:
APPUCATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
Mark Rhoades
The Planning Department Staff Recommends that the
Planning Commission:
RI=AFFIRM Environmental Assessment No. 32548 for
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No, 23373, and;
APPRnVI= the First Extension of Time for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 23373, based on the analysis
and findings contained the staff report, and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval,
o
,
Buie Corporation
Mergerits Village Development Company
First Extension of Time for a residential/commercial
subdivision on 29,3 acres with 348 dwelling units
proposed,
Northwest corner of Rancho California Road and Kaiser
Parkway,
Specific Plan 199 (Margarita Village)
S~STAFFRFT~3373VTM. CC
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Specific Ran 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: Vacant
South: VaCant
East: Single Family Residential
West: Vacant
PROJECT STATISTICS:
Commercial Acreage: 7.5
Total Acreage: 29.3
No. of Lots: 8
Residential Acreage: 21.8
Proposed Units: 348
Density: 14.8 D.U./AC
BACKGROUND
Vesting Tentative Tract No, 23373 is located within the Margarita Village Specific Plan No.
199. The map as tentatively approved by the County of Riverside in November of 1988. The
City of Temecula Planning Commission recommended approval of the First Extension of Time
on November 4, 1991 by a vote of 5-0.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373 is an application to subdivide 29,3 acres of land into
7 condominium lots with 348 units and a 7.5 acre commercial lot. The project is located at
the northwest corner of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway. The project includes
Planning Areas 38 and 39 of the Margarita Village Specific Plan No, 199,. The project is
surrounded on the north, south and west sides by vacant land. To the east is an existing
single-family residential tract.
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Issues which were raised by the Planning Commission relative to the project included parkland
and erosion control. The 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.
FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY
The current SWAP designation for the proposed map is Specific Plan. The project is in
conformance with Specific Plan No. 199 and therefore will likely be consistent with the City's
future adopted General Plan.
S~STAFFRPT~23373VTlUl, CC 2
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Riverside County Environmental Assessment No. 32548 was previously adopted for the
proposed project. It is recommended that the City Council re-affirm the previous
environmental assessment.
RNDINGS
e
e
e
There is a reasonable p~obability 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
developrfq~nt 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 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.
$~$TA~a373VTM. CC 3
10.
The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed projects, due tothe fact that this is clearly representecP'~
in the site plan and the project analysis.
Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference, due to the fact
that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report, Exhibits, and Conditions of
Approval,
vgw
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Planning Areas 38 and 39 Standards, Specific Plan No. 199 - page 5
Resolution - page 6
Conditions of Approval - page 12'
Planning Commission Staff Report - page 16 '
Exhibits - page 17
Development Fee Check List- page 18
S%STAFFRPT%23373VTM. CC 4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PLANNING AREAS 38.AND 39 STANDARDS, SPECIRC PLAN NO. 199
S'~STAFFRPl%23373VTM, CC
5
w4d~ac) .. 'Ibis. 4,4 Area ve'r"r' be. dee~ fur' - VeL'T'.
sorer, TFpicaI building elevations and arnhi~ec~-,~s 1
h.. Ts~d Use end P4ve~ .... ,. _:t m~"srpessqlI' -'
Please refer to O~44-~-~1 N~.. 3~&,2822. (See 8p-
Plan Zone Ordinance Tab )
P~ ann{aQ Standards
Access into pls--tng Area 38 will be provided
local acceas road ~--~ImV-" b, ~,... ,,, ~~~ ~as
A landscaped buffer is plmu,,d L. t~,,n pl~m,'4,~ Areas
38 and 39 to help selmrs2x~~d~eT '.uses.: ~'.
the adjoining commercial. uses._'.. ·
Village " · to serve the
residents of the retirement community, A variety of~
facilities are planned~ the centerma~ 4.~,~.- tmm:Ltt..
cour~s., lec~ul-e hal'Is, -swimming, end ~ni~g
facilities.
A Major Retirement Em:rT .IlZgsclpe t'zwat~,,~"if
planned at the entrance to Planning Area 38 on Rancho
California Road. (See Figures III-22 & III-23.) A
Minor Retiremen~ Entry landscape treatment is planned
along Kaiser Parkway. (See Figures III-24 & IZI-25.)
Building height shall not -v~- '.3.a~---4.-. ,. wi~h .a
maximum height of 40 feet.
Subject to approval by the Fire Chief 'and the
Department of Building and Safety, chimneys and/or
fireplaces shall be allowed to encroach into sideyards
a maximum of two (2) feet. No other structural
encroachments shall be .permitted in the front, side or
rear yard except as provided for in Section 18.19 of
Ordinance No. 348.2922.
-140-
*' ' ' FIisss- refer 'to Pr,:rJect-W,I.de l:)es.f,.,c~n. --,,., Tex, h.,.,.,,.,I De. ve.1.--
{},timan~'. St. elsie.t-fie in . 2ac~tlmm I"Z'.B.2'. ,. f{xr' l=xrrt:her land'
,.-Use s'P,:ard._az'ds 'that... ai;ll}.l-l:.
Please r,qZar to Desig~ e~LdsZinms in' S~tiau r~Z; ,i~r
design-related c~it~rJ~.
-14l-
Plan
r~ ~n -~ OeveTmment W~p~da~t
Please re:g'ertoOrdbmnoelo. 348.2922. (2eaS'pecL~.,Lc.
Zone Ordinance Tab )
Plann4na Standards
Access into Planning Area 39 may be provided from both
Rancho Callfond& Road.:.,
Ftgu_-'~ II-30. )
A landscaped btt~ez,ia. plJnnedbatveenPlmm/ng~.Lt-ms
38 and 39 to help
the adjoining cosnercia~'.ussa..'.
Please reZer to Pro~sct4ids:DssiWr-maf~rsxt~al'.DSvsl~:-
opment Standards in Section-rr.B.2., for i~char land
use standards that apply site-vide.
Please rA~s~to. Destg~,~zide~inm~--in~sc~£~n III, for
design-related criteria.
--142-
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 92-._
~ S%STAFFFIPT%23373VTM. CC 6
A'I'I'ACHMENT 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
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 Land Use, Zoning,
Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map
application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said First Extension of Time
for Vesting Tentative Tract Map on November 4, 1991, at which time interested persons had
an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map;
WHEREAS, the City Council considered said First Extension of Time for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map on January 14, 1992, at which time interested persons had an
opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Council hearing, the Council approved said
Extension of Time Vesting Tentative Tract Map;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Rndinga.
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%STAFFRFr~3373V'rM.CC 7
The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, each of the following:
(1)
There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed
will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or
studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time.
(2)
There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference
with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances.
The Riverside County G~neral Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community
Plan, (hereinafter 'SWA ") 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:
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:
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.
S%STAFFRPT%23373VTM.CC 6
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, 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
accordance with State law, due to the fact that the project is consistent witt.
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.
D$
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size
and shape of the lot configuration. circulation patterns, access. and 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 potentie~
S%STAFFtqlmT~3373VTM. CC g
SECTION 4.
The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of January, 1992.
PATRICIA H. BIRDSALL
MAYOR
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was ;duly adopted by the City Council of the
City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 14th day of January, 1992 by the
following vote of the Council: ·
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
JUNE S. GREEK
CITY CLERK
S%,$TAFF!ImT'~aaTaV'rM. CC 11
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,
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
pfo'~ect's Conditions of Approval.
The project has acceptable access to e dedicated right-of-way which is open
to, and useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project currently
proposes access points from Kaiser Parkway which have been determined to
be adequate by the City Engineer.
The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting
street layout are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access
through or use of the property within the proposed projects, due to the fact
that this is clearly represented in the site plan and the project analysis,
Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental
documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by
reference, due to the fact that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report,
Exhibits, and Conditions of Approval.
As conditioned .pursuant to SECTION 3, the First Extension of Time for Vesting
Tentative Tract Map is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could
have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case
because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to
the project, and the Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby reaffirmed.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves the First Extension of Time Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No; 23373 for the subdivision of 29.3 acres into 348 condominium units
and 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:
A. Exhibit A, attached hereto.
S\STAFFRPT%23373VTM. CC 10
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
S%STA~3373VTM.CC I 2
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373
First Extension of Time
Commission Approval Date: November 4, 1991
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Unless previously paid, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall
comply with the provisions of Ordinance No, 663 by paying the appropriate fee set
forth in that ordinance. Should'Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions
of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance
No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as
implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
®
No building permits 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, ;~ny subdivision which is part
of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section.
$1TAFRqFr~3373VTM.CC 13
Delete condition no. 15 of Riverside County Road Commissioner letter dated September 22,
1988 and replace it with the fellowing:
Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Department
of Public Works a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation towards traffic signal
impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal
mitigation fee, he may enter into a written agreement with the City deferring said
payment to the time of issuance of a building permit.
An erosion control and slope protection plan shall be submitted to the Department of
Public Works for review and approval. The installation shall be certified by a registered
Civil Engideer for Iocatibn and elevation, and site conditions shall be maintained to
protect adjacent properties from damage due to 'runoff and erosion. Developer shall
post a performance bond for erosion control and slope protection in an amount
approved by the Department of Public Works.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area
Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied. by the area of new development. The charge is
payable to the Rood COntrol District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area
Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new
charge needs to be paid.
As deemed necessary by the department of Public Works, the developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Rood Control District;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Department of Public Works;
Riverside County Health Department; and
CATV Franchise.
Community Services District
Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of the Intent
to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CATV Standards at time of street
improvements.
Prior to any work being iperformed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an
encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Enginaer's Office, in addition to
any other permits required.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed
upon the property of project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as
required for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time
S%STAFFRPT~23373VTM.CC 14
of payment of fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not
been finally established by the date on which developer requests its building permits
for the project or any phase thereof, the developer shall execute the Agreement for
payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of which has been provided to developer.
Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, developer shall post security to secure
payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the security shall be ~2.00 per
square foot, not to exceed $10,000. Developer understands that said Agreement may
require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees). By execution of this Agreement, developer will
waive any right to protest the provisions from this Condition, of this Agreement, the
formatio0. of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any
traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; orovided that developer is not
waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the
amount thereof.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
10.
Construct full street improvements including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C.
pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees end street lights on all interior
public streets.
11.
All street improvements striping, marking and signing shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
12.
Traffic striping, marking and street name signing plans shall be designed as directed
by the Department of Public Works.
13.
A construction area traffic control plan shall 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:
14.
Prior to recordation of the final map the applicant or his assignee shall pay the fair
market value of 4.07 acres of required parkland to comply with City Ordinance No.
460.93 (Quimby). The amount to be paid shall be determined by TCSD staff within
thirty (30) days prior to recordation of said map.
15.
Exterior slopes bordering an arterial street may be dedicated to the TCSD for
maintenance following compliance to TCSD standards and completion of the
application process.
S%STA~3373VTM. CC 15 ~
PLKI~TING CO10!ISSION MINUTES November 4, 1991
8. VESTING TENTATIVE TI~CT NO. 23372
Proposal for extension of time for a 66.Lot Condominium
and apartment subdivision. 469 dwelling units on 46.9
acres. Located north of Rancho California Road, westside
of Kaiser Parkway.
9. VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23373
9.9 Preposal for extension of time for 348 condominium units
on 23.5 acres withan additional 7.5 acres of commercial.
MARK RHOADES 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 RHOADES advised that the expiration date of the map
was November 8, 1991.
ROBERT RIGHETTI 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.
COMMISSIONER 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 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.
-- TPCMINll/4/91 -8- 11/6/91
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 4, 1991
MARK RHOADES advised that due to the time constraints
involved with the expiration, staff is trying to keep the
map alive to address these issues.
CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND opened the public hearing at 7:45 P.M.
CHARLES GILL, 600 B Street, Suite 1100, San Diego,
representing the Margarita Village Development Company.
In ~egards to the fees, Mr. Gill advised that the project
i~ part 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 Extension of Time for VTT 23372 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.
ANA BLANCO, 31748 Corte Tortosa, Temecula.
THOMAS BENTLEY, 41473 Zinfandel Avenue, Temecula.
RAPLH BROWNELL, 41487 Zinfandel Avenue, Temecula.
J.R. SHEKOSKI, 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.
STEVEN CURNOW, 41636 Chablis Court, Temecula.
CRAIG EVANS, 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- 11/6/91
PLJkNNIN~ COMXISSION HINUTE8 November 4, 1991
COMMISSIONER FAHEY asked what the Commission's. options
were in taking action on this item.
JOHN CAVANAUGH advised thatthe Commission could denythe
exwcension of time, approve the request for extension of
time or the Commission could conditionally approve the
extension. In relation to the park fees, the Development
Agreement is not clear on what is addressed with respect
to p~rk 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 FAHEY questioned what findings the
Commission would have to make to deny based on a health
and safety issue.
JOHN CAVANAUGH 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 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.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF moved to close the public hearing
at 8:45 P.M. and Adopt Resolution 91-(next) recommending
that the City Council Approve the First Extension of Time
for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23372, contingent upon
the implementation of corrective grading and erosion
control measures to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
prior to the City Council approval, seconded by
COMMISSIONER FAHEY.
CHAIRMAN HOAGLAND 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- 11/6/91
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES November 4, 1991
stated that he had a problem .accepting this.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF requested that his motion include
that Item No. 4-C-6 be deleted from the Resolution, with
concurrence by COMMISSIONER FAHEY.
AYES: 5
--~ NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff, Hoagland
COMMISSIONERS: None
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF,moved to close the public hearing
at 8:45 P.M. and Adopt Resolution 91-(next) recommending
that the City Council ADDrOVe the First Extension of Time
for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23373, contingent upon
the implementation of corrective grading and erosion
control measures to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
prior to the City Council approval, and deleting Item
4-C-6 of the Resolution, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff, Hoagland
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
TPCMINll/4/91
-11-
11/6/91
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
~ S~,STAFFRPT'%23373VTM. CC 16
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
November 4, 1991
Case No.: Rrst Extension of Time Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373
Prepared By: Mark Rhoades
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff Recommends that the Planning
Commission:
ADOPT Resolution 91 ~ Recommending that the City Council
APPROVE the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract
No. 23373, contingent upon the implementation of corrective
grading and erosion control measures to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer prior to the City Council approval, based on the
Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report, and subject
to the attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Buie Corporation
REPRESENTATIVE:
Margarita Village Development Company
PROPOSAL:
First Extension of Time for a residential/commercial
subdivision on 30 acres with 348 dwelling units
proposed.
LOCATION:
Northwest corner of Rancho California Road and Kaiser
Parkway..
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
Specific Plan 199 (Margarita Village)
North:
South:
East:
West:
Specific Plan 199 (Margarita Village)
Specific Plan 199 (Margarita Village)
R-1 (Single-Family Residential)
Specific Plan 199 (Margarita Village)
Not requested
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
Vacant
Single Family Residential
Vacant
S%STAI=!=TImT~3373'VTM
PROJECT STATISTICS:
BACKGROUND
Total Acreage: 30
No. of Lots: 8
Residential Acreage: 23.5
Proposed Units: 348
Density: 14.8 D.U./AC
Commercial Acreage: 7.5
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23373 as originally approved by the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors on November 8, 19.88. The First Extension of Time was filed in October of 1990.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Vesting Tentative'Tract No. 23373 is · portion of Specific Plan No. 199, Margarita Village.
The Tentative Map includes Planning Areas 38 and 39.
Planning Area 38 is a 7 lot subdivision on 23.5 acres. Three hundred forty eight condominium
units are proposed. The density of the resident project portion will be 14.8 dwelling units per
acre. Planning Area 39 is a 7.5 acre commercial lot. The proposed lot will provide
neighborhood commercial and retail facilities, as identified in the Specific Plan. A plot plan
will be required when development is proposed.
FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY
The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the approved Specific Plan No.
199. The Southwest Area Plan designation for this .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
e
e
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.
S%STAFRVrr~3373'VTM 2
ge
10.
11.
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 ir
conformeric. with adopted City standards.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or
welfare, due to the fact that the conditions stated in the approval are based on
mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts of the
project.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373 is compatible with surrounding land uses. The
harmony~ir~ scale, bulk, height, density and coverage creates a compatible physical
relationship with adjoining properties, 'due to the fact that the proposal is similar in
compatibility with surrounding land uses; and adequate area and design features
provide for siting of proposed development in terms of landscaping and internal traffic
circulation.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it does
not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area, due
to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the current zoning of the
subject site.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural
environment as determined in the EIR for the project, due to the fact that impact
mitigation is realized by conformance with the project's Conditions of Approval.
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project currently proposes access
points from Kaiser Parkway which have been determined to be adequate by the City
Engineer.
The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resulting street layout
are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the
property within the proposed projects, due to the fact that this is clearly represented
in the site plan and the project analysis.
Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with is application and herein incorporated by reference, due to the fact
that they are referenced in the attached Staff Report, Exhibits, and Conditions of
Approval.
5%STAFFFPT~3373.VTM 3
STAff RECOMMENDATION
vgw
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
The Planning Department Staff Recommends that the
Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution 91 ~ Recommending that the City
Council APPROVE the First Extension of Time for Vesting
Tentative Tract No. 23373, contingent upon the
implementation of corrective grading and erosion control
measures to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to
the City Council approval, based on the Analysis and
Findings contained in the staff report, and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
Resolution - page 5
Conditions of Approval - page 10
Staff Report-County of Riverside - page 14
Exhibits - page 15
S~STAR~3373,V'rlVl 4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 91-
S%STAFFRPT%23,173.VTM 5
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 91-108
EXTENSION OF TIME
FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23373-A 8 LOT RESIDENTIAL AND
COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION ON 31 ACRES AND KNOWN AS A PORTION OF
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 923-210-014.
WHEREAS, The Buie Corporation filed the Time Extension in accordance with
the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City
has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Time Extension application was processed in the time and
manner prescribed by State an~l local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Time Extension on
November 4, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in
support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recomrnllded approval of said Time Extension.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION I. 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.
S%STAFFRFr~3373.VTM 6
(3) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances.
The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community
Plan, (hereinafter 'SWAP') was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the
General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now
within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its
General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of its General Plan.
The proposed Time Extension is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements
set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit:
The' City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general
plan.
The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the
following:
(1)
There is reasonable probability that the Time Extension proposed will be
consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or
which will be studied within a reasonable time.
(2)
There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference
with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
(3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances.
Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no Time Extension may be approved unless the following
findings can be made:
The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with
all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances.
The proposed subdivision does not affect the general health, safety, and
welfare of the public.
The Planning Commission, in 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.
S~STAFFRP~23373.Vl'M 7
(2)
There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or
interference with the future and adopted general plan, if the proposed
use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact
that the project is in conformance with existing and anticipated land use
and design guidelines standards.
(3)
The proposed use or action complies with state planning and zoning
laws, due to the fact that the proposed use conforms with those uses
listed as "allowed" within the zoning designation of Specific Plan 199.
(4)
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of
the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access,
and density, due to the fact that; adequate area is provided for all
proposed residential structures; adequate landscaping is provided along
the project's public and private frontages; and the internal circulation
plan should not create traffic conflicts as design provisions are in
conformance with adopted City standards.
(5)
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the
public heal.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 a significant change to the present or
planned land use of the area, due to the fact that the proposed project
is consistent with the current zoning of the subject site.
(7)
(8)
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the
built or natural environment as determined in the EIR for the project, due
to the fact that impact mitigation is realized by conformance with the
project's Conditions of Approval.
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is
open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the
project currently proposes access points from Kaiser Parkway which
have been determined to be adequate by the City Engineer.
(9)
The design of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the
resulting street layout are such that they are not in conflict with
easements for access through or use of the property within the
proposed projects, due to the fact that this is clearly represented in the
site plan and the project analysis.
(10)
Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and
environmental documents associated with is application and herein
incorporated by reference, due to the fact that they are referenced in the
attached Staff Report, Exhibits, and Conditions of Approval.
As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 2, the Time Extension proposed conforms to the
logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future
development of the surrounding property.
S\STAFFI~aaTa,VTM 8
SECTION II, Environmental Complimnce.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby determines that the previous
environmental determination Adoption of EIR No. 202 still applies to said Tract Map
(Extension of Time). --
SECTION I!1. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council
approve the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373 for an 8 Lot
residential and commercial subdivision on 30 acres' and known as a portion of Assessor's
Parcel No. 923-210-O14 subject to the following conditions:
1. Exhibit A;'attached hereto.
SECTION IV.
. BASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of November, 1991.
JOHN E. HOAGLAND
CHAIRMAN
-.' .....J HEhEBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 4th
day of November 1991 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES: 5
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONER
S%STAFFRPT%23373,VTM 9
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
S~'STAFF!qPT~3373'VT'M 10
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373
First Extension of Time
Commission Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEP~.'RTMENT
Unless previously paid, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall
comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee set
forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions
of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance
No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as
implemented by County ordinance or resolution.
No building permits 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~,STAFF~3373.VTM 11
Delete condition no. 15 of Riverside County Road Commissioner letter dated September 22,
1988 and replace it with the following:
Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Department
of Public Works a cash sum as established, per lot, as mitigation towards traffic signal
impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal
mitigation fee, he may enter into a written agreement with the City deferring said
payment to the time of issuance of a building permit.
An erosion control and slope protection plan shall be submitted to the Department of
Public Works for review and approval. The installation shall be certified by a registered
Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and site conditions shall be maintained to
protect adjacent properties from damage due to runoff and erosion. Developer shall
post a p~'rformance bond for erosion control and slope protection in an amount
approved by the Department of Public Works.
e
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area
Drainage Ran fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is
payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area
Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new
charge needs to be paid.
As deemed necessary by the department of Public Works, the developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Rood Control District;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Department of Public Works;
Riverside County Health Department; and
CATV Franchise.
Community Services District
Prior to final map, the sUbdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of the Intent
to Develop. Conduit 'shall be installed to CATV Standards at 'time of street
improvements.
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an
encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office, in addition to
any other permits required.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT:
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed
upon the property of project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as
required for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time
of payment of fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not
been finally established by the date on which developer requests its building permits
for the project or any phase thereof, the developer shall execute the Agreement for
payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of which has been provided to developer.
S~STAFFRP1'~aa73.VTM 12
Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, developer shall post security to secure
payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the security shall be $2.00 per
square foot, not to exceed e 10,000, Developer understands that said Agreement may
require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the
project in the amount of such fees). By execution of this Agreement, developer will
waive any right to protest the provisions from this Condition, of this Agreement, the
formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any
traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; orovided that developer is not
waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the
amount thereof.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
10,
Construct~ull street improvements including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C.
pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees and street lights on all interior
public streets.
11.
All street improvements striping, marking and signing shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the Department of Public Works.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
12.
Traffic striping, marking and street name signing plans shall be designed as directed
by the Department of Public Works.
13.
A construction area traffic control plan shell 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:
14.
Prior to recordation of the final map tl~e applicant or his assignee shall pay the fair
market value of 4.07 acres of required parkland to comply with City Ordinance No.
460.93 (Quimby). The amount to be paid shall be determined by TCSD staff within
thirty (30) days prior to recordation of said map.
15.
Exterior slopes bordering an arterial street may be dedicated to the TCSD for
maintenance following compliance to TCSD standards and completion of the
application process.
$~STAFFRPT~aa73.V'rM I 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
STAFF REPORT - COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
S~5TAFFFIPT%23373.VTM 14
DATE: November 23, 1988
Dear Appl 1cant:
RE:
Ti~JTATIVE TRACT HA~ JO. 23373 A~..d. l
E. A. NUqBER: 32548' '
REGIONAL TEAH NO, ~peclflc Plans
The. RIverside County Board of Supervisors has taken the fo11Qvtn act1 cn the aL
referenced tenU_.~lve tract map at tts regular meettrig of fiovember gB, Zg~ ,.
x. APPROVED tentathe map subject to the attached cmdtttons.
· . DENTED tentathe map based cn attached findings. . '
--,. ... . · .... . . . -
The-tract. map has hen fou~l to be cmsfstent ylth all pertinent elements ef
Rherstde- CountJf'General. Plan.-and. ts'. tn ccmpllance'wtth the California Envlroeen
I;uallty Act of ]970. · ~k ujt't ~t11' not have a significant effect cn the envtr~nm
and a Negathe Declara ten has (j;~opted.. ' .
'~mdttfma11, appr 'te'~nta: ac:~: map '~al l ,xptr, ~ths after the' appreval
tAhe Board of $upervtso Hea;t.n~- - ef which Is s ably unless wtthtn t
petted of ttme a ftna ' ' approved f th the County ReCord
Prtor. to the exptratlm d ' ' . ~y]'a]pp "' ~ g' for. an- eXte~nstm
1 r
.. . ..
RG: mp
PJ:VERSZDE COUNTY 'PLANN]:NG DEPAR~ ENT
Roger. S. Streeter, Planntng Dtrector
ron Goldran, Principal Planner
F:[LE- lt. IZTE
APPLICANT- CANARY
ENGZNEER- P;NK
295-39 (/a~,
4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-6181
46-209 OASIS STREET, j0M ~
INDIO, CALIFORNIA922
(619) 342-82
FROH: Planning Department
SUBMITtAL DATE: November 8, 1988
SUBJECT: VESTZNG TENTATZVE and TENTATZVE TRACTS located in the
Margartta Village Specific Plan (SP 199 Amendment No. 1) - First
and Third Supervtsortal Districts - Rancho California Zoning Area.
RECOMMENDEDMOTION=
-Receive and File the Planning Cmtsston action of 9-28-88 an~l'
10-5-88 for '
APPROVAL~of Vesttn~ Tentative Tracts 23371 Amended No. 1, 23372:
AmendM NO- 1,233 3Amended NO, 1, 23470 and 23471 and ·Tracts
22915, 22916, 23100A~ended No;' 1, 2310~ 23102, and 23103 Amended
Prey. Agn. tel
Depls. Comments Dist.
AGEND,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COHHiSSION HZNUTES OCTOBER S, 1988
(AGENDA iTEMS 5-2, 5-3, 5-4 - REEL 1003, SIDE I - TAPE 6, SIDE 1)
VESTING TRACT MAP 23373 AMENDED NO. 1- EA 32548 - Margartta Village
Oevelopment Company - Rancho California Area - First/Third Supervisortel
Districts - south of Rancho California Rd, west of Kaiser Parkway - 348
untts --31~ acres - SP 199 Zone. Schedule A
VESTING TRACT FlAP 23371 AMENDED NO. Z - EA 32546 - Margartta Village
Development Company - Rancho Coltfornta Area - First/Third Supervisortel
DIstricts - north of Rancho California Rd, east of Margartta Rd - 1183 units -
398~ acres~- SP 199 Zone. Schedule A
VESTING TRACT 23372 AMENOED NO. I - EA 32547 - Margartta Village Development
Company - Rancho California Area - First/Third Supervisortel DIstricts - north
of Rancho California Rd, west of Kaiser Parkway - 469 untts on 66 lots - 44~
acres - SP Z99 Zone. Schedule A
The hearings were opened at 6:50 p.m. and closed at 7:11 p.m.
STAFF RECOi~4ENDATZON: Adoptton of the ne attve declarations for EA 32548, EA
32546, and EA 32547, approval of Vesttng ~ract Maps 23373 Amended No. 1, 23371
/4aended No. I and 23372 Amended No. 1, all subject to the proposed conditions.
Ms. Gtfford also recommended approval of a waiver of the length to wtdth ratio
for Vesttng Tract 2337Z Amended No. Z. The subject tract maps were located
within Vtllage A of the Flargartta Village Spectftc P~an, and would create 1753
residential lots and a golf course on 254 acres. Staff had found the tract
maps to be consistent with the adopted spectftc plan. Ms. Gtfford recommend,4
several changes to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Purrlance aske~
about a fiscal impact report, and was tnformed this report had been furntshe,
recently for Amendment No. I to the spectftc plan.
Jim Resney, representing the applicant, briefly reviewed the development,
advising they were proposing a state-of-the-art adult retirement co,:nuntty
which included a championship golf course with a 37,000 square foot clubhouse
facility tn the center of the pro4ect. He then referred to Condition 33(~)
for all three tract maps, which .required front yards to be provided with
landscaping and automatic irrigation, and requested that thts requirement
deleted for larger lots, as it was his opinion that these homeowners wnuld
prefer to do their own landscaping. The CC&Rs would require them to comply
with speciftc standards. Mr. Resney requested that this condition be amended
by adding to the end "or shall be Installed within 75 days after close of
escrow as provtded in the CC&Rs in the 45x100 square foot lot areas'.
Road Department Condition 21 for Tract Map 23371 and Condition 14 for the
other two tract maps requtred a debris retention wall where block walls were
requtred at the top of slopes. Mr. Resney requested that thts condition be
amended by adding: "If applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
Road Co,antsstoner that a ~ster Homeowners Association or other entity wtll
satisfactorily maintain the slopes, the Road Commissioner may, at his optton,
waive this requirement of a debris retention wall." He thought that tf they
could convince the Road Commissioner that there would be no stlting problems
and that the slopes would be maintained, the debris retention wall Nould not
53
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING CONMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER S, 1988
be needed. For aesthetic reasons, he felt it would be better not to have the
small wall,
Road Deparl;nent Condition 22 for Tract 23372 and Condition 15 for the other
two tract maps related to the minimum 30 foot garage setback from face of
curb. Mr. Resney felt this condition conflicted with the specific plan
develo mant standards which allowed 16 foot driveways with roll up doors,
setbac~ either from the back of curb or the back of sidewalk. He would prefer
to have the specific plan standards applted, but requested that the hearings
not be contth~ed.
Lee Johnson advised the slump wall delineated in Road Department Condition 21
was a wall they had been requiring for the past three or four years when the
Planning Department required a block wall at the top of a slope. Depending on
the stze of the slope, the Road Department Destgn Engineer could require a two
block. high wall at the property line to keep the debris washing down the slope
from crossing the sidewalk. They would be willing to consider any other
alternative the developer might suggest, as long as it accomplished the
purpose of thts condition. He requested that this condition be retained.
Comtssioner Donoboe asked whether adding to the end 'or as approved by the
Road Department" would give the developer the opportunity to provide an
alternative plan, and Nr. Johnson agreed that tt would.
Mr. Johnson advised the garage setback required by Road Department Condition
22 for Tract Z3371 (Condt'tton 15 for Tracts 2337Z and 23373) was the minimum
setback required by Ordinance 460. He had read the language requested by the
applicant, but would prefer to retain the condition as originally proposed in
the Road Department letter. Mr. Resney explained they had been discussing the
possibility of providing a 4 foot sidewalk, and would like to have a 24 foot
setback rather than the 26 foot setback required by this condition. However,
tf the Road Department preferred the existing language, they would accept it.
Mr. Johnson advised the condition would not alter ~he width of the sidewalk in
any way. -.
Comtsstoner Beadling referred t~Mr. Resney's request that front yard land-
scaping and irrigation not .be required for the far er lots, and stated she
felt they should be required for all lots. Hr. Goldman requested.that the
condition be retained as originally written,:
There was no further testimony, and the hearing was closed at 7:11 p.m.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Vesting Tentative Tract Naps 23371 Amended No. 1,
23372Amended No. I and 23373 Amended No. I are located within Vtl]age A of
the Margartta Vtllage Spectftc Plan (No. 199); the three tract maps wtll
provide 1763 dwelltng units and a golf course on 254.acres; Tract 23372
Amended No. I has been condttloned with the specific plan's condition of
approval to mitigate impacts to the Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat; the tracts
have been condttioned to comply with Specific Plan 199, Change of Zone Case
5107, and Development Agreement No. 5; and a waiver of the lot length to width
ratio will be needed for Vesting Tentative Tract 23371 Amended No. 1. All
environmental concerns have been addressed in EIRs 107, 202, and the initial
54
RZVERSZDE COUNTY PLANNZNG CONNZSSZON HZNUTES OCTOBER 5, 1988
studtes for these tract maps, and no significant impacts have been found; the
Change of Zone Case 5107, and Spectftc Plan 199 Amendment No. 1;
and conform to the requirements of Ordinances 460 and 348. The proposed
project wt11 not have a significant effect on the environment.
HOTZON: Upon morton by Commissioner Donahoe, seconded by Commissioner Bresson
and unanimously cartted, the Coe~tsslon adopted t~e negattve declarations for
EA 32546, EA 32547 and EA 32548, and approved Vesttng Tentathe Tract ~ps
2337t Amended No. I wtth a wetvet of the lot length to wtdth ratTo, 23372
Amended No,-.Z, and 23373 Amended No. Z, all subject to the proposed conditions
amended as follows, based on the above ftndtngs and conclusions and the
reco,aaendattons of staff.
Tract No. 23371
9 - Amend to reflect the September 30, 1988 Road Department letter.
23(~) and 23(3) - Amend to require the developer to comply wtth the parkway
, landscaping requirements as shown in $pectftc Plan No..199
Amended No. I unless mtntenance Is provided by a
homeowners association or other public anttry.
25 - Delete the last sentence ("The ftnal map for Vesttrig Tract 2337Z shall
sho~ the park as a'numbered lot").
33(c) - Roof-mounted mechanical equlpment shall not be permitted wtthtn the
subdhtston. except for the clubhouse which my have screened _
equipment as approved by the Planntng Department; however. solar
equipneat or any other energy saving devtces shall be permitted w~:h
Planntng Department approval.
Condition 34(a) for Tra ts-23372. 23372. ?rid
Add "and my be phase~ wtth the project .
phased wtth the development of the tract.
33(a) for Tract 23373
(to clarify that walls may be
Condition 33(d) for Tracts 23371 and 23372, and 32(d) for Tract 23373
Butldtng separatfon betcan all buildings Including fireplaces shall not be
less than ten feet unless approved by the Department'of Bufldtng and Safety
and'the Ftre Department per $pectftc Plan ZggAmended No. 1.
34(e) for Tracts 23371, 23372 and 33(e) for Tract 23373 - Delete
Road Department Condition 21 for Tract 23371 and 14 for Tracts 23372 and 23373
Add to the end 'or as approved by the Road Department"
55 _
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988
(AGENDA ITEM 1-2 - REEL 1002 - SIDE I - TAPE 1 SIDE 1)
TRACT MAP 23100 AHENDED 1 ) -
NO. - EA 32318 - Mar borough Dev. Corp. Rancho
California/Skinner Lake Area - First and Third Supervtsorial Districts - west
of Butterfield Stage Rd, north of Rancho California Rd - 291 lots - 122.5~
acres - R-1/SP Zones. Schedule A
TRACT HAP 23101 - EA 32533 - Marlborough Dev. Corp. - Rancho
California/Skinner Lake Area -Ftrst and Third Supervisortel Districts - east
of Kaiser Pkwy, west of 9utterfield Stage Rd - 263 lots - 87~ acres -
SP/R-Z-6OOO~;ones. Schedule A
TRACT HAP 23102 - EA 32534 - Marlborough Dev. Corp. - Rancho
California/Skinner Lake Area - First and Third Supervisortel Districts - north
of La Serene Way, west of Butterfield Stage Rd - 37 lots - 16.4~ acres -
SP/R-1 Zones. Schedule A
TRACT I RAP 23103 AHENDED NO. I - EA 32535 - Marlborough Dev. Corp. - Rancho
California/Skinner Lake-Area - First and Third Supervisortel Districts - west
of Butterfield Stage Rd, north of Rancho California Rd - 18 lots - 29~ acres -
SP/R-A-1 Zones. Schedule A
The hearings were opened at 9:49 a.m. and closed at 10:08 a.m.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adoption of the negative declarations for EA 32318,
32533, 32534 and 32535, and approval of Tentative Tract Maps 23100 Amended
No. 1, 23101, 23102, and, 23103 Amended No. I with a waiver of the lot length
to width ratio, subject to the proposed conditions. The subject tract maps
were located within Village B of the Margartta Village Specific Plan, and
would divide the 254 acres into 605 residential lots. Staff had found the
tract maps to be consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan, Specific Plan
199 benbent No. 1, and. the zoning which had been applied to the specific
plan through Change of Zone Case 5107. Hs. Gtfford recommended several
changes to the conditions for these tract maps, relating to requirements for
maintenance of the open space areas, park requtren~nts, useable yard areas,
and fencing requirements. fir. Klotz d
suggeste modifying the last condition
for each tract map by beginning with the phrase mDeveloixnent of them.
Commissioner Bresson requested that changes be made throughout to refer to
either "public use trails" or "recreational trails" instead of '"equestrian
trails"; he felt these terms would more accurately describe their use.
Berry Burnell, representing the applicant, accepted the conditions as
amended. It was his understanding that in the event any portion of the
development agreement was held to be invalid (for any reason), the conditions
requiring compliance with that agreement would be null and void; this was
confirmed by County Counsel.
There was no further testimony, and the hearings were closed at 10:08 a.m.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Tentative Tract Maps 23100 Amended No. 1, 23101,
23102, and 23103 Amended'No. 1 are located wit,in Village B of the Margarita
2
RTVERSZDE COUNTY PLANN]:NG COHM[SSTON MZNUTES SEPTEMBER 28, :1988
V(llage Spectfic Plan; the four tract maps would dtvlde the 254 acres into 6L
residential lots; the tract maps have been condfttoned tn accordance with the
specific plan's conditions of approval to mittgate tmpacts on the Stephens
~ngaroo Rat; the tract maps have been condtttoned to comply vrlth Spectf4c
Plan 199 Amendment No. 1, Change of Zone Case 5107, and Development recreant
S waiver for the lot length to vridth:ratfo wtll be needed. forA~ract
No, ; e
23103 Amended No. 1. All environmental conCePns have been addressed tn EXR
107, EIR 202, and the 1nittel studtes for these tract maps, and no significant
impacts have-been found; the tract maps are consistent wtth the Comprehensive
General Plan (as amended by General Plan Amendment No. 150), Spectftc Plan 199
Amendme t No. 1 and Change of Zone Case 5107; the tract maps confore to the
n
requirements of Ordinances 348 and 460. The proposed projects will not have a
significant effect on the environment.
NOTION:. Upon motion b Commissioner Bresson, seconded by Co,~tsstoner
Beadling and unantmour:~y carrted, the CommiSsion adopted the negattve
declarations for EA 32318, EA 32533, EA 32534 and EA 32535, and approved"
Tentative Tract Haps 23100 Amended No. l, 23101, 23102, and 23103 Amended
No. 1 wtth a waher of the lot length to wtdth ratto, subject to the proposed
conditions, mended as follows, based on the above findings and conclusions
and the recammendatlons of staff.
Tract Nap 23100 Amended No. I
Amend to confom to Cand(tton Z4 (to profide for maintenance of the
common open space area by either a County hrvtce Area or a Homeowner'
Association).
Prfor to the tssuance of occupancy pemtts for 160 units on Tract
23100, the park area shall be developed per Spectftc Plan No. Amended
tloo 1.
24. Replace wtth the standard alternative condition providing for
mtntenance of the camon open space area by either a Coun~ Service
Area or Homeovmers Assocta(ton. ·
37(b) Wall and/or fence locations shall substantially conform to attached
Ffgure ZZZ-28of Spectftc Plan No.'199 Amendment No, 1,
38, The develoFment of Tentative Tract No, 23100 Amended No, I shall
comply wtth all provisions of Specific Plan Ito, 199 Amendment No. I and
Development Agreement No. 5
Tract Hap 23101
17(h) Rear yards and useable side yards shall have an average ~at area of
2000 square feet.
knend to confom to Condition 24 (to provtde for maintenance of the
co~*****~on open space area by etther a County Service Area or a Homeowners
Association). _
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING CC)HMISSION MINUTES SEPTD4BER 28, 1988
23.
Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for 160 units on Tract
23101° the park area shall be developed per Specific Plan No. Amended
No. 1.
24. Replace kith the Standard alternative condition providing for
maintenance of the cumon open space area by either a County Service
Area or HomeownerS Association.
37(b) Wall. and/or fence locations shall substantially conform to attached
Ft!~u~e 11Z-28 of Specific Plan No. 199 Amndmant No. 1.
81b
The development of Tentative Tract No. 23101 shall compl with all
Tract Nap 23102
21. Amend to confomkrith Condition 33 (to provide for maintenance of the
common open space area by either a County Service Area or a Homeowners
Association,
3e
Replace kith the Standard alternative condition providing for
maintenance of the comon open space area by either e County Service
Area or NoNownerS Association,
35(b) Wall and/or fence locations shall substantially confom to attached
Figure lII-28 of Specific Plan No, 199 Amendment No, 1.
36. The development of Tentative Tract No. 2310Z shall comply with all
rovlstons of Specific Plan No, 199 Amendment No, 1 and Development
~greement No. 5
Tract Nap 23103 Amended No. 1
21. Amend to confom to Condition 22 (to provide for maintenance of the
cormon open. space area by either a County Servtce Area or a Homeowners
Association,
Replace kith the Standard alternative condition providing for
maintenance. of the common open space area by either a County Service
Area or Homeowners Association,
34(a) n eS ~1 . 199 Amendment No. 1,
2
Se
The development of Tentative Tract No. 23103 Amended No. I shall
comply with all provisions of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No, 1 and
Development Agreement No, 5
4
RZYERSZDE COUNTY PLANNING COHHISSZON HINUTES SEPT~SER 28, lgS8
(AGENDA ZTENS 1-3 AND 1-4 - REEL 1002, SZDE 1 - TAPE 1, SIDE 1)
TRACT HAP 22916 - EA 32505- Rancho California Dev. Co. - Rancho California"
Area - First Supervisortel District - north of Pauba Rd, west of Butterfielo
Stage Rd - 259 lots - 103.3~ acres - R-R/SP Zones. Schedule A
TRACT NAP 22915 - EA 32504 - Rancho Caitfornta Dev. Co. - Rancho Caitfornta
Area -Ftrst Supervisortel Dtstrtct- south of Rancho Vtsta Rd, west of
ButterfleTd Stage Rd - 287 lots - 91.6~ acres - R-R/SP Zones. Schedule A
VESTING TRACT HAP 23471 - EA 32518 -Katser Development Co. - Rancho
California Area -Ftrst Supervisortel District - south of Rancho California
Rd, west of Katser Pkwy - 155 lots - 44t acres - R-1/SP Zones. Schedule A
VESTING TRACT HAP 23470 - EA 32517 - Kaiser Development Co. - Rancho
California Area -Ftrst Supervisortel Dtstrtct- north of Rancho Vtsta Rd,
west of Kaiser Pkwy- 325 lots - 106.3 acres - R-1/SP Schedule A
Tne heartrigs were opened at 10:10 a.m. and closed at 11:10 a.m.
STAFF RECONNENDATZON: Adoptton of the ne attve declarations for EA 32517, EA
32518, EA 32504, and EA 32505 and approvaV of Tentative Tract Naps 22915 and
22916, and Yesttng Tentathe Tract Naps 23470 and 23471 subject to the
length to width ratto for 811
pfroposed conditions, and a wetvet of the lot located tn Village C of Spectftc
our tract maps. These four tract maps were
Plan 199 Amendment No. 1, and would dtvtde the 345 acres tnto 1020 residential
lots, provtde a 10 acre school stte, a 5 acre park stte and 3 tot lots. Staff
had found the propose maps to be consistent wtth the Comprehenshe General -
Plan, the adopted spectftc plan, and the Zoning whlch had been applted to tl
property through Chart e of Zone Case 5107. Hs. Gtfford recommended several
changes to the conditions of approval; these changes related to the mtnimum
lot stze, lot length to wtdth ratio requirements, park requirements,
landscaping/Irrigation requirements, and 8 requirement for development of the
tract maps tn accordance wtth the adopted spectftc plan and approved
development agreement.
Comtssfoner Beadltng questioned Hi. 61fford's recommendation for deletlon of
the conditions for Tract Paps 23470, 22915 and 22916 reclutrtng landscaping and
frrtgatton. Pa. G¶fford explained these three tentative maps proposed mtntmum
7200 square foot lots and the County dtd not normally requtre landscaping and
irrigation for lots of thts stze. Hr. Streeter felt thts condition could be
retained, as tt ms County poltcy to require landscaping and Irrigation for
7200 square foot lots tn the Rancho Cal.ifornta area.
Robert Kfmble, representing the applicant, advtsed they would prefer not to
provtde the front*yard landscaping and irrigation, and requested that the
**condition be deleted. Commissioner Beadling asked whether Hr. Ktmble had seen
the letter submitted by Nr. and ~s. Pipher objecting to the density proposed
in the area adjacent to their estate type homes. At her request, Hr. Kimble
located Nr. Ptpher's subdivision which was next to Rancho Vista Road. They
h
were proposing the 7200 square foot lots allowed by the specific plan for t is
area. /Is. Gtfford advised the tract map was a refiling of a previously
RIVERSIDE COUNTY P).~NNING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988
approved map, and there was no change in the density; the proposed tract map
was within the density range allowed by the specific plan. Con~nisstoner
Beadling quoted from the:letter, which requested that the density be reduced
to the density originally proposed by the specific plan. She wanted to know
and was informed t ere been change in the
what this density was, h had no
density.
Hr. Ktmble requested that Condition 4 of the flood Control District's letter
for Tract 23471 be deleted. This condition required maintenance ramps in the
Long Canyon Channel; these ramps were not needed because the had desi ned
this charmer 'for their underlying amp with 4:1 slopes. Mr. ~otz agree) to the
deletion of this condition. Mr. Ktmble then requested that Road Department
Condition 26 for Tract 22915 and Condition 28 for Tract 22916 be amended by
adding to the end "or as approved by the Road Commissioner"; Mr. Johnson
agreed to this change for both tract maps.
Condition 20 for Tract 22916 required the park to be fully improved and
developed prior to the issuance of building permits for 150 units, and Mr.
Kimbl e requested that this condition be amended to require the ark prior to
the issuance of occupancy for the 259th lot. Providing the fulVy improved
park prior to 150 units would be a burden to the developer. Ms. Gtfford
advised Mr. Ktmble's request would delay completion of the park until after
the entire tract had been completed; staff felt 150 units would afford the
applicant an opportunity to build some units, and at that point the improve-
ments could be tied into road improvements, The park would also be useful for
1
the tract to the north, which was being dave oped by the same developer.
Mr. Kimble requested clarification of the new condition staff had sag ested
for Tract 22916 regarding mitigation for the Stephens Kangaroo Rat. ~r.
Goldman explained this c~ndttton referred buck to the specific plan condi-
tions, which required either a Memorandum of Understanding with the Depari~nent
of Fish and Game or that the applicant comply with the Countywide program
being established by Riverside County.
Robert Dudonay, also representing the applicant, advised he was actively
tnvolved with the task force appointed by the Board of Supervisors regarding
the Stephens Irangaroo Pat program. There was no set pro ram at the present
ttme, and he wanted to know whether they would be charg~ the $750 per lot
fee, or whether they would be held up until *a specific program ms estab-
lished. He did not want to be dela ed, as thgY would be read to pull build-
had
h
tng permits wit in the next few we~{s.. Hr. Klotz explained ~e Board
generally endorsed the concept of having a developer make a deposit of $750
per lot, accoepanted by an agreement to pay the fee as ultimately adopted;
this would allow the project to go forward. He felt this option would be
available to the developer. He explained this was not necessarily the
Mr. Kimble advised it was their understanding that in the event Development
Agreement No. 5 should be held invalid at some time in the future, the
approval of the four tract =aps w:ul~ still stand, but the condition for
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COHHISSION HINUTES SEPTEHBER Z8, 1988
compliance ~tth the development a reement veuld be null and void. Hr. ~otz
advised this ,as explicitly provt~ed wtthtn the development agreement.
OPPONENTS: ·
Bob Pipher, 41825 Greentree Road, Temecula, advtsed the development in v~tch
one-third of this property. They had submitted the
letter requesting that the porttons of the SubJect tract maps adjacent to
thetr area be reclutred to create lots stmtlar tn stze. Hr. Ptpher had a nap
6
of the Nargartta Village Specific Plan dated iqarch 30, 198 , which showed the
denstry tn thts area to be approximately half of the denstry currently
proposed. Hr. Ptpher advtsed thts was an equestrian area, and people restdtng
tn the area needed rtdtng tratls. He requested a connecting trat1 from Pauba
to Rancho Vista along the boundary between thetr subdivision and the subject
develoreent or along Katser Parlay; this ~ould provtde an additional
landscaped buffer area,
Hr. Pipher advtsed they had no problem vtth the proposed school stte, but felt
the circulation s~stem proposed to serve the school was triadequate. In his
optnton, Street "B" should he extended to Kalser Parlay; this ~ould then
~rovtde access to both the school site and the park from Kaiser Parbay. At
he present time there was a steady time of traffic, and providing an access
to the park site and school frm Katsar Parkway would help everyone in the
area, in addttton to maktng the park more accessible. Because of the traffic
on Kaiser Parkway, Rr. Pipher thought it veuld be difficult for people 11vtnr'
f
on the other side to reach the park. He there ore suggested that one or
parks be required on the other side of Kaiser Parkway, to benefit residents in
that area.
Rr. Ptpher requested a solld wall along the bounda between thetr development
and the subject pro3ect. The people restdtng tn ~hr~fs area were requesting a
'buffer, and vmuld appreciate anything the ConmtsstOners could do to help
them. Zn answer to a questton by Commissioner Bresson, Hr. Pt her advised
there ~es no street between the area he was representing and ~Ke subject stte;
the lots from the subject tract map were backing up against the lots tn hts
subdivision.
When ~. tipher agatn requested equestrian tretls, Ms. Gtfford brtefiy
revtewed the proposed trat1 systm, whtch tncluded a tratl along Rancho
California Road, gotng up the Katser Parkway and ~ easement; no trails ~ere
proposed tn the southern area as requested by Mr. Ptpher. Commissioner
Bresson requested that these tratls be designated as publlc access or
recreational tratls tnstead of equestrian tratls. Mr. 8u~ne11 advtsed that an
equestrian tret1 had been established all along Pauba Road, going east and
west, and there was a north/south trat1 tn the Metropolitan Water Dtstrtct
easement gotng by the school administration site, along Rancho California Road
to Kafser Parkway. me residents of the Green Tree area could use the tratl
along Pauba, which connected to the trail along Green Tree Lane. ~ts ~as a
regional trail system, established under the direction or the Parks
Department. ~
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COHMISSION MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 28, 1988
Comisstoner Bresson requested information on the type of buffer to be
provided. Mr. Burnell advised there would be masonry walls in the area north
and south of Rancho Vista Road; he thought this would satisfy Hr. Plpher's
concerns. Mr. Burnell advised the Yargartta Village Specific Plan had
originally been approved with a sltghtly higher density in this area. They
had added land with the amended specific plan but had not changed densities in
the area of the subject tract maps. The exhibit presented by Hr. Pipher was a
conceptual exhibit prepared by the engineer for internal use only and had
never been pr. esented to the County.
Hr. Ktmble responded to Mr. Ptpher's request for an additional park on the
other side of Kaiser Parkway, by advising Costatn Homes was providing a park
planned for Tract 22715 to the north; they ware planntng to upgrade both parks
over and above the requirements of the specific plan.
Commissioner Donehoe asked whether staff was recoanendtng that a condition be
added to require the wall as a .buffer between the subject tract maps and the
area represented by Mr. Pipher, and was tnfomed this was a condition of the
specific plan.
Lee Johnson referred to Mr. Ptpher's sug estton that "B" Street be extended to
Kaiser Parkway, and advised both he and 3oehn Johnson (Transportation Planning
Section of the Road Deparl;nent) felt this was an excellent recommendation.
Circulation in this area might be improved by making this connection rather
than having the school served by a cul-de-sac street. l'nts would also give
both the school and the park site access from a 66 foot wide street. When
Commissioner Bresson asked whether this could be accomplished without
redesigning the rap, Hr. Johnson replied he felt the map would have to be
amended. Mr. Streeter felt this provide a much better access.
Commissioner Beadling felt that a lqng cul-de-sac street going into a school
was poor planning, as it required the cars and school busses bringing in
children to wrap around and come back out the same way. Extending the street
would allow the vehtcles to drop off the chtldren and go out a different way.
Commissioner Bresson was concerned about creating a 4-way intersection, and
Mr. Johnson agreed that a 3-way tn'tersectton created less problems. However,
he sttll felt that providing access to Kaiser Parkway would result in better
circulation service to the school site.
Mr. Burnell did not feel it was necessary to extend "B' Street to Kaiser Park-
way in order to provide adequate circulation for the school. He was concerned
that the change in the roadway might cause problems with regard to the sewer
lines. Mr. Burnell was also concerned about a 4-way intersection at Kaiser
Park'way; he felt retaining the existing 3-way intersection would provide an
· overall better ctrculatt n system for residents of the area. Con~ntsstoner
Bresson preferred the cul-de-sac street because ttwould not encourage through
traffic along the school site. Mr. Johnson pointed out that there would be
less opportunity to eventually obtain signalization for a 3-way intersection
than for a 4-way intersection.
8
DATE: ~une 1, 1988
Assessor
Building and Safer),
Surveyor - Dave Dude
.... Road Department
Health'- RUlpN Laths
Fire Protection
Flood Control DIstrict
FIsh & Game
S Paisley
U.S. Postal-earvice - Ruth E. Davidson
JUst 13 jU8
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
GROFIT
Eastern Xunfcipal Valet Dtst.
Rancho"Callfornfa later Nst.
Elstnore Union $chool Dtst,
Tarecalm Union School Dial.
Starts Club, San GorgonIo Chapter
CAI, TRAH$ 18
Rancho California Area - First
Supervisortel Dtstrtct- N. of Ranchc
California Road, V. of Kaiser Parkva3
R-R Zone - 28 Acres 348 Condomtntum u
- (RELATED CASE TR 23371 & 23372) HoG
- A.P, 923-210-023
Please revtew the case described above. along with the attached case map. A Land
Dhfston Cormtrite meeting his been tentatively scheduled for June 20, 1988.
tt wtll then 90 to public hearing.
Your cements and recommendations are requested prior to Oune S, 1988 in order that
Include them tn the staff report for this particular case,
Should you have any questions regarding this Item, please do not hesitate to contact
Kathy Giftoral at 787-6356
Planner
COW4EHT$: dl.t.S.t/O_
~gXllau
DATE: SZGHATURE
PLEASE print name and tttle
4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR
RIVERSIDE.. CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-6181
46-209 OASIS STREFT, ROO'
INDIO, CALIF("" IA b_
(6~ ,# 342-8
RiVERSiDE COUNTY PLANNING COI~iSS[ON MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988
Mr. Ktmble advised they had met with the school district and showed them the
tentative map; they were pleased with the c.onft uratton of the school stte as
well as the proposed str'et system. Hr. Burneli advised their original design
showed the school/park s~te.adJacent Kaiser Parkway, and the school dtstrtct
had objected to this plan because they did not want the chtldren adjacent to a
major street. Cmuntsstoner Bresson supported the tract map as currently'
designed, as tt was satisfactory to the school district.
There was no further testimony, and the heartng was closed at 11:10 a.m.
FiNDiNGS AN6 ~ONCLUSZONS: Tentative TractiMps 22915, and 22916, and Vesting
Tract IMps 23470 and 2347Z are located wtthtn Vtllage C of Specific Plan 199
Amendment No. I (the iMrgartta Vtllage Spectftc Plan); the four tract maps
would dtvtde the 345 acres tnto 1020 residential lots; design manuals have
been prepared for Vesttrig Tentative Tract iMps 23470 and 23471; the tract maps
have been condtttoned to comply wtth Specific Plan 199 Amendment No, 1, Change
of Zone Case 5107, and Development Agreement No. 52 a waiver for the lot
length to width ratio wtll be needed for all four maps, All environmental
concerns have been addressed tn EIR 107, EZR 202, and the tntttal studies for
these tract maps, and no significant impacts were found; the tract maps are
consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan (as amended by General Plan
5107.; and confore to the 4
HOTION: Upon motion b Commissioner 8resson, seconded by Coanisstoner
Beadling and unanimously carried, the Commission adopted the negative
declarations for EA 3251), EA 32518, EA 32504 and EA 32505, and approved
Tentative Tract IMps 22915 and 22916, and Vesttng Tract IMps 32470 and 23471,
a]l with a wetvet of the lot length to width ratto, subject to the proposed
conditions and based on the above findings and conclusions and the recommenda-
tions of staff,
Tract No. 23470
17(a) - All lots shall have a mintmum stze of 7200 square feet net.
17(b) - Delete enttrely
20 -Prtor to the tssuance of occupancy pemtts for 150 untts, one tot lot
shall be tmproved and fully developed.
21 - Prior to the tssuance of occupancy pemtts for 275 untts, the second
tot lot shall be fmproved and fully developed.
27 - Prior to the issuance of building permits (balance to remain the same}
35 - The development of Vestin Tentative Tract IMp 23470 shall comply with
its Destgn IMnual, wtth aV1 provisions of Spectfic Plan No. 199
Amendment No. I and with Development Agreement No. 5
9
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COFeqISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988
20 -Prtor to the issuance of occupancy remits for 200 untts, one tot lo~
shall be improved and fully developed.
26 - Prior to the issuance of building remits (balance to remain the-same)
32(f) - All front yards shall be provided With landscaping and manually
n
operated, rerma ant underground irrigation.
Flood Control Condition 4 - Delete entirely
35 - The developmmt of Vesttng Tentative Tract Pap 23471 shall comply ~ith
tts Dest Manual, with/11 provisions of Specific Plan No. Z99
Amendinching.. Z and with Development Agreement No. 5
Delete Condition 4 of the Flood Control letter dated June 17, 1988.
Tract No. 22915
24 - Prior to the issuance of building remits (balance to remain the same)
32 -The developmqnt of Tentative Tract Pap 22915 shell comply with all
provisions of Spectftc Plan No. 199 Amendment No. I and Development
Agreement No. 5
Road Department Condition 26 - Add to the end "or as approved by the Road_.
Commissioner".
Tract No.'22916
2 - Add the following: except for the lot length to width ratio.
20 - Prior to the issuance of occupanc permits for 150 untts in Tentative
Tract 22g16, the park shall be ~;~ly improve and developed.
25 -Prtor to the tssuance of bbtldtng pemtts (balance to rematn the same)
32 - The development of Tentative Tract Pap 239:Z6 shall comply with all
/~rovtslons of Specific Plan No. 299 Amendment No, 1 and Development
greement No. 5
33 - Prtor to tssuance of grading permtts, tmpacts to the Stephens Kangaroo
Rat Habttat shall be mitigated per the specific plan conditions of
approval.
Road Department Condition 28 - Add to the end "or as approved by the Road
Commissioner",
lO
Zontng Area: Rancho California Vesting Tentative Tract Nos.: 23371
No. 1, 23 3 Md.
Supervtsortal DIstrict:: Ftrst and No. :1, 23372 knd. 37
Thtrd Planntng Co.~tss~on: 10-5-88
E.A. Nos: 32546, 32547, 32548 Agenda Ztea No.: 5-2, 5-3, and 5-4
Specific Plan Section
RIVER. SIDE COUiT1T PLAItlS DEPARTlEfT
.-WrAFFItDq)RT
1, ~ppl t cant:
2, Engineira
MargarttaVtllageOeveloPmen. t Co.
Rick Engineering Compan~r ,
The 3 tracts rill subd¶vtde 472 acres
tnto 1763 residential untts .
· ~ ·
· "" .' "'~;~";':" Surrounding Zoning:
-.
7,' Sate Characteristics:
0
~ 8, Area Characteristics:
,.':
L"( (Change" rvt on '
ird of S~pe sots 9-:13-88 proposes
"SP :199 Amd; No. I zoning),.
Zoning· to. the north and Nest ts R-4,
A-2-20, R-R, R-Z; Zoning to the south
R-It
Vacant land traversed wtth low hills
Located on eastern edge of Rancho
'~ California conesunity
~ .:~:~ -~' .-;,..". i,~'.'~! .:...%. ":" .:"-:' .-...' '.:· ' -
~:::~7:. :~'.-'.: ~ ~ :. g~ ~.'~-..Comprehensive General Plan "7::; '::. '.'." Pancho vtll ages (General' Plan Amendment
~- -"; ~ -. """ 'No,.' lSO ' proposes a general plan
~ - des1 nation of Spectftc Plan
, Ame~n~n~nt No. :1) -.
10.. Land Division Data:
"" VestingTract
:-:-.... .....'...,233TL'kad..llo. 1
23372~lmd.'Ho. ~."
23373 Pad. No. I
Acreage: Untts -Denstry (Ou/Xc)
394 1183 3
37 "' 23Z 6
31 348
3.-~ Type of Request:
~" "": ......'; c~':""'*"'J""'~""':" '::' '*" ~' ,.:.:.
~='~'.j~:.~ ,~_;,';4~.:~.~ Location:'..--:-.--' ' :' '-
.:... :-.: .:(i;'~:;~.:,~:...,:,~.. :. :. -.:. '::. -:':. z-.:.'-.":~. .. ..': . ':,i. ..; ,.';: ':'. .. /:: ", Caltfo.t:r~ad ....:' .'. '::' .'.-.:.'-."-",:'-....' -
11. Agenc~ RecQ~nendat~ons:
23371 ,lind. NO. I
23372 And. NO. I 23373 And. No. I
Road ' 9-22-88 3-22-88 9-22-88
Heal th 7-2 5.-88 9-7-88 7-25-88
Flood 7-22-88 7-22-88 7-22-88
Ftre 8-17-88 8-17-88 8-17-88
Sheriff 6-10-88 · 6-10-88 6-10-88
12. Letters:
13. Sphere of Znfluence
influ. ence
None received as of thts ~tttn9
Not wtthtn a Ctt7 sphere
ANALt~I$:
YesttngTentattveTract NOs, 23371 Mid. No, 1, 23372 Mid. No. 1, and 23373 And.
No. 1 fmplement Vtllage as z planned retirement coneentry tn the/4argarttz
Vtllagl Spectftc Plan ($p 199 And. No. 1) Spectftc Plan No. 199 Mendmerit NO.
1, Change of Zone NO. 5107, General Plan Amendment No. 150 and Development
AgreemAt No. 5 were heard by the Board of Supervisors on September 13, 1988.
Then tracts have been designed to be consistent with these documents.
The table below suanartze the tracts* relationship and consistency w4th the
Spectftc Plan's planning areas. As shown, none of the tracts exceed the
pemttted number o residential units.
f
CII4PARISIIi OF TRACT HI) $PECZFIC PLAN WELLING UNITS
Tract No. Proposed Speclftc Plan
No f
· ·Untts Area
Permitted
No. of Untts
YIT 23372 Md. No. I 1183 33-37~ 42-45 1197
vrr 23372 Mid. No, Z 232 41 234'
VIT 23373 Mid. No. Z 348 38 348
A design mnual has been prepared for all'three vesting maps which provides
gutdellnas for landscaping, floor lans, elevations and zoning. Acoustical
studtea have been proposed and vt1~ he hplemented as requtred by the
conditions of approve1. Mitigation for potential tmpacts to fit. Palomar are
also tnchded tn the conditions of approval. Mdlttonal evaluation found no
cultural resources onstte.
Vesttrig Tentative Tract 23371, Mended No. 1 tncludes an 18 hole golf course.
As also requtred by the spectftc plan conditions, the tract has been
condtttoned to traprove the park
spectftc plan Vesttng Tentative Tract 23372, Mended o. I has been condttioned
for mitigation of lmpacts to the Stephens Kangaroo Ra~.
Zt should be noted that the number of untts for congregate care are on estimate
and w111 be revtewed at the develoFeent plan stage.
Additional envtronmental nd~veanltuend the acoustical studtes prepared for the
for the specific plan ame nt env$ronmental trapacts have been found, ·
three tracts."'N9
1, Vesttng Tentst¶ve Tract No, 23371 Mended No. t, 23372 Mended No. T, and
23373 Amended 11o, Z are located tn Village A of the Pargartts VIllage
Specific Plan.
2. The three tracts ~1'11 provide 1763 dvelltng units and golf course open
spaq on }5& Z64 acres- (Amended by Pllnnlng Commission 10-5-883
3. Tract 23372 Mended Ho. t has been condtttoned r. the Specific Plan's
condition of approval to mttlgate Impacts to the ~tephens Kangaroo Rat.
4. The tracts have been condtttoned ~o comply with Spectfic Plan Ho. 199,
Change of Zone 11o. 51.07 and Development; Agreemen1; No. 5.
5. A diver for length to vldth ratio will be needed fo Vesttn9 Tentsthe
Tract 23371 Amended No. 1.
CC)eICLUSTORS:
1. &11 environmental concerns have been addressed tn ETRs 1.07, 202 and the
initial studies for these tracts and no stgn. tftcant impacts have been
found.
2, The tracts are consistent' with General Plan Mendmerit 14o. 150 Change of
Zone rio. 5107, and Specific Plan He. 199, Amendment No. 1.
3. The tracts confore to the requirements of Ordinances 348 and 450.
REC01~qDIDATI01i$ -'
ADOPTTON of a Negattve Oeclaratton for EA 11os. 32546, 32547, 32548 on a ftndtng
tha~ the projects will not have · significant effect on the environment-
APPROYAL of yesttngTentathe Tract Hos. 2337t ANndad 11o. 1.t 23372 Amended No.
1, and 23373 Mended 11o. 1 subject to the attached conditions of approval-
KG:mcb:mP
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTHEHT
SUBDIVISION
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23373
· STANDARD COHDITTONS
I
t_
0
0
~L
e~
"' ""'""' '""' ;TT,-'.;.':.'r.':{;,::; "°" ""'"'"' '"' °'
m
Riverside, its agents, o from any cl·i , action, or
proceeding against the County of Riverside or tts agents, officers, or
emplo es to attack, set astde, void, or annul ·n approval of the County
of ;~verstde, 1is edvtsor7 agencies, appeal boards or legislative body
concerning Vestin Ten,alive Tract 23373 Mended No. I, ~htch action is
brought about wttRtn the time pertad praytried for tn California Government
Code Section 66499.37. The County of Riverside will promptly notify the
subdivider of any such cl·tm, acttoe, or proceeding ag·tnst the County of
Rtyerstde and wtli coo ,rate full in the defense. If the County fails to
p~omptly notify the suGhtder oFany such claim, actton, or proceeding or
falls to cooper·re fully tn the defense, the subdivider shall not.
thereafter, be responsible to defend, Indemnify, or hold ha,less the
County of Riverside.
The tentative subdhision shall comply vtth the State of California
Subdivision Hap Act and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule
A, unless modtfted by the conditions listed below, "
3. This conditionally approved tentative map wlll exptre two years after the
County of RIverside board of Supervisors approval date, unless extended as
provided by Ordinance 460.
The final map shall be prepared by a ltcense~ land surveyor subject to all
the requirements of the State of Collfornt· Subdivision Hap Act and
Ordinance 460. · ..
The subdivider sh·11 suMttone copy of · sot1· report to the RIverside
County SurveJmr's Office and two copies to the Department c~ Building and
d
Safety. The report shall ·dress the sot1· stability and geological
conditions of the site.'
If any ~radtng ts proposed, t~ subdivider shall sutett one print of
comprehensive grmdfng plan to the Department of Building and Safety. The
plan shall comply~dth the UntfomButldtngCode, Chapter 70, as amended
by Ordinance 457 and ms maybe additionally provided for in these
conditions of approval.
Conditions or Approval
Tentative Tract No. 23373 Mended No. Z
Page 2
lOe
A grad1 pereta, shall be obtained from the hpartmnt of Butldtng and
S~fety p~lor to cmnencement of a~y grading outside of county rainrained
rood Hght of Nay. ..
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid prtor to recordeaton of the
final ..mqp.
The subdivider she1'1 comply with the street Improvement recommendations
outltned In the Rheretde County Road Departaent's letter dated 9-22-88 a
copy of which fs attached,
Legal access as required by Ordinance 460 shall be provtded from the tract
map bounder7 to · Count), maintained road.
road easements Shall be offered for dedication to the publlc and shall
conttnue In force unttl the ovemtng body accepts or abandons such
offers. All dedt:catton· sha~l be free frail1 encumbrances as approved
b the Road Ccmnfsstoner. Street names shall be sub3ect to approval of
~e Road CommJsstontr,
12. Easements, when requtred for roadway slopes, dratnage facilities,
utilities, etc., shall be sho~n on the ftnal mp tf they are located
withtn the land; dhtston boundsPy. All offers of dedication and
conveyances shall be submitted and recorded as directed by the County
Surveymr.
13. IAter and sewerage dtsposal facilities shall be Installed tn accordance
with the pr~vtsJonsi set forth tn the RIverside County Health Deparment's
letter dated7-25-e8 · copy of whtch ts attached.
The subdivider shall comply with the flood control recommendations
d n
outlined b7 the Rherstde County Floe Co ere1 Dtstrtct's letter dated
7-22-88 · copy of which ts kitached. If the land dtvtston 11is withtn an.
adopted flood control dritnage ires pursuant to Sectton 10.25 of Ordinance
460 appro rtate fee· for the construction of area dratnage facilities
shah be ~o~lected b~ the Road Conatsstoner.
The subdivider shaft comply with. the' fire Improvement rec~endattons
outltned In the County FIre Parshal's letter dated 8-17-88 a copy of which
ts attacheS.
Subdhtslon phastng, Including any proposed ~ommon open space area
Improvement phasing, tf applicable, shall be subject to Planning
Department approval. Any proposed phasing shall provtde for adequate
vehicular access to all lots tn each phase, and shall substantially
conform to the Intent and purpose of the subdhIston approval.
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract No. 23373 Amended
Page 3
Lots created by this subdivision shall comply with the following:
Comer lots end through lots, tf anY, shall be provided with
additional area parsbent to hotton 3.88 of Ordinance 460 and so as
not to contain less net area than the least amount of net area in
n.on-corner and through lota.
Lo_b created by this subdivision shall be tn conformeric, vith the
development standards of the Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1
zone.
c. lihen lots are crossed by em;Ior publlc uttllty easements, each lot
shall have a net usable area of not less than 3,600 square feet,
exclushe of the uttlJty easement.
d. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained tn a weed-free
- condition and shall be etther planted ~tth tatarts landscaping or
provtded with other erosion control measures as approved by the
DIrector of Butldtng and Safety.
e. Trash bins, loading areas and Incidental storage areas shall be
located awe and vtsually screened from surrounding areas wtth the use
of block~a~ls and landscaping.
18. Prtor to RECORDATXONofthe final nap the following conditions shall A
satisfied:
a. Prtor to the recordalton of the ftnal map the applicant shall submit
written clearances to the RIverside County Road and Survey Department
that all pertinent requirements outltned tn the attached approval
letters from the following agenctes have'been met.
County FIre Departnent
County flood Control
County Parks Department
County Health Department
County Plannln Department
Ranch, Hater D~strtct
Eastern~ Hdntctpal Hater Dtst.
Prtor to the recordatton of the final mp, General Plan Amendment Z50,
$pectftc Plan No. Xgg Amendment No. ~, Development Agreement ~o. 5,
and Change of Zone No. SZO7 shell be approved by the Board of
Supervisors and shill be effect(re. Lots created by this land
dtvfsfon shall be tn conromance with the develoixnent standards of the
zone ulttratelyapplted to the property.
All extsttng structures on the sub3ect property shall be removed prtor to
recordatfon of the final map.
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract No. 23373 Mended No. 1
Page 4
Prtor to recordatton of the ftnal subdivision mp, th~ subdivider shall
submlt the following documents to the Planntng Department for review,
whtch -documents ~u~nl;y be sub3ect to the approval of that department and
the Of lice of the Counsel:
1) A doclaratton Of covenants, conditions and restrictions; and
2) A sample doc nt conveye~itle to the purchaser of an Individual lot
or untt vht~c provtdes that the declaration of covenants, conditions
and restrictions ts Incorporated theretn by reference.
The declaration of~covenants, conditions and restrTcttons submitted for
revte, shall (a) provtde for a mtntmum term of 60 years, (b) provide
fo~ the establishment of a property. owners' association comprised of the
owners of each Tndhtdual lot or untt, (c) provtde for ovmershtp of the
common and (d).cOntstn to following provisions verbatim:
*Nothwtthstandtng any provision tn thts Declaretton to the contrary,
the following provision shall apply:
The property owners' association established herein shall manage and
continuously tntatn the 'common area', more particularly described
on Exhtbtt '"fiX-Z7' of the spectftc plan attached her,to, and shall
not sell or transfer the 'cemon area', or Iny part thereof, absent
the prtor written consent of the Planntng Dtrector of the County of
RIverside or the County's successor-In-Interest.
The property owner's association shall have the rtght to assess the
owners of each tndhtdual lot or untt for the reasonable cost of
matntstntng the 'cmmon'area' and shall have the rtght to 1ten the
f .
property of any such Owner who de aults In the payment o a
fb
maintenance assessment. An assessment 1ten, once created, shall e
prtor to ell other 1tens recorded subsequent to the notice of
assessment or other document creattng the assessment 1ten.
Thls I)eclaratton shall not be t~mtnated, 'substantially' amended or
ropetry deannexed therefrom absent the prtor wrttten consent of the
!~lannJng Otrector of the County of RIverside or the County's
successor-In-Interest- & proposed amendment shell be considered
ff the extent, usage or maintenance of the
*substantial' tf tt a ects
"COtlTfflOn area'o
In the event of any conflict between this Declaration and the Articles
of Incorporation, the Bylaws or the property owners' association Rules
and Regulations, if any, this Declaration shall control."
Condi t|on$ of .~pprovai
Tentative Tract No. 23373 Amended No. Z
Page 5
24.
541
Once approve, the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrtcttv,:s
shall be recorded at the same ttme that the final map ts recorded.
Prtor to recordalton of the final amp, clearance shall be obtained from
NetropolJtan Hater DtstrTct relative to the protection of applicable
easements affecting the subject property. Lot line adjustments shall also
be completed.
The developer shall comply vtth the following parkway landsca
re tramants as sho~n tn Speclftc Plan 'No. Z99 Mendmerit No. Z unless
maTJntatned by HOA or other publlc entity: (Amended by Planntng Co~sntsston
10-5-88)
1) Prtor to recordatton of the ftnal map the developer shall ftle an
application wtth the County for the formation of or annexation to, a
.- parkway maintenance dtstrtct for Yesttng Tentative Tract No. 23373
Amended No. Z tn accordance wtth the Landscaping and Ltghttng Act of
1972, unless the project ts fithtn an extsttng parkwaJf maintenance.
2) Prtor to the tssuance of butldtng permtts, the developer shall secure
approval of proposed landscaping and Irrigation plans from the County-
Road and Planning De artmerit. All landscaping and Irrigation plans
and specifications s~a11 be prepared tn a reproducible format suttable
for permanent ftllng wtth the County Road Department.
3) The developer shall post a landscape performance bond whtch shall ' .
released concurrent1 with the release of subdivision performance
bonds, quaranteelng ~e vtabtltty of all landscaping vhtch vtll be
Installed prtor to the assumption of the maintenance responsibility by
the dlstrtct.
4) The developer, the developer's successors-in-Interest or assignees,
shall be responsible for ell parkwe landscaptn maintenance unt~l
such I as maintenance ts taken overly the dtst~ct. t me
The developer shall be responsible for mintchance and upkeep of all
as tose
SlOpeSt .Tindscaped areas and Irrigation systems until such time h
Street lights shall be prow¶dad wtthtn the subdivision tn accordance wtth
the standards of Ordinance 461 and the following:
l)
Concurrently with the ftltng of subdivision Improvement plans wtth the
Road Department, the developer shall secure approval of the proposed
street 11ght layout first from the Road Department's traffic engineer
and then from the appropriate utility purveyor.
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract No. 23373 Amended
Page 6
2)
3)
4)
Folioking approval of the street 11ghttng layout by the had
Departaent's traffic engineer, the developer shall also ffle an
application vlth LAFCO for the formatlon of a s feet 11ghtlng
district, or annexation to an extsttng 11ghttng dtstrtctt, unless the
stte tswtthtn in extsttng 11ghttng district.
Prt~ to recordatton of the final maps the developer shall secure
conditional app~val of the 'street 11ghttng application from LAFCO,
unless the stte:ts wtthln an extsttng 11ghtfng district.
All street 11ghts and other outdoor 11ghttng shall be sho~n on
electrfcal plans submitted to the De artmerit of Butldtng and Safety
for plan check approval and sha~l comply wtth the requirements of
Rtveretde Cou~ Ordinance No. 655 and the RIverside County
· Comprehensive era1 Plan.
Prtor to the tssuance of GRADZNG PERHITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
1)
2)
Prtor to the tsSuance of gradtrig pemtts, detafled common open space
area parktng landscaping and Irrigation plans shall be submitted for ,
Plann?ng Depar ent approval for the phase of development In process. :'
The plans sharon1 be certified by a landscape architect, and shall
provfde for the followlng.
Permanent automatic Irrigation system shall be 1natalled on all
landscaped areas requiring Irrigation.
Landscape screening where requtred shall be destgned to be opaque up
tom mtntmum he~ght of stx (6) feet at m~urtty.
3) All uttltty serVtce areas and enclosures shall be screened from vtew
4)
vfth landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle treatments, as
approved by the Planning Dfrector. Utilities shall be placed
underground. "
Parkways and landscaped butldtng setbacks shall be landscaped to
provtde vtsual screening or a transition fnto the prfmary use area of
the site. Landscape elements shall tnclude earth bermtng, round
cover, shrubs end spectmen trees tn conjunction wtth meandering
sidewalks, benches and other pedestrian amentries where appropriate as
approved by the Planntng Department and $pectftc Plan No. 199
Amendment No. 1,
5) Landscapfng plans shall incorporate the use of spec4men accent trees
at key vtsual focal potnts wtthln the project.
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract No. 23373 Mended No. 1
Page 7
8)
7)
8)
ilhere streets trees cannot be planted vtthtn right-of-way of interior
streets and project larkweys due to Insufficient road right-of-way,
they shall be planted outside of the road right-of-way.
Landscaping plans shell Incorporate nattve and drought tolerant plants
where appropriate. '
All exlsttng spectmen trees end significant rock outcroppings on the
sub ect ProP!ray shell be shown on the proJect's gradtrig plans and
shetl note those to be moved, relocated and/or retained.
9) M1 .trees shall be etateam double staked. Tdeaker and/or slow growtng
trees shall be steel staked.
10'.. Parking layouts shall comply vtthOrdtnance 348, hctton 18.12.
All extsttng n/ttve spectmen trees On the sub3ect property shall be
preserved wherever feasible. Hhere they cannot be preserved they shall be
relocated or replaced wtth spectmen trees as approved by the Planntng
DIrector. Replacement trees shall be noted on approved landscaping plans.
Zf the project ts to be phased, prtor to the approval of gradtrig permits,
an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to the Plannt~-
Dtrector for a prove1. The plan shall be used is a guideline
subsequent detat~ed grading pTlns for tndhtdual phases of development and
shall tnclude the folloWrig:
1) Techniques whlch wtll be uttllzed to prevent eroston and sedimentarSon
during and after the grading process.
2) Approxlmte time frames for grading and Identification of areas vhtch
amy be graded during 'the higher probability rain months of January
through Parch.
3) Prelimfnir~ pad and roadway elevations. :
4) Areas of temporaP/grading outside of · particular phase.
Gradtrig plans shall confom to herd ado ted Htllstde Oeveloreent
nd
Standards: A1 cut a/or ftll slopes, or tndFvtdual combinations thefor,
whtch exceed ten feet tn vertical height shall be modtfted by in
a propflare combInert n of aspectal terracing (benchin) plan, increase
s~ope ratto (i.e., 3:1~, retaining walls, and/or slope p~anttng combtned
with Irrigation. All driveways shall not exceed a fifteen percent grade.
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract No. 23373 Amended
Page 8
All cut slopes l~o~ated ad3acent to un raded natural terratn and exceeding
ten (lO) feet tn v rttcal heights shelf be
contour-graded
Jncorporattng
the follwtng gra ng techniques:
t) The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the angle
of the natural terratn.
%% ·
2) Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded fore shall reflect the
natural rounded terratn.-
3)
The toes and tops of slopes shall be rounded ~th curves ~tth radtJ
destgned tnp portion to the total hetght of the slopes ~here
drainage and sr~abtllty pemtt such rounding.
4)
Mere cut or ftll slopes exceed 300 feet tn horizontal length. the
· horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved tn a contdnuous,
undulattng lashton.
Prtor to the tssuence of gradtng pemtts, a quallffed paleontologist shall
be ratatried by the.developer for consultation and con~ent on the proposed
grading wtth respect to potential paleontologtcal fmpacts. Should the
paleontologist find the potential Is hlgh for t_mpact to significant
resources, I pr -grade meetTrig between the paleontologist and the
excavation and gra~tng contractor shall be arranged. ~hen necessary, the
paleontologfst or re resentathe shall have the authority to temporarily
dhert, redtract or ha~t gradtrig acttvtty to alloy recovery
fosstls.
of
Prtor to the tssuance of BUTLDXNG PERHITS the following conditions shall
be satisfied:
Zn accordance:Ntth the written request of the developer to the County
of RIverside, a copy of whtch ts on ftle, and tn furtherance of the
agreement between the 'developer and the County of RIverside, no
butldtng peml~s shall be tssued by the County of RIverside for any
parcels ~lthtn the subject tract untt1 the developer, or the
developer*s successors-In-Interest provtded evtdence of compliance
vtth the terms of satd Develop,ha Agreement No. 5 for the financing
of publlc facIT'ltles. -- '
Wtth the submittal of butldtng plans to the Department of Butldtng and
Safety the developer w111 demonstrate compliance vtth the acoustical
study preparedfor VestingTentative Tract 23371 Amended No. X whtch
established appro rSate mttlgatTon measures to reduce ambtent tntertor
nots, levels to 4~ Ldn and extertor nots, levels belo~65 Ldn.
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be pemttted-wtthtn the
subdfvts(on, however 1
so ar equipment or any other energy savtng
devices shall be permftted with Plannlng Department approval.
Conditions of Approval
Tentative Tract No. 23373Amended No. Z
Page 9
3.
d. Butldtng separation between all buildings Including fireplaces shall
not be less than ton (10) fat unless approved by the Department of
e. All street side yard setbacks shall be a Metram of 10 feet.
f. A.T~ front yards shall be' provt~ed With landscaping and automatic
Irrigation.
Prtor to the tssuence of OCCUPANCY PERNXTS the following conditions shall
be sattsfted:
..a- Prior to the ftnal butldtng Inspection approval, by the Buildtrig and
: Safe~y Department, walls shall be constructed alon 1Catset Parkway and
Ranchb California had, La Seena May, Katslr Par~
r
Hay per the DestOn
Hanna1. The required wall shalllbe subject to the approval of the
Director of the Department of Butlding and Safety end the Planntng
DIrector and my be phased with the project. +(Amended by Pla ntng
n
Cormlesion 10-5-88)
b. Wall and/or fence locations shall contom to attached FIgure ZZl-17 of
Spectftc Plan No. 199 Amendment No, 1.
c. All landscaping and Irrigation shall be Installed tn accordance ' h
approved plans prtor to the tssuance of occupanCy perntis. If seas~.,al
-conditions do not permit planeta , tntertm landscaping and eroston
control measures shall be uttltze3 as approved by the Planning Director
end the Director of Building and Safety,.
d. All parking, landscaping and Irrigation shall be Installed tn
accordance with epproved I be verified bye Pl'annIng
pans and shall
Deparbaeng fteld Inspection.
e,--Coearete-sldevalks-shall-be-eenstrveted-tkree heet-the-sebdIvIsIen--Ie
aeeerd~nee--vJth--tha-standarda-of-Ordtnance-~GS-end-S ec~fic-Ptan~No:
Zge-Jatndmnt-geri~ (Deleted by Planntn~ Comtsston ~0-5-88)
Street trees shall be
with the standards
Amendment No. I
planted throughout the subdtvIslon tn accordance
of Ordinance 460 and Specific Plan No. Z99
34. l)evelopnent of Vesttng Tentative Tract No. 23373
comply With: all provisions of Specific Plan No.
Development Agre.ement No. S.
Amended No. 1 shall
199 Amendment No. X and
LeRoy D. Seeel
IOAD~ "~IIC ~ItCQUedI~
OFFICE OF ROAD CONAIff$1ONER ~ COUNTY SURVEYOR
Septadxr 22, Z988
elUII1'~W ADMIIIII,I&?IV(
IIAtt~llll &DImE, Ill I.I. Ill till
RIverside County Pl·nnlng conxnisslon
4080 Lemon Street ·
RIverside, CA 12501
RI: Tract KIp 23373 - Amend fi - Road Cartetit,
Schedule A - Team SP KIp lit
Ladles and Gentlemen:
WIth respect to the conditions of approval for the referenced tentative land
division map, the hid Department ricoannuals that the linddivider provide tie
following street Improvement plans and/or road dedications in accordance with
4
Ordinance 460 and RIverside County bad [mprovenent Standards (Ordinance 61).
it Is' understood that the tentative map correctly shows acceptable centerline
profilest Ill existing easements, traveled wayIt and drainage courses with
appropriate O's, ·rid that their mission or unacceptablllty ma~ require the
to be resubmitted for !further consideration. These Ordinance~ and the following
conditions are essential parts and a requirement occurring In ONE Is as binding
as though occurring In Ill. They ·re Intended to be complementary and to
describe the conditions for 1 design of the Improvement. A11 questions
I con;
regarding the true malning of the conditions shall be referr~.d to the Road
Cornmiss loneI'm Office.
The landdlvTder shall protect downstream properties from damages
caused by ·lterltlon of the drilnlgl patternIt I.e., concentra-
tion of diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by
constructing adequate drainage facilities Including enlarging
existin facilities or by sicgrin · drainage easement or by "
both. XI1 dretnage easements sha~l be shown on the final map
and noted as follows.- 'Drainage Easement - no building,
obstructions, or encroachants b land fills are allowed'. e
protection shill be Is approved g~ the had .Department. Th
2. The Tanddlvf. der shall accept and properly dispose of all offsite
dr·lnage flowing onto or through the sits. · [n the event the
had Commissioner permits the use of streets for drainage
pu oses, the provisions of Article XZ of Ordinance Ha. 460
vllr~ apply. Should the quahtltfes exceed the street
capacity or the use of Streets be prohibited for drainage
purposest the subdivider shill provide adequate drainage
facilities Is approved by the Road Department.
o
o
14iJor drainage Is Involved on this landdivision and Its resolutl~..
shall be as approved by the Road Oepartmnt.
All Interior streets sh~11 be Improved In accordance with County
Standard No. 10S, Section A or greater as epproved by the Road
Camlssloner (edified no
S. The landdivider shall provide utility clearance from Xancho ColIf.
:--Mater District prior ta the recordalton of the final map.
The rexls centerline.gradient shall not exceed ZSlg.
7o The mlnlnun centerline radii shall be as approved by the Road
Department.
Rancho Cill~ornle Road shall be I roved with concrete curb and
gutter located 43 feet from clnterm~lno and match up asphalt concrete
paving- reconstruction; or resurfacl of existing payin
detormWnnd by the Road Commissioner wn~thle · SS foot hal~ as
width
dedicated right of ey In accordance with County Standard Ro. ~00.
Kaiser Parkway shall be froproved with concrete curb and gutter
located 38 feet from centerline and mtch up asphalt concrete
paving; reconstruction& or resurfacin of existing paving as
determined by the Road Comlssloner :TthJn a SO foot half width
dedicated right of we7 In accordance We.U: Count). Standard No. Z~-
Prior tO the' filing of the final map with the Count~; Recorder's
d I
Office, the eveloper shall prow de evidence of continuous
maintenance of 411 proposed ravage streets within the development
as ·pproved bJr the Road conn~ssioner.
All driveways shall confore tO the apl~llcable RIverside Coun~
Standards and shall be ShOke on the street Improvement plans.
!~en blo~hralls are required to be constructed on top of slope, s
debris retention wall shill be constructed at the street right of
way line to prevent silting of sidewalks as approved by the Road
Counts·loner.
13. Concrete sidewalks shall be'cOnstructed on Rencho Callfornla Road
.and Kaiser Parkway In accordance with Count~ Standard No. 400 and
401 (curb sidewalk).
M access d to the nearest paved road maintained by the County
shell be co strutfeel viibin the public right of ray in accordance
with Coun~tandard No, tO6, Section B, '3Z*/60') ·ta grade and
alignment a~ ·pproved by the Road Coenlss;oner-
tmlacts, said
tn
.he my enr tote e ariaten agreement vtth the County deferring
tim of issuance of · building Pomlt, hrcel 8 Is
'lieAnt tj) ~
not sub;Jectlmeto signal litigation at this gin, Zl; Is postponed
until the t of development-
[lectrlcal and communications trenches shall be provided tn
accordance with Ordinance 461, Standard 817,
18. Asphaltic emulslon (fog seal) shall be applied not less than
fourteen dlys following placement of the asphalt surfacing and shall
be applied at e rate of O.OS gallon per.square yard... Asphalt
e~ulston shall confern to Sections 37, 39 and 94 of the State
Stand.arcl $pec i fl calf ons. -
lg, Corner cuttacks in conformonce vith County Standard h. 805 shall
be sho~n on the final map and offered for dedication.
20. Lot access-shill be restricted on Rancho California Road and Kaiser
Par~vay and so noted on the final map with the exception of one
opening on Rancho Cilifornla Road approximately 400' westerly.of
intersection vlth Kaiser Parkway.
Landdivlslo~s treatJig cut or f111 slopes adjacent to the streets
shill provide erosion control, sight distance control end slope
easements Is approved by the Road Department.
All entrance gate facilities shall be hcated · minimum distance of
60' from gate to
M1 centerline Intersections-shill be It 90% .
24. The street deslg~ and improvement concept of this project sha~l be
coordinated with TR 2337Z and TR 23372.
w
Z5, Street lighttrig shall be requi~ed :n accordance with Ordinance
and 461 throughout the subdivision, The County hrfice Area
Administrator detersira· ~hl~lr this proposal qualifies under an
· exist;lag assessment district or not, If nots the .land owner shall
file In application with LAFCO for annexation into or creation of
· . · eLI ht;Ing Asses·hi; Ollt;rlct," In accordance with Governmental
Code l:ctton s6000,
zG, Prior to record·lion of the-final rope the landdlfider shall record
~'* 'CC & R's provldin Ingress and eress for parcel I thru 7 end shall
be subject to revTev and approva~ by Riverside Con ty Counsel, n
' GH:lh
Y 'trulr~2..s/, '-
on Engineer
4010 Lmmm~mmt. Sitt IlL
~ CA 92501
C/II) ']17-6606
MING Dl~jkg~lr:
CIFIrOID
13373 - IX;~DED IX. lOAD COItlt~C'l'ZOII
Vitb Teapert to the condie[one of approval for the above referenced land divZsiou.
the P~re Department recommends the following f~re protection usalures be provided
in accordance with glvers~de County 0rdlnancee and/or recognized f~re protection
standards:
FlAg pI~OTECT~IOIq
The water maine shell be capable of providing a potentlaX f~ra flow of 2500
and an actual fire flow available from an7 one hydrant shall b· 1~00 GI~ for
hour· duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure*
AirpXicant/develoPer Ihall furnSlh one copy of the water listen plane to the Firs
Department for review* Plans ebaXX conform to fire hydrant typel, location and
spacing, and. the system shall aug the fire flow requirement·* Plans shall be
· tgned/appzoved b7 · registered civil.engineer and the local water company vSth
In accordance v~th the zequiz P
Dspar taint ·m '
· be required vatmr slatme luciadinS fire hydrants, shall be installed and accepts,
by the appropriate water alency pr~or to an7 combustible building material betas
placed on artindividual lot.
A11 buildings shall be constructed vitb firs retardant roofing material as
described ~ Section 3203 of the UniromBulldinl C~e, hy rood shinlies
or shakes shall have a Class win ragout and sha~be spprovsd by the F~re
~spartment prior to ~staXlat~u*
l~riot to the recordstin of the find mp, the developer shell deposit rich the
liverside County Fire Departneat, s cash sue of $400.00 per lot/unit ss u~c~Sscios
for fire protection lapsets. Should the developer choose to defer the
paysent, he/she any eater into a written aGreeneat rich the County deferring
payseriC to the the of Issuance of · buildinS
questions reGardinS the seeuinl of conditions shs~ he referred to the
YlssnlnS sad EaSenewtonS staff.
IAYHO!II) R, Ilb"Zl
ly
GeorGe I. TItus, Ylsnninl Officer
RIVERS I DE COUNTY PLANNI M6 DEPARTMENT DATZ:
Tract MaD 2~171. Amnded No. 1
July 25. 1988
· Environmental Health Servlces
The Envlronmental Health Services has revletmd Tract Map 23373, Amended
No. I dated July 19, 1988. Our current codeants'will remain as previously
stated In..~.r letter dated June 13, 1988.
~U~ 3 1~3 ~,
RIVEKSiD~ GO~r.~TY
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
IIIVIIIIIDI, ~,a&ll~RNss
0~ly 22, lge8
Zadjss and Gentl~s
Bss Vesr~ '/~'sc't 23373
knsrsdsd ll:~. I
At the c~,/m o~ the land aivide~, ~gn ~llhN a ~~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~d ~ ~ ~ld~ ~~ at ~ ~ of Ss~
de~ ~ ~s m~ ~ ~ ~ct~ ~ ~ ~cel ~e ~9
~ ~~es hve ~ ~a~ m ~ ~1 ~ ~ F~ 3
~t ~~ ~ r~4q ~ve. / ..
GASitS drLtuage e,c:f. lities Irated cutside of tt:ad r'lcjht. of *key ah:M.ld
be ccntajaed vlthia draj. naVe easera~ta with mininxn vldth 'c~ 20 bet
d'b::kmm'theEczalw,,T, AmdvmxldbeNMedtothef~lnuprcat-
lug, 'Drainage easa~te ~ be keFt free of b~lldtngs and
cbst:wtlcns'.
Offsite d:t-ktz'age bclllttes sluxld be located within Fublicly dedicat-
ed dralnage easeuenta cl~a/ned ft~n the affected ~ ~ners. b
e~u~ents dudd be recorded end a caw subuit,-4 to the D~rcr~ct
l:riot t~ tecotdatic~ of the lira1 ne~.
~e 10 Fee: atom fIN duLld be ccr~atned witTtin the cufo and the 100
yea: storm fIN should be ~,talned vlthln the etzeet right o~
ties should be lnsta~ed.
The ~*s Street an2 lot gradtn9 e~uld be destined
that larpetuates the exlsttn9 natural dra/Aa~e Natterns with
o~ee, a drainage easen~tt should ~e c~tatAed fi~au the a~ected
~-,.-L-y odrars f=t the ~elease of c~ncentrated ct diverted
flows, A err of the recorded dra/Aa9e ease~t sho~d be sul=~tte~
t~ the llLrcrlct _~,_; revled l=lor lu~ b ~ec'orchtlcxx of the final nap.
DevelcFuent of this lxc~ty shceld be ccc~lnated with the develc~
adjacent ltc~ertlee to k~su=e that ~terccurses reMln m-
cbstructed and s~__e_nn~tars a:e n~c diverted ~rc~ me watershed to m-
~hls my nclut:e the ~-~~m o£ ~ary drafi2~e
Ii~ Vezt.tx'ag ':2nct. 23373
Amm'dedN~, 3.
-3- ,.Tt.l. Zy 22° 3.988
~ at .//87-2Z333.
Vary truty ~eurs,
',DEPARTMENTof HEALTH
4080 Leson Street .' RIVERSIDE CO"NT
~verside, CA S2SO1 P~NNING DEPARTMENT
AtLas Ksth~ Bitford
~ ~ ~ 2357J, ~,t cert,in ]&ad siLo,ted in the
utncorpor,ted territory of the Couty of Riverside. St,to
of C&Zt~ornt*. being Parcels ~. ~.~.4 ,nd S or P,rce] H*p
21884 s, ,ho~ on , asp thereof t~led tn Book 144. Page, 24
through 33 of Parcel Maps in the Office of the CoyLy
~ecorder of laid Riverside CoyLy together vith a portion c
the ~sncho Tomsouls grinted by the Government or the Onitec
SLitel ot
1860 and recorded
Sin Diego CoyLy,
mm
&&el ILltaCit
4me&me tPmmmm~t. ~ MIll
III mm~mlmm y ~
Gentlemen:
The Department othblic Health has revieved Tentative
No. 23373 arid recommends that: ·
a vatmr system shall be installed according td
plans and s~eciftcatton am approved by the valor
company and the Health Department. Permanent
prints .of the pILnm of the vatmr syotem shall
be mubnitted in triplicate, vtth · minimum scale
not*leSs than one inch equals 200 feet, along vith
the original draving to the County Surveyor- The
prints shill show the antemil pipe dtimoLer,
location of valves Lnd fire hydrants; pipe and
~oint specific&Lions, Lad the size of the main
&t the ~tmction of the nov system to the
existing system. The plans shill comply in
all respects vith Dig. S, Part l, Chapter 7 or
the California Health and Safety Code, California
Administrative Code, Title 22, Chapter 16, and Genera
Order No. 103 or the Public Utilities Commission of t
St&~.e or C&lirornim. ,hen applicable.
Riverside Cotu~ty Planning Dept.
Page Tee
Attnz Kathy Otfford
.,
Tie plans shall be signed bye registered engineer and
v$ter company with the following certification; 'I
certify th&t the design of the water system in
Tract Map 23373 is ,ccord,nce with the v, ter system
expansion piano or the Rancho California Water District
and that the water serVice,storage and distribution
system viII be $dequtte to provide viter service
such tract. This certification does not constitute s
guarantee
any specific quantities. flows or pressures for fire
protection or any other purposes. This certification
: shall be signed by& responsible official or the valor
company.
Th~sDepartment has I statement from the Rxncho C&liforni&
Water District agreeing to serve-domestic vaLor to each and
every lot in the subdivision on den&rid providing
satisfactory financial krrangement$ &re completed vith the
subdivider. It viII be necessary for the financial
arrangements Lo be made prior to the record&Lion of the
final map.
This Department has a statement from the Eastern Municipal
Water District agreeing to allow the subdivision sewage
system to be connected to the severs o~ the District. The
sever system $h&11 be installed according to plane and ..
specifications as approved by the District, the County
Surveyor and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the
plan$ of the sever system shall be submitted in triplicate,
along with the original drawing, to the County Surveyor. The
prints $hal1 show the internal pipe diuetor, location of
manholes, complete profiles, pipe and Joint specifications
and the size or the severs at the Junction of the nov $ystem
to the oximttng system. ~ single plat indicating location
of sever lines and vator lines shall be a portion of the
sewage plans and profiles. The plans shall be $igned by a
registered engineer and the sever district with the
following certtficationt 'X certify that the design of the
sever system in Tract Map 23373 is in accordinto with the
sever system expansion plans of the Eastern Xunicipal VaLor
District and that the waste disposal system is adsqv&ts at
Riverside County Planning DopL,
P,Vo Three
ATT14: K&thy OilfOrd
%his time %o troaL the &ntictpaLed vastes from Lho proposed
tr&ct,'
~._£t~it~_s~_Atsf~_~e_~tt~s_n£ie£_~e_Lbt-~tevtsL-gg£-~bt
It rill be necessary for financial arrangements
prior to the recordtalon of the final sap.
to be made
S..IyC · r · ~T%~e,~; , '.
SM:tac
PLaNNiNg3 D;P CMEr
DATE: June 1, 1988
TO: Assessor
ktldlng and :$mfet~
Surveyor - Dave Oudl
load Departsent
Health - Ralph Luchs
Fi re Protection
Flood Control NstrSct
Ftsb i Game
LAFCO, S Paisley
. U.S. Postal Service - Ruth E, Wvtdson
' JUN 16 1988
RIVERSIDE COUNTy
PLANNING DEPA. RTMENT
:$herlff's Department
Airports Department
UCR, Life Science .Dept., M.M: Playhew
6ROFXT ....
Easter;. Municipal Mater Dtst.
eancho' California thief Dtst,
Elstnore Union School Dtst. -
Temec~ia Union $chool Dlst.
SIerra Club, San 6or~onIo Chapter
CALTRAN$ 18
VESTZNGTRACT 23373 - (Sp P1) - E.A.
3ZS48 -Pit aries Vfila e DaveloiS!men
- Robert ;er~n, Ytlltm ~rost & ASsoc
amncho California Area -Ftrst
Supervtsortal Dtstrlct - X. of Ranch
Callfornla Road, W, of Kaiser Pa~kwa
R-R Zone - 28 Acres348 Condomlnlum
(RELATED CASE TR 23371 & 23372] 14o
- A.Po 923-210-023
Please revlew the case described above, along with the attached case mp, A t-~'
DIvtston Coffntttee meettng has been tentatively scheduled for June 20, 1988. ~ ,t c.
tt will then 90 to public hearing,
Your c~enents and recommendations are requested prior to June 5, 1988 tn order that
lnclude them In the staff report for thts particular case,
Should you have any questions regarding thts 1tea, Olease do not hesitate to contact
Kathy Gffford at 787-6356
Planner
TheE lstnore tinton Xlgh $chool Dtstrtct facilities are overcrowded and our
educatSonal programs seriously Impacted by tncreastng student population
caused by nevresJdenttal, comertin1 and Industrial construction.
Therefore, pursuant to California Government Code Section 53080 of AB 2926
and SB 327, this district levtes l-fee against all new development projects
utthfn 1as boundaries.
DATE: S~GNATURE
PLEASE prtnt name and tttle
4080 LEMON STREET, 9'"* FLOOR
RIVERSIDE. CALIFCN:INIA 92501
(714) 787-6181
Joseph [nserro, Assistant Superintendent
I
46-209 OASIS STRE,
INDIOo CALIFORNIA
(619) 342.
e;ATE: June !, Zg88.
,0: Assessor
lutlding and hfet),
Surveyor - Dave Duda
bad DeNttaint
kilth - Ralph Laths
Ftre Protection
Flood Control DIstrict
Fish & Game
LAFCO, S Patsley
8,So Postal hrwlce - bah E, Davtdson
Sher5ff's DipsrUn;at
Parks par;rent - orge 8.
Agrtcu~ure Combs~ooner
AIrports Oepartaent, -
UCR, Life Science Dept o W.W. Hayhey
6SOF/T" ' : " "-
Eastern Huntctpd Water Dtst.
Rancho California ~ter Otsg-
Slstnoro Union School Dtst.
Temecula Union School DIst.
Sierra Club, San Gorlonto Chiptit
JUN 13 1988
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
,PLANNING DEPARTMENT
~-~tt$TZRG TRACT 23373 - (Sp Pl) - E.A.
3ZS48 - Par irita Vtlla e Development' Co.
- Robert kin, 1~1111m ~rost & Assoc. -
glncho California Ares - First
Supervisorill District -g. of Rancho
..California Road, i, of Kaiser Parkway -
348 Condomlntum un
R-R Zo · - 28 Acres it
n
- (RELATED CASE TR 23371 S 2)372) Hod
- A.P, 92)-210-023
CALTRA/~ 18
;lease review the case descrtbel above along with the attached case rap. A Land
'irision Coinlate; meeting has been ~ively ~h~uled hr ~une 20, I . If ~t clara
tt e111 the
Tour comments and recommendations are requested prior to ,tune S, 1988 tn order that we ra
Include them !n the staff report for this particular case,
Should you have anX questions regarding this Item, please do not hesitate to contact
Kathy Glfford at 787-6356
Planner
DATE: C~'TT.x.P~'X'~ SIGNATURE*
PLEA-~ print hare and title
$
i ,
080 LEMON STREET. 9'" FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-6185
EASTERN INFbRMATION CENTER
ArChaeolOgical Research Unit
Universiity of California
Riverside. CA 92521
46-209 ~ASIS STREET. ROOM 30
~tNDIO, CALIFORNIA
(619) 342-82-
DATE: aune X, i988
TO: Assessor
Buildtrig and Safety
SurveJ~r - Dave Dude
... Road Deparlanent
Health - Ralph Laths
FIre Protection
Flood Control Oistrtct
FIsh &Glee
LAFCO, S Pitsley
U.S. Pos~il'hrvfce - Ruth E. Davidson
JUH Z 3 lYU8
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Shertff's i:)epa~t~nent
s
Atrlmrts Departant
UCR, Life Sctence Dept., V.i. Hayhe
6ROFIT ' ' '
(astern RunStips1 Vater Nst.
Rancho"Caltfo~nte hater Nst.
[lstnore tMlon khool Dtst.
Te~ecule Unlon School Nst.
SIerra Club, San Gorgonfo Chapter
CALTRAtLS 18
VESTiNGTRACT 23373 - Cap Pl) -
Pancho California Area - First
Supervisortel Dtstrfct - N. of PanCho
California hid, V. of Kaiser Plrkvay
R-R Zone - 28 Acres 348 Condomtntum uT
- (RELATED CASE TR 23371 & 23372) Nod
- A.P, gZ3-ZZO-023
Please review the case described above, along vtth the attache case map. A Land
Dtvtston ConTntttee meeting has been tentatively scheduled for June 20, [988. [f-.'.~ c1
tt w111 then 9~ to public hearing.
Your c~ents end rec;mmendatfons are requested prior t e anne S, 1988 tn order that ve
Include them fn the staff report for this particular case.
Should you have any qvestlons regarding this 1tea, please do not hesStare to contact
Kathy Gtffo~d at 787-6356
Planner
DATE: S Z GHATURE
PLEXSE prtnt name and tttle
4080 LEI~ON STREET. 9~" FLOOR
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
(714) 787-6181
46-209 OASIS STREET~2OO'
INDIO. CALIFC ,A
(61 ~) 342-8
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
EXHIBITS
S',STAFFP. PT'23373V'T'M. CC
17
CITY
OF TEMECULA )
//
VICINITY MAP
N,T.S.
"EXHIBIT .NO.
' C,".SE NO.'V'tt, q?.:.J3q~,
~P.C. OAT! II,,,.I,-I-q| ../
CITY OF TEMECULA
;IGARITA
SP
/
/
/
/,
""' THE MEADOWS
SP 21l /"
: /
EXHIBIT NO.
'CASE
CITY OF TEMECULA
"'EXHIBIT NO.
· CASE' NO.Vlll ~,~2~.'7~ l
,P.C. DATE i|-q-ql' / I
CITY OF TEMECULA
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
S~STAFFtFr~3373VTM.CC 18 ~
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23373
The following fe~e,s were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this project.
Fee
Habitat Conservation Plan
(K-Rat)
Parks and Recreation
(Quimby)
Public Facility
(Traffic Mitigation)
Public Facility
(Traffic Signal Mitigation)
Public Facility
(Library)
Fire Protection
Flood Control
(ADP)
Condition of Aooroval
Condition No. I
Condition No. 14
Condition No. 9
Condition No. 3
Condition No. 2
Condition No. 6
Condition No. 5
~ S%STAFFRI~aa73VTk4.CC 19
ITEM
NO.
19
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Councilmembers
Mark J. Ochenduszko, Assistant City Manager
February 25, 1992
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
PROPERTY (APN 921-300-006)
CONDEMNATION OF
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended this item be continued to the meeting of April 28, 1992.
DISCUSSION:
The property owner contacted a Councilmember during the week of February 3, 1992
and asked that the item be continued. Staff contacted the property owner on
February 5, 1992 to verify this matter. The property expressed interest in continuing
the item and submitted the attached letter.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None at this time.
ATTACHMENT
a:rnitigat.agen
City of Temecula
Temecula , Ca 92590
Mark Oschendusko:
Assistant City Mgr.
2/12/92
Dear Mark:
Per your telephone call, I do not object to a 60 day
extension of the meeting that was scheduled for
February 25, 1992.
incere ,
Eion McDowell
ITEM NO.
20
APPROVA ·
CITY ATTORNEY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council/City Manager
Chief Building Official
February 25, 1992
Consideration of an Ordinance to Require Fire Resistive Roof Covering
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council hold a public hearing and approve the second
reading of the attached ordinance entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 457, "UNIFORM BUILDING CODE"
ADOPTED BY REFERENCE BY THE CITY OF TEMECULA, BY AMENDING
SECTION 3203 FOR THE PURPOSE OF REQUIRING FIRE RESISTIVE ROOF
COVERING.
It is also recommended that the City adopt the attached resolution entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SETTING FORTH THE LOCAL
CONDITIONS UPON WHICH A DETERMINATION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE
CITY COUNCIL THAT MODIFICATIONS TO ORDINANCE NO. 457, "UNIFORM
BUILDING CODE" AMENDING SECTION 3203 FOR THE PURPOSE OF
REQUIRING FIRE RESISTIVE ROOF COVERING ARE REASONABLY REQUIRED
BY LOCAL CONDITIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF TEMECULA.
DISCUSSION:
In response to concerns expressed by the Public Safety Commission, staff is
proposing a modification to the Uniform Building Code for the purpose of requiring the
use of not less than Class B fire resistive roof covering in the City. To address the
V:\WP~AGENDA.REP\CCCMO225.0RD
City Council/City Manager
February 12, 1992
Page 2
commission's concerns, staff considered several factors: The City's exposure to high
winds; the proximity of dense housing areas to open undeveloped and generally un-
maintained parcels of lan,d; and the location of the City's fire stations in relation to the
areas most susceptible to fire hazards, regardless of the fact that Fire Department
response times have been very good. To address the roof covering requirements for
the Old Town Historical Preservation District, the City's estate size development and
residential room additions, exceptions have been included which provide for the use
of Class C roof covering, which is also fire resistive, and the use of like roof covering
material in certain room addition and re-roofing situations.
Notification of the proposed action has been distributed to the local Building Industry
Association representative and to residential developers known to currently be active
in the City. No objections have been received.
The following is a cost comparison of various types of roof covering material currently
used in the City and those types which meet the Class B fire resistive classification:
Wood Shingles
ROOF MATERIAL
COST COMPARISON
Untreated
Class C
Class B
Average
Per Square *
96.90
130.26
155.83
Wood Shake
Untreated
Class C
Class B
98.92
116.80
137.80
Lightweight Concrete {most common in Temecula)
(will meet Class B)
111.67
Clay Red S Tile (will meet Class B)
77.67
20 Yr. Composition (asphalt) Shingles
(will meet Class B)
23.17
*one (1) square = 100 square foot
V:\WPLa, GENDA.REP\CCCMO225.ORD
ORDINANCE NO. 92-01
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECUI,A AMENDING RIVERSIDE
COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 457, "UNIFORM
BUILDING CODE" ADOFrED BY REFERENCE BY
THE CITY OF TEMECULA, BY AMENDING
SECTION 3203 FOR THE PURPOSE OF REQUIRING
FIRE RESISTIVE ROOF COVERING
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 4, "Uniform Building Code," Subsection I, of Riverside County
Ordinance No. 457 as the same was incorporated by reference into the Temecula Municipal
Code by City Ordinance No. 90-04, is hereby amended to read as follows:
"I. Section 3203. The roof covering on any structure regulated by this code shall be as
specified in Table No. 32-A and as classified in Section 3204, except that no roof covering shall
be less than a Class B roofing assembly.
Exceptions 1. The roof covering on any structure regulated by this code within
the Historical District Overlay, generally known as the Old Town Temecula Historical
Preservation District, shall not be less than a Class C roofing assembly.
2. The roof covering of any structure located on a parcel with a minimum of one-half
acre in area may have a roof covering of not less than a Class C Roofing Assembly when
approved by the Building Official.
3. The roof covering for all re-roofing shall conform to the applicable provisions of this
section as amended herein, except that the roof covering for the re-roofing of ten percent (10%)
or less of the area of any roof may consist of material comparable to the remainder of the roof."
SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this
ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid, such
invalidity shall not affect the other provisions or applications of the provision of this ordinance
are declared severable.
SECTION 3. CITY CLERK. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law.
3/ORD$ 92-01
PASSED, APPROV!~r} AND ADOFrED this 25th day of February, 1992.
ATTEST:
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, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. 92-01 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular
meeting of the City Council on the 281h of January, 1992, and that thereafter, said Ordinance
was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 251h day of
February, 1992, by the following vote, to wit:
COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek
City Clerk
3lORDS 92-01
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
SETtING FORTH THE LOCAL CONDITIONS UPON
WIHCH A DETERMINATION HAS BEEN MADE BY
THE CITY COUNCIL THAT MODIFICATIONS TO
ORDINANCE NO. 457 **UNIFORM BUILDING
CODE", AMENDING SECTION 3203 FOR THE
PURPOSE OF REQUIRING FIRE RESISTIVE ROOF
COVERING, ARE REASONABLY REQUIRED BY
LOCAL CONDITIONS WITHIN THE CITY OF
TEMECLq.,A
WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code Section 17958.5 provides for the City Council to
make changes or modifications in' the most current edition of the Building Code as may be
reasonably necessary because of certain local conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Building Official of the City of Temecula has determined and
recommended that based upon certain local conditions within the City of Temecula the
modifications to the Uniform Building Code contained in Ordinance No. 457 are reasonably
required to be adopted by the City of Temecula; and
WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code Section 17958.7 requires the City Council to make
express findings of the necessity for modifications in the most current edition of the Building
Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Temecula
that the following amendments and modifications to the Uniform Building Code contained in
Ordinance No. 457 are hereby found to be reasonably necessary due to consideration of specific
local climatic, geological or topographical conditions as follows:
1. The City contains densely populated areas adjacent to open undeveloped and
unmalntained land.
2. The City is subject to high wind conditions.
3. Emergency fire fighting equipment is separated from areas most susceptible to fire
haTards by an interstate highway which currently has only two (2) major points of crossing.
3/re~o238 -1-
SECTION 1. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 251h day of February, 1992.
A~T:
Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, HEREBY DO CERTIFY that the
foregoing Resolution No. 92- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of
the City of Temecula on the 2~ day of February, 1.992, by the following roll call vote.
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
3/r~o238 -2- '~
ITEM NO.
21
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNE~~~
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Cour~l/City Manage
Planning Department
February 25, 1992
Plot Plan No. 242
PREPARED BY:
Matthew Fagan
RECOMMENDATION:
The I=q. lanning Deaprtment Staff Recommends that the City
Council:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 242 and;
ADOPT Resolution No. 92-_ approving Plot Plan No. 242 based
on the, Analysis and Findings contained in-the staff report and
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
DISCUSSION:
Plot Plan (PP) 242 and amended Tentative Parcel Map No. 26664 (Amd. No. 1) were
submitted to the Planning Department on October.31, 1991. Staff requested a letter from
the applicant to withdraw the previously approved Plot Ran No. 11604 which was approved
for this site and on January 2, 1992, the letter was received. (Reference Attachment No. 7).
Tentative Parcel Map No. 26664 Amended No. 2 is an application to subdivide a 7.1 acre
parcel into three (3) industrial lots. Currently, the site is vacant, however uses for the three
parcels will be considered under Plot Plan No. 242. Due to the parcel map being less than 20
acres, this application received its' final approval at the Planning Commission meeting.
Plot Plan No. 242 is an application for three buildings which total approximately 104,577
square feet in area. The buildings will be industrial, (predominantly warehouse space) with
approximately ten percent of the space considered to be for office use.
At the Planning Commission meeting the representative requested that Condition of Approval
No. 16 be changed to "A Plot Plan application for a sign program shall be submitted and
approved by the Planning Director prior to construction of any sign." The condition had read,
"...prior to occupancy." The request was justified by the fact that the proposed buildings are
speculative buildings and therefore no defined or specific use has been determined for the site.
Therefore, it would be impossible to submit a sign program for the project prior to occupancy.
S~STAFFRFT~26664-2 .CC
Condition of Approval No. 62 relative to CC&R's was deleted and a condition was added in
its place at the request of the Department of Public Works. Condition No. 62 was placed
upon the Tentative Parcel Map and therefore was not necessary or applicable to the Plot Plan.
The amended Condition reads:
"Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall submit proof of provision
for maintenance and repair of all on-site drainage facilities and landscaped parkways
as directed by theDepartment of Public Works. This con~Frtion shall be superseded by
the recording of alternate CC&R's with the final map."
The Planning Commission raised concerns regarding the length of a six (6) foot high concrete
wall located on the eastern portion of the site. Condition of Approval No. 30 was added to
read:
"A six (6) foot high painted concrete wall located on the eastern portion of the site
shall be a continuous wall whose length shall be that of the eastern property line. A
wall plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval.'
The Planning Commission also raised concerns regarding the screening of the rear portion of
the site from Rancho Way. Condition of Approval No. 12 was expanded to include
landscaping along Rancho Way which would be sufficient to screen the rear portion of the lot
from views on Rancho Way.
Plot Plan No. 242 was approved 5-0 by the Planning Commission at the meeting of January
27, 1992 recommending approval by the CiW Council.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Resolution No. 92- - page 3
Conditions of Approval - page 9
Planning Commission Minutes - page 19
Planning Commission Staff Report - page 20
Fee Checklist - page 2;
Initial Sl~udy - page 23
Withdrawl of Plot Plan 11604 letter - page 24
Exhibits - page 25
$1TAFFRPl'~8664-2.CC 2 ""'
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-_
$~.STAFFRPT'%26664.-.2,CC 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 242 TO PERMIT
CONSTRUCTION OF THREE (3) INDUSTRrAL BUILDINGS
TOTALLING 104,577 SQUARE FEET LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF RANCHO WAY AND BUSINESS PARK
DRIVE.
WHEREAS, Coastline Equity, Inc. filed Plot Plan No. 242 in accordance with the
Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has
adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Rot Plan application was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Plot Plan 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 Plot Plan;
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Plot
Plan on February 25, 1992, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either
in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and
Staff Report regarding the Plot Plan;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the City Council hearing, the City Council
recommended approval of said Plot Plan;
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. 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~STAFFRFr~8664-2,CC 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 land use or action
proposed will be consistent w~h 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 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 Plot Plan 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 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 Plot Plan No. 242 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 probabi,lity 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%STAFFRFr~26884-2. CC 5
Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be approved unless the following
findings can be made:
The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with
all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances.
The overai~ development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the
land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the
surrounding property.
The City Council, in approving the proposed Plot Plan, makes the following findings,
to wit:
There is a reasonable: probability that Plot Plan No. 242 will be consistent with
the City's future adol3ted General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable
time and in accordance with State law. Plot Plan No. 242 is a industrial
project. The proposed site is designated as Light Industrial by SWAP.
There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with
the future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan. If the proposed use is inconsistent, it will not be detrimental because of
the industrial nature of surrounding uses.
The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. The
proposed use complies with local planning and zoning laws which are prepared
in conformanCe with State planning and zoning laws.
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size
and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity
of use. The proposed plot plan is in conformance with Ordinance 348.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public
health or welfare. Potential impacts are mitigated to a level of non-significance
under the Initial Study and Conditions of Approval.
The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale,
bulk, height, intensity, and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship
with adjoining properties, through appropriate building mass reduction
techniques and landscape installation, and distance from planned adjacent
structures.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because
it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of
the area. The project conforms to the existing M-SC zoning and SWAP Light
Industrial designation.
$~$TAI=FI~e664--2.CC 8
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open
to, and useable by, Vehicular traffic. The project will take access from Rancho
Way and Business Park Drive.
The design of the project, 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. The project has a adequate
circulation throughout the entire site. CC&R°s will be recorded which will
eRsure 8ccess.
Je
Said-findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental
documents associated with these applications and herein incorporated by
reference. This Staff Report contains mapping, Conditions of Approval, and an
Initial Study which support the Staff recommendation.
As conditioned pursuant to SECTION III, the Plot Plan proposed conforms to the logical
development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future
development of the surrounding property.
SECTION II. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that the proposed project will 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 Plot Plan No. 242 for the operation
and construction of three (3) industrial buildings totalling 104,577 square feet located at the
southeast corner of Rancho Way and Business Park Drive subject to the following conditions:
1. Attachment No. 2, attached hereto.
SECTION IV.
The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of February, 1992.
PATRICIA H. BIRDSALL
MAYOR
S~STAFFRPT~6864-2.CC 7
I HEREBY CE!rrlFY 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~rAFFRPT~eee4-2.CC 8
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
$~STAFFRFT~8664--2.CC 9
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No. 242
Project Description: An application to construct
three (3) buildings totalling 104,577 square feet
Assessor's Parcel No. 921-020-037
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
e
e
The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for the construction of three industrial
buildings totalling 104,577 square feet.
The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its
agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the City
of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul,
an approval of the City of Te;ecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative
body concerning Plot Plan .242. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the
permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and
will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of
any such. claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the
permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless
the City of Temecula.
This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter
diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization
contemplated by this approval. This approval shall expire on
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on
Plot Plan No. 242 marked Exhibit "D" or as amended by these conditions.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon
adjoining property or public rights-of-way. All street lights and other outdoor lighting
shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety
for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County
Ordinance No. 655.
The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department's Conditions of Approval
which are included her. in.
S~$TAFFI~6664-2.CC 10
e
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the
provisions set forth in the; Riverside County Health Department's transmittal dated
November 21, 1991 a copy of which is attached.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of
Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittel dated January 13, 1992,
a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Geologist's
transmittal dated March 30, 1990, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside Transit
Authority transmittel dated' November 19, 1991, a copy of which is attached.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, three (3) copies of a Parking,
Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of
the plants shall be shown.' Plans shall meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 348,
Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee.
All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape,
irrigation, and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An automatic
sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be maintained in a
viable growth condition. Planting within ten (10) feet of an entry or exit driveway shall
not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30) inches. Landscaping along Rancho
Way shall be sufficient to screen the rear portion of the lot from views on Rancho
Way. (Sentence added per Planning Commission on January 27, 1992.)
A minimum of 203 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12,
Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. 203 parking spaces shall be provided as shown
on the Approved Exhibit "D". The parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltic
concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on 4 inches of Class II base.
A minimum of 7 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit
"D" Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a
permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text
or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be
smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the
parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the
parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the
parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a
conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17
inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or
license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be
towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be
reclaimed at or by telephone
S%STAFFRPT%26664-2.CC 11
15.
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at
least 3 square feet in size.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or
permits from the following agencies:
Planning Department School District
Public Works Department Riverside County Flood Control
Environmental Health Fire Department
Rancho Water District Eastern Municipal Water District
16. A Plot Plan application for a Sign Program shall be submitted and approved by the
Planning Director prior to ooouponoy construction of any sign. (Condition amended
at the Planning Commission meeting on January 27, 1992.)
17. Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit "F".
18. Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial conforma nce
with that shown on Exhibit "F" (Color Elevations).
19. Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening material shall
be subject to Planning Department approval.
20. All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.
Each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with masonry block and
a steel gate which screens the bins from external view.
21. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along streets
and within the parking areas.
22.
23.
24.
This project is located within a subsidence or liquefaction zone. Prior to issuance of
any building permit by the Department of Building and Safety, a California Licensed
Soils Engineer or Geologist shall submit a report to the Building and Safety Department
identifying the Potential for liquefaction or subsidence. Where hazard of liquefaction
or subsidence is determined to exist, appropriate mitigation measures must be
demonstrated.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with Ordinance No.
663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance which is based on (the gross acreage
of the parcels proposed for development) (the number of single family residential units
on lots which are a minimum of one-half (1/2) gross acre in size). Should Ordinance
No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Ban prior to the
payment of the fees required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee
required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or
resolution.
Twelve Class II bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations as approved by
the Planning Director to facilitate bicycle access to the project area.
S~STAFFRPl~6664-2.CC 12
25.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts to be
determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the installation of
plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and adequate
maintenance of the Planting, for one year, shall be filed with the Department of Building
and Safety.
26. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground.
27.
28.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property
interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall at least 120 days
prior to submittal for building permit, enter into an agreement to complete the
improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the City
acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall
provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the
off-site property interests required in connection with the project. Security for a
portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an
appraisal report obtained by the developer, at the developer's cost. The appraiser shall
have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal.
29.
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 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).
30.
A six (6) foot high painted cencrete wall located on the eastern portion of the site shall
be a continuous wall whose length shall be that of the eaatem property line. A wall
plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. (Condition added at
the Planning Commission meeting on January 27, 1992.)
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
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 Subdivider,has correctly shown on the tentative map all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvements constraints and drainage courses, and
their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
S%STAFFRFT~6664-2.CC 13
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
31.
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, developer must obtain a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control
Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES permit is granted or the project
is shown to be exempt.
32.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Rood Control District;
City of Temecula Ere Bureau;
Ranning Department;
Department of Public Works;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise;
General Telephone;
Southern California Edison Company; and
Southern California Gas Company.
33. The developer shall 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.
34. The developer 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.
35. 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.
36.
37.
A grading permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any gradirig 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 and approval by the Department of Public
Works.
38.
39.
40.
If grading is to take place between the months of October and April inclusive, erosion
control 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 site improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, shall be
coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects.
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.
$%6TAFFRPT~eee4.-2.CC 14
41.
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.
42.
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 shall be prepared by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
43.
Design criteria for all turning, radius movements for onsite driveways shall be submitted
with improvement plans.
44.
The developer 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.
Any removal and replacement of improvements, including, but not limited to:
pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, signing, striping, and
other traffic control devices as appropriate.
B. Storm drain facilities.
C. Landscaping (parkway).
D. Sewer and domestic water systems.
E. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines.
45.
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.
46.
If necessary, the developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval for offsite
work performed on adjacent properties as directed by the Department of Public Works.
47.
Complete drainage calculations 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.
48.
Drainage and flood protection facilities will be required to protect all structures by
diverting sheet runoff to streets, or to a storm drain, as directed by the Department of
Public Works.
49.
Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage
entering the property from adjacent areas.
50.
The site is in an area identified on the flood hazards maps as Flood Zone B.
structures shall be protected from this hazard.
All
S\STAFFRPT~26664-2.CC 15
51.
PRIOR
52.
53.
54.
55.
PRIOR
56.
57.
58.
59.
The developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
TO ISSUANCE OF 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 Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing
compaction and site conditions.
Prior to issuance of a building, permit, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering
Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact.
Prior to building permit, the subdivider shall notify the City's C.A.T.V. Franchises of
the intent to develop. Conduit shall be installed. to C.A.T.V. Standards prior to
issuance of Certificates of Occupancy.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed
upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as
required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall
be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final
public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on
which developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the
developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of
which has been provided to developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement,
developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount
of the bond shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed ~10,000. Developer
understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those
now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By
execution of this Agreement, developer will waive any right to protest the provisions
of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district,
or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this
project; provided that developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness
of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
A minimum flowline grade within P.C.C. gutters 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.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards and shall
be shown on the improvement plans in accordance with County Standard 400 and 401
(curb sidewalk).
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of
300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the
City Engineer.
S~STAFFRP1'~26864,--2.CC 16
60.
61.
62.
All driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
Construct all improvements. as shown on the approved plans, including but not limited
to, curb and gutter, A.C., pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, and all onsite
improvements.
A dealoration of Covononto,:Conditiong and rteatriotions (CC&FI's) oholl be prepared by
the developer and oubmittod to the Dirootor of Planning, City cnl}inoer and City
Attorney. The CC&R'o oholl be signed and aoknowlodgod by oll partleo having any
rooord title interoat in the property to be developed, ohall make the City a party
thereto, and shall be onforoooblo by the City. The CC&R's shall be reviewed nnd
approvod by the City and rooordod. The CC&R's shall be oubjoot to the following
oonditions:
A. Thc CC&R's shall be prepared at the dovolopor's solo cost and oxpensc.
The CC&rt's shall be in the form and oontont opprovod by the Director of
PlaRning, City I:nginoor and the City Attorney, and ohall inoludo auoh provision,3
ao are required by thio approval and os oaid offioialo doom nooosoory to protoot
the interest of the City and its residents.
The CC&FI'o and Artioloo of Inoorporation of the Property Ownor's As,3ooiotion
are subjoot to the approval of Renning, Deportment of Publie Works, and thc
City Attorney. A rooordod oopy shall be provided to the City.
The CC&R's shall provide for the offeetivo o,stabliohmont, operation,
rnenogomont, tyse, repair and mointonanoo of all oommon areas, droinagc, and
rolatc, d faoilitioo.
The CC&rl's oholl provide that the property shall be developed, operated and
maintained so ao not to oreate o publie nuisonoo.
Thc CC&R's shall provide thnt if thc property is not maintained in thc condition
required by thc CC&R's, than the City, after making duo demand and giving
reasonable notioo, may antor thc property and pcrform, at thc ownor's solc
oxpon,3o, any maintonanoo required thereon by thc CC&R's or thc City
ordinonecs. The property shall be subject to a lien in favor of the City to secure
any suoh expanse not promptly roimburood.
(1)
All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be pormnnontly
mnintoinod by property ownor's assooiotion or other moarv3 oecoptablc
to the City. ,Cuoh proof of this maintononec shall bc submitted to
Ranning and the Department of Pubrio Works prior to issuanoc of
building permits.
S\$TAFFRPT~6864,.-2,CC 17
(2)
rleojproool aooe~3 ooooment8 and mointononoo ogroomonts onouring
oooooo to oil porool9 and jeint mairttenenee ef all roodo, drivoo or porking
oroo,J ohall bo provided by CC&R's er by dood~ and oholl be rooordod
prior to tho: ioouonoo of buildiR{} permit whero no mop io involvod.
(Delete this condition and replace with the following condition per
Planning Commission meeting of January 27, 1992).
Prior. to the i~usece.of building permits, the developer shell submit proof of prodsion
for maintenance and repair of ail on-ite drainage faci!it}ee and landscaped parkways
as directed by the Department of Public Works. This condition shall be superseded by
the recording of ,,Itemate C.C. & R.'s with the final map.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:
63. Developer shall execute an agreement with the City of Temecula to contribute a fair
share portion of the total construction costs for traffic signals at the following
percentages: 1% for the traffic signal at Rancho California Road and Ridge Park Drive;
6% for the traffic signal at Rancho Califomia Road and Vincent Moraga Drive.
64. A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the City Engineer for Rancho Way from Diaz Road to Business Park Drive
and shall be included in the street improvement plans.
65. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the
design requirements.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE 'OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
66. A construction area traffic control plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure and detour or other disruption
to traffic circulation as required by the City Engineer.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
67. All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and striping plan.
68. The development shall provide "stop" controls at the intersection of Rancho Way and
Business Park Drive as directed by the department of Public Works.
Provide limited landscaping in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent
to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance visibility.
69.
s;TAm~r~eee4-2.cc 18
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
t
~ TO: CITY OF T~CULA
DATE: 11-21-91
PLOT PL~MqNO. 242
I Health Specialist IV
The Environmental Health Services has reviewed Plot Plan No.
242, and has no objections· Sanitary sewer and water
services should be available in this area. Prior to any
building plan review for health clearance. the following
items are required:
"Will-serve" letters from the appropriate
water and sew, ring agencies.
A clearance letter from the Hazardous Services
Materials Management Branch (Jon Mohoroski.
358-5055). will be required indicating that the
project has been cleared for:
a. Underground storage tanks
b. Hazardous Waste GeneratorS,twice,
Hazardous Waste Disclosure (in accordance
with AB 2185)
d. Waste reduction management
SM:dr
co: Jon Mohoroski, Hazardous Materials Branch
NOTE: Any current additional requirements not covered. can
be applicable at time of Building Plan review for final
Environmental Health Service clearance·
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEP
GI ]~T J. NEWMAN
1el]rE CID3~ ~anuary 13~ 1992
CITY OP-'TErIECUL~
ATTNI PLANNZNQ DEFT
REs PLOT PLAN 242
Nits respect to toe conellipse of approval for the alaeve refer-
enced plot plan, t~e Firm Department recommends the fDllO~in~
fire protection measures bb provided in accordance with Riverside
C~unty Or~tnances and/or recognized fire protection standardss
i. The Pirw Department is required tQ set a minimum fire
flow for the remodel or constrUcti~n of all commercial
buildings using the pr~ceWure emtablished in'Ordinance
2. Provide or show there exists a water system capable
delivering ~00 GPM 4or a 3 hour duration at 20 PlI residual
operating pressures which must ~e available before any
~ombuetible material is placed en the ~ob site.
· . A combination of on-site an~ off-site super fire byerants
(a"xf"~2 1/2"~2 ~12"), will be located not less tMan 25 feet
or more than ~5 feet from any Portion of the ~uilding
measured along approved vehicular travelNays. The required
fire flow shall N available 4r~m any adjacent hydrant(el
the system.
4. APPlicant/developer shall furnish one eepy 04 the wa~er
system Plans to the ;ire Department far review. Plans shall
c~nform to the fire hydrant typmm, lncaeion and spacing, and
the system shall meet ~he fire 4low requirements, Plans
shall be signed/approved by a registered civil engineer and
the local water company with ~ho foilaNise certlfl~ationm
certify that the ~esign nf ehe water system is in accordance
Nlth the requiremanes prescribed by the Riverside
Fire Department".
FAX (61~) r/s.lori
~!4) lt'l,e~/· IAX 1"/14)
4tall CetM blbw. rde nS, Tmmsd,,~A eLtee
(?if) INf0'/0 · %e/,X (?14} leadeN
5. install a complete 4ire sprinkler system in all buil=-
lngs. The post lnOicator valve and fire department connec-
tion shall be located to the front,, within .~O 4met of a
hydrant, and a minimum of 25'feet from the buildingEsq. A
statement that the building(s) will be automatically 4ire
sprinkled must be included on the title paQe o4 the building
plans.
6. Install a supervised waterflew monitoring fire alarm
system, Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for
approval prior to installation, a~ ~er UBC.
7, A statement that the bMilding will be automatically 4iPe
~prinklerwd must a~prear an the titl~ page uf ~he b~l~ing
plans.
8, ~ertain designkte~ areas will bw rwq~lPm~ te be mmin-
taine~ ~e 41re lanes,
9. Install DQrtable 4ire extinguieher= with a minimum rating
Of 2AIOBC. Contact a cer~ifimd w~ingui~her company for
~r~per placement o4 equipment.
10. Prior to the issuance =f building hermits, the ~evelQper
~hali decomit, ~i~h the City of Temecula9 · check or money
order e~uallng the mum o4 s.~5 per eq~mre f~e~ ae mitigation
for fire pro~ec~l~n impacts. This amount must be submittee
s~n~rmtmiy from ~he plan =hemk fees.
1I. Blue dot reflectors mhall* be mounted in private streets
and drlve~ays to indicatm location ~ fire hydrants, They
shall be mognted in the middle of the street directly
line with 'PiPe ~ydrante.
12. Final cwn~iti=ne will De ~ddreesed when bullalng plans
are rwviewee An the b~ilding and 8afety Office.
All c~u~etienm regarding the meaning of cDndltlOn~ Shall be re-
ferred to ~hW ~lanning and Engineering 9taff.
RAYMOND H. REBIS
Chief Fire :Department Planner
'/~ ~.;..,~,~
~lchaeZ E. ~ray,
~lrm Captain Bpectallst
lupine, Califomia 92718
Fax 714 727-3347
714 727-3223
Schaefer DixonAtomelates
9R-12080
Schaefer J. Dixon
Ems~L Jones
Robert J. lynn
PaulDavis
James~ Wemer
W'dliam J. Monabin
E.J. Parrbh
John J. Buteto
Joseph F. Montagna
Bernard J. LaRue
Kyle D. Emerson
Michael L. Leonard
'l~mothy S. Simpson
March 30, 1990
Riverside County Planning Department
4080 Lemon Street
9th Floor
Riverside, Califbrnia 92501
Attention;
Subject:
Gentlemen:
Mr. Steven A. Kupferman
Response to Comments Regarding Uquefaedon Potential
Parcel Map 19580 (Parcels 1 through I1)
Tentative Parcel Map 23043 (Airport Parcel)
Temecula, California
This letter is in response to comments in your ietter to Schaefer Dixon Associates (SDA)
dated 13 March 1990 with regard tO liquefaction potential at the subject location.
p
, H, Phase 2, Parcel Map 19580
( arce]s 1 - 11) and Tentative Parcel Map 23043 (Airport Parcel), Rancho Q]ifornia,
CA" dated 7 July 1989.
We have reviewed our liquefaction analysis based on historic high groundwater levels.
Our past experience in the project vicinity has indicated groundwater to be within
approximately 10 feet of ground surface. Our investigation had indicated potentially
liquefiable soils were found to be relatively '_bin, discontinuous (isolated), ahd were
typically located at depths of 20 to 40 feet below proposed finish ground surface. They
were interbedded between non-lique~able, fine-grained deposits.
The evaluation of liquefaction potential was based on SPT values and grain size analyses
of samples recovered during our field exploration. The calculations used in the analyses
were based upon procedures (relating cyclic stress ratio to modified SPT blow counts)
developed by Seed et al. (1983). Settlements of the lique~able zone are estimated in
accordance with the method developed by Tokimatsu and Seed (1987). A table summarizing
our liquefaction analyses for an earthquake magnitude of 6.5 is attached.
Ota~ge County LOs A~geel Inli~d Empee
-1-
Riverside County Pl~nnlng Department
March 30, 1990
9R-12080
Associates
S~hnefer Dixon
Our liquefaction analysis indicated that though potentially Hque~able soils were found in
relatively ~ isolated zones ranging from about 20 m 40 feet below proposed grade,
the surface effects of such localized Hquefaction are expeaed to be minimal. Therefore
we believe that Hquefaction mitigation measures for proposed-structures arenot neeessay..
The boring logs, with a Legend to Logs, are also attached.
If you should have any' additional questions, or if we can be of further
do not hesitate to call the undersigned.
Respectfully submitted,
SCHAEFER DIXON ASSOCIATES, INC.
Senior Engineer
Principal
RCE ~13698
m
EY:EJJ:kb\gR12OeO.DOC
Distribution: (4) Addressee
-2-
kov 2-'t
RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY
1825 THIRD 5TR~ · RIVER,~E. CA 92507-3484, BUS. [714) 6840850 FAX (714) 684-10r''',
November 19, 1991
Mr. Matthew Fagan
Temecula Planning Department
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Te~ecula, CA 92590
Re: PP 242
Dear Matthew:
We do not currently provide service to the site mentioned above but
based on the size of the project and our own plans for future
growth, we are requesting that a bus turnout or a pad for a bus
stop be incorporated into the general design.
Ideal location for the bus turnout would be on southeast corner of
If possible, we would also like to request that pedestrian walkways
and wheelchair curb be constructed near the turnout location
specified above. I can indicate the exact location for the turnout
as the project progresses.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
project. Your efforts to keep us updated on the status of this
request will be very much appreciated. Please let us know when
this project will be completed.
Should you require additional inforration or specifications please
don~t hesitate to contact me. '
Transit Planner
BB:jsc
PDEV#130
County of Riverside
TO: CITY 0FTEMECULA
ATTN: Matthew Fagan
M:~~~TINE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
DATE:
Environmental Health Specialist IV
SAN 53 REQUIRENENTS - PARCEL NAP N0. Z6664
11-25291
The Environmental Health Services Division has reviewed
the Parcel Nap No. 26664, for this project and
cannot make any recommendations.until a sanitation
letter is filed,'The requirements for a SAN 53 letter
are as follows=
A satisfactory soils percolation test to
prove the project feasible·
A clearance letter from the appropriate
California Regional Water Quality Control
Board. NOTE: For projects within the
San Diego Water Quality Control Board
sphere of influence, a written clearance
shall be required prior to issuance of
a SAN 53.
3. Two copies of the Parcel Map,
A "will-serve" letter from the
agency/agencies serving potable water.
Should the project be served sanitary sewer services,
this Department would need only:
A "will-serve" letter from the
agency/agencies serving potable
water and sanitary sewers·
2. One copy of the Tentative Parcel Nap.
If the project is to be served water by existing wells,
pumps and water tanks, a water supply permit will be
required (contact the EHSD, Engineering Section at
275-8980). The requirements for a water supply permit
are as follows:
City of Temecula
Page Two
Attn= Matthew Fagan
November 25, 1991
Satisfactory laboratory tests (bacteriological.
organic, inorganic. general physical. and general
mineral) to prove the water potable.
A complete set of plans showing all details of the
proposed and existing water systems: sizes and
types of pipe Lqd calculations showing that
adequate 'quantity and pressure can be maintained
(California Waterworks Standards - California
Health and Safety Code and California
administrative Code, Title 22). These plans must
be signed by a registered civic engineer·
SM:dr
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
S~STAFFRPT'~ee64-2.CC I 9
PLANNING COMMISSION a~u~'~S
AYES: 5 "COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS:
JANUARY 27, 1992
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff,
Hoagland
None
6. PLOT PLAN242/PM 26664
6.1
PrOposal to subdivide 7.1gross acres into three parcels
and construct three industrial buildings totalling
104,577 square feet. Located at the southeast corner of
Rancho Way and Business Park Drive.
MA'x"r~w FA~AN summarized the staff report.
Matthew Fagan advised that Condition No. 61, Page 28 of
the staff report should be deleted and replaced with the
following Condition:
No. 61 - Prior to the issuance of building permits, the
developer shall submit proof of provision for maintenance
and repair of all on-site drainage facilities and
landscaped parkways as directed by the Department of
Public Works. This condition shall be superseded by the
recording of alternate CC&R's with the final map.
CBAIRMANHOAGLANDopened the public hearing at 6:55 P.M.
IDA 2ANCHEZ, Markham & Associates, 41750 Winchester Road,
Temecula, representing the applicant, requested that Plot
Plan Condition No. 16 be modified to delete "Prior to
occupancy". Ms. Sanchez also requested that staff
consider a dimenimous finding for Condition 29 of the
Plot Plan and Condition 22 of the Parcel Map.
JOKNCAVANAUGH indicated that staff would not be willing
to make that finding.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF questioned the wall along the
easterly portion of the property.
IDA SANCHBZ indicated that the applicant was conditioned
to put that wall in by the County.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF asked that staff include that
condition as well.
COMMISSIONER CHINIAEFF stated that he would like staff to
ensure that the landscaping along Rancho Way looking down
PCMIN01/27/92
-5- oz/2e/92
PLKNNING COMXISSION MINUTES JZ~TUi~Y 27, 1992
the backside of the building be fairly dense.
ROBERT RIGHETTI read the following two paragraphs to be
included on Page 24 after the "Public Works Department":
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 the Public 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.
Mr. Righetti stated that these two paragraphs should also
appear on Page 34, inserted just before the heading
"Prior to recordation of the final map".
COMMISSIONER FAHEY moved to close the public hearing at
7:00 P.M. and Adopt the Negative Declaration for Plot
Plan No. 242 and Parcel Map No. 26664 Amendment No. 2 and
recommend AdoDtion of Resolution 92-(next) approving Plot
Plan No. 242 and Resolution No. 92-(next) approving
Parcel Map No. 26664, Amendment No. 2 based on the
analysis and findings contained in the staff report and
modify the Conditions of Approval by deleting "Prior to
Occupancy", Condition No. 16; continuous block wall on
the easterly side of the property; replace Condition No.
61 as read by staff and add Condition by Public Works
Department, seconded by COMMISSIONER BLAIR.
AYES: 5
COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey, Ford,
Chiniaeff,
Hoagland
NOES: 0
COMMISSIONERS: None
PLOT PLAN 233, REVISED NO. I
Proposal to construct a 1,270 square foot outdoor
playground and patio addition to the southern elevation
of the subject building. Applicant Bernard Karcher/BKL,
Inc.
GARY THORNHILL advised that the applicant was requesting
a continuance to allow time to clarify outstanding issues
between themselves and the owners of the property.
PCMIN01/27/92 -6- 01/28/92
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
S%'STAFt=RP1~6664'2'CC 20
Case No.:
RECOMMENDATION:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
January 27, 1992
Tentative Parcel Map No. 26664 Amd. No. 2, Plot Plan No. 242
Prepared By: Matthew Fagan
Recommend that the Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution 92-_ Recommending that the City Council:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 242 and Parcel
Map No. 26664 Amd. No. 2; and
APPROVE Plot Plan No. 242, and APPROVE Parcel Map No.
26664 Amd. No. 2 based on the Analysis and Findings contained
in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
Coastline Equity, Inc.
.Markham and Associates
Subdivide 7.1 gross acres into three parcels and construct three
industrial buildings totalling 104,577 square feet.
Southeast corner of Rancho Way and Business Park Drive
M-SC (Manufacturing Service Commercial)
PROPOSED ZONING:
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
North: M-SC
South: M-SC
East: M-SC
West: M-SC
Not requested
Vacant
(Manufacturing Service Commercial)
(Manufacturing Service Commercial)
(Manufacturing Service Commercial)
(Manufacturing Service Commercial)
North:
South:
East:
Industrial building
Vacant
Pipe and Supply Building/
Rancho California Water District Office
S%STAFFRFl~28664.TPM
PROJECT STATISTICS
No. of Acres:
Square feet of Building A:
Square feet of Building B:
Square feet of Building C:
Total building area:
Site Coverage:
No. of proposed parcels:
Parking spaces provided:
Parking spaces required:
Landscaped area:
7.1
45,457
32,699
26,421
104,577 square feet
39.4%~
3
251
203
75,332 square feet (28%)
BACKGROUND
Previous applications for the site have been before the Planning Commission. Plot Plan 11604
was approved by the Planning Commission on September 1 O, 1990 for the construction of
a 93,735 square foot industrial park. Tentative Parcel Map No. 26664, a proposal to create
21 parcels on the site of the approVed Plot Plan No. 11604, was scheduled for the Planning
Commission meeting of February 25, 1991.
On February 19, 1991, the applicant submitted a letter to the Planning Department requesting
a continuance "Off-Calendar" in order to prepare a design modification for the map. This
request was granted by the Planning Commission at the February 25th meeting.
On October 31, 1991, a an amended Tentative Parcel Map No. 26664 (Amd. No. 1) and a
new Plot Plan (PP 242) were submitted to the Planning Department. Three Development
Review Committee (DRC) meetings were then held. The first meeting was on November 21,
1991. The application were continued to the December 5 and December 12 meetings. The
second and third meetings were held to discuss amendments to the plans which were
requested by staff. Staffs concerns will be covered in the Analysis section. At the third
meeting, a tentative Planning Commission date for Amendment No. 2 was set. Staff
requested a letter from the applicant to withdraw the :previously approved Plot Plan No.
11604 and on January 2, 1992, the letter was received (reference Attachment No. 6).
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Tentative Parcel Map No. 26664 Amd. No. 2 is an application to subdivide a 7.1 acre parcel
into three (3) industrial lots. Currently, the site is vacant, however uses for the three parcels
will be considered under Plot Plan No. 242.
Plot Plan No. 242 is an application for three buildings which total approximately 104,577
square feet in area. The buildings will be industrial, (predominantly warehouse space) with
approximately ten percent of the space considered to be for office use.
The project is located at the southeastern corner of Rancho Way and Business Park Drive.
Land uses to the South and West are vacant and zoned M-SC (Manufacturing .Service
Commercial). There is an industrial building to the north (across Rancho Way) and to the east
are the Rancho California Water District office and a Pipe and Supply office.
S%STAF:FRPT~.TPM 2
ANALYSIS
Plot Plan 242
Circulation/Traffic
A traffic report was prepared for Rot Plan No. 11604 on August 30, 1990. A subsequent
report was prepared on April 16, 1991 for the current Rot Plan No. 242. The City's
Transportation Engineering Staff reviewed the latest study and requested some clarifications
in terms of wording and requested additional traffic related information pertaining to the
impact from traffic generated by the project at both intersections of Business Park Drive and
Rancho California Road. On December 10, 1991 the additional information was submitted
and staff conducted its review. Staff has determined that the additional information has
clarified all of the items of concern in the original and subsequent reports. Condition of
Approval No. 30 has been incorporated which will mitigate the project's traffic impacts..
Paring and Internal Circulation
Based on 13,000 square feet of office space and 91,577 square feet of warehouse space, the
project will require 203 parking spaces pursuant to Section 18.12 of Ordinance No. 348. The
site plan proposes 251 parking spaces, 7 of which are handicapped. Twelve (12) bicycle
spaces are also provided on the site. Loading spaces are provided for each of the separate
buildings in accordance with Section 18.13 of Ordinance No. 348.
Access to the project site is provided by two driveways, one on Business Park Drive and one
on Rancho Way. Both driveways am 30 feet wide. The internal site circulation plan provides
adequate space for automobiles to comfortably drive through the project and park.
Staff was concerned with potential traffic conflicts existing for the turning radii of 18 wheel
semi-tractor trailers in areas adjacent to loading doors. The applicant provided preliminary
information which indicated that there will be adequate turning radii for the larger trucks
throughout the site. Condition of Approval No. 42 for Plot Plan No. 242, imposed by the
Department of Public Works requires that design criteria for all turning radius movements for
on-site driveways be submitted with improvement plans.
Architectural Compatibility
The proposed exterior elevations are consistent in materials and style with the buildings that
exist within the Rancho California Business Park. In addition, they are compatible with uses
to the east, which are outside of the Business Park and which are primarily industrial. The
concrete tilt-up exteriors will be a medium sandblasted grey tone near the entry to the building
with an off-white shade for the remainder of the building. Metal canopies above the window
in the entry shall be painted one particular color on each of the buildings. The windows shall
be blue tinted glass.
S%STAFFRPT%26864.TPM 3
Landscaping
Currently, landscaping exists on the western and northern perimeter of the site. This
landscaping was required under Tentative Parcel Map No. 19580 for Rancho California
Business Park. A Preliminary Landscape Ran was submitted with Plot Plan No 242. These
plans were reviewed by Staff and found to meet the requirements set forth in Section 18.12
of Ordinance No. 348.
Environmental Concerns
An Initial Study was completed by Staff for Plot Plan No. 242/Tentative Parcel Map No.
26664 Amd. No. 2. Areas in which significant impacts have been identified as possibly
occurring or known to occur are:= earth, animal life, transportation/circulation and public
services. All impacts, or possible impacts have been reduced to a level below significance
through the incorporation of mitigation measures. These mitigation measures are contained
within the Conditions of Approval. The Discussion of Environmental Evaluation (Section III
of the Initial Environmental Study) contains explanations for environmental determinations that
were made in the Initial Study (reference Initial Study).
Tentative Parcel MaD 26664. Amd~ No. 2
Deign
The Tentative Parcel Map is an application to subdivide 7.1 gross acres into three (3) parcels.
Parcel No. I will contain 3.5 gross acres, Parcel No. 2 will contain 1.75 gross acres, and
Parcel No. 3 will contain 1.85 gross acres. The site is currently vacant, however, landscaping
has been placed on the northern and western perimeters. Section 11.4 (a) of Ordinance No.
348 establishes a minimum lot size criteria for the Manufacturing Service Commercial (M-SC)
zone of 10,000 square feet, except that a lot size not less than 7,500 square feet may be
permitted when sewers are available and will be utilized for the development. The proposed
tentative parcel map is well in excess of the minimum lot size criteria.
Adequate access exists for all three (3) parcels in question, both from Rancho Way and
Business Park Drive. Reciprocal access agreements between Parcels No. 1,2, and 3 will also
be recorded under the project's CC&R's as Condition of Approval No. 61 for Plot Plan No. 242
and Condition of Approval No. 28 for Tentative Parcel Map No. 26664 Amd. No. 2.
Drainage
Proposed drainage for the site will fliow predominantly from the western portion (front of site)
to the eastern portion (rear of site). An existing trapezoidal channel will be removed and
replaced by a reinforced concrete pipe. Staff raised concerns as to the proper sizing of the
pipe which would adequately service the runoff from the site in addition to drainage from
adjacent sites to the south. Staff was also concerned with how the drainage from the pipe
would tie into the existing drainage facilities to the north of the site. The applicant supplied
S\STAFFRFT%26664.TPM 4
preliminary calculations for the ameunt of runoff capacity that could be handled by the pipe
and for the amount of flow which would occur at the interface between the new pipe and the
existing drainage facilities to the north. Public Works Condition of Approval No. 41 for
Tentative Parcel Map No. 26664 Arnd. No. 2 states that complete drainage calculations shall
be submitted to and approved by the Department of Public Works. In addition, Conditions of
Approval No. 42 through 46 address drainage requirements from off-site and drainage to other
sites.
ZONING, SWAP, AND FUTURE GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The project as conditioned, conforms with existing Manufacturing Service Commercial (M-SC)
zoning affecting the subject property. Plot Plan No. 242 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 26664
Amd. No. 2, as proposed, are in conformance with the Southwest Area Plan land use
designation of Light Industrial (LI). As such, it is likely that Plot Plan No. 242 and Tentative
Parcel Map No. 26664 Amd. No. 2 will be consistent with the City's General Plan
recommendations for the property.in question, upon the plan's final adoption.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study was completed by Staff for Plot Plan No. 242 and Tentative Parcel Map No.
26664 Amd. No. 2. Staff has determined that pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act, the proposed project could have a significant impact upon the environment.
Mitigation measures, which have been described in the Initial Study have been added to the
Conditions of Approval and will reduce the impacts to a level of less than significant. Staff
recommends that a Negative Declaration be adopted.
In addition, pursuant to the requirements of Assembly Bill 3158 (Chapter 1706) which
authorizes the charging of certain fees for the filing of Negative Declarations which provide
funding for the Department of Fish and Game, the Planning Department Staff has included
Condition No. 29 for Plot Plan No. 242 within the recommended Conditions of Approval.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
Plot Plan No. 242 is a proposal to construct three (3) buildings on 7.1 acres totalling 104,577
square feet. Tentative Parcel Map No. 26664 Amd. No. 2 is a proposal to subdivide 7.1 acres
into three {3) lots on which the proposed buildings shall be located. The project site is on the
southeast corner of Rancho Way and Business Park Drive in the Manufacturing Service
Commercial (M-SC) zone.
Areas of concern to Staff were discussed in the analysis section of this staff report.
Circulation/traffic concerns were analyzed through the provision of traffic studies by the
applicant. Conditions of Approval have been utilized to mitigate any impacts from the project.
Parking and internal circulation concerns were addressed through the Development Review
Committee (DRC) meetings and mitigation measures have been included in the Conditions of
Approval. The architecture of the proposed buildings is compatible with the surrounding
building styles. Landscaping for the site will be in accordance with Ordinance No. 348.
S%STAFFRPT~6664.TPM 5
CC&R's for reciprocal parking for each of the parcels have been included as a Condition of
Approval for Plot Plan No. 242 end Tentative Parcel Map No. 26664 Amd. No. 2. Drainage
concerns were addressed at the Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting level on a
preliminary basis and will be addressed in greater detail prior to issuance of grading permits.
An Initial Study was completed for the project and a Negative Declaration was recommended
due to mitigation measures that were included as Conditions of Approval for the project.
RNDINGS
Tentative Parcel Map No. 26664 Afnd. No. 2
The proposed land division is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan and Ordinance
348. The SWAP designation!is Light Industrial. The parcels meet the minimum lot size
criteria under Ordinance No. 348.
e
The lot design is logical and meets the approval of the City's Planning and Engineering
Departments. The lot design facilitates parking, access, and site design.
The project will not have a significant adverse affect on the environment. A Negative
Declaration is recommended and all impacts will be reduced to insignificant levels
through recommended conditions of approval. An Initial Study was prepared including
mitigation which will alleviate all impacts.
There is a reasonable probability that the project will be consistent with the City's
General Plan once adopted, based on analysis contained in the Staff Report. The
surrounding area currently supports industrial projects, and is identified by SWAP as
Light Industrial.
There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the
future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. If the
proposed use is inconsistent, it will not be detrimental because of the industrial nature
of surrounding uses.
The project as proposed provides adequate provisions for future passive or natural
solar heating or coding opportunities. Two of the three proposed parcels include
sufficient southern exposure.
Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and her.in incorporated by reference. This Staff
Report contains mapping, Conditions of Approval, and an Initial Study which support
the Staff recommendation.
Plot Plan No. 242
There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 242 will be consistent with the
City's future adopted Gensralt Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and
in accordance with State law. Plot Plan No. 242 is a industrial project. The proposed
site is designated as Light Industrial by SWAP.
S%STAFR!:xT~6664'TN 6
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the
future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. If the
proposed use is inconsistent, it will not be detrimental because of the industrial nature
of surrounding uses.
The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. The
proposed use complies with local planning and zoning laws which are prepared in
corrformance with State planning and zoning laws.
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and
shape of the'lot configuration, ckculation patterns, access, and intensity of use. The
proposed plot plan and tentative parcel map ere in conformance with Ordinance 348
and Ordinance 460 respectively.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or
welfare. Potential impacts are mitigated to a level of non-significance under the Initial
Study and Conditions of Approval.
The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk,
height, intensity, and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with
adjoining properties, through appropriate building mass reduction techniques and
landscape installation, and distance from planned adjacent structures.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does
not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area. The
project conforms to the existing M-SC zoning and SWAP Light Industrial designations.
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which 'is open to, and
useable by, vehicular traffiC. The project will take access from Rancho Way and
Business Park Drive.
The design of the project, 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. The project has a adequate circulation
throughout the entire site. CC&R's will be recorded which will ensure access.
Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents
associated with these applications and herein incorporated by reference. This Staff
Report contains mapping, Conditions of Approval, and an Initial Study which support
the Staff recommendation.
$%STAFFRFI'~.e664.TPM 7
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend that the Planning Commission:
ADOPT Resolution 92~ Recommending that the City
Council:
ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Rot Plan No. 242
and Parcel Map No. 26664 Amd. No. 2; and
APPROVE Plot Plan No. 242, and APPROVE Parcel Map
No. 26664 Amd. No. 2 based on the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval.
vgw
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
e
Plot Plan Resolution - page 9
Parcel !Map Resolution - page 15
Conditions of Approval - page 20
Initial Study - page 41
Exhibffis - page 57
Vicinity Map
SWAP Map
Zone Map
· Site Plan - PP 242
Site Plan - PM 26664
Elevations
Withdrawal of Plot Plan No. 11604 letter - page 58
S~TAFFRPT~6664.TPM 6
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PLOT PLAN
RESOLUTION NO. 92-__
S%STAFFRPT%26864.TPM 9
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO, 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLOT PLAN
NO. 242 TO CONSTRUCT THREE INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS
TOTALLING 104,577 SQUARE FEET ON A PARCEL
CONTAINING 7.1 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF RANCHO WAY AND BUSINESS PARK DRIVE AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 921-020-037.
WHEREAS, Coastline Equity, Inc. filed Plot Plan No. 242 in accordance with the
Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has
adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to
said Plot Plan on January 27, 1992, at which time interested persons had opportunity to
testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Rot Plan.
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 30omonth
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 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 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 Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and meet 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 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 Plot Plan No. 242 proposed will be
consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or
which will be studied within a reasonable time.
(2)
There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference
with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is
ultimately inconsistent with the plan.
(3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable
requirements of state law and local ordinances.
Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no plot plan may be approved unless the following
findings can be made:
The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with
all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances.
S~STN=R~'T~2aee4.T.M 11
The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public
health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the
land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the
surrounding property.
The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the proposed Plot Plan, makes
the following findings, to wit:
There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 242 will be consistent with
the City's future adopted General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable
time and in accordance with State law. Plot Plan No. 242 is a industrial
project. The proposed site is designated as Light Industrial by SWAP.
There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with
the future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan. If the proposed. use is inconsistent, it will not be detrimental because of
the industrial nature of surrounding uses.
The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws. The
proposed use complies with local planning and zoning laws which are prepared
in conformence with State planning and zoning laws.
The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size
and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity
of use. The proposed Plot Plan and Tentative Parcel Map are in conformance
with Ordinance 348 and Ordinance 460 respectively.
The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public
health or welfare. Potential impacts are mitigated to a level of non-significance
under the Initial Study and Conditions of Approval.
The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale,
bulk, height, intensity, and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship
with adjoining properties, through appropriate building mass reduction
techniques and landscape installation, and distance from planned adjacent
structures.
The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because
it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of
the area. The project conforms to the existing M-SC zoning and SWAP
designations of Light Industrial.
The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open
to, and us,able by, vehicular traffic. The project will take access from Rancho
Way and Business Park Drive.
S~TAR'W"~ae64.'mM 12
The design of the project, 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. The project has a adequate
circulation throughout the entire site. CC&R's will be recorded which will
ensure 8ccess.
J. Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental
documents. associated with these applications and herein incorporated by
reference. This Staff Report contains mapping, Conditions of Approval, and an
Initial Study which support the Staff recommendation.
As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan proposed conforms to the logical
development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future
development of the surrounding property.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could
have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case
because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to
the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, recommended to the City Council for
approval.
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council
approve Plot Ran No. 242 to construct three industrial buildings totalling 104,577 square feet
located at the southeast corner of Rancho Way and Business Park Drive and known as
Assessor's Parcel No. 921-020-037 subject to the following conditions:
A. Attachment No. 3, attached hereto.
SECTION 4.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day January, 1992.
JOHN E. HOAGLAND
CHAIRMAN
~ S%STAFFltPT~6684.TPM 13
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:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
S~STm',.,~,~'.TN 14
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PARCEL MAP
RESOLUTION NO. 92-_.,
S~STARW'~.~4.W I 5
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PARCEL MAP NO. 26664 AMD.
NO. 2 TO SUBDIVIDE A 7.1 ACRE PARCEL INTO 3 PARCELS AT
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF RANCHO WAY AND BUSINESS
PARK DRIVE.
WHEREAS, Coastline Equity, Inc. filed Parcel Map No. 26664 Amd. No. 2 in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said Parcel Map application was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Parcel 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 Parcel Map;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. findings.
That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings:
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 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.
S~STAFm'T~4.T~ 16
5
(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, (heroinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the
General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now
within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its
General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the
preparation of its General Plan.
The proposed' Parcel 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 approving projects and taking other actions,
including the issuanoe of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the
following:
(1)
There is reasonable probability that Parcel Map No. 26664 Amd. No. 2
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.
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.
S~TAFFRPT~eee4.TPM I 7
Go
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 Planning Commission in recommending approval of the proposed Tentative Parcel
Map, makes the following findings, to wit:
The proposed division is consistent with the Southwest Area Plan and Zoning
Code. The SWAP designation is Light Industrial. The parcels meet the minimum
lot size criteria under Ordinance No. 348.
The lot design is logical end meets the approval of the City's Planning and
Engineering Depertm. enta. The lot design facilitates parking, access, and site
design.
C8
The project will not have a significant adverse affect on the environment. A
Negative Declaration is recommended and all impacts will be reduced to
insignificant levels through recommended conditions of approval. An Initial
Study was prepared including mitigation which will alleviate all impacts.
There is a reasonable probability that the project will be consistent with the
City's General Ran once adopted, based on analysis contained in the Staff
Report. The surrounding area currently supports industrial projects, and is
identified by SWAP as Light Industrial.
Ee
There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with
the future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the
plan. If the proposed !use is inconsistent, it will not be detrimental because of
the industrial nature of surrounding uses.
The project as proposed provides adequate provisions for future passive or
natural solar heating or cooling opportunities. Two of the three (3) proposed
parcels include sufficient southern exposure.
G$
Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental
documents associated with these applications and her.in incorporated by
reference. This Staff Report contains mapping, Conditions of Approval, and an
Initial Study which support the Staff recommendation.
As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Parcel Map proposed is compatible with
the health, safety and welfare of the community.
SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance.
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that the proposed project will not have a
significant impact on the environment, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, is recommended
for approval by the City Council.
S~STAFmm~Be4.TF~ I 8
SECTION 3. Conditions.
That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby approves Parcel Map No. 26664 Amd.
No. 2 for the subdivision of a 7.1 acre parcel into 3 parcels located the southeast corner of
Rancho Way and Business Park Drive subject to the following conditions:
A. Attachment No. 3, attached hereto.
SECTION 4.
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:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
S%STAFFRPT~8664.TPM 19
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
S~TAFFe~ee4.Tm 20
.ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Plot Plan No. 242
Project Description: An application to construct
three (3) buildings totalling 104,577 square feet
Assessor's Parcel No. 921-020-037
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for the construction of three industrial
buildings totalling 104,577 ,square feet.
The permittee shall defend,, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its
agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the City
of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul,
an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative
body concerning Plot Plan No. 242. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the
permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and
will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of
any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the
permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless
the City of Temecula.
This approval shall be used .within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise, it shall
become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction
contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter
diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization
contemplated by this approval. This approval shall expire on .
The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on
Plot Plan No. 242 marked Exhibit "D" or as amended by these conditions.
Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon
adjoining property or public rights-of-way. All street lights and other outdoor lighting
shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety
for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County
Ordinance No. 655.
The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department's Conditions of Approval
which are included herein.
$~STAFFRPl'~e664.TPM 2 1
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Water and sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the
provisions set forth in the Riverside County Health Department's transmittel dated
November 21, 1991 a copy of which is attached.
Fire protection shall be provided in accordance with the appropriate section of
Ordinance No. 546 and the County Fire Warden's transmittal dated January 13, 1992,
a copy of which is attached.:
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Geologist's
transmittal dated March 30, 1990, a copy of which is attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside Transit
Authority transmittel dated November 19, 1991, a copy of which is attached.
Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, three (3) copies of a Parking,
Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of
the plants shall be shown. Plans shall meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 348,
Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee.
All landscaped areas shall '.be planted in accordance with approved landscape,
irrigation, and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An automatic
sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be maintained in a
viable growth condition. Planting within ten (10) feet of an entry or exit driveway shall
not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30) inches. Landscaping along Rancho
Way shall be sufficient to screen the rear portion of the lot from views on Rancho
Way.
A minimum of 203 perking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12,
Riverside County Ordinance No. 348. 203 parking spaces shall be provided as shown
on the Approved Exhibit "D". The parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltic
concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on 4 inches of Class II base.
A minimum of 7 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit
"D" Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a
permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text
or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be
smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the
parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the
parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the
parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a
conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17
inches by 22 inches, clearly end conspicuously stating the following:
"Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or
license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be
towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be
reclaimed at or by telephone
s~sT~r+-w,r~eee4.~pM 22
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a
surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at
least 3 square feet in size.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or
permits from the following agencies:
Planning Department
Public Works Department
Environmental Health
Rancho Water DistriCt
School District
Riverside County Flood Control
Fire Department
Eastern Municipal Water District
A Plot Plan application for a Sign Program shall be submitted and approved by the
Planning Director prior to construction of any sign.
Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit "F" .
Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial conformance
with that shown on Exhibit "F" (Color Elevations).
Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening material shall
be subject to Planning Department approval.
All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits.
Each enclosure shall be six feat in height and shall be made with masonry block and
a steel gate which screens the bins from external view.
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along streets
and within the parking areas.
This project is located within a subsideni~e or liquefaction zone. Prior to issuance of
any building permit by the Department of Buildire and Safety, a California Licensed
Soils Engineer or Geologist shall submit a report to the Building and Safety Department
identifying the potential for liquefaction or subsidence. Where hazard of liquefaction
or subsidence is determined to exist, appropriate mitigation measures must be
demonstrated.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with Ordinance No.
663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance which is based on (the gross acreage
of the parcels proposed for development) (the number of single family residential units
on lots which are a minimum of one-half (1/2) gross acre in size). Should Ordinance
No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the
payment of the fees required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee
required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or
resolution.
Twelve Class II bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations as approved by
the Planning Director to facilitate bicycle access to the project area.
S~STAFFmm2eee~.T~ 23
25.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts to be
determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the installation of
plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and adequate
maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the Department of Building
and Safety.
26. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground.
27.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use
allowed by this permit.
28.
The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property
interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall at least 120 days
prior to submittal for building permit, enter into an agreement to complete the
improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the City
acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement shall
provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the
off-site property interests required in connection with the project. Security for a
portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an
appraisal report obtained by the developer, at the developer's cost. The appraiser shall
have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal.
29.
Within forty-eight (48) hours of the approval of the project, the applicant/developer
shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to
the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand, Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars
(~1,275.00), which includes the One Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars
(~1,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code
Section 711.4(d)(2). plus the Twenty-Five Dollar (~25.00) County administrative fee
to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources
Code Section 21152 and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-
eight (48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning
Department the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall
be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
30.
A 6 foot high painted concrete wall located on the eastern portion of the site shall be
a continuous wall whose length shall be that of the eastern property line.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
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 Subdivider has correctly shown on the tentative map all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvements constraints and drainage courses, and
their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
$~$TAFFRPT~6664.TPM 24
PRIOR
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, developer must obtain a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control
Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES permit is granted or the project
is shown to be exempt.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
Rancho California Water District;
Eastern Municipal Water District;
Riverside County Rood Control District;
City of Temecula Fire Bureau;
Planning Department;
Department of Public Works;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise;
General Telephone;
Southern California Edison Company; and
Southern California Gas Company.
The developer shall 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.
The developer shallsubmit 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 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.
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 and approval by the Department of Public
Works.
If grading is to take place between the months of October and April inclusive, erosion
control 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 site improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, shall be
coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects.
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.
S~S~AFr-W'r~ee6~.TPM 25
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
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.
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 shall be prepared by a Registered Civil
Engineer.
Design criteria for all turning radius movements for onsite driveways shall be submitted
with improvement plans.
The developer 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.
Any removal and replacement of improvements, including, but not limited to:
pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, signing, striping, and
other traffic control devices as appropriate.
B. Storm drain facilities,
C. Landscaping (parkway).
D. Sewer and d~rnestic water systems.
E. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines.
A flood mitigation Charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area
Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is
payable to the Rood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area
Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new
charge needs to be paid.
If necessary, the developer shall obtain any necessary letters of approval for offsite
work performed on adjacent ;properties as directed by the Department of Public Works.
Complete drainage calculations 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.
Drainage and flood protection facilities will be required to protect all structures by
diverting sheet runoff to streets, or to a storm drain, as directed by the Department of
Public Works.
Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage
entering the property from adjacent areas.
The site is in an area identified on the flood hazards maps as Flood Zone B. All
structures shall be protected from this hazard.
S~STAFr-,m~B,4.T,M 26
51.
PRIOR
52.
53.
54.
55.
PRIOR
56.
57.
58.
59.
The developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the
subject property.
TO ISSUANCE OF 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 Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing
compaction and site conditions.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering
Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact.
Prior to building permit, the subdivider shall notify the City's C.A.T.V. Franchises of
the intent to develop. Conduit shall be installed to C.A.T.V. Standards prior to
issuance of Certificates of Occupancy.
Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed
upon the proparty or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as
required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. The fee to be paid shall
be in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final
public facility mitigation fee .or district has not been finally established by the date on
which developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the
developer shall execute the .Agreement for payment of Public Facility fee, a copy of
which has been provided to developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement,
developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount
of the bond shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed $10,000. Developer
understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those
now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By
execution of this Agreement, developer will waive any right to protest the provisions
of this Condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee district,
or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this
project; provided that developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness
of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY:
A minimum flowline grade within P.C.C. gutters 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.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards and shall
be shown on the improvement plans in accordance with County Standard 400 and 401
(curb sidewalk).
Improvement plans shall be based upon a centerline profile extending a minimum of
300 feet beyond the project boundaries at a grade and alignment as approved by the
City Engineer.
S\STAFFRPT~e664.TPM 27
60.
61,
62.
All driveway canterline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
Construct all improvements as shown on the approved plans, including but not limited
to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, and all onsite
improvements. /
A d~iareti;R of Covoea,~ta; Co~.dition; and rleatriotiona (CC&R'e) shall bo proparod by
tho dovolopor and submittad to tho _"irootor of Planning, City [nginoor and City
Attarnay. Tho C;_,&rl's shall bo oignod and ooknowlodgod by all partioa having any
rooord titIs intoroot in tho proparty to bo dovolopod, shall mako tho City a party
thorors, and shall bo onfo;oooblo by tho City. Tho CC&rl'o shall bo roviowod and
oppro~d by tho City and rooordod. Tho CC&rt'e shall bo oubjoot to tho following
oonditiorY3:
A. Tho CC&rl'o shall be propsrod at tho dovolopor'o oolo soot and oxponoo.
Tho CC&rl's shall bo in tho fo~m and oontont approvod by tho Dirootor of
Ranning, City Engineor and tho C.,ity Attorney, and shall inoludo ouoh provisions
as ors roquirod by this approval and oa said offioials doom noooooory to protoot
the intorost of tho City and its rooidonto.
Tho CC&rl'o and Artioloa of Inoerporation of tho Proparty Ownor'o Aooooiation
ors oubjoot to tho approval of PlanninE, Doportmont of Pubrio Works, and tho
City Attarnay. A rooordod oopy shall bo providod to tho City.
Tho CC&R'o shall prayida for tho offootivo oatobliohmont, sparation,
monagomont, usa, rapair and mointonanoo of all samman oroo,3, drainago, and
rolotod fooilitioo.
Tho CC&rt'a shall prayida that tho proparty shall bo dovolopod, sporetad and
mointoinod as o9 r, ot to orocto a publio nuioanoo,
Tho CC&R'$ shall provido that if tho proparty ia not mointainod in tho oondition
roquirod by tho CC&rl'o, than tho City, aftor making duo damand and giving
roo,3onablc notjoe, may antor tho proparty and parform, at tho ownor's solo
oxporv3o, any mointononoo roquirod thorson by tho CC&FI's or tho City
ordinonooo. Tho proparty shall bo subjoot to o lion in favor of tho City to ooouro
any ouoh oxponoo not promptly roimbursad.
(1)
All parkways, span arooo, and landsoaping shall bo pormanontly
mointoinod by proForty ownor'o oeoooiotion or othor moons aoooptablo
to tho City. Suoh proof of thi,3 maintonanoo shall bo submittad to
Ranning and: tho Dopartmont ef Pubrio Works prior to io,3uanoo of
building portoits.
S~STAm~n2NN.T~M 28
(2)
Reoiprooal QOOOSO oaoomonts and mointononoo agroomonts on,Juring
QOOCSO tO OIl poroOIs and joint maintonanoo of all rood~, drivos or parking
aroao shall bo providod by CC&R's or by dood~ and ohall bo rooordod
prior to tho ioeuonoo of building pormit whero no map is involvod.
{Delete this condition and replace with the following condition per
Planning Commission meeting of January 27, 1992).
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall submit proof of provision
for maintenance and repair of all on-site drainage facilities and landscaped parkways
as directed by the Department of Public Works. This condition shall be superseded by
the recording of alternate C.C. & R.'s with the final map.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS:
63.
Developer shall execute an. agreement with the City of Temecula to contribute a fair
share portion of the total construction costs for traffic signals at the following
percentages: 1% for the traffic signal at Rancho California Road and Ridge Park Drive;
6% for the traffic signal at Rancho California Road and Vincent Moraga Drive.
64.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the City Engineer for Rancho Way from Diaz Road to Business Park Drive
and shall be included in the street improvement plans.
65.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the
design requirements.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
66.
A construction area traffic control plan sh;~ll be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and approved by the City Engineer for any street closure and detour or other disruption
to traffic circulation as required by the City Engineer.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
67. All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and striping plan.
68.
The development shall provide "stop" controls at the intersection of Rancho Way and
Business Park Drive as directed by the department of Public Works.
69.
Provide limited landscaping in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent
to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance visibility.
$%$TAFFRPT~26664.TPM 29
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Tentative Parcel Map No. 26664 Amd. No. 2
Project Description: Subdivide 7.1 gross acres into three parcels
Asses$or's Parcel No. 921-020-037
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act
and to all the requirements of Ordinance 460, Schedule E, unless modified by the
conditions listed below. A. time extension may be approved in accordance with the
State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the
expiration date.
This conditionally approved tentative map will expire two years after the approval date,
unless extended as provided by Ordinance 460. The expiration date is
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 · City maintained road.
Subdivision phasing, including any proposed common open space area improvement
phasing, if applicable, shall be subject to Planning Department approval· Any proposed
phasing shall provide for adequate vehicular access to all lots in each phase, and shall
substantially conform to the intent and purpose of the subdivision approval.
A copy of the final grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for
review and approval. All on-site cut and fill slopes shall:
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 bland with existing natural contours.
C. Be a part of the downhill lot when within or between individual lots.
All slopes over three (3) feet in height shall be landscaped and irrigated according to
the City Development Code· 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.
S~STAR=W'T~e~6~.T.M 30
10.
11.
12.
The applicant shall comply with the environmental health recommendations outlined
in the County Health Department's transmittal dated November 25, 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 Manufacturing Service Commercial 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.
The developer shall be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of all slopes,
landscaped areas and irrigation systems until such time as those operations are the
responsibilities of other parties as approved by the Planning Director.
Prior to recordation of the final map, an Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall
be prepared in conjunction with the final map to delineate identified environmental
concerns and shall be permanently filed with the office of the City Engineer. A copy
of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.
The approved ECS shall be forwarded with copies of the recorded final map to the
Planning Department and the Department of Building and Safety.
The following note shall be placed on the Environmental Constraints Sheet:
'This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory.
All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute
of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations.
Prior to the issuance of GRADING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied:
Prior to the issuance of grading permits detailed common open space area
landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Department
approval for the phase of development in process. The plans shall be certified
by a landscape architect, and shall provide for the following:
(1) Permanent automatic irrigation systems shall be installed on all
landscaped areas requiring irrigation.
(2)
Landscape screening where required shall be designed to be opaque up
to a minimum height of six (6) feet at maturity.
(3)
All utility service areas and enclosures shall be screened from view with
landscaping and decorative barriers or baffle treatments, as approved by
the Planning Director. Utilities shall be placed underground.
(4)
Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen accent trees at
key visual focal points within the project.
S~STAmVm2~.TPM 3 1
13.
(5)
Landscaping plans shall incorporate native and drought tolerant plants
where appropriate.
(6)
All existing specimen trees and significant rock outcroppings on the
subject property shall be shown on the project's grading plans and shall
note those to be removed, relocated and/or retained.
(7)
All trees shall be minimum double staked. Weaker and/or slow growing
trees shall be steel staked.
(8)
If the project is to be phased, prior to the approval of grading permits,
an overall conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Director for approval. The plan shall be used as a guideline for
subsequent detailed grading plans for individual phases of development
and shall include the following:
(A) Techniques which will be utilized to prevent erosion and
sedimentation during and after the grading process.
(B)
Approximate time frames for grading and identification of areas
which may be graded during the higher probability rain months
of January through March.
(C) Preliminary pad and roadway elevations.
(D) Areas of temporary grading outside of a particular phase.
(9)
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer shall provide
evidence to the Director of Building and Safety that all adjacent off-site
manufactured slopes have recorded slope easements and that slope
maintenance responsibilities have been assigned as approved by the
Director of Building and Safety.
(10)
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.
Prior to the issuance of BUILDING PERMITS the following conditions shall be satisfied:
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.
S\STAFFRFl'~e664.TPM 32
14.
Prior to the issuance of OCCUPANCY PERMITS the following conditions shall be
satisfied:
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved
plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. If seasonal conditions do not
permit planting, interim landscaping and erosion control measures shall be
utilized as approved by the Planning Director and the Director of Building and
Safety.
Be
All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed in accordance with approved
plans-and shall be verified by City field inspection.
15.
The subdivider shell 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 Parcel Map No. 26664 Amd. 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 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.
16.
The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property
interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the developer shall at least 120 days
prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter into an agreement to complete
the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at such time as the
City acquires the property interests required for the improvements. Such agreement
shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire
the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of
a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in
an appraisal report obtained by the developer, at the developer's cost. The appraiser
shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal.
17.
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.
18. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground.
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions/Reciprocal Access Easements:
19.
The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be reviewed and approved
by the Planning Department prior to final approval of the tract maps. The CC&R's shall
include liability insurance and methods of maintaining the open space, recreation areas,
parking areas, private roads, and exterior of all buildings.
$~STAF:FRFT~6884.,TI~ 33
20.
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.
21.
Maintenance for all landscaped and open areas, including parkways, shall be provided
for in the CC&R's.
22.
Within forty-eight (48) hours of the approval of the project, the applicant/developer
shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to
the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand, Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars
(,~1,275.00), which includes the One Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars
($1,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code
Section 711.4(d)(2) plus the Twenty-Five Dollar (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 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).
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
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 Subdivider:has correctly shown on the tentative map all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvements constraints and drainage courses, and
their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
23.
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.
24.
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;
S%STAFFRIrI~ee64*TPM 34
25.
26.
27.
28.
Riverside County Rood Control district;
City of Temecula Rre Bureau;
Planning Department;
Department of Public Works;
Riverside County Health Department;
CATV Franchise;
General Telephone;
Southern California Edison Company; and
Southern California Gas Company.
All road easements and/or street dedications shell 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.
Corner property line cut off shall be required per Riverside County Standard No. 805.
An easement for a joint use; driveway shall be provided prior to approval of the Final
Map or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
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.
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
S~STAF~Fr~eH4.TPM 35
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
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.
(1)
The declaration shall contain language prohibiting further subdivision of
any lots, whether they are lettered lots or numbered lots.
(2)
All parkways, open areas, 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.
(3)
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.
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.
Any removal and replacement of improvements, including, but not limited to:
pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalks, drive approaches, signing, striping, and
other traffic control devices as appropriate.
B. Storm drain facilities.
C. Landscaping (parkway).
D. Sewer and domestic water systems.
E. Undergrounding of proposed utility distribution lines.
All design and improvement concepts of this project shall be coordinated with adjoining
developments.
Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall 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 a written agreement with the City deferring said
payment to the time of issuance of a building permit.
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees or as approved
by the Department of Public Works.
Improvement plans shall be :based upon · 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.
A minimum flowline grade within concrete gutters shall be 0.50 percent.
S~S~A.=.rr~e4.T.M 36
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
Improvement plans par City Standards for the private streets or drives shall be required
for review and approval by the Department of Public Works.
All driveways shall conform to the applicable County of Riverside standards and shall
be shown on the street improvement plans in accordance with County Standard 400
and 401 (curb sidewalk).
All driveways shall be located a minimum of two (2} feet from the side property line.
The subdivider shall 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.
Complete drainage calculations 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."
Drainage and/or flood protection facilities will be required to protect the structures by
diverting sheet runoff to streets, or to a storm drain as directed by the Department of
Public Works.
Adequate provisions shall be made for acceptance and disposal of surface drainage
entering the property from adjacent areas.
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.
The site is in an area identified on the flood hazards maps as Flood Zone B. All
structures shall be protected from this hazard.
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.
s~TAv+~P~eee~.T~ 37
PRIOR
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
PRIOR
55.
56.
57.
TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS:
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, developer must obtain a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control
Board. No grading shall be permitted until a NPDES permit is granted or the project is
shown to be exempt.
Priorto 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.
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 plaoe 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.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area
Drainage Ran 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 end 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
of the security shall be 82.00 per square foot, not to exceed 810,000. Developer
S%STAFFf~aT%2eee4-TlaM 38
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; orovided that developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness
of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY:
58.
Construct all improvements as shown on the approved plans, including but not limited
to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, and all onsite
improvements.
59.
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.
TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING
PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP:
60.
Prior to Recordation of the Final Map or issuance of Building Permit, whichever occurs
first, subdivider shall execute an agreement with the City of Temecula to contribute
a fair share portion of the total construction costs for traffic signals at the following
percentages: 1% for the traffic signal at Rancho California Road and Ridge Park Drive;
6% for the traffic signal at Rancho California Road and Vincent Moraga Drive.
61.
A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the Department of Public Works for Rancho Way from Diaz Road to
Business Park Drive and shall be included with the improvement plans.
62.
Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the
design requirements.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY' ENCROACHMENT PERMITS:
63.
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 requited by the Department of Public Works.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS:
64. All signing and striping shall be installed per the approved signing and striping plan.
65.
The subdivider shell provide "stop." controls at the intersection of Rancho Way and
Business Park Drive as directed by the Department of Public Works.
s~sTAFr-mm2eee4,ma 39
66.
Provide limited landscaping in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent
to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance.
s~sTAmu-n2eee4.T~ 40
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
FEE CHECKLIST
S~STAI=FI:~6664"'2'CC 2 1
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 242
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 ADoroval
Condition No. 23
Condition No. N/A
Condition No. 55
Condition No. 63
Condition No. N/A
Condition No. 8
Condition No. 45
Consistent with Specific Plan
Consistent with Future General Plan
N/A
YES
S'%STAF~6864-2.CC 22
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
INITIAL STUDY
s~s~AmeT~eee4-~.cc 23
II
A'i'rACHMENT 4
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent:
2.
Address and Phone
Number of Proponent:
3. Date of Environmental
Assessment:
4. Agency Requiring
Assessment:
5. Name of Proposal,
if applicable:
e
Location of Proposal:
Coastline Eouitv. Incorporated
24564 Hawthorne Blvd.
Torrance. CA 90505 (213) 373-0602
December 24, 1991
CITY OF TEMECULA
Plot Plan No, 242 and Tentative Parcel MaD
26664 Amd. No. 2
South corner of Rancho Wav and Business Park
Drive
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets.)
Earth.
8.
Ce
de
Will the proposal result in:
Unstable earth conditions or in
changes in geologic substructures?
Disruptions, displacements, compac-
tion or overcovering of the soil?
Substantial change in topography
or ground surface relief features?
The destruction, covering or modi-
fication of any unique geologic or
physical features?
Yqi Mavbq No
X
_ X
X
X
S~STAFFRF~26664.TPM
42
ge
Any substantial increase in wind or
water erosion of soils, either on
or off site?
Changes in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a
river or stream or the bed of the
ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
ExposUre of people or property
to geologic hazards such as earth
quakes, landslides, mudslides,
ground! failure, or similar hazards?
Air. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial air emissions or
deterioration of ambient air
quality?
The creation of objectionable
odors?
Alteration of air movement,
moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, whether locally
or regionally?
Water. Will the proposal result in:
ae
Substantial changes in currents, or
the course or direction of water
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?
Yes Maybe No
X
X
X
X
X
_ _ X
X
X
X
S~TAFFmm2He4.TPM 43
Discharge into surface waters, or
in any alteration of surface water
quality, including, but not limited
to, temperature, dissolved oxygen
or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate
of flow or ground waters?
Change in the quantity of ground
waterS, either through direct addi-
tions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as flood-
ing or tidal waves?
Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. 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?
Yes Maybe NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S~STAFFRPT~6664,TPM 44
10.
Animal Life. Will the proposal result
in:
Change in the diversity of species,
or numbers of any species ef animals
(birds, land animals including rep-
tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic
organisms or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any
unique~ rare or endangered species
of animals?
Deterioration to existing fish or
wildlife habitat?
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
Light and Glare. Will the proposal
produce substantial new light or glare?
Land Use. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
am
Substantial increase in the rate of
use of any natural resources?
be
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?
Yes Maybe NO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S~STAFr-,F~e,4.W 45
Yes Maybe NO
11.
12.
13.
14.
be
Possible interference with an emerg-
ency response plan or an emergency
evacuation plan?
Popdmion. Will the proposal alter
the rocation, 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?
Transportalion/Circulation. Will the
proposal resu|t in:
ae
Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
Effects on existing parking facili-
ties, or demand for new parking?
Substantial impact upon existing
transportation systems?
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people
and/or goods?
Alterations to waterborne, rail or
air traffic?
fe
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?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X m
X
S~S~FFem2eee4.~'N 46
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 the 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 No
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S~TAFra'~,~,.T~ 47
19.
20.
21.
Recreation. Will the proposal result in
an impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing recreational opportunities?
Cultural Resource.
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?
de
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.)
YqS Maybe NO
X
.X
X
X
X
X
X
S\STAFFRPT~e664.TPM 48
Yes Maybe N¢
Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but cumu-
latively considerable? (A project's
impact on two or more separate
resources may be relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the environment
is significant.)
Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substan-
tial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
X
s~sTA~Fmm2eee4.n~ 49
III DISCUSSION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Earth
l.a.
1.b.
1,C.
1.d.
1.e.
1.f.
1.g.
Air
2.a,b,c.
No. Construction iS not proposed at depths sufficient to adversely affect
geologic substructures of the site. Similarly significant grading/fill activities are
not proposed - no significant impacts.
Yea. Compaction and overcovering of soil is necessary to implement the
proposal. The relatively nominal scale of this project does not indicate
likelihood of significant impacts on regional topography or soil characteristics.
No. Reference Items 1 .a and 1 .b. The subject site is essentially level at
present. Further, fill activities of significance are not proposed.
No. No unique geol.ogic or topographic features currently exist on the subject
site.
No. Nominal alterations in regional surface erosion patterns can be expected
if this project is eventually realized. Proposed additional on-site structures and
paving will likely reduce erosion at the project site; resulting in additional off-
site drainage discharge volumes. Impacts on regional drainage characteristics
are insignificant as mitigated by project specific drainage conveyances.
(Reference City of Temecula Engineering Department Conditions of Approval.)
No. Construction is not proposed that would logically affect distant beach
sands. Neither should the project produce deposition/erosion potentially
modifying stream channels or lake beds.
Maybe. The area is within a seismic hazard and liquefaction zone. Fault and
seismicity investigation prepared by Schaefer Dixon Associates, Inc. (dated
June 30, 1989) indicates that no faulting was observed within the subject
parcel. Liquefaction analysis performed by Schaefer Dixon Associates (letter
dated March 30, 1990) indicates that potentially liquefiable soils were found in
relatively thin, isolated zones ranging from 20 to 40 feet below proposed grade
and the effects of localized liquefaction are expected to be minimal, and
mitigation measures for the proposed structure are not necessary.
No. Addition of localized air pollutants will result from increased vehicle traffic
accessing the project site with little or no noticeable regional impacts. Short
term increases in localized pollutants and associated noxious odors are likely
during construction activities. Impacts are not considered significant regionally.
s~TAFmm2ee4.n~a 50
Water
3.b.
3.c,
3.d,e.
3.f,g.
3.h.
3.i.
Plato Life
4.a-d.
No. The proposed structure is not located within defined marine or fresh water
flows.
No. Currently permeable ground will be rendered impervious as a result of this
proposal. Consequently, surface runoff and absorption rates on the project site
itself will change. Site drainage shall conform with plans approved by the City
of Temecula. Necessary improvements to effect proper site drainage shall be
as indicated in the attached drainage plans and project conditions of approval.
No significant impacts on drainage patterns are anticipated. Reference also
Item 1 .e.
No. Plans proposed. at this time indicate no potential adverse on or off site
flooding impacts. i Proposed drainage plans and all related necessary
improvements shall be as specified by the City Engineering Department.
No. Increased runc~ff from the project site may nominally increase surface
levels and turbidity of off-site bodies of water with no impacts of significance.
No. Reduced permeation at the project site may eventually affect underlying
groundwater. Impacts of this project individually are considered insignificant.
No. Water consumption rates typical of small industrial projects is proposed.
All water consumption activities are subject to monitoring and allowances
specified by the applicable purveyor. Landscaping and irrigation shall respect
current drought conditions affecting the City as specified in the project
Conditions of. Approval and exhibited by the proposed project landscape and
irrigation plan concepts.
I%1o. Reference Item No. 3.c.
No. The project site is currently landscaped on the perimeter of the site on the
north and west, with Sparse groundcover on the remainder. New plant species
which may be introduced as a result of required site landscaping cannot be
considered invasive because of the referenced lack of significant existing on-
site vegetation. Similarly, no impacts are anticipated on agricultural assets.
S%STAFFRPT~6664.TPM 5 1 ~'~
Animal Life
5,8-c,
Maybe. Minor losses of common urban species, e.g., small lizards, insects,
rodents, and their habitats may result from this project. Numerically and
qualitatively, these losseaare considered environmentally insignificant. Further,
if not previously paid, the applicant is required to submit Stephen's Kangaroo
Rat habitat procurement fees in the amount specified by City ordinance. Such
monies are to be used for purchase of suitabte habitat for the Kangaroo Rat as
it is gradually displaced due to generalized development of the Temecula Valley.
This proposal contributes incrementally to regional displacement of the
Kangaroo Rat.
Nobe
6,8.
Maybe. Minor increases in local ambient noise levels will occur.
No. Subsequent to project implementation and industrial occupancy of the
project site, area-wide noise impacts will be insignificant. Proposed hours of
operation shall conform with normal business hours of operations, generally
considered to be between 7:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. Short term construction
noise levels generated may result in temporary localized disturbances
considered insignificant as adjacent properties are currently vacant.
Light and Glare
Lend Uee
No. While the project could potentially impact night skies, the proposal is
required to comply with applicable City/Palomar Observatory lighting policies
and ordinance(s). These policies and ordinances address potential night-sky
lighting impacts of development proposals that might logically affect activities
of the Mt. Palomar Astronomical Observatory.
No. The project. is consistent with underlying land use ordinances
(Manufacturing Service Commercial) and Southwest Area Plan guidelines
(General Light Industrial) affecting the subject property. No change in Land Use
designations is proposed in conjunction with this project; no anticipated
impacts.
Natural Resources
9 .a,b.
No. The proposal is of limited scale and will not logically deplete substantial
amounts of renewable or non-renewable natural resources.
S~ST AFF.~.~4. TN 5 2
Risk of Upset
lO.a,b.
No. At present, there are only generalized types of uses proposed for the
development. In the event that hazardous substances will be stored on site,
the appropriate agencies will assure that these substances are handled properly.
This will provide assurance that no negative impacts will occur due to accident
or upset. In addition, the proper storage will not interfere with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Pomdation
11.
No. As proposed, the project will ultimately create employment in the area
which may create a rise in population during the day. The increase from this
project will not be significant, due to the actual number of workers employed
in light industrial businesses proposed.
Housing
12.
No. With an increase in employment, there is the possibility of an in the
demand for housing' in the area. The increased need generated from this
project will not be significant, due to the actual number of employees employed
in light industry businesses proposed.
Transaortation/Circulation
13.a,c.
No. Commercial/IndUstrial construction of relatively limited scale is proposed,
generating similarly limited amounts of destination traffic. Traffic generated will
consist primarily of daily commuting employees. Nominal amounts of visitor
traffic can also be expected. Regionally, traffic impacts of this individual
project are determined to be insignificant. Further, the project is required to
contribute monies to area-wide, as well as localized public improvements (e.g.,
signalization mitigation) proportionate to the proposal's anticipated impacts as
determined by the City Public Works Department.
13.b.
Yes. In compliance with City ordinance and project specific requirements,the
project provides a total of 255 additional off-street, improved parking spaces
as referenced in the proposal's Conditions of Approval (attached), and as
indicated on Staff Report Exhibit D.
13.d.
No. The project will attract additional destination traffic, primarily employees
and service vehicles, to the subject site upon its implementation. Impacts on
regional circulation patterns are expected to be insignificant given the
proposal's limited scale. Reference also Item 13.a.
13.e.
No. The project is not in a location which will logically affect waterborne, rail
or air traffic, nor does it propose addition or deletion of such facilities.
S%STAFFFFF~ee64.TPM 53
13.f.
Maybe. Increases in traffic generated by this proposal may consequently
increase the possibility of traffic accidents. Impacts are likely to be
unnoticeable in view of the proposal's limited scope and proposed infrastructure
improvements supporting the project.
Public Services
14.a-c.
Maybe. New industrial development may generate at least nominal increased
demands for police and fire protection services, utility provisions and, indirectly,
schools. Mitigation is realized through project-specific building permit fees,
assessment districts, property taxes, and similar funding mechanisms.
14.d.
Maybe. Construction is not proposed which will directly impact schools or
parks. However, the applicant is required by state law to contribute applicable
school fees as partial mitigation for secondary impacts on school systems
resulting from the Industrial development proposed.
14.e.
Yes. Construction of new roads and associated increases in road maintenance
activities in the immediate vicinity of the proposal will be required due to
proportionate increases in traffic generated locally. Mitigation of such impacts
are as specified by the City Public Works Department in the project's
Conditions of Approval, attached.
14.f.
No. Impacts on other governmental services have not been identified at this
time.
Enerav
15.a,b.
No. Reference Item Nos. 9.a. and b.
Utilities
16.a-f.
No. Service line extensions and increased demands can be expected for the
utilities referenced. The facility itself supports regional water acquisition and
distribution activities. No significant impacts are anticipated.
Human Health
17.a,b.
No. The project does not include introduction of potential health hazards of
significance to the region; nor are there existing identified health hazards at the
project site. Potential hazards associated with use and storage of toxic
materials on the subject site could be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
S~STAFF~n2eee4,TPM 54
Aesthetics
18.
No. The application has been reviewed for architectural quality and
compatibility by the City, and is considered appropriate in the context of
existing and proposed development in its vicinity.
Recreation
19.
No. Additional recreational abets are not proposed, nor are they to be deleted
in conjunction with this project; direct impacts on recreational facilities are not
anticipated.
Cultural Resources
20.a.
No. Construction is not proposed that will logically affect known
archaeological, religious or cultural assets; no identified impacts.
20.b.
No. The proposal is not within an identified historic preservation/conservation
district. As such, impacts on the existing character of historic assets in the
region are unlikely.
21 .a,b,
c,d.
No. Reference Item Nos. 1-20.
S%STAFFRPT~6ee4.TPM 55 ~
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 I~roject could have a signi-
ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi-
ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures
described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval
have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on
the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required.
Date
For CITY OF TEMECULA
X
S%STAF:FF~6664.TPM 56
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
WITHDRAWL OF PLOT PLAN NO. 11604 LETTER
S~STAFFRP~6664-2.CC 24
Development Consultants
"Matthew Fagan
City of Temecula Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Re:
PP 11604
Our No: Mayer 489
Dear Mr. Fagan,
On behalf of the applicant, I am requesting withdrawal of Plot Plan
11604. The property owner decided to revise the site plan and the
.~pplication submitted on October 31, f991, Plot Plan 242~.will
supersede the prior plot plan approval.
Sincerely,
Ida M. Sanchez ~""
Project Manager
41750 Winchester Road, Suite N · Temecula, California 92590 · (714) 676-6672 · FAX (714) 699-1848
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
EXHIBITS
S%STAFIq~6664-2.CC 25
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: A
".C. DATE:
Tentative Parcel Map No. 26664 Amd. No. 2, Plot Plan No. 242
VICINITY MAP
January 27, 1992
CITY OF TEMECULA
./
RL!
RAN
/ _o
/
/
\ ,o /
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: B
P.C. DATE:
Tentative Parcel Map No. 26664 Amd. No. 2, Rot Ran No. 242
SWAP MAP
January 27, 1992
CITY' OF TEMECULA
,/ :
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: C
P.C. DATE:
Tentative Parcel Map No. 26664 Amd. No. 2, Plot Plan No. 242
ZONING MAP
January 27, 1992
CITY: OF TEMECULA
/
/
t
/
i
! ' ,,.-- I -
*" BUILDING & BUILt ING e BUILDING
' "" "'""=~ -" --
"'1
...........
/ \ .............
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: D
P.C. DATE:
Plot Plan No. 242
January 27, 1992
SITE PLAN
S~r-ORM~iXHIIT1
CITY !OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.:
EXHIBIT: E
P.C. DATE:
Tentative Parcel Map No. 26664 Amd. No. 2
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
January 27, 1992
S%FORMI~EXHIBIT1
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: Tentative Percei Map No. 26664 Amd. No. 2, Plot Plan No. 242
EXHIBIT: F1 FLOOR PLAN
P.C. DATE: January 27, 1992 Building A
$~RMS~XI~Irl
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO.: Tentative Parcel Map No. 26664 Amd. No. 2, Plot Plan No. 242
EXHIBIT: F2 FLOOR PLAN
P.C. DATE: January 27, 1992 Building B
$~ORM~EXH!IT 1
CITY .OF TEMECULA
i
!
I
;,-.,J=----
k" .~
i
CASE NO.: Tentative Parcel Map No. 26664 Amd. No. 2, Plot Plan No. 242
EXHIBIT: F3 FLOOR PLAN
P.C. DATE:January 27, 1992 Building C
S~-ORMmEXHRIT1
NEfVd SSaNISFI8
VAIl OHONVI:t
.D
.D
-D
E:/:
Z
0
>
/
0
I'-
XldVd SSaNISFI8
A VM OHONVI:I
W
.,I
W
W
W
)ll:lVd SSgNISFI8
~ VA40HONVLt
Id
,r
Z
W
W
W
ITEM NO.
22
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager/City Council
FROM:
Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer
DATE:
February 25, 1992
SUBJECT:
Community Services Funding Request Recommendations
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve or revise the attached
recommendations for the Community Services funding requests.
DISCUSSION: At the meeting of January 28, 1992, Council asked the
Community Services Ad Hoc Committee to review additional requests made by
community groups. Attached are the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee,
which amount to $110,500.
FISCAL IMPACT: The unencumbered balance in the City Council discretionary
account is approximately $112,600 after approval of the mid-year budget.
Current year activity is as follows:
Adopted Budget
Amendment
Public Relations Contract
Miss Temecula
TEAM, Inc.
Balloon & Wine Festival
Temecula Towne Assoc.
Assistance Guild
Returned from Arts Council
$ 300,000
65,800
(200,000)
( 500 )
( 17,000 )
( 25,000 )
( 10,000 )
( 1,366 )
700
$112,634
Attachments:
Community Services Funding Requests Detail
0
0
0
0
0
0
.(
I-
0
I-
0
0
~-w · ~
En.- c o ~.-
o U '~ a.
o m :~ e r.-._u '~
r,J c m .,-, ._o~
o u ~ ~a.
· r''~'' r"0 ,[=0
w w wu _.w~c~
c w "' w ._o _w ~" ® .o
o' E" ~- ~'~ E ~
w w~ E~
0
0
0
0
ITEM NO. 23
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNE~~
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
David F. Dixon, City Manager
DATE:
February 25, 1992
SUBJECT:
Operation and Maintenance of Storm Drain Facilities
Serving Toyota of Temecula
PREPARED BY:
Scott F. Field, City Attorney
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 92-XX
Approving the Cooperative Agreement Between the City
and the Redevelopment Agency Regarding Storm Drain
Facilities for Toyota of Temecula.
DISCUSSION:
Redevelopment Law permits the Redevelopment Agency to pay for the cost of
installation and construction of public facilities to serve projects within the
redevelopment project area· However, pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section
33445, the Redevelopment Agency may only pay for such facilities if the City
Council first finds as follows:
That the buildings, facilities, structures or other improvements are a
benefit to the project area or the immediate neighborhood in which
the project is located.
That no other reasonable means of financing such buildings, facilities,
structures or other improvements, are available to the community.
In this case, the County initiated the auto mall through use of Mello-Roos
financing. However, due to certain legal limitations on the use of Mello-Roos, it
was not possible to use Ynez Corridor Bond financing to provide for the installation
of public facilities at Toyota of Temecula. Accordingly, it is recommended that the
sff~llO7524.zl~t I
Redevelopment Agency be permitted to pay for such facilities pursuant to the
attached Resolution and Agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The cost of maintaining the facilities through June 30, 1992 is included in the
Public Works budget for drainage facilities maintenance.
A'I'I'ACHMENTS:'
Resolution Approv!ng Cooperative Agreement
Cooperative Agreement Between the City and Temecula
Redevelopment Agency
sffX1107524.rpt 2
RESOLUTION NO. 92-
A RESOLLFFION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA REGARDING AUTO MALL PROJECT
WItEREAS, in order to redevelop the Temecula Redevelopment Project Area, it is
necessary to encourage the establishment of an auto mall within the Project Area; and
WHEREAS, Toyota of Temecula, located at 26631 Ynez Road, Temecula, California
("Toyota'), has agreed to locate within the Project Area; and
and
WHEREAS, it is necessary that storm drain facilities be installed to serve Toyota;
WHEREAS, in order to make operation of Toyota financially feasible, it is necessary
that the Agency pay for the cost of said storm drain facilities and that the City agree to
accept and operate said facilities;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS. The City Council hereby finds as follows:
1. That the storm drain facilities are a benefit to the Project Area and the
immediate neighborhood in which Toyota of Temecula is located.
2. That no other reasonable means of financing such storm drain facilities are
available to the community.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby approves the Cooperative Agreement between
the City and the Redevelopment Agency attached hereto as Exhibit A, and authorizes the
Mayor to execute said Agreement on behalf of the City.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
4/Relo~ 240
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of February, 1992.
PATRICIA H. BIDSALL, Mayor
ATTEST:
JUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, HEREBY DO CERTIFY 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:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
COOPERATIV~ AGREEMENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND
THE REDEVELOPMBNT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
REGARDING AUTO MALL PROJECT
THIS AGREEMENT IS MADE as of February 25, 1992, between the
CITY OF TEMECULA, a general law city and a municipal corporation
duly incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of
California (the "City"),.and THE TEMECULAREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a
public body, corporate and politic, duly created, established and
authorized to transact business and exercise its powers under the
Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California (Section
33000 et seu, Health & Safety Code; hereinafter "the Act") (the
"Agency").
In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions
described herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Recitals. This Agreement is made with reference to the
following facts:
a. The purpose of this Agreement is to effectuate
County of Riverside Redevelopment Plan 1-1988, as adopted by the
City of Temecula pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 91-11 and 91-18 (the
"Plan") for the Temecula Redevelopment Project Area (the
"Project") by providing for the location of an auto mall within
the Project.
b. In order to induce Toyota of Temecula to locate
within the auto mall at 26631 Ynez Road, Temecula, California
92390, it iS necessary to redevelop Toyota's site by installing
storm drain facilities (the "Facilities").
c. Pursuant to Section 33445 of the Act, the Agency
may, with the consent of the legislative body of the City, pay
all or part of the value of the land for and the cost of
installation and construction of any public improvement. The
purpose of this Agreement is to authorize the Agency to pay for
the Facilities located within the public right-of-way serving
Toyota of Temecula, and providing further that the City will
maintain and operate the Facilities after they are dedicated to
the City by Toyota of Temecula.
2. Acceptance. City agrees to accept title to and operate
and maintain the Facilities, subject to certification by the City
Engineer that the Facilities have been completed in accordance
with the plans and specifications approved by the City for the
Facilities, and provided that title to the Facilities is free of
all liens and encumbrances not otherwise acceptable to the City
Engineer. In this regard, it is specifically understood and
agreed that City shall not be obligated to accept title to or
operate and maintain the Facilities until satisfactory final
inspection and testing thereof by the City has been completed and
all easements and deed documents have been received by City.
3. Conveyance of Title. City shall cause to be prepared
those deeds or easements by which dedication or transfer of title
to the City of the land or right-of-ways on or over the property
under which the Facilities are constructed will be accomplished.
slT/1107(M~.A(3R -- 2 --
4. Use of The Facilities. Upon conveyance of title of the
Facilities to the City, and acceptance of ownership, the
Facilities shall become and remain the sole and separate property
of the City and shall be operated, maintained and utilized by the
City to serve Toyota of Temecula and other land pursuant to
applicable City rules, regulations, policies and procedures as
they be amended from time to time by the City Council of the
City.
5. Maintenance. Prior to the transfer of ownership of the
Facilities to City, Toyota of Temecula shall remain responsible
for their maintenance. Upon acceptance of the Facilities by
City, City shall be solely responsible for the maintenance
thereof and all rights, duties and obligations of the owner for
said maintenance shall terminate.
6. Exhibits. The following exhibits attached hereto are
incorporated into this Agreement by reference.
Exhibit Description
A Storm drain facilities easement
B Storm drain facilities description
and purchase price
sW/110700~ .AGR -- 3 --
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement
as of the day and year first above written.
CITY OF TEMECULA
By:
PATRICIA BIRDSALL, Mayor
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: By:
JUNE S. GREEK
City Clerk
SCOTT F. FIELD
City Attorney
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
ATTEST:
By:
J. SAL MUNOZ, Chairman
By:
JUNE S. GREEK, Executive Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
SCOTT F. FIELD, General Counsel
sff/110700~ .AOR -- 4 --
'pROTRACTeD
n~- 8S ~. 3W s~c. 1
CERTIFICATE nO[ ACCEPTANCE OF EASERENT
(Goverrmen Code Section 27281)
fi4IS IS TO CERTIFY that the interest in
dated ~-Z~'/~ l from Df.~f
to the CITY OF TERECULA, is hereby
scce~ted for the purpose of vestt~J title
in the City of Temecula ~ be~lf of the
public by the understined m besif of
the City Cmmctl pursuent to
authority c~tatned in County Ofdtnlnce
No. 669. Grantee casefits to recordatton
thereof by its duty authorized officer
Dated: City of Temeculs
Tie D. Serlet
RCE 26738 Exp. 9/30/94
City Engineer
City of Tenecula
m~D~ Ynez Road
THIS INSTRUFENT IS FOR
THE BENEFIT OF THE
C I TY OF TERFCULA NiD
ENTITLED TO BE
RECORDED WITHOUT FEE.
(GOV. C80E 6103)
PROJECT NA~
FOR RECORDERrS USE
EN~\FOR~k
C"P 3076 ,.0.,
RETURN TO:
CITY OF TF-MECULA
~317~ Business Park Dr.
Temecula~ CA 92590
EASEMENT
Atwood and Andrews Development
A California General Partnership
grant(s) to the City of Tamecalm a~ easesent for public road and drainage purlroses, including public utility and
public services purposes, over, upon, actass, and within the real pre~erty in the City of Temeculs, State of
California, described as follows: See Exhibit "A"
.ted: Mg.rc,
c::-':t::;:Keith M. Andrews, Genera) Partn
o. [nrucr,k ':L,q, Iqql
before me, the undersigned. a Notary Public in In for Mid
known Io me
(or g:ravi~ In me on Ibm h-oil Of oeli~iaC~Ory ev,.'.,,.,lr4 Io be
~ of the Darthers of lhe Dartnership that executed the
within instrument and acknowledged to me that such Darlnership
executed the Same.
Signatur ~_ ~
FOR NOTARY SEAL OR STAMP
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
RIGHT-OF-WAy
DEDICATION
THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 4 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 19145, AS SHOWN BY MAP
ON FILE IN BOOK 119, PAGES 36 THROUGH 39, OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS
OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 4, SAID POINT
BEING IN THE WESTERLY LINE OF YNEZ ROAD (44.00 FOOT HALF-WIDTH),
AND CONSIDERING SAID WESTERLY LINE TO BEAR NORTH 10° 13' 17" WEST
PER SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 19145 AND ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN
BEING RELATIVE THERETO;
THENCE: SOUTH 10° 13' 17" EAST, ALONG .SAID WESTERLY LINE, 465.00
FEET TO T}IE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 4;
THENCE: SOUTH 70° 17' 45" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID
PARCEL 4, 23.32 FEET;
THENCE: NORTH 10° 13' 17" WEST, ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND
23.00 FEET MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES WESTERLY OF SAID WESTERLY LINE
OF YNEZ ROAD, 468.84 FEET TO A POINT IN THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID
PARCEL 4;
THENCE: NORTH 79" 46' 43" EAST, ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID ~--
PARCEL 4, 23.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
( CONTAINING AN AREA OF 0 · 24 ACRES ).
SEE EXHIBIT "B" , ATTACHED HERETO AND-BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART
HEREOF.
EXHIBIT B
GRAPHIC SCALE
I lnoh - 80 fL
' =~i':' ~'x,,~:~' '~]]'~/,~
PCL 5 ~ ~,
NBS/ZOWHY
40925 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE SUITE 120 - TEMECULA, CA 925D1
(714) 676-6225 FAX (714) 676-7975
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
David F, Dixon, CIty Manager
Douglas M, Stewart, Deputy City Engineer
June 3, 1991
Acquisition Agreement
In regards to the Acquisition Agreement for storm drain improvements in the Yne2
Road right-of-way installed by Toyota of Temecula. Max Gilliss requested that I
provide you a breakdown of items Included in the final calculation.
OFF-SITE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
Job Document Date
Excavation Kemmis Equipment 8-20-90
Soils Testing Soil Tech 9-18-90
Surveying S&A Surveying 9-30-90
Surveying SF, A Surveying 10-31-90
Storm Drain Pacific West Pipeline 8-8-90
Amount
$ 3,875.00
2,068.75
576.00
1,599.50
31,797.50
ENGINEERING
Jo__~b Invoice #
Prepare Storm Drain Plans
Principal Meeting
Process Storm Drain Plan
Agency Processing
Storm Drain Plans - Corrections
Agency Processing
Complete Cost Estimate
Reimbursibles
Reproduction, Etc.
Reproduction, Etc.
Reproduction, Etc.
R O~0-069-JMB
R 0~0-069-JMB
R 0~0-073-JMB
R O50-073-JMB
R 060-072-JMB
R 060-072-JMB
R 060-o72-JMB
R 060-072-JMB
R 070-070-JMB
R 080-076-JMB
R lO0-062-JMB
Date
M-27-90
7-27-90
5-25-90
5-25-90
6-29-90
6-29-90
6-29-90
6-29-90
?-27-90
8-31-90
8-31-90
Amount
$ 3,362.50
52.50
2,530.00
587.00
~00.00
76.00
60.00
127.00
9~.00
20.00
99,00
Cost of Storm Drain within Street:
Grand Total
$~7,32~.75
DMS: ks
q7.32~.75 1335/335+1563 = 32,288.78
cc: Max Gilliss
~ Serlet
C. TY£NG\AC~,,I ~,
ITEM
NO.
24
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Gary'Thornhill, Director of Planning ~32'
February 25, 1992
French Valley Airport Report
RECOMMENDATION:
The Planning Department Staff recommends that the City
Council: Receive and DiscUss.
BACKGROUND:
This item was continued from the meeting of January 28, 1992 by the City Council.
Subsequent to the last meeting, Staff, on February 18, convened a meeting of the City Airport
Committee. In attendance were Judy Ross of the County Aviation Division, Larry Markham
representing Friends of French Valley Airport, Council Members Peg Moore and Sal Mur~oz,
and two members of the Planning Department.
Carl Christopher of the F.A.A. was invited to attend, but was unable to make the meeting.
Judy Ross discussed the role of the Aviation Division and updated the Committee on the
status of the Airport Land Use Plan.
In addition, the Committee discussed concerns relating to aircraft noise and safety.
Suggestions were put forth to address these concerns and staff will work with the Aviation
Division and Friends of French Valley Airport to set up field visits to measure noise and height
related complaints.
In addition to the above, Staff received a copy of a letter from George Campos representing
the Friends of French Valley Airport requesting a continuance of this item as their organization
will be unable to attend the February 25th Council meeting.
S~STAFFRPT~frenchvd. 225
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER '
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Planning Department
February 25, 1992
Status Report on French Valley Airport
PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDATION:
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
Receive and discuss
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Agenda Report is to provide the City Council with some initial information
concerning the French Valley Airport, the agencies which regulate the airport and surrounding
areas, to identify the role of the City in land use decisions within the Influence Area of the
French Valley Airport, and to address some of the safety issues raised by the City Council at
it's October 8, 1991 meeting.
AIRPORT FACILITIES
The French Valley Airport is a general aviation airport owned and operated by Riverside
County. The airport is located east of Winchester Road north of the City of Temecula.
According to the Aviation Division of the Riverside County Economic Development Agency
(EDA), the existing runway is 4,600 feet long and 75 feet wide with a gross single wheel load
bearing capacity of 30,000 pounds. The airport has lighted runways that enable 24-hour
operation. There is no control tower at the French Valley Airport. Approximately 100 fixed
wing aircraft are currently based at the airport. The runway surface is capable of supporting
aircraft operations for most small private propeller-driven and small business jet aircraft. The
airport facility currently handles approximately 80,000 operations (landings and take-offs) per
year. The operational capacity of the French Valley Airport is approximately 140,000
operations per year.
The French Valley Airport does not have an adopted Master Plan to guide the development
of the airport facility. The EDA is applying to the FAA for a grant to prepare a Master Plan
for the French Valley Airport. The Board of Supervisors approved the grant application on
$~.FRNCHVLY.AIR3~,CC 1
January 7, 1992. The current management program for the French Valley Airport facilities
is contained in the 1985 Site Selection Study and Environmental Impact Report.
According to EDA staff, there are currently no plans to lengthen or expand the runway or
apron areas at the French Valley Airport. However, the Aviation Division of the EDA is
planning to enhance the operation of the facility by upgrading the airport from Visual Flight
Rules (VFR) to basic Instrument Flight Rules (IFR). The County has applied to the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) for the equipment to enhance airport operations.
AIRPORT SAFETY '
The safety concerns expressed by Councilman Mufioz at.the October 8th City Council meeting
were addressed to the Federal Aviation Administration. City Staff contacted the local area
office of the FAA. The Councilman's airport safety concerns were discussed with Mr. Carl
Christopher, the Manager of the Accident Prevention Program. It was the opinion of Mr.
Christopher, that there are no significant safety problems at French Valley Airport. His opinion
is based upon his experience in general aviation and his contacts with the safety counselors
at the French Valley Airport. The safety counselors are local volunteers who monitor flight
operations and safety at the airport. Although the Federal Aviation Administration
representative believes that there are no significant safety hazards at the airport, the City
Airport Committee will meet with the FAA, the Friends of French Valley Airport, and airport
safety experts to identify what they perceive to be potential safety problems around the
French Valley Airport. The solutions to these problems will be forwarded to the appropriate
regulatory agencies for consideration.
AIRPORT MANAGEMENT
In addition to the local governments that are responsible for the planning and zoning for the
airport and surrounding areas; four government agencies have some form of legal jurisdiction
over the airport facility and areas of influence. The Federal Aviation Administration is
concerned with the flight safety and manages the airspace over the airport. The Division of
Aeronautics of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) issues operating
permits, conducts airport facility inspections, provides technical assistance to county airport
operation agencies, and reviews airport land use plans for consistency with State Law. The
Aviation Division of Riverside County's Economic Development Agency (EDA) provides staff
support to both the Riverside County Aviation Commission and Airport Land Use
Ccommission, and is responsible for the operation, maintenance, lease management, and
improvements to the County-owned and -operated airports in Riverside County.
The Riverside County Aviation Commission (RCAC) is an advisory body to the Board of
Supervisors. The five member Commission reviews acti,ons affecting the operation of the six
County-owned and operated airport facilities and makes recommendations before the Aviation
Division staff submits matters to the County Board of Supervisors. Each Supervisor appoints
one member to serve on the Aviation Commission from there respective districts. The five
members of the RCAC are: William Harker (1 st District), Peggy Zopf (2nd District), Ron Karge
(3rd District), Frank Wilson (4th District), and Colonel Ed Butler (5th District).
S~-FliCHVLYjeklR3%CC 2
The Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) has seven members and is
responsible for land use planning around all thirteen airports in Riverside County. Five
members represent the Riverside County Board of Supervisors and two members represent
Riverside County Cities. The five County representatives are the members of the RCAC. The
two City representatives are Gillar Boyd (Palm Springs) and John Wingate (Riverside). Both
were appointed in 1982 by the City Selection Committee. The City Selection Committee is
composed of all the Mayors for all the Cities in Riverside County. According to EDA staff,
recent changes in State Law concerning the terms of office for the members of the Airport
Land Use Commission, will require that the current City representatives on the ALUC be
reappointed or replaced by the City Selection Committee. The City of Temecula is a member
of the City Selection Committee and will be involved in this process.
The Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission operates pursuant to the provisions of the
State Aeronautics Act, Sections 21670 through 21679 of the Public Utilities Code. According
to Section 21670, the purpose of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) is to protect the
public health, safety and welfare, ensure the continued orderly use and development of
airports in California, and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems. Section
21675, requires that a Comprehensive Land Use Plan be prepared for ell commercial and
general aviation airports to ensure the orderly growth and expansion of these airports and to
address the unique land use, noise, and public safety concerns associated with airports.
According to the provisions of Section 21675.1, county airport land use commissions must
adopt a CLUP for all airports in the county by June 30, 1992.
At present time, the ALUC regulates the area of influence of the French Valley Airport under
the 1984 Riverside County Airport Land Use Plan. The ALUC amended the interim airport
influence area in September, 1989, to include all areas within 2 miles of the airport. The
previous influence area had included all areas within 1 mile of the airport. Exhibit I shows
the present Interim Area of Influence for the French Valley Airport. The current influence area
is also the Study Area for the CLUP.
Until the Comprehensive Land Use Plan is adopted by the Airport Land Use Commission, the
Influence Area around the French Valley Airport is managed pursuant to the 1984 Riverside
County Airport Land Use Plan. The Plan established interim policies to direct development
within airport influence areas in Riverside County. The Plan established three specific
influence areas. Area I is the area near the imaginary approach paths into and out of the
facility is the most restrictive management area. Area II is the area around the airport with
potentially significant safety concerns. The entire Area of Influence around the airport is
Influence Area III. Area III is the least restrictive influence area within the influence area of
the French Valley Airport. Exhibit 2 shows the location of interim Influence/Management
Areas I and II at the French Valley Airport.
The current countywide Airport Land Use Plan allows only residential development on lots
larger than 2.5 acres in Area I if the development does not interfere with the approach zones
of the airport runway. in Area II, in addition to the uses allowed in Area I, agricultural,
industrial and commercial uses are also acceptable. In Area III, height limits and avigation
easements are required for all uses, and special sound proofing requirements are required to
reduce interior noise levels in all residential uses.
$~11NCHVLY,A~t3~CC 3
AIRPORT AREA LAND USE PLANNING
As mentioned above, the ALUC is required to prepare a comprehensive land use plan for all
airports in Riverside County. To prepare the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the French
Valley Airport, the ALUC has received a $54,000 grant from Caltrans. The firm of Aries
Consultants has been hired to prepare the Plan. To facilitate the preparation of the CLUP, the
Airport Land Use Commission has created an advisory committee that includes local agencies
and airport users. The French Valley Airport Technical Advisory Committee consists of
representatives of Caltrans, the Cities of Temecula and Murrieta, Riverside County, the Friends
of French Valley Airport, and local property owners. The first meeting was held in Hemet on
November 27, 1991; a representative from the City Planning staff was in attendance at the
meeting. The purpose of this meeting was to introduce the consultant who would be
preparing the CLUP to the French Valley Airport Technical Advisory Committee and to solicit
their issues and concerns. The next meeting has been scheduled for the end of January,
1992.
State Law requires that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the French Valley Airport be
adopted by June 30, 1992. City Staff is concerned about the timing of the master plan for
the airport facility and the comprehensive land use plan for the airport influence area. The
Master Plan for the airport facility should be completed before a comprehensive land use plan
is prepared. This is because the CLUP should be based upon the long-term plans and
assumptions contained in the Master Plan. City Staff is concerned that the future size and
use of the airport facility will be constrained by the planning assumptions used to develop the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the French Valley Airport. According to Aviation Division
staff, the CLUP may be revised after the Master Plan is completed to reflect the changes in
anticipated use and capacity of the airport.
In addition, the City General Plan will also need to carefully consider future land uses around
the airport in order to prevent future noise and safety problems. The General Plan Guidelines
for the State of California require city general plans to address both existing and projected
noise levels from a wide range of noise sources, including roadways, industrial facilities, and
general aviation airports. The City will have the opportunity to address the noise, safety and
land use compatibility issues during the preparation of the City's first General Plan.
THE ROLE OF THE CITY IN AIRPORT AREA LAND USE DECISIONS
According to State law, the adopted airport comprehensive land use plan was intended to take
precedence over a City or County general plan within the airport's area of influence. The
legislature intended that all development and land use proposals within the area of influence
be consistent with the airport land use plan. All land use development entitlements within the
influence area of the airport, must be approved by the Airport Land Use Commission. If a land
use or development proposal is denied by the ALUC, the City or County (whichever has
jurisdiction of the area) may overrule the decision and approve the development.
To overrule a decision of the ALUC, the City or County must, with a 2/3's vote of it's
legislative body make specific findings that the proposed project is consistent with the
legislative intent as defined in Section 21670 of the Public Utilities Code. The action of a City
8~FRNCHVLY.AIR3%CC 4
or County to overrule the decision of the ALUC makes the operator of the airport immune
liability for all damages to property and personal injury that results from the decision to
overrule a project denial by the Airport Land Use Commission (Section 21675.1(f) Public
Utilities Code).
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON INITIAL AGENDA REPORT
Two comment letters were submitted in response to the City's December 10, 1991, Agenda
Report on the Status of the French Valley Airport. One letter was from a property owner near
the airport, and the' other was from the Riverside County's Economic Development Agency.
The letters are attached to the Agenda Report as Exhibits 3 and 4, respectively. The letter
from the EDA contained a number of reiterations and elaborations of information originally
provided to City Staff by the Aviation Division. City Staff circulated a draft of this agenda
report to both of these commentors. Borre Winckel responded in writing on January 2nd,
EDA staff responded by phone on January 3rd. The final agenda report has been corrected
to reflect their specific comments to the draft agenda report.
City Staff has reviewed the EDA's December 17, 1991, letter and has identified a number of
additional concerns and issues. Their additional concerns and issues are as follows:
"The airport's runway, given its length, width, and strength, may accommodate most
small propeller driven aircraft and small business jets under 30,000 pounds. The
existing runway may accommodate some forms of commuter type aircraft meeting the
runway length, width, and strength constraints. The Dash 7's and Dash 8's aircraft
mentioned in your city staff report cannot operate our of French Valley Airport at this
time given that the gross weight of these aircraft exceed the runway's weight
restrictions." (Page 2, Paragraph 4 and Page 3, Paragraph 1)
Response: The statement concerning the potential for commercial air service at French
Valley Airport has been deleted from the agenda report.
City Airport Committee
"We did note that the City formed an Airport Committee. We also noted that the
Riverside County Economic Development Agency/Aviation Division was noticeably
absent from the Committee· It is our opinion that we are the most knowledgeable on
the French Valley Airport, airport operations and requirements, and our absence from
the Committee would not serve the City's best interest. We would be happy to
provide our knowledge to the Committee to ensure the City obtains complete
information." (Page 4, Paragraph 3)
Response: No change to the Agenda Report is needed. It was the intent of City
Airport Committee to invite Aviation Division staff to share their expertise and
information on the French Valley Airport.
"The city staff did a thorough job discussing the Airport Land Use Commission
legislation, role, and preparation of the French Valley Airport Land Use Plan. The costs
of the Airport Land Use Plan need clarification. The total cost of the Airport Land Use
$~FRNCHVLY.AIR3~CC 5
Plan is $60,000. The costs are divided into $50,000 consultant fees and $10,000
administrative costs. The source of the funds ~for the Airport Land Use Plan are a
$54,000 grant from the California Aid to Airports Program and a $6,000 local match."
(Page 4, Paragraph 5)
Response: The exact dollar amount has been included in the Agenda Report.
Another letter was sent by Borre Winckel, President of the Dutch Village Property Owners
Association. Mr. Winckel's letter contained a number of specific comments on the City's
Agenda Report. City Staff has reviewed the Mr. Winckel's December 16, 1991, letter and
has identified a number of additional concerns and issues. The additional concerns and issues
are as follows:
"Page 1, Airport Facilities, Paragraph 1: The count of 80,000 operations (actually
78,000) is an estimate based upon one week acoustical count by Caltrans for 1990
by extrapolation .... "
Response: The comment supports information stated in staff report, and provides
additional information on airport use projections. No change to the Agenda Report is
needed.
"Same Paragraph, Staff Report: The airport is not approved for any commuter or
commercial service. Hence it can not accommodate DASH 7's and DASH 8's with a
current tarmac strength category of 12,500 pounds. Changing tarmac strength will
require new approvals based on new environmental assessments. Currently the airport
may accommodate a limited air taxi service within the general aviation aircraft category
envelope."
Response: The commercial service statement has been deleted from the Agenda
Report. The information on tarmac strength is different than provided by the EDA.
The 12,500 pound runway weight strength limit was used in the Site Selection Study
and EIR. In addition, increasing the weight bearing capacity of an airport will change
the type of aircraft that can fly into and out of that facility.
.3.'
"Page 1, last Paragraph: There is no Riverside County Aviation Commission. There
is a Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The Aviation Department
has applied to the FAA for an instrument approach procedure, which implementation
is fully subject to both the CEQA and NEPA process. Procedurally the problem is that
EIR No. 206 did not sufficiently cover instrument approach procedures which
handicaps meeting the FAA's requirement for an Environmental Assessment update."
Response: According to the EDA, the Riverside County Aviation Commission does
exist, and serves as an advisory board to the Board of Supervisors. No change to
Agenda Report is needed. The issue of the environmental procedures followed by the
Aviation Division is beyond the scope of this agenda report. City Staff will attempt to
determine the correct information.
4. "Page 2, Paragraph 1: The report mentions two Master Plan applications. There is
$1Rl~IVLY.AIR3%CC 6
only one Master Plan application by the Aviation Department. The report fails to point
out that adoption of a Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP) is a requirement by the
State of California, reinforced by SB 255 with an extended deadline date of June 30,
1992. CLUP must use as its data basis the Master Plan and Site Selection Study
information adopted by EIR No. 206 in July 1985. The 'CLUP may not incorporate any
new information .... "
Response: The Agenda Report discussed only one Master Plan for the airport facility.
No change to the Agenda Report is needed. The deadline for completion of the CLUP
has been added to the agenda report. The issue of the information and assumptions
to be used in preparing the CLUP will be reviewed by City Staff.
"Page 2, Airport Management, Paragraph 3: At present time, ALUC denies, conditions
and approves projects on the basis of the expanded Interim Airport Influenced Area.
The Staff Report is in error when it makes mention of the regulating of land uses by
the ALUC under the 1984 Riverside County Land Use Plan. Hence, Exhibit I shows
the expanded Interim Airport Influenced Area as was adopted by the ALUC (only) on
September 21, 1991 ."
"Page 3, Paragraph 3: Same Comment as immediately above."
Response: The word "Airport" was left off of Page 2. The term Airport has been
added onto Page 2. The correct Plan title was found on Page 3 of the Agenda Report.
The Riverside County Airport Land Use Plan was adopted on April 26, 1984 by the
Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission. The County Airport Land Use Plan is
a general countywide policy document intended to bridge the gap between the lack of
airport land use plans in Riverside County and the requirements of State Law.
"Page 3, Paragraph 4: The Staff Report incorrectly describes the three categories of
land use in Interim Airport Influenced Areas I, II, and III. The staff report lists them
backwards.
Response: The interim influence area descriptions used in the December 10, 1991
Agenda Report were double-checked and found to be correct. The information was
taken directly from the 1984 Riverside County Airport Land Use Plan. No change to
the Agenda Report is needed.
Page 3, Paragraph 4 "The proper term for airspace easements is "avigation easements"
not aviation easements .... "
Response: The correct terminology for a flight path easement has been included in the
Agenda Report.
"Page 3, Paragraph 5: The CLUP
representation on it .... "
Advisory Committee also has land
owner
Response: The Agenda Report has been corrected to reflect this fact.
$'tFRNCHVLY.AIR3~CC 7
"Page 3, Paragraph 6: The current plan for French Valley Airport is the same one as
was adopted by the County in EIR No. 206. There are no other valid assumptions for
a different use."
Response: The comment provides an additional information. No change to the Agenda
Report is needed.
10.
"Page 4, The Role of the City Etc., Paragraph 1: Once a CLUP has been adopted,
CLUP will supersede City and County General Plans. However, due to the fact that
Interim AirpOrt Influenced Areas should first be established in consultation and hearing
with involved planning agencies (March 1990 ALUC Rules and Regulations) the
process is assumedly an interactive and mutually agreed to process. Prior to CLUP
adoption, Interim Airport Influenced Areas will not superceede City or County General
Plans."
Response: The comment provides an additional information. No change in the Agenda
Report is needed.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is Staff's recommendation that the City Council pursue the following goals and objectives
relating to the French Valley Airport:
The City Airport Committee should coordinate airport concerns and issues with the
Friends of French Valley Airport, the FAA, the Airport Land Use Commission, and other
airport experts. The Committee should evaluate safety issues around the airport,
determine if feasible solutions are available, and forward any solutions to the
appropriate regulatory agency for consideration. A specific Work Program that
identifies the objectives and activities should be prepared to assist the City Airport
Committee in it's efforts to reduce safety hazards and address local airport concerns.
The City should continue to actively monitor and provide input into the development
of the Airport Land Use Plan for the French Valley Airport.
The City Council contact Supervisor Walt Abraham and request that the City be
allowed to provide input into the selection of any future First District representative to
the Airport Land Use Commission.
The Mayor should be actively involved with the City Selection Committee to improve
local representation on the Airport Land Use Commission.
The City should encourage the City of Murrieta to identify and implement possible
solutions to airport issues and concerns.
The City should incorporate airport related issues into the Land Use, Noise, and Safety
Elements of the City's General Plan.
~*~cRNCHVLY*AIR3%CC 8
Attachments:
Exhibit 1 - Vicinity Map
Exhibit 2 - French Valley Airport Influence Areas
Exhibit 3- December 17, 1991 Letter from the Riverside County
Economic Development Agency
Exhibit 4 - December 16, 1991 Letter form . Borre Winckel
representing Dutch Investors, Inc.
Article entitled: "Mayday, Mayday - No Place to Land", Planning,
November, 1991.
S~=RNCHVLY-AIR3~CC 9
J-
Friends of French Valley Airport
Helping Plan Tornorrow'a Aviation Neede Today
February 3, 1992
Mayor Pat Birdsall
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Board of Direotors
George Campos
Pau/Oewajd
Joe Kuebler
,toting Trytouter
Jed Ho//ey
Marc G~shem
Mary Lou Jeffdes
Jim Kee#ng
Lem/Merkhem
Bob McA~ulle
Alen McDormld
Mike Nlcholt~
Deve Ol=on
Fin Perry
George $evord
Will Sparkmen
RE:, Status Report on French Valley Airport
Dear Mayor Birdsall;
Our organization would like to request that the above referenced issue which was
continued until the council meeting of February 25th, be continued further to the
next counc~ meeting after that date. We are requesting the continuation for us
to have an opportunity to meet with Mr. Gary Thornhill and Counc~ Members
Munoz and Moore to provide additional input on a matter that has just recently
come to light this week. I spoke with Mr. Thornhffi today and briefly discussed the
subject and he will be working to arrange a meeting for us shortly.
We have an additional problem with the February 25th date in that our entire
board is scheduled to appear before a large gathering of Murrieta Hot Springs
residents that same evening on issues concerning French Valley Airport. This is
a meeting which has required a lot of preparation many people and is quite
important to us and the residents and requires all of our board to attend. We are
equally concerned with the above referenced report and would like to have the
opportunity to be present at the meeting in which it is to be presented and
discussed.
We hope this is not a problem for the council and would greatly appreciate your
help and cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions I can be reached
at (714) 676-8418 or comments can be given to Gary for our upcoming meeting.
Sincerely,
cc: Peg Moore, Council Member
Sal Munoz, Council Member
--.Gary Thornhill, Planning Director
27740 Jefferson At, Sd~ 100 · Temecula, CA 92590 * (714) 6768418
DEPARTMENTAL
REPORTS
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY MANAGER L~,~
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Planning Department
February 25, 1992
Monthly Report
PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDATION:
Discussion:
Caseload Activity:
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
Receive and File
The following is a summary of the Planning Department's
caseload and project activity for the month of January:
The department received applications for 12 administrative cases and 4 public
hearing cases. The following is a breakdown of case type for public hearing
items:
* Appeals (2)
* Variance ( 1 )
* Environmental Assessments (1)
Ongoing Projects:
General Plan: The Planning Center is preparing a preferred land use
policy around a modified Village Node urban form concept. The
preferred land use policy will be presented to the Council at its February
25, 1992 joint meeting.
Staff has reviewed the draft Issues Papers and provided comments to
The Planning Center.
WIMBERVG~PLANNING~MTHLYRPT.JAN 1
Old Town Boundary Exoansion: The Council approved a revised
boundary expansion at its February 11, 1992 meeting.
Directional Sign Ordinance: The negotiations with the top-ranked firm
will begin shortly. A Recommendation will be forwarded to the Council
at an upcoming meeting.
Antenna Ordinance: After receiving public testimony at its January 6
meeting, the Planning Commission continued this item to its February
24th-meeting to allow staff to meet with the local amateur radio
operators club and respond to their concerns.
Outdoor Advertising Display Ordinance: This item will be continued to
a commission meeting in March of 1992. The City Attorney's office is
fine tuning the standards contained within the Ordinance.
* Noise Ordinance: City Staff is currently reviewing the draft ordinance.
Old Town Master Plan: The selection committee has been reviewing the
proposals of the top two firms. Staff will enter into negotiations with
the top firm shortly. It is anticipated that a recommendation to the
Council will be forwarded in February.
French Valley Airport: A City airport committee meeting has been
scheduled for February 18, 1992 to discuss airport safety, airport
management and the airport land use plan.
Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan and Environmental Impact
Report: Staff is continuing to review the Specific Plan and EIR. The
final responses to comments on the draft EIR have been submitted and
are currently being reviewed.
Winchester Hills and Campos 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:
Staff is in the final review stage and anticipates taking this Specific Plan
and EIR forward to Public Hearing in the next few months.
vgw
WIMBERVG\PLANNING~vfrHLYRPT.JAN 2 """
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL:
CITY ATTORNEY ~
City Council/City Manager
Anthony Elmo, Chief Building Official--tr-~
February 14, 1992
Building and Safety January Activity Report
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file.
DISCUSSION:
The Building and Safety Department activity for the month of January saw 223
building-related permits issued which represents $2,790,697 in building construction
valuation. Revenue from these permits totaled $28:, 149.00.
Code Enforcement staff has continued its activity with regard to the City's kiosk
program and the Public Nuisance Abatement of the property on Pujol Street. The top
firm has been chosen to administer the City's kiosk sign program with negotiations
beginning very soon. A hearing with the property owner is being scheduled before a
hearing officer for the purpose of obtaining an impartial ruling as to whether the
property is indeed a public nuisance and should be cleaned. Staff is preparing a
Request for Qualifications to establish a list of qualified firms to assiS~ in the
abatement of cases such as this one should the City abate the nuisance.
The following is an update of projects of special note that staff is currently involved
with and/or recently completed:
New Construction
Advanced Cardiovascular Systems
Paradise Chevrolet
General Dynamics
Commerce Bank
Primadonna's Restaurant
95%
100%
100%
100%
100%
v:\wp\agenda.rep\cccm0214 .rpt
" DEPARTHENr OF BUILDING AND ~"?TY
This
Month
Monthly A~tivity Report Yor: JANUARy,
Last Month This Last
Fiscal Fiscal
Year Yr/Date
PLANS CHECKED:
Residential ~10 5
Commercial 7 15
Industrial/W.H. 0 0
Others 2 4
TOTAL: 19 24
PERHITS ISSUED:
BUILDING 81' 82
Value 2,790,697 1,478,363
Fees 19,299 12,814
ELECTRICAL 61 53
Fees 3,329 2,878
PLUMBING 42 46
Fees 3,605 3,163
MECHANICAL 39 22
Fees 1,916 1,019
TOTAL PERHITS: 223 203
TOTAL FEES: 28,149 19,874
THIS MONTHS NO. OF NO/UNITS
PERHITS: PERHITS FISCAL/YR
SINGLE FAMILY .17 94
DUPLEX 0 0
MULTI-FAMILY 0 5
COMMERCIAL 0 14
INDUSTRIAL 0 0
RELOCATE/DEHO 0 5
SWIMMING POOLS 6 52
SIGNS 13 69
OTHER 44 261
ALTER/ADD
TO DWELLING 12 161
TO COMMERCIAL 13 96
TO INDUSTRIAL 0 0
TOTAL: 105 757
BUILDING VALUATION
This Fiscal Year to Date: $29,857,23I
Last Fiscal Year to Date: $40,129,114
37 77
48 114
0 5
21 65
106 261
1992
Last
Calendar
Yr/Date
8
15
4
0
27
This
Calandar
Yr/Date
10
7
0
2
19
667 906 90 81
29,857,231 40,129,114 6,726,942 2,790,696
169,635 202,279 25,866 19,299
438 498 75 61
34,909 44,122 3,230 3,329
320 285 29 42
34,990 26,185 3,553 3,605
228 169 18 39
15,467 11,241 759 1,916
1,653 1,858 212 223
255,001 283,827 33,408 28,149
PLAN CHECK PERHIT TOTAL VALUT~ON
FEES FEES FEES
7,816 15,525 23,340 1,570,917
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
465 1,262 1,727.00 52,100
487 1,002 1,489.00 34,961
1,250 2,788 4,038.00 188,659
2,560.00
899 1,661
3,244 5,911
0 0
14,161 28,149
9,155.00
0.00
42,309
S2,790,696
S6,726,942
This Calendar Year to Date:
Last Calendar Year to Date:
383,939
560,121
0
2,790,697
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Department of Public Works
February 25, 1992
Public Works Monthly Activity Report (January)
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 January for
the Department of Public Works.
IrwOl~qdq~t~92~O225~mosctrpt.jan 02 O~ 92
L~
· 0 0
(J u u
,~~ o o o q ~
~: uiz o " .- ~...~., .,.
u,,,a,, ZS m
' ,"; 6 ,"; 6
¢ ~o o 08 ~. '
:D
~oa-
~' ~ I: ~c}o:~o 6r' w o o66~
,.,o c,O u ~ ~
, (') LO , ,
~ e ~ '.n,:r
j u~ c ~, --' E -- E rJ
f~
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
DAVID F. DIXON
FEBRUARY 25, 1992
DEPARTMENTAL REPORT
PREPARED BY:
SHAWN D. NELSON, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR
DISCUSSION: The City has been working with the Sports Council to
complete the inside improvements in the snack bar portion of the Restroom/Snack Bar
facility at Sports Park. The City has contacted the Over-the-Hill Football Committee,
who supports using funds donated to the City from the Patriot Bowl to install an
electric water heater, cabinets, sink, and shelves in the snack bar. The Sports Council
will provide the equipment to operate the snack bar facility i.e., refrigerator, ice
machine, microwave, etc. The City is also working with Building and Safety and the
County Health Department to ensure code compliance. The snack bar facility will be
operated by volunteers from the various organizations and a percentage of the net
profits will be paid to the City to reimburse for utility usage.
The Teen Council has elected officers to serve through September, 1993. The Teen
Council is comprised of fifteen youth from the high schools and middle schools in
Temecula. The Teen Council is actively working on organizing special events;
promoting the center; establishing a teen network; developing a teen newsletter; and
preparing for the grand opening scheduled for mid March. A special trip to Magic
Mountain is also being planned for the end of March. At the time this report was
submitted, the tenant improvements on the Teen Center had not begun. The tenant
improvements are expected to begin the Week of February 17 - 22.
A Project Committee meeting for the Senior Center is scheduled for February 18 to
discuss the various types of programs to be provided in the Center, and how the
design of the facility would best accommodate those programs. The committee has
representatives from the City Council, Parks and Recreation Commission, senior
citizens, and city staff. Dean Davidson of W. Dean Davidson Architects has offered
his services in donating the design portion of project which will include the floor plan,
exterior elevations, and budget estimates.
The deadline for the Request For Qualifications (RFQ) to hire a landscape architect for
the Park Site on Pala Road was February 14. The City will begin the selection process
through a selection committee comprised of City Council, Parks and Recreation
Commissioners, and city staff.
The first draft of Parks and Recreation Master Plan will be distributed to the City
Council in mid March. The master plan will be used to develop an initial bike way
project in the City. The bike way will include the installation of signs and the painting
of bike lanes. The initial bike way will integrate with the overall bike and trail system
for the City.
The first Project Committee meeting for the Community Recreation Center (CRC)
Project was held on January 28. The consensus of the committee was to build a
facility in a cost effective manner that would accommodate a myriad of recreation
programs. The next meeting will focus on specific design issues as they relate to the
recreation programs that will be offered from the CRC. RJM Design Group is also
preparing a preliminary schematic design of the facility for committee review.
Staff has been refining the assessment process for FY 1992-93. A preliminary
presentation will be given to the City Council in March prior to the public hearing
scheduled for late June.
Registrations have been taken for Adult Softball. The City has been meeting with the
Sports Council to develop a master schedule for Sports Park that will accommodate
Little League, Adult Softball, and Club Soccer. The cooperation received from the
various groups' has assisted greatly in completing this schedule.
The City will also offer it first Adult Basketball League, which will be held at Temecula
Valley High School on Sunday afternoons. A total of eight teams will participate, and
league play will begin on March 22.
GLEN J. NEWMAN
FIRE CHIEF
RIVERSmE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
210 WEST SAN JACINT0 AVENUE · PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370
(714) 657-3183
February 13, 1992
To:
Attn:
RE:
Temecula City Council
TemeCula Public Safety Commission
Mr. David Dixon
Temecula City Manger
TEMECULI&FIRE 8BRV'J:CBS
January 1992, Activity Report
The following statistics reflect the monthly fire suppression and
fire prevention activity for the month Of January, 1992.
Station personnel continued with Small Business Fire Safety Program
inspections, completing over 150 for the month of January. January
was exceptionally slow for emergency acitivty with no news worthy
incidents to report. All incidents were generally routine in
nature.
If you have' any questions or concerns relative to your Fire
Protection Services, please contact me, Chief Brodowski or Division
Chief Wright.
Signed,
Robert Martines, Acting Chief
by:
John J. Winder
Battalion Chief
r ec y cled p~N:M,r
T~eaCUla FIRB D~PaRTMENT
MOFE~LY INCIDENT STATISTICS FOa PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION
Month January Year 1992
FIRS COFEROL ACTIVITIES 8TATION #12 8TATION #73
TOTAL
Structure Fires
Vehicle Fires
Vegetation Fires
Other Fires
Medical Aids
False Alarms
Traffic Collisions
Fire Menace Standby
PSA's
Assists and Covers
5 0 5
8 6 14
2 1 3
6 2 8
59 31 90
i 4 5
17 9 26
7 5 12
3 7 l0
19 ~8 37
TOTALS
127 83 210
STATION FIRS PRL~r~NTION STATION #12 STATION #?3 TOTAL
Community Activities
School Programs
Fairs and Displays
Company Inspections
LE-38 Inspections
Fire Investigation
Burning Permits Issued
3 3
40 111 151
87 87
TOTALS
130 111 241
FIRE PREVENTION CAPTAIN ACTIVITIES
TOTAL HOURS
Community Activities - Miscellaneous
School Programs
Fairs and Displays
Company Inspections
LE-38 Dooryard Vegetation Inspections
Fire Cause Investigation
Burning Permits Issued
Training
Administrative Work
2 4
25 60
i 3
B15-1 (12/91)
Date:
Wl,0 I,O
w~_ ~
~.,
0
0
TEMECULA COMMUNITY
SERVICES DISTRICT
AGENDA
ITEM NO.
1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
HELD FEBRUARY 11, 1992
A regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 8:16
PRESENT: 5 DIRECTORS:
PM.
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~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 Lindemans to approve Consent
Calendar Items I and 2.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz,
Parks
NOE'S: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
Minutes
1.1 Approve the minutes of January 28, 1992.
Statement of Revenue and Expenditures for the Six Month ended December 31, 1991
2.1 Receive and file report.
GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT
None given.
CSDMIN\021192 - 1 - 02/18/92
CSD Minutes
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT
None given.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
None given.
DIRECTORS REPORTS
None given.
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Director Moore, seconded by Director Lindemans to adjourn at 8:18 PM.
The motion was unanimously carried.
February 11, 1992
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk/TCSD Secretary
Ronald J. Parks, President
CSDMIN\021192 -2- 02/18~92
TEMECULA
REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
AGENDA
ITEM NO.
1
OF THE TEMECULA ENCY
HELD FEBRUARY 4, 1992
A regular meeting of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 10:31 PM
by President J. Sal Muffoz.
PRESENT: 5
AGENCY MEMBERS:
Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore,
Parks, Mufioz
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 BUSINFSS
1. Discussion of Economic Develooment Incentive Policy
City Manager Dixon presented the staff report, and outlined the need to establish a
policy for the City to provide economic incentives to businesses.
Kirk Wright, 40055 Avenida La Cresta, Murrieta, County Side Realty, representing
California Curves (CCI) spoke in favor of the City making a grant in the amount of
$50,000 to enable CCI to relocate within the City. He stated that with the grant, the
Company has agreed to lease a facility for at least three years with an extension for
another three years. He introduced Ron Dishno of California Curves to answer
questions.
Member Birdsall asked if the problems associated with the Leeds Building, which is
proposed for the relocation, has been solved. Mr. Wright answered they have been
worked out.
Member Lindemans suggested the City renegotiate the RDA Agency pass through
agreements.
Ron Parks asked about the current status of contracts held by the company. Mr.
Dishno stated that the current contract with Sony is for 80,000 cabinets for one year,
however CCI expects to expand over the next couple of years. He stated they would
like to stay in Temecula, because they have a trained work force here.
Member Birdsall asked what the gross payroll is for California Curves. Mr. Dishno
reported the gross payroll is 3.3 million.
4~])~92 -1- 02/10/92
Temecula Red~elopmont Agency Minutes February 4. 1992
Chairman Mufioz questioned why California Curves would consider moving from
Temecula. Mr. Dishno answered that Oregon has offered a package of $300,000 in
grants, with moving assistance. He also stated that San Diego has also offered
enticements.
Chairman Mufioz asked if California Curves would be willing to repay this money at a
later time.
Mr. Dishno Stated that the Company needs assistance in the form of a grant at this
time and he would commit to their staying in the area at least three years.
Chairman Muf~oz asked that criteria be set for requests such as these.
Member Lindemans stated what the Council is now doing will set precedents, and
asked if it is possible to renegotiate some of the RDA pass-through agreements?
City Manager Dixon answered there is always the chance to renegotiate agreements,
however due to the financial problems the County is facing, the City is not likely to
have much success with the County.
City Manager Dixon suggested in terms of establishing criteria, that the City needs to
examine what the short-fall is and what a company's performance has been. He
stated the increase in employment needs to be considered as well as sending out -
signals that the City is not merely interested in attracting new industry, but also
retaining current industry. He stated incentives may be in the form Of loans, and/or
grants. He outlined other options as being programs offered where Community
Colleges set up training programs.
Member Moore stated her reason for selecting City Manager Dixon, was his experience
in evaluating economic issues, and suggested he be authorized to do the screening and
present to the Council suggested incentive programs that would be valuable to the
community.
It was moved by Member Moore to allocate $50,000. City Manager Dixon advised
this item was placed on the agenda for discussion purposes only and no specific action
relative to allocation of funds can be taken.
It was moved by Member Moore, seconded by Member Lindemans to prepare the
necessary documents to approve such a grant and place the matter on the next
agenda. The motion was unanimously carried.
Chairparson Mufioz stated this is an important precedent setting action, and requested
that staff develop criteria for granting such requests. He suggested one of the criteria
should be a commitment to a minimum of a 3-year lease whereby funds granted would
be due and payable to the City if the lease is terminated prior to three years. He
further suggested that the City needs to send a message that it is trying to retain
Temecula Redovdopment Agency Minutes . February 4. 1992
business as well as attract new business, yet be cautious that public funds are not
misused.
Member Parks stated he is supportive especially in economically difficult times when
jobs need to generate jobs.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S RrPORT
None given.
GENERAL COUNSEL'S REPORT
None given.
AGENCY MEMBER~ REPORTS
None given.
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Member Parks, seconded by Member Lindemans to adjourn at 11:09 PM.
The motion was unanimously carried.
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk/Agency Secretary
J. Ssl Mutioz, Chairperson
4~RD~~2 -3- 02/10~92
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
HELD FEBRUARY 11, 1992
A regular meeting of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 11:04 PM.
PRESENT: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore,
Parks, Mu~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.
CONSENT CALENDAR
It was moved by Member Moore, seconded by Member Lindemans to approve Consent
Calendar Items 1 and 2. The motion was unanimously carried.
e
Minutes
1.1 Approve the minutes of January 28, 1992.
Statement of Revenues and Expenditures for the Six Months ended December 31,
1991,
2.1 Receive and file report.
AGENCY BUSINESS
Owner Particioation Agreement Between Temecula Redevelooment Agency and
California Curves. Inc. to Provide for a $50,000 orant for Seismic Retrofitting
Executive Director Dixon presented the staff report.
Member Parks asked if offering this type of assistance to a private company is a
normal procedure for a Redevelopment Agency. General Manager Dixon explained
there are several types of assistance that can be given, such as; lowering the price of
land, assistance in relocation, seismic retrofitting and abatement of toxic problems.
4LRDAMINM)21192 -1- 02/18/92
Temecula Redevelopment Agency Minutes FebrnAl;y 11. 1992
It was moved by Member Lindemans, seconded by Member Perks to extend the
meeting 15 minutes until 11:25 PM. The motion was unanimously carried.
Kirk Wright, 40055 Avenida La Cresta, representing CCI, spoke in favor of the grant.
Robert J. Oder, 29911 Mira Loma Drive, spoke in opposition to the grant.
Robert L. Oder, 29911 Mira Loma Drive, spoke in opposition to the grant.
Mayor Birdsall called a brief recess at 11:23 PM to change the tape. The meeting was
reconvened at 11:24 PM.
President Mur~oz asked for an explanation of the recommendation for a grant based
on Seismic Retrofitting. City Attorney Field stated that Seismic Retrofitring for the
Leeds Building is necessary since it is located on the Willard Fault. He further
explained this building has been vacant for five years and is located in the
Redevelopment Area.
Member Parks stated he is in favor of this grant. since it will provide basic jobs which
in turn generate jobs for other professions such as engineers, attorneys, etc. He also
stated this company will be using an existing facility that has a very low appraised
value and has been vacant for five years.
President Mur~oz asked that criteria be established for this type of grant. Executive
Director Dixon passed out draft criteria and said CCI falls into the 100 or more
employees category. He stated criteria should be based on performance of the
company, jobs and sales tax generated.
It was moved by Member Lindemans, seconded by Member Birdsall to authorize the
Executive Director to execute an Owner PartiCipation Agreement on behalf of the
Redevelopment Agency subject to approval by the General Counsel as to form.
The motion was carried by the following vote:
The motion was carried by the following vote:
AYES:
4 MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks
NOES: I MEMBERS: Mufioz
ABSENT: 0 MEMBERS: None
President Mufioz stated he voted in opposition since criteria is not in place for
evaluating businesses requesting assistance.
4~tl)AMIN~I192 -2- 02/18/92
T~mecula Red~dol~ment A~oncy Minutes
EXFCUTIVI= rqRI:CTOR'S REPORT
None given.
GENERAL COUNSEL'S REPORT
None given.
AGENCY MEMBERS REPORTS
None given.
Febm~ 11. 1992
ADJOURNM;NT
It was moved by Member Moore, seconded by Member Birdsall to adjourn at 11:40 PM to a
meeting on February 25, 1992, at 8:00 PM at the Temecula Community Center.
The motion was unanimously carried.
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk/Agency Secretary
J. Sal Mu~oz, Chairperson
4~RDAMIN%021192 -3- 02/18/92
ITEM
NO.
2
APPROVAL
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA REPORT
Redevelopment Agency Board
David F. Dixon, Executive Director
February 25, 1992
Acquisition Agreement between Redevelopment Agency
and Toyota of Temecula
PREPARED BY:
Scott Field, General Counsel
RECOMMENDATION: That the Agency approve:
Agreement for the Redevelopment Agency to
acquire drainage facilities from Toyota of
Temecula;
2. Cooperative Agreement between Agency and City;
An appropriation of ~32,000 for the acquisition of
storm drain facilities.
DISCUSSION:
As is typical for the development of auto malls, the City is providing incentives for
the development of the Ynez Corridor Auto Mall by paying for public
improvements. Primarily, this will be accomplished through the Ynez Corridor
Mello-Roos District, which will fund the acquisition of various street and storm
drain facilities from Tomond Properties (Jack Raymond). The City will then repay
the debt service on the Mello-Roos bond through the Sales Tax Agreement.
At the time the City Council approved the Sales Tax Agreement for Mello-Roos
District, it was contemplated that Toyota of Temecula would be treated similarly to
sfl~1107064.rpt -1-
Tomond Properties, and that its drainage facilities would be acquired as well.
However, it was later determined by bond counsel that the Mello-Roos could not
acquire Toyota of Temecula's facilities because they were built after the District
had been initiated. Consequently, to be acquired by the District, Toyota's facilities
had to have been built pursuant to public bidding procedures and prevailing wages.
As this was not done, another funding mechanism was necessary.
At this time, the Redevelopment Agency is in the best position to acquire these
facilities. The attached Agreement would provide that the Agency will acquire
approximately ~32,000 worth of drainage facilities from Toyota of Temecula. The
attached Acquisition Agreement would provide for.the purchase of these facilities
by the Agency.
Upon acquisition of the facilities, the Agency will transfer them to the City for
operation and maintenance pursuant to the Cooperative Agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT:
It is necessary to appropriate 932,000 to acquire storm drain facilities.
ATTACHMENTS:
2.
3.
4.
Acquisition Agreement
Letter from Max Gilliss to Toyota, dated 5/9/91
Memo from Engineering to City Manager, dated 6/3/91
Cooperative Agreement between City and Agency.
sffi1107064.rpt -2-
DRAFT:
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONL~
A(~REEMEN:T
This Agreement, made and entered into by and between the
TEMECULAREDEVELOPMENTAGENCY ("Agency") and ATWOODANDANDREWS
DEVELOPMENT, a California partnership, authorized to do business
in the State of California, doing business as Toyota of Temecula
("Owner"):
WITNESSETH:
The parties hereto do agree as follows:
Section 1. Recitals. This Agreement is made and entered
into with respect to the following facts:
(a) The Purpose of this Agreement is to effectuate the
County of Riverside Redevelopment Plan 1-1988, as adopted by the
City of Temecula pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 91-11 and 91-18 (the
"Plan") for the Temecula Redevelopment Project Area (the "Pro-
ject") by providing for the redevelopment of certain property,
hereafter described, located in the Project Area, in accordance
with the Plan.
(b) The Redevelopmerit Plan ("Plan") was approvedbyOrdi-
nance No. 658 of the Board of Supervisors of Riverside County on
July 12, 1988 prior to incorporation of the City of Temecula.
Pursuant to City Ordinance No. 91-11, which became effective May
9, 1992, and City Ordinance No. 91-15, which became effective
April 9, 1991, the City approved the Plan. Said Ordinances had
II~AGR -- 1-
the effect of adopting the Plan and transferring jurisdiction
over said Plan to the Agency, as of July 1, 1991.
The Plan, as approved and adopted by the City Council of the
City of Temecula is incorporated herein by this reference.
(c) The Agency is a public body, corporate and politic,
exercising governmental functions and powers, and organized and
existing under the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of
California (Section 33000, et seq., Health and Safety Code;
hereafter "Act").
The principal office of the Agency is located at 43174
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590.
(d) Redevelopment of the Site will be of direct benefit to
the Project Area because it will create a major retail auto sales
and service facility capable of attracting many customers to the
commercial areas located adjacent to the Site and within the
Project Area. The project proposed by this Agreement will
provide a major retail anchor for the commercial area within the
Project Area and will encourage further retail development within
the Project Area, thereby contributing sales tax and other
revenue to the City and generating employment opportunities.
(e) Completing the redevelopment on the Site pursuant to
this Agreement is in the vital and best interest of the City of
Temecula, California (the "City") and the health, safety, and
welfare of its residents, and in accord with the public purposes
and provisions of applicable state and local laws.
-2-
II073722.AGR
C2/13/92) ~'~,
(f) This Agreement pertains to and affects the ability of
all parties to finance and carry out their statutory purposes and
to accomplish the goals of the Plan and is intended to be a
contract within the meaning of Government Code Section 53511.
(g) The Owner is the owner of certain real property which
is located in the City~ the County of Riverside, the State of
California, located in immediate proximity to 26631 Ynez Road,
which is a public street located in the City (the "Property").
(h) The Owner constructed certain storm drain facilities
("Facilities") in and adjacent to the Property, which will serve
the Property, and other properties in the area. The Facilities
are located on certain real property more particularly described
on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by refer-
ence.
(i) The Agency has heretofore determined that it is neces-
sary to acquire the Facilities in order to effectuate the Plan
and Project.
(j) The parties have determined that the value of the
Facilities is in excess of Thirty Two Thousand, Two Hundred
Seventy-Five Dollars and Fourteen Cents ($32,275.14).
(k) The Owner has indicated a willingness to convey such
Facilities to the Agency, subject to the terms and conditions of
this Agreement.
(1) The City Council of City has heretofore determined that
the public interest, convenience and necessity require the
execution of this Agreement.
x ~0'73"ra2~uR - 3 -
~13/92)
Section 2. Conveyance of Easement. Pursuant to the
provisions of this Agreement, Owner shall convey to City by
appropriate conveyance clear title to the Facilities. The form
of the conveyance, and a description of the Facilities shall be
as is described on Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated
herein by this reference.
Section 3. Tndemn~tV. The parties hereto acknowledge that
there is a possibility that the area where the Facilities were
constructed, may have therein or thereon certain hazardous
materials, as are hereafter defined, emanating from the use by
Owner of the Property. Owner does hereby agree to indemnify
Agency and its respective elected and appointed officers, employ-
ees, agents and assigns ("Indemnified Parties") from and against
all claims, actual damages, including, but not limited to,
special compensatory, consequential and/or punitive damages,
injuries, litigation costs, losses, demands, debts, liens,
interest, fines,charges, penalties, and all other costs and
expenses, including, but not limited to, attorneys' and expert
witness fees, incurred in connection with the defense of the
Indemnified Parties, paid, incurred or suffered by, or asserted
against, the Indemnified Parties, at any time, director or
indirectly arising from or attributable to any and all repair,
cleanup, detoxification, and the preparation and implementation
of, any removal, remedial, response, closure or other plan
concerning any Hazardous Substance, hereafter defined, on, under
HOT~22~OR -4 -
or about the Facilities (hereafter collectively "Costs") a
portion of which will be included in the conveyance of the
Facilities to city by Owner regardless of whether or not such
costs are a result of governmental action. To the fullest extent
permitted by law, the foregoing indemnification.shall apply
regardless of the fault, active or passive negligence, breach of
warranty or contract of or by the Agency. The foregoing indemni-
ty is intended to operate as an agreement pursuant to Section
107(e) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act, "CERCLA", 42 U.S.C. Section 9607(e) and
California Health and Safety Code Section 25364, to insure,
protect, hold harmless and indemnify Agency from any liability
pursuant to such section. This Indemnity shall survive termina-
tion of this Agreement, if such termination occurs following
conveyance of the Facilities to Agency.
For purposes of this Agreement, the term "Hazardous Sub-
stance" means (i) any substance, product, waste or other material
of any nature whatsoever which is or becomes listed, regulated,
or addressed pursuant to the Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 9601,
et seq-; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42. U.S.C.
Section 6901 et seq. ("RCRA") the Toxic Substances Control Act,
15 U.S.C. Sections 1251 et seu.; the california Hazardous Waste
Control Act, Health and Safety Code Sections 25100 et seu.; the
California Hazardous Substance Account Act, Health and Safety
Code Section 25330 et seq.; the california safe Drinking Water
xx~o~ -5-
and Toxic Health Enforcement Act. Health and Safety Code Section
25280 et seu. (Underground Storage of Hazardous Substances); the
California Hazardous Waste Management Act, Health and Safety Code
Sections 25170.1 et Sea.; california Health and Safety Code
Sections 25501 et sea. (Hazardous Materials Release Response
Plans and Inventory); or the Por~er-Cologne Water Quality Control
Act, California Water Code Sections 13000 et sea., all as amend-
ed, (the above-cited California statutes are hereinafter collec-
tive referred to as **the State Toxic Substances Law") or any
other federal, state or local statute, law, ordinance, resolu-
tion, code, rule, regulation, order or decree regulating, relat-
ing to, or imposing liability or standards of conduct concerning,
any hazardous, toxic or dangerous waste, substance or material,
as now or at any time hereafter in effect, (ii) any substance,
product, waste or other material of any nature whatsoever which
may give rise to liability under any of the above statutes or
under any statutory or common law theory based on negligence,
trespass, intentional tort, nuisance or strict liability or under
any reported decisions of a state or federal court, (iii) petro-
leum and its fractions or crude oil other than petroleum and
petroleum products which are contained within regularly operated
motor vehicles, and (iv) asbestos in any form. Nothing contained
in this Agreement shall prevent Owner, in the event that any
toxic materials are found in or upon the Facilities, from seeking
damages from any prior owner thereof, save and except the Agency.
IIO~-~.~.AGR --6 --
(2/13/92) ~
Section 4. Compensation. Agency shall pay to Owner the
sum of Thirty Two Thousand, Two Hundred Seventy-Five Dollars and
Fourteen Cents ($32,275.14).
Section 5. Construction. In all cases, the language of
this Agreement shall be construed according to its fair meeting
and not s~rictly for or against either party.
Section 6. Notices. Notices required to be given
pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement shall be written and
shall be given by personal service upon the party to be notified,
or by the deposit of the same in custody of the United States
Postal Service, or its lawful successor, postage prepaid, ad-
dressed to the party to be notified as follows:
1. Agency: Temecula Redevelopment Agency
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CalifOrnia 92590
Executive Director
Attn:
Owner:
2. Temecula Valkey Toyota
26631 Ynez Road
Temecula, CA 92390
Notices shall be deemed given pursuant to the provisions of this
Section, 6, upon the date of personal service, or three (3)
consecutive calendar days following the deposit of the same in
the custody of the United States Postal Service.
-7-
(2/13/92)
Section 7. Binding Effect. The provisions of this Agree-
ment shall be binding upon the parties hereto and their succes-
sors in interest.
Sect{on 8. Section Headinas. The section headings con-
tained in this Agreement are for convenience and identification
only and shall not be deemed to limit or define the contents of
the sections to which they relate.
Sect.~on 9, No Presumption Re Drafter. The parties acknowl-
edge and agree that the terms and provisions of this Agreement
have been negotiated and discussed between the parties, and this
Agreement reflects their mutual agreement regarding the subject
matter of this Agreement. Because of the nature of such negotia-
tions and discussions, it would be inappropriate to deem any
party to be the drafter of this Agreement, and therefore no
presumption for or against validity or as to any interpretation
hereof, based upon the identity of the drafter shall be applica-
ble in interpreting or enforcing this Agreement.
Section 10. Assistance of Counsel. Each party to this
Agreement warrants to each other party, as follows:
(a) That each party either had the assistance of counsel in
the negotiation for, and preparation of, this Agreement
or could have had such assistance and voluntarily
declined to obtain the same; and
I1O~a~',u.AGR
(2/13/92)
(b) That each party has lawfully executed this Agreement.
Sect-ion 11. Arbitration. The parties hereto do agree
that any dispute arising out of, or pursuant to, the terms of
this Agreement shall be resolved by compulsory binding arbitra-
tion conducted in accordance with the provisions of this Agree-
ment and applicable law. Where such a dispute arises, the
claimant party shall prepare and serve upon the other party, a
list ("List") containing the names of retired Superior Court
Judges, numbered consecutively, who the claimant party believes
are qualified to hear the matter in arbitration. Not more than
three (3) names shall be placed on any such List. The non-
claimant party, within not to exceed ten (10) consecutive calen-
dar days ten (10) days after the service of such List, may strike
one name from such List. Upon the expiration of said ten (10)
day period, whether or not a name has been stricken from the sid
List, the remaining name of the judge on such List with the
lowest number on the List, shall be deemed, for all purposes, to
be the designated arbitrator for resolution of the dispute. All
parties shall comply with all applicable laws relating to
binding and compulsory arbitration, the directions given by the
arbitrator, and the provisions of this Agreement, to the end that
all such issues relating to any such dispute can be expeditiously
fairly resolved. The determinations made by the arbitrator, if
within the scope of the arbitrator's function as such, shall be
-9-
binding and conclusive on all parties and shall be subject to
enforcement in the manner provided by law.
By way of illustration, if the List submitted by the claim-
ant has three (3) names, A, B and C numbered 1, 2 and 3, respec-
tively; and number i is stricken, then B, Number 2, shall be
deemed, for all purposes, to be the selected arbitrator.
Section 12. Severability. Each provision of this Agree-
ment is severable from each other provision, and if any provision
or part thereof is declared invalid, the remaining provision
shall nevertheless remain in full force and effect.
Sect.{on 13. Modification. This Agreement shall not be
modified except by written agreement of the parties.
Section 14. ~.ntire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes
the entire, complete and final expression of the agreement of the
parties.
Section 15. Execution of Documents. The parties agree to
execute all documents necessary to effectuate the provisions of
this Agreement.
Section 16. Effective Date. This Agreement shall be
effective on and after February 25, 1992.
~'
WHEREFORE the parties have caused this Agreement to be
executed by their lawfully designated representatives as follows:
Dated:
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
By:
J. SAL MUNOZ
Chairman
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
JUNE S. GREEK
Executive Secretary
By:
SCOTT F. FIELD
General Counsel
OWNER
By:
DANNY B. ATWOOD
By:
KEITH M. ANDREWS
-11-
1 l~ rzzAGR
82/18~92 15:~S ~ 7147555648 BWS OC
City of Temecula
43172 Business Park Drive -Temecula. Californ/a 92390
May 9, 1991
Rotraid J. Parks
~mc~ H. Birdsall
u.~r Pro Tern Temecula Valley Toyota
26631 Ynez Road
ar~F. Unclemare
~ Temecula, CA 92390
Peg Moore
J. Sal Mureoz
David F. Dixon
(1'! 4} 694..I 989
X (7 141694-1999
RF-.CE:.
MAY 1
eWrke. I;::::~.:.... ;: :: ,~ enses,
Attn: Mr. Keith Andrews, Vice President
Ref: Refund for Developer Expenditures for Mello-Roos 88-22
Facilities
Dear Mr. Andrews:
The total cost of the storm drain construction for your property 15
$47,324.25. You paid that total cost. The storm drain in front of your
properly is 361 feet. The length of .the whole project is 491 feet.
The cost of the storm drain within the street is, therefore, $32,275.14
(68.2% of $47,324.25). This Is the amount that I have recommended
to be refunded to you for that facility in the street.
You will be paid in cash as soon as the bonds have been sold and the
paDer work necessary for diShurSement has been completed; I would
estimate two months, at the most three.
The confirmation of our agreement will come in the form of a letter
from the City Manager or a Resolution from the City Council. Thank
you for your cooperation.
.--~--- _
C. M. "Max" Gilliss
Consultant to the City Manager
TO:
FROM;
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
David F. Dixon, City Manager
Douglas M. Stewart, Deputy City Engineer
June 3, 1991
Acquisition Agreement
In regards to the Acquisition Agreement for storm drain Improvements in the Ynez
Road right-of-way instilled by Toyota of Temecula. Max Gilliss requested that I
provide you a breakdown of items Included in the =final calculation.
OFF-SITE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
Job Document
Date Amount
Excavation Kemmis Equipment 8-20-90
Soils Testing Soil Tech 9-18-90
Surveying SF, A SuPveying 9-30-90
Surveying SF, A Surveying 10-31-90
Storm Drain Pacific West Pipeline 8-8-90
$ 3,875.00
2,068.75
576.00
1,599.50
31,797.50
ENGINEERING
Job Invoice #
Date
Amount
Prepare Storm Drain Plans
Principal Meeting
Process Storm Drain Plan
Agency Processing
Storm Drain Plans - Corrections
Agency Processing
Complete Cost Estimate
Reimbursibles
Reproduction, Etc.
R eproduction, Etc.
Reproduction, Etc.
R OqO-069-JMB
R 0q0-069-JMB
R 050-073-JMB
R 050-073-JiMB
R 060-072-JMB
R 060-072-JMB
R 060-072-JMB
R 060-072-JMB
R 070-070-JMB
R 080-076-JiMB
R lO0-062-J:MB
~-27-90
7-27-90
5-25-90
5-25-90
6-29-90
6-29-90
6-29-90
6-29-90
7-27-90
8-31-90
8-31-90
$ 3,362.50
52.50
2.530.00
587.00
~00.00
76.00
60,00
127.00
9q. O0
20.00
99.00
Grand Total
$q7,32~.75
Cost of Storm Drain within Street:
~7.32q.75 (335/335+1563 = 32,288-78
DMS: ks
cc: Max Gilliss
~ Setlet
C I TY£NG\ACOU ! 5\ k $
COOPEIt~TIV~ AGREENENT BETWEEN
THE CITY OF TEMECUL~ ~
THB RBDEV~LOPI~NT AGENCY OF THB CITY OF TENECUL~
REGI~DIN~ AUTO MALL PROJECT
THIS AGREEMENT IS MADE as of February 25, 1992, between the
CITY OF TEMECULA, a general law city and a municipal corporation
duly incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of
California (the "City"), and THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, a
public body, corporate and politic, duly created, established and
authorized to transact business and exercise its powers under the
Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California (Section
33000 et seq, Health & Safety Code; hereinafter "the Act") (the
"Agency").
In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions
described herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Recitals. This Agreement is made with reference to the
following facts:
a. The purpose of this Agreement is to effectuate
County of Riverside Redevelopment Plan 1-1988, as adopted by the
City of Temecula pursuant to Ordinance Nos. 91-11 and 91-18 (the
"Plan") for the Temecula Redevelopment Project Area (the
"Project") by providing for the location of an auto mall within
the Project.
b. In order to induce Toyota of Temecula to locate
within the auto mall at 26631 Ynez Road, Temecula, California
,~n~OOS.AOa -1-
92390, it iS necessary to redevelop ToyOta's site by installing
storm drain facilities (the "Facilities").
c. Pursuant to Section 33445 of the Act, the Agency
may, with the consent of the legislative body of the City, pay
all or part of the value of the land for and the cost of
installation and construction of any public improvement. The
purpose of this Agreement is to authorize the Agency to pay for
the Facilities located within the public right-of-way serving
Toyota of Temecula, and providing further that the City will
maintain and operate the Facilities after they are dedicated to
the City by Toyota of Temecula.
2. Acceptance. City agrees to accept title to and operate
and maintain the Facilities, subject to certification by the City
Engineer that the Facilities have been completed in accordance
with the plans and specifications approved by the City for the
Facilities, and provided that title to the Facilities is free of
all liens and encumbrances not otherwise acceptable to the City
Engineer. In this regard, it is specifically understood and
agreed that City shall not be obligated to accept title to or
operate and maintain the Facilities until satisfactory final
inspection and testing thereof by the City has been completed and
all easements and deed documents have been received by City.
3. Conveyance of Title. City shall cause to be prepared
those deeds or easements by which dedication or transfer of title
to the City of the land or right-of-ways on or over the property
under which the Facilities are constructed will be accomplished.
sff/II07OOS.AGR -- 2 --
4. Use of The Facil~ties. Upon conveyance of title of the
Facilities to the City, and acceptance of ownership, the
Facilities shall become and remain the sole and separate property
of the City and shall be operated, maintained and utilized by the
City to serve Toyota of Temecula and other land pursuant to
applicable City rules, regulations, policies and procedures as
they be amended from time to time by the City Council of the
City.
5. Maintenance. Prior to the transfer of ownership of the
Facilities to City, Toyota of Temecula shall remain responsible
for their maintenance. Upon acceptance of the Facilities by
City, City shall be solely responsible for the maintenance
thereof and all rights, duties and obligations of the owner for
said maintenance shall terminate.
6. ~xhibits. The following exhibits attached hereto are
incorporated into this Agreement by reference.
Exhibit Description
A Storm drain facilities easement
B Storm drain facilities description
and purchase price
sff/1107(M)8IGR -- 3 --
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement
as of the day and year first above written.
CITY OF TEMECULA
By:
PATRICIA BIRDSALL, Mayor
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By: By:
JUNE S. GREEK
City Clerk
SCOTT F. FIELD
City Attorney
TEMECULA REDEVELDPMENT AGENCY
ATTEST:
By:
J. SAL MUNOZ, Chairman
By:
JUNE S. GREEK, Executive Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
SCOTT F. FIELD, General Counsel
107008 AOR -- 4 --
'pROTRAC"r~JD
naP. 85 e'd(;. 314 SEC. 1
CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTJV4CE OF EASENENT
(Government Code Section 27281)
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the interest in
re ] property granted b the easeant,
a A~Y~ood~'Andre ~
d~ted 3-29-/.~*~/ f~ bW.p,nf Co.
to the CITY OF TEHECULA, is hereby
accepted for the purpose of vesting t~t]e
in the City of T.lma~.la on bellif of the
i~bi tc by the underSigned on beha f of
the City Caunctl pursuant. to the
aut~ority contained in Caunty Ordinance
No. 669. Grantee con~ents to recordat~on
thereof by its duty authorized officer
Dated: City of Temecula
Tim D. Serlet
lICE 2873~ Exp. 913019~
City Engineer
City of Temecu]a
~e~ ~ Ynez
THIS INSTRUREffT IS FOR
THE BENEFIT OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA ~
ENTITLED TO BE
RECORDED WITHOUT FEE.
(GOV. CIX~ 6103)
Road
PROJECT
FOR RECORDER'S USE
ENG\FORH-k
cu~ 30re ,.o.,
RETURN lo:
CITy OF TENECULA
~317~, Business Park Dr.
Temecula, CA 92590
EASEMENT
Atwood and Andrews Development
A California General Partnership
grant(s) to the City of lemecula an easement for public road and drainage purpom, including public utility and
pubTic services purposes, over, upon, across, and within the real property in the City of Temecula, State of
California, described as follows: See Exhibit "A"
c::":;:~;':Keith N. Andrews, General PSrtn
betore me. lhe undersigned, 8 Nolery Public i~ ifi Jot ~id
known Io me
~ Dre%'e~ tn mp qn the hsej8 ef ~usJaClO~ ev,d~,,~,~ to N
~of the DadnetS of the Da~nershiD that ex~ut~ the
within instrumenL and acknowledged to me that such ~dnership
executed the same.
FOR NOTARY SEAL OR STAMP
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAT. D~.SCRIPTTON
RIGHT-OF-WAy
DEDICATION
THAT PORTION OF PARCEL 4 OF' PARCEL MAP NO. 19145, AS SHOWN BY MAP
ON FILE IN BOOK 119, PAGES 36 THROUGH 39, OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS
OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA; DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 4, SAID POINT
BEING IN THE WESTERLY LINE OF YNEZ ROAD (44.00 FOOT HALF-WIDTH),
AND CONSIDERING SAID WESTERLY LINE TO BEAR NORTH 10° 13' 17" WEST
PER SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 19145 AND ALL BEARINGS CONTAINED HEREIN
BEING RELATIVE THERETO;
THENCE: SOIFEH 10° 13' 17" EAST, ALONG .SAID WESTERLY LINE, 465.00
FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID PARCEL 4;
THENCE: SOUTH 70° 17' 45" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID
PARCEL 4, 23.32 FEET;
THENCE: NORTH 10° 13' 17" WEST, ALONG A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND
23.00 FF~ PEIIR~ AT RIGHT ANGLES WESTERLY OF SAID WESTERLY LINE
OF YNEZ ROAD, 468.84 FEET TO A POINT IN THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID
PARCEL 4;
THENCE: NORTH 79 e 46 ' 43" EAST, ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID
PARCEL 4, 23.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
( CONTAINING AN AREA OF 0.24 ACRES ).
SEE EXHIBIT "B" , ATTACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART
HEREOF.
EXHIBIT e
GRAPHIC SCAI,E
I Inoh - 80
40925 COUNTY CENTER DRIVE SUITE 120 - TEMECULA. CA 92591
(714) 676-6225 FAX (714) 676-7975
e2/18/92 15:35 Z 7147555648 BMS OC
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
David F, Dixon, CIty Manager
Douglas M, Stewart, Deputy City Engineer
June 3, 1991
Acquisition Agreement
In regards to the Acquisition Agreement for storm drain improvements in the Ynez
Road right-of-way instilled by Toyota of Temecula. Max Gilllee requested that
provide you a breakdown of items included in the final calculation.
OFF-SITE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
Job Document Date Amount
Excavation Kemmis Equipment 8-20-g0
Soils Testing Soil Tech 9-18-90
Surveying SSA Surveying 9-30-90
Surveying S&A Surveying 10-31-90
Storm Drain Pacific West Pipeline 8-8-90
$ 3,875.00
2,068.75
576.00
1,599.50
31,797.50
ENGINEERING
Job Invoice #
Prepare Storm Drain Plans
Principal Meeting
Process Storm Drain Plan
Agency Processing
Storm Drain Plans - Corrections
Agency Processing
Complete Cost Estimate
Reimburslbles
Reproduction, Etc.
Reproduction, Etc.
Reproduction, Etc.
R 0qO-069-JMB
R 0~0-069-JMB
R 050-073-JMB
R 050-073-JMB
R 060-072-JMB
R 060-072-JMB
R 060-072-JMB
R 060-072-JMB
R 070-070-JMB
R 080-076-JMB
R 100-062-JMB
Date
q-27-90
7-27-90
5-25-90
5-25-90
6-29-90
6-29-90
6-29-90
6-29-90
?-27-90
8-31-90
8-31-90
Amount
3,362,50
52.50
2,530.00
587.00
qO0.O0
76.00
60.00
127.00
20.00
99.00
Grand Total
$~7,32~.75
Cost of Storm Drain within Street:
q7.32q.75 (335/335+156) = 32,288-78
DMS: ks
cc: Max Cilliss
//T-Ifff Setlet
C, TY~Jia~AC~U ! 5\ks