The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About042892 CC AgendaAGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING TEMECULA COMMUNITY CENTER - 28816 Pujol Street April 28, 1992 - 7:00 PM EXECUTIVE SESSION: 5:30 PM -TTA Conference Room Community Center - Pursuant to Governmeht Code Section 54956.9 (b) and (c), regarding potential litigation. Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 92-09 Resolution: No. 92-29 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Patricia H. Birdsall presiding Invocation Pastor Roger Sowder, Oak Springs Presbyterian Flag Salute Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans ROLL CALL: Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks, Birdsall PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS Water. Awareness Month Temecula Library Month Day of the Teacher PUBLIC COMMENTS A total Of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council on items that are not listed on the Agenda 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 beforq the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. a~enclek~042892 1 04/24/92 CONSENT CALENDAR Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 3 4 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 2.2 2.3 Approve the minutes of April 6, 1992. Approve the minutes of April 9, 1992. Approve the minutes of April 14, 1992. Resolution Aoorovinq List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 92- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A Resolution CallinQ and Givinq Notice of General Municipal Election RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 92- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1992, FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES egendd042pe2 2 04/23/~2 Resolution Adootino Regulations for Candidates Statements to be Submitted to the Voters at an Election RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 . Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 92- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE PERTAINING TO CANDIDATES STATEMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS AT AN ELECTION 6 Resolution of Suooort - Friday Western Days in Temecula (Requested by Mayor Birdsall) RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 92- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY DECLARING WESTERN DAYS IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA OF TEMECULA Communir~v Development Block Grant Fund Balance RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve the use of the remaining FY 1989-90 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for Temecula Senior Center improvements. City Treasurer's RePort of March 31, 1992 RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's report as of March 31, 1992. egend~/042882 3 04123/82 9 RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Authorize the release of street, and sewer and water system Faithful Performance Warranty Bonds, and Material and Labor Bonds in Tract No. 19939-1; 9.2 Direct the City Clerk to so notify the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. 10 Release Faithful Performance Warranty Bonds and Material Labor Bonds in Tract No. 19939-2 RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Authorize the release of street, and sewer and water system Faithful Performance Warranty Bonds, and Material and Labor Bonds in Tract No. 19939-2; 10.2 Direct the City Clerk to so notify the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. 11 Release Faithful Performance Warranty Bonds and Material and Labor Bonds in Tract No. 19939-F RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Authorize the release of street, and sewer and water system Faithful Performance Warranty Bonds, and Material and Labor Bonds in Tract No. 19939-F; 11.2 Direct the City Clerk to so notify the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. 12 Release Ftaithful Performance Warranty Bonds and Subdivision Monumentation Bonds in Tract No. 21561 RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Authorize the release of street and sewer and water system Faithful Performance Warranty Bonds, and Subdivision Monumentation Bond in Tract No. 21561; 12.2 Direct the City Clerk to so notify the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. egende/042892 4 04/23/92 13 14 15 16 Release Faithful Performance Warranty Bonds, Material and Labor Bonds and SubdivisiOn Monumentation Bond, in Tract 22208 RECOMMENDATION: 13.1 Authorize the release of street, and sewer and water system Faithful Performance Warranty Bonds, Material and Labor Bonds, and Subdivision Monumentation Bond in Tract No. 22208; 13.2 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Authorize Reduction in Bond Amounts for Tract MaD No. 21760 RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Authorize the reduction in street, sewer and water Faithful Performance Bond amounts; 14.2 Approve the replacement Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Eighteen Month Extension of Time; 14.3 Accept the Faithful Performance Bonds in the reduced amounts; 14.4 Direct the City Clerk to so notify the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. First Amendment to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Discharge Permit Agreement, San Diego Region (Santa MarQarita Drainage Area) RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Approve the First Amendment to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Discharge Permit Implementation Agreement adding the City of Murrieta as a co- permittee; 15.2 Authorize the Mayor to execute said agreement. Contract Agreement for Street Address Numbering RECOMMENDATION: 16.1 Approve a contract agreement with Bruce Stewart to provide address numbering services on an as-needed basis. agendUO42892 6 04123/92 SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 17 Second Reading of Sign Reaulations and Use of Outdoor Advertisina DiSplays RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Read by title only and approve an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO, 92-06 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PERTAINING TO SIGN REGULATIONS AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS 18 Second Reading of Ordinance ADoroving Soecific Plan 219 - Zone Change No. 18 RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Read by title only and approve an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 92-08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION CONTAINED IN CHANGE OF ZONE NO, 18 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-A 2 1/2 (RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, 2-112 ACRE LOT SIZE MINIMUM) TO S-P (SPECIFIC PLAN) ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MARGARITA ROAD AND DE PORTOLA ROAD PUBLIC HEARINGS Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. 19 Vesting Tentative Tract 23372, Buie Margarita Village (Continued from the meeting of 3/24/92) RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 Approve the attached Stipulation and Order providing for the clean-up of the Long Valley Wash by the Buie Corporation; egende/042892 6 04123/92 20 19.2 Reaffirm Environmental Assessment No. 32547 for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372; 19.3 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 92- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23372 TO SUBDIVIDE 46.9 ACRES INTO A 66 LOT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED NORTHERLY OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD ON THE WEST SIDE OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 923-210-014 19.4 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. Vestinc~ Tentative Tract 23373, Buie Marqarita Villaqe (Continued from the meeting of 3/24/92) RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Approve the attached Stipulation and Order providing for the clean-up of the Long Valley Wash by the Buie Corporation; 20.2 Reaffirm Environmental Assessment No. 32547 for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373; 20.3 20.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 92- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23373 TO SUBDIVIDE 29.3 ACRES INTO 7 LOTS WITH 348 CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND I COMMERCIAL LOT LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 923-210-014. 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. egendN042892 7 04123/92 21 Conditionel Use Permit No. 19 - Teen Age Dance Clubs RECOMMENDATION: 21.1 AdOpt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 92- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 19 TO PERMIT OPERATION OF A YOUNG ADULT CLUB IN AN EXISTING BUILDING LOCATED AT 28822 FRONT STREET COUNCIL BUSINESS 22 Ordinance: ADoroving Zone Chanee No. 13 RECOMMENDATION: 22.1 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 92- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION CONTAINED IN CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 13, CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-R 2 112 (RURAL RESIDENTIAL, 2 1/2 ACRE LOT SIZE MINIMUM) TO R-1 (SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SERAPHINA ROAD AND RITA WAY, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 914-260-039 THROUGH 046 23 Amended Condition of Approval Tract MaD 26521, Greentree Lane RECOMMENDATION: 23.1 Review the Amended Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map 26521 (Greentree Lane) and modify, if necessary. agendd042892 8 04123/82 24 Ordinance: Establishina Filing Fee for City Councilmanic Elections RECOMMENDATION: 24.1 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 92- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A FILING FEE TO DEFRAY, IN PART, THE COST. TO THE CITY OF PROCESSING NOMINATION PAPERS FOR COUNCILMANIC ELECTIONS 25 26 27 Appointment of Old Town Temecula Soecific Plan Steering Committee RECOMMENDATION: 25.1 Confirm the membership of the Old Town Specific Plan Steering Committee (OTSC). Assessment District 92-01 RECOMMENDATION: 26.1 Authorize the City Manager to assemble a financing team for a special assessment district. Joint SchOol Board/City Council Meetina Regardina School District Facilities (Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans) 27.1 Select two Councilmembers to represent the City at the joint City of Temecula/Temecula Valley Unified School District School Facilities Meeting. DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS CITY MANAGER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT CITY COUNCIL REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: May 12, 1992, 7:00 PM, Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California agenddO428e2 Ii 04123/g2 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING - (To be held at 8:00) NeXt in Order: Ordinance: No. 92- Resolution: No. 92- CALL TO ORDER: President Ronald J. Parks ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mur~oz, Parks PUBLIC COMMENT: Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors, should present a completed pink "Request to Speak" to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. DISTRICT BUSINESS 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of the meeting of April 14, 1991 as mailed. 2 Credit Proposal for FY 1992-93 TCSD Assessments RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve a credit towards the FY affected property owners who maintenance services in FY 1990-91. 3 Flag Pole Proposal for Rancho California Sports Park RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 1992-93 TCSD Assessments to were over assessed for slope Consider proposal by the Rancho California Little League to install a flag pole and memorial monument in the Rancho California Sports Park in remembrance of Craig Lewis. egende/042882 10 04123/i2 4 Bond Issuance to Fund the Temecula Community Services District Capital Imorovement Procjram. RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Authorize the General Manager to hire a financial advisor and bond counsel to proceed with the issuance of bonds in the amount of $5,300,000. GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT - Dixon DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT - Nelson BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS ADJOURNMENT: Next regular meeting May 12, 1992, 8:00 PM, Temporary Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California egende1042892 11 04/23/g2 TEMECUI~A FIEDEVELOPMENT AGENCY'MEETING ..... Next in Order: Resolution: No. 92- CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: PUBLIC COMMENT: Chairperson J. Sal Mu~oz presiding AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Mu~oz 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 I Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of April 14, 1992. 2 Discussion of Loan to Boys and Girls Club for Relocation of Portable Buildinas (Requested by Member Birdsall) 3 Bond Issuance to Fund the Redevelooment Agency Caoital Improvement ProQram RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Authorize the Executive Director to assemble a financing team to proceed with the issuance of bonds in the amount of $16,000,000. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT AGENCY MEMBER'S REPORTS ADJOURNMENT: Next regular meeting May 12, 1992, 8:00 PM, Temecula Community Center, 28816, Temecula, California 12 04/23/~2 egendl/042892 PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS The City of Temecula PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, water is California's most precious natural resource; and WHEREAS, the state has experienced sk consecutive dry years; and WHEREAS, although the recent rains have eased drought conditions, we need to continually consente and protect our water resources; and WIH~,EAS, residents, local government and water agencies must work together to meet the needs of our community and to provide the highest quality drinking water and service to the people of the Temecula Valley in a safe, reliable and fiscally-responsible manner; and WHEREAS, during the month of May, 1992, the City of Temecula joins with the California Water Awareness Committee composed of various urban and agricultural water communities, including the Rancho California Water District, to work to increase understanding of water conservation, NOW, TI-W~REFORE, I, Patricia H. Birdsall, on behalf of the City Council of the City of Temecula, hereby proclaim the month of May, 1992 to be: WATER AW S fOSTn in the City of Temecula, and urge all citizens to join in supporting local water organizations in their efforts to help Californians to be water aware. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Temecuh to be affixed this 28th day of April, 1992. Patrich H. Birdsall, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk April 14, 1992 Board of Directors: Ralph H. Daily President Csaba F. Ko Sr Vice Preeiden! dmmes A. Darby DoullM V, Kulberl Jeffrey L. Minitier ~tephen M. ~illa Richard D. 8teffey Officers: John F. Hennigtr (;enernl Manager Phillip L. Forbes Director of FInance Treasurer Thomas R, MeAljester Director of Op~ratIon~ & Melnlenance Edward P. Lemons Perry R, Louck Linda M. Vregoso McCormick Kidman & Behrena Mr. David Dixon City Manager City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, California 92590 SUBJECT: Proclamation May 1992, Water Awareness Month Dear Mr. Dixon: Rancho California Water District's Board of Directors recently adopted Resolution No. 92-4-2 (see attached) proclaiming May 1992, Water Awareness Month. RCWD would like to request Mayor BirdsaH's support by the City of Temccula proclaiming May 1992, Water Awareness Month. For your information and convenience, a sample proclamation is attached. RCWD would appreciate it if this item could be put on the April 28th agenda. Thank you. Should you have any questions, please call me at (714) 676-4101. Sincerely, RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT Donna Powers ~-. Water Education Specialist Attachments (2) John F. Hennigar Linda M. Fregoso Rancho Calilornia Water District 28061 DiazRoad · Post Office Box .q017 * Temecula. California°Y2589-9017 , 17141676-4101 , E~,X1714~676.0615 ,y The City of Temecula PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, the Temeeula Library is preparing to celebrate the opening of a brand new building that will be a showplace for the City of Temecula and surrounding communities; and WHEREAS, the Library, as a branch of the Riverside City and County Public Library, has been providing outstanding service to the residents of our area for many years, first as a County Library book station, later as a small branch and today as a major library facility; and WHEREAS, the residents of our City have made the Temecula Library as very busy place and look forward to a larger, ultra-modern library to fill our information, recreation and education needs; and WHEREAS, these same residents have worked together to make the new Library a reality, supporting the Library Building Foundation as it raised $500,000 toward construction of the building, and working with Library staff every step of the way toward completion; and WHEREAS, the new City of Temecula is proud to have the Temecula Library in our community and recognize the important role it plays in our lives, NOW, THEREFORE, I, Patricia H. Birdsall, on behalf of the City Council of the City of Temecula, hereby proclaim. the month of MAY, 1992 to be: TEMECULA LIBRARY MONTH in the City of Temecula, and join with all of the men; women and children who are celebrating the opening of our new library. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Temecula to be affixed this 281h day of April, 1992. Patrieia H. Birdsall, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk March 25, 1992 June: Enclosed is a suggested Proclamation for the City Council in honor of the dedication of the new Temecula Library. we'd appreciate any recognition the City might want to give to this exciting event. We're all looking forward to it, especially the staff! Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks for your attention. Sincerely, Joan Plessner Community Relations 782-5211 RIVERSIDE CITY AND COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY RO. Box 468 · Riverside, CA 92502-0468 · (714) 782-5211 · FAX (714] 788-1528 Judith M. Auth, Director The City of Temecula PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, teachers help shape and transform lives through their critical roles in the schools of this nation; and WHEREAS, they strive to open doors to opportunity through learning; and WItEREAS, they seek to motivate and inspire their students to develop to their full potential; and W!tF~REAS, they prepare this nations students for the demands of a rapidly changing, increasingly competitive and technological society, NOW, TFrEREFORE, I Patricia H. Birdsall, on behalf of the City Council of the City of Temecula, proclaim Wednesday, May 13, 1992 to be: DAY OF THE TEACItF~R IN WrrNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Temecula to be affixed this 281h day of April, 1992. Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk ITEM 1 ITEM 2 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING 'OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL HELD APRIL 6, 1992 A regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 4:02 PM, in the Main Conference Room, Temecula City Hall, 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Mayor Patricia H. Birdsall presiding. PRESENT 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Birdsall ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Muf~oz Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, City Attorney Scott F. Field, and City Clerk June S. Greek and Chief of Police Rick Sayre. PLEDGE OF ALt. EGIANCE The audience was led in the pledge of allegiance by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans. PUBLIC COMMENTS No public comments were offered at this time. COUNCIL BUSINESS 1. Executive Session Mayor Birdsall adjourned the meeting to an Executive Session pursuant to Government Code SeCtion 94956.9(c) to discuss possible initiation of litigation. The Executive Session was adjourned and the special meeting was reconvened at 4:54 PM. Councilmember Mur~oz joined the meeting at 4:55 PM. 2. Reoort on Shootinq Incident - Valley Beat Chief of Police H. R. Sayre presented a staff report outlining the incident which occurred on Friday evening, April 3, 1992 at the Valley Beat Teen Nightclub. Chief Sayre stated that a shooting of a minor occurred and that the persons involved appeared to be gang members. Mr. Stoney Mitich, co-owner of the Valley Beat Nightclub addressed the Council speaking regarding the incident and stated that the management of Valley Beat denied access to the club to gang members who appeared on April 3, 1992 on the basis of Minutes~2~l 1 \92 -1 - 04120/92 CiW Council Minutes Febmaw 11. 1992 their not complying with the club's dress code and refusal to provide identification. In response to a question from Councilmember Muf~oz, he replied the club has been distributing promotional flyors to schools in the area south to Fallbrook and north to Lake Elsinore and Perris, which seem to have drawn these gang members to the area. Counciimember Parks questioned if these flyers were actually free admission passes? Mr. MitiCh responded that they were free passes. Charles Bell, 113 East Bay Drive, Newport Beach, CA, representing the property owners, Stated that the property owners have required that special security measures be taken by the operators of this teen nightclub to avoid problems with the young people who are the customers of this establishment. Sydney Vernon, 30268 Mersey Court, spoke in opposition to the practice of giving free passes tO large numbers of students in areas outside the City. He also suggested that as a temporary measure, the hours of operation be curtailed to provide greater control. Councilmember Parks asked if the five car loads of young people who created the problem arrived to attend the night club dance or for another purpose. Chief of Police Sayre responded that the investigation into the incident indicates they may have been intent upon another purpose. City Manager David Dixon reported that the City is concerned that even though the operator has worked within the guidelines which have been provided, the problem still did occur. He stated that staff has been working on this matter ever since it occurred and they suggest that an urgency Conditional Use Permit or ordinance be adopted quickly that will address matters like requirements for dress codes, age requirements for attendees, possible membership requirements, etc. Councilmember Parks stated he is very bothered by the use of the mass flyors and free admissions which he feels draws an undesirable element to the club. He suggested that some additional survailance equipment be placed in the parking lot which could be used to identify any problems outside the building. He also suggested that the City's T~en Council be involved in formulating some of the rules of operation for this facility to be included in the conditions of approval. Councilmember Mu~oz stated he does not favor closure and agrees that outdoor survaillance is necessary. Mayor Pro Tom Lindemans asked if the owners would be willing to voluntarily close the facility for the upcoming weekend to provide a "cooling off" period. Mayor Birdsall questioned when the Council will be taking action on the staff's recommendations. City Manager Dixon said an Ordinance will be prepared for the Council to consider at their joint meeting with the Parks and Recreation Commission on April ~9, 1992. Minutes~2\l 1 \92 -2- 04120/92 Ciw Coungil Minute Febmew 11, 1992 Councilmember Parks suggested that the operators of the Valley Beat be requested to get an additional extra duty officer to patrol the parking lot rather than the request to close the business for additional periods of time; It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Parks that the Valley Beat be allowed to remain open subject to the condition that they hire an extra duty police officer to patrol the parking lot during their hours of operation. The motion was unanimously carried. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans to direct staff to address additional conditions of approval for this business which will be part of a required Conditional Use Permit. These additional conditions are to be reviewed by the City's Teen Council. Thye motion was unanimously carried. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Parks to direct staff to prepare an urgency ordinance proposing standard conditions to address similar business and to place it on the agenda of April 9, 1992 as a "subsequent need" item. Councilmember Parks questioned the need for an urgency ordinance. City Manager Dixon responded that the City does not have an ordinance in place that addresses this kind of use under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and therefore there is a need to adopt an ordinance requiring a use of this kind to be required to have a Conditional Use Permit. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans to call for the question. The motion carried unanimously. The motion on the floor was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Moore, Mur~oz, Parks, Birdsall NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER REPORTS No report given. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS No report given. Minutes\2%11 ~,92 -3- 04/20/92 City Courtall Minute; FebNew 11, 1992 CITY COUNCILi REPORTS Councilmember Moore thanked the City staff for their careful ADJOURNMFN11' ATTEST: PATRICIA H. BIRDSALL, MAYOR JUNE S. GREEK, CITY CLERK Minutes%2%11 ~92 -4- 04120/92 MINUTES OF A JOINT MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A joint meeting of the Temecula City Council and the Temecula Parks and Recreation Commission was called to order at 6:36 PM, in the Main Conference Room of the Temecula City Hall, 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, Mayor Patricia H. Birdsall presiding. PRESENT 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Moore, Parks ABSENT: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Mur~oz PRESENT: 4 ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Hillin, Nimeshein, Walker, Harker Kirby Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, City Attorney Scott F. Field, Community Services Director Shawn Nelson and City Clerk June S. Greek. EXECUTIVE SEESION Mayor Birdsall adjourned the meeting to executive session pursuant to government Code Section 54956.9(c) to discuss potential litigation at 6:36 PM. Councilmember Mur~oz arrived at 6:46 PM and joined the closed session. Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans arrived at 6:52 PM and joined the closed session. The meeting was reconvened in regular session at 7:14 PM with all Councilmembers present. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Chairperson Evelyn Harker. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments offered. COUNCIL BURINESS City Attorney Scott Field requested that the City Council consider adding an item to the agenda under the provisions of subsequent need. He advised that as a result of the action taken by the Council at the special meeting held on April 6, 1992, an urgency ordinance has been prepared for consideration and adoption. Minutes-4/9/92 - 1 - 04113/92 City CounGil Minutes April 9. 1992 It was moved by Councilmember Perks, seconded by Councilmember Moore to add consideration of an urgency ordinance dealing with night clubs, teen clubs and dance halls to the ageride. The motion was unanimously carried. Councilmemberl Parks asked if this action requires s public hearing. City Attorney Field responded that ~a public hbaring is not required since this is an urgency ordinance. d ORDINANCE NO. 92-05 AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY: OF TEMECULA DECLARING A MORATORIUM ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NIGHTCLUBS, TEEN CLUBS AND DANCE HALLS WITHOUT A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mufioz, Parks NOES: I 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Introducl~ions Commudity Services Director Shawn Nelson introduced the members of-the RJM Design Group and briefly outlined the purpose of this joint meeting to review the progress of the Community Recreation Center design. Proiect History SchedulQ Resource Documentation, Goals and Objectives, Site Issues Review Mr. Robert Mueting of the RJM Design Group, described the process the design team has been involved in to date. He displayed several exhibits which showed the goals and objectives of the designers and the City's sub-committee, the program schedule and several issues which the site presents. Minutes-4/9/92 -2- 04/13/92 CiTY C~ur.}il Minutes Aoril 9. 1992 5 Site Analysis Mr. Mueting discussed the site from the standpoint of opportunities presented by the configuration of the site and some of the constraints it also presents. City Park and Recreation Master Plan Facilities Survey Data Review Mr. Mueting then outlined the results of the rating surveys for proposed uses of the facility. These surveys encompassed rating of the facility needs, the facilities desired in the City and the teen survey. e A brief overview was provided of the site plan proposals and alternatives. Community Recreation Center Facilities Kevin SUllivan of RJM Design Group eummarizedi the areas of consensus which were reached by the project committee. He described the resultant components of the design such as the entrance treatment, the amphitheater, pool, a possible future water slide, a 25 foot by 25 foot wading pool, group picnic and barbecue area, bicycle and pedestrian trail connections, tot lot and the best management practice (BMP) landscaping suggestions. Steve Kendrick and Wendy Rogers representing LPA addressed the major components of the building. Ms. Rogers explained that the building is divided into two distinct areas, a quiet area separated by a gallery from an area which supports the noisier activities. Projecteel Budget Bob Mueting discussed the rough budget figures for the various components of the master plan and stated a preliminary estimate is $4.2 million dollars, with a 10% contingency factor for a total of $4.6 million dollars. Councilmember Mu~oz left the meeting at 7:33 PM. 10. t'luestions and Answers Minutes-4/9/92 -3- 04113/92 Ciw Cou~il Minute, Aoffi 9. 1992 Assistant City Manager Mark Ochenduszko asked if another approach could be taken to the design of the meeting rooms to economize in this area. Steve Kendrick responded that the large multipUrpose room can be subdivided into smaller meeting rooms, but when this is done it limits the use of the total space. ChairperSon Harker asked if the amphitheater area is limited 'to 350 seats. Mr. Kendrick replied that the fixed seating will be limited to 350, but the overflow grassy area will] accommodate larger audiences. City Manager Dixon questioned if the parking lots are all at the same grade. Kevin Sullivan stated the front parking lot is designed at the same grade as the building but the side parking lot slopes downward to the natural topography of the site. Bob Mueting isuggested that the designers take a look at how they can redesign the parking areas so that only those areas required for handicapped access be filled to the same level as the building. City Manager Dixon asked if there is adequate storage and office space for a use of this type. He also questioned the proposed scope of the kitchen. Community Services Director Shawn Nelson responded that his staff feels the office space is adequate and Bob Mueting stated the kitchen is being planned to be a catering kitchen, i not a full service preparation facility, Councilmember Moore asked if the showers end restrooms will be utilized by both the pool and the gym areas. Wendy Rogers advised that they are placed to service both areas bUt there will be separate access doors from each area. CommisSioner Nimeshine asked what the dining capacity of the multipurpose room will be and asked if the kitchen is placed to serve the. gym as well. Steve Kendrick stated the multipurpose room will accommodate approximately 250 people in a dining set-up. He also Said the kitchen is oriented to serve both the multipurpose room and the gym. Commissioner Walker said the project' committee was concerned about having the gym used for dining because of the possibility of damage to the floor. Mayor Pro Tam Lindemans questioned if the gallery area could be developed as an arbor for planting grapes and asked if a basement could be placed under part of the facility to provide additional storage. Bob Mueting said both ideas have merit and the design team will look into these possibilities. Councilmember Parks pointed out that there is no landscaping included in the plan for the area around the lake. Kevin Sullivan advised that landscaping is not being planned at this time because the maintenance of the detention pond needs to be addressed regarding silt build-up and clean-out. Rick Valdez of Ranpac Engineers stated that this area is defined as a "waters of America", and as such the U.S. Fish, Game and Wildlife will be required to approve any changes to the creek bed and pond prior to installing any landscape treatments. Minutes-4/9/92 -ak 04/13/92 CiTy Council Minutes APril g, lgg2 Commissioner Hillen expressed concerns with the placement of the amphitheater and the potential for noisier activities adversely affecting performances. Bob Mueting said the project committee and the design team agree that this will need to be a programming consideration. Councilmember Moore suggested that the parking problems, both short term and long term need to be addressed.! Commissioner Walker stated that the project committee has addressed this concern and concluded that a staged program needs to be implemented. Councilmember Moore and Councilmember Parks suggested the possible elimination of the Tot Lot at the Community Recreation Center site since others exist in the park. Tom Langley, co-chairman of the Community Recreation Center Foundation stated that he feels estimates are still too rough to be discussing cutting out any of the components at this time. Senior Planner John Meyer asked what the architectural character of the gymnasium building will be to control the appearance of mass. Wendy Rogers responded that the design team will be looking at textured materials and possibly utilizing some glass block to break up the mass. Mayor Pro Tam Lindemans questioned the time frame for ground-breaking. Mr. Mueting responded that if the process continues on schedule, ground-breaking should take place in January of 1993. Bob Muating summed up the areas in which consensus has been reached as follows: The designers will reserve space for all of the included elements The architectural character will be reserved for a later date. The grading will be re-evaluated as to the height of the grades. The amphitheater will be planned with 350 fixed seating and approximately 1,000 in overflow. The lake and stream bed will have minimal landscaping. The kitchen equipment will be adequate to provide a full catering facility. A lower level for storage will be investigated, and Storage will be addressed generally. CITY MANARERS REPORT No report presented CITY ATTORNEY REPORT No report presented. Minutes-4/9/92 -5- 04113/92 City Courtoil Minuteei April 9. 1992 CITY COUNCII~ REPORTS No reports presented. ADJOURNM;:NT It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to adjourn at 9:13 PM to a meeting to be held on April 14, 1992tat the Temecula Community Center 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California. The motion was unanimously carried with Councilmember Mufioz absent. PATRiCIA H. BIRDSALL, MAYOR ATTEST: JUNE S. GREEK, CITY CLERK Minutee-4/9/92 -6- 04113/92 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING · OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL HELD APRIL 14, 1992 A regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 5:39 PM in the Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California. Mayor Patricia H. Birdsall presiding. PRESENT 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Moore, Mur~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 SFII;SION Mayor Birdsall declared a recess to an executive session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) Pulte Homes vs City of Temacula and 54956.9(b) & (c) to discuss potential litigation at 5:40 PM. Mayor Birdsall reconvened the City Council Meeting with all members present at 7:13 PM. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Pastor Sean Oliver, Rancho Christian Church. PLEDGE OF AL~,EGIANCE The audience was led in the pledge of allegiance by Councilmember Parks. PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS Mayor Birdsall proclaimed April 19th through 26, 1992 ~to be The Week of the Young Child. Mayor Birdsall proclaimed May 3 through 9, 1992 to be Victims of Pornography Week 1992. PUBLIC FORUM Ray McLaughlin, 30025 Front Street, addressed the City Council regarding an erroneous lot line adjustment, that adversely affects his property and requested this matter be placed on a future agenda. John Dedovesh, 39450 Long Ridge Drive, addressed the City Council regarding the proposed location of the Temecula Valley Unified School District Bus Barn. He requested the Bus Barn be located at a more suitable site where residents would not be adversely effected. Mir~\04~l 4\92 - 1 - 04122/92 Ciw Cour~il Minute·; ADHI14.1992 G. F. Brewton,. 6009 Indiana Avenue, #210,' Riverside, representing property owner Tom " ' ' ' assessment district for road and · City Manager Dixon stated he has met with the proponents and there is not substantial support for an assessment district, however staff has expl.ored the possibility of creating a new CSD Zone ~which would provide road maintenance, especially as it relates to rural roads. He explained in this way separate assessment districts would not have to be established. CONSENT CAI, FNDAR Mayor Birdsall:stated staff has requested the removal of Item No. 8 from the Consent Calendar for clarification, and the removal of Items 13 and 19 from the Agenda. Councilmember Mu~oz requested that Item No. 10 be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.. Mayor Pro Tern Lind·mane requested the removal of Item No. 22 from the Consent Calendar. It was moved ,by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Parks to approve Consent Calendar Items 1-7, 9, 11, 12, 14-18, 20 and 21. ' The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: ABSENT: 0 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Moore, Muf~oz, Parks, Birdsall None None Standarl;I Ordinance Adoorion Procedure 1.1 Minutel 2.1 2.2 2.3 Motion to waive the reading of the: text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. Approve the minutes of March 24, 1992. Approve the minutes of March 25, .1992. Approve the minutes of March 31, 1992. Min\04~l 4\92 -2- 04/22/92 CiW Coundl Minute April 14. 1992 B ResolutiOn AoDrovina List of Demands 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 92-22 A' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A City Tretsurers Report for Period Endino January 31.1992 4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's report as of January 31, 1992. Citv Treasurers Report for Period Fndin9 February :?9.199.~ 5.3 Receive and file the City Treasurer's report as of February 29, 1992. Award of Contract for the Construction of Traffic Sianals. Ramo Widenino. Median Modifications. I-ne Reconfim-ation. and Lar~lscaoin9 Imorovements at the I- 15/Rancho California Road Interchange (Project No PW 91-04) 6.1 Award a contract for construction of traffic signals, ramp widening, median modifications, lane reconfiguration, and landscaping improvements at the I-15/Rancho California Road Interchange (Project No. PW 91-04) to Olivar Brothers for $526,681.36, and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said contract. 6.2 Appropriate $579,349.50 (bid amount plus 10% to allow for possible change orders) from the Develol~ment Impact Fee Fund to Capi.tal Projects Fund and appropriate $579,350.00 to Capital Projects Account No. 021-165-622-44-5804 from Unreserved Fund Balance. Margarita Road Assessment District Reimbursement of City Start-uo Costs 7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 92-23 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN FINDINGS REGARDING CITY EXPENDITURES IN CONNECTION WITH ESTABLISHMENT OF MARGARITA ROAD ASSESSMENTS AS REQUIRED BY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY REGULATIONS (SECTION 1.103-18) Min%04%14%92 -3- O4122/92 CiW CounGil Minutee~ ,Anri~ 14, 1992 e 11. 12. 1.4. Resol-tipn Oooosina Reauirement to Perform Policing Duties of the State Deoartment of Industrial Relations 9.1. Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 92.24 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA OPPOSING THE REQUIREMENT THAT ~LOCAL AGENCIES PERFORM THE POLICING DUTIES OF THE STATE DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS 11.1 Award a Professional Services Contract in the amount of $7,293.00 to Leighton & Associates for geotechnical services on the Rancho California Road Benefit District PrOject (No. PW 91-03), and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign said Contract. 11.2 Appropriate $7,293.00 from the Development Impact Fee Fund to Capital Projects Fund and appropriate $7,293.00 to Capital Projects Account No. 021-165-605-44-5804. Award ~; Professional Services Contract to NB~/Lowrv for Land Survevino Services on the rest and Sidewalk Imorovements at Vatrious Schools Project (PW 92-01) 12.1 12.2 Award a Professional Services contract in the amount of $6,440.00 to NBS/Lowry for land surveying services on the Street and Sidewalk Improvements at Various School Project (PW 92-01 ), and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign said Contract. Appropriate $6,440.00 from the Measure A Fund to the Capital Projects Fund and appropriate $6,440.00 to Capital Projects Account No. 021- 165-607-44-5804 from Unreserved Fund Balance. Two-Party Flood Control Agreement 14.1 14.2 Approve the attached two-party flood control agreement for construction of storm drain facilities between Rancho California Road and Long Valley Wash, and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said Agreement. Approve an advance of $9,000.00 .from Development Impact Fund to the Capital Projects Fund and appropriate $9,000.00 to Capital Projects Account No, 021-165-605-44-5804 from Unreserved Fund Balance, Mi n'~04~ 14\92 -4- 04/22/92 City Council Minute A~HI 14. 1992 15. 16. 17. 18. Rancho t~lifornia Road/I-15 Overnx-es (Project No; PW 91-04) Award of Construction Management Contract to NBS/Lowrv 15.1 Award a Construction Management Contract for an amount not-to- exceed $181,727.00 to NBS/Lowry for construction management and coordination with Caltrans on the ,Rancho California Road/I-15 over- crossing project (Project No. PW 91-04), and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign said Contract. 15.2 Appropriate $181,727.00 from the Development Impact Fee Fund to the Capital Projects Fund and appropriate $181,727.00 to the Capital Project Account No. 021-165-622-44-5804 from Unreserved Fund Balance (monies to be reimbursed to the City be developers of the Margarita Village Specific Plan.) Professiortal Services Agreement with Robert Bein. William Frost and Associates for Design of Interim Margarita Road from Solana Wev to Winchester Road 16.1 Approve a Professional Services Agreement for design services (interim width roadway) on the Margarita Road Extension with Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates (RBF) in the amount of $31,000.00, and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said Agreement. 16.2 Approve a transfer of $31,000.00 from the Measure A Fund to the Capital Projects Fund and appropriate $31,000.00 to capital Projects Account No. 021-165-607-44-5802 from Unreserved Fund Balance. Professional Services Agreement with Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates for Design of Maroarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road (Southern Portion) 17.1 Approve a Professional Services Agreement for design services (ultimate width and grade) on the Margarita Road extension with Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates (RBF) in the amount of $44,200.00, and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said Agreement. 17.2 Approve a transfer of $44,200.00 from the Measure A Fund to the Capital Projects Fund and appropriate $44,200.00 to Capital Projects Account No. 021-165-607-44-5802 from Unreserved Fund Balance. Release Fpithful Performance Warranty and Subdivision Monumentation Bonds in Parcel Mao No. ~3430 18.1 Authorize the release of streets and drainage, and sewer and water systems Faithful performance Warranty Bond and Subdivision Monumentation Bond in Parcel Map No. 23430; Min%04\14~92 -5- 04/22/92 City Cou~jI Minutes, ,shill 14, 1992 20. 21. e 18.2 Direct the City Clerk to process the release of the bonds. Purchase of Reoulatorv and Advanced Warning Signs 20.1 Authorize Staff to I~jrchase regulatory and advanced warning signs from Central City Signs as the lowest responsible bidder. Pulte H(;Wme CORD. VS Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission and Citv of TemQcula - APPrOVal Of Settlement 21.1 Approve and authorize the City Attorney to execute the Stipulation for Entry of Judgment, which would settle the CEQA litigation brought by Pulte Home Corp. challenging the City's sphere of influence, subject to the approval of the City Manager and City Attorney as to the final form of the Stipulation. Award Qf Contract - Senior Center Construction Documents City AttOrney Field advised the Council that · resolution allowing for reimbursement of costs~ on this project needs to be adopted in addition to the award of contract. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans to approve staff recommendation with the addition of s resolution. 8.1 Award a contract in the amount of $25,250 to W. Dean Davidson, A.I.A. & Associates to provide construction documents for the Senior Center Project. 8.2 Approve an advance from the General Fund Unreserved Fund Balance to the Capital Projects Fund and appropriate $45,250 to Capital Projects Account #021-162-801-44-5804 from Unreserved Fund Balance. 8.3 Adopt s resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 92°24 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN FINDINGS REGARDING CITY EXPENDITURES IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT OF PROPERTY ~OCATED IN THE OLD TOWN TEMECULA KNOWN AS THE SENIOR CENTER PROJECT AS REQUIRED BY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY REGULATIONS (SECTION 1.103-18) The motion was unanimously carried. Min%04%14%92 -6- 04122/92 Ciw Coundl Minutes April 14, 1992 10. Purchase. of Accountino Software Councilmember Mufioz questioned the purchase .of accounting software and asked whet the; expected life of the proposed software would be. Finance Officer Henry responded the software is expected to last five to seven years, which is a normal life expectancy for software. She also explained the software is compatible with existing computers and the DOS operating system. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Mayor Pro Tam Lindemans to approve staff recommendation as follows: 10.1 Approve the purchase of the Eden Systems Inc., accounting software. 10.2 Approve the transfer of $62,000 :from the unreserved general fund balance. The motion was unanimously carried. 22. I Iodate olq Temec-la Valley Unified School District Efforts to Select Location for School Bus Fsciljtv Mayor Pro Tam Lindemans objected to the School District's proposal stating the location of a new high school and the bus facility needs to be coordinated with the City's General Plan. Councilmember Parks requested that a joint meeting be scheduled to discuss the City's and the School District's needs, and how they interface. Lettie Boggs, Coordinator of Facilities Planning, Temecula Valley Unified School District, 31350 Rancho Vista Road, explained this is a pre-site selection, and no commitments for purchase of the site. have been made. She stated the school district will proceed with public hearings and a full EIR prior to any purchase. Mayor Pro Tam Lindemans suggested a proposal be made to the school district to organize a committee comprised of two Councilmembers, two School Board representatives and two staff members from each body. John Dedovesh, 39450 Long Ridge Drive, objected to the proposed location of the bus facility and high school, stating it would adversely affect homes in the area. Min~,04%14%92 -7- 04/22/92 CiW Cotmoil Minuteei ~,,dl 14. 1992 RECESS Mayor Birdsall Icelied a recess at 8:14 PM. The meeting was reconvened following the Community Services District Meeting end the Redevelopment Agency Meeting, at 9:00 PM with all members present. Mayor Birdsell teordered the agenda to hear Item 33 out o~ order. It was moved by Mayor Pro Tam Lindamans, seconded by Councilmember Parks to approve! staff recommendations as follows: 33.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 92-28 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING AN ADVANCE FROM THE REVOLVING FUND TO THE EDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA FOR ACQUISITION ~F PROPERTY WEST OF DIAZ ROAD AND SOUTH OF CHERRY STREET The motion was unanimously carried. Mayor Pro Tam Lindemans requested that a vote be taken on Item 22, even though it is a receive and file item. It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Councilmember Moore to receive and file report. The motion was carried by the following vote: , 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: 2 COUNCILMEMBERS: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Moore, Parks, Birdsall Lindemans, Mur~oz None 22. Staff was further directed to place on the next agenda the matter of establishing a City/SchOol District committee to explore all aspects of site selection for a school bus facility. Min%04% 14%92 -8- 04122/g2 Ciw Couedl Minute Amil 14. 1992 Mayor Birdsall reordered the agencla to accommodate those wishing to speak on Item No. 27. 27. EvaluatiQ~ of Temoorarv Street Closure of Avenida De La Reins at Corte Arroyo Vista/Corte Alhambra Director of Public Works Tim Serlet presented the staff report. Councilmember Parks asked for a cost estimate for the additional stop signs and an additional traffic officer. Mr. Serlet responded that the stop signs would total approximately $2,000. Chief Sayre reported the cost for an additional motorcycle officer would be $34/hour. Councilmember Moore asked if photo/radar machines have been considered for this area. Mr. Serlet said this issue has not been investigated. Laverne Stafford, 41652 Avenida De La Reina, requested that the Council make a decision without further delay. David Ciabattoni, 41646 Avenids De La Reins, presented the City Council with a petition containing over 100 signatures, requesting that the temporary closure of Avenida De La Reins be made permanent. Tod LePetri, 41663 Avenida De La Reins, spoke in support of the permanent closure. Rita Hernandez, 31149 Corte Alhambra, addressed the Council asking that Avenida De La Reina be permanently closed and the Council support the majority vote of the survey conducted on the closure. Carol Boyd, 31160 Corte Alhambra, spoke in support of closure and asked it be approved tonight. Tom Elling, 31180 Corte Alhambra, spoke in favor of the permanent closure. Mary Giordano, 41639 Avenida De La Reina, spoke in support of the closure. Mayor Birdsall called a brief recess at 9:27 PM to change the tape. The meeting was reconvsned at 9:28 PM. Joe Seguin, 41640 Avenida De La Reina, spoke in support of the permanent street closure. City Clerk June S. Greek read into the record comments against the closure from David Servertar, 31365 Paseo Goleta. Min\04\ 14%92 -9- 04/22/92 City Coundl Minutes! April 14, 1992 Frank Kimbro, 31231 Corte Alhambra, spoke against the street closure. Rod Fink, 41418 Avenida De La Reina, spoke against the street closure. Maxins Bonner, 31394 Corte Talvera, spoke in opposition to the closure. Elizabeth Kimbro, 31231 Corte Alhambra, spoke against the closure. It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Mayor Pro Tam Lindemans to approve! the permanent closure of Avertida De La Reina. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES:: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Muftoz, Parks, Birdsall NOES: , I COUNCILMEMBERS: Moore ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Councilmember Moore stated she voted in opposition because she is not satisfied other alternatives have been adequately explored. Councilmember Mur~oz excused himself from the meeting at 9:48 PM. PUBLIC HEARINGS 23. Change iof Zone 5631 - Tentative Tract 25320. Bedford Properties It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Councilmember Moore to continue the public hearing of Zone Change No. 5631 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 25320 to the meeting of May 12, 1992. The motion was unanimously carried, with Councilmember Mui~oz absent. 24. Chanoe :of 7one No. 13 and Vesting Tentative Tract No. 26828. and consideration of the Riv~trside County Airport Land Use Commis~tion's Determination Director of Planning Gary Thornhill presented the staff report. Councilmember Parks stated that even though he is a former employee of Lohr and Associates, the City Attorney has ruled he does not have no conflict of interest in voting on this matter. Mi n%04% 14%92 - 1 O- 04122/92 City Counutl Minute Anril 14. 1992 Mayor Birdsell opened the public hearing at 9:54 PM. Don Lohr, Lohr and Associates, 43513 Ridepark Drive, representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the City Council approving the change of zone and Vesting Tentative Tract No.i 26828. Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans asked that if the airport general plan does not require a 2 mile radius, the avigation easement be automatically removed. Mayor Birdsall closed the public hearing at 10:00 PM. 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, with Councilmember Mu~oz absent. It was moved by Mayor Pro Tom Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve Staff recommendation 24.1 and 24.2 as ,follows: 24.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 92-26 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 13 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-R 2 1/2 TO R-1 ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF RITA WAY AND SERAPHINA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 914-260-039, 040, 041,042, 043, 044, !045, AND 046 24.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 92-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT AMP NO. 26828 TO SUSDlYiDE 35.5 ACRES INTO 130 RESIDENTIAL LOTS. GENERAL LOCATION OF SAID MAP BEING THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF RITA WAY AND SERAPHINA ROAD The motion was unanimously carried with Councilmember Mufioz absent. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Parks to add staff recommendation 24.3 as follows: 24.3 Approve the Vesting Tentative Tract Map with additional Conditions of Approval which would require a disclosure statement be given to potential home buyers and conveyance of an avigation easement for the benefit of the French Valley Airport. Min%04% 14%92 - 11 - 04/22/92 Ciw Courmil Minutel ~nril 14. 1992 Mayor Pro Tem Lind.mane requested an amendment 'be made to the motion to automatically overturn the avigation easement, if it is not required by law when the airport general land use plan is instituted. Councilmember Parks stated he does not believe the Council can approve future action, and the property owner has the right to come back to have this condition removed. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Moore, Parks, Birdsall NOES: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Mur~oz It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Councilmember Moore to adopt staff recommendation 24.4 as follows: 24.4 Adopt the Negative Declaration which was prepared for the project. The motion was unanimously carried, with Councilmember Mur~oz absent. It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve staff recommendation 24.5 as follows: 24.5 Adopt findings as approved by staff to overturn the Planning Commission denial of the Airport land Use Commission. Findinol Reaardino Change of 7one No. 13 and Vesting Tentative Tract No, 26828 The residents of this proposed residential subdivision will not be exposed to excessive noise because expected noise impacts from operations at the French Valley Airport will not exceed generally accepted noise standards applicable to residential uses in the vicinity of airports~ The proposed residential subdivision will not result in the construction of Structures which would interfere with navigable airspace. The probability of an aircraft operation at;the French Valley Airport resulting in the collision of an aircraft with any portion of the proposed residential subdivision is so remote as to be insignificant in terms of risk to the public health, safety or welfare. Min%04\ 14\92 - 12- 04122/92 Ciw Coundl Minute8 Anvil 14. 1992 e e The proposed residential subdivision is located near the boundary line between Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission planning Area II and planning Area III. The precise locations of these ..boundary lines are, by necessity, arbitrary and, therefore, the land use restrictions to be applied to properties located in the vicinity of the boundary lines should be determined based upon specific evidence applicable to the particular properties. In this particular case, the subject property should, more appropriately, be developed in accordance with the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission Guidelines applicable to Area III. This project is consistent with the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission Guidelines with respect to properties located in Area III. Because the proposed residential subdivision and its proximity to the French Valley Airport is not inconsistent with public health, safety and welfare, development of the proposed residential subdivision should not interfere with the orderly expansion of French Valley Airport. The subject property is a relatively small site which is part of a larger area that has already been approved for and is being developed for residential uses similar to this proposed residential subdivision. Because of the significant amount of residential development which has already been approved and which is taking place in the vicinity of the project site, the subject project cannot reasonably be expected to impact in any material way on the orderly expansion of the French Valley Airport. The orderly expansion of the French Valley Airport and the interests of the prospective purchasers of homes within the proposed residential subdivision will be further protected by burdening the subject property with an avigation easement for the benefit of the French Valley Airport. There is little or no probability that this project will be of substantial detriment to or interfere with any Airport Land Use Plan which may ultimately be adopted for the French Valley Airport. The motion was unanimously carried, with CounCilmember Muf~oz absent. It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans to direct staff to prepare the appropriate Zone Change Ordinance for first reading at the meeting Of April 28, 1992. The motion was unanimously carried, with Councilmember Muftoz absent. Min%04% 14%92 - 13- 04122/g 2 CiW Council Minutee, ,&-HI 14. 1992 25. Outdoori Disolav and Advertising Ordinance Director! of Banning Thornhill presented the staff report and stated that an urgency ordinanCe and a regular ordinance are being proposed. · Mayor Birdsall called a brief recess at 10:25 PM tO change the tape. The meeting was reconvened at 10:26 PM. It was moved by Mayor Pro Tern Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Parks to extend the meeting until 11:00 PM. The motion was unanimously carried, with Councilmember Muf~oz absent. Mayor Birdsall opened the public hearing at 10:26 PM. Bob Adalms, Adams Advertising Inc., 19081 Rocky Road, Santa Ana, requested that the City Council consider allowing certain types of billboards in the City. He presented the City Council with packets showing different designs for billboards using a western motif. He requested that the hardship clause, allowing for exemption upon review by the Planning Director be included. He also requested that input from the Billboard Industry l be obtained in revising the Outdoor AdVertising Ordinance. Evelyn Harker, 31130-85 South General Kearny Road, requested that billboards be allowed in certain areas of the City, stating they are helpful in publicizing special events at~d advertising Old Town Temecula and the wineries. Mayor Birdsall closed the public hearing at 10:35 PM. Councilmember Parks asked why the hardship clause was removed. Director ~of Planning Thornhill stated it is difficult to make findings without criteria in place. He stated he would feel more comfortable with review going to the Planning CommisSion, rather than the Planning Director. Mayor Birdsall asked why two ordinances are necessary. City Attorney Field ~tated that the regular ordinance runs out on the 23rd of this month and the urgency ordinance would be in effect between this meeting and when the regular ordinance takes effect in 30 days. Councilmember Parks stated he would like to see this ordinance researched further and possibly establish zones where billboards can be placed. City Manager Dixon explained without a City ordinance in place, the county ordinance would go into effect. He recommended that the Council adopt the urgency ordinance tonight and initiate the first reading of the permanent ordinance and instruct staff that Min\04~l 4~92 - 14- 04122/92 City Courtall Minute~ ,&nril 14, 1992 as the general plan process goes forward, to meet with representatives from the billboard industry in developing a long term ordinance. May. or Pro Tam Lindemans stated he would be in favor of that recommendation if it could be amended to be reviewed in six months. Councilmember Parks stated he would like to see the hardship clause included. City Manager ~Dixon stated he would prefer review by the Planning Commission rather than the Planning Director. He slso recommended tlie "sunset clause" be for one year instead of six months which will be more in line with completion of the General Plan. RECESS Mayor Birdsall called a recess at 10:54 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 11:01 PM. It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Mayor Pro Tam Lindemans to extend the meeting until 11:30 PM. The motion was unanimously carried, with Councilmember Mur~oz absent. The City Attorney read an additional hardship condition for Section 4 as follows: "4. A. Commercial off-premises signs, provided that upon a finding of hardship made by the Planning Commission, following s noticed public hearing, a commercial off- premises sign may be approved subject to compliance with the provisions of Riverside County ordinance No. 348 Article XIX." The City Attorney read an addition of a "Sunset" clause to the regular ordinance which should read as follows: "This ordinance shall expire one year following its effective date." It was moved by Mayor Pro Tam Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 92-06 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PERTAINING TO SIGN REGULATIONS AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS The motion was unanimously carried, with Councilmember Mur~oz absent. Min~)4%14't92 -15- 04122/92 Citv CogNil Minuteq April 14, 1992 It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to adopt an urgency ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 92-07 AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PERTAINING TO SIGN REGULATIONS AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS The motion was unanimously carried, with Councilmember Muf~oz absent. Councilmember Parks requested a study group be established to review this ordinance and allow enough time for City Council review. Mayor Birdsall requested this committee be comprised of a member of the City Council,j Planning Commission, City staff, representatives of the billboard industry, and merchants. 26. Ordinan(;e Grantino APprOval Authority for Subdivision and Land Use ADolication Decisior~ Director i of Planning Thornhill presented the staff report. Mayor I~irdsall opened the public hearing at 11:07 PM. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to continue the public hearing until the meeting of May 12, 1992. The motion was unanimously carried, with Councilmember Mufioz absent. 29. Temoortrv Pavino of Parkino Lot at 6th Street and Front Street 30. Maintenilnce of Streets Not Within the Maintained Road System It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Councilmember Moore to continue Items 29 and 30 to the next available agenda. The motion was unanimously carried, with Councilmember Mur~oz absent. Min%04% 14%92 - 16- 04122/92 Ciw Cou~il Minute Atril 14. 1992 COUNCIL BUSINESS 28. OrdinarKie Aoorovin9 Charge of 7one No. 18 - Specific Plan ~19 Director of Planning Thornhill presented the staff report. City Clerk Greek stated that Larry Markham has presented her with a list of names and addresses of those who stood in support of Change of Zone No. 18 at the meeting of March 24, 1992, and this will be made part of the public record. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Parks to approve staff recommendation as follows: 28.1 Read by title only and introduce an Ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 92-08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION CONTAINED IN CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 18 CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-A 2 1/2 (RESIDENTIAL AGRICULTURAL, 2-112 ACRE LOT SIZE MINIMUM) TO S-P {SPECIFIC PLAN) ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MARGARITA ROAD AND DE PORTOLA ROAD The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Moore, Parks, Birdsall I COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans I COUNCILMEMBERS: Mufioz 31. Considerption of Promotional OppOrtunity - Volvo World CuD Team Pennino Committee Mayor Birdsall introduced the item and asked Madonna Cummins to speak. Madonna Cummins, 31670 Rancho California Road, asked for City Council sponsorship for the Volvo World Cup Team Penning Competition. She stated a banner promoting the City would be placed in the arena and the Mayor would be invited to present belt buckles to the winners. Min%04\14~92 - 17- O4122/92 City Council Minutel; April 14. 1992 Councilmember Moore stated she feels this request has come too late to fully utilize the requested el ,500. It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to deny the request for appropriation of funds. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Moore, Parks, 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: 'Muf~oz Mayor Birdsall stated she has voted in opposition since this is a promotional opportunity for the City and should not be considered as a request for funds from the Council discretionary funds. 32. Temoorerv Political Signs It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to receive and file the report. The motion was unanimously carried, with Councilmember Muftoz absent. CITY MANAGER REPORTS City Manager Dixon announced a press conference will be held on May 6th at the Doubletree Hotel, 10:30 AM, to display the City's Public Relations. Program. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS None given. s CITY COUNCILi REPORTS Mayor Pro Tem !Lindemans requested the staff proceed with establishing a city/school district committee to explore site selection for a school bus facility comprised of two City Councilmembers, two members of the School Board of Directors end two staff members from each agency. Min%04\l 4~.92 -18- 04/22/92 Ciw Council Minutee April 14. 1992 Councilmember Parks requested staff check into recent advertising for Valley Beat which offered free passes to the teen night club. Mayor Birdsell asked staff to prepare a resolution supporting the Chamber of Commerce and Temecula Town Association effort to reinstate Friday Western Days in Temecula and place it on the next agenda. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemsns, seconded by Counciimember Moore to adjourn at 11:35 PM to the next regular meeting on April 28, 1992 at the Temecula Community Center. PATRICIA H. BIRDSALL, MAYOR ATTEST: JUNE S. GREEK, CITY CLERK Mi n\04% 14%92 - 19- 04122/92 ITEM NO. 3 RESOLI.~ON NO. 92- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLA1MS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DL:TERMIN~ AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A have been audited by the City Manager, and that the same are hereby allowed in the amount of $781,521.38 SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 28th day of April, 1992. ATTEST: Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] 3~ssos 232 I STATE OF CALIFORNIA) 'COUNTY OF mVERSm~-) crrYoF~ ) ss 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 Temeeula on the 28th day of April, 1992 by the following roll call vote. 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None June S. Greek, City Clerk 252 2 CITY OF TEMECULA UST OF DEMANDS 04/10/92 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 04/17/92 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 04/09/92 TOTALPAYROLL: rd224,159.12 TOTAL lIST OF DEMANDS FOR 4/28/9~ COUNCIL MEETING: DISBURSEMENTS BYFUND: CHECKS: 001 GENERAL 016 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FUND (RDA) 019 TCSD 021 CAPITAL PROJECTS-CITY 029 CAPITAL PROJECTS-TCSD PAYROLL: 001 GENERAL (PAYROLL) 019 TCSD (PAYROLL) TOTAL BY FUND: PREPARED BY KARMA MCINTYRE I, MA E HENRY, C' ~OFF CER I,R $781,521.38 $,563,477.56 $1,561.90 $64,952.56 $14,469.86 $36,864.56 $80,227.44 $19,86720 $781,521.3~ ,HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOVVING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. ,HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. 04/101~2 gltv oT iemecuia Fiscal Year: 1992 Check Register i Station: 3369 Check Date Vendor Name Invoice Date PIO Date Description 00009657 03126192 STATECOn STATE COHPENSATIOH INS. FUND 03i292 03112192 0M12192 NARCH 92 0T~924---0~!12t92 03112192 NARCH 92 INVOICES Gross Discount Net 717.14 0.00 7,84~8t 0000f744 0IIIl/92 lCltARETI ICNA RETIIEI~NT .2iFCIt.73 03126192 'l 00009784 04/08192 PERS ,~ 0t0192 00009781 04110192 AEI SECg AEI SECURITY INC. 195 03116192 11409 03/13/92 285 04/01/92 11409 0M13/92 184 01111192 0309 10115191 Check Totals: · 01126192 Norall PIR 1126192 03131/t2'MJICH 92'PAT!!BIT Check Totals: PERS (HEALTH INSUlt, PRERIiJ~) 04103192 .04103192 INSURAKi P~ENIUN ~RIL 92 : ; ' "':' :' Check Totals:' ,SECURITY 8YST.TEEN CTR;SSRV, SECURITYIAPRZL NONITORINCIAPRIL 4U|~i 92 8,582.t5 0.00 8~582.95 595.21 O.OO 595.21 1.80 0.00 -1,B0 597,01 0.00 597.01 lVJ21.11 0.00 19,(21.11 19,421.15 0.00 19,421.15 795.00 0.00 795,00 25.00 0.00 25.00 105.00 0,00 105.00 00009797 04110192: ALLIB ALJjE/)-BARRICADE 1220!6-00 04103/92 0~58 121717-00 03/27142 0358 · Check Totals: 925.00 0.00 925.00 02113/92 BATTERIES FOR BARRICADES 142.25 O.O0 !42.2~ 02/13/92 BATTERIES FOR BARRICADES 80.81 0.00 80.81 Check Tota]s: 00009786 04/10192 ANERICBU AHERICAN DUSINESS FORRS 50626~ 0II20192 1'1407 OllIO192-AP~I.IC~T~.'BUIL~ING-PERNIIS 00009789 04/i0/92 ARTESIA 12610 Check Totals: ARTESIA IHP4.EJtENT 04109192 04109/92 REPAIR N~SSEY TRACTOR 223.04 0,00 221,04 67~.44 O.O0 67;.44 67~,44 0.00 67~, 1,218.92 0.00 1,218.92 00009790 04110/92 ASSESSOR C0UNTY ASSESSOR 032692 03126192 01t2r2 03/42192 Ch:c~ Tot-h: 03/26/92 DC808 TOP TEN CITY PRINTOUT 01!~2!92--17 .~SSESSORS-NAP-COPIES 1,218.92 0.00 1,215.92 215.50 0.00 215.50 18~50 0-.~0 -18.50 .... OOOO97-9-1-04~I~I-92-AVP . ~VP--VISION-FLAN 040392 04103192 Check Totals: 04103192 INSURANCE PRE~I~IAPRIL 92 234.00 0.00 2~4.00 615.65 0.00 615.65 Checkqot~ls: 00009792 04/10/92 REDFORD BEDFORD PROPERTIES, INC. 012592 03/11192 03111/92 ELECTRICAL USAGE RE!F3 Check Totals: 0000979~ 04110192 BIRDSALL BIRDSALL, PATRICIA 011092 0}/-10192 O;Y10tq2-CONFERENCE-L-OF-CCtREI!~8 --615.65 ~ 615,65. -- 527.99 0.00 527.99 527.99 0.00 527.99 t2~>-- 0~00 12,00------ Check Totals: ......00009794 04110/92 BONAVR[E BONAVR!ES, SHARON ....... C~25°2 0~/25/92 05125197 REFUND/~A~IC ~OUHTA!~ 12,00 0.00 12.00 14.00 0,00 14.00 ....................... Check Totals: 000097?5 04110192 CALIFORN CALIFORNIAN 06877 02126192 10938 10i02/9! LEGAL NOTICES: PLANNIN~ DEPT. 14.00 ........ 0.00 ....... la 50.20 0.00 30.20 Fiscal Year: 1992 Check ReSister Station: Check Date Vendor Naee Invoice Date P!O Date ~scription Dross Discount Check Totals: 30.20 0.00 00009796 04/10/92 CALMEST CAL lIEST RENTAL CENTER 07~00A----0~1-191~2-11245 -01~22/92-AUGER .................... 49,34- 0.00 si~9 Check Totals: 49,34 0.00 00009797 04110192 CCCA CA [QtffRACT CITIES AS~OCTATIQ 040392 04103192 04103192 REGISTI4/241921COt~,NKSHPIHJISO 140.00 0.00 30.20 00009798 04110/92 CHAPNAN 040292 CAeek-Tetalst CHAPNAN UNIVERSITY 04/02192 04102/92 CONF.IINTERROCATIONID[IC[ Check Totals: 00009799 04/10192 COLONIAL COLONIAL UFE & ACCIDENT 0~0~2 ~/03192 04/O3/~2-]NSURAIW, F.-P-ERIUH,$-~R~L---t2 Check Totals: O~O09800-04110/~R2-COUNT~CO-COUN~Y-OF-RJJ/ERS~DE-*CLERK OF 040692 04106/92 04106192 DUPLICATIN6 COSTS 49.34 140.00 ---CAeck-Tot~ls:- 000098Cl 04/~0/92 CO~TYPU COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE/SUPPLIES 129946 04101192 04/01/92 FOLDERS/FILES/~ATTERY &~5~----0~10~192 04/OI~2-CRED~T-SUPPL~ES 131753 0410tl92 04101192 ENVELOPES 131156 04101/92 04/011~2 ENVELOPES ---14,~093 .... -03117J~2 1133~ · - !~0,00 ~ 140.-00 264,00 0.00 264.00 264.00 O.OO 264,00 t~Q2~.2-5 O,OO h022,25 1,022.25 0.00 1,022.25 %80 0.00 7.80 ................. 7,80- 15.06 0.00 25,97. .O.OO 36.42 0.00 42.97 0.00 O31~31~2--CL-IP-S|IAQUI~-P~PER;BATTERIES .... 286.14 ........... -0~ Check Totals: 354.62 0.00 0000~802-04~10/t2 CS~A CSBA 96299 03111/92 11255 02103192 REGISTRATION CONFER. FES.7,92 75.00 O.O0 Chec~ T~tals: 75.00 0,00 00009803 04/10192 DAVLIN DAVLIN 89-25:166 03120R2 11297 02/11/92 TAPE CNS llJ4 O.OO Check Totals= 11.34 00009804 04110192 DENTICAR DENTICARE OF CALIFORNIA 040392---04103192 Oq/O,~L924MSURANCE-PRENIU~-FOR-APRIL92--- 815,00 0.00 0.00 O000~O5--O4/-IOI-92-EVREX* --EVE;[. 05::$782 03127192 11298 Check Totals: 815.00 0.00 02101192 IHCROFILfi CAD]NET;ENG|ICEERIN6 260.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .Cneckjotals: ..................... 280.09 00009806 04/10/92 FiRSTI~P FIRST I~PRESSIONS 920088 02/28/92 11354 02128/92 STAFF SHIRTS;SEAT SHIRTS Check Totals: 0000980? 0q/!0!92 FLOORCOV FLOOR COVERING SFECIALISTS 052&92 C5/26/92 11411 03/16t92 CDNCESSIDN:TtLE&LABOR:SPT.PRK ~70,22 645.53 645.53 0,00 0.00 Cnac~ Totals: 00009808 04/10/92 GLENfilES GLENHIES OFFICE P~OD~CTS - 100720-0 03124/~2 11542 05103192 ENVELOPES ETC, 970,22 0.00 Check Totals: 88.56 7.80 .... 15.06 '25.97-" 36.42 42.97 2B&,t4-- 354.62 75.00 11.$4 11.~4 815.00 + ' 815.00 2B0.09 280,09, .. 645.53 645.53 U0.22 88.3& 88.36 FiscaJ ~ear: 1992 ~he~k Register ~t~t:$~: I,~9 Check Date Vendor Invoicm Date 00009~09 04110192 6OLDENST 6OLDEN SLATE ,TRA~iN6 CO. 14617 ~/01192 11430 03/24/92 CONTROLLER;I$OI~ITOR CARS 61.36 O.OO Check Totals: 61.~6 0.00 6!.56 00009810 04/10/92 GREAT G.R.E.A.T. TRUST 090392 0410]~92 041~It-%PRENIUI~4]R-APRIL--92 790.00 0.00 790,~)~ ... Name PID Date Description Gross Discount Net ~2--;~OVENOi~NN 0~3092 03130192 Check Totals: 03/30192 LODGING/CONF/2 OFFICERS 790.00 0.00 790.00 113.36 0.00 113.36 Check Totals: 113,~ 0.00 00009812 04110192 GTEGILL 6TE 699-2~9a 03/28192 03126/92 714-699-23091NARCH DXLLIll 26.82 0.00 26.82 695--1539,1--~1,28/92 O~e2 714-69~-,~19/~AR-28-8tLLtN8 26.72 0,00- ~6¢72 .... Check Totals: 0000981; OU!O/9;-JiANK~AR NAN~DN~E 033192 08131192 11380 03102192 NISC PARTSITCSDINARCH 92 055192-1 031~1192 11242 01/22/92 K15C PARTS/TCSD/MRCH 92 0~1~2-2--*031~t192-113&&--* 02/01t92-~RCH-CHGS 55.54 0.00 55.54 483,73 0.00 485.75 94.2i 0.00 94.21 - 207.76 ........... 0.00 ..... 207,76 Check Totals: O000981~-OAI~OI92~HARRIN~T--HARRINGTON~-KEVIN-- 032~92 08/23/92 03/23/92 NILEAGE ~/13,3/20 785.70 0.00 785.70 8.40 0.00 B.40 Check-Tot~l~t 00009815 04110192 HYATTALI HYATT REGENCY ALICANTE 040292 04102/92 04/02192 LODGING/CONFERENCE Check Totals: 00009816 04/10/92 KINGGARY KING~ GARY 052692 03~2~192 05126192--RE]ND~CPRS-CONF.--- 8,40 ..... 0,00 ............8,40 14G,24 0,00 14E 148,24 0,00 148,24 --99.i7 .... O,OO------- 99~17 ...... 00009817-04110/92-LANIER~D-DENISE-LANIER 032592 03125/92 Check Totals: 03125/92 NILEAGE 3/19R2 99,17 0.00 99.17 23.24 0.00 25.24 Check-Totals: 00009818 04/10192 LAURSEM LAURSEN & LAURSEN ELECTRICAL 337~ 0~/26192 11417 03/24192 EXTENSION CASLE;~OVE COPER 295,00 0,00 Check Totals= 295,00 0,00 00009819 04110192 LEAGUE LEAGUE OF CALIF, CITIES ___--040292 J~1/-02192 041.02~92.£ITE REGISTRATZOt~-GROtTH ~T ......... 35,00 ........ O.OO .................... 23,24 ......... 0.~ ......... 25,24 ..... 295.00 295.00 ;5.00 Check Totals: $5,00 0,00 --O0009820~4110t92-LOC~----LOCAL-GOVERNHEHT-CONHISSION .............................................. 040792 04107/92 04107192 SOLID MASTE MORKSHOPIS/71OH 69,00 0,00 $5,00 69,00 Check Tote!s: 00009~2! 04/!0/72 HAPlLYNS HARTLYkI'E COFFEE SERVICE 20~7 05/30/92 11413 03/16/92 COFFEE 3UPPLIE~:Ci> HALL ~982 03/16/92 i1415 05/[~i~2 COFFEE SUPPLIES~CIT¥ ~ALL 2002 C5,'i6192 11413 05!I~/92 COFFEE SUPPLiES:CITY HALL 69,00 0,00 ~9,00 55,5O O.OO 55.50 95.10 O.OO 62.20 O.O0 ....... Check Totals:. 212.80 0.00 212.80 Fiscal Year: 1992 Check Register Station: Check Date VanNor Name Invoice Date PIO Date Description Gross Discount Net 00009822 04110192 ~URICE ~URXCE PRINTERS QUICK PRINT 17906~ 03105192 11382 03~03~92 PRINTING; 'UNDER AKENITIES" 43.63 O.O0 4;.65 Check Totals: 43.63 0.00 00009823 04110192 MCCANN MCCAlt PRINTING SERVICES 0183 82!81192 11119 02101192 FE3R~RY NEWSiZ-I:iER;PULqCE 40&94S Check Totals= oeoe98~4-04110/92 MCCAVRAN LO~RI AMi MCBAVRAN 033192 03131192 03131/92 MILEAGE 2/1/92-3r~1/92 404,43 0.00 ~8,43 108;92 0.00 !08.92 00009825 04110192 fiELAD 032692 00009826 04110!92 NMASC 040692 Check Totlts-: MEUID & ASSOCIATES 03/26192 03128192 PLAN CHECKS MARCH Check Totals: MUNICIPAL K6NT ASSIST. OF S.C 09/06192 0410&Iq2--REEISTI~I~tI(O~L-R~t~/GY 108,-92 0.00 Z08~92 .. 254,31 0.00 254,31 254,31 O.O0 254.31 64..-00 0.00 6{~ .~. 0000982-70{/{O~92-q~30REPEO~EO-NOORE 0~10~2 03110192 Check Totals: 03/10192 REIMB PHONE CHG/RAR 10 64.00 20.4~ 0,00 64,00 0,00 20.49 00009828 04110/92 NELSON SHAWN NELSON 032592 03!25/92 00009829 04/10t92 NESB.TOR NES 6. TORGA 6;1892 0~118/92 -Check-Totals: 03125192 CPRS CDNFERENCE/REIM~ Check Totals: 031-18R2--KILERGE--2lt4-31ZB * 20,49 0~00 20.44 0.00 20.44 0.00 --36.96 0.00 20,49 ..... 20.44 20.44 S&.96----- Check Totals: O00098SO-04/-IO/-92-NINESHEt--iTEFFERY-T~--NtliESHEIN 0~2592 03125192 03~25~92 CPRS CONFERENCE/REINS 36.96 0.00 36.96 71,26 0,00 71.26 Check-Totals: ............ 71.26 00009831 04110192 OLSDN/DO FINAL TOUCH MARKET 0384/~5-92 02/28/92 0339 02101192 PROIU)T1ONAL JAN THRU FEB 92 10,155.00 -038413~-92-04t~11g~0330 02101-/92-PROMOT{ONAL-HARCH-APRIL-92 ...... 10~155,00 0~84137-92 03130192 0339 02101192 PR~OTIONN. FILM PREP & PRINT 26,937.50 0384/8-92 04101/92 0339 02/01/92 PROMOTIONAL APRIL 92 e,O00.OO 0.00 71..26 .... 0.00 10,155.00 0.00-- 10~155.~ ...... 0.00 26,937.50 0.00 8.000.00 Check Totals: 00009832 04110192 OLSTENTE OLSTEN TERPORARY SERVICES 03;20549-*-031221~2.~398- -.031t7/92 TEMP.CSDIKAINT.NORKER * 55,247.50 0.00 55.247.50 ....... 271,~- 0.00 ...........271.,~ ....... ---000098S5-04ft0tg2 ORANGES 026279 Check Totals: 271.36 0.00 271.36 ORANGE-SPORTING GOODS ................................................................ 03124192 11299 02Illt92 SOFTBALLS 817.82 0.00 817.82 03/26!92 00009855 04/Ib/92 PETROLAN PETROLANE ........ 502631 03/20/92 tng95 Check Totals: 03/26192 CPRS CONFERENCE/REI~? Check lotal~: 10/2!/91 FUEL (PRDPANE) TCS~ ~I20/~2 ~17,82 0.00 B17.G2 158.!4 0.00 158.!4 158.!4 0.00 !58,14 60,24 0,00 60.24 Fiscal Year: 1992 Check Register Check Bate Vsndor Name Invoice Bate P/O Date DescriDtion Gross Discount O000~%-04110192-PETTYC .... PETTY--CILSH 040192 04101192 Check Totals: 04101192 CASH REIHB HARCH Net 00009837 04/10192 PHOTOTRO PfiOTO TROPHY 03126192 11420 [l~_c~ T~t!ls: 03119192 CERTIFICATE FRI~IES;DLACK Check Totals: 00009858 04110192 PREFERLA PREFERRED LANDSCAPES H0792 04107192 04107192 REFUND PERHITS Check Totals: 00009839 O~/!O!$2-GUAL. ITY--GUALI~--TONE~.. ~JPPLY-- 1013 05/24/92 11414 05116/92 RECHARGE TONER CARTRIDGES 00009840 04110192 RAMSEY 110B 00009841 04/10192 RAN-CAL Check-;otals: RAHSEY BACKFLOM & PLUHBTN6 05111192 11294 02111192 REPA]R BACKFLON;SPORTS PARK Check Totals: RAN-CAL ~ANITORIAL SUPPLY 05/-2;~-~2---Zt42; O$12O/-9-2-,I~NIT.SUPPLIEStMRCH-92 Check Totals: _ O0009B42-04~OI-92-HAN=TEC:: RIt~TEC-RUBBER-STAI~-Jt~G 007141 04102192 11432 03/25/92 NAEGADGESITEEN COUNCIL 007061 03124192 11433 03123192 GUTTONS~DAPPER Check Totals: 71,12 0,00 00009843 04110192 RANCHDBL RANCHO BLUEPRINT 40740--- ....0;/25192--1142& (~I25/92-1~PPING-SUPPLIESIBLUPRINTS ......... 41,99-- O,O0 40915 03/27192 11426 03/25192 ~IPPI!6 SUPPLXES EBLUPRINTS 6,47 0,00 40428 05125192 11426 0~/25R2 NAPPING SUPPLIES &BLUPRINTS 1,93 0.00 ..... 402~0 ..05125192 11426---03125192-HAPPIIS-SUPPLIES-IBLUPRXNTS ...... 80,49 ........... 0,00 ....... 40745 05124/92 11~00 02/11/92 DLUEPR]NTSI ENGINEERING OEPI, 5,45 0,00 40291 03/05/92 11~00 02111R2 8LUEPRINTS~ ENGINEERING DEPT. ~,71 0,00 Check Totals: 00009844 04110192 RANGLASS RANCHO GLASS & SCREEN 8912 ...... O~Ii~!92-11594----O;I05192-SUGING-DOORS~CONCESSION 60.24 0,00 ~0.2( 189.80 0,00 189.80 0.00 --189,80- 112.55 0.00 112.55 112.55 0.00 112.55 95.00 0.00 95.00 95,00 0,00 95,00 196,00 0.00 I%.00 -- 196,00 O,O0 196.00 ...... 225,00 0,00 225,00 225,00 0,00 225,00 ---564,0~ 0,~)0 :SH,O~ .... 364,07 0,00 364,07 49.49 0,00 49.49 22,63 0,00 22, "' 71,12 31.98 ...... 6,47 --80,49 .-- 5.43 5.71 Check Totals: ....... 00009945 04/IO/92--R!VERHAG-R[V-,-CO. HAGIIA[-CONSERVATION ......................... 050992 05109192 03109192 FEB & HARCH PAYMENT 130.01 485,00 ................. Check4otalsm 00009846 04110/92 SAFETYSI SAFETY SIGN COHPANY 22-5814~ 02112192 11264 0!/29R2 CEILING MIRRORS:CITY HALL 22-53!48CR 02/121~2 02t12!92 CREDIT ~E~O RETURNED ITEMS 22-39955 05!2bl92 11552 02127/92 FULL DOHE NIRROR;CZT¥ HALL 495,00 6~142,84 -- 6~142,84 Check Totals: 000098~7 04!I0t92 S~,OIEGO SAN DIEGO UNIOI4/UNION TRIBUNE ~-i989~ 02/26/92 11318 02/14R2 OPEN ACBOUNT;RE~RU~T~ENT ADS 275,58 66,69- 151,79 340,~6 290.56 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 130,01 495.00 6,142,84 ---~,142,84 0.00 0,00 0.0~ 0,00 2?5.59 !31,77 340,66 290,~ 04/10/72 rose: Fiscal YHr: 1992 Station: Check Register Check Date Vendor Nice Invoice Date 00009848 041X0192 SCMAF ~ 040192 04~0t/~2 Date Description Sross Check 1orals: 290.36 Discount Net 0.00 290.36 04 t0t R2 -TEAM -REG I STRAT-I ON .............. -48, O0 0,00-- 48.00 , -- Check Totals: 00009849 fi/10/92 SENfiTERg-SENATC--RULES-COI~LT~EE 040292 04102192 04/02192 PUBLICATIONS/ASSSSENT DIST, 48.00 0.00 48.00 6,47 0.00 6,47 00009850 04110192 SIRSPEa SIR SPEEDY 4967 0~/27/92 11458 495I 0Sl27/92 1092~ 4841 0~117/92 11319 Check Tateli: 6.47 03127192 BUSlESS LICENSE APPLICATIONS 184.12 10102/91BUS, CARDS-FOR41EI-EIIPU)YEES 86J1 02119192 BUSINESS CARBS;TCSD 193,95 0TO0 6,47 0.00 154.12 0.00 86,31--- ~ 0.00 19~.95 00009851 04110/92 SMART&F[ SMART & FINAL 040692' 04/06/92 Che~k4otats~-- 04106/92 CANDLES FOR EASTER HUNT 444,38 600.00 0,00 444,U 0.00 600.00 Check Totalst 600,00 0000~852 04110192 SO CAL-2 SO,CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE CO, ..... 287494Cg- -03t07/92 ....... 0~107t92-714-287-48401~107t92 )ILLINS ...... 101,48- 0.00 '600.00 --0.00 ......... 10!.68 QOOO9853-O4/ZOI92 SDUTHCED SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON 667959080~ 03/26/92 696750!07~ 03/31192 .... 447-958462,1-G.~/26/92-- 66795991S0 03126192 6658509003 03/26/92 ~4051040~-0~1261~2 66405067N 03126192 Check Totals: 101.48 03/26/92 6677795908004000012120-3119 18,79 03/31192 6977678010702000412124-3124 8,19 03126192.64777~594620300091212~-3119 ............... 62,21 0~/26/92 66TI795991~0212120-31~9 237,43 03/26/92 667758509000212/20-3120 219,58 0,00 101,68 0,00 15,79 0,00 8,18 0,00 ......... 62,21 .... 0,00 2~7,43 0,00 219,58 0~12~192-44774051040020008/212~-~1.19 ......... 212,37 .......... 0,00 ....... 212,~ ....... 03126192 6677405067702000012120-~I19 204,52 0,00 204,52 "Check'Totals:- ODD09854 04/10/92 STEVESMY STEVE SNYTH CONTRACT PLUMBING 1697 0~/31/92 11403 03/1~192 UPSRADE CONCESSION ST~ND;S,P, Check Totals: 00009855 04110/92 TAB PROD TAB PR0DUCTS 11-694430--03/30192-1t424 OZI2419~CLASSIFICATION LABELSiCTY 0.00 .............963,08 .... 700,00 0,00 700,00 700,00 0,00 700,00 - -- 31,37 .......... 0.00- ............-31 O0009856-04110192-TARSET .... TARGET-STORE---- 040692 04/06/92 Check Totals: 04106/92 PRIZES & PLASTIC EGGS ESTR HT 31.37 0,00 31.37 450.00 0.00 450,00 ....................... Check--Totals: ..... 00009857 04/10!92 TEMVLY-2 TEMECULA VLLY SCHOOL DISTRICT 91164 03131192 03131192 711-7/15 FACILITY USED Check Totals: 00009858 04/10/92 TIMBERLA TIMBERLAKE PAINTING 052~92 0512~/92 11405 03/13192 PAINTICONCESSION 450,00 .......... 0,00 .... 450,00 -- S40.00 0.00 340.00 I40,00 O,O0 340,00 BO0.O0 0,00 800.00 Check Totals: ~" 0000?859 041101q2 TO~RKSP TOeARK SPORTS~ INC, 8781 03131/~2 1127~ 02104192 BASES FOR SOFTBALL 800,00 0,0(! 800,00 5~7,85 0.00 557.85 Check Totals: 537,85 0.00 557,85 FLscal Vear: 1992 Check RegLster 5tatxon: 3Sb~ Check Date Vendor Mame Invoicm Date PIO Bate Description O00099&O 04/IOI92TUNNCTR 'TOWN CENTER STATIONERS 15;70-0 02105192 11252 01110192 OFFICE SUPPLIES; PLANNING 151'/0-2 92~07192-1-1252 ... OY4Otr~-OFFICE-~UPP~EShPLANNIN6 Eross 86.14 4.44 90.58 12.50 12,50 12,50 12.50 12,50 12.§0 75.00 66.94 66.94 llS.88 149.33 49.78 423.44 248.00 248.00 90.00 90.-0~ 4,060.05 4,060.05 1,077.50, 000098bl 04110192 UNITOK UNITQG RE-uT.~L SC, RIgCE 8771570327 03127192 0365 02127192 8771570403 04103192 0:$65 6772570320 fi!20192 IIIBO 8772570313 03113192 11180 8772570327 03/27/92 11180 8772~7010! 0~!~3192 11190 02127/92 12113t91 12113191 12113191 12!!3!91 Check loUIs: UIilFOR!~ RENTNJ31271~2 UNIFOIN RENTALiO4103192 UIItFORIFP, B~ AL$103120192 UNIFORN REMTALSI0311:S192 UNIFOll RENTALSI03127192 ,JMIFOIMi-REMTAL-S/4/-03/-92 Check Totals: OOO09~&2--OLLIO~-USCN . USCR 2PTRl,73 03126192 03/26192 Normal PIR 3126192 3PTRT,7$ 03126192 03/26/92 Normal PIR 3126192 Check Totals: 00009863 04/10192 M~TE~6N MASTE HANA6ENENT INC. O!:J;..,~ 04/011~2 O¢IOY~918~i~/4~-~PRtL-SERV, 033106 04101192 04101192 89188016466 APRIL SERV. 032991 04101/92 04101192 89188012908 APRIL SERV. Check Totals: 00009864 04!10192 CHAPRAN CHAPRAN UNIVERSITY Ol,lO~2 ~/-34~92 O,I/Z~92-CUNF-AIHTC, RROGATtONI~N~/,tOHN Check Totals: 00009865 0411O~t~-LE4U~jE----LEAGUE--OF-CAL4F--CLTIES 040992 0410919'2 04~09~92 REGISTICDH SERV CDNF/4/24 ~C Check-Totah: 00009866 04/28192 ALHAHBRA ALHANBRA GROUP 7725 03/31192 03131192 SERVICES 311192-3131192 Check Totals: 00009867 04128/92 BOOKPUS BOOK PUBLISHING CO &381,~-----~;1241-g2-O3T~ O$124*/92-*CODE-ORD]NANCE-.8ODKS Discount Net 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0~0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OO -- 0,00 O.O0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 O,O0 0.00 Check Totals: 1,077.50 O0009868_4)4128192_BURKE,~_BURKEFMILLIA~S-&-SORENSEN -- 08921 02128/92 02128192 LEGAL SERVI~/FEB 92 ~JSO.O0 0.00 3~150.00 B9230 02~28~92 02128192 LEGAL SERVICES FED, 92 3,489.35 0.00 ~,469.35 0892~-----02128/92 ......... 02i28192-LEEAL.SERVICES FE~ 92 .............. 1,661,90 .......... 0.00 i,661.90 ..... 08923 03118192 02129192 LEGAL SERVICES FEB 92 6,670.50 0.00 6,670.50 8&.14 4.-+"'~, - 90.58 12.50 12.50 12.50 12.50 12r50 , -- 75.00 66.94 66.94 133,BB 2).~3 ....... 149.33 49.78 423.44 248r00 = -- 90 .O0 90.00 , - 4:060.05 4..0&0.05 .... 1,077.50 32,!38.40 0.00 32.13S.40 .-,, 2,000.00 O. O0 2,000.. ,~ 00009870 04/28/~2 KLEINFEL KLEINFELOE~ 7¢20?6 02/28/92 Check Totals: 02/28!92 SERVICES FROfi 21!-2/2B _ Check-lotale~ ........... 14,971.75 .......... 0.00 ..... t4,g71.75-- - 00009869 04/28192 CALIFLAN CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE 30~5203 03/09/92 0252 08/28/91 LANDSCAPE NAINT/~ARCH 92 29,02&.40 0.00 29.026.40 ............ 308520330 -03131/92 11377 03102/92 LABOR & EQUIP.EASEmENT CLH-UP 1,152.00 O.O0 !,152,00 308520531 03151/92 11378 03102/92 INSTALL:LINERS;~INCHESTE~ CRK 1,960,00 0.00 1.960.00 F:sc;i ".,mar: 1392 Checm: Register Check Date Vendor Naee Invoice Date P/O Date bescription Check Totals: r~, 00009871 04/28/92 RICROABE HICRO ABE COMPUTER CENTER 4~e ~5/243J~2--11;l& 02/-19~92-SERVER:CIItNETiloR[ 438&7 05/16192 1131& 02/19192 SERVER!CITY METIgOR[ Bross 2~000.00 ......... 59.27 6,241.98 Discount 00009872 04/28192 RANTEl RANTEE 3982 0~/30192 0361 ~982-! 0~/~0~92-~171 3983 03131192 0371 3981 03/30192 0350 00009873 04128192 UNIOMLD UNION LAII1) TITLE 28026 03117192 28025 03/17/92 28028 03/17192 28030 03~t~92 2774~ 03/09/92 27954 03/13/92 .280;7- .......0;/17/92 .-- Check T~als: &:~1-.25 02/24192 CAT) BASIN DtNIIIEL CUENIIHAR 3,889.51' O$~taiV2-SlllEET-~~ 92. 12~I02.67 03116192 8TRED MAIIfi.MOR[ IN~REH; 92 22,857.04 01/29192 STREET NAIMTEMANCE 3/3D!92 6,725.50 Check Totals: 46,374.72 03117192..-2O~038--041~RELIN]IIARY-REPORT- 400,00 03/17/92 207035-041PRE1.IMINARY REPORT 400,00 03/17/92 207040-O4.PRELI~INkRY REPORT 400.00 03/17/92 207404.-04J, PREUMIIIiIY-REPORT 400.00 03109192 207051-04/PRELIHII~RY REPORT 400.00 03113192 207036-04/PRe~IHI!IARY REPORT 400.00 O,Ii*ITI92-207039-O41PRELIIfiIIARY..REPORT ........ 400.00 .----O0009874-04128/92-XERDX-I-.XEROX-SUPPLIES 146534711 05151/92 11423 Check Totals: 03118/92 TORER;DEVELOPER~CITY COPIER 2,900.00 1,614.10 Chect-T~tals~ Report Totals: 1,614.10---- 224,159.12 Net 0.00 2~000.00 0.00-- ...... 59.27 - 0.00 6,241.98 0.00 6~301.25--- 0.00 3,889.51 0.00 12-.~0~,&7 · 0.00 22r857.04 0.00 6,725.50 0.00 46,~4.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 qO0,O0 . -- 400.00 400.00 ~00,00 , . 400,00 400.00 400.00 ..... 0.00 2,800.00 0.00 1,614.10 O.O&- -I~614.10--- - 0.00 ~4,159.12 Report ~riter FUND CHECK NUNBER CHECK DATE VENDOR NA!tE CHECK LISTING BY FUND DESCRIPTION Station: 3; AHOUNT 001--00009657 031261-92 001 0000%57 0;/26192 001 00009657 03/26/92 --001 OQQQ. NL&57 001 00009657 03/2&/92 001 00009657 QQ1 Q0009657 03/26192 001 00009657 001 00009657 03126/V2 04)1 0000965-? 0~/-26~2 001 00009657 03/26/92 001 000096~7 0~/26/92 001 0000fi$7 0~/26/~2 001 000096f7 0~126f92 001 00009657 0~126192 001 00009744- . 001 00009744 03/31192 001 00009784 04108192 OOl--O000978~ -04110192 001 00009787 04110192 001 00009788 04110192 00t 00009;9.1-----04140192- 001 0000979; 04/10/92 001 00009795 04/10t92 --STATE-CORFENSATIUN-~MS,4UND- STATE COI~PENSATION INS, FUI~ STATE CD~PENSATION INS, FUND STATE COHPENSAT-~OH-4N~'UII~ STATE CO~PENSATION INS. FUND STATE CONPENSATION INS, FU~ STATE CONPENS~TION INS. FUI3 STATE CO~PENSATION INS. FUND STATE COI~ENSATIOH INS, FUND ST~T~C~ENSATION I~. F~NS STATE CO~PENSATIOR INS, FUND STATE CD~PENSATION INS, FU~ STATE-CO!~NSATIOH INS. FUND STATE CO~PENSATION INS, FUND STATE COHPENSATION INS. FUND ICWI-RE$IEHENT ICNA RETIREENT PERS (HEALTH INSUR. PREmlUN} ~Et-,SEC~I-TY IHC, ALLIED BARRICADE AHER1CAN BUSINESS FORNS AVP-VISION-PLAN BIRDSALL~ PATRICIA CALIFORNIAN 991 -.q00097-97 .... 04~10/92 ......... CA.GONTRACT-~IYrtES-ASSOCIATtO 001 00009798 04/10/92 CHAPHAm UNIVERSIIY 001 00009799 04/10/92 COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT 001 00009800 041-10192.-- --COUNT-V-OF-~IVERStDE-CLERK-OF 001 00009801 04i10192 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE/SUPPLIES 001 00009801 04/10/92 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE/SUPPLIES 001---00009802 -04/10/92 CSBA 001 00009803 04110192 DAVLIN 001 00009804 04/I0/92 DENTICARE OF CALIFORNIA 00! 00009805 -.04/-10192- E-VREX 001 00009808 04/10/92 BLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS 001 00009809 04/10192 GOLDEN STATE TRADIN6 CO, 001--00009810----04~t01-92 G,R,E,A,i~-TRUST.-- 001 00009811 04110R2 GROVENOR INN 001 00009812 04/10/92 BTE ---~0t--.-00009G12 .... 04110192 ........ GTE ..... 001 0000981~ 04110192 NAIlKS HARDNARE 001 00009815 04110192 HYATT REGENCY ALICANTE ---120t--10009~[7 -04~t0t9~ --)ENISE-L&NIER IIARCH 92 RANCH 92 INVOICES NARCH 92 NARCH-~2-]NVOICES NARCH 92 NARCN 92 INVOICES NARCH-92 NARCH 92 INVOICES RANCH 92 --KARC-IH~-tNVOICCS KARCH 92 ~RCH 92 INVOICES KARCH 92 INVOICES ~RCH 92 -Normml-P/i~-)/-26/92 NARCH 92 PAYHENT INSURANCE PREKIUN APRIL 92 .... mONITORINSI.APRIL~JUNE-92 BATTERIES FOR BARRICADES APPLICATIDNS)DUILO]NB PERHITS tNSORANCE-PREHIU~/APRIL-92- CONFERENCE L OF CC/REINB LEGAL NOTICES; PLANNING DEPT, PZ~GIST~4124t92tCO~,--NKSHP/HJ~ CORF./IHTERROCATIDN/BK/CK INSURANCE PRENIUHS APRIL 92 · 9UPLICATtNS-COSTS-- CLIPS;LIOUID PAPER;BATTERIES ENVELOPES ---REGISTRATlON-CUNFER,-FES~92 1APE CH6 INSURANCE PREmluN FOR APRIL92 ....... KICROFILH.CAD1NETIENGINEERING ENVELOPES ETC. CDNTROLLER;HUNITOR CARD PRENI~-FOR APRIL 92 LODGINS/CONF/2 OFFICERS 714-699-2~09/KARCH BILLING ..................... 78,70 2'.- ,31 L: ,00 ~', 54&.17 $o.9o 424.20 16,~o 2 ~ t'23 ~2o 3il 35 27 .H 1&1.41 255.71 552.&3 1.80 l&~050.gJ -- !05.4X~ 22~ .04 487 .~, Z~ 0n 2~4.0C 70L25 ....... 7.~ ~9~,~4 75.0~ ~ ,~4 ~5 -- N0.0S 61 ...... ~0,0~ 26,8: ............ 714-69~35391KAR-2B..RILLIN6 ............ 263: mARCH CHSS ~07,7t LODSINSICUNFERENCE 148,2~ KILEAGE-$!-I~/g2 ............. 2~,2~ 001 OOO09B1G 001 00009819 --- 001--00009820 .... 001 001 ...... 001- 001 001 001 001 00~ OOz 00! 001 ....... 00i 00009821 0000982~ .00009B25 00009826 00009827 0000982~ 0000~31 O000~S:i 00007831 00009831 -o000~638 04110192 04110192 -04110192 04f10192 04/10192 04/101~2 04110t92 04/10/92 0~!10!~2 04/1(!/~2 04/10/~2 (~4/1uR2 04/10/92 0~!10/92 04i10/t2 LAURSEN & LAORSEN ELECTRICAL EXTENOION CABLE;HOVE COPIER LEAGUE OF CALIF, CITIES SITE REGISTRATION GRUNTH N6T ........... LOCAL-60VERNNENT--COHKISSION ................... SOLID mASTE..*NORKSHOFISITIJH - HARILYN'S COFFEE SERVICE KCCANN PRINTINB SERVICES fiELAD & ASSOCIATES ........ KUNICIPAL K6KT ASSIST, OF S,C PEG ~OORE NES 6, TORGA PI~AL TOUCH HARKET FINAL IOUC~ ~AREl FINAL TOUCH NANNET FINAL TOUCH HARKEl PHOTO TROPHY PREFERREI~ LANDSCAPES 25,0( - 69,0( COFFEE SUPPLIES;CITY HALL 212,8( FEBRUARY MEWSLETTER;POLICE 40b,4: ..... PLAN CHECKS KARCH .............. REGISTI41171~O,LR~K~IGRIGY 64,0( REIH~ PHONE CHGIHAR 10 20,4< NILEAGE 2/14-~/18 3~.9~ PROKOTIONAL APRIL 92 G.OOC,O~ PROMOTIONAL JA~ THRU FE~ ~1 IC,l~t.O PROROTIONAL FIL~ PREP & PRINT ~'.937.5~ PROMOTIONAL KARCH-APRIL 92 155.0! CERTIFICATE FRA~ES:BLACt 112.5 REFUN~ PERHITS 95,0. Report Writer FUND CHECK NUMBER CHECK DATE VENDOR NAME 'CHECK LISTING BY FUND DESCRIPTION Stationl AMOUNT 001 00009839 ~4110192 001 00009841 04110192 /"' 001 00009842 04110/92 ' --.001--00009843-----04110/9~ 001 00009845 04110/92 001 00009846 04110192 001 0000984& 04110192 001 00009846 04110192 001 00009847 04110192 001 00009-8~ 01110~92 001 00009850 04/10192 OOI 000~B52 04/10192 001 00009855 04,f.,IQI92 001 00009857 04/IQ/92 001 00009860 04/10/92 OD1 00009861 04/10~92 001 00009861 04/10/92 001 00009862 04/20/92 001 000098~----0U-1,0~2 001 00009866 04~28~92 001 00009867 04128192 001 00009868 04/29/92 BURKE, NILtIAMS & SORENSEN 001 00009868 04/28/92 BURKE, NILLIArS & SORENSEN 001--0000~86.8--~04~28192 BURKEr-WILLIANS&-SORENSEN--- 001 00009870 04/28/92 KLEINFEL)ER 001 00009871 04/28192 HICRG ABE COMPUTER CENTER 00! 00009572 04/29192 - RAHIE[. 001 00009872 04128192 RANTEl 001 00009872 04/28/92 RANTEK 00! ~0009872 .... 04128192 ----~ANTEX 001 00009873 04/28192 UNION LAND TITLE 00! 00009873 04/28192 UNION LAND TITLE 001--000098~;- 04128/~2 ---- UNION-LAND-TITLE 001 00009873 04/28192 UNION LAND TITLE 001 0000987S 04/28192 UNION LAND TITLE gUALI.T)/--TONEL..SUPP~Y RAN-CRL ~ANITORIAL SUPPLY RAN-TEC RUBBER STAMP NFB RANCHO-BLUEPRINT RIV, CO, HABITAT CONSERVATION SAFETY SIGN COMPANY SAFE*TY SIGN COMPANY SAFETY SI6N COMPANY SAN DIE60 UNION/UNION TRIBUE S!R SPEEDY SIR SPEEDY SO,CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE CO, TAB PRODUCTS TEECULA VLLY SCHOOL DISIRICT TONN CENTER STATIONERS UNX-TOS-IIENTAL-SERVIDE UN[TOG RENTAL SERVICE USCN CH~PNAN-UNIVERSIT~ ........................ ALHANDRA GROUP BOOK PUBLISHING CO RECHARGE-TOI~R-CARTRIDOES. ~ANIT.SUPPLIESII~RCH 92 BUTTONS;~PPER BLUEPR t NTS; - EN6 1NEERI NG Dr."~l. FEB & MARCH PAY~NT FULL DDfiE HIRROR;CITY HALL CEILING MIRRORS~C%TY CRED]T REI!O RETURNED ITBS OPEN ACCOUNT~REC~UITENT ADS 91JS]NE~S-I;ICENSE-APPUCAfiONG BUS.CARDS FOR NEW EMPLOYEES 714-287-4840/~/07/92 BILLING CLASSZF-iCATION-I,ABELS~CTY CL[ 7/1-7115 FACILITY USED OFFICE SUPPLIESI PLANNING UN]FORK-RENTAL*/~/27/92 UNIFORMS RENTAL/04/O~/92 Norma] PIR ~/2&/92 CONF-/4NTBP. O6ATION/A~TiJOH~ SERVICES ~/1/92-~/~1/92 CODE ORDINANCE BOOKS 1~b.oo 22.6S 9.14 6,142.84 131.77 27L58 66.69. 290,36 -114~12 $a.~1 lehGB 110.00 9~.58 12.50 ~2.50 5:.i~ 248.0~ 4,0&0.05 1,077.5~ BUPJCEJILLIANS-&--,.$OREILSEN .................... LEGAL-SERVICESFEB-92--- .......... 294,24 LEGAL SERVICE/FEB 92 ~.!50.00 LEGAL SERV1CES FEB 92 ................ LEGaL-SERVICES-FERn-92 ..... SERVICES FROM 211-2/28 2,000,00 SERVER;CITY NETNORK ~,~01.25 ................ -STREET ~AINT.NOR[-~RCH-92-- 22,~7.04 STREET NAINTENIICE 31~0192 6~725.50 STREET HAINT./NARCH 92 12~902.67 CATrJ{-BASIN~L-CLE~N/I~R ~889,51 207040-04 PRELIMINARY REPORT ~0.0~ 2070$B-041PRELIMINARY REPORT lOO,O( --207016-041PRELIHINARY-REPORl ......... ~0.0~ 207401-041PRELIMINARY REPORT ~OO.O( 207037-041PRELININARY REPORT 400.04 001--0000981I.---04128192 ......... 001 0000987S 04128/92 UNION LAND TITLE 001 00009874 04/28192 XEROX-SUPPLIES ~01-8085 ...... 0,I1~1192 ............ IC~A ............................... 001 954~ 03151192 BIRDSALL~ PATRICIA 001 9547 0~/~1,192 CAPPD, INC. 001:955~- 0Z~/91./-92 FARALLON)UTING,-JNC 001 9570 0~/~/92 RESIDENCE INN 001 9708 0~/~L/92 SO,CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE CO. -----~01--970~ ..... 0,1!~1192 ......... SO.r. ALIEORNIA-IELEPHONE CO ....... 001 770~ 0~/31/92 SO.CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE CO. 001 ~708 0~f31192 SO,CALIFORfiIA TELEPHONE CO. -----00~---970S 0~I~I192- ........ SO.CALIFORNIA-TELEPHONE*CO. - ................ 001 ~?OB 03/~1/92 SO.CALIFORNIA TELEPHONE CO. 001 ~727 03/3!/92 AMERICAN RENT-A;FENCE -UNION-LAIID-TITLE-- ..................... 2070~9-041PRELININARY REPORT ......... 207035-041PRELIMINARY REPORT 400.04 TONER)DEVELDPERiCITY COPIER 1~114.14 ................................................... 0.04 O.O( O.O( VOID ........ O.O( VOID 0.0( CELLULAR 02191 0.04 -CELLULAR/02/92 .................. O.Om BATTERY PACK & ELIMINATOR 0,0~ CELLULAR 02/92 0.01 CELLULAR \-02/92 O,O~ CELLULAR 02/92 0.0~ VOID '.701 ~-- 016 O00O~S 04/28/92 BURKE, NILLIArS & SDRENSEN LEGAL SERVICES FES ~2 0!? 0000%57 0~/2~192 ---- 019.-~000%57--- ~312&/92 STATE CDMPENSATIO)~ INS. FUND STATE COHPENSATID~ INS. FUND MARCH 92 153.6 ~ARC~ q2 INVOICES Report Nriter CHECK LISTING BY FUND Station,: FUND CHECK NUI~ER CHECK D~TE VENDOR NAE DESCRIPTION AHOUm 019 0000qTH 019 00009784 00108192 019 0000978& 00110192 019 00009786 00Ft01~ 019 00009789 04110192 019 00009790 04110/92 019 00009790 04110R2 019 00009791 00110192 019 00009792 04t10/92 019 00009794 HIt0192 019 00009796 00110192 019 00009799 00110192 019 00009801 0(/1OR2 019 00009801 00110192 019 00009800- 00110192: 019 0000°,806 HIIOI~ 019 00009810 04110/92 019 0000981~ 04/10t92 019---00009814 00110192 019 00009816 00110t92 019 00009822 04/10/92 - 019--00009824 .041101-92 ,019 00009828 04/10/92 0Z9 000098~0 04/10t92 --0~9--000098,~2- ----041-10t-92- -- 019 00009833 04/10192 019 00009834 04/10/92 019- 00009~35 -.04/40192--- 019 000098~6 04110192 019 00009840 04110192 019 ~.r.3,.9~42 04~10192-- 01~ 0000984~ 04110192 019 00009848 04110192 019 ~009849 ~10192 019 00009850 04/10/92 019 00009851 00/10192 01.~-0000985~ .... 04110192 019 00009853 04110192 019 0000985~ 00110192 01-9--000098~ 04110192 019 000098~ 04110/92 019 0000985~ 04/10/92 017 ~000~85~ ~41-10/92 019 00009854 04110192 019 00009856 04110/92 ICNA4/-T-IREENT PERS (HEALTH I~UR. PREI(ION) AEI SECURITY INC. AE/-~ECUR~T~--]NC. ARTESIA I~PLEHERT COUNTY ASSESSOR CF~TY Le~EGSOR AVP VISION PLAR BEDFOP& PROPERTIED, INC. OONAVRICS, GIlAROW CAL NEST RENTAL CENTER COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE!~U."?L!ES COUNTY OF R]VERS[REISUPPHES DEMTICARE OFCALIFORNIA" F-./RST-4NIq~EHION8 G.R.E.A.T. TRUST HANKS HAPJ)NARE HARRINGTONrKEVtN KING~ GARY HADRICE PRINTERS BUICK PRINT -LORRI-ANN-HCGAVRAN SHANN NELSON ~EFFERY T, NINESHEIN -OLSTEN-TERPORARY-SERVtCES ORANGE SPORTING GOODS HERRAN PARKER PEIROLANE PETTY CASH RA~SEY ~ACKFLON & PLUNGING RAN4EC-RUBSER-STRKP-NFG-- Note! P!R-,1/-2~92 iNSURANCE PRENIUN APRIL 92 SECURITY SYST.TEEN CTR;SERU. SECORITYIAPR]L REPAIR HASSEY TRACTOR 37 ASSESSORS NAP COPIES DCG08-.TOP TEN CITY PRiNTOUT INSURANCE PRENItJHIAPRIL 92 ELECTRICAL USAGE REIHB REFUNO/-HAGIC ~OUNTAIN AUGER INSURANCE PHER]~S APRIL 92 CREDIT 64JPPLIES FDLOERSIFILESIBATTERY INSUNANCE PR~IUN FOR APRIL92 S-T-AFF--SH]R-T.S;SMEAT--GHtRTS PREHIUN FOR APRIL 92 HISC PARTS/TCSDINARCH 92 NtLEAGE~I~;/20 REIKB\CPRS CUNF. PRINTI~; "UNDER ANENITIES' NILEAGE-21.I/92-3t~t!92 CPRS CONFERENCE/REINB CPRS CONFERERCE/REINB TENP..CGD|NAINT.MORKER SOFTBALLS CPRS CONFERENCE/REIHB FUEL-(PROPANE}4CSD-~I20192 CASH REIHB NARCH REPAIR BACKFLOW;SPORTS PARK NAHERADGES;TEEN-COUNCIL- 42.58 ;$,~0.24 "~5.00 25.0~ ~21~.92 18.50 ----2L5.50 128.65 5~7.99 14.-0~ 49.34 15.06 1~2.00 170.00 577.94 9~ .17 4S.63 10~.92 20 71.2& 8~7.82 158.14 ~.24 ....... 48.49 RANCHO ~LUEPR]NT SC~AF $ENATE-RUL~S-CDHH];TEE SIR SPEEDY SMART & FINAL .SOUTHERN-CALIF-EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF BISON SOUTHERN CALiF EDISON SOUTHERN-CALIF-COISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON SOUT~RN-CAL~F-EDI$ON STEVE SNYTH CONTRACT PLUNO]N6 TARGET STORE flAPPING SUPPLIES &BLUPRINTS TEAN REGISTRATION ----PU~LICATIONSIASSESSISENT-D]ST, BUSINESS CARDS;TCSD CANDIES FOR EASTER HUNT 66774050677020000/2/20..$119 &&7779584~20~000912120-~!19 66774051040020008/2/20-~!19 .69776780107020004/2/26-3/24 6677795808004000012120-3119 667758509000212120-~120 ---667-779599130212120-$1~ UPORADE CONCESSION STAND~S.P. PRIZES & PLASTIC EGGS ESTR HT 120.87 48.00 6,47 1fi.95 600.00 204.52 62.21 2/2J7 8.18 18.79 219.58 257.4; 700,00 450.00 019--00009859 019 00009861 04110192 UNITOR RENTAL SERVICE 019 00009861 04/10/92 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE ~-~&9--00009861~---~)4110192 .......... UNITO6 RENTAL SERVICE .................. 041101-92 .......... -TONARK SPORTS:- INC ........... BASES-FOR-SOFTBALL. -- 01~ 00009861 04110192 UNIT06 RENTAL SERVICE 019 00009862 04110/92 USCH -01~ 000098~ 04110192 WASTE HAWAGEHENT INC. 019 00009663 04/10/92 WASTE HANABEHENT INC. 01~ 00009B65 04/10/92 WA3TE ~NABEHENT ]NO. .... 019-00009865 04:I0/92 LEABUE OF CALiF. CITIEB 0!9 00009869. 04/28/92 DURKL WILLI~HS & SOP~NSE~ 019 O0009Beq 04/28f92 CALIFORNIA LANDBCAPE 0i9 00009869 0~128/92 CALIFORNIA LANDBCAPE UNIFORH RENTALSI03113192 UNIFORN RENTALSI03/20/92 UNIFORN RENTALSt4/03/92 UNIFORM RENTRLSIO$I27192 NorH1P/R ;/2&/92 891880/2908 APRIL SERV. BglBBO/64~6 APRIL SERV. Bg18BO/43a~ APRIL BERV. REGISTICOH BERV CONF/4/24 aC LEGAL SERVICES FEB 92 LABOR & EQUIP.EASEmENT CLN-UP INSIALL|LINERS!NINCHESTER CRK --537,85 L2,50 12.50 &2.50 L2.50 80,76 49.7G 22~.~ ,1~.22 1,152.00 1,960.00 "04110/92 Report Nriter FUND CHECK NUNBER CHECK DATE 019 OOOOql~9 0&/..281~2 019 8085 0~131192 019 9510 019 9651 0;1IIR2 019 9708 03131192 019 9708 05131192 CHECK LISTINS ~Y FU~ 019. 029 0000-960? 029 00009844 04110192 029 O000tB58 04110192 VEND0R NAE CAt,IFORNIA NAGXC KINGDON CLUB IFJ~ERSH]P 6AIL--Z-I&ER SO.CALZFORNXA TELEPHONE CO. SO.CALIFORNIA TELEPHOtE CO. 029 FLOOR COVERING SPEC]~LZ5TS RANCHO GLASS & SCREEN TiHBERLAE PAiNTiNG DESCRIPTION AHOUNT LANDSCAPE*NAINT4NARCH-92 ........... 0.00 VOID .0.00 CELLULAR % 02/92 0.00 VOID O,OO 50,2&7.84 CONCrcSSION~411;EM.ABDRTSPt.-PR[ 9i0.22 SLIDING DOORS;CONCESSION 4e5.00 PAINT,~CONCESSION STAND 890,00 2,2$5.22 224~5~,~2 04/17/92 g~y o~ teaec~a Page: ~ Fiscal Year: 1992 Check Register SLation: 5369 Check Dike Vendor Nee Invoice Date P!O Dike Description 000ff675 00/15/92 L~F.H&ST LURCH & STUFF CATERING 041092 00110192 00110192 COUMCILISTkcF 041392 6ross Discount Net ~0.00 Q,O0 ~ "~ --57-,0o -Q,OO ....... 57,,. N)O(R6?6 00115/e? rammUD nO~ 000&H 0010&192 00009877 00116192 SIgIRTiFI IT l FINN. 001492 00114192 Check Totals: 0010&192 iLlflU rk-cL_Tolalse 00114192 CANDY FOR EASTER E66 gJT t47.OQ O.O0 147 162.70 O.O0 162.70 J62,7D 0.0~ ___ 1S2.70 150.00 O,(X) 150,00 00009878 04117192 BENEFIT BENEFIT ANGRICA 000Fn 00H92-1 00108192 Check Totals: 001.08192.31151rl toaBF!ItesEP..CARE 00/08/92 5/51/92 RED & DEPEND REING, 150.00 Q.O0 150.00 Z>,342.~2 ...........Q.OQ .........3,342.(:2_. 1,726.~ O.O0 1,728.~ ......... Check_Totals: 00009890 00117192 SECRETBY SECRETARY OF STATE 001392 00/13/92 00115192 SISTER CITY PRO3ECTINGN PROFI Check Totals: 00009681 04/17/92 SECtJRTTY S~TTY PACTFIC NATTeAL. ..... 022?92 ..... 02/2~/92- Q21~/-92,SARLCHGS-FEL92 5,070,95 ................O,OO ......5,070,95 _ 85Q.00 O.OO 630,00 834.00 O.O0 241.70 ..........O.O0 241.70 0004W082 00/J,7Lo2-AgS(&UTE-ABOIX. U~T 4T72 05151192 11442 Check Totals: 03/17/92 60t.B. mBO OF ASPHN.T;PUB,MKS 241.70 O.O0 241.70 804.25 O.OQ 804 ~ 800.25 __ __0,0o .BM,25_.__ 84.45 O.OO 84,45 ' 00009883 00117192 N.LEMCOR ALLEN CORPORATIll SUPPLY CO, 001392 04115192 00/I3192 FILING FEfwNGM-PROF[T STATUS Check Totals: 00009894 00117192 ARFJIN. AR ANERICAN PLANNING o41392 . 001131~2 H!ISI~2_F. VNIROItENTfNALSESOLeCES __ 84,45 O.QQ 84,43 30.00__:_ ..... O.O0 ........: ..... 000F/985 00117/q? _A~ON 7eo581 Check Tokals: Ae~'ON_H~Fe_HAIL.tNG_SYSTEHS 03/51192 03/31192 263551011116,2106,5110 50.00 O.O0 30.00 167.35 O.O0 '~67.35 00009986 04117192 ASSESSOR COUIITY ASS~ DCR86 021hl92 ~Check_Totals: COPIES 000O9667 00117192 AT&T A T I T 694-_1989a_-05125192 167,55 Check Totals: 05125/92..714=694-.198911VICH-BILLING .......... O.O0 .........187,~5 ..... O.O0 O.OO ~.55 ~.00 ..... 309.30 ..... Check Totals: __00009866 00117/92 BO6NAPKl BO6RAPHICS PRINTING 000692 04106/92 00106/92 CLASS C UN]FDRfi SHIRTS 509.~ O.OO 168.09 0.00 168.09 00009689 00117/92 DON SPO D199056 ............. D196907 ...... Chock-Totals: ........ Bean SPORTS 05125192 11375 05/05/92 SCRABBLE BOARDS;POTATO SACgS 05/20/92 11575-- 03/05/92 SCRABBLE BOARDS;POTATO ~AC[S 168,09 107,64 0.00 16P~e O.OO 107.64 O,O0 65.55 Fiscal Year= 1992 Check Register Station= Chick Date Vendor Rate Invoice Date PIO D19:3824 03116192 11575 Date hscriptha 03103192SCRABBLEBOAiI~;POTAllMCI$ 04117192 CALlFOIl CKIFORMIAII 05501 04102192 10~41 Check Totals: ....... 10102191 LEGAL ROTICES; CiTY I1EIK 6rns - 526,67 30,20 30,20 96.96 110.57 110.57 215 .n 215.28 Chick Totals: ..-eeoo98 1 Hm/92 mml CamSRE emmxKrv ' 0116¶2----041161-92 04116192JsOLII:F.~ Check Totals: eaO09892 M/]?192 CWvRIF rwwp, U--%L 033192 03/31,2 03/31192 7920772213/M1~ BILLIll 00009893 04117192 COSTCO COSTCO MleLESALE 041592 041151~ 04115192 SHELVES Check Totals: 00009994 04117192 COUN11PU COUNTY IF RIVEi!IIFJSU!qq. IF~ 108774 n-I/-31102 J)31-X_!!.e_ PAPEILf31-02190-- 115162 0:~131192 03/31/92 TABSi7119190 131981C8 03131192 03131192 CREDIT!)UPLICATE DILLIll6 1~1981~03J31/32 03l~11rl2 TOIEFJ~.t4191 143040 04106192 11139 03103192 STAP!~;TRPE;RULERS;iLTgHLIIER 0.~ 0.~ ..... 0,~ 0.~ 0.~ O,~ O~ 0.~ 0.~ 00009895 04117192 CILMIFORD I3iIFORB, VICKI 040292 04102192 00009896 04117192 Culin,la ,lu Cullen ChKk_:[otals: 04102192 REFUND TICI/11 ~ASIC HTN Check Totals: Net .... ,- 355.68 526,67. 30.20 50,20 96.98~---- 96.98 110.57 110,57~-- .- 215,28 21L28 N)00.9897 04117/92 ~vLTI ~lu 89-23:170 0~/30192 11458 89-2~:1710410&!92 I0942 IPr_23dP,--O3J301~ !t_459 5.2/ 2.20 250.95- ?50.95 ......... O,O0 ......... 250.95 ..... 4,84 O .00 4 O.O0 ......... 5.27- ..... O.O0 2.20 0.00 250,95- 00009699 04117192 FLOIER FLOER CORRAL 031992 03119192 11428 00009900 04117/92 FranksKi Karen Franks _ ._ 040692 04108192 Chef. k-Totals: 03119192 CON6RATULAT]ON ARMROEIEIfi Check Totals= 04/08/92 REFUND CLASS CANCELLFJ) 404,20 O.OO 404.2t 176.58- o.oo 176.U- ~,04 O,O0 1~8,04 ........ O,O0 ..... 128,H ..... 322,33 0,00 322.3~ _ ~.337..23 .............. 0.00 337,3.-- 44.18 O.O0 44.1J &5.00 0.00 65.60 00009901 04117192 6ILLIS-I C. R. 'RAt' GILLIS Check Totals: 65,00 O.O0 65.Q0 Chick Totals: n_nOO9898_O4//TJ_e2-DEP-TOF31LD~*ARTIBLIF--TMF~*--~TAT/F-: 119504 01101192 01101192 ELECTRICAL RAINTEMANCE 120559 01128192 01128192 ELECTRICAL ltAIMTEMAMCE . I~F!09 .... 02/25192 ~_Q21251~ 1191~ 01101192 01101192 ELECTRIlL ltAINTBIAIICE Check Totals: 65,00 O,O0 65.00 03/10192 AUIIO PRQD.NTRO; 1126/92 134.20 O,OQ 134,20 09127191 llDlO TIWlROIPt,IIIRO 4106192 135.80 0.50 135.ee 01/301F2_AUDIO_J~tQL~BS;-F'd-27~-t992 134.20 ..... O.O0 !34.2l ..... ___/2,~t. o,oO ........../2,3L _ __ 23,~ O,O0 23,00 25,00 0,00 23.00 6LeO O.O0 65,00_-- FLscsl Year: 1992 Check Register Station: 33&9 Check ])ate Vendor bee Invoice Date P/O Dab Dascriptioe 022992 0213192 0374 02101192 FEBUIARY ClgS Gross Discount Net 4,&25.00 0.00 4~625.00 ......... 49625.00 .......Q.O0 ...... 1,55&.00 O.O0 1~ 1~.~0 0.00 1~.~0 1~0.00 0.00 1~0.00 140.00 0.00--- ........140.00- 703.00 0.00 705.00 0.00 703.00 524.74 .O.O0-- 524.74 ........ 52&.74 O .OO 524.74 578.63 O.O0 576.63 576.~3~ O .OQ 25.00 Q.O0 2: 25.00 O.O0 25.00 IQ.~O 10.00 Q.O0 tO.O0 48.15 O.O0 46.15 --H.15 O.OO.-- 48.15---- 35.00 O.O0 0.00 I5.00 Chick-Totals: O000fi02 04117192 ORN:FITI ORAFFITI RDtOVK SOWICES 4522 03111192 034~ lOIOLIGl ORAFFITI BEROVK 311-$/I1 Cbed Totals: 00009903 04117192 gRAY Hit 6RAY BAR ELECTRIC · :- lFF--22764& 0Si13192 11372 glO' 92 T~ -'TXJlEi'TgTtl CEM1Ft Check Totals: OOOOF/04 04117/~2 IMITtlTF IilTRTETH TF~;TON~ilICAT/I~ 105043 03119192 ' 03119192 INSTILL4TIOII OF 1TLEPBIE lll " CkBck Totals: 0000~905 04117192 aFDAVIDS i.F. NAVIORON DSSOCIATES,INC. 14094 02/29192 0376 02/01/92 FEB 1-FEB 29 CHOR Check Totals: 04117192 ;8FREENA ,I. IL FREE~NI CO. e lilC 43201 MIOTJ92-11447 0~127192 IBt~IX:iXR;PLIglII6 00009907 OqlJ.7-/-92 7 CMCk Totals: [ANASAKX OF TEI~CULgk 03125192 103~ 07108191 OPEN FOR ROTORCYCLE liltIT. Chec~ TOtalS: 00009908 04117192 KIDSPART KIDS PARTIES,ETC. 041392 041~3192 04113192 RoIgff Ai~ RE ENTERTAINBENT 00009909 04/17/.92. LEAGUE 04139~ Check Totals: LEAGUE OF CALIF. CITIES ~11~192 04113192 DEVELOP tk?F; 0~09910 04117192 1733 Check Totals: IVli~__~_ PHOTO 04/0119211114 12/03191 PHOTO FINISIIIRO i FILM ~991104117192 ~cKeeOenhnnis i. Rcbe 040992 041HI92 Ch/~ Tehls: 041HI92 REIROSUSINEDS LICENSE Check Totals: 35,04 00009912 04117192 I i S I I S I LOMRY ..... R032055FtN 03/27/92 0378 .... 03112/92 ROUTE~ESIGIIEST-~I~S ~ 92____5,469,8& Check Totals: __0000F)13-04117192 OUIEXIU~-OCIEIIDU$ZICOt-NARK 041592 04115192 04115192 TRAVEL REIRO 0.00 ...... 5,469.86 .... 0.00 5,469.86 Check Totals: 00009914 04117192 OLSONIOU FINAL TOUCH HARKET 0384/~8-92 04109/92 11499 04101192 PRONOTIONAL TRADE SHOM BOOTH Check Totals: 00009915 04117192 PERSRETI PERS EfiPLOYEES' RETIRERENT .............. 2PERR,74 04109192 04109192 Norul PIR 4109192 19.00 0.00 19.00 19.00 0.00 19.00 8,132.1~ 0.00 8,132.13 8,132.1I 0.00 8~L~""1 25~.17 O.O0 251.17 Fiscal Year: 1.2 C~ck Re~ister Check Date Vendor Nat Invoice Date PIO Date hscriptie 6ross ......... T w m 001692 0011619~ 00116192 IETIEG 419192 13,201.70 00009916 04117192 PETIIOI. NI PETIIOLA[ 502832 00120192 10114 ChKk-TotaZs: ............ 10121191FOEL (PROPIE) B&S TIttICK lIAR 00009917 00117192PETTYC PETTY CASH 00116192 04/14192 Check 00/1U92.-CASH-EJlQ-...aPRTL On04) 86,53 0,00 231.01 ..... 0.00 231,01 0.00 9,000.00 0.00 ride: ~ Station: ~69 Discount Net '~. = ..... , -- 0.00 13,201,70 0.00 13,454.87 66.53 -231 231.01 00009919 04117192 SECRETBY SECIETARY OF STATE 001392-1 00113/12 04113192 Cbere Totals: SISTER CITYIglT ___,t,000,00_ n,00 _9,000,00__._ 15.00 0.00 15,00 00009920 00117192 SECURITY SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL 077'~ 0010019'2 00lM1~ 0856,] 04104192 04104192 0815,] 00/00/92 00100/92 07~9? _NZ00192 00JM~2 Check Totals: BAIt 4798020000010T~I!!AR_INNS_ 47~802NNN)010856111AR CH6S 15.00 0.00 15.00 41.13 ..............0.00 ....... 41.13 ...... 17.96 0.00 17.98 194.20 0.00 194.20 20.00 ---0.00 20,00 0000~?1nUIT/92_SHAFLSHARON..qHN.ZER 0040992 00108192 001H/92 Check 1orals: 273,31 0.00 273.31 65,00 0.00 65.00 0000.22 00117192 SPEEDYOI SPE9Y OIL CHANGE 0589 03127192 11254 02~03~92 Check Totals: REPR & NIT, VEH;CSD 3/27/~2 Check Totals: 00009923 04117192 STATECOIl STATE CONPENSATION INS. FUND 001092 .... 00110192 ......... 00110/92 lira PORTION ................. &5.00 0,00 .... 32,14 0,00 32,14 ~2.14 0,00 32,14 _.73,15 ............ 0,00 ........ 73,15 .. Check Totals: 73,15 0.00 B,15 00009924-00/17/92-SYSTER_. SYSTE] SOURCEs.INS ..... 51127 02128192 11223 01122192 BUiCI/TS TO ROtE SORTER;R.M, 10.77 0.00 10.77 51198 03~25~92 11239 01128192 4-DRNiER LATERAL FILE;JOE H. 447.16 0,00 447.16 50817CR-_.O1/OI/92_ZO669__08108/gZ.CEILINSSIBNS;ROUNTS;IiNSTALL ......... 43.10~ ..... 0,00 43.10- Check Totals: 4H,H ...... 00009925 00/17/92.TARnET.. TARGET STORE ............ 00T~2348 04/06/92 11435 03/25/92 RES]N CNA]NSIPAT]O;C/TY HALL 51.72 0.00 414.83 0.00 51.72 0000.26 04117192 TE~ PIPE TEfc. CULA VALLEY PIPE 24136 03105192 11~5 03102192 24707 03117/92 L1079 11112/91 Check-Totals: ................... 51.72 ............. 0.00_ OPEN ACCOUN1;~ISC,ITERS;TCSD 250.40 0.00 IRRIGATION & KISC. EOUIP.CSD 1.63 0.00 ........ 51.72 _._ 250.40 l.S3 00009927 04117192 TEKULAT TEHECULA TME ASSOC · 032792 03127192 0227 07101/91 Check Totals: 252.03 0,00 252.03 I~LL RENTi~RIL CLEAN I~RCH 405,00 0.00 405.00 ......... Check Totals: 405.00 0,00 405.00 Fiscal Year: 1992 Check Register Statxon: 33~ i 0000192~ 04117192 Terpsict Duncan Terpsichore . Hem? e4/4)ele9 : :~i!!zL::::~':-: '::~'.: ::: · ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: 04n7/92 TomxL,um: cnqSw 'sTArtores ,o 17662-0 03/31192 11422 03104192 ,, 17574-0 03/31192 11422 03104192 . i7T74-01 OlPlO/~2 t saY} n3toa/rn Check Date Vendor NOR Invoice ire PIO hke hscription ~ 04117192 TE~VLY-2 TB~C~A VLLY SCHOOL DISTRiCT 91-80 03/31192 03131192 FACILITY IFJfTIIFIO CNOck Totals: n~q:lml PI IL'~ CAIFJq I ~1 Check Totals: .. OFFICE ~PPLIES;PLli916 - Orr~r.F mtPPtlr-q,,lw g 00009911 04117192 UMITE; 21111.69 2UNIT .71 2UIIIT 2UIIT,TI 2UMI1.74 I1~1 ~Y OF TF IS'~YD 0212rl/92 02127192 Moral Payroll 03112/92 01112192 NOml Payroll 03110192 03110192 Void~P,n,l Cb-c~ 03126192 03126192 Norel PIR ~i?.&192 041(Wl92 . 04109192 Noroal P/it 4109192 000~932 H/171~ Check Totalst UMIM LIFE INS. CO. OF' ANSRICA . H10~192 HIOSJgi_MDUUILFgMIPg~J--92 Gross Discount Ret 570,00 0.00 570,00 570.00 0,00 570.~ 1N,OO O,O0 I00.00 . _- lO0.OO 0.00 100.00 4~89 0,00 4,B9 76.07 O.O0 76.07 68.44 O.O0 68.44 I13.00 0.00 I13.00 111.00 0.00 Ill .00 5.00 O.O0 5.00 .... 116.00 O.O0 116.00 111.00 0.00 111.00 456,00 0.00 4~.00 __ 2,114.05 ........... 0.00 ........ 2,114o05 .......... OOOD~ILH /17192_ LLSCIL---ILel) 2PTRI .74 04109192 IPTRT .74 04109192 Check Totals: 04109192 Noreel PIR 410~!92 04109192 Noraat PIR 4109192 Check Totals: 00001934 04117192 MILLDAM MILLDAN AHOCIATES 400423~__-02/29192 __02/29192-BUILD ,&,BAFETL.FD Check Totals: O00DS935_04117J-92-MIMHOR1 MINDSOR PARTNSRS_.-RAMDg) _HID_ 040192 04101192 04101192 N~IL 040192CR 04101192 04101192 DEDUCT CH6 ROVE COPIER 04/28192 ABI:OI AN:Oil SERVICES, IRC. 3942 03/e2/92/1330 .02/14/r~ 3982 0311&192 11330 02114192 3947CR 03102192 11330 02114192 Check Totals: TEIIP..SERV.EINitlfT;39~I/92 TEIP,$ERV,FINNI:E;3115192 CRDIT BEIIO gl TLtP SERV. CMck Totals: 00009937 04128192 ALLCITY ALL CITY I~ ........... 1130 _0410~I92_0293___IOIO81-tl-TRAFFIC-COMTRBJ3122-.414192 2,114.05 0.00 2,114.05 IO0.M 0.00 lOe.H 100.54 O.O0 I0(' "', 201,08 0.00 201.H ....... 39,50 .......... 0.00 ...... 39.50 2B,527.11 0.00 28,527.11 295,00- 0.00 2~5,00- 28,2~2.11 0.00 28,212.11 90Q.O0 O,O0 593.75 O.O0 593.75 298.75" O,O0 2416.75. 1,195,00 0.00 1,195.00 __--3,MB.I9 ............. O.O0 ..... 3,548.19--- Check Totals: .... 00009938 04128192 ANERICFE A!~RICMI FENCE COIPANY, INS. 16744 03112192 03112192 CHAIMLINK FERCE 3,546.19 0.00 3,548.19 2,240.00 0.00 2~240,06 00009939041.28/92 CARSOMIT CNISONITE 013173 03131192 11312 Check Totals: 02/25192 DELINSATORS;DRIVER;PUB.MORLS 2,240.00 0.00 2,240.00 2,989.fi 0.00 2~9b~.~1 Fiscal Year: 1992 Check Register Station: 969 Check Date Vendor Name Invoice Date PIO hte htcriptioa Check Totals: OQOOF)4O 041H/92 CEIffiUiLC I:E]rrPJkL CITIES SI6N SERVICE 04102/92-J.94~ _A4/Q2/~.A CiTY Llff!T SI61~ Gross Dhcount Net 2~9Pt.91 O.OQ 2v989.91 2,909.25 0.00-------2,909.25 Check Totals: 0000994104178192 merit t$1EPkPTRFdT OF T:AtTH 022FD 02P29192 Ql~ 10101191 MIEN. CONTROL/FEL 92 013192 01/3i!92 0199 10101191MIllL COJlTRflJ JAN 92 2,909.25 O,O0 2,909.25 5,081.82 Q.O0 5,081.82 5,534.35 0.00 5,534.35 CNeck Totals: 00009942 04128192 ESUILCINt F. SGIL CORPORATIOR 7/911~ 03131192 03131192 311192-3/31192 Check Totals: OOOO~43_041281t2JICEENZI-MCEEIIZIEJJIHr*q~ 008127 03131192 11177 12117191 INSTd~ IRRIG.&TREES;SPT.PR[ 10,616.17 0.00 10,616.17 3,549.01 0.00 3,549.01 3,549.01 O.OO 3,549.01 ' 6,177.00 0.00 6,177.00, Check .Totals: 00009944 04128192 ORRNGE ORANGE COUNTY STRIPIN BEItVIC 0019735 03131192 0363 02124192 STRIPlIE & STFJtCILItlB ...... 00197L~ .... 031271.92 -031~I---- 02124192 -STRIPING &- STEIICILIIIB. 0019737 03131192 0363 02124192 $TRIPIIt6 & GTE!tCILltl A,L77.00 ..............O.00 ..... 6,177.00 1,020.00 0.00 1,020.00. -1,565.00 ....... 0.00 1,565.00 780.00 O.OO 780.QQ 0000,45 04128192 RNGEt RITE[ 4001 04111192 0371 ........... 4000 ...... 04111192-0371 -- Check-Totals: ..... 03116192 STREET lllk"r.i08J: OR!IERS ONLY J)31J.61~2 -STREET-.RA ! ~, IlL ORDERS. ONLY · :~,3&5.00 .......... O.O0 .... 3,~5.00 9,725.11 0.00 9,725.11 .-.GJ~_x. OO ................O.00 --- 5,353.00 0900994& .04128192_RIMISID_-RIVERSIDLOFF-ICE-SUPPLY 105610-2 03123192 11301 02116192 10&576-0 03124192 11~46 03103192 1O~l-Q ..... ~II25192-11:H7 -. 03103/.92- 107047-0 04102192 11434 03124192 Check 15,078.11 O,O0 15,078.11 CN. CiJUtT08S; PENCIL LEA9 91.05 FOLDERS; MALL CLOCK; BINDERS 29&.75 ENVELOPES; CALCULATORS; ~t_S ...... 492.96 -- PRPER SUPPLY; OFFICE SUPPLY 1,840.H O.00 91.05 O.O0 296.75: 0.00-- 492.96 ....... O.00 1,640.03 04128192 RJRDESI6 P.1~ DESIOR OROUP, INC. 4943 03131192 0345 01115192 00009948 04128192 SUEI!II~ IIMTY OF RIVBISII Ciwck T~tais= -2,720Jg- BE~II DRAM REC.CTR PI~ 2/28 34,601.$4 Check Totals: 34,60~.34 02129192--LNI ElIFORCERENTIFEL92-CH6S -273,&48.85-- Q.O0 34,M)t.3q O.O0 ~49604.14 O.O0 ---2~,M!l.BS~ .... Check Totals: OO00994904128/~LSIMDtCE-SIMDANCE-STA6E-LINES,.-INC 3237 04101192 11397 03103192 PAS~ElroER BUSES;OUTIKG;3128 271,646.85 O.O0 273,1dl8.8} 1,581.00 O.O0 1,581.00 Check-Totals: 00009950 04128192 ViINDORP VANORRPE CHgU ASSOCIATION 4675 031311~2 03/31192 I~ARCH PLAN CK SEIW. Check Totals: 00009951 05101/92 AGRICRED A6RICREDIT ACCEPTAlICE CDRP. ......... 050192 05101192 0230 - 10101191LEASE;FURGERSUN ~Y PAYKENT Check Totals: 1,581.00 O.OO ........ 1,581.0~ 3,852.96 0.00 3,852.96 ~,852.96 0.00 ~,852.96 84b.02 0.00 84b.02 846.02 O.O0 846.02 04/17192 FisCal Year: 1992 Check Date Vendor Invoice Date Hale r/O Date City oT ~eaecuia Check RegLster Description Report Totals: Gross 457,267.&2 Discoun~ 0.00 / StatLon: ~ Net 457~267.&2 Report lriter CHECK LISTING BY FUND FUND CHECK Wd~ER liEEl: MTE o01_00009675 ...... MllSJ92 ....... UICH &.STUFF CATERING OOl 00009676 NILSIS2 HOlE CLUB 001 00009878 MI17/92 SEIEFIT AI!EBICA .N)I--OOOOfiTI .... HI171~ ]BEFIT- iSlERIGA 00! 00999876 041~7112 BENEFIT HIERIM 00~ 00009878 NItWIt2 BENEFIT AftERIrA ~OS QOQQ~878 m~/11/~2 FTTIT I!~:nlrp 001 O00~?e NI17192 ISlEFIT NiERIC~ 001 00009678 HI17112 KEFIT iII~RICA OOl~Ta QU17./-92 IB(F4T-NERICA 001 00009878 MI17192 IBEFIT liBlirA 001 00009S7e 01117,192 BENEFIT MERICA OCt . OOO09MI MI1~192 ~J:URITY PACIFIC NATIOI~ 001 000~ 04117192 ABSOLUTE ASPHN. T OOI -00009883 HIITJ92 m i Iql L'(MIPO~TION-SUPP~J:O, 001 00009884 04117192 ANERICM R.AIIIIIE ~__~_~ 001 0000988~ 041171~2 ASCON HASLER IIILIIE SYSTENS O01---O000tMT_ 041,17/-t2 A T & T 001 000098~ 04117192 ___,m:d~ICS PRI~TIIE ----1)0! 00009~1 04111/92 001 OOOeteei2 04117192 CHEVR~A U.S.A. 001 00009893 04/17192 COSTCO MHOLEBALE 00! ~00S894 .q/17192 --COUNTLOF-RIVENSIDEISWPLXES 001 00009894 04117192 COUNTY OF RIVENS[DEI~UPPLXES 001 000091,4 04117192 COUNTY OF R] VENS IDE ISUPPLIES On1_ MOOSF)4 Ml17J92 COC:TLOF__~IVERSIIE/IiI~LIES 001 OOW4 HI17/92 COUNTY OF RIVENSIDE/SUPPLIES 001 00009897 04117192 DAVLIN 001 0000~7 04/17192 DAVLIH 001 00Q09898 MI17192 DEPARTHEI(T OF TRANSPONTAT ION not 000~ MLtTI99 FU~-CI~L 001 0000t901 04/17192 C.H. "MX' 61LLIS 001 000~2 04117/92 ONAFFITZ REIIOVAL SERVICES Ont oOQQ990-~ 04/17199 6RAY_BAIL~TRIC 001 00009904. 04/17192 [MTERTECH TELE~[CAT[QNS 001 000Q9905 04117t92 a.F. MVI)m ASSDCIATES, INC. 001 ~117J92 a.R.-ItEEIgl _rS.. INC 001 0000e/907 04117192 KRMP. SAKI OF TERECULA 001 000~ 04117192 LEASUE OF CALIF. CITIES 00_! __N!~)OfilO 04117199 NARTIILI-!~IO 001 00009911 04117199 Dennis I. NcKee 001 00~13 04117192 OCI~USZKO~ MRK 00~ oO00tSI4 o41171~ F_INAL_IQUCH MPJ[ET __ 001 00009915 04/17192 PENS ENPLDYEES' RETINS~ENT 001 00009915 04/17199 PERS EBPLOYEES' RET IREHENT 001--1)0009915 HI17192 PENS-EBPLOYEES'*-NSTIRENEIfi* 001 0000,16 04117192 PETROLME 001 00009917 04/17192 PETTY CASH 001 00009919 04/17192 SECRETANY OF STATE 001 00009920 04/17192 SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL SAN 001 00009~20 04/L7192 SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BAN 001 00009920 04/17192 SECURHY PACIFIC NATIONAL SAN 001 00009920 04/17192 SECURITY PACIFIC NATIONAL BAN 001 00009920 H/17192 SECURITY PACIFIC NAT]ONAL BAN 001 00009923 04/17192 STATE CONPEBSATION INS. FUND DESCRIPTIDN sLatjoe: CIMICIL!51AFF 90.0( KINDS 162.7( 3~1/92 lID & BEPEIID IElle. 220.1~ 3115/99. ND*IEIII,BD~~,ME ......... 464.5~ ;11;$1192 RED I BEPEND REIRL ~.6; 31151~2 RD REIII, DEP CARE 155,0( 3115192 IF~ IIEIll,SEP CAIE 31~1192 lED i BEPEND REI!e. 59.3~ 31-1~92-11ELIEIIIvBEP C&~ 1,1~7.6~ ~1~1192 NEB i Brr. B IElle. 3115192 lED NEIII~DEP CARE 66.63 SISTERJ:IlI!~ItOECT/EIJ'ROFL !130,0( MIlK CH6~ FE~ 92 341.7( MILS, BA6S OF ASI~LT;PULIII(S B04,2; F-/LUI6J:~F.~F-H_STATUS .J4.42 ENVDgl6EXhNAT NSSOURI:ES 30,0( 2&355101111&~210&JIlO IS7.3; 714-694--ItBSlMRCH-BILLIli ----309 Ct. ASS C ONIFORII SHIRTS ~68.0¶ LEBN, leTICES; CHY CLERK 30.2C I~OLICE.-CAPS -. 96.9I 79207722531MNSH SILLIll SHELVES 215 _rRDITINPLICATE- BILLIll6 ................. 250,9.' PAPER/:~/02/90 5.2~ TONERI6114191 250 ,fi _TANS/7/tg/90 ................ 2.20 STAPLES;TN~'EIRULENS;HIGHLXTEB 4.84 Rimto Pmm.irrNSl 3126192 L34.20 AU~IO_MP.1EiPINIINS_410&I.99 -135 AUDIO PROLNT6St FEB 27, 1992 134.20 ELECTRICK IIIKTENAM{:E 3~/,2,~ CONIATULATIOlt.NULM6EIEIIT ............... FEBRUARY CHNS 4,~5.0C 6NAFFITI REBOVN. 311-3/31 1,~6.0C TF/t:PHONE;TEBL!:ENTER .... /,~,8C IlIST&IIATION OF TELEPHOME LIN 140,0( FEB I-FEB 29 CHBS 74)5.0(: IB!l -L,~-TYPEBRITTEB;PLAIIll -$24.74 OPEN FOR ItOTI~YCLE NAilif, 57B.6~ DEVELOP A~REE MNUAL 10,0~ PHDTn FIILISHIN6-1_FILN *----4B.1-~ REIHB BUSINESS LICENSE 35.0C TRAVEL R[IRB 19.0C PROfiOTIQMLTRADEJle~TH ____ 8,L32.1~ RETIRENEST 419192 liorsal PIR 4109199 RETIRENENT419192 ............ FUEL (PRgPME) NSS TRUC[ MR CASH NSIHB APRIL SISTER CITYINONPNSFIT 47980200000108151RAR CH65 47980200000107991NARCH CH6S 47980200000108,%INAR CH6S 47t8020000010815/NAR CH6S 479802000001077311~R CHGS MCA PORTION 231 .Ol 15.0~ 12I .21 20 .OC 17 70 41.1.~ 71.15 Report tdter FUND CHECK tamER cEc[ miTE 0N 00009924 04117Jr2 001 00009924 04117192 001 00009r24 00117Pr2 ool--ooo09r~__ 0411z/92 001 O000Fr27 04117/~2 001 oooffrz6 041t7/92 001 Hee~31 NI17/92 001 000OFi31 04117Pr2 ooi 00009931 00117/Tz 001 00009931 04/17/92 001 00009931 00/17/92 001 oooow3~ Hi17/92 001 00009934 H/17192 001 oooo~-_x-_~ MiITP/2 001 00009935 04117192 001 00009236 00/28192 001 00009936 00128192 001 00009940 00126192 On_! n001aD-4! MJ28Z92 001 OOOO~41 00/28192 001 00009942 00/28192 CHECK LISTING )Y FUND VENDOR MAlE -qYSTEILSOURCE, _iNC. SYSTED SOURCE, INC. SYSTEN SOURCE, INC. TiiRGELSTORF TEECOLA TOtmE ASSOC TEIECULA VLLY SCHOOL DiSTRiCT TII ~mTn ~ ~IIITD NAY OF *file INLMO Url~'~ Vff OF TH~ Im :"- UNITE] MAY OF THE INLAB UNITED MAY OF THE INLqB IBIIIN LTrr tie. rn. gILLNIt ASS4)CIATES U!ImMR PaRTIF~HLMH310-/HD lll~DIt PARTERS-RANCHO IND artCON m:~vlc~n, nIL RREll SERVICES, iNC. _.____N~ff.M.J:ENCE _C!31~RNY~ CENTMAL CITIES SIN SENVICE tlrcPN!llmlT OF ll~PARTIIENT OF HERLTR ES61L CORPORATIUN DESCRIPTI~ _.4-DRAER LATERAL FILE;aOE H. 447.16 CEILINS SIN;ITS; INSTALL 43.10 BRACETS TO NQUm SmTER;R.W. -40.77 ___BESIN_ClmNS;PATZQ;CITY MAU. ,1.72 HALL REIfi/APRIL CLEM MARCH 405.00 FACILITY REIrr/1990 570.OO OFEICE_SilfIJB;PLANIUN6 &8.44 Norul P/N 3/2&/92 IQ2.~0 Iorlal Payroll ~7.00 Vfiid!ll~e;! Ck-rk Norul .P/R 4/e/92 97.00 Moral Payroll p~lm FnR_AI~/L_9~ ~jOb. O7 brmal PIN Uff!92 &9.34 EILA i 5dFEYY FED 92 39.~0 _~c3UCI~.J~/E_CUPz~ 29LOD APRIL REIfi' 2B,~27.11 TEAP .RERV.FIIMeCE;3/01/92 900.00 1T~,SE&'V,FINWCE;31151_92 .............. 593,75 CREDIT ~ UN TERP SERV, 298.75 TRAFFIC EDIfilt0L/3122-414192 3,HB.19 CMAINLINX FENCE ,, 2,250.00 RELIREATORS;HIVER;PULliONCS 2,999.91 TENECULA CITY LIi(IT SIGNS 2,901.25 __NUMALCONTROL/FEL_~2 ..... 5,0B1.82 MIMAL CUNTROL/mAN 92 3/1/92'3/31192 3,549. O1 OOt oO00429H___00128192__._._~I,Y-.SIRIPiNS-SERVIC 001 00009945 00/28192 RAIfiT, I( 001 00009916 00128192 RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY o0! OQOQ~_46 0(/28/.92 RIUER-~I~ OEFJCE 001 0000~946 04128192 RIVERSIDE OFFICE ~UPPLY 001 0000fi46 00/28192 RIVERSIDE OFFICE SUPPLY 00~ qOOO~lQ8 001~!92 (~QJfrY Og O01 0OO0995O 04128192 VNtm3RPE CHOU USOC IAT IUN STRIEI!IG_LSTENCILINS SIREIT MAINI,MOPl ORDERS lILY PAPER SUPPLY; OFFICE SUPPLY CALCULATORS;_PENCIL LEND, FOLDERS; MALL CLOCK; 9INS~ ENVELUPES; CALCULATORS; LABELS MARCH PLM CK 5ERV. ...... 3,~5.Q0 4J'l,05 296 e92.9t __.393,M3.4( 019 00009875 00115/92 LUNCH i STUFF CATERINS QX90QOff627 0011&192-- ___Si!MT_&FtMAL 019 0000~898 00117192 REEFIT d~EDICA 019 00009878 00/17192 BENEFIT NF, RICA o19_00009fi78 ...... 04117192 ..... )EEFITNIERICA 019 0N0968& 00117192 COUNTY ASSESSOR 019 00009889 00117192 RSN SPORTS RFO CeBDY_FOR EASTER. E66 HUNT 3131192 RED i )EPENS REINS. 3115192 RED REIH,REP CRRE ...... 3/31/92 liED & DEPEND REIND... COPIES SCRABKE NNtHIPOTATO SACKS 019._00009895.__.00117192 ........ CRMJFORD, VICKI ................. ~ TICEft IMalC HTN .. 019 00009896 00117192 Jan Culle~ REFI~ ~ CANCELLED 019 00009900 04/17/92 Karen Franks REFUND CLASS CANCELLED 019_QOOOFJ'06__--00117192 ......... -lliS PARTIES,ETC ...................... IIONIY I E ENTERTAINDBfl 019 00009915 00117192 019 00009r21 04117192 019 00009922 00117192 019 00009926 00117192 019 00009926 00117192 019 00009929 00/17/92 019 00009931 04/17/92 019 00009931 00117/92 019 00009931 04/17/92 PEPS ENPLOYEES' RETIRERENT SHARON SMAFER SPEEDY OIL ClttlaE TERECULA VALLEY PIPE TENECULA VALLEY PiPE Duncan Terpsichore UNITED MAY OF THE INLA!e UNITED MAY OF THE lEANS UNITEl) NAY OF THE INLAND RETIRERENT 419192 CLASS CIINCELLEDIREFUND REPR i lINT. VEH;CSD 3/27/92 IRSI6ATION i HISC, EOUIP.CSD OPEN ACCOUNT;NISC.ITE!(S;TCSD' RSFUND CLASS CAHCELLED Normal Payroll Normal P/R 4/09/92 Normal P/R 3/26/92 57.0( I50.0( 608 .~ 734 15& .0( 23.0~ &5 25,(X 2,H8,8: 65.0~ ~.6: 250.4~ _..100.O, 2G.(~ 14.0~ 14.0~ bpor~ Iriter Yoncrier ue~i~ · CHECK LIST]N6 BY FIll) S~atLo~F 3~ FUND CHEK IJ!eER CHECl i)ATE I)Ii.__QH~2 041171~ 019 0QQ(0933 0¢1~71~2 019 OQQQ~Ft43 Q412BI92 019 OQQ(O!49 04128192 QI90QQ(O~5! QS/QI/V2 JJlee~ LII~ II1~. I'~. m: IUIBIICs !SlI:IEIZIE ~ i ~1'1~ LIIEBt-IEC, IItlI:REBIT ACCEPTII:E Cl~. IESCIIIPTION IlKOlll mmTuqjFtl Ip!lK._,o2 __ 40738 lors~l PIR 4109192 131.74 IISTN.!. IlI!IIS.IT!I~;~T.Plil P~q~:lltll IS~llQUTIII613/28 .........l:Hl.O0 LEASE| ~ IIAY P&YRENT 8-6.02 - 021 OOeff912 04117t92 I l S I I,QIIRY ROUTE I)ESIGIIUEST IYPS lit 92 · 5,~/)~.B6 OOOffgll 04117192 River-side h. Flid-Cmtrol R reLCQITRQL tglrrl:i~T --.if .IX) 14~419.86 { . 4 34 00009947 H/28/'rZ PJB DESIll 61tOUP~ IlL IESBI HAll REC.CTR PP, Da 2128 3 ftlg. ............... --~"-~ .....""""""-'-""* .....-"*"*'*"*'"'-""'" ...."""""' .....""' '"" .......*" ITEM NO. 4 APPROVAT.~, CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: City Clerk DATE: April 28, 1992 SUBJECT: Resolution Calling and Giving Notice of General Municipal Election RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 92- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1992, FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES. BACKGROUND: Section 22800 of the Elections Code of the State of California requires that General Law Cities call and order a General Municipal Election for the purpose of electing members of the City Council, as dictated by their terms, every two years. This resolution is a house-keeping matter and authorizes the City Clerk to proceed with all of the tasks required for properly and lawfully conducting this election. JSG RESOLUTION NO. 92- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECLRA, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 1992, FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CAL~O~ RELATING TO'GENERAL LAW C1TI~. WH!~REAS, under the provisions of the laws relating to general law cities in the State of California a General Municipal Election shall be held on November 3, 1992, for the election of Municipal Officers; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That pursuant to the requirements of the laws of the State of California relating to General Law Cities, there is called and ordered to be held in the City of Temecula, California, on Tuesday, November 3, 1992, a General Municipal Election for the purpose of electing three (3) Members of the City Council for the full term of four years. Section 2. required by law. That the ballots to be used at the election shall be in form and content as Section 3. That the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to procure and furnish any and all official ballots, notices, printed matter and all supplies, equipment and paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election. Section 4. That the polls for the election shall be open at seven o'clock AM on the day of the election and shall remain open continuously from that time until eight o'clock PM of the same day when the polls shall be closed, except as provided in Section 14301 of the Elections Code of the State of California. Section 5. That in all particulars not recited in this resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections. Section 6. That notice of the time and place of holding the election is given and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further or additional notice of the election, in time, form and manner as required by law. I Section 7. Resolution. That the City Clerk shah certify .to the passage and adoption of this PASSI~, AIPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 28th day of Apffi, 1992. ATTEST: Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] 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 Resolution No. 92-__ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 281h day of April, 1992, by the following vote: NOES: June S. Greek, City Clerk [Seal] 2/Rosos 233 2 "~ ITEM NO. 5 APPRO~~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAG CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: City Clerk DATE: April28,1992 SUBJECT: Resolution Adopting Regulations for Candidates Statements to be Submitted to the Voters at an Election. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 92- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE PERTAINING TO CANDIDATES STATEMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS AT AN ELECTION. BACKGROUND: Section 10021 of the Elections Code of the State of California allows the governing body (City Council) to adopt regulations pertaining to handling, packaging and mailing candidates statements for City Council elections. The County Registrar, Frank Johnson has estimated the cost for printing candidate's statements this year will be $290. (based on the assumption 2 candidates file). In this resolution, the City Clerk is allowed to estimate the total cost of printing and handling and require each candidate filing a statement to pay in advance his or her pro rata share as a condition of having his or her statement included in the voters pamphlet. I will use the Registrar's estimate and should the actual cost be less than the deposit, we will refund a pro rata share of the unused portion of the deposit. JSG RESOLUTION NO. A'RESOL~ON OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE PERTAINING TO CANDIDATES STATElVffi-NTS SUBMITrk:I} TO THE VOTERS AT AI~ ELECTION WHEREAS, Section 10012 of the Elections Cede of the State of California permits the governing body of any local agency to adopt regulations pertaining to charges for handling, packaging and mailing the candidates statement in relation to elections for nonpartisan elective offices; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RF.~OLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. General Provisions That pursuant to Section 10012 of the Elections Cede of the State of California, each candidate for elective office to be voted for at an Election to be held in the City of Temecula, California, on Tuesday, November 3, 1992, may prepare a candidate's statement on an appropriate form provided by the City Clerk. The statement may include the name, age and occupation of the candidate and a brief description of no more than two hundred (200) words of the candidate's education and qualifications expressed by the candidate himself or herself. The statement shall not include party afffiiation of the candidate, nor membership or activity in partisan political organizations. The statement shall be fLIed in the office of the City Clerk at the time the candidate's nomination papers are ~ed. The statement may .be withdrawn, but not changed, during the peried for filing nomination papers and until 5:00 PM of the next working day after the close of the nomination peried. Section 2. Additional Materials No candidate will be permitted to include additional materials in the sample ballot package. Section 3. Payment The City Clerk shall estimate the total cost of printing, handling, translating, and mailing the candidates statements ~ed pursuant to the Elections Cede, and require each candidate filing a statement to pay in advance his or her pro rata share as a condition of having his or he statement included in the voters pamphlet. Payment of the deposit shall be by cash or by check payable to the City of Temecula. The City Clerk shall bill each candidate for any cost in excess of the deposit or, if the actual cost is found to be less than the deposit, shall refund a pro rata share of the unused pertion of the deposit. Section 4. Copy to Candidate The City Clerk shall provide each candidate or the candidate's representative a copy of this Resolution at the time nominating petitions are issued. 2/Re~oi 234 1 Section 8. l,imited Applicability This resolution shall apply at the next ensuing municipal election and at each municipal election after that time. Section 6. this resolution. Certification The City Clerk shall: certify to the passage and adoption of PASSED, APPROVEJ) AND ADOPT!~, this 28th. day of April, 1992. ATTEST: Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSmE) CITY OF TElViECULA ) SS I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Teme~ula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 92-__ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 28th day of April, 1992, by the following VOte: AYES: NOES: June S. Greek, City Clerk [Seal] 2,'Resos 134 2 ITEM NO. 6 APPROV~T.~ CITY ATTORNXY FINANCE OFFIC CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council City Clerk April 28, 1992 Western Days in Temecula Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 92- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING WESTERN DAYS IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA BACKGROUND: At the City Council meeting of April 14, 1992, Mayor Birdsall requested that a resolution of support for observance of Western Days be placed on the next agenda. Both the Temecula Town Association and the Chamber of Commerce are urgin. g reinstating this tradition. RESOL~ON NO. 92- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING WESTERN DAYS IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Temecuh recognizes the fact that Temecula is endowned with a rich western hisWry; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the City Council to promote and preserve Temecula's historic heritage; and WHEREAS, in the past the community pwmoted the western heritage by observing every Friday as Western Days, through the wearing of western clothing; and, WHEREAS, the Temecula Town Association and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce wish to reinstate the observance of Western Days, NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF TIlE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RF. SOL~, DETER.MINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council hereby declares every Friday to be Western Days and encourages the personnel of all businesses and institutions to observe Western Days by dressing in western afire and extending true western hospitality to all visitors and guests on Fridays. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. PASSRD, APPROVEr} AND ADOPTED, this __~ day of ,199__. ATTEST: Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk .[SEAL] 2/Resosa5 1 -1- STATE OF CAI,IPORNIA) 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 ._~ day of 1~._ by the following roll call vote. COUNCILlV~-MBERS: NOES: COUNCILMIc~MBERS: COUNC~ERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk 2/Resos/2Sl -2- ItSSOLUTION WHEREASg*Temecula is endowed with a rich western history, and WHEREASs It 18 the desire to promote and preserve Temecula*s historic heritages and WHEREAg~ In the past the community promoted the w~stern heritage by observing every Friday as Western Days through the wearing of western clothing, and WHEREAS: The Temecula Town Association and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce:wish to reinstate the observance of Western Dayse NOW*THERKFORE: The Clty of'Temecula by resolution does hereby declare every Friday to be Western Days and encourages the personnel o~ all businesses and institutions to observe Western Days by dressing in western attire on Fridays. By Order of, Patricia Birdsall Mayor Cit~ of Temecula Dated' 1992 ITEM NO. 7 APPROVAL_E~ TY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer DATE: April 28, 1992 SUBJECT: Community Development Block Grant Fund Balance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the use of the remaining FY 1989-90 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for Temecula Senior Center improvements. DISCUSSION: The FY 1989-90 CDBG funds were initially allocated for improvements at Sam Hicks Park. However, those improvements were funded by the County from the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) fund balance at June 30, 1991. Therefore, staff is recommending that the remaining CDBG funds approximating $40,000 be approved for use on the Senior Center improvements. ITEM NO. 8 APPROVAT. CITY ATTORNE~ FINANCE OFFI ER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer April 28, 1992 City Treasurer's Report as of March 31, 1992 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the City Treasurer's report as of March 31, 1992. DISCUSSION: Reports to the City Council regarding the City's investment portfolio and receipts,. disbursements and fund balance are required by Government Code Sections 53646 and 41004 respectively. The City's investment portfolio is in compliance with the Code Sections as of March 31, 1992. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENT: City Treasurer's Report as of March 31, 1992 City of Temecula City Treasurer's Report As of March 31, 1992 Cash Activity for the Month of March: Cash and Investments as of March 1, 1992 Cash Receipts Cash Disbursements Cash and Investments as Of March 31, 1992 15,748,545 1,816,402 (1,573,864) 15,991,083 Cash and Investments Portfolio: Type of Investment Institution Demand Deposits Treasury Service Shares Petty Cash Deferred Comp. Fund Local Agency Investment Fund Security Pacific Pacific Horizons N/A ICMA State Treesurer Cash and Investments as of March 31, 1992 Yield N/A 3.890% N/A N/A 5.680% Maturity Date N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Balance asof March 31, 1992 (231,366) (1) 535,158 800 73,766 15,612,725 $ 15,991,083 (1)-This amount includes Outstanding checks. Per Government Code Requirements, this Treasurer's Report is in compliance with the City of Temecula's Investment Policy and there are adequate funds available to meet budgeted and actual expenditures for the next thirty days of the City of Temecula. Prepared by Carole Serfling, Senior Accountant ITEM NO. 9 APPROVAL ITY ATTORNEY~~_ i INANCE OFFICER !CITY MANAGER _ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: City Council/City Manager -~:7-~ Dep rt nt of Public Works April 28, 1992 SUBJECT: PREPARED BY: Release Faithful Performance Warranty Bonds and Material and Labor Bonds in Tract No. 19939-1 ."-,!ber~' K. Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Co~Jncil AUTHORIZE the release of street, and sewer and water system Faithful Performance Warranty Bonds, and Material and Labor Bonds in Tract No. 19939-1 and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. BACKGROUND: On June 16, 1987, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with: Joshua-Towne Homes, Inc. c/o Towne Realty, Inb. 710 North Plankington Avenue Milwaukee, WI 53203 for the improvement of streets, the installation of sewer and water systems, and subdivision monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by Amwest Surety Insurance Company as follows: Bond No. 1118917 in the amount of $792,500 to cover street improvements. Bond No. 1118916 in the amount of $155,000 to cover water improvements. 3. Bond No. 1118918 in the amount of $209,500 to cover sewer improvements. Bond No. 1118935 in the amount of $288,000 to assure proportional participation under the Pala Road Bridge Agreement. -1 - pw01 \agdrpt\92~0428~19939-1 0417a Bond Nos. 1118'917, 1118916 and 1118918 in the amounts of $396,250, $77,500 and $104,750, respectively, to cover material and labor. 6. Bond No. 1118919 in the amount of $13,400 to cover subdivision monumentation. On March 12, 1990, the County Of Riverside accepted these improvements and retained the following secured amounts for a one-year maintenance period: Streets: $79,250 Water: $15,500 Sewer: $20,950 The one-year maintenance period having passed with minimal maintenance required, Staff recommends that the subject warranty-maintenance bonds be released. The developer iS also required to post material and labor bonds to ensure payment to suppliers and workers. These bonds are maintained in effect for a period of time determined by statute after the Governmental Agency has accepted the public improvements. The Riverside County Transportation Department indicates that no liens have been filed against this project, and a period in excess of the statutory lien period having run, Staff recommends that these material and labor bonds also be released. On July 23, 1991 the City Council authorized the release of the subdivision monumentation bond. Staff recommends that the bond assuring participation in the Pala Road Bridge project be retained until the mechanism for the bridge construction is resolved. Thus, no reduction or release of the subject bond is recommended at this time. The affected streets are Eona Circle, Hiawatha Court, Bocaw Circle, Saho Court, Kimo Street, Pashaho Street, and a portion of Via Gilberto, Lahontan Street, Huron Street, Shaba Circle and Piute Street. Attachment: Vicinity Map -2- pwO1 ~agdrpt\92\0428\19939-1 0417a 'i' SEC.20 29 T8S,R2W SBM VICIklTY M!A~' NO SCALE ITEM NO. 10 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY ~ FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER" CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: City Council/City Manager Dep~,~nt of Public Works April 28, 1992 SUBJECT: Release Faithful Performance Warranty Bonds and Material Labor Bonds in Tract No. 19939-2 PREPARED BY: ,,. Cr"s.n., Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council AUTHORIZE the release of street, and sewer and water system Faithful Performance Warranty Bonds, and Material and Labor Bonds in Tract No. 19939-2 and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. BACKGROUND: - ' On June 16, 1987, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with: Joshua-Towne Homes, Inc. c/o Towne Realty, Inc. 710 North Plankington .Avenue Milwaukee, WI 53203 for the improvements of streets, installation of sewer and water systems, and subdivision monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by Amwest Surety Insurance Company as follows: 1. Bond No. 1118923 in the amount of $509,500 to cover street improvements. 2. Bond No. 1118922 in the amount of $151,500 to cover water improvements. 3. Bond No. 1118921 in the amount of $150,000 to cover sewer improvements. Bond Nos. 1118923, 1118922, and 1118921 in the amount of $254,750, $75,750 and $75,000 respectively, to cover material and labor. 5. Bond No. 1118925 in the amount of $20,000 to cover subdivision monumentation. -1 - pw01 \agdrpt\92\0428\19939-2 0417a On April 15, 1991, the County of Riverside accepted these improvements and retained the following secured amounts for a one-year maintenance period: Streets: $50,950 Water: $15, 150 Sewer: $15,000 The one-year maintenance period having passed with minimal maintenance required, Staff recommends that the subject warranty-maintenance bonds be released. The developer is also required to post material and labor bonds to ensure payment to suppliers and workers. These bonds are maintained in effect for a period of time determined by statue after the Governmental Agency has accepted the public improvements. The Riverside County Transportation Department indicates that no liens have been filed against this project and a period in excess of the statutory lien period having run, Staff recommends that these materials and labor bonds also be released. On July 23, 1991, the City Council authorized the release of the Subdivision Monumentation Bond. The affected streets are Jeronimo Street, Hopactong Street, Pahuta Street, Parsippany Court, Arabasca Circle, Bandan Court, and a portion of Lahontan Street, Huron Street, Alehzon Circle, Via Eduardo and Piute Street. Attachment: Vicinity Map -2- pwO1\agdrpt\92\0428\19939-2 04178 8EC.20 29 TBS,R2W, S ITEM NO. APPROVAT. CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE ~ OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: City Council/City Manager Departm t of Public Works April 28, 1992 SUBJECT: PREPARED BY: Release Faithful Performance Warranty Bonds and Material and Labor Bonds in Tract No. 19939-F Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council AUTHORIZE the release of street, and sewer and water system Faithful Performance Warranty Bonds, and Material and Labor Bonds in Tract No. 19939-F and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. BACKGROUND: On July 28, 1987, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with: Joshua-Town Homes, Inc. c/o Towne Realty, Inc. 710 North Plankington Avenue Milwaukee, WI 53203 for the improvement of streets, installation of sewer and water systems, and subdivision Monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by Amwest Surety Insurance Company as follows: 1. Bond No. 1120866 in the amount of $216,500 to cover street improvements. 2. Bond No. 1119000 in the amount of $63,500 to cover water improvements. 3. Bond No. 1120866 in the amount of $74,000 to cover sewer improvements. Bond Nos. 1120866, 1119000 and 1120866 in the amounts of $108,250, $31,750 and $37,000, respectively, to cover material and labor. 5. Bond No. 1120868 in the amount of $11,200 to cover subdivision monumentation. -1 - pw01\agdrpt\92\0428\19939-F 0417b On April 15, 1991, the County of Riverside accepted these improvements and retained the following secured amounts for a one-year maintenance period: Streets: $21,650 Water: $6,350 Sewer: $7,400 The one-year maintenance period having passed with minimal maintenance required, Staff recommends that the subject warranty-maintenance bonds 'be released; The developer is also required to post material and labor bonds to ensure payment to suppliers and workers. These bonds are maintained in effect for a period of time determined by statute after the governmental agency has accepted the public improvements. The Riverside County Transportation Department indicates that no liens have ,been filed against this project, and a period in excess of the statutory lien period having run, Staff recommends that these material and labor bonds also be released. On July 23, 1991, the City Council authorized the release of the Subdivision Monumentation Bond. The affected streets are a portion of Lahontan Street, Alehzon Circle, Washana Court, Via Eduardo, Via Gilberto, and Shaba Circle. Attachment: Vicinity Map -2- pwO1%agdrpt\92%O428\19939-F 0417b %. SEC.20 29 T8S,R2W, SBM ViClhlTY MAP NO SCALE ITEM NO. 12 APPROVAL CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: City Council/City Manager Department of Public Works April 28, 1992 SUBJECT: PREPARED BY: Release Faithful Performance Warranty Bonds and Monumentation Bonds in Tract No. 21561 ~E;t K. Cris0, Permit Engineer Subdivision RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council AUTHORIZE the release of street .and sewer and water system Faithful Performance Warranty Bonds, and Subdivision Monumentation Bond in Tract No. 21561 and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. BACKGROUND: -' On August 18, 1987, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with: Rancho Solana Associated/Woddcrest Development 4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 450 La Jolla, CA 92037 for the improvement of streets and water and sewer systems and the installation of subdivision monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds, issued by Insurance Company of the West as follows: 1. Bond No. 027256 in the amount of $744,500 to cover street improvements. 2. Bond No. 027256 in the amount of $189,500 to cover water improvements. 3. Bond No. 027256 in the amount of $254,000 to cover sewer improvements. 4. Bond No. 027256 in the amount of $594,000 to cover material and labor. 5. Bond No. 027257 in the amount of $9,500 to cover subdivision monumentation. - 1- pwOl~agdrpt~92\0428\tr21561 0417a On January 11, 1990,'~he County of Riverside accepted these improvements and retained the following secured amounts for a one-year maintenance period: Streets: $74,450 Water: $18,950 Sewer: $25,400 The one-year maintenance period having passed with minimal maintenance required, Staff recommends that the subject warranty-maintenance bonds-be released'. The developer is also required to post material and labor bonds to ensure payment to suppliers and workers. These bonds are maintained in effect for a period of time determined by statute after the Governmental Agency has accepted the public improvements. Riverside County released the material and labor bond on June 18, 1990. No action was taken on the Subdivision Monumentation Bond on these dates as several technical requirements had not been met. The necessary requirements have now been satisfied. The inspection and verification process relating to the subdivision monumentation was initiated by the County of Riverside Transportation Department and completed by City Staff. Staff recommends the release of the Monumentation Bond. Therefore, it is appropriate to release this bond at this time. The affected streets are Gilwood Court, Vail Brook Drive, Nightview Circle, Marhill Circle, Dawncrest Circle, Rycrest Drive, Bargil Court, Skywood Drive, and a portion of Del Rey Road, Solana Way, and Windwood Circle. Attachment: Vicinity Map - 2- pw01%agdrpt%92\O428\tr21561 O417a ,s'ou' MORAGA ...-4 RD. ROAD VICINITY MAP NO SCALE ITEM NO. 13 APPROVAL CITY ~ ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFIC CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council/City Manager FROM: ~ Dep~m~t of Public Works DATE: April 28, 1992 SUBJECT: Release Faithful Performance Warranty Bonds, Material and Labor Bonds and Subdivision Monumentation Bond, in Tract No. 22208 PREPARED BY: l~Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council AUTHORIZE the release of street,. and sewer and water system Faithful Performance Warranty Bonds, Material and Labor Bonds, and Subdivision Monumentation Bond in Tract No. 22208 and DIRECT the City Clerk tO so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. BACKGROUND: On February 23, 1988, the Riverside County Board of~ Supervisors entered into subdivision agreements with: Rancho Solana Associates/WoodCrest Development 4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 450 La Jolla, CA 92037 for the improvement of streets, the installation of sewer and water systems, and the installation of subdivision monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds, issued by Insurance Company of the west as follows: Bond No. 028708 in the amount of $341,000 to cover street improvements. Bond No. 028708 in the amount of $99,500 to cover water improvements. Bond No. 028708 in the amount of $67,000 to cover water improvements. -1- pwO1\agdrpt\92\0428%tr22208 0417a Bond No'. 028708 in the amount of ~253,750 to cover material and labor. Bond No. 023144 in the amount of 815,000 to cover subdivision monumentationo On June 18, 1990, the County of Riverside accepted these improvements and retained the following secured amounts for a one-year maintenance period: Streets: $34,1 O0 Water: ~9,950 Sewer: $6,700 The one-year warranty period having passed with minimal maintenance required, Staff recommends that the subject warranty-maintenance bonds be released. The developer is also required to post Material and Labor Bonds to ensure payment to suppliers and workers. These bonds are maintained in effect for a period of time determined by statute after the Governmental Agency has accepted the public improvements. The Riverside County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors indicates that no liens have been filed against this project and a period in excess of the statutory lien period having run, Staff recommends that these Material and Labor Bonds also be released. No action was taken on the Subdivision Monumentation Bond at that date as several technical requirements had not been met. The inspection and verification process relating to the subdivision monumentation was initiated by the County of Riverside Transportation Department and completed by City Staff. Staff recommends the release of the monumentation bond. Therefore, it is appropriate to release this bond at this time. The affected streets are Amwood Way, Shorewood Court, Nightcrest Circle, Waynewood Drive, Deepwood Circle, and Marwood Circle. Attachment: Vicinity Map -2- pwO1%egdrpt\92~O428%tr22208 O417a l SITE I NO SCA~ ITEM NO. 14 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEy_R~. FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager /l~J Depa ent of Public Works April 28, 1992 Authorize Reduction in Bond Amounts for Tract Map No. 21760 PREPARED BY: AlbertK. Crisp, Permit Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council AUTHORqZE the reduction in street, sewer and water Faithful Performance Bond amounts; APPROVE the replacement Subdivision Improvement Agreement and 18-month extension of time; ACCEPT the Faithful Performance Bonds in the reduced amounts and the replacement Bonds; and, DIRECT the City Clerk to so notify the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. BACKGROUND: The City Council received and filed the map for Tract No. 21760 on June 12, 1990. Subdivision Agreements and Surety Bonds were .posted with the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors by: Rancho Highlands Venture I 43180 Business Park Drive, Suite 104 Temecula, CA 92590 for the improvement of streets, sewer and water systems, and subdivision monumentation. Accompanying the Subdivision Agreements were Surety Bonds, issued by Insurance Company of the West as follows: Bond No. 1159341 in the amount of $1,236,500 to cover street improvements. Bond No. 1159341 in the amount of $227,500 to cover water system improvements. Bond No. 1159341 in the amounts of $618,250, $113,750 and $119,250, respectively, to cover material and labor. 4. Bond No. I 159342 in the amount of $38,800 to cover Subdivision Monumentation. -1 - pwO1 ~agdrpt~g2\O428%tr2 1760 0420a The current real estate market remains soft and the developer requests a-partial, but substantial, reduction in the Faithful Performance Bond amounts consistent with the work already performed. Staff estimates that approximately $276,000 in street and related improvements remain, including 10% for warranty purposes. The Eastern Municipal Water District estimates that sewer system is 90% completed, so that the work remaining plus the 10% warranty totals $48,000. The Rancho California Water District estimates that the water system is 90% completed, so that the work remaining plus the 10% warranty totals $45,000. Therefore, it is appropriate to reduce the Faithful Performance Bond amounts as follows: Streets: Water System: Sewer System: $960,500 $182,000 $190,500 The Faithful Performance Bond amounts to be retained' in effect are as follows: Streets: $276,000 Water System: $45,500 Sewer System: $48,000 The Faithful Performance bonds as submitted reflect both the reduced amounts and a change in the surety and developer/owner as follows: The surety bonds were issued by St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company as follows: Bond No. 400JG7702 in the amount of $276,000 to cover remaining street improvements. w Bond No. 400JG7702 in the amount of $45,500 to cover remaining water system improvements. Bond No. 400JG7702 in the amount of $48,000 to cover remaining sewer system improvements. Additionally, the surety has replaced Material and Labor and Subdivision Monument Bonds in the full amounts as follows: Bond No. 400JG7702 in the amounts of $618,250, $113,750 and $119,250, respectively, to cover material and labor. 2. Bond No. 400JG7703 in the amount of $38,800 to cover subdivision monumentation. The Material and Labor Bond will be retained until final acceptance of improvements and the appropriate lien period has been completed. The Subdivision Monument Bond will remain in place until Staff has approved the work and recommends that the City Council authorize release of this bond. -2- pwOl\agdrpt\92\O428\tr21760 0420a The new developer/owner is: WRI Rancho Highlands Venture, a California Limited Partnership c/o Weyerhauser Venture Company 21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 310 Torrance, CA 90503 The replacement Subdivision Improvement Agreement would incorporate an 18-month extension of time. The initial 18-month period ended on December 12, 1991 and the new completion date would become June 12, 1993. The affected streets, although not being accepted into the City-Maintained Street System at this time, are Corte Rialto, Via Fanira, Calle Nacido, Via Mondo, Corte Copa, and a portion of Tierra Vista Road, Preece Lane, and Corte Fresca. Attachments: Vicinity Map Bonds Subdivision Improvement Agreement -3- pw01\agdrpt\92\O428~tr21760 0420a ,.-- / ~os~ '-, "..,0,' /I/C/H/7'Y" ITEM NO. 15 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council/City Manager Department of Public Works April 28, 1992 First Amendment to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Discharge Permit Implementation Agreement, San Diego Region (Santa Margarita Drainage Area) PREPARED BY: Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the First Amendment to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Stormwater Discharge Permit Implementation Agreement adding the City of Murrieta as a co-permittee, and authorize the Mayor to execute said Amendment. BACKGROUND: In August 1991, the City of Temecula entered into an agreement with the County of Riverside and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to establish the responsibilities of each party concerning compliance with the NPDES Stormwater Discharge Permit issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego Region. Subsequently, the City of Murrieta filed a written request with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to be added as a party to the NPDES Agreement. The City of Murrieta has been added to the current NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Board, and the proposed amendment to the Implementation Agreement requires them to comply with all provisions of the permit and the Agreement. The City of Murrieta will also assume their portion of all shared costs as discussed in the original Agreement. FISCAL IMPACT: None. Attachment: First Amendment to NPDES Stormwater Discharge Permit Implementation Agreement pw01\agdrpt\92\O428\npdes.amd 042Oe 1 FIRST A~NKW~IrrTO~ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 2 StorsNater Disntmrge Permit Isq~lesentation Agreesent 5 San Diego Region (Santa Nargarita Drainage Area) 4' 5 This FIRST AMENDMENT to the National Pollutant Discharge 6 Elimination System Stormwater Discharge Permit Implementation 7 Agreement - San Diego Region (herein called the NPDES AGREEMENT), 8 made and entered into on August 13, 1991, by and between the 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, 10 the COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, and the CITY OF TEMECULA (herein 11 collectively called the PARTIES), adds an additional party to the 12 NPDES AGREEMENT as follows: 13 14 15 16 , WHEREAS, the CITY OFMURRXETA has filed a written 17 request with the RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER 18 CONSERVATION DISTRICT (herein called the DISTRICT) to be added as 19 a part7 to the NPDES AGREEMENT; and, 20 WHEREAS, the DISTRICT has solicited from all PARTIES the 21 approval or denial of the request; and, 22 : WHEREAS, all PARTIES have approved the request; and, 23 WHEREAS, the DISTRICT has asked that the National 24 Pollutant Discharge Elimination SyStem Stormwater Discharge 25 Permit (herein called the NPDES PERMIT) issued by the Regional 26 Water Quality Control Board - San Diego Region be amended such 27 that ~he CITY OF MURRINTA is added as an additional co-permittee; 28 and, WILI,I~M C I~ATZEN:~'rEIN 3535 - ~ C41,1~ORNIA -1- WHEREAS, the Regional Water Quality Control Board - San Diego Region has made the CITY OFMURRIETA an additional co-permittee$ now, therefore, 4 IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED that the NPDES AGREEMENT be 5 amended as follows: 6 1. The CITY OF MURRIETA is hereby added as an 7 additional party to the NPDES AGREEMENT in accordance with 8 Section 7. thereof. 9' 2. This FIRST AMENDMENT shall be effective upon 10 approval by all PARTIES to the NPDES AGREEMENT. 11 3. Once effective, the CITY OF MURRIETA shall comply with all provisions of the NPDES PERMIT and the NPDES AGREEMENT 13 and shall be responsible for the shared costs discussed in 14 Section 5. of the agreement for the current and any subsequent 15 budget year. 16 4. Except as specifically provided herein, all 17 provisions of the NPDES AGREEMENT shall remain the same. 18 5. This FIRST AMENDMENT may be executed and delivered 19 in any number of counterparts or copies ('counterpart') by the 20 PARTIES hereto. When each party has signed and delivered at 21 least one counterpart to the other PARTIES hereto, each 22 counterpart shall be deemed an original and, taken together, 23 shall constitute one and the same FIRST AMENDMENT, which shall be 24 binding and effective as to the PARTIES hereto. 25 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, all PARTIES have caused this FIRST 26 AMENDMENT to be executed and attested by its proper officers 27 thereunto duly authorized, their official seals to be hereto Z8 -2- WILLIAM C. KATZENSTEIN COUNTY COUNSEL 353S - ~0TH STEET 1 affixed, as of the date written. 2 Dated: 4 5 6 RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL this day of , 199 8 KENNETH L. EDWARDS Chief Engineer 9 10 11 14 15 Dated: 16 17 18 APPROVED AS TO FORM this day of , 199 19 WILLIAM C. KATZENSTEIN County Counsel 20 By 21 Deputy 22 23 24 25 WILLIAH C KATZENSTEIN COUNTY COUNSEL 3535 - 101}1 RIVER~XDE~x-x FLOOD COB[rROL ~!IDMATER CO~SERVATXON DISTRICT By Chairman, Board of Supervisors ATTEST: Gerald A. Maloney Clerk of the Board By Deputy (SF L) COUleTYOF RXVBRSIDE By Chairman, Board of Supervisor~ ATTEST: GERALD A. MALONEY Clerk of the Board By Deputy (SEAL) -3- I Dated: 3 APPROVED AS TO FORM this 4 ~ day of ~ , 199 5 By '~~b ,/~ City Attorney 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 21 23 24 25 26 28 CITE OF -x-w,lluuhA By Mayor ATTEST: By City Clerk :(SEAL) -4- I Dated: 3 APPROVED AS TO FORM this 4 day of , 199 5 By City Attorney 9 10 11 13 16 18 19 28 KAL:re/6771it/011591 WIllIAM C CITY OFMtJR~IETA By Mayor ATTEST: By City Clerk (SE L) -5- i FIIIST-Pa~~eTTOTHE National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sisten 2 Storm~ater DiScharge Permit Implementation Agreement 3 San Diego Region (Santa Margarita Drainage Area) 4' 5 This FIRST AMENDMENT to the National Pollutant Discharge 6 Elimination System Stormwater Discharge Permit Implementation 7 Agreement - San Diego Region (herein called the NPDES AGREEMENT), 8 made and entered into on August 13, 1991, by and between the 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, 10 the COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, and the CITY OF TEMECULA (herein 11 collectively called the PARTIES), adds an additional party to the 1Z 'NPDES AGREEMENT as follows: 13 14 16 WHEREAS, the CITY OF MURRIETA has filed a written 17 request with the RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER 18 CONSERVATION DISTRICT (herein called the DISTRICT) to be added as 19 a party to the NPDES AGREEMENT; and, WHEREAS, the DISTRICT has solicited from all PARTIES the 21 approval or denial of the request; and, 22 WHEREAS, all PARTIES have approved the request; and, 23 WHEREAS, the DISTRICT has asked that the National 24 POllutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater Discharge 25 Permit (herein called the NPDES PERMIT) issued by the Regional 26 Water Quality Control Board - San' Diego Region be amended such 27 that the CITY OF MURRIETA is added as an additional co-permittee; and, WILLIAM C KATZENSTEIN COUNTY COUN~F,L -1- I WHEREAS, the Regional Water Quality Control Board - San 2 Diego Region has made the CITY OF MURRIETA an additional 3 co-permittee; now, therefore, 4 IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED that the NPDES AGREEMENT be 5 amended as follows: 1. The CITY OF MURRIETA is hereby added as an ? additional party to the NPDES AGREEMENT in accordance with 8 Section 7. thereof. 9' 2. This FIRST AMENDMENT shall be effective upon 10 approval by all PARTIES to the NPDES AGREEMENT. 11 3. Once effective, the CITY OF MURRIETA shall comply 12 with all provisions of the NPDES PERMIT and the NPDES AGREEMENT 13 and shall be responsible for the shared costs discussed in 14 Section 5. of the agreement for the current and any subsequent 15 budget year. ~ 16 4. Except as specifically provided herein, all 17 provisions of the NPDES AGREEMENT shall remain the same. 18 S. This FIRST AMENDMENT may be executed and delivered 19 in any number of counterparts or copies ('counterpart') by the 20 PARTIES hereto. When each party has signed and delivered at 21 least one counterpart to the other PARTIES hereto, each 22 counterpart shall be deemed an original and, taken together, 23 shall constitute one and the same FIRST AMENDMENT, which shall be 24 binding and effective as to the PARTIES hereto. 25 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, all PARTIES have caused this FIRST 26 AMENDMENT to be executed and attested by its proper officers 27 thereunto duly authorized, their official seals to be hereto -2- WILlAM C. ~N C~NTY COUNSEL 3535-IOTHgl~ET RIVEIGaDL CAUFOi~'¢~ I affixed, as of the date written. 3 Dated: 4 6 RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL this day of , 199 8 KENNETH L. EDWARDS Chief Engineer 9 10 11 15 14 15 Dated: 16 17 APPROVED AS TO FORM this 18 day of , 199 19 WILLIAM C. KATZENSTEIN County Counsel 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 WILLIAM C KATZENSTEIN COUNTY COUNSEL ]S}S - ~OT~4 STRET By Deputy WATER CONSERVATION By Chairman, Board of SupervisOrs ATTEST: Gerald A. Maloney Clerk of the Board By Deputy (SEAL) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE By Chairman, Board of SupervisOrs ATTEST: GERALD A. MALONEY Clerk of the Board By Deputy (SEAL) -3- 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 26 2~ 28 WILLIAM C. KATZENSTEIN COUNTY COUNSEL 3535 - 10TH 5'TRF, ET 1 Dated: 2 3 APPROVED AS TO FO this 4 1,/~ day of ~ , 199 City Attorney 6 -4- CIT~OFT~'OLA By Mayor ATTEST: By City Clerk (SEAL) 1 Dated: 2 APPROVED AS TO FORM this 4 ~-day of ~--~ , 199 5 By d~i~ x A C'ty ttorney 6 ? 8 KAL:re/6771it/01i591 -5- CIT~OFMURRIETA By Mayor ATTEST: By City Clerk (SEAL) 1 3 4 FIRST AI-~-zarx- TO THE. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater DiScharge Permit Impl~ntation Agrccment San Diego Region (Santa Nargarita Drainage Area) 5 This FIRST AMENDMENT to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater DiScharge Permit Implementation 7 Agreement - San Diego Region (herein called the NPDES AGREEMENT), 8 made and entered into on August 13, 1991, by and between the 9 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, 10 the COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, and the CITY OF TEMECULA (herein 11 collectively called the PARTIES), adds an additional party to the 12 NPDES AGREEMENT as follows: 13 14 ~ECXT~T.~ 15 16 WHEREAS, the CITY OF MURRIETA has filed a written 17 request with the RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER 18 CONSERVATION DISTRICT (herein called the DISTRICT) to be added as 19 a party to the NPDES AGREEMENT; and, 20 WHEREAS, the DISTRICT has solicited from all PARTIES the 21 approval or denial of the request; and, 22 WHEREAS, all PARTIES have approved the request; and, 23 WHEREAS, the DISTRICT has asked that the National 24 Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater Discharge 25 Permit (herein called the NPDES PERMIT) issued by the Regional 26 Water Quality Control Board - San Diego Region be amended such 27 that the CITY OF MURRIETA is added as an additional co-permittee; 28 and, WIL,UAM C. KATZENSTEIN COUNTY COUNSEL SUITE3OQ 3535 - IOTH STREET RIV'r,J~sID~ CALIFORNIA -1- WHEREAS, the Regional Water Quality Control Board - San Diego Region has made the CITY OF MURRIETA an additional _, co-permittee; now, therefore, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED that the NPDES AGREEMENT be amended as follows: 1. The CITY OF MURRIETA is hereby added as an additional party to the NPDES AGREEMENT in accordance with 12 with all provisions of the NPDES PERMIT and the NPDES AGREEMENT 13 and shall be responsible for the shared costs discussed in 14 Section 5. of the agreement for the current and any subsequent 15 budget year. 16 4. Except as specifically provided herein, all 17 provisions of the NPDES AGREEMENT shall remain the same. 18 5. This FIRST AMENDMENT may be executed and delivered 19 in any number of .counterparts or copies ("counterpart") by the Z0 PARTIES hereto. When each party has signed and delivered at 21 least one counterpart to the other PARTIES hereto, each · 22 counterpart shall be deemed an original and, taken together, 23 shall constitute one and the same FIRST AMENDMENT, which shall be ~4 binding and effective as to the PARTIES hereto. 25 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, all PARTIES have caused this FIRST Z6 AMENDMENT to be executed and attested byits proper officers 27 thereunto duly authorized, their official seals te be hereto Z8 -2- W|I.,LLa~4 C. KATZFNSTEIN COUNTY COUNSEL SUITE:300 3535 - ~OTH ~'REET RNERSE~. CAUFORNIA 8 Section 7. thereof. 9' 2. This FIRST AMENDMENT shall be effective upon 10 approval by all PARTIES to the NPDES AGREEMENT. 11 3. Once effective, the CITY OF MURRIETA shall comply i affixed, as of the date written. 2 3 Dated: 6 RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL this day of , 199 8 KENNETH L. EDWARDS Chief Engineer 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Dated: 17 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WILLIAM C KATZENSTEIN COUNTY COUNSB, 3535 · ~OTH STREET APPROVED AS TO FORM this 18 day of , 199 19 WILLIAM C. KATZENSTEIN County Counsel 20 By Deputy RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOODDt~i~~ A!WDWATERCONSERVATION By Chairman, Board of Supervisors ATTEST: Gerald A. Maloney Clerk of the Board By Deputy (SEAL) ~OF RIVERSIDE By Chairman, Board of ATTEST: GERALD A. MALONEY Clerk of the Board By Deputy (SEAL) SupervisOrs -3- 1 Dated: 2 APPROVED AS TO FORM this /~'~day of ~~ , City Attorhey 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WILLIAM C KAI'ZEN~TEIN COUNTY 3535 · 10TH STREET CITY'OFTEMECULA By Mayor ATTEST: By City Clerk (SEAL) -4- 1 Date0: 2 3 APPROVED AS TO FO;.~ this day of ~ , 199'~ 5 By e,~~ _ City Attorney 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 KAL: re/6771it/011591 WILLIAM C, KATZENSTEIN COUNTY CO4.~6EL 3535 - IOTH STREET CITY OF MURRIETA By Mayo r ATTEST: By City Clerk (SEAL) -5- ITEM NO. 16 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY TO: FROM: DATE: S~T: PREPAIH:ff~ BY: City Council/City Manager Building and Safety Department April 28, 1992 Contract Agreement for Street ~s Numbering Anthony .Elino, Chief Building Official RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve a contract agreement with Mr. Bruce Stewart, 3155 Mr. Vernon Avenue, Riverside, CA 92501, (714) 784-8484, to pwvide address numbering services on an as-needed bash. DISCUSSION: The Bu~ding and Safety Department has utilized the services of a consultant to provide the City with the service of assigning street address numbers for new development projects. Over a concern for increased workload and the importance of timely project completion, staff has contacted Mr. Bruce Stewart to supplement these services now being provided by Mr. Frank Smart. Mr. Bruce Stewart has agreed to pwvide this supplemental service on an E-needed bash for compensation at the rate of twenty ($20) dollan per hour, the same compensation pwvided Mr. Frank Stuart. Mr. Bruce Stewart has had experience with the County of Riverside and has provided street addressing under the program which has also been established in the City. Fiscal Impact: Monies have already been appropriated in the Fiscal Year 1991 - 1992 budget in account #001-162-999-42-5248 for this service. Sufficient funds exist to complete this pwject within this existing account. v:~wp~.~la.rpt~,w~mtg28 PROff-QsIONAt, SERVICY-~ This Agreement was made and entered into this day of between the City of Temecula ("City"), a municipal corporation, and address numbering service ("Consultant"). Brace Stewart, an The parties hereto mutually agree as follows: 1. Services. Consultant shall perform the tasks set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule set forth in Exhibit A. 2. Performance. Consultant shah 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, rates set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto. 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. 4. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended so long as such amendment is in writing and agreed upon by both the City Council and Consultant. 5. Ownership Of Documents. Upon satisfactory completion of, or in the event of termination, suspension or abandonment of, this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings and notes prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. 6. Termination. The City may terminate this Agreement without cause so long as written notice of intent to terminate is given to Consultant at least ten (10) working days prior to the termination date. In the event of termination, Consultant shall be paid for the services performed. 7. Indemnification. The Consultant agrees to indemnify and save harmless the City of Temecula, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims, demands, losses, defense cost, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur ~r 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. V:\W'P~OR-(B.STt~ 8. Status of Consultant. Consultant is an independent contractor in all respects in the performance of this Agreement and shah not be considered an employee of the City for any purpose. No employee benefits shah be avnilnble to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay ~laries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shah not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder. 9. Torm. This Agreement shall commence on April 29,199~, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than __ June 30,1992. 10. Subcontracts. The Consultant shall not enter into any subcontracts for services to be rendered toward the completion of the Consultant's portion of this Agreement without the consent of the City. At all times, Bruce Stewart shah be primarily responsible for the performance of the tasks described herein. 11. D~fault. 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 fmal. Consultant shah select an arbitrator from a list provided by the City of three retired judges of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. The arbitration heating shall be conducted according to California Cede of Civil Procedure Section 1280, et seq. City and Consultant shall share the cost of the arbitration equally. 12. Notices. Notices shall be given pursuant to this Agreement by personal service on the party to be notified, or by written notice upon such party deposited in the custody of the United States Postal Service addressed as follows: V:\WP~t3R-05.ST!~ a. city: Attention: City Manager City of Temecula 43174 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92S90 b. Bru~ Stewart 3155 Mt. Vernon Avenue Riverside, CA 92501 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. Batire Agreement. This Agreement and any documents or instrument attached hereto or referred to herein integrate all terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto supersede all negotiations and prior writing in respect to the subject matter hereof. In the event of conflict between the terms, conditions, or provisions of this Agreement and any such document or instrument, the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall prevail. 14. Liability. Except as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay ~lnries, 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 shall maintain limits of insurance no less than as listed below. In addition, insurance certificates and endorsements must be completed and attached. Automobile Liability: $500,000 combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. V:~V/BAOR-05.STB The parties hercto have executed this Agreement on the date and year above written. CONSULTANT By: Title ATTBST: By: Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Scott F. Field, City Attorney V:\W!~AOR-OS.STE EXI4H~ITA TASKS TO BE PERFO~ It is agreed that Mr. Bruce Stewart wffi provide address ,numbering on an as-needed bash for residential and commercial development throughout the City of Temecula. V:~WI~A~IR-O~.~I'E PXtnR1TB It is agreed that Mr. Bruce Stewart, 3155 Mt. Vernon Avenue, Riverside, CA 92501, (714) 784-8484, will lau'ovide address numbering on an E-needed basis for residential and commercial development .tbroughont the City of Temecula at the rate of twenty ($20.00) dollars per hour. V:~WI~AOR-O~.STE ITEM 17 ORDINANCE NO. 92-06 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PERTAINING TO SiGN REGULATIONS AND ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS FOR THE USE OF OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of TemecUla hereby finds that the proposed Outdoor Advegising Displays Ordinance will provide for the establishment of regulations for outdoor advertising displays in a fair and equitable manner, and W!~R~&S, the City Council of the City of Temecula further finds that the proposed Outdoor Adveaising Displays Ordinance is necessary to! bring about eventual conformity with its land use plans, and THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated City shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the City is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: A.. The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the General Plan. B. The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, each of the following: 1. There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. 2. There is 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 plano 3. The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter *SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan 5lOrds 92-06 -1- for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of!its General Plan. 'The proposed land use regulations are consistent with the SWAP and meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: C. The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the General Plan. D. The'. City Council finds, in adopting land use regulations pursuant to this title, each of the following: ~.. There is reasonable probability that Ordinance No. 92-xx 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. Section i2. Purpose The purpose of this Ordinance is to set forth the development standards for the installation and maintenance of outdoor advertising displays within all land-use zones of the CiW. The purpose of these regulations is to ensure that the design and location of outdoor advertising displays are consistent with the health, safety, and aesthetic objectives of the City. It is a desire of the City that the design of this community be of the highest quality, that new development be architecturally distinctive as well ~as homogeneous in design, and that accessory facilities be compatible with the overall theme. The quality of signage plays a very distinctive wle in achieving the above desire, when abused, signs can create a visual blight which deWacts from the quality of the enviwnment and an individual's visual perception of the City. Recognizing that the primary purpose of signs is proper business identification, the regulations of this Ordinance are enacted to: A. EnsUre that signs erected within the City are compatible with their surroundings and are in keeping with the policies of the City; B. ProVide for the identification of business enterprises only and shall not be used for advertising purposes; C. Promote traffic safety and community identity while also enhancing the quality of the visual environment of the City; and 5/Ord8 92-06 -2- D. Estab~ regulations which control outdoor advertising displays within the City. Section 3. Definitions For purposes of this Ordinance, the following words, terms, phrases, and their derivations, shall have the meanings given herein. Then consistent with the context, words used in the present tense singular include the plural. A. ~'Commercial Off-Premise Sign" means any sign structure advertising an establishment, ~merchandise, service, or entertainmeut, which is not sold, produced, manufactured, or furnished at the property on which the sign is located. A commercial off- premise sign may be commonly known or referred to as an off-premises billboard. B, "Non-Commercial Off-Premise Sign" means any sign structure exhibiting non- commercial sr, c~h or message in lieu of commercial sign copy; and any sign structure exhibiting non-commercial: signing unrelated to the buying or selling a of commodities or anything involved and practiced. Section 4. Prohibited Si2ns The establishment Of the following outdoor advertising displays .are hereby prohibited and no application for sign location plan, plot plan, or other application discretionary enti~ement for a outdoor advertising display shall be accepted, acted upon, or approved: A. Commercial off-premises signs, provided that upon a finding of hardship made by the Planning Commission, following a noticed punic hearing, a commercial off-premises sign may be approved subject to compliance with the provisions of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 Article XIX. Section 5. Exempt Outdoor Advertising Displays The provisions of this Ordinance shall not apply to any application for: A. Directional Signs, as defined in Chapter 5 of the Temecula Municipal Code. B. On-site advertising structures and signs (Ordinance 348, Section 19.5 of the non- codi~ed ordinances of the County of Riverside and adopted by the City of Temecula under Ordinance No. 90-04). C. Subdivision signs (Ordinance No. 348, Section 19.6 of the non-codifted ordinances of the County of Riverside and adopted by the City of Temecula under ordinance No. 90-04). D. Non-commercial off-premises advertising structures and signs, subject to the following design and performance standards: 1. Square footage of the sign board is limited to twelve (12) square feet or less; 2. There shall be no more than one (I) sign board per parcel; 3. Total height of a ground-mounted sign and supporting structure shall not exceed six (6) feet; 5lOrds 92-436 -3- building-mounted sign shall not extend above the cave or parapet line and; No sign shall be illuminated.. ' Section 6. Non-conforming Outdoor Advertising Displays All outdoor advertising · displays, in any zone, lawfully constructed and erected prior to the effective date of this Ordinancc, which do not conform to the requirements of the provisions of this Ordinance for the particular zone in which they are located, shall bc accep~l as non-conforming sign. Section 7. To the extent the provisions of this Ordinance conflict with any provisions of Article XIX of Ordinance No. 348 the provisions of this Ordinance shall apply. Section 8. Sevembili~y. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and it for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the ~cmaining parts of this Ordinance. Section 9. l~.nvironmental Compliance. The City Council hereby finds that this project does not have a potential for causing a significant affect on the environment. Therefore, the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Section 15061 (b) (3). Section 10. This Ordinance shall expire upon one year following its effective date. Section 11. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by laws. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of April, 1992. ATTEST: Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] 51Onis 92-0~ 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 Ordinance No.92-06 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 14th day of April, 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 28th day of April, 1992, by the following roll call vote: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: Munoz June S. Greek, City Clerk 5/C)fd8 92-06 -S- ITEM NO. 18 ORDINANCE NO. 92-08 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ~, C.ALIFORNIA, Ab~NDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION CONTAINED IN CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 18 CHANGING ~ ZONE FROM R-A 2-1/2 (RESID~ AGRICULTURAL, 2-1/2 ACRE LOT SIZE MINIMUM) TO S-P (SPECIFIC PLAN)'ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MARGARITA ROAD AND DE PORTOLA ROAD. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TI3iEF-L~ULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOtJDWS: Section 1. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings: 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 zoning district as shown on the attached exhibit is hereby approved and ratified as pan of the Official Zoning Map for the City of Temecula as adopted by the City and as may be mended hereafter from rime to time by the City Council of the City of Temecula, and the City of Temecula Official Zoning Map is amended by placing in effect the zone or zones as described in Change of Zone No. 18 and in the above rifle, as shown on zoning map attached here to and incorporated herein. Section 2. Notice of Adoption, Within 10 days after the adoption hereof, the City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the a'doprion of this Ordinance and cause it to be posted in at least three public places in the City. Section 3. Taking Effect. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to .the adoption of the Ordinance and cause copies of the Ordinance to be posted and published as require by law. PASSe, APPROVED AND ADOtrlT~D this day of ,1992. Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] Ords/92-08 -1 - STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS crrY OF ') I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 92-08 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 14th day of April, 1992, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the __ day of , 1992 by the following roll call vote: CO~CILMI~ERS: NOES: CO~CILMEMBERS: CO~C~~ERS: June S. Greek, City Clerk ITEM NO;. 19 TO: FROM: DATB: S~: APPROVAL CITY OF~ AGENDA City Counqil/City Manager Planning Department April 28, 1992 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the City Council: APPROVE the attached Stipulation and Order providing for the clean-up of the Long Valley Wash by the Buie Corporation, and; IIE_A_I~RM Environmentai Assessment No. 32547 for Vesting Tentative IYact Map No. 23372 and; ADOPT a Resolution enti~ed: "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula approving the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 23372 to subdivide 46.9 acres into a 66 lot condomim'um project located northerly of Rancho Cnlifornia Road on the west side of Meadows Parkway and known as Assessor' s Parcel No. 923-210-014," 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. BACKGROUND At the meeting of February 25, 1992 the City Council requested that Staff, the applicant, and representatives af the Villages Home Owners Association CVHOA) meet to discuss the situation relative to erosion. In response to that request the City Attorney, Director of Public Works, and representatives of Bedford Properties, the Buie Corporation and the VItOA met on March 3, 1992. s~r/wni,ms~.cc 1 As a result of that meeting, a tentative resolution was agreed upon. Bedford Properties has agreed to pay the VHOA $15,000.00 for past silta~on and erosion problems. The Buie Corporation will pay an an additional $5,000.00 if the VHOA installs a concrete ribbon in the wash boginning no later than July l, 1992 and completing the work no later than July 31, 1992, and assume the obligation of future maintenance of the Wash, until such time as the City releases erosion control bonds for the subject tract. The agreement will then be contingent on the bankruptcy court approval of the document. At its regular meeting on March 24, 1992 the City Council continued the consideration of the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372. This map was continued to the meeting of April 28, 1992. Staffs recommendation is contingent upon all of the documents being properly signed prior to the City Council meeting on April 28, 1992. If the documents are not properly signed, Staff' s recommendation would be for a continuance. vgw 2. 3. 4. Resolution - page 3 Stipulation and Agreement for Long Valley Wash clean-up - page 9 City Council Minutes, March 24, 1992 - page 10 City Council Report, March 24, 1992 - page 11 S~'1'A~3'7'2.CC 2 ATTA~ 1 I~.~)LUTION NO. 92.- A RESOLUTION OF ~ C1TY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMF, CULA APPROVING ~ FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VES~G TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23372 TO SUBDIVIDE 46.9 ACRES INTO A 66 LOT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATRD NORTHInLY --OF RANClIO CALIFORNIA ROAD ON ~ WEST SIDE OF ~)OWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 923-210~14. WHE~RAS, The Buie Corporation ~ed the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WI~TRFAS, said First Extension of Time for VeSting Tentative Tract Map application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; Wln~.~, 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 Comminsion heating, the Commission recommended approval of said First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map; WttEnE4~, the City Council considered said First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map on April 28, 1992, at which time interested persons have an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WFIRRE~,S, at the conclusion of the Council hearing, the Council approved said First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372; NOW, ~RE, ~ HANNING COMlV~SSION OF THY~ CITY OF TEMECUIA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS F01J~OWS: Section I. Findings following findings: That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incoxponted city shah adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months foilowing 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 foilowing requirements are met: , * 8~T~372.CC dr ATTA~ NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. S~F,/~YI~3372.CC D. Pm'suant to Section 7.1 of County OrdimW. e No. 460, no subdivision may be approved unless ;the fortowing findings are made: 1. That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. = 2. That tic design or improvement of the propo~ ]and division is consistent .with al~licable general and specific plans. 3. That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of development. 4.: That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. 5. That the design of the proposed !and division or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damsgo or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 6., That time design of the proposed land =division or the type of improvements arc not likely to '~cause serious public health problems. 7.i That the desigs of the proposed land ,division or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. A land division may be approved if it is found that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgement of a court of competent jurisdiction. E. The Council, in recommending approval of the proposed First Extension of Time for Vesting Ten~itive Tract Map No. 23372, 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 aud site ameni~es commensurate with existing and anticipated residemini 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 ultlm~ttely 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 P]an 199. S'~TAFFRP'r~372.CC 6 general plan. The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with th~ preparation of the 2. The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: a. There is a reasonable probability that the Tune Extension proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b. There is little or no probability of substnntinl 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 coinplied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by ~e Southwest Area Community phn, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prio~ to ~e incorporation of Temecuh 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 First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general 2. The Planning Commission finds, in approving pwjects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: a. There is reasonable probability that the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. 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 witin the plan. c. The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. S~rAPl~FT~372.C~ ~ Riversidei County Conditions of Approval dated NOvember 8, 1988. City of Teme~fla Conditions of Approval dated NOvember 4, 1991. City of Temecula Conditions of Approval dated February 2.5, 1992 deleting Condition No. 2. Section 4. PASSED~ APPROVEB AND ADOFrED this 28th day of April, 1992. PATRICIA H. BIRDSALI- MAYOR I ffI~F, Ry CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a ~gular meeting thereof, hem on the 28th day of April 1992 by the following vote of the Council: COUNCrLMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMER~ERS: COUNTERS: ~ S. GI~ CITY~ 4. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and density, due to the fact that; adequate area is provided for all proposed residential structures; adequate landscaping is provided along the project' s public and private frontages; and the internal circulation plan should not create traffic conflicts as design provisions are in conformance with adopted City standards. 5. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or weftare, 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 pwposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area, due to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the current zoning of the subject site. 7. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the EIR for the project, due to the fact that impact mitigation is realiTP~ by conformance with the project's Conditions of Approval. 8. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open W, and useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project currently proposes access points from Meadows Parkway which have been determined to be adequ~t_e by the City Engineer. 9. The design of the subdivision, the type of impwvements and the resulting street hyout 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 Appwval. F. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION HI, the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 is compatible with the health, safely 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 Appwval have been added to the project, and the Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby Section 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecuh Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council appwve the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 for the subdivision of 46.9 acres inW a 66 lot condominium project located northerly of Rancho California Road on the west side of Meadows Parkway and known as a portion of Assessor's Parcel No. 923-210-014 subject to the following conditions: S~TAFFR,PT~337'2.C~ 7 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 STWUIATION AND AG~ FOR THF~ LONG VALLEY WASH CI-~'-~.N-UP $WfAFI~FI'~/~.(~ 9 1 2 4 6 7 9 lo ~2 14 15 17 20 22 24 26 27 28 maintain ~Jne graded land until ~hm dmvelopmen~ im ~ompletm, and during ChUm maintenance period w~o restore, repair and replace, ~o the mariafaction of the Building Official, any defaceire work or labor done or def®ctive materials furnished; WHKRZAS, an mmnmlvm amount of silt from maid Trac~ Boa. 23371-& and B has been deposi~sd downstream An ~he culvert underneath Palmr Village and in Ohm Long Valley Wash adjacent to Tract No. 20735; WIfEREaS, Bedford Development Company ('Bedford*) o~ns Palomar M!IERFA2, am a condition of approval for the parcel map for reaI property comprisin~ Paler Village, located at aargarita and ltmncho Californ~a Roads, the business association for maid property was to guarantee maintenance of the culvert undmrnaath maid property, as documented in the letter from l~tverside County Flood Control and Water Distric~ to Robert BeAn, William Frost and associates, dated Ray l~, ~HERFAS, ~he Villmgem Homeowners Associat~on (*Vliaw) ham rmsponmibil~ty pursuant to Tract So. 2073~ to maintain the Long Valley Wash a part of maid Trac~;. WHEREAS, on December 1', 1929, the City of Temecula incorporated, succeeding to the rights and dul:iem of the County of Riverside, including the performance bonds referenced WHFJtrAS, Section 6.14.002 (b) of the Temscula 14unicipal Cmie designates as a nuisance *'land, the topography or confi~p~ration of which, in any man-made state, whether am a result of ~rading operations, excavation, f~ll or other alteration, intmrfmrms TRJd/IIO*FJiPJTP 41M,'t'92) -2- 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 SCOTt F. FIELD, CIT~ kTTOIUeEY CZT~ O~ ~; a~ 3200 Brts~l St. OUl~ 640 ~ X~a, ~l~fo~ta 92626 (213) 336-0600 A~:torneys for CITY OF TSNECULa UNITED STATES Ba~qlU:tUPTCY COURT 2OUTHXRNDXSTRZCTOF C/d,IFORNXA NARG. ARITA VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORJ~TION, Debtor. CASE NO. 91-14308-Hll STIPULATION FOR CONPROMISE OF CLAINS AGAINST CHAFTER 11 ESTATE WHEREAS, ~he County oZ RIverside approved Tentative Tract Nap NoB. 23371-A and 23371-B tot Margarita Village Development Company ('NVDCN); WHEREAS, on or about Hatch, 1989, NVDC signed an Agre.e~ent for groslon Control and Landscape Improvements for Tract No. 23371-A; WHEREAS, on or about August, 1989, NVDC executed an Agree- ment Zor Erosion Control and Landscape Improvements ~or Tract No. 23371-B; WHEREAS, pursuant to both of these Agreements, NVDC graded said Tracts; WHEREAS, both of these Agreements required that HVDC TS~.aSOTJ$FJTW~Ss2) l :5 5 '7' 8 9 lO ll 13 16 15 16 18 19 20 2l 24 26 28 Bedford wiZ1 pay to VHAwl~hin f~fteen (15) business days of Cour~ approval of ~his order, Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000) to settle any claims of V HA, MVDC and the City as to silC In the culvert underneath Palomar Village, and to f.acilitata future maintenance of the culver~ and Long Valley Wash. 2. MVDC shall, beginning no later ~han July 1, 1992, and ~ompleted no later than by JuZy 31, 1992, repair and regrade ~he Long Valley Wash between YLUcon Road and Humbar Drive, along Ran~ho California Road, ill Tract No. 20735 to planned elevati~ns byRDbert Bein, Wllliams PTos= and Associates, da~ed December 11, 1985, to the following spactfica~lons: A. Scope of work is to include the following: (1) Clearing and disposal of all trees, brush and trash. (2) Excavation and export of material to restore channel to planned elevations. (3) Fine regrading of flowlines and slopas to planned elevations and lines set by a registered California cavil engineer, mutually acceptable to the parties, at MVDC's expense. (4) If work is not completed by July 15, 1992, MVDC or its contractors shall use water trucks to irrigate the adjacent grass and trees. (5)All sprinklers and irrigation equipment shall ~ l'!M/IIO?33PJ!? M)I/IT) -4- 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 lg 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 2~ the es~ablishad drainage pattern over the property or from ad~oining or other propsr~ies which does or my result in erosion, subsidence or surface va~er drainage programs of such magnitude as to be in3urious to public health, safety and yellers or to neighboring propar~ies~ WH~, on or about November, 1990, the City of Temecula direc~ced VHA to remove the silt deposited in Long Valley Wash, and VHA removed said silt at a cost of approximately WHEREAS, VHAcOntrac~ed for Soil Tsch, Inc., to prepare a limited erosion study for Long Valley Wash; WHEREAS, said study indicates that as of September 28, 1990, MVDC has contributed 78t of ~he soil deposited in Lonq Valley Wash, which was subsequently removed by VHA; WHEREAS, approximately 3,600 yards of additional silt has been deposited in the culver~ underneath Palsmar Village and in Long Valley Wash since the previous cleanup, which silt has beez derived almos~ entirely f.rom Tracts 23371-A and B; WH~, City asserts a claim against NVDC and Bedford pursuant to the City Grading, Nuisance and Subdivision Ordinances, and the Tract Hap Conditions, to compel a cleanup Long Valley Wash and the culvert under Palsmar Village; WHEREAS, HVDC specifically denles each and every one of the above Recitals, bu~ agrees to this Stipulation in order to buy its peace and to obtain an amicable resolution to the Recitals contained hereinabove; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS FOLLOWS: 1 4 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 1D 16 17 19 · 20 21 22 ~4 26 T!~I/!IOTJ311-ITI' 4Nej~2) reslsonsible for protection of the streets, curb, sidewalk, landscaping, etc., at and betrash the ~ob.slts and dump site. It shall also include'all traffic control and street washing necessary co . perform Its work at its sole cost. NVDC oE i~s contractor-shall name VHA, City and Bedford as additional insureds on its liability insurancepolicy and provide a certificate of insurance. }(VDC or its contractor will suppl~ proc~ of appropriate workmsn,s compensation insurance. Construction water and construction water meter will bsprovidsd by NVDC or its contractor as it. is needed. NVDC, or its successors and assigns, shall continue to maintain Long Valley Wash to ~he above specifications in the manner provided above, at its sole cost, up to and until the City of Tsmecula releases Faithful Performance Bond for Erosion Control and Landscape Improvements for Tract 23371-1, Bond No. 7900527607, and Falthful Performance Bond for Erosion Control and Landscape Improvements for Tract 23371-B, Bond No. 7g00529424. Further, nothing heretn may be construed as a waiver by the City of its right, if any, to require the surety of said bonds Co perform any obligation of ~VDC under this -6- 1 4 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 T!2d;!!Oa3P.BT~ ~ be repaired and be in goo~working order upon completion. '~ (s) Underground flow pipe shall be cleaned, repaired and put into good working order upon completion, ~7) All adjacent landscaping shall be replaced or repaired. (8) Notify VHA at least one week before work begins. MVDC or its contractor shall be responsible for locating a dump site of its choice. MVDC or its contractor shall hold VHA harmless of any problems occurring from dump mite. MVDC, itself, or through its contractor shall provide all equipment, material, and labor necessaz7 to perform said work at its cost, and shall indemnify and hold VHA, City and Bedford harmless from all claims for liability based upon, or damages arising from, work performed hereunder or breach of any portion of this Agreement by MVDC, its contractors, agents or employees. It will be MVDC's or its contractor's responsibility to contact Underground Service Alert and all other concerned agencies for the locations of all existing utilities within the described work area. MVDC and its contractor shall be solely 1 2 4 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 23' 24 26 27 28 In considara~ion of the promises contained herein, VHA and its owners, agen~s~ assigns and successors in interest do hereby release and discharge M V D C, i~s officers, agents~ employees and successors in " interest, from any and all rights, claims, demands, and damages of any kind, knees or unknown, asserted or ~assertod, resul~ing from or related to ~he silt previously deposited, presently existing or which may be deposited Tract 22371 in Long Valley Wash and ~he culvert baneathPalomarVlllage- B. In consideration o, the promises contained herein, VHA and its owners, agents, assigns and successors in inScrest do hereby release and discharge the City, and Bedford, and their officers, agents, employees and successors-in-interest from any and all rlghts,..~laims, demands, and damages of any kind, known or urdcno~n# asserted or unasserted, resulting from or related to the silt previously deposited, present.~y existing, or which my be deposited f~omMVDC or other upstream undeveloped land in Long Valley Wash and the culvert beneath Palemar Village- C. In consideration of the promises contained herein, City, and its owners, s~ents, assigns and successors in interest do hereby release and discharge the VHA, and Bedford, and their ~llO?'LIP.ft? -8- 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 26 27 28 Sttlmletlon~ or am provided for under said Bonds or tie Agreesanti they secure, ~he City shall its best efforts to notify VHA of any application for release of said bonds no less thaw sixty (60) days prior to the release of said performance bonds, All paroles agree that prior to the release of said Bonds, Long Valley Wash must be cleaned and rmgradmdto~he above specifications and further, the underground flowpipe shell be restored to a working order as well as the adjacent sprinkler systems, Further, if in the opinion of the City Engineer a significant amount of silt remains in the aulverCunderneath Palsmar Village, at the end of the term of this Agreement, the bonds wtll not be released, and MVDC, its assigns or successors shall clean'said Palsmar box culvert as well. Further, any damaCe done to any concrete dralnage improvements VHA installs, shall be repaired. VHA may submlt an invoice up to the amount $5,000 for building :and completing concrete drainage improvements extending from Yukon to Humbar in the Long Valley Wash up until December 1, 1992. Upon submission of said invoices to MVDC in a timely fashion, said lavalees shall be paid by MVDC up to the amount of $5,000 in not less than 10 days. l 2 4 5 S 7 8 9 lO ll 12 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~4 26 27 28 ~ntarest from any and all rights, claims, dmnds, and damages of any kind, known or unknown, asserted or unasser~ed, resulting from or related to the SAlt previously deposited, presently existing, or which maybe deposited from MvDC or other upstreamundeveloped land in Long Valley Wash and the culvert beneath Palemar Village. 4. The parties hersto understand and a~ree that all of their rights under Section 1542 of the Civil Code of California or any similar law of any state or territory of the United States, are hereby expressly waived. Said Section reads as follows: "Section 1542. ~n~m3 Release-Claims ~xt4nm,4ehea. A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him, must have materially affected his' / settlement with the debtor." 5. It is understood and agreed that this Stipulation represents settlement of disputed claims and is no~ to be construed as representing an admission of liability on behalf of any party to this Stipulation. The parties, however, intend to buy their peace and to forever provide a full and complete release and discharge ~rom any and all liability arising out of the transactions, matters.and events more particularly identified hereinshore. l'lhd/llOT,JJP.f'rP -lO- 1 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 1111~!!0}~11~,I11~ 4~(i/eYl) ~ officers, agents, employees and successors-in- interest from any and all rights, claims, demands, and damages of any kind, known or unknown, asserted cr unasser~ed, resulting from or related to t~e silt previously deposited, presently exiet~ng, or which may be deposited from MVDC or other upstream ttndeveloped land in Long Valley Wash and the oulvert beneath palemar Village, through the date of release of the bonds described at Section 2.H. In consideration of the promises contained herein, Bedford, and its owners, agents, assigns and successors in interest do hereby release and discharge the City and VHA, and their officers, agents, employees and successors-in-interest from any and all rights, claims, demands, and damages of any Kind, known or unknown, asserted or unasserted, resulting from or related to the silt previously deposited, presently existing, or which may be deposited from MVDC or other upstream undeveloped land in Long Valley Wash and the culvert beneath Palemar Village, In consideration of the promises contained herein, MVDC, and its owners, agents, assigns and successors in interest do hereby release and discharge Bedford, the City and VHA, and their officers, agents, empl'oyees and successors-in- -9- 1 7 9 10 11 14 17 18 19 ~0 ~5 S7 agreement and understanding between the parties-~oncerningthe subject..matterhereaf and supersedes and replaces all prior negotiations, proposed agreements or agreements, whether written or oral.- This Stipulation say be signed in counterpart. 10. This. Stipulation shall be subject to Bankruptc~ Court approval because it affects the rights 'and/or obligations of MVDC. This Stipulation shall not be binding on any of the parties hereto unless and until such approval is procured and the Stipulation becomes elfactive as to MVDC. MVDC shall apply f~r such approval within two (2) business days of MVDCbankruptcy counsel'e receiving written notification of this Stipulation's execution by VHA, ~edford and MVDC. Notwithstanding any o~ the foregoing to the contrarY, the enforcement and interpretation of this Stipulation shall not be subject to the Jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Ccnar~, except to the extent such enforcement or interpretation affects the rights or obligations of MVDC under this Stipulation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned have executed this Stipulation on the date and year indicated below- Each of the below named persons warrant that they are duly authorized to sign this agreement on behalf of their principal and ere authorized to bind their principal to this Stipulation. ~' TBM/HO7~P.Sl? 4mk92) -12- 6, Th~ parties hereto expressly warrant,' ~epreeent, and agree that in executing this Stipulation, they do so with full -~ knowledge of any rights which they have or may have with respect to the o~hsr, and ~hat they have received independent legal advice from their respective attorneys wi~h respect to this Stipulation, and vi~h respect to the hereinabovs referenced dispute* The par~les hereto acknowledge that after entering into this Stipulation, they MY discover different or additional facts concerning the subject utter of this Stipulation or their understanding of those facts, The paz~cies hereto, therefore, expressly assume the risk of such facts being so different and agree that this Stipulation, shall in all respects, be effective and not subject to rescission, cancellation or termination by reason of any such additional or different facts. ?, Should any par~y bring an action against the other for the purpose of enforcing the terms of this Stipulation, or for damages arising from its breach, then in such event, the prevailing par~y shall be entitled to its reasonable attorneys fees and costs in addition to any other award entered by the Court. 8, This Stipulation shall inure to the benefit of ~he parties and to their respective successors, repreGentatives and assigns, and shall be binding upon each of the foregoing, 9. This Stipulation shall, in all respects, be interpreted, enforced and governed by and under the laws of the State of California. This Agreement contains the entire ~ ~mmnmm.m'n, ,mmmm~ -ll- 1 2 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 ' 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 26 27 28 APPROVZD AS TO 'FORM: WILLlaMe & 2OIENeZN Sco~t F. Field, City Attorney Dated: ~2 Dated: Victor Vilaplana, Esq. Attorneys for z~m~mm & ~axm~L~ Dated: Maw aowell, ~sq. Demnis Klimmek, Esq. Attorney for B~FORD DEVELOPMENT C~MPANY Dated: , 1992 , 1992 , 1992 , 1992 TeN/IIOFSiPm ~m~r~ -14- ' fi~r;21 'cJ:2 ~.2:29 -F. DUIT'~" i42j,rt. TEl. 71d-'~,76-91~4 P. ~ ~ 1 5 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 :!.9 20 21 25 26 27 Date4: ,; Der.,ed: D&t sd x Dat, ed: , 1992 , 1992 · 1992 , 1992 , 1992 , -1992 e 1992 ax~ OY ~EliBOUr, lk By: PATR.TCIA B)::PJ)SA.T.~, laYOR Z4m: T$tle: TKE VI;LLk~FJ u~l""qlMBRa MIOCZA~3:OII av3. e ~r ~, IU,,.BeAII'~A VZIk__L~II DIVBI, OIIIIIT eOM~,ld~, & ¢41:Ll:ornlk ~otnt venture BUIE-ItANCHO CALIFO~Ik, ~TD., · Cal$~o~nia limited partnership THx BUIE COIG'OI~'~:OII, a California oorporst4on, General Partfief By: ay: NEVADa-RANCH6 C4U,~.FORRZX, LTD. a California limited partnezm p By: NgVAD~ CAPITA/,, LTD. a California corporation, General Partner *By' I I'IM/IIIYrJIP.STP 4alrl~} -13- ATTACH1MENT NO. 3 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, MARCH 24, 1992 s~r~n/n~sm.cc 10 City Council Minutes ' March 24, 1992 It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Mayor Pro Tam Lindemans to continue Vesting Tentative Tract 23372 and 23373 to the meeting of April 28, 1992. The motion was unanimously carried. rector of Planning Gary Thornhill presented the staff report. M~ Birdsall opened the public hearing at 7:40 PM. Larry staff hearings. that desi the uses propose~ several uses stated with these at working out a favore ~e. 41750 Winchester Road, Ste N, representing the statec ~ended approval of this Zone Change at both PI Commissior subsequent to the hearings, a draft land )lan was develope( s area as commercial. He stated the devel is comfortable witY staff, however in the continuing dialo with the school district moved from unacceptable to y acceptable. HI the developer feels as made a substantial effor Mayor Birdsall asked for a of support people stood in support of thi: chang, Robert Kosslyn, representing Tam objections of the School District. the audience. Approximately 4(~ Unified School District, clarified th~I Mayor Birdsall called a brief race reconvaned at 8:59 PM. to change the tape. The meeting wa~ Iris Abernathy, 43980 stating this property i,, arita Road, spoke by property des of Change of Zone No. 18 ited commercial. Don Rohrabacker 1 Flores Drive, spoke in opF within the Los :hitos area. commercial develo Melville 30600 De Portola, spoke in opposition to the of Zone. Terry tl speaking on behalf of the Board of the Los Ranch ition, spoke against development within the Los Ranchitos ar set a precedent for further commercial development within Homeowner: area. Anthony Rapoza, 44300 La Paz, spoke in opposition to the Change of Zone N~ objected to the Council recognizing a show of support from people whose addresses were not given. Minutes\3%24%92 -6- 0411 6192 City Council Minutes March 24.1992 12.2 Resolution City Clerk June Councilmember Mu~oz ob and requested that these be Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans su years. It was moved by Mayor Pro TI approve staff recommenda change the period of 4.1 Adol Authorize the release of street and water system Faithful Pe~ Warranty Certificate of Deposit in Parcel Map No. 24239 Direct the City Clerk to process the release of funds. ~ina Records Destruction/Retention Scl rented the staff report. to the destructi over to City Council Meeting video tapes for preservation. the tapes for five years instead of twc with the )n of video tapes dution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 92-17 condad by Counciimember Mu~oz tc of Section E of the policy tc to 5 years. OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE )RIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN PROVIDED BY SECTION 34090 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF CALIFORNIA TEMECUL~aB CORDS A,c STAT! The motion was unanimously carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS 13, Vestin9 Tentative Tract 23372 - Buie Marciarite Villaoe (Continued from the meeting of 2/24/92) 14, Vestin0 Tentative Tract 23373 - Buie Marc~arita Villaoe (Continued from the meeting of 2/24/92) Mayor Birdsall opened the public hearings for Items 13 and 14 at 7:35 PM. Minutes\3\24\92 -5- 04116/92 ATTACHIVtENT NO. 4 CITY COUNCIL REPORT, MARCH :24, 1992 swra~z.'r~372.cc 11 ~ As a result of that meeting, 8 tentative resolution was agreed upon. Bedford Properties and the Buie Corporation have agreed to jointly pay the VI-IOA $15,000.00 for past siltation and erosion problems, plus an additional $5,000.00 if VHOA installs a concrete ribbon in the wash. In addition, the Buie Corporation will clean the Long Valley Wash in May, assume the obligation of future maintenance of the Wash, until such time as the City releases erosion control bonds for the subject tram. The agreement will then be contingent on the bankruptcy court approval of the document. The Staff recommendation above is contingent upon ell"of the documents being properly signed prior to the City Council meeting on March 24, 1992, If the documents are not properly signed Staff's recommendation would be for a continuance, vgw Attachments: Resolution; page 3 City Council Minutes, FebmaW 25, 1992 - page 9 City Council Report, February 25, 1992 - page 10 5~T~72VTM.MEM 2 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY ~ RNANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council/City Manager FROM: Planning Department DATE: March 24, 1992 SUBJECT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the City Council: FI;:AFRRM Environmental Assessment No. 32547 for Vesting Tentative Tract Map NoS. 23372 and 23373, and; ADOPT a Resolution entitled: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula approving the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 23372 to subdivide 46.9 acres into a 66 lot condominium project located northerly' of Rancho California Road on the west side of Meadows Parkway and known as assessor's parcel No. 923-210-014, and; APPROVE the First Extensions of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 23372 and 23373, based on the Analysis and Findings contained in the staff report, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. BACKGROUND At its regular meeting on February 25, 1992 the City Council continued the consideration of the First Extensions of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 23372 and 23373. The items were continued to the meeting of March 24, 1992. The Council requested that Staff, the applicant, and representatives of the Villages Home Owners Association (VHOA) meet to discuss the situation relative to erosion. In response to that request the City Attorney, Director of Public Works, and representatives of Bedford Proparties, the Buie Corporation and the VHOA met on March 3, 1992. S~T~3372VTM.MEM ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. m $%ST~3372VTM,MEM 3 e m 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 e reasonable probability that the Time Extension proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action: complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and lOcal ordinances. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now 'Within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General 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: The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. The Planning Commission finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: (1) There is reasonable probability that the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map NO. 23372 proposed will be consistent-' with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. $~'I'A~3372VTM. MEM 5 ATTACHMENT RESOLUTION NO. m A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTING TENTATIVE LOCATED NORTHERLY OF RANCH0 CAUFORNIA ROAD ON THE WEST SIDE: OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 923-210-014. , WHEREAS, The Buie Corporation filed the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map on November 4, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map; WHEREAS, the City Council considered ,said First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map on March 24, 1992, at which time interested persons have an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the CoUncil hearing, the Council approved said First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Findings That the Temecule Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: S~STAFFRPT~3372VTM. MEM 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 ell 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. E® 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 chanlle 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 conditionad 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. He The project has acceptable access to s dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and us,able by, vehicular traffic, dee 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. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION III, the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION II. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and the Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby reaffirmed. S%STA~3372VTM.MEM 7 Pursuant to SeLlion 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460, no'subdivision may be approved unless the fallowing findings are made: A, That the proposed land division is cep-.sistent with applicable general and specffic 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. 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 unavoidebly. 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 lend division or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. A land division may be approved if it is found that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgement of a court of competent jurisdiction. The Council, in recommending approval of the proposed First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372, makes the following findings, to wit: There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law, due to the:fact that the project is consistent with existing site development standards in that it proposes articulated design features and site 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~rAFFIIFT'~3372V'rM.MEM 6 SECTION III. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commilion hereby recommends that the City Council approve the First Extension of Tim for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 for the subdivision of 46,9 acres into a 66 Lot condominium project located northerly of Rancho California Road on the west side of Meadows Parkway and known as a portion of Assessor's Parcel No..subject to the following conditions: Riverside County Conditions of Approval dated November 8, 1988 City of Temecula Conditions of ApprovBI date November 4, 1991 City of Temecula Conditions of Approval dated FebmaW 25, 1992 deleting Condition No. 2. SECTION IV. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24Th day of March, 1992· PATRICIA H. BIRDSALL MAYOR I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held On the 24th day of March, 1992 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCILMEMBERS JUNE S. GREEK CITY CLERK S%STA,,,,':':":'T~3372VTM.MEM 8 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 25, 1992 S%STAQ7~/'TM.MEM 9 Ciw C, oun, tl IVlnutes DRAFT Febmaw 25. 1992 Councilmember Mufioz removed himself from discussion due to a conflict of interest. Loree Santamoro, addressed the Buie Margarita Village maintenance yard, stating that maintenance of this property has been neglected and other requirements have not been met. She etated permits have expired and this poses a health and safety issue. Mayor Birdsall stated this item is not on the agenda but asked staff to look into this problem and Come back with a report. Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans asked that when an item is continued, public comment not be taken because it is unfair to the applicant who does not have the opportunity to respond. It was moved by Mayor Pro Tern Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to continue Items 17 and 18 to the meeting of March 24, 1992. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Birdsall NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: ' None ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Mufioz 20. Mitioeted Neoative Declaration and Condemnation of PrOOertv (AP No. 991-300-001:~ as moved by Mayor Pro Tern Lindemans, seconded by Councilmembe, '._ ,gre to this item to the meeting of May 12, 1992. The :arried by the following vote: AYES: 4 CILMEMBERS: Lindp ::;!i~, Moore, Parks, Birdsall NOES: 0 ~ERS: ...' _-.~0ne ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBE.q , None Cou~ilmember Mu~0.~, ~ '.~d he abstained to avoid of a conflict of interest. ,.t- Ordinance T~y.P: ,m, Chief Building Official, presented the staff repo~. . _' .dyOr Birdsall opened the public hearing at 8:35 PM. Minutes%2%25i2 -8- 03113/92 Feb~e~ 2S. 1332 tO 9, there is e problem with the language regarding perk improvements Id to the City for maintenance. He recommended approving a revised Section 7, accepting dedication pursue 'egular the Community Services DistriCt. It was moved approve the 8ttac subject to staff Pro Tam Lindemans, seconded by Irandum of Understanding (MOU) a revised Section 7, as ~mber Moore to Paloma del Sol, the City Attorney. The motion was carried following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCIl Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Birdsall NOES: I COUNC Mu~oz ABSENT: 0 COUNCI None Councilmember should be asses Memorandu hid voted in opposition the original 65 acres instead o he feels the Quimby Fees reduced amount listed in the RECESS BirdSall called a recess at 8:00 PM. The meeting was recc ommunity Services District Meeting at 8:16 PM. ring the PUBLIC HEARINGS 17. Vestina Tentative Tract 23372 - Buie Mareafire Villaae 18. Vestinq Tentative Tract 23373 - Buie Maraarita VillaQe City Attorney Field stated the applicant does not agree with the Conditions of Approval contained in the staff report and is agreeable to a four week continuance to the meeting of March 24, 1992. Mayor Birdsall asked if those who submitted a request to speak slip would be willing to speak on the issue at a later point. David Michael, 30300 ChurChill Court, President of the Villages Homeowners Association, asked that the concerned parties meet and work out a solution prior to the night of the Council Meeting. Minutee%2%25%92 -7- 03/13/92 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 CITY COUNCIL REPORT, FEBRUARY 25, 1992 ~,UW~'T~72V'rM. MEk. 10 HOO IIQIITO&, ~1'lieg? BUffS ~el, O ~ebzutzy ZO, Xgg2 Nr. Greg Zrickson BEDFORD PItOPER~XES 28765 Single Oak Drive Suite 200 Temecula, CA 92590-0736 Dear Greg: At ~he last Council meeting and during ~he hearing on~he Teaeku ~ract map extension, it yes brought out that~he box culvez'c underneath Palomar Village in ~he Lucky Shopping Center is heavily clogged vi~h silt. The ~rac~ map conditions for projec~c required l~et a business association guarantee maintenance of ~he culvex'c, as documented in ~he letter from~he Riverside County Flood Control and Water Dis~ric~ to Rober~ Bei~, William Frost & Associates, dated May 11, 1989. Zn addition, City Nuisance Ordinance, contained at Section 6.14,002(h) of the City Code, designates as a nuisance aland, the topography or configu~ation of vhich, in any an-made state, vhether as a result of grading operations, excavation, fill or other alteration, interferes vith the established drainage pattern over the propez~cY or from adjoining or other proper~ies vhich does or may result in erosion, subsidence or surface rarer drainage progTams of such magnitude as to b~ injurious to public health, safety and welfare or to neighboring proper~ies-m Xt 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 ~heir contribution to the cleanup of ~he Long Valley Wash. I would like to see all these problems cleaned up as soon as possible. At preeet, · joint upplicadon is being pursued by Bull Corporation and the City to obtain relbf from the benimaptW stay to errnit monies to be paid over to the Village Horn·owners AasoPiwtion to oilan out the wash. On · allted matter, the City Attorney has made demand upon Bedford to clean the silt out of the underground culvert under Palomar %fiBgo in between Buie's proparty and the Village. '/ks of ,this writing, no reeperme hem been received from Bedford. smk, me,MuTa.~ .co 2 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROV. CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF~ AI~E!I)A RBORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department February 25.1992 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372. First Extension of Time PREPARED BY: Ma~k Rheades RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff Recommends that the City Council: BEdlkFRRM Environmental Assessment No. 32547 for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372, and: APPROVF 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 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 at"tached and labeled "Additional Conditions of Approval". S~lAFFRPT~23373-1 .CO Page 2 ~eaee ca'IX ,,e am soon as exIMc~ the cu3ve~t wi'll be c'~eared Sinoerely, Jt~F.~ield Ci~yattoFney CITY OF TDIECULa CC: ~ar~Thornhil}, PlanningDirer. or Tim Serlet, City Engineer Dennis Klimmek, Esq. · ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Vesting Tentative Tract Map NO. 23372 Date Approved Planning Department "Thorcovenants, conditions and restrictions for the development shall require that each permanent resident in each dwelling unit shall ~ 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 2. 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 Hurnber Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer· S%$TAFFIqlrr~3372-1 .CC 3 City ~oVncil Minutes January ~8, 1992 Directof of Public Works Tat Serlet, gave an update on drainage issues, stating he has received reports from two consultam regarding the blockage of the Long Valley Wash. Iqe explained the TWO reports reflect different viewpoints, one being The box culvert was plugged due to insequate maintenance, and the other the blockage occurred due to erosion from neighboring properties. 'Pie reported, however, that the Two maps in question have not been graded. Myra Vonsaives, 41556 Zinfsndel Avenue, expressed concern that this development remain 8 senior project end nct 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 ares. She also asked that a Traffic study be completed. with the impact on The Vineyard tract considered. Mayor Birdell calm 8 brief recess 8t 9:30 PM to change the tege. The meeting was reconvened st 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 Tam I. indemsns 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 Zi.nfandel 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. Diana Taylor, 41942 Humbar Drive, Villages Community, stated The Villages Homeowners Association has had to pay almost $100,000 in damages from silt. She stated that no one will Take responsibility for this problem, and as a result residents have been hurt. Joseph R. Shekoski; 31999 Vineyard Avenue, suggested denying The extension of Time requiring The developer to resubmiT with The City, who would Then have control over This project. Sydney Vernon, 30268 Marsay Court, stated the Villages Homeowners Association has had to pay approximately $80,000 to remove foreign material from the Long Ni'nutes\l\28\g2 -8- 02/1~/92 /qi;itv Council Mirlglll uarv 98.1999 ""-----_'~e motion was carried by the following irere: AYES:" 6 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lind· ', Moore, Muftoz, Par~, · : -.- ; ' i' "" , ~-.:. --., . 'NOES:' 0 .-COUNCILt41MBER~ one ABSENT Ob ~LMEM REC;SS . Mayor Bird3811 calm · recess r.~-;,:25 PM. previously scheduled CaD Me-;.,~ at 9:00 PUBLIC H;ARIN~a .' Councilmember Per'//;~ated that 81though he was absem at the review taDes arv' s Ix·Dared to vole on the public hearings. was reconvened following the Councilmet. oar Muftoz stated he would be absent from voting on Items 10 conflict; interest. /I M- ~r Birdsall announced that Items 10 and 11~ would be heard concurrently, 10. meeting, he did due to a VesTina Tentative Tract MaD No. ~337~ - Buie CorPoration - Mare·rite ViII·De Soecm,c Plan 11. Vestino Tentative Tract MaD No. 23373 ~ Buie Corporation - Maraarita Villaae Soecifi~ plQn 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 st this Time. Council·ember 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. Council·ember 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\1~8%92 -7- 02/ , City Council Min~es January ~8.1999 phase. In eccorlhmCe with the request from citizens of the Vineyard Tract, he asked that a traffic study be completed. Director of inning Gary Thornhill recommend continuing Items 10 and 11 to the meeting of February 26, 1992. It was moved by Coun~qmember Parks, ~econded by Councilmember Moore to Continue Vemin~ 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: Mul~oz RECESS ~ reconvened a 0'PM with yor Birdsall called a recess at 10:36 PM. The meeting was all bars present. Chanae ~ 1. Tentative Tract Mao, ~.0'-/53 ~0 - Bedford Properties · ., Im r M It was moved by Mayor h~h,~em Lindemans, s'~conded by Counci embe u~oz to i AYES: 5 ,COt~NCILMEMBERS: Lindems~., Moore, Muftoz, Parks, Birdsall ""'~.-, NOES: ,/"' 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ~ /. ..~NT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Ninutes\l%Z8%g2 -10- 02/1&/92 I~-ltv P-nUncil Mjr~ttas .:-nuarv 98.1999 Vaby Wash. He explained that JjttJo of this material odginatad from the Villages, anc most cam from Bedford and Buie f%ojm:ts. " Jane Vernon, 30268 My Court, stltid the developers causing this damage need to take responsibility far their actices sad dean up the wash. Mike Fiduc/, showed I video tIM to thl City Clxlncil of a rain storm before the Pilemar Villlge Shr, ppkql Center was cem.llleted and before there was any erosion David Michael, 30300 Chumhill Court, ,~tiidsnt of Villages Homeowners Association, approvod by the Board to speak, Ilkld tttl City Council to for help in working with the developer to clean out the ~ Valley WIsh, He said if the extensions are approved, the City will have no eblrrty to gain cooperslion from the developer on these issues, and asked that the Council deny the first extensions of time on Vesting Tentative Tract Map Numbers 32272 end 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 IVIsyor Pro Tom I.indemans, seconded by Councilmember Parks to extend the meeting until 11:00 PM. The motion was unanimously carried, with Councilmember Mufioz absent. James Marpie, 19210 St. Gallon Way, requested that this project be conditioned with standards required to catch the rumoff 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 end asked that a condition be placed on these maps that it remain for senior residents only. Mayor Pro Tern LindomenS 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 -9- 021' NEW RESOLUTION e The city is ixoceed'q in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. The Manning agency rims, in approving projects and taking other action. s, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: (1) There b · reelormble probability that the bind use or action proposed we be OQrk~tent with the genmal plan proposal being considered or 8tud'md or which will be stud'rod within 8 reuonable time. {2) '*' Them is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted pewel plan ~ the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action canpiled with all other applicable reRuiremants of state law end local ordinances. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, {hereinsftkr "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Ran for the sourawest 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 Ran 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 end 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 end taking mr 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 f~ 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 end local ordinances. Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460, no subdivision may be epproved unless the following findings are made: NTAJ'FN'T~S372V'rM. CC 8 ATTACHMENT NO, 2 RESOLUTION NO. 92-,,_ A RESOLUTION. OF THE CITY TEMECULA APPROVING THE FI VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MA 46.9 ACRES INTO A 66 LOT LOCATED NORTHERLY OF RAN( THE WEST SIDE OF MEADOWS ;OUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RST EXTENSION OF TIME NO. 23372 TO SUBDIVIDE CONDOMINIUM PROJECT .CALIFORNIA ROAD ON ~ARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'$ PARCEL NO. 923-210-014. WHEREA~, The Buie Corporation filed First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract ~ No. 23372 in accordance With the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordir~.nces, which the City has adomad by reference; WHEREAS, Mid First Extarmion of Tim for Vesting Tentative Tract Map application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning CommisSion considered Mid First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map on November 4,~ 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said First Extension Of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map; -~ WHEREAS, the City Council considered said First Extension of Time for Vest,,g 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-monthi period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adoptec~ or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following recluirements are met: I~STa~PT~3373YTM. CC De The site is suitable To accommodate the proposed lend use in terms of the size and slaps of the kit configuration, cimulatim patterns, access, eel density, duo to the fact ttUm adam area is provided for all proposed residential structures; adequate landscaping is provided along the projeot's public and private fronteg~ and the internal circulation plan should not oreate traffic conflicts as deign proviions ere in conformenos with adopted City standards. E. The ~xoject as designed and oonditiomd wi not adversely affect the public health or welfare, due to the fact that the oondiTions stated in the approval are based on mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts of the project. The propaul will not heve an adverse effect on surrounding property bemuse it des not rlprsl!:A · significant theage To the present or planned land use of the 8roe, due to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the cuffeat zo~.in~-of the subject sits.. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or mural environment as determined!in the Negative Declaration for the project, due to the fact That impact mitigation is realized by conformenos with the project's Conditions of Approval. The project has acceptable access, to s 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 end the resulting street layout are such that they 8re 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 end the project analysis. Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with this application and heroin incorporated by reference, due to the fact That they are referenced in the attached Staff Report, Exhibits, and Conditions of Approval. As conditionsd 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. m~LqN'T~3372V~CC 10 That the proposed land division is consistent wiZh applicable general and specific plans. That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent w' "~, applicable general end specific plans, Tlat the site of the proposed land divlaion 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 develolxnlm, That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unevcidebly injure fish or wildlife ix their habitat. That the design bf 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 8 court of competent jurisdiction..: The Council in approving the proposed First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map, makes the follcLwihg 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~iT&FFRPT~3372VTM.CC 9 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, them will not be a significant effect in this ca. ~ 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 ItITAFFRPT~3372VIM. CC 11 Page 2 ~' Vesting tentative Tram 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 am 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~"R. ANNet(3~23372.CC 2 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFRCER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: crrY OF 'rr t a.A AeEUDA REPORT 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: BEeFFIRM Environmental Assessment No. 32547 for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No, 23372, and; APPROVI= the Rrst Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372, based on me 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. ~nT~.cc I SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: Specific Plan 199 (Maro·rita Village) Specific Plan 199 (Margarits Village) R-1 {Single-Family Residential) Specific Plan 199 (Idar0am Village) PROPOSED ZONING: Not requested EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: South:' East:. West:. Vacant Vacant Single Family Residential Vacant PROJECT STATISTICS: Total Acreage: No. of Lots: Planning Area41: Total Site I::)efaity:. 46.6 66 26 D.U./AC. 6.2 D.UJAC. 10.66 D.U./AC. BACKGROUND Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23372 and 23373 are portions of the Idar0·m Village Specific Pt·n No. 196. The two nape wee tentatively Ipproved by the County of Riverside in November of 1988. The City of Tamecain Planning Commission recommended approval of the First Extension of .Ten· on November 4, 1661 by · 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 8pert·anti or · congregate care facility, with a unit total of 469. The project is Ion·ted north·fly of Rancho Clliforni8 Road, on the west side of Ma·dows Parkway, The project includes Planning Areas 40 and 41 of the Margame Village Specific P'mn No. 199, The project is surrounded on The north, south and west side 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 perkland and erosion control. The perk issue is mitigated as a result of the appropriate condition of approval for fee payment. Boaion control measures for the proposed project were completed prsor to the item being scheduled for a City Council hearing. 2 TO~ FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY ~ ./1 RNANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER '~1 ' CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Fq. anning Departmere January 14, I g92 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 Citly Council: BEtlkFFIRM, EnvirG,,,,~,,~lzl Assessment No. 32547 fOr Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372, and: APPROVI= the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372, based on the analysis and findings contained The staff report, and subjec~ t--,4ne attached Conditions of Approval, Buie Corporation Mergerits Village Development Company First ExtenSion of Time for a 66 lot condominium map far apartment ~or a congregate care facility with 469' totll dwelling units on 46.9 acres. Northerly of Rancho California Road, on the west side ef Kaiser Parkway Specific Plan 199 {Margarita Village) $~iTAFIINFT~?2V'rM.CC 10. The project u dllignld tnd condtonld will not Idvlrslly affect the built or natural environment as determined in the BR for the project, due to the fact that impact mitig,tion is r.l!liz. I~. by confoffnance with the project'· Conditions of Approval. The project has acceptable access to · dedicated right-of-way which is open to. end 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 subdividon, the type of imprW, m;, ,BrktS and the resulting street layout am such that they am not in ccndlict with .l.H t.,,i;~Zs for access through or use of me property within the proposed projects. dul to the fact thlt this is clearly represented in the site ;den and the project analysis. hid findings are supported by minutes, maiN, exhibits and environmental documents elsoci ttt tl with this application end hlmin irkT~~ by reference, due to the fact that my ere referenced in the attached' Staff Report, Exhibits. end Conditions of Approval. vgw Attachments: 4. 5. 6. Planning Areas 40 and 41 Standards, Specific Plan No. 19g - page 5 Resolution - page 6 COnditions of Approval - page 14 Planning Commission Staff Report - page 16 Exhibits - peg· 17 ~ Development Fee Check List - page 18 4 FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CO~IITENCY The current SWAP designation for the proposed map is Sl~ci~c Plan. The project is in conformance with Specific Plan No. 199 end therefore will likely be consistent with the Ci~s future adopted General Ran. . ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION RiverSide County. Environmental Assessment No. 32547 was previously adopted for the proppied project, It is recce,,,,,ended that the City Council re-affirm the previoui envirOnmental qlllll.,.I.It, FINDINGS Them is e mmsonlble probability thlt this project will be consistent with the City'is future General Pt/n, which will be cmn,~letad in 8 reasonable time and in accordande 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 sire arnenities commensurate with existing and anticipated residential development standards. There is not e likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future and adopted general Nan, if the proposed use or actiOn is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that The project is in conformance with existing anti anticipated land use end 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' withir-'~e zoning designation of Specific Plan 199. e The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation pa~erns, access, and density, due to the faCt that; adequate area is provided for sil proposed residential structures; adequate landscaping is provided along the pr0ject's public and private frontages; and ~ 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 er welfare, due to the fact that the conditions stated in the approval ere 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 · 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. $~.~TAIsF!~3372VTIA. CC 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PLANNING AREAS 40 AND 41 STANDARDS, SPECIfiC PLAN NO. 199 $'i,STA, P/IlI'T~23372V'TM. CC destgn-nla~:ed c2r4?,ar~a, --I44 - as-.. 4o Xccass in=o ~1-,~4~ LTea'&O'wtT/'be ~,~'Leed' a~s ~ad ~ ~e sou~ v~ c~~ ~ P~ay. 38 ud 3S ~o help sa~ ~.~--.n :~ A nJc~ ~sc~sa~ion and a~~ ~--~' F~ ~' V~llaWs -Xs adJac~ ~ ~T~ ~b ~' ~ss~dan~s o~ ~s ~s~m~' c~~- ~ va~s~y ~ac~li~ss are pl~ad~ ~s c~sz ay ~ncluds COUPS, %sct~e halls~ sv4~4~, ~ d4~4~ Cal~c~a SGad. (See F~' ' ~22'S along Xa~ser Parlay. (See F~el ~Z~-24 i Buildin; hsiOb~ shall no~ exceed 3 stories, m~~ heigh~ of 40 fse~. S~j ec= =o approval by ~e F~s ~ie~ firelaces shall be allo~ ~ ~ ~ encroa~enCs shall be ~i~e~ ~ ~e fron=, si~e rear y~ excep= as prav~-~ =or ~ Sec=ion 18.19 ordinance No. 348.2922. No~e: Numbers in i=al ics. [ l Conformance n-~er 1. amended by Subs~anCial .e -143-- · te==m,meet =med, am~ .t,=.-_' ~' --: .md,.t,.~.. Jmm. ~ -2.46- b. Lan,4 Use eAd_]~,velcmmwr~'~.~**.'**~-*',*~- T Plan Zone Ordinance Tab), and (See A ma~or Vi~age wan gd~&C~'~'-~m~+~~' ~'~'~'~ rasid~U o~ ~a r~~', ........... ~: -A .~ ~' '. co~s, Ze~e ~, ~~, :"~ ~4-4W ~ciZ~- ~$es. A ~Jor Re~ir~en~ ~. lands~pe ~rsa~sn~ along Kaiser Parkray. Cs'-"~ TTT--a& .& Building heigh= sha11. n~r"'ex=wed = s==ries, m~im~ heigh= ~= 40 Zest. S~J e~ =~ approval by ~e Fire ~ief Depamen= ~f Building ~d Safe=y, ch~eys ~/~r fireplaces shall be allowed ~ ~r~a~ ~=~ side~ a maxim~ ~ f Wo ( 2 ) fee=. N~ ~er encroac~en~s shall be p~T~ ~ ~ ~, rear yard excep= as pr~~ Z~ ~. ~ 0rdin~ce No. 348.2922.-. ~e maxim~ ra=io uf ~o~ area ~o lo~ area shall n~ be gea=er ~an =wo ~ ---, no= including bas~ floor area. No=e: Numbers in i=alice' [] Conformance number 1. amended by Subs=an=iS1 .a --145- ATTACHMENT NO. 2 RESOLUTION NO. S~ST&FF~Irr~23372~I'Id. CC 6 e e The city is ~fo~sli:ling in I timely fashion with the preparation of the genera Illin. The planning agency rinds, in approving projects and taking other activns including The issuance of building permits, each of the following: {1) Itud'ed or which wig be INdied within · reasonable Time. Them is little or no ability of antiel detriment to or interferenc, with The future adopted genmd plan if the proposed use or actiOn is uitirnfteiy inconsistent with the plan. {3) The t,~or-oesd use or action complied with all mar applicabl: reap ~,!,,jnzs of m bow and lOCal ordinances. The Riverside County 'General Plan, e· amended by the Southwest Area Commanit1 Plan. hreinafTer 'SWAP') was Nomad prior to the incorporation of Temecula aS the · General latan for the southwalt portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this Time, the City has adopted SWAP as General Iqan guidelines while the City is ;,rot. sealing in · Timely fashion with the preper~ion of its Genaml Ran. The proposed Rrst Extension of Time for Vesting TentaTive Tract Map is consirish' with the SWAP and meets the requirL.~,As set forth in Section 65360 of" Govern·e· Code, to wit: A. The city is proceeding in · Timely fashion with s preparation of the general plan The City Council finds, in appreving projects and taking mr actions, includina the issuance of building permits. pursuant to this title, each of the following'. (1) Them is reasonable probability that Rrst Extension of Time for Vestin! Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 proposed will be consistent with th general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will b studied within · reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interfe~enc with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action i ultimately inconsistent with the plan, (3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicabl requirements of state law end local ordinances. Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460, no subdivision may b approved unless the following findings are made: S~STAirFIVa~,Z3373V'TtA, CC 8 ATTAEI-IMBtT NO. 2 RESOLUTION NO. ~2~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE RRrr EXTEiSION OF TIME VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO, 23372 TO SUBDIVIDE 46.9 ACRES INTO A 61 LOT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT LOCATED NORTHERLY OF RANCll0 CALIFORNIA ROAD ON THE WEST SIDE OF MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASBESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 923-210014. WHEREAS, The Buie Corporation flied First Extension of Time for vesti,ng Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City Ms adopted by reference; WHB1EAi, 'laid First Extension of Twne for Vesting Tentative Tract Map application was proc.swlld in tht Tim and manner Ixescribed by State end local law; WHEREAS, The Planning Commission considered said First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map on November 4, 1991, st which Time interested persons hld an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commissien recommended approval of Mid First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map; WHerEAS, the City Council considered said First Extension of Time for Ve~.,~g Tentative Tract Map on Jsnuar. y 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 slid First .Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CFI;Y COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. That the Tamecull City Council hereby makes the following findings: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adept a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-mo~th 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 plin. if all of the following requirements are met: S~TAFFFI"~,23312VTM.CC E. 'G. The site is suitable to accommodate the Ix'oposed land use in terms of Th, and I~pl of the lot Imnfigwmion, circulation pat·ms, access, end due to the fact that: adequate Irma is provided for all proposed residentis strum; 8d·oume isndscaping is provided ·long the project's public. ·nc Ix·vats frontages: and the intlwn81 circulation plan should not create traffic conflicts IS design provisions am in ors·it.,,· with adopted City mixlards. · htalth or vJ~f lrl, due to ~ fact M the based on mitigation manures nicefaery TO reduce or eliminate pot·ntis adverse impacts of the project. The orolxad will not halve 8n 8dvere effect on surrounding property bacqluse it does not ree#l ll_~t · sii;~riy.~t chenge to the present or planned land use ol the area, due to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with The The project ms deigned end condill·ned will not adversely affect the ;~3 natural 8nvirc..,~a.'4 as dlts:,i~.'md in the Negative Declaration for the due to the fact that impact mat·get·on is realized by conformence with the pfOjlCtI Ccmditions of AIXNqwlI. The project has acceptable acceu to 8 dedicated right-of-way which is 0per to. arid ufamble by, ..4hic~lsr traffic. dm to the fact that the project currat 'prO(-Qlll mCCall points from :Kaiser Parkway which have been determint be adequate by The City Enginer. The deign of the subdivision, the type of improvements and the resUlt·hi street layout are such that they 8re not in conflict with easements for 80ces Through or use of The prolarry within the proposed projects, due To The, fac that this is clearly represented in the site lien and The project analysis. Said findings ere supported by minutes, maps. exhibits and environment: documents mociated with this application and her·in incorporated b' reference, due To the tact that they ere referenced in the attached Staff Rip·r1 Exhibits, and Conditions of Approval. As cordira·ned pursuant to SECTION 3, the First Extension of Tim for Velftin. Tentative Tract IVlap is coal·table wiTh the health, safety and welfare of Th $~iT&ilNFT~3372V'rikLCC 10 That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific pllns. Thlt the delign m' improvlment of the proposed land division is consistent applicable general and specific tara. That the site of the lx0;,olld lind division is physically suitable for the type Of Thlt the litl of till ;,;,:lid lied division is physically suitable for tt!e e Fe That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are liklty to Clgll _--"'itF ,~ll .I;I,i/(~,n,J,itll damage or substantially arid That the deign of the proposed land division or the Type of improvements ale not likely to cause serious punic health problems. That the deign of thl ~for-o swd land division or the type of improvements will aDDroved if it is found that sitemate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquire by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdicti~on. The Council in approving the proposed First Extension of Time for Vesting Tenta~sve Tract Map, makes the tollowing findings, to wit: Them is a moonable 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 mat the project is consistent with existing site development standards in that it proposes articulated design features Ind 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 conformante 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~rAFIilI~23372~rM. CC 9 SECTION 2. Envimmantal Conlpbnce. An Init~l Study prepared fiN' this project ip~licltes that although the proposed project could have a signfficant impact on the environment, them will not be a significant effect in this n becauSe the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been adde~ ,o the project, and the Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby reaffirmed. SECTION 3. Condidm~ That the City of Tamecalm City Council hereby approves the First Extension of Time fox vesting Toads Tract Map No. 23372 for the-subdivision. of 46.9 acres into a 66 i~ ccndominium project located northerly of Rlncho California Road on the west side MeadOws Parkway and known as Asesssor'a Parcel no. 923-210-014 subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, artached hereto. SECTION 4. -' The City Clerk shell certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVE) AND ADOPTED this 14th day of January, 1992. PATRICIA H. BIRDSALL MAYOR City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the following vote of the Council: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCILMEMBERS JUNE S. GREEK CITY CLERK S~STAF;ilFT'~3372VTM.CC 11 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL S,,ST&FFiI~I~'~3272V'rM.CC Prier to recerdation of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Department of Public Werks · cash sum as established, per lot, u mitigation towards traffic signal impacts. Should the developer choose to defer the time of payment of traffic signal mitigation fie, he may enter into · written agreement with The City deferring aid payment to the time of issuance of I ixalding permit. An erosion control and dope protection plan anti be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review end approval, The milsdon shah be certified by · registered Civil engineer for location and elevation, and site conditions anti be muirtie·ned to Ixotect odjac~nt IxOpetill from dim·g· due to runoff and erosion. Developer shall post · performance bond for erosion control_ and slope. protection in an ·mount 8pproved by the Deplrt:mlnt of Puldic Works. A flood mitigation carol shill be laid. The charge shill equal the prevailing Are· Drainage Ran fie rill mull·pried by thl mill of new development. The charge is payable to the Rood Cmttrol uieb;Ct )Her to issuance of permits. ff the full Ares Drlinage Plan fee or mitigation charge has Ilr. l=vdy credited to this property, no new chlrge needs to be paid. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho Callforrda Water blsta;ct: Eestem Municipal Water District; Riverside CounW Rmxl Control District: City of Temecula Fire Bureau: Planning Department: Department of Public Works; Riverside County Health Department; end CA'rV Franchise. CommwdTy Services Prior to final maD, The subdivider shall notify the City's CATV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be in·tailed to CA'!"V Standards at time of stret improvements. Prior to any work being performed in public fight-of-way, fees shall be paid end an' encroachment permit shell be obtained from the City Engineer's Office, in addition to any other permits required. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT: Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property of project, including that for trlffic and public facility mitigation as required for me project. The fee to be paid: shall be in the amount in effect st 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 14 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Vesdng Tentative Tram Map No, 23372 First Extension of Tim Council Approval Date: PLANNING DEPARTMENT Unless previoudy Hid. prior to the issuance of I grading permit. the applicant sh," II comply with the providons of Ordinance No. 663 by plying the appropriate fee Nt forth in that ordinance. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisio ~s 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 implementecl by County ordinance or resolution. No building permits shah 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 fac~ity 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 resubmittsd for further review. The Developer shall comply with all Conditions of Approval as previously imposed or amended and with the Conditions noted below. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: e Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is Dart of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said sectipn. ' ' .24 of Riverside County Road Commissioner letter dated September, 30, S~STAIir4WT~3372V"nd. CC 13 yr-t~ -~emT!-eTm wTMUTse .. IOVme~er 4, 199~ ~LI:RMIM w~T-~ItD opened the public hearing at 7: 30 P.I~ · D B~C2, 44601 HaFvey Way,' Homer, representing the applican~, c~ncurred with the modifications to Conditions of Approval. fill(Ill ~ moved to close the public hearing at ~;25 P.M, and recomtend tARt the City Council Adopt the Negative Declaration for Parcel Map No, 25408 and Adon~ Resolution No, 91- fn-x~l approving Tentative Parcel Ma.~ No. 25408 eub~ec~ t~ t~e C2~di=ions of Approval along with the modifications to the Condition for the oak trees as foll~ws, uPrior t~ the issuance of grading permits, applicant shall relocate and transplant all specimen oak · rees. A qualified arborist shall prepare a raperic outlining the relocation and replanting. procedures. the event ~he ~rees do not survive transplanting, the applicant shall be required to replant ten 24" box oa~ tre~s for every one los~~, staff to work with map on the 1230 elevation on the base line tope, and condition added by trenspor~ation departmen~ a~ the previous hearing follows, "Prior 'to recordation of the final map, developer shell provide bus turnouts with pedestrian entrances.e. Seconded by COMMISBXONER FaHEY. AYES: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN:I COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff CSXXP.WANNOXGLalFDadviSedthat he had received the letter from the City of Hurtiota requesting that the City Of Temecula Planning Commission continue their action these two items and.although the Commission did not postpone ~heir action, it was not meant to mean that City of Temecula was going to ignore it's neighboring communities ~o ~he 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 a~d therefore the Planning Commission could not suppor~ any further continuance. Chairman Hoagland added that the action was a recommendation to ~he City Council. CHAIRMAN NOAGLAND asked that staff present the following two items toga=her: TPCMIN11/4/91 -7- 11/6/1~ PRIOR payment of Public Facility fee, a cow of which has' been provided to developer. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, developer shill post security to secure payment of the Public Facility fee. The amount of the security shell be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed 110,000. Developer understands that said Agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit tr~e project in the amount of such fees}, By execution of this Agreement, developer waive any right to protest the provisions from this Condition, of this Agreement, me formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or trlffic impact fee for this project; orgyideal that developer is nm waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and ~ amount thereof. . ~ o TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY: 10. Construct full met improvemerrl3 irmtuding but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C. pavement, sidewalk, drive approaches, parkway trees end meet lights on all interior public streets. 11. All street improvements Wiping, mmrldng end signing shall be installed per the approved plmrts end 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 striding, marking and street name signing plans shall be designed as dirt "'~d by the Department of Public WorM. Slid plans shall include Rancho California Role, Margarita Road and all streets conditioned under this subdivision. 14. A ConstruCtion area Traffic conTrol plan' shall be designed by s registered Civil Engin_Nlr end 8pproved by The City Engineer for any street closure and detour or other disruptiOn to Traffic circulation es required by the City Engineer. TEME 15. CULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT: Prior to recordation of the final map the applicant or his assignee shall Day the fair market value of 5.49 acres of required Darkland to comply with CiW Ordinance N0. 460.93 (Quimbyl. The amount to be paid shall be determined by TCSD staff within thirty (30) days prior to recordstion of said map. 16. Exterior slopes bordering an arterial street may be dedicated to the TCSD fDr ma,ntenance following compliance to TCSD standards and completion of tlqe application process. S~STAFIr~3372V"TId. CC 15 ~w~T~_.MaW wgBt"v-~ltD opened ~hs public hearing at 7:45 P-M- uv-wl ell~, 600 B Street# Suits llO0, San Diego, eprssenting ~he Nargarita Village Development Company. In regards t~ the fees, Mr. Gill advised that the project i~ part or s development agreement which stipulates specific c~ntractual obligati~ns. The applicant is just advising the Commission that they wall continue to work with the City on these Zoos. In regards to the grading and implementation, Mr. Gill stated that the applicant has indicated that the erosion control and grading · ,-~u,, . are starting to be implemented; however, they are not sure if it will be completed by November 8, 1991, but the MarVarita Villa~_e Development Company has received authorization from ~heir lender to spend the necessary funds to complete the work. The following individuals requested that the CommissiOn deny First Exwcension of Time forVTT23372 and VTT23373 based on the changes to whatwas 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~o provide adequate erosi control to date: CXlt~ iLBBOTT, 31987 Vineyard, Temecula. ]tIFA BLJkNCO, 31748 Cor~e-Tor~osa, Temecula. T~OIU~ BENTLEY, 41473 Zinfandel Avenue, Temecula. RAPLN IROWN~LL, 41487 Zinfandel Avenue, Temecula. ~.~. 8KEKOaKI, 31999 Vineyard Avenue, Temecula. WILLIXM BXCCUa, 41571 Zinfandel Avenue, Temecula. Mr. Baccus presented the Commission vi~h a letter requesting that the Commission deny the request and presented the Commission with · petition. MX~Y ~KILLIP8, 41532 Chenin Blanc, Temecula. !rrR~ GONSIL~VEa, 41556 Zinfandel Avenue, Temecula. 8TEVEN CUNNOW, 41636 Chablis Court, Temecula. CltXlG EVANS, 41390 Rue 3adot, Tomecula. TIM KILFO~LB, 41529 Zinfandel Avenue, Temecula. NARTEX IXWJtTT, 41752 Zinfandel Avenue, Temecula. KEN CBItlSTBNSEN, 31903 Vineyard Avenue, Temecula. The applicant's representative declined their opportunity to rebut. TPCNIN11/4/91 -9- 11/6/9~ ZEa.NNZNG CX3IOIZBIzO!I ILL!,,u-.,----, ~ !lovam~.,er 4. "aglSJ VEB'X'X:BI TEB'~ILTI'VB TM, ACT lO. :337B. Proposal for extension of time for a 66 Lot Condomir'~, and apartment subdivision. 469 dwelling units on 46.9 acres. Locatednorth of poncho California Road, westsi4e of Kaiser Parkway. VFJTXBG TZITaLTZVBTlaCT BO. 23373 Proposal for extension of time for 348 condominium uni~s on 23.5 acres withenadditional ?.S acres of commercial. MaXX PJOADFJ presented the staff report and clarified ~hat the recommendation was for ~he first extension Of COMMIBIXOMBa FaL!~Y questioned approving the extension without erosion control in place. MAaX~HOAZ)FJ advised that t he expiration date of the map was November 8, 1991. IOBERT ~Xe~TTX advised that the applicant is in a financial situation with their lender which they ate currently working on; h~wever, the first extension Of timeneeds toM acted upon simply to keep the map alive, and staff wants to get it to City Council. He added that the second ex"cension of time, and this required to make improvements to Margarita, as well as other issues, prior to recordorion; 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. COMMXBBXONERFAHEYquestioned if there was adequate park land. GARY KING advised that all the City could request a~-th~s 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 staff received notification prior to the meeting, the applicants opposition to paying the Cuimby Fees. COMI(IBBIONERFAHEY expressed a concern for approving th~s extension without addressing staff's concerns that the tract will have an impact on public health and safety, which staff will bring. forth with the request for a second extension of time. TPCMIN11/4/91 -8- 1~/6/!9~ s~ated that he had · problss accsl~ing this, COIXXgelOWZa 2ll3rdJT requested that' his motion include that Item No. 4-C-S be deleted from the Resolution, viUb concurrence by 2Ol~lXeJl2111 FIIFE. Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland " NOD: 0 ~BSZONERB: None 22MMlllXOIZlCZlY/3~wFYmovedtoclosethe public hearinp at 8:45 P.M. and aAo-tResolution 91-(nextl recommending No. 23373, contingent upon the implementation of !~L~sc~ive grading and erosion control measures tot he satisfac~cion oft he City Engineer prior to the city council approval, and deleting Item 4-C-6 oft he Resolution, seconded by COMMISSIONER FItHEY. AYES: S COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland · . NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None pT.-M1qlNG DTRwCTOR RwPORT GARY T!IORNNILL advised of the following: · Community General Plan workshops are on schedule. · Permanent staffing has been filled, will be phaszng out contract staff in the next couple of weeks. pT.s~NING CO!oiyBSION DISCUSSION COMMISSIONER FAXEY asked for a list of Planning Department employees and their functions. COMXISSIONER C2INIAEFF expressed a concern that there is going to be many more developments that have not provided adequate erosion control to date. OTI~ BUSTN~-BB None TPCMINll/4/91 -11- 11/6/9~ v~e ~ ~ing a~ion on ~is ira. · 2 ~~a advised ~t ~e Co~ission could deny ~& ~mi~ O~ ~, ap~e ~e r~~ for e~e~ion or t~ or ~e ~12~o~ ~uld cond~t~onally approve ~e 2alon. ~ relati~ ~ ~e ~k fees, ~e ~velopmen: ~ea~t is not cle~ on ~ is ad~essed wi~ res~ ~int, ~e C~y is t~n to ~k ~eu; h~ev~, a~ ~is ~e appropriate, and ~ C~ty Cancel can l~s~ to ~e appl~cant's ar~ent f~~ ~ ~ ~e~ bcis~on. Coua~ssion would have to make to and safety issue, advised that the denial would have to be supported by specific findings or Bake the finding that the proposed proJec~ is not likely to be consistent wi~h the future general plan based on these findings. ROBERT RXGKETTX 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 no~ record the map within sixty days, they must have tha~ another year. a t o t approved extension of time yet, and if it had bee 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 period. The applicant will have to get that second extension of time and ~herefore theup will come the Commission again very quickly. COHXZBBZONERCHINIABFF moved to close the public hearing for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23372, contingent upon the implementation of corrective grading and erosion control measures to the satisfaction of the City Engineer pr~or to the City Council approval, seconded by COMXIBBIONER FAHEY. CNAIRMANNOAGLAND questioned Item No. 4-C-6 on Page 8 0f the Resolution which states that the Planning CommissiOn makes the following finding, that Vesting Tentative TraCt Nap 23372 is compatible with surrounding land uses, and TPCMIN11/4/91 -10- 11/6/91 ATTACHMENT NO. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT S~IT~?2VTM.C,C PRC;)JE~'[ 51ATI5 i 1 Oral Acreage: No. of LOTS: Proposed Dens~r. Planning Are· 41: Total Site Density: 46.9 66 25 D.U./AC. · 6.2 D.U.IAC. 10.66 D.U.IAC. BACKGROUND Vesting Tentative Tract No, 23372 we originally approved by the Riverside County Board f Supervisors on November 8, 1988, The first Extension of Time was filed in October of 199;, -Vesting Tentative Tract Map No, 23372 is · portion of the Margarita Village Specific Plan N0. 199. The Tentative IdaD encompasses Plenning Ames 40 and 41. Planning Area No. 40 proposes a 237 unit congregate care and/or apartment facility on 9.16 acres, The overall ciensity of that project would be approximately 25 dwelling units per acre st 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 TentaM Tract Map is generally consistent with the approved Specific Plan No, 199, The Southwest Are· Plan designation for this project is Specific Plan. It is likely ithlt this project will be conliftent with the future adopted General Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Envirenmental Impact Report (EIR)~1o. 202 was previously adopted by Riverside County for Specific Plan No, 199, Staff has determined that said SIR still applies to this subdivision, F;NDINGS There is s reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with:the City~s with State law, due to the fact that the project is consistent development standards in that it proposes articulated design features and site amenities commensurate with existing and anticipated residential develops·lit standards. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment To or interference with .the future and adopted general plan, if the proDosed use or action is ultimately inconsistmqt with The plan, due To The fact That The project iS in conformeric· with existing and anticipated land use and design guidelines standards. The proposed use or action complies with .state planning and zoning laws, due to :lie fact That the proposed use conforms with those uses listed as "allowed" within the zoning designation of Specific Plan 199. $"STAIr4qlwT~3372-V1M 2 CrTY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION November 4, 1991 Can No.: First Extendon of 11me Vesdng Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff Recommends that the Planning Commission: AnnPT Resolution 91-._ Recommending that the City Council APPRnVI= The Rrst Extenjon of lime for Vesting Tentative Trs No. 23372, contingent ulmn the imlmlementstion of corrective grading and erosion control measures to the satisfaction of the City r.,~gin,sr prior to the City ~ approval, based on tie Analysis end Findings contained in the staff report, and subject TO the attached Cor~itions of Approval. APPLtCA~N INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: Marprita Village Development Company Rrst ExtenSion of Tene for s 66 lot condominium com4pl;,x and an apartment or congregate care facility with TOtal dwe~ing units on 46.9 acres. LOCATION: Northe~y of Rencho California Rood, on the west side Of Kaiser Parkway EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: Specific Plan 199 (Margarita Village) Norffi: South:' East: West: Specific Ran 199 (Margarita Village) SpacHic Plan 199 (Margarita Village) R-1 (Single-Family Residential) Specific Plan 199 (Mergerits Village) PROPOSED ZONING: Not requested EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: VICInT North: South: East: West: Vacant Vacant Single Family Residential Vacant mrr~NeT~?,.v~M 1 A'l:achments: Resolution - page 5 CondiTions of Approvll - I}lgo 10 Staff Report-County of Riverside '- page 14 Exhibits - 13ego 15 S~STAIqqI~T~23372.VTId 4 6; 10. 11. STAFF vgw ~ a~m m ~ ~ ~ d ~op~ ~demial ~~es; aOeQ~Ke ~~ · ~~ J~ ~ ~l ~ I~ ~te ~o~ges; and ~ i~l ~~ ~ ¢~ m m ~c c~ ~ design pro~sio~ are in c~o~e ~ ado~ ~ mMa~s. The project as deigned end cordHoned will not adversely affect the punic haalt~r. welfare. due to the fact that the conditions stated in the approval are base~ ,jn mitigation measures mary to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scala, bulk, height, density and coverage mate 8 compatible phyic;I relationship with adjoining properties, due to the fact that the proposal is similar 'n compatibility with surrounding lind uses; end adequate are and deign features provide for siting of proposed developrrtmnt in Tea of landscaping and internal traffc circulation. The proposal will not have an am effect on surrounding property because it dos not represent a igni~cant change to the present or planned land use of the area, d~e to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the current zoning of the subject site.. The project as deigned and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the DR for the project, due to The fact that impaCt mitigation is realized by conform,ace with the project's Conditions of Approval. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, end us,able by. vehicular traffic. due to the fact that the project currently proposes accells points from Kaiser Parkway which have been determined to be adequate by the C~ Engineer. The design of the subdivision, the type of improvemenTs end 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 end 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 APPROVF the First Extension of Time for VestirkO Tentative Tract No. 23372, contingent upon tlM implementation of corrective grading and erosion control measures To the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior ~o the City COuncil approval, based on the Analysis Ir d Findings contained in the staff report, and subject to tte attached Conditions of Approval. S~TAJuFi~FI~22272.V?M 3 AI'rACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 91-__ 5 The RsvermOe r.,ounTy ~eneml Pten, as 8mended I;y me Southwest Are8 Communrty Plan, (herleafLet "SWAIP) we adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecul· as the Generll PIIn for 1:hi Iouthwelt portion of Riverlid· County. including the ·re· now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP ·s its General Plan guidelines while the City is ixo~e;mfing in a timely fashion with the The proposed Time .Extension is conclient with the 'SWAP end meets the requirements set forth in Section 85360 of the Goveffvnem Code, to wit:, The City is #rocl.iding in, timely fashion with · ;}reparation of the general plan. The4q,rmtng Cth..,,bsim~ finds, in mpprov{.n9 projects end taking mr ·ctione. including the issuance of Imat ding permits. IxJrmJant to this title. each of the following: (1) Them is reasonable prolablty the: the Time Extension proposed will be cm~siate. A with the general plen proposal being considered or studied or which will .bq studied within · r,iiw~.ble time. {2) Them is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ulemetely inc.-mist, At with the plan. {3) The proposed use or action complies with 811 other applicable squiremere of state law end local ordinances. Pursuant to Section 18.30(c), no Time Extension m·y be ·pproved unless the following findings can be made: The propose use must conform to 811 the General Nan requirements and with all applicable requiremints of state isw and City ordinances. The pro;}osed subdivision does nee affect the general health, safer1;, and welfare of the public. - The Fqanning Commission, in recommending approval of the proposed Time Extension, mekes the.following findings, to wit: (1) There is · reasonable probability ttat this project will be consistent with the City's fuNs· General Plan. which will be completed in a reasonable time end in accordance with State law. due to the fact that the project is consistent with existing site development standards in that it proposes articulated design features and site amenatlas commensurate with existing and anticipated residential development standards. (2) There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future end adopted generel pl·n. if the proposed use or ·ction is ultimately inconsistent with the pl·n. due to the f·ct that the project is in conform·rice with existing and ·nticip·ted land use and design guidelines st·nd·rds. $~lTAIqqlwt%,13372.V"lM 7 RE~OLUTION NO. 91-109 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE RRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23372-A 66 LOT RESIDENTIAL. SUBDIVISION ON 46.9 ACRES AND KNOWN AS A PORTION OF ASSESSOR 'S PARCEL NO. 923-210-014. WHEREA~, The Buie Corporation flied the Time Extension in accordance wit1h me RiVerside Camty Land Use, Zoning, Planning and ~ulxlivision Ordinances, which me City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, aid Time Extension application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; : WHEREA~, the Planning Canmission considered said Time Extension on November 4, 1991, at which tithe interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREA~, It thl cm~'.Julion of thl Commilsion hearing, me Commission recommended approval of aid 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 Planrang Commission hereby makes the following findings: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shell adopt a general plan within thirty {30) ragrobs'following incorporation. During that 30-rnont'q period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: Ae The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. 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 inconsAs;ent with the plan. {3) The proDosed use or action coreDlied with all other aDDiica...,~e requirements of state law and local ordinances. · s~rrsme,~zma~z.we 6 That thl City of TIm~lc:~lll Pllnning Commildon himby determines mat the previous environmental determination Adoption of BR No. 202 Itill applies to uid Tract MaD (Extension of Tea). SECTION m. Cmdd~. That the City of Tern·cub Planning Cmnmimlon hereby r, cc.,,,,,ends that the City Council approve the first Extendon of Timt for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 for · 66 LoT residentis! subdivision on 48.9 m Ind known ·1 · I)eftjon of Aslessor's Parcel No. subject To the following conditions: 1. EXhibit A, ek:f.=l'~ld hereto. SECTION N. PASSED~ APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of November, 1991. JOHN E. HOAGLAND CHAIRMAN I HEREBY CERTIFY thBt the foregoing Resolu~on we duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Tmeula at · regular ,,,minting thereof, held on me 4th dey..of November 1991 by the following vote of The Commission: AYES: S NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONER S~T~?2.V'rV 9 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 Ind shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and density, due to the fact that; adequate area is provided for proposed residential structures; adequate landscaping is provided the projecl:'l public Ind privlte frontlges; Ind the internal circulation plan mould not create .traffic conflicts as deign provisions are in conformsrice with adopted City standards, {5)- The project as deigned and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare, due to the fact that the conditions stated in me approval are based on mitigation. measures necessary to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts of the project. (6) Velekll T.eP, Sll"'4 Trail MeW He. ee?7e ~e N;..W.rtilgle ~vith ~rrs~dine erlf~81 sL.~pl~k ~li~ r~til.~ with l~l pr~e~ios. d~ N tk.e hN tk~ tk~ pFIpINI k ~...k iR ;S..~ati~liW with 8urrou~din; ~Ad 'ae.Ii eRd Ideavile afar !~d .dee~ f8at_Te8 pf:vide ~r siti:l ef ;rip sad .ds~lsp,.eRt k Hr,.~ 8f lineal o:d ~tor~ol troffie eiac~t~& (Per ~rk ~des abr ~ PC mtg. ~ Novemir 4, 1991 } (7) The propool will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it does not represent I significant change to the present or planned land use of the area, due to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the current zoning of the subject site. (8) The project as daNgned Ind conditioned ' to the fact that impact mitigation is realized by conforminca with the project's Conditions of Approval. (9) The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which il open to, end useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project currently proposes access points from Kaiser Parkway which have been determined to be adequate by the City Engineer. (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, exhibi~ 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~STAFeFT~3372.VT1d 8 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL S~TLqqqlr~22272.VTM lO following: Prior to recordltiOn of the final mall, the developer shall deposit with the Department of Public Works · cash sum as asmblished, 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 · written agreement with the City deferring said payment to the Time of issuance of · Ix,lding permit. An erosion control and dope Ixotaction plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and aliprovel. The installation shall be certified by · registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and site conditions shall be maintained to protect adjal:ent properties from damage due to rimoff and erosion. Developer ·hall post · performance bond for erosion control and dope protection in an amount approved by the Department of Public Works. A flood mitigmion charge shall be paid. The chege shall equal the prevailing Are· Drainage Iqan fee rata multiplied by the 818 of new development. The charge is payable to the Rood Control. District prior to ige~j~e of permits. ff the full Area Drainage Plan fee or midge,ion charge has: already u~di~d to this property, no new charge needs to be paid.- AS deemed necessary by the Department of PuNic Works, the developer shall receive written clearance from the fogowing aOenci,ls: Rsncho California Water District:, Eaatem Municipal Water District: Riverside County Rood Control District: City of Temecula Fire Bureau: Ptanning Department: Del~artrnent of Public Works; Riverside County Health Department: and Community Services -- Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify The City's CATS Franchises of the intent to Develop. Conduit shaft be ira·fled 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 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 ms 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 ;aVeant of Public Facility fee. · copy of which has been provided to clevelo;er. ConcurrentIV, 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 crl'Y OF TEMECULA CONDITION~ OF APPROVAL Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 FirST Extension of Time Cenmmion Approval Date: ;'tanning Depm h ent Unless previously paid, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, The applicant shall comply with the proions of OrdinlnCl No, 663 by paying the appropriate fee set forth in thlt ordinlnct, Should Ordinance No, 863 be superseded by me provisionis of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, me applicant .shall pay the fee required by me Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. No building permits shall be issued by the City for any residential Ict/unit within The project boundary until the developer's successor's-iminTerest 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 me Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this project, % 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.me projeCt to be resubmit~ed for further review. The '~|veloper shall comply with all Conditions of Approval as previously imposed or amended and ith the Conditions noted below, PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: 4 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 sectjan. $~$TAIqqIIq~3372.VTM I '~ .Z,i." in the .uch By ..c mon of this Xgr..' .nC .i, wsi~ 8~ ~gm to prmo~ ~ pr~o~ ~m ~s Con6~ion, of mis Agreement. the fo~ati~ of a~ ~8~C impa~ fee di~, or ~e process, toW, or collection of any ~ic m~iga~on ~ ~s~c imam ~e f~ ~s pro~; Dreaded mat develoHr is not wei~ng ~ ~g~ to prme~ ~ rees~blenen of any ~aHic impa~ fee, and the ,eof. _ PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIRCATES OF OCCUPANCY: 11. ConslTuct full street imlxovoments including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C, pavement, sidewalk, drive epprolchll, parkway trees and mot lights on all interior public streets, All street improvements striping, marking end signing shell be installed per the approved plans end 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 Ro~d Commissioner letter dated September 30, 1988. 13. Traffic striping, marking and street name signing plans shall be designed as directed by the DepertTnent of Public WorM, Said pllns shall include Rancho California Road, Mergerits Ro~d end ell streets conditioned under this subdivision. 14. A constTuction 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 disrup~n to traffic circulation as recluired by the City Engineer. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVIC~-~ DISTRICT: 15. Prior to racerclarion of the final map the applicant or his assignee shall pay the fair market value of 5.49 acres of required perklend to comply with City Ordinance No. 460.93 (Quimby). The amount to be plid shall be determined by TCSD staff within thirty (30) days prior to racerclarion o;f 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 ttm application process. S~STL, WOm:33?=.VTM 13 ATTACI IMDIT NO. 3 STAFF REPORT FROM THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE S~T~72.VTM 14 OCTOBER 5, Xgll (·GENOA ]TENS S-Z, S-3, S-4 - REEL lOG3, SIDE I - TAPE 6, SlOE 1) VESTING TRACT NAP L1373 MENDED NO. I - EA 3ZS48 - Her·aries Village Daveloire·he CoElany - Sancho California Area - First/Third $uporvtsortal DIstricts - south of Rancho Calffornta Rd, east of Kaiser ParkNay - 348 unt.tS - 3Z= acres o SPtW Zone. Schedule A TKACT'W ':3 7Z .0. Z'-:'EA mi - ., eartta V, lage' "' Dave' apeant .Coam~ - PAnG~ California Area - First/Third SupervtsorSal Dtstrtc~s - north of Sancho California lid, east of Hart·rite Rd - iZ83 unSts - 3gk acres - St Zff Zone. Schedule A VESTING TRACT 2337Z N(ENDED NO. I - EA 32547 - NargartU Ytllage DevelolxnenZ Company.- sanch8 CIltforn~a Area - FtrsZ/~trd Jup~rvtsortal DIstricts - north of .Sancho. Cellfornia'Rd, Nest of ga~ser. Paf4nm~ - 4H untU.o, H lots - 44~ acres - SP 199 Zone. Schedule A The Martngs ·re opened at 6:50 p.m. and closed at 7:ZZ p.m. STAFF RECOilqENDATION: Adoptton of the negative declarations for'EA 32548, EA~ -3ZS46, and EA 32547, approval of Vesttrig Tract Hips Z3373Amnded No. X, 23371 Mended No. I and 23372 Mended No. X, 811 subject to the proposed condttlolns; Ms. lfford also roclamnded approval of a wtver of the length to width ratto residential lots and a golf course on 2S4 acres. Staff had found the tract maps to be consistent with the adopted spoclftc plan. Hi. Gtfford recommer several changes to the conditions of approval. Comntssioner Purrlance askk~ about aftscal Impact report, and ,IS tnformd this report had been furnished recently for Menclment No. X'to the spoctftc plan. Jtm Resney, representing the appllUnt, briefly rovteed the develolnent, kdvtStng they were proposing a state-of-the-art adult refit·met coamuntty whtch Included a chllptonshtp gall course with a 37,000 square foot clubhouse factllty tn the cantor of the project. He then referred to Condition 33(f) for a11 three tract mps, vhlch required front yards to be provtded landscaping and automitt Irrigation, and requested that thts requirement deleted for larger 1also as tt ·ms hts optnton that these ham·owners aodld prefer to do their am landscaping. The CC&b gould requtre the to camp17 with speclflc standards. fir. It·shay requested that thts condition be amended by adding to the end ear shall be Installed withtn 75 diys after close of escrow as provtded tn the CC&h In the 4SxXO0 square foot lot arease. Road DeparUent Condition Zl for Tract Hap 23371 and Condition 14 for the other ibm tract maps requtreda debrts retention rill share block ~11s ~ required it ~e TOp of slopes. fir. bsney ~quested that this condition be i~nded by Iddtng: 'If applicant can d~nstrlte ~ ~e satisfaction of ~e Road C~tsstoner that a ~ster H~o~ers hsoctitton or other anttry vtll sa~tsfactoFt1~ mtn~tn the slo~s, the Road ComtsstoneF my, it hts op~ton, valve thts re~tr~nt of adebrts retention ~i11.= ~ thought that If ~ey could convtnce the bad Comtsstoner ~at there euld ~ no stl~ng p~ble and that the slopes euld be mtnUtned, ~e debFts ~tentton w;ll euld ~ S3 ~. '. -~ -.~UmmTTAL TO THE EO~ZD OF .. - · . COUNTy OF RND. SIDL STATE OF CALIFORNIA ]FRO~.' Plnntng Hperment BMITTALDATE: No anbe 8. 1988 ~.. SLJJE~: VESTING TENTATIVE and TENTATIVE TRACTS louted the "~. IMrglrtta Vtllage Speotflc-Plan (SP 19g Mendin t No. 1) --~rsr. led Third SupervisorIll DtslrtC:t-s - itancho Cell ornia ZonL, Are RECO~~ NOTIOI~ liecain-and FIle the.Planning Cemtuton act4on of 9=28-88 and · 10-5-88~ for · ~ APPRMAL of Vest1 Tentative Tram 23371 Amended No. 1. 23372 ~een~ed Ito. 1, 2~3n4~3 Amended Jto. 1, 23470 and 23471 end Trec~s Z2glS, 22916, 23100 &ended No. 1. 23101. 23102. end 23103 Amen,e bee. Alu. tel Depm. Cornmenu It, XVERSIDE COrm--lmL, ANNING CgWqZSSl Oe fiX mITES OCTOBER S, 1988 studtts. for these tract raps, and no significant impacts have been found; tht tract maps are canstalent ella the Coaerehenstve bneral Plan (as amended by CGPA 1S0), Change of Zone Case SX07, a~ Specific Plan 299 Amenant No. Z; and conform to the requaremeots of Oral.ounces 460 and 349. The proposed pro;leer. utli net hen a stgatficanG .If.fact. on. the environment, and nee tmously carrl~ the Corerlesion adopted t.a ne tlve declarations for EA 3254: EA 32S47 and EA 32S48, and approved Vesting ~ntattve Tract ksps 23372 M~nded No. 2 trlth a netvet of the lot leng~h to vidth ratao, 23372 Amended No. 1, and 23373 Amended No. 1, all subject to the proposed conditions amended as follows, based on the above findings and conclusions and the retentions of.frail, :..:' · -: . · .,. . · ' . .; Tract NO. 2.1371 9 - dlmend to reflect the September 300 1988 bad Depotbet letthr, 23(2) and 23(3)'0 Amend to requtre the developer to comply with the parkway landscaping requlramnts as shoe tn SiMctftc Plan No. Amended IIo. X unless mintchance is provided by a hammers association or other public · 26 - Deleth the last sentence ('Tim ftnsl mp for Venting Tract 23371 shell sho~ the park as a nmnber~d 33(c) - Roof-taunted mchenlcal eeutpeent shall net be perstirred ~tthtn the subdivision, except for the clefclause ~htch my have screened equipment as approved by the Planntng Deportaent; hmmver, solar equtpmnt or an~y other erie saving devtces shall be permitted vtth Planning I)epartaent approvar~. ConditIOn 34(a) for Tracts 23371, 23372, .and 33(a) for Tract 23373 Add 'and my be phased with the pro~tct°, (to clartfy thit walls may be phased vtth. the developaent of the tract. ConditiOn 33(d) for Tracts 23371 and 23372, and 32(d) for Tract 23373 eutldtng seporatlen Mtaeen all buildings teelading fireplaces shall not be less 'then tee feet rotless ipproved by the Department of ktldlng and brat7 P end the FIre himFalnt per Specific hn 199 Amnded nO, X. 34(e) for Tracts 23371, 23372 and 33(e) for Tract 23373 - Delete Road De artmerit Condition 21 for Tract 23372 and 14 for Tracts 23372 and 23373 Add e,~ the end 'or as approved by the bad Department," SS RIVERSIDE ClXINTY 'PLANKING CQMNISSION HZNUTE$ OCTOBER 5, 1988 be needed !' For aesthetic re·sons, lie felt tt teuld be better not to have the small v·l~. Road Delartmnt Condition 22 for Trice :~337Z aM Condition :Z5 for the other two tract .iMps' related to the si'ntavl 30 foot.garage setlack from f·ce of not be continued. Lee Johnson advtsed the .'slum wall dellneeted'.tn bad Department Condition 21 was a yell they had been riqutrtng for the past three'or four years vhen the ' Planning apartment requtred· block ,lll ·t the top of · slope. Depending on frost crosStrig the sidetalk. They ,ould be vtlltng to coostder any other alternative the developer sight suggest, as 1Dog is tt accomplished the purpose o'thts condition. He requested that thts condition be retained. ~t~ner Donehot ·skid ether addtrig to the ind nor ·s ·pproved by the Coat s: Road Department' would give the developer the opportonttY to provide an alternative plan, and fir. Johnson agreed thee tt avid. Mr. Johns n advtsed the garage setback roqutred by Road Department Condition 22 for T~ct 23371 (Condition Z5 for Tracts 23372 and 23373) ass the sent·urn 460 He had raid the lengthens11 roo d setback required by Ordinance · requested by the appl lcanl!, but would prefer to relate the condition is · g Y P P Tne the the Road IDapart·eat letter. fir. Rlsney explained they had bee discuss g possibility of providing a 4 foot sidedelk, and ,ould itke to have · 24 foot h setback rat ·r than the 26 foot setback required by thts condttlon. HoweYIr, tf the Road Department preferred the extstte9 language, theY ~ould ·ccept stde~l k fir. Johnson advtsed the condition would not slier the vtdth of the 1 any wa.y. Coalssinner Be·riling referred to fir. liesneY's request that front yard lind- scaptng and Irrigation not be roqutred for the 18 r lots, end stated she felt the should be requtred for ·11 lots. fir. ~or~ed~in requested that the condttto~ be rot·tried as original1}' vrttten. There was no further testteeny, and the heartng ass closed at 7:11 p.m. FINDING$ ~AND CONCLUSIONS: Vesttrig Tentative Tract Paps 23371 Amended No. 1, 23372 Amended NO. 1 and 2)373 Amended leo. 1 are located vtthtn Vtllage A of the PartSrite VIllage Spectftc Plan (No. 199); the three tract maps will provtde 1763 dwelltng units and a golf course on 254 acres; Tract 23372 Amended NO. 1 has been condtttoned wtth the spectftc plan's condition of approval to mtttgate Impacts 'to the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat hab¶tat; the tracts have been cond(ttoned to comply with Specific Plan 199, Chang, of Zone Case 5107, and Development Agreement No. S; and a wetvet of the lo~ length to w~d ratto wtll be needed for Vest:lag Tentative Tract 23371 Amended No. 1. All env.lronmental concerns have been addressed In EIR.s 107, ZOZt and .the tn~l~a 54 RIVERSIDE COtg~ PLANlll~ CCNill$IOll MI~tfTES SEPT·eaR 28, 1988 Vtllage Soectfic Plan; the four tract maps Mould dtvtde the 254 acres into 605 residenit,1 lots; the traCt raps lave IMm condttloned in accordance with the spectflc dan's conditions of approval to mitigate telacts on the Stephens "".,-':z. ,, NO. 5; a ~for the let longth to width. ratio ;rill be needed forA~rmct 23103 Amended No.' l. Al1 onvtronmntml concerns ave been addressed in 107, aIR 202, and the initial studios for these tract saps, and r~ significant impacts lave been foundl the tract maps are consistent with the Comprehensive General Plan (ms mandad by General Plan Amendant No. 150), Specific Plan 199 Amendment No. 1 and Change of Zone Case 51071 the tract maps conform to the requirements' of Ordinances SiS-and 4S~ lie proposed Irojects.vtll not have a significant effect 'on the onvtronmnt. PlOTION: Upon motion. b Commissioner aresson, seconded by Coemtsstoner Beadling and onmntmou:~y CarriM, the Comadsston adopted the negative declarati0ns for EA 32318, EA 32833, EA 32534 and EA 32538, lid opproved Tentative Tract Flaps 23100 Mended No. l, Z3101, 23102, led 23103 4Mnded No. 1 with a waiver of the lot length to width ratio, subject to the proposed conditions, amended as lollova, based on the above findings and conclusions and the rmcmmendmtions of Staff, Tract Flap :2:3100 Amended m. t nd to conform to Condition ~4 (to provide for maintenance of the open space area by either a County Service Are or a Homemoors . t at on). 23. Prior to the issuance of occupancy pemtts for 160 units on Tract 23100, the part area shall be developed per Specific Plan No. Amended No. 1. 24. Raplace with the stondar~l alternative condition providing for _maintenance of the camran open space area by tither a County Service Area or Homeowner· Association. 37(b) · dill aM/or fence locations shall substonttally contom to attached Figure XXX-28 of Specific Plan No. lgg keen·ha No. X. The devtlolaent of Tentative Tract No. 23100 Amended No. 1 shall comply with all provisions of $poc fit Plan No. 199 Amendment No. X and Develolanent Agreement No. S Tract Hap 23101 17(h) . Rear yards and us·able stde yards shall have an average rtat area of 2000 square fcet. 22. Amend to conform to Condttto~ 24 (to provide for maintenance of the common open space ares by either I County Servtce Area or. a Homeowners Association). 3 RIVERSI~ COUNTY PLANNING COl~ISSlOll I41NUTES SE~E. HBER :~8, 1988 of ktterfield Stage nd, mrth ~ lilacalso California Rd - 291 lots - 122. acres - I-1/SP bnes~ khedult. A. . · ."'-- -' · ~. TRACT KiP 23101 - EA 3~fi3- Hsrlboreugh Dev, Corp, - Rancho california/Skinner Lake Ares - First end Third Supervisortel D4strtcts - east TRACT. mr '2310~ - SA 32S34- Narlb~roU~ 'by,-Corp~'- hncho' california/Skinner Lake Arei - First a&d Third Supervisortel 0~'strtCts -'north of La Serene llay, ~est of 8utter~teld Stage Rd - 37 lots - 16.4~ acres - SP/R-z Zones. Schedule A TRACT NAP 23100 Need is), I - EA 3~S3S - earlborough by, Corp, - Rancho California/Skinner Lake Area - First and Third Superytsor~al DIstricts - ~est of ktterfield Stage Rd,~ north of Ranca California Rd - 18 lots - 29~ acres - SP/R-A-1 Zofies, Schedel~ A The hearings ~ere opened st 9:49 s.s, and closed at 10:08 I.e, STAFF RECOIt4F. NDATION: Adoptlon of the negattve declarations for EA 32318, 32S33, 32S34 and 32S3S, and approval of Tentative Tract Naps 23100 keendad No. 1, ~3101, 23102, and 23100 bendid No. I v4th a rotvet of the Iot length to width ratio, subject to the proposed conditions, The subject tract raps ere located within Vtllage 8 of the Hartaries Ytllage Spectf4c Plan, and 1 Staff had found the ~ould dtvtde the 2S4 acres Into 605 residentis lots. tract maps to be consistent with the Coeprehenstve General Plan, Specific Plan 199 Amendent No. 1, and the zoning ~htch h~d been sppl¶ed to the specific plan through Change of Zone Case S107. Ms. Gtfford reconwended several changes to the conditions for these tract sips, relating to requirements for mtntenSnce of the open space areaso park requirementSo useable yard areas, and feettrig requiremats. fir. Klotz suggested modifying the last condition for each tract sip by beginning vtth the phrase 'Developaerie of thee· Comtsstoner Iresson requested that changes be side throughout to refer to etaher "publtc use trails" or "recreational trltls" testend of *equestrian tra(ls*; he felt these terms ~ould more accurete3y describe their use. Bar~ krne11, representing the app14cant, accepted the condSt4ons as amended. Zt was his understanding that tn the event any portion of the develo;ment agreement ms held to be invalid (for any reason), the conditions requiring compliance with that agreement ~uld be null and votd~ this was conf'~nn~d by County Counsel. There ~ls no further testimony, and the heartrigs ere closed st 10:08 FllelNG$ AND CONCLUSTONS: Tentattvl Tract Naps 23100 Amended No. 1, Z3101, 23102, .and 23103 Amended No. 1 are located within Village B of the Pargar~ta_. $EPTEN8~ 28, 1S,, Area -Ftrst SupervisorIll Dtstrtct- north of Paubs led, ~est of kttorfteld- Stmge IM - 259..lots - 103.3: 'acres- It-it/SI;' ZoneS. khedule A Area - First Supervisetin1 District - f411th of Itsecho Visa lid, vest of Butterfield Stage Rd - 287 lots - ~Z.6: acres - 8-1t/SP bees. Schedule VESTXNG~ TRACT RAP 23471 - EA 32518 - bier bvelolmnt Co. - Ranthe California Area -. First. Supervisetin1 Dtstrtct- south of Palecho C41.tfornia led, vest. of Kaiser Pke - %SS 1eta - 44~ acres -'R-]J.SP Zones. Schedula-A VESTING TRACT IMP 23470 - TA 32517 - Kaiser bvelolment. Co. - Rancho California Area -'First Supervisereal Dtstrtct- north of hncho Visa vest of Kaiser Pkvy - 325 lots - 106.3 acres - R-Z/SP Schedule A The hearings ere opened at ZO:IO a.m, end closed STAFF RECOHNENDATI011: Mopelan of the attve declarations for EA 32517, EA 32518, EA 32504, and EA 3250S and approvan~I of Tentative Tract IMps 22915 and 22916, -ncl Vesting Tentative Tract IMps 23470 and 23471 subject to the propose~ conditions, and a vetver of the Ice length to vtdth ratio for 811 four tract traps. These four tract maps ~ere located tn Vtllage C of Specific Plan 199 Amendment No. 1, and muld divide the 345 acres into 1020 residential lots, provtde a 10 acre school .stte, a S acre park site and 3 tot lots. Staff had found the proposed maps to be consistent vtth the Comprehensive bneral Plan, the adopted specific plan, and l~he zontng vhich had been applted to the property through Chin of Zone Case~102, Hs. Gtfford rectumended several changes .to t~e candle.Teens of approval; those changes related to the mtntmum lot size, lot length 'to vtdth ratto requirements, part reWiremeets, landscaping/irrigation requirements, and a reclutrement for alevale;mane of the tract raps in accordance vtth the adopted spectftc plan and approved dave1 opnenC agreesent. ' CoffnissiOner hadling questioned aM, GtffOrd's rectumend/elan for deletton of the conditions for Tract IMps 23470, 22g15 and 22916 requiring landscaping and 7200 squire foot Iota and the CountJr did not normallJr requtre trrtgat.lOn for lots of this size. Hr. Sireater felt this condition could be retained, as 11 yes County pollc), to rrequlre landscaping and trrtgltton for 7200 square foot lots tn the Ranthe California area. Robert Ktmble, representing the applicant, advtsed theJr ~ould prefer not to provtde the front yard landscaping and Irrigation, and requested that the condition be deleted. Commissioner kadllng asked vhether fir. K~mble had seen the letker satantiled by fir. and firs. Pipher ob:)ecttng to the densttJr proposed tn the area ad3acent to their estate tJrpe homes. At her request, Fir. r, tmble Iotated Fir. Ptpher's subdivision ~h~ch was next to Ranthe VIsta-Road. They yore proposing the 7200 square foot lots alleyed by the spoctfic plan f or t s area. as. Gtfford advtsed the tract mp yes a reftltng of a prevtouslJr 5 RIVERSlD~ COUm~ FLANNII~ CCmlSSl~ KtNUTE5 SEPTHER 28, 1988 23. Prior to the tssuance of occupancy Nmtts for 160 untts on Tract 23101, the part area shall be develolad par Slmctftc Plan No. Amended IIo.'1. ; 24. eeplece'wt'th'the standar:d"alt~'rna~Jvt c0nd~-,:~n providing for mint·hence of the canon open space am by e~ther a County Service Area or Hoeewners Ass~c~at~ea. .. 37(b) 111 and/or fence locations shall substantta11~ conform to attached Figure 111-28 of Slmc.tftc Plan No, 19t Mendmet Ito. 1. )l. The deveimnt Of Tentative' ~ract'No. 'Z3ZOl s'ha11 COBpl: .vtth-all- provisions of SFectftc Plan fla. 199 Amndmnt No. I and T)evelopment Agreeneat .No. S Tract Nap 2310! 21. ' bend to contain vtth Condition 33 (to profide for maintenance of the cmmn open space area by etther a County Service Are or a Homo~ners AssoclatJoe. 33. P. eplace vlth the standard altarnative condition providing for :mintnuance of the cogon open space are by etther a County hrvtce Arel or Hmsewners Association. " )S(b.) bin11 and/or fence locations shall substantially conform to attached Figure Ill-Z8 of SF~tftc Plan No. 199 Meant No. 1. 36. 'The day·lope·fit of Tentative Tract No. 23102 shall comply Vtth all provisions of Specific Plan No. 191 Mend·at No. 1 and Development Agreement No. 5 Tract IMp 23103 Mended No. 1 21. Amend to confore to COndition 22 (to provide for iutntenance of the cmeen open space area by etther a County Servtce Area or a Hornowners Assoctettee. 22. Replace vlth the standard alternative condition providing for mtntenance of the coneon open space area by etther a County Service Area or Ham·owners Association. 34(a) I&ill and/or fence locations shall substantially conform to attached F¶gure 11Z-28 of SpecSftc Plan No. 199 Mendmat No. 1. The day·loin·at of Tentative Tract No. 23103 banded Ha. 1 shall comply ~th all provisions of Specific Plan No. 199 Amendment Ha. I and Daveloin·at Agreement No. S 4 RI~"RSlD~ COt~ eq. AmlN~ CGe~ISSION NINUT~$ 26, 198' coaltic· vtth the devilelm·el · ant' ~ould be null and void. fir. rlotz advtsed~his -u explicitly provt~e~ fithie the devil elan·at agreement. Bob Ptphar, 4182S Greetre bad, Tee~ula, edvtsed the develoment tn vhtch ace-third of this properl~y, They had submitted the letter weenesting that the porttons of the subject tract raps adjacent to thetr area be required .to create lots stadlar .tn size. fir. Pipher had. amp of the Ibrgart ta YJllqe Specific Plan ate Perch 30,' INS, 'etch 'ahead the densitY:i~te this are'tale epproxhetely Mlf el'the denst~ currently. ' proposed. fir. Pipher advtsed this eel In eMitfie Ires, aid Hop1· residing t n the area needed rtding trstls. He raW·sial · connecting ira11 from Pauba to Ranthe Vtsta aTerig the beundar~f betvein thetr subdivision and the subject daYeli nt or aloeg Kitsir Parbey; landscaP~ buffer area. ' this weld provtde ~n additional fir. Ptpher edvtsed they had no problem vtth the proposed school stte, but felt the circulation systm proposed to serve the school as inadequate. Zn his opinion, Street el: shetold be extended to Kitsir Parbay; thts aould then provtde .access to both the school site led the part from It·tsar Perbey. At the present tie there ms a steady fie, Of traffic, and prwidtng an access' to the park site and school from Kitsir Perbey muld help everJane tn the area, te addttton to making the park ere accessible. because of the traffic on Kitsir Parkway, fir. Pipher thought tt multi be difficult for people ltvtng on the other side to reach the lark. He therefore suggested that one or tee parks he, rocNtrld OII the' other side of ratsir PartaaJr, to benefit residents tn Chic aria. fir. Pipher requested a solld ~ell along the bound· bet-·an thetr development and the subject project. The people restdtng tn ~hTTS Ire ere requesting a buffer, and would Ipprectate anythtng the CcHmtsstonlrS could do to help them. Zn answer to I MItten by Ccnmtsstoner aresson, fir. P~her advised r there ~eS no street beta·an the a ea he was representing and t subject st~e; the lots frm the subject tract mp ere becktrig up agatest the lots tn hts subdivision. I~hen fir. tipher ·gatn requested equestrian tralls, Ha. 61fford brtefiy revteved! the proposed trat1 system, vhtch tncluded s ira11 along hncho California bad, going up the Katser Parkway and lied easement; no tratls ~ere proposed in the southern. area as requested by fir. Ptpher. Camlistener aresson requested that these tratls be designated as INbllC access or recreatIOnal trails 1netend of equestrian trails. fir. Burnell advtsed that an equestrian fret1 had been established all along Pauba Road, gotrig east and west, and there yes a n~rth/south ira11 tn the IMtropolltan Hater District easement got rig by the sc,.ool administration 'stte, along Ranthe California Road to Kitsir Parkey. The .eatdents of the Green Tree ire could use the trail along Pauba, whtch connected to the trill ·1on Green Tree Lane. This ~s a regional: fret1 system, established under the direction of the Parks "Department. RXVERSZDE COUNTY PlANKINS C131115510N ItZNUTES SEPTEMBER 28, 1988 approved roD, and there was no change tn the denstry; the proposed tract map allovid by the specific plan. Cam~sstoner Beadltng quoted from the letter, uhtch requested that the denstry be reduced to the. denstry ortgtnally .posed by the specific plan. She wanted to know what this density ,as, and ass lOfomed there .had. Hen no change tn the density.. Fir. letable requested that Condition 4 of the flood Control Dtstrtct's letter Thts condition required mtntenance rams tn the for Tract :Z347X be deleted. deletion Of thts toedtitle. Fir. I~tmble'the~ requested that. bad Delartment Condition 26 for TrICt"22915 ied .CoMitton Zl .for TraCt 22916 IN amended by adding to ~the end 'ear as el;roved'bY the bad Caratssituate; fir. Johnson agreed to 'this change for both tract raps. Mr. Ktmble advtsed tt ass theft understanding that tn the event hveloinent Agreement No. 5 should he held Invalid at some tame tn the future, the approval of the four tract maps vould sltll stand, tat the condition for Rotart I)udonay, also representing. the applicant, advtsed he ass actively Involved wtth the task force appointed by the Board of Supervisors regarding- the Stephens Kangaroo Rat program. There ass no set pro ram at the present ttme, and he vented to Irony vhether they mould be chaq~ the $750 per lot fee, or ,herher they would be held up unit1 a specific program ass estab- lished. He did not asnt to be dela d, as th_ey vould be tea to pull talOn- trig permits vtthtn the next few asia{as. fir. IClotz explained ~e Board had generally endorsed the concept of having a developer mke a depostt of $? per lot, ,accompanied by an agreement to lay the fee as ultimately adopted; this woulid alloy the project to 9o forderd. He felt thts option would be avatlabl~ to the developer. He explained thts ass not nocessarlly the ultimate 'fee, but his on1 a securt~y to be deposited a.~atnst the elates e marital:ton fee. Thts exp{anatton satisfied 'fir..I)udonay s concerns· Fir. Ktmble reo~ested clartftcitto~ of the new condition staff had sug ested for Tract' 22916 rogercling Matgallon for the-Stephens Kangaroo Rat. ~r. Goldman explained thts condition referred back to the specific plan condi- tions, wh ch requtred either applicant coeq)ly vtth the CoUntyvide program of Fish a~d Gain or that the a Nemorandmn of Understanding wtth the Departmet betn9 established by Riverside County. Condition 20 for Tract 22116 requtrld the park to be folly taproved and developed prior to the tssuance of tatldtog peritta for ZSO untts, and . Ktmble re ested that thts condition be omendad to require the rk pr or to the tssua~uce of occupanCy for the 2Snth lot. Providing the ful~ tmp~t~Zd lark prtor to lSO untie wauld be a burdon to the developor. He. 61fford advised Hr. Ktmble's request vould dally calFlatiN of the perk vnttl after the enttre tract had been coapleted; staff fall 150 u~tts vould afford the applicant 'an opportunity to tatld some unitS, and at that point the taprove- merits could he tted Into road Improvements. The lark-Mould elan be useful for-, the tract to the northe 1thIGh ass befog developed by the sam developer- ComtsslOner Iresun requestod InformtiN on the. type of laffer to be conceptu4il GNmV, fir. Khable re·landed to.fir. Ptptmr*s request 'for an additional park m the mr amf above the requ~mantS of the slm~f~c plan. Cometsstarter Don·hoe eked abether surf ass racemending that a cond4tton be added to require the as11 as · buffer beam· the subject tract saps and the area __represented by fir, Piphero and ms tnfomd thtl ass a tendtalon of the slattrice plan. Lee rioImport referred to fir, Pt_pher's su tton that *1' Street be ~xtended to Katser Parkau3~, and advtSed lath M aedg~ aohnsm (TrensNrtatton Plann4ng Secttoe .If the lioad.Deparment) folt thts ass an excellent rectumend·alan. CIrcular'on tn this am Elgl!t be teed by mkt thai connection rather the school served by cu -de-sic st~n~. Thts muld also five than hiv"ng a 1 both the scbool and the park stte ace free a H fOOt vide Street. Mh¢m Corals·tenet Ires·on eked ~hether thts could be accoepllshed utahout redestgntng the map, fir. aolmsff raillied he felt tim mp ~ould live to be amended. fir. Streethr felt thts provtdea INch litter access,' Conntsstener kadltng folt that a long cul-de-sac street ··tag tat· a sclmol was poor ;planntngo as 41 requtred the carl and school bus·as br4nfing chtldren 'to v~ap around and corn back out the sam va , Extend1 the street ~ould a11o~ the vihtclas to drop off the chfldre an~Ygo out Coeuntsstontr B~esson ass concerned about cresttrig a 4-ray Intersection, 'and Mr. Johnson agreed that a 34my Intersection created 1axe problem, Itemveto he sltll felt that providing access to Katser Parkway vould result tn better ct~culatSon service to the school stte. Fir. Burnell dtd not foe1 tt ~us necessary to extend '1' Street to Katser Park- way tn order to provide adequate circulation for the school. he yes concerned that the change tn the roadray might cause problem vith regard to the sNr 1tees. fir. Berne11 yes else concerned about a 4-ey Intersectton at Katser Parbray; be felt retaining the extsttng 3-Ma3~ Intersaction ~ould provide an overall better circular1 systm for residents of the area. Comlsstoner 8resson preferred the ~Tn-de-sac stret because tt vould net encourage through trafftc along the scbool site. Fir. Johnson' potfiled out that there vould be less opportunity to eventually obtetn stgnal';zatton for a 3-vaJ~ tritersection than for a 4-way Intersectton. 8 allis lIES v~r · A6 PRESERV HILLY RE$ ,, VACANT HILLY HIt: VACANT v&Cl RESIDENTIAL !"'~ 'k,.,,.,,_~~' .-\" I',~ ~,co. ' " , "'~ "' · Use SPECIFiC PLAN OF LAND USE RANCHO CAL , t ._., It , , . ' ' ,:,,.,.., ~VE]GZDE COUNTY PLAtotHE CI)IIZSSION ~NUTES sEPTman 28. lge8 z0 - Prior to the Issuance of occulancy Fernits for 200 untts, one tot lot sial1 be areroVed and fully developed. Prior to the timace of beal.cllnl FernIts (balance to rmiln the - All 'fro.t 3mrdl S1~11 be'w;a~t;Id'T~ith lindsoaping and m~u111},-' ope steal, permeant underground Irrigation. .r flood 'Control Condition 4 - Deloto enttre11 3S, The development of Vesttrig TeegaUve Tract llp Z347Z stall comly vith 1as Des1 Pilmml~ vlth el) prevtisions ef-Spectf.tc-Plan No.. :L99 ~m~li. 'Z ;sml ~d~ geminimerit Agremont tin. S. · ' Palsan Condition 4 of rib flood Control 1eater daad aune 17, X988. Tract !No. 22gZS 24 - Prior to the tssuance of buildtrig Iramils (balance to rmmtn the sme) ~. 32 ~ The daveloire_at of Teatalive Tract lip 229XS sial1 compl vtth 'provisions of blotfat Plan lie. Ill MaNbent fin. Z and T)evelolaent Agraemnt fin. S Department CoMItton 26 - Md to the end nor as approved by the bad Comdssloneree Tract No. 22g26 2 - Add the foilrating: except fo~ the lot length to vtdth ratto. 20 - Prior to the tssuance of occupanuc~ peratts for ZSO untts tn Tentative Tract 22916, the park shall be. fly improved and day. eloped.. 25 -Prtor to the Issuance. of butldtng peatan (balan~ to remtn the same) 32 - The devtlolanent of Tentative Tract lip 239Z6 sial1 provisions of 5imctftc Plan Ito. XFJ Amndmnt tin. Agreemet IIo. S coorely vtth all and Develoment 33 -Prtor to tssuance of gradtrig permtts, tapacts to the Stephens Ken aroO Pat Habitat shall be mitigated per the spectftc plan conditions o~ approve1. had Deparment Condition 28 - kid to the end *or as rapproved by the bad Commt ssionlr" · lO RXYE:RSXDE COIMTY PLANNXNG COPIqXSSXON KXNUTES SEPTENBER 28, 2988 sho~, ~ sca°~~:~c~se ~e~ d~d ~t e~"~ ~tld~n sd3scent ~ a had ~c~ a~s~ I~ss~ sup~ a ~ac~; u currentl~s g~or designed, as 41 es sattsfac~ ~ 9e g~l The~ es ~ further ~St~mnY, l~ tM mr~q m closed It T~:10 i.e. Tract ~ps ~3470 a 'a~ a~ ~411a~ ~c~ftc.Pl~)i ~e fNr trice rods been prepi~d ~ 1 ~ ~ciftc Plan 1~ ~~nt No. 1, 9 of ~ne ~se S~07, a H ne~ for sll f~r ~ps M1 leng~ a vtd~ ratto H 4n EIR ~7 Ell ~ ~ ~ ~ntt~al s~dSes for conce~s have ~en add~ t tf~nZ t~ic~ ~ fend; Za trl~ m~ ire 1 n W ~n~tninc C Upon motion ComuIssioner Iresson, seconded b Cam~sstoner declarations for EA 32517, F.A 32516, EJk 32504 and EA 32505, and approve ~' Tenta1:tve Tract Paps 22915 and 22916, and Vesting Trice Paps 32470 and 23 ~, with I diver of the lot length to. vtdth ratio, subject to the propdos:~ conditions and bised on the above findings and conclusions ~nd the recoe~enda- ttons ,of stiff. Tract Ho. 23470 17(a) - All lots shall ave a lintnun. size of 7200 squire feet net. 17(b) - Delete enttrely 20 - Prior to the Issuance of occupancy permtts for 1S0 antes, shall be taproved and fully developed. one tot lot 21 - Prior to the Issuance of occupancy paneits for 27S units, the second tot lot shall be improved and fully developed. 27 - Prior to the tssuance of bu¶ld¶ng perntis (billrice to tenth the same) The development of Vestin Tentative Tract PaP 23470 sha~ comply with 36 - t~:s Design IMnual, wtth a~l provisions of Specific Plan Amendment No. 1 and with De..elopment Agreement No. S Tract No. 23m,71 Health Fire ~371kd. Ne* I t3373Jnd. Ro. 1 lane received is of this writing Net ~lm · Ct~ raphare Vesting're:Tentative Tre~ Ikrs. 11371 .kmd. lie. 1. 13171 kmd. lie. 1, end 11373 Arerod, These tracts liave lees designed to be coem~mtomm% ~ then documents- · ST~f~:e Mlme sennarip the tracts' relmttoemhtp and coestmteetY vith th~ PIIn'I planning ireas. k shNn, none Of the %ratio exceed the parBOIled number of residential units. CO~MZSm Of 11ACT Am SPECIfiC KM DUELLING ITS Tract N0. Pro_eosed Specific Ran no. ~gntts Area YTT 13372 Amd. 11o. I 1113 33-37, 41-0 VTT 23372 ;rod. Ne. I Z32 41 VTT 13373 W. Ne. I 348 38 . Petrified of Units ZZl7 134 A destn mnud ham been prepared for m11' three mtteg mrs ahtch provides ': ca1 rural resources oesl to · Vesting TenUttvm Tract 23371, Jigended Ne. Z tncludes an !8 hole 9olf courSe. V the specific p u conditions, the tract his Her, As mlso rm~lr~ 1 2on~n Area:. lancho Cal lfornia Vesttag Tentatlve Trac~ ks.: Z3371 And. Supe~lsortal Mattact: FIrst ind No, 1, Z3372 MI, M. Z, Z3373 .ImL M. 11drd Fllnntng Comtsston: 10448 E.A. : 3254i, 32547, 32548 Agehall .Item No.: S-Z, S-3, and 5-4 Spect~tcs Plan Secttoe Z. ~pllcant: I1irgartta Vtllage Daveloinen. t ~o. 2. Engineer: Itlck Engineering Ceapin,y 3. Type of liequest: The 3 tracts u111 subdivide 472 acres taro Z763 residenttaT entts · ~ 4. Louttoe: lair ef fie rltd Road, nore..h of Rancho ' i . Callfnt:r~d iS, F, xt. sttng Zoning: H (CkB_nSo. of Zone SZ07 baird by that, · Jean of S~lmrvtsors on I.,Z3-,88 proposese ' SP Zl~ bd. lie. Z zonang). ' ~ ~ L Su,oundtng Zontq: 'Q ' 70 O &l i~ g- St te Characteristics: Area Characters sttcs: Comprehensive h5eral trlan Zlmtq to the ~orth aM w~st ts R-4, A-:-:O, P,,R, R-Z; Zontng ta Uu sou',.h ls Vacant land traversed vtth low ht11~-~ Located on easte~ edge of Pancho Caltfornta comuntt.y Ranca Vailages (General Plan Amndmlnl; Jb. 1.S0 proposes I enarll plan des1 nitSon of Spectftc P~an b. Zig Aaeln~n:nt; No. Z) Land Dtvtston Vesttrig Tact 3371 ksd, No. X 337ZAnd. No. X ~3373 Md. No. Z kreage 394 37 Unto Dens t t~, ( t)u/k ) 1153 3 ~3~ 6 348 us~ 3:'8' liSTIll TIIITATi II!: ~ gO. I proceeding against the County ef Nverstde or Its agents, officers, er Coda sectton 66499.37. The Geenay of RIverside e111 proaptly notify p~tly notify tim su~lvlder ~inV sack dill, ItSlORe Or proceeding htls b cooperate fully to the defense. the suHtvtdor shill ~ thereafter, a Nslmsfi)le to defend, talmnlfy, or hold lureless the County of RIverside. .'. The t4ntsttve sukllvtSton shall crop1 vtth the State of Callfor*' Sulxltvtston Nip Act end to all the re Treeants ef Ordinance 460, Sched, A,. unless maltfred I~ the conditions TTtsted belov. Thts conditionally epproved tentative alp v111 explro ho Jeers after the County of IUverside hard of Supervisors approval date, ,nless extended as provided by Oral¶hence 460. 1he final mp shall be prepared by a ltcensed land surveyor subject to dl the requtrments of the State of California Subdivision Nap Act and Ordinance 460. 1hi subdivider skll subsIt one copy of a setls repor~ ~o the RIverside County Serve~or's Office and rye copies to the Department of ktldtq and Safety. 1be report shall addross the so ls I stabll It), end geological conditions of the site. 6. If IV Fading ls proposed, the subdivider shall submit one print ~f c_oep~ehenlJve gridtrig plan to the Deplrtant of klldtng and Safety. The plan shall cally ~th the Unitore klldtng Code, Chapter 70, as mended b~ Ordinance 4S7 and u stybe additionally provtded fOr in these conditions of approval. t11~ ed to t_mlnVe tm left ta Flauntrig Area 45, X~ coeformanct rlth the for mt~tgat tt should be eotnd that the cuebar of antes for congregate care are on esttmte aM etll be revteued ag the developrot plan stage, ve Men prepared an all three tracts. Additional envlr°nmntalnd~t end the aceelite1 studtel prepared for the 23~73 Ameded Ire, t are Sl~ctfic Plan,' . Z, The three tracts will preytale ~711 dwelltel antes and g01f course open since on aS4 Z64 acres, (Mended bY Pllunteg CmEtSStO~ X0-5-88) . 3. Trtc~ Z337Z abeended lie, t has bee condttleeed r the Spectftc Plan's condition of approve1 to alttgata tapacts to the ~ephens begam & vatvet for length to uddth fitto u411 be needed fo Vesttag Tenh~ke Tract Z33~ ~~ a. ~- C0eI'CLUSIOKS: 3,, A11 anvtronm~t&l concerns hays Men addressed to tits ~L07t 202 and teleta1 studies for these tracts and m significant tapacts have been found, 2. The tracts ire consistent ella briers1 Plan kneadmat ~, %SO Change of bee tie, S:LOTt and Specific Plan No, X990 Mendmeat lie,. 1,, 3. The tracts conYore to the requtrments of Ordinances 348 and 460. APPROYA~ of Vestleg Tentative Tract gos. 2337~ Mended 11o. X, Z3372 Mended No. sad 23373 Mended He. ~ subject tu the ate. ached cond¶tto~s of Ipproval. KG :mob Pap 3 :ZT, iatS-creatod. lW ~ls. ashdirt·lea dell cm~l. Vie the .fol'lwtng:. Cerner Its led the·ugh_ lets if _mt3r sial1 be vtded vtth a- additlee~T ares pursuant te t ~ Ordlaaace Breand so ;as Sect on 3,1146 t lots. .. b.~ lab created'by th. ts SubdiVIsiOn'shall :is. an...'conform·ca .~tth the develolmnt"standards of 'the . -Spe¢tflc Plan Io, ~ll Meant No, Z c, llen lets are crossed by ,eJor Imblte eatlily easements, each lot f mli bee · net, ·sable ares of not 1as than l,SO0 squire fit, eatlair· of the etflfby easement, d~'lraded bet llwdevllolted 1led shall be rainbleed tn i md-ft~e condition and shall be etaher planted Vith tat·rim lind·ca Ing er vtded vttk other erosira cantrOl alaasm as approve ~ the ~°r~tor of iuildlnl and hfety. e, Trash Me·, leading areas end incadental ftorage areas shal' , locatod a and vlsua11~ screened free surrounding areas vlth the of block meals and 1.and·taping, ZL Prier to IEC0I)ATI01I ef the fans1 nip the foilrating conditions shall 'be liltsf ted: 8. Prior to the' recordslion of the fins1 mp the epltcant shall aslmtt eritten clearances to the RIverside Count~ Road and Survey I)epartmnt that dl ImrUonnt requirements oatlined tm the a~tached approval leftors fm the fo11Mng agenotes ave been met. tar DIll.. CBeBV;~NmI~tI~:IM ant..- beetiF' mm rig' ~:lmrtment liacho Miter District' b. Prier ~the recordalton of the final rap, briers1 Plu MendBent lJ0, Slmlftc.plaa~..Wd,..~fi Menln®. No, Z Developlout. Air·meat. II~ ;I, · ad~~ne. M, ~ S~07 sha~il be appreved tW the Iosrd Of 'i~a'e11';'~.bi::.effecttv·, Lots crested by this line. n conformsace Vith the daveloin·at, staidstall of th zone elttmtel~ ippl Sed to the property. ceidttteM ef .kPreva137X ;mended No. 2 Tee·alive Tract lie. ~3 Pap be ebtltned frll the kparlpent of ktldtng end 7. A gridtrig permit shillmeet of IV graIN eets',de ef count~ mint·tried Us shall be ra~d prior to recordatio~ of the wtthtn the land dry·sloe beundarJr- M1 offers of dedication conveXIncH shill be submitre lid recorded as d~rectid by the letter dated 7-tS-II · copy of ditch ~~s attached. 7-22-88 · cow ef dittch ~~s Ittachlrd. If the laid dtvts',on lies vtthtn :460 · prOpri· ¶ r shs~l FaT eellacteal by the lio·d Corn ·Stem · 1.5. The subdivider shall cmply ~u( the fitre tie;roy·men· reconnendsttona outltned ie the CoMnV Fire F/rshsl's letter dated 8-1-7-88 I copy of ihtcl ts tn an I~_sed cmnon open space art 1.6. Suk!ivtsttan phasing, ~~nclud ITcebl[, sP~h811 be subject to plsnntn' Cmdlt ·is ef lie al Tentat~Ive Tract 1~.~33ZI lieended lie. X hen S e proved, the declare·lee of coy·ants, coed?Uons end restrictions 11 PeS recorded 81 the see the that tm final mp ts recorded. ~2. I~er- to nard·Urn of tM flU1 'ml~ dam sMI1. be .ebU¶ed tram N' .netrepolltan'iRe. Distrtd. g~litive tl 'the'- ctieu of .applicable easemats affecrJq the. subject preFer·at. Lot 1aTr~sdJustients shall also be cmpleted. ' " ldffeleperdell cmplJr with the fetish ~rmento as sheen ~ feectf;; Plan In, ~ t hlnaf Jr~ · tIM er ether Imbllc entity. (Amnded V Cemlsston ZO-.S-M) Prier to eeCordaUee of tim fie1 the developer shill file appllcotim edth tm _beaZr fir the femm~iee ef er ~el "te,~v ~end~ le, 1: tt eccerdaect viii· the IdimdSC~p¶eg and C(ght ng ' , 1972. mleu the pr~sct ts vtthtn an extstlnl perb~ rotetenant . 2) Prtor to the 4ssuence of Imtldteg perud°.s, the developer shell secure approval of proposed hndscsp4ng and trr¶gs~,¶on pl·ns from the Count3, Rod and Planetag bpertmeL A11 landsuptq and Irrigation pleas and speclf4cattoes 9811 M preFered ts · reproducible forest setlob1· for perBeen· liltrig e4th the County Road DeFer·n·. 3) The devil·Fir shell post a lindsoap· performance bend uhlch sh·11 be released concurrently u4th the release of subdivision performance bonds, clearante·aug the v~ab¶ltt3r of 811 had·cap¶rig ~hlch ,4-11 m Instilled priOr to the ·slump·ton of the mint·niece responsibility by the district, The aveInFer, the developer's successors-In-Interest or assignees, shill be resp0nstble for ·11 parkway hndscaplng asSet·Mete unit d 1 such ttn as m¶ntenance ts taken over tier ~ ¶strict. The developer shall be responsible for m(ntenance and upkeep of 111 slopes, hodstaped areas and Irrigation $3rstms until such Uae as those ·or Street lights ~hall be provSded v4thtn the subdivision in accordance the standirds of Ordinance 46~ and ,the follcnring: Conditions of Ji;preval Teentrue Tract Io. Z3371 Jimended lie. I Page · . 1 maSsling sere t~res en the subject property shall M removed prior te Zl.. ~rdst~ee-of' .~ find map. · · .- · · . - · ' c.me ,p-me, ,m',h,, i" mp am si811 be aBeaged tff · master propert~ owners association. 2Z.. Prier to racerdefine ef the flea1 addtristan map, the sebd¶v~der shall the fell documents to the Plane! ?AMfd~: of. the CeB~..FaXm t. .: . . A smle'docemeet coeve)!d ttgle to the larc~ser of an tndhtdual 1,t or entt ,htch preVtdes that the declaration of cornea, conditions and restrictions tl tnGorperitad therein tW reference. ~ Connon end (d) mania to follwtq provisions verbatim: eNotheithstandtng a~y IroyIs¶oe tn this Declaration to the cont~ she Iapp F: the felledrig prod·ton I 1 The property wars' association uUbltshed horetn shall nan·g· and centteams1 mainale the *connon eras', enre prttcularly described The preperW eaner*s association shill have the right to assess the ramera of each tnd¶v~dual lot or ma¶t for the reasonable .cost of Thts boleration shell not be termInated 'svbsUntSally' enended or ropetry deanflexed therefree absent U- pr(or ,rttten consent of the ;1anntrig DIrector of the Count of IUvorsSda or the County's successor-In-¶nterest- A propos~ seendent shall he considered 'substantial' tf It; ·tracts the extent, usage or a¶nl;enance of the 'COelnOfl I1"11 "4J · krbmrs~ and 'nil aped.. 'kfidlel: mtheg~'. limll ~mlmedsceped re_ mere dmrubl aid spectrum tram le conJunct with eean e3r°rtq at keW visual focal potnts edthtn the project. 6) there streets trees catnet ha pleaUd witMe rigiit-Gf-my of triterlOt streets eel pro act Nrtmmys M ilmlffJcJe~ road rtght-of-v~y, · . they shall k ,l~(I wts de If le nted t the md rJght-o-ely. · ! 7)~'Le~sclplng p)IM sial1 lacoeToreto native and drought rolerut plan~s ware approl~'4ite. 8) All rotsting spartan trees and significant rock outcroppings on the 9) All trees shall be adnlmm double staked. bur and/or slot grouing trees shall k steel staked. 10. Perking 1Nmeed shall ctmp17' uith 0rdtnance 348, bctton 18.tZ. 3) Preliminary lad and roadkay elevations. Approximate ttm frees ~or Fading and tdenUflcatton of areas Whtc." ,mY be graded during the hiSher problb111V rite mnths of denver; through ~rch. ~ : Techniques uMch will be utilized to prevent erosion and sedlmntatt~n during and aftor the grading process. ZL A11 extsttng native s ctmn trees on the subject property Shall be preserved d~erever fedeliTe. Jlbere they cannot be preserved the shall be re: ocsted or tel;laced with I teen trees Is Ipproved bY ~t I ng 29. Zf!the pro oct tl to be phased, prior to the e provil of grading · peaits, en overall conceptoil ;din Idea dull T~ maltted to the Planntng N tot for ap vii, TM p~an shall k use u m Wideline fo elkell include the rOUnding: -' Coalitions of MpToval Conutter17 vltb the"fil.tng of subd¶vtsioe ,teprovment plans liead-bpert/eet~ the daveleer fall" mere approval- of the · ~ret~os~: street light ~ firfl frm the lind I)elarment's traffic engineer end then fm ta aprortato etlllty ImrveTor- Fellmdeg eFpreval of the Strut 11ghtlng la:mut by' the Road bH_rtmnt*si traffic _enid, near, the developer shall also ftlea application ulth LAFCO for the .formation of a street 11ghtSn; dtstrtct~ .~er. annexation to an existtea lotghtteg district, unless the 'alto ls viihie an existing lighting district-' · ' 3) Prtor to recordstim of the fled rap. the developer shall secure cemlttlexal eprev_al ef the st~et 1lab_ping pliut eq frm LAFCO. eeleu the site le viihim ex exlst14 llihtte9 ~sPtrtctt-" 4).-All strHt 11ghtS and othe~ outdoor 11ghttng shall be shmm ~e electrical phns subedited to the De rtmnt of ktldln and k 1~ for plan check approval and shell cW~ vith the rlclu~rmentsf:of Itlverstde County 0rdtnance IIo. 6g end the RIverside COg t}, Ceeprehenstve beers1 tlak 26. The park arel (trineainU Area lie. 45) of the specific plan sha,11~ M Improved 81o vtth 811 road Improvements prtor to the tssum* : o butldlq paam°te~e for 800 delltog untts to Tract Z3371 Mended Ira. L tT~: ftna~- ..for.Vesttng-Treet-8])Tt-tha~-akerthe-Perk'aa'e'neebered' e s (Amendeddy. Planning Coantsstoe %0-5-88) - ' 27. Prtor to the t~sumuce of GIIN)ING FERJ4XT5 the folioring conditions shill be satisfied: a. Prlor to the tssuance of' grading peaIts. detailed camon open space are ~rkt_q landscaping and irrigation plans shill be svbetttnd- for Pla~ntng Oipsrtaent approval for the phase of developant in process. The phns sba11 be certified br a hurlscape architect, end sial1 provtde for the folioulna. :Z) Permanent automatic Irrigation systms shall be 1natalled landscaped a~eas requiring Irrigation. 2) Landscaps screening ~here re tred shall be des¶grind t~ I Binhue height of six (~ feet 81 mtu 3) All uttllty servtce areas and. enclosures shall be screened f~oe vtel vtth landsclsptng' and decorative bsrrtere or baffle t~eatJnents, a! approved blr the Planntng DIrector. Uttl¶ttes shall be place. underground. Conditions ef Jlp Tentative Tract Page I .ruth ok, pU,, to'W, he-ant or Sut dt,, d lefet~ tim deWd!tlr dfi danenltrate cenWltance with the ecoustt~ stein levels to 41 Ldm end ~er noise levels below IS 'Ldn. c, Ioof4oentld aedllntcal eli¶ime~ Ih111 mot be perufiled within the .l~tvtlleei, ~'-~ thl dul~lseule 'tdfiCl: ea,lr ave ~nld.-. sWellssent_ as sewrived k' FI lal Mrecte'r. ~iwevir' Delar wOofpent or 'row ether energy favlnl '~lvtet~ ell be permitted with Irlannteg Deplrtaent approval. (beaded IW flueleg CaBalslion d, Delldl seplrltlee betasen Ili Iratidings Including fireplaces shall "' not beeTus time ten (SO) fm calm epproved fly DelartmenZ · ' Iwildtng. md Slfe_~r led FI DeNant I~_r ctftc Plse kendent Ik 3. (Aleadd IIF ~anntnl Ceemlssion~S-88) ; e. All street side 7erd setlacks shill be a minimum of ZO feet. f. A11 front Jarale 'skill be prevldd with ludscaplq and automat' Irrigation. Prior to the Issuance of OCCUPANCY PEltNITS the following conditions shall be satisfied: a. Prior to the ftul bulldlng'tnspecttan approve1, Ily the lulldin! and load per tim hsl Iknual. The ree. lred wll shaft ~e $ub3ect to the I'U~eflvalngn~llstoe i04-~. · b. Ill led/or fence locations shall confore to attached FIgure IZl-Z7 SpecIFIc Flu 1o. ZIg Amendment IIo. Z. c. All landSCaping and trrlgatlo6 shell be Installed In Iccordlncl with lpprovnd plans prior to the Issuance of occuplnc~y perutie. If solson&l ,conditions de not mlt ~llntinge tatotto landsca trig and erostan iconfro1 ensures shalffbe utf~llzed as lpproved by the P~Znnto9 Director and the DIrector of ktldln9 and d. All perktrig lendscoping end irrigation shall be Installed accordance with lpprovnd plies and shall M verSeled by · Plinntng Department field inspection. Costit·lens ~C.Approval Tentative T t IIo, 2337~ )mended IIo, 1 4). k~as of .taKer!r; grading eelaide of'a. particular phase. etch exceed :ton feet tn vertexes{. bet t shill modified ~ a IpprOllrtltl elmbinaries of · SpfCtll terTlc~g (t)enchtng) plan, tncrlasl ale ratio {I,e,, l:t), rat·let wells, sad/or llopekplantSng combine: al~elrrtglttoe, A11 drl.vei~ys ~a~l not ezceed · fifteen percent grads. 3L 'M1 cot slopes' located nd~ecent 'to'e N re. did esters1 ter~etn and exceedtea tee (ZO)..feet te .vertical betghts shill be contour-graded 1ricerpersianS the tellaving gradtrig teclmtques: Z) The angle of t~e graded slope shall be gradually edJusted to the · . of the setairs1 2); Angular forms shill be discouraged, The graded form shill rafqect natural rounded ·errate, 3) The toes and tops of slopes shall k rounded vtth curves udth radt dontgned tn ,per·tee to the tots1 hetght of the slopes dratnage and stability perrot· such rounding. 4) Vimre cut or f111 sloHS_ exceed 300 feet tn berSzont·l length, ilk horizontal contours of the slope shall be curved tni contSncous undulatt ng fashion Prier to the tiesince of grading perat·so · qualified paleontologist she! be re··teed bj, the developer for consults·ton end comment on the propost rid g tng kdth respect to potential llleontolngtcal hap·eta. Should paleontolngtst find the petenatal ts htgh fir impact to resources, · Ire-Fade meettrig Mtwen the plleontologtst end th excavation end grading contractor shall be arranged, ahen necessarT, th peleontolngist or represents·ave Shill ave the an·heft·Jr to tmaporsrtl. divert, Perilrat· or halt grading ·cttvtV to ·11or recoverjr of foes lS. 33, Prior to the issuance of IUILDZNG P[RNXTS the fellertrig conditions Shil be satisfied: le accordance vlth the vrttten rawest of .the developer to the Covet of Riverside, · cow of ~htch is on file, and in furtherance of th agreement be·wen the dayale r and the Count~ of layers·de, e b~tldtng rusts shall be ~sued by the County of Riverside for an parcels v~et~an the subject tract unit1 the developer, or t~ develo er's successors-In-interest provided evidence of compliant vtth ~e terms of Hac~ D'dve'iopment Agreement No. S for the finsheir of public facilities. Cond~ttoes of ksproval Tentative Tract no, 2337~ &tended to, 1 Page ~,.... -- 4 IkS.aha:l:l.ile. oetstePvd;ed-4:hroegkee(*(he'*efbd4v4i4e4~4a tg~-ben - ' . ' ' Street trees shuT1 be 3anted throughout the subdivision In.accordance et~ the standards J Ordinance 460 and Specific Plan No, lID amndmnt Ire, I 3S', "bvelopaent of V"Ung .TenU~lve. Tract. compl)' utth all provisions of Spec'tft~' Plan 1to, Developsent Agreecent, Ito, ~- 2337.1 bonded No. 1 s1~11 199 bondae~' Jto, · 1 'and · .J i OFFICI OF ROAD COmIU~IOwE! & COUKT~ 3UavEvn, verslde-~emt/Iqannlel railssilo ISS" Tract lie D37Z - Amend I1 - load " --: .. 'Schedule A - Team SP ne Ladles sad OlaZlee: ' IIItb respect 11 11t' condltleel of lime1 for the referenced finntire dlflslee map, the IHd himtruest rerjaledl tlmt the 1laddivider Irevide f')11ewtal Itfllt biersveneer FIlM 01d/er reM'dedicati01s In accords ca I 0..~.lMece 410 end livenIda Count/lind lapreverent Samlards (OrdinanCe 1;-" IS Mrsteed tMt tl~ Tentstie m table sp correct1/siton accel prattles, all existing eat·nil, traveled ,l/s, lad drainage course' ellrePriSal Qele lid thlt their 91411101 Ir eeocofFal/lilt/ 11 be resukmltted fer fuPther culltier·tieR. lame Or(lances end therTo · condltloM Ira essential Nm ud · miremat eccurrlng In ONE IS a~-" es though eccurrtel In a11. The/Ire letended 11 lie colplenZa~ dlscrlbt UI condltlenl for I ceepleti mile of the tipreveal. All regarding the tree waning of the ceedltloes IIRll lie referred C0mlsslonlr'l Off ca. 1.. The land~lvtder she, tact downstram Irope~kles frta due es caused ~ altersties eTretll drale·ge gettarue 1.1.0 01nclntt:- t101 of diversion of flee. Pretlct101 sMll le prey dad b/ canstrutting adequate drllnage fullltles lecledlnl :flirting exlstl hcllltlel or lecerl I drainlie easefit or t/ beth. eX31 drllnalt luakrnentl Ihln~1 be ShOrn on the final mp and notad as follows: '0ralalt Elseat - no belldials mtruCt1011e or iiIcrolchialntl tl/1lad frill Ira silowean. 1hi protection shall 11 as ;raved tlF UR Road hpertaenZ. ' The landdivider shall accept and Frelarl~ dispose of ·11 elfsiVa drainage flowing onto or through the site. In the event Ua load Canlistener pareIts the use of Itrettl for dril age pu less the provisions of k~lcll lZ of 0rdln~nco N:. 410 vllrT°lpplZ. Should the quantities liCeIll thl Strait calaclt/or the use of SZrsetl be _pr0hlblted for drainage Furposes, the sulxilvlder Shall Frlrvtde idaquite drainage" facilities as approved kit tie bid tltFartauet. P I1ol, RImR -i APlk Use RoI~,, ...... KACDR " SPECIFIC PLAN OF LAND USE I~ANCHO CAL Sup. Dirt. I CifCulQtiOA ~ANCHO CAWF. ~D.. ~~ITA ~D. [iemed SO. GENITAL KEA~N~. WANCHO VIIT~ II' ~, ~ I Rd. lk. Pg. :~'~ Date 3-13-86 Drawn By iv ; m~£nS/O~ COUUT? '~'~U/N~ o~ru~~o i _/ "'~feI~'Nlll S33~1 - kieNI Mar 30, . Page 3 ** 14, lie'Balms centerline padlet fa$11 11.- 1be Melee centerlie radii' ~h$11 be illfluent. ®Q 3S.. laadi M!lf,. INd'lnd Na_rlerlt$ lied $b$11 M lee~ved dtb .: eamaae earl ad letter tinted 4$'fMs .Ira esnt$ lie sad etch flat heft vid~ dadlured rips of eel, In $ccerdance vith Ceenty $TOMe~d I$. 100, ZTt $rl TO' ' .-filial of the fls$1 .aN; dtll.tlm Ceee~ bcerder*s 0ft;~¢li, ~t~i. develoN~ fall1 levide '.evidence of centINNs Sideella viaIn the deve10SmenS fks11'be as appreved I~ the bad Cmatssleeer. "Zl. The dalede lot freeSages deal the eel-de-sect end knuckles slelf-' be 3S feet eelass othervie sintilled In f~e I~rCicular anent :20. 21 classification. lien blackmails are required TO be ceestrocted ee TO; of dope, e debris reSentlee ,$11:shill be canstrutted et the street right of v$~ line tO prevent silting of sJdMlks as epproved t~ the bad Commissioner. ~e miniam garage setback sh$11 be 30 feet matured from the face of curb. $h~uld the develolar Frovide evidence of roll up doors ee the building plans, a redactlee of 4' B~y be alleyed INS In no case c oser than $0 fans frm back of s ldev$1k or $h$11 th$ $~ age be 1 ! r earb e the absence of sideelk, ' Frimr~ ud secondat access reads tO the nearest paved road mine tatrid k)' the C~vnV $hsll be ~onaTrvcted afthie the Fubllc rl hT of ~ In lCcordanc$ with Coenf~y Standard No, 106, Section l, /60') at I grade and illSmeet s$ epproved ~ the bad Coalssiena1 Prior te the recordalien of the final rap, the developer $ha11 de sit vith the Riverside CaMely bid 0epirbaent, I c$$h sum of $Z~.OO let 1ot as mitigation for traffic s19n$1 I~pict$. $NNld ' SaWumer ~0~ 3. I~or drainage Is Involved On this landdivision and its resolution .. shall. be as epproved k)' the lind Department. LB knla k shill ii Illee_ed efthie tim dedicated right of us7 in eccordasco elth beet/leaneed lie. lOZ, (X'/44');:' ." · Street mac, age (fro STPMt~ aCe tO gO"I .Shall .kfi lap~o~ed is Mid .CaBleS oN , .eere kiN- t r (66 168'), 7. Street "1' (free Street I° tO'ur sad free Sims aC' TO Id Serene tie),) sad Street *C° free St, reeL I° tO eprexlmtell, 7M*'uest of Itilcor Pef4n~) sbelt be lOreVeal Is accordance math leDelf ted Count7 Standard M, t03, Sectin A, (48'148'), :8. Street ace (700*t uesterll ef raiser hrkuu),) sell k lapr0~ed · Ill accordance math Rodtried CaleBlet Standard NO. Zg, (lOs. 160')· ~ g. Street 'to, Street '10 (frol Street el° ii17)o Street elite.. (free Street el" tO Street °See)shill M improve in accordaAce wt~h Ik)difled Count), Standard li, tO3, Section A, (44'144'), Street "R", shall be improved to accordance vtth IkHiifled Standard .llo. l~, Section A. (40'/40*). - Streets ~' th~e ~', '1% 'a' thee 'Q', 'S' tAPe ~', ~' thru Stfllte oEJo, SireIt °F el~" thfil eLLas Street "Hi4" {fro St, flit °SS" S1~), Streets qBl" t~ "MAt Ind tuo uMmed Streets roUl g beteltin Streetabe end abel ell~Merlin Strictelm end St, felL mC~m she, M liproved in iGordance with Plodif led Count~ Standard lHo SectIN A, (H*l.H*)* . Ssekh' '*"" '~' ':~j~W.lmd.sl~11 be laproved mathIn the Micatad rl~!l~.~e~e*. n~accordsnh vith Ctan~y Stinderd llo, 103, ,$~ct, loe &,--( X3. 1M luddhider shall provide elflit7 cleerance fPm lancho Cellf. Ikter District prior tO the recorderIon of the fins1 rap. edstlnl essesmeet district er net. Zf net, the 1,rid file ml ~lpllcatlee vfth ~ fer annexation lale or treefloe o~ · "LI let ~llleslaeli Illtrlk~" In accordance vlth I ill'It,Jilt IJll I lie ellNlflatld idUI till project led lho4m oil the · sirrot ilalwovemn: pleas, 3I~"A Rrlll Idea Is reQuired for lienthe California Road, The rm of the ex~ltleI strllllal abel1 be the responsibility of the applicant, T attic IIInlal and Itrlplnl sM11 M done ~ County ferces eltk. alrl.:Jaearred tests brae 'iF. the Ippl lcln~, The role entrance gate fAiIi M located · sialmum of ZlO" frm t fin 1lee ef Fanche bllfernJa bed. GH:lh V tr.l~ I r4 30, :till kfldl mlt :IS.; '. ~ 200 feet Mllild ~ pl. oJect boo mlotofunoe I).Y Game, IL liecaries1 end coaeumlu't4oeu t, snghu shell .be provided accordance w!tb Ordl'nince 461o Standard 117,: 27, Aspbaltic maulslee (fag me1) lie11 be applied not less than fourteen ~ foilowl placouent of the laphilt sufficing and she be. ipplled It I rite :~ O,OS Illlee r squire 3are, Asphalt eoulltoe Shall confore tO Sections 3~ee 31 and 14 of the State 30, StOncl/rd Specifications, ~. Stlederd cul-de-sacs and knuckles and offset cul-de-sacs she, I~ contracted throghoet the lenddivision, Corner cutlacks In conformsnee vlth Connil S~sndere NoklOI sbe11 tie Iheun on the flee1 roll end offered for dedication ere applicable, ---.) Let access shell be reslrlctod on Kancho California:Road, NeWerIt bad, Kaiser PKrkel aml La Sara'till Ind so noted be the flea1 3:Z. tenddlvt~lono creating cut or f111 slopes ed3acont tO the streets r shall provide erosion control, sight distance cone ol and slope easements el appreved bl the bad Departsent, 32, All cantOrline. Intersections shill be st 90e· 33, . Tee street design end improvement concept of this pro3ect-sMll iN mardiluted vltn 11 2337l end 11 13373, :34, Street 11 halfig Sha)l be re lred In accordance utah Ordinance led 46X tZroughout the svbdfitlioe, Service Area (CSA~ kimlnlstrator determines ~ether this proposal quillfins under in e% ."COUNTY DEPARTMENT of HEALTH Jess 15, 1988 : ... -~' 10lO Lemon latest RAvoPside, CAllS0!. RWE~:UE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT II TRACT W liltS, That sePtate lead situated in o~ C&iifmrala,/etnl PiPetie i, I,l,4 and I st Parcel Litrough II at Parcel Maps in gbe Or/lee of tJse County , leeorder et said Riverside County toWeLher vtLls a portia the Ranshe TomeculL irant.ed by t, he levernaomi or the OutLet Itstee el America to Lute Viinee by patent dated January 1860 and recorded in the OPtics or the County leeorder San Dills County, Callremit (1.O19 Lots) ape,re. a, e,,~_:,... &ill Oentlemer~: The Department of Public Health has roYtoyed Tentative Map No. lllYl and recommends X valor system shall be installed according to plans usd specification as approved by the.rarer company and t.he Health Department.. Permanent. prints of the plans of the vat.or system shall be substated in triplica(e, with a mini=us Is&Is ask less than one inch equals 100 feet, along with the original driving to the County Surveyor. T~e prints shall obey the internal pipe diameter, locitim or valves .and ripe hydrants| pipe and Joint specifications, and the else of the main at the Junction st the hey system to the existing system. The plane shall comply in all respects vithDtv. S, Part. l, Chapter · of the California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code, Tit.is as, Chapter 36, and Oensr Order He. 103 ~t the Public Utilities Clanlisten State or CaXtFornia, vhen.nppltcable. 7he.tnvtromntal Ikelth SewIns has revlued Tract hal 23371, A~eded leap .Ib.I ~ted ~uly II. It~- k ~rrent ~nts vIII rmle as lrevlNsly s~ted In Nr letter ~ted Jn 13, lift JUL ~7 1988 .J JUne :Zl,..3988 : · Oafs time t,e treit, t~e eat. ielpstod antes free t, he propomed ~d_tt~t~,iL~ttitL_irtjttlLjtieL.St_~bt-~teatlL'geg-~.bt It,: will lie sweetstry fef' fiaine$&l &resalesonto go be 're&de paler .ts.t~e remotest, fee st t~e fSasl up, . ) t iverside C~mty Planning bp.t, le1~eo .' !' .. · ..-.. :... J~sse 11, ilSe b plsJ~$ shill be signed by I registered engineer and certify. this the design of the water eye tom in 'TrieS-Nip Jll.f%. is 'Recordirises with Life user OySteR' " expansion pious of the Jt&ncho hAilernit eater District sad that the valor service,sterile &p] distribution system viii be odequote to prowide nter service to ouch tract. This certifiesties does net constitute I · guarantee this it will supply water to such tries &t any specific quantities, floes or pressures for fire protection or any other purpose', This certifiestieR shall be signed by t responsible official of the visor cospiny. Zbt,nAsai_uvtt,kt,lviuilitd_te_tbt, egutr_ 8gE txIr',g, rrist_tl,£t It _Sl,ltSll_t e_v, ttbl_srigr_te ,bt_rtegt _gg£_ibt_£tSerisilSU_ei_lbt_gluil,UtU *.' TAts Department his s stilemeat from the Rimthe C&lifornie ester District ISree~ng to serve domestic voter to etch ins every lot in the subdivision on demsnd providing eerielottery finsJscill &rringemmnts ire templeSod with the subdivider, It viii be necmsssry for the lintstill srrsngemento to bm made prior to the recordirish or the ftn&l mip. This Department his t statement From the betera M~icip'&l ester District letseine to illov the subdivision sevkge gymtom to be Connect-ed to the severs of the District. The t sever system shill be ins oiled iceordeRS to plans ud ' specific&tieRs is spprovod by the District, the County Surveyor and the HeslthDepsrtment. Peru&neat prints or the plans or the sever system shill be submitted in triplicate, &long with the erieemil drawing, to the County Surveyor. The prints shill show the inSemil pipe diimeter, lociLion manholes, complete profiles, pipe and 3sins specificstieRs and the size of the severs it the 3unction or the new system to the existing system. I single pitt indicating lociteen of sever lines and.water lines shill be I portion or the sew&Be pl-~s and profiles. The pins shill be signed by rogistere~ engineer Ind the sever district with the following rsrtific&tionz el certify that the design of the sever system in Tract Hip 23171 is in accord&nee with sever system exp&nslon plans or the Astern Municipal District and that the viito dispeRil lyetom is idoqu&te & / RIVERSZDE COUNTY FLOOD CeNTReX. AND WAYJR CONSERVATION DISTRICT Juno 30, ZMI RiVerBide h~y " VeetJ~l~ract R337~ This ie · Iwoposal .~o divide abou~ 400 sere· in the Teascala OfflL'~e fZove from ~ ma:~or van:Sheds are tributazT sit0's northeast and southearL Born·re, h sppZicanr. proposes · O oe~t and ~ofsvay the flows from the northeast vith s s~orm dr·. eTltem~ ud the fZOeO from tbe'eout3~ast vLth · golf co, ~i~:~l~:nnc~ Vhere the noel afOBB under BAneha Oilira.' OJ~site flows vould be drained into the above lye systems vith streets ud g~ ~a~ns sa~rd~g m ~ mturaZ ~a~sge pt graded vl~ offsits ud usLte A~s ~etod ~U ~e ~o~s golf ~urse ud ~o~rswy ~aLnsgo hciZi~ss. ~Ls Is if · nsturaZ ~a/nsge ~tterns ~e ~ese,d ud ~e · ac~itie8 bye Oe ZOO ToM ea are the Dlst~lot's rocomendationss ~ooX/Teso~uXa VeXlet Area Brainage ,Su for vhich drainage fees have bee adopted IV the Board. Drainage foes shaZZ be paid as st forth under the l~ovisions of the cRuXes ud Regulations for Administration of Ares Drainage Plans®, -seeded IPebruktT 16, X9881 Drainage fees shaZZ be psid to the had as p~z.t of the filing for record of the subdivision final map or parcel rap, or if the recording-of · finaX parcel mp is wired, drainage fees eha?X be ~sid so · condition of the wive: prior to record" · cer~lfic·te of compli·nce evidencing the the psrcel mpf or RIverside Ceont, y nt Ce~Adngenglniltrtttve hater .- hliferatl ..... ' IJver~tdee- , knded No- I have rotewed this can and have the foilrating cements: --,,,..,,' natera1 watercourses for ImF~ sites. 1lie alters1 vltercoursel shell drainage patterns of ~i ires ud t$ pro an g A note should be Fluted on an environments1 constraint sheet stating, wall lullclings shall be fleedpreefed b3r elevating the finished floors a mining 18 inches above adjacent Found surface. tros4on protection shall I~ro~ for mobile home suFports- co: his 'pro:Jec~ ts'4n the drainage plan fees $hall be pat~ in accordance with the applicable r~les rngul at tons. 'The proposed thing ~11 consistent vtth existin flood hazards. Sore control facilities or ~NHIproOflng a&y be roqullrcd to fu117 develop tc taplied density, The District's report dated :Fu-e $e , left 1s still current for this pro The District does mot abject te t~e proposed Binor change. The attached cements app17, .- ~4 R,'Lvc'eLee ~?une 30, ZtII arose. ~ Jefat,;e d eetZet. eoadL?j, one, oth re:Lee, · drainage mooeat ebeuXd be 'eid. kbod from the effec~d' pfopei. z'ty me for VM; &'tiesee of ooaeen'r.:ated or di- ver~Od at·re bee A ooW of the forordeal tireLeaVe Meat. dtOuld b eUbmLt,v,,md to the DLet:Lct for review Mrior to the roeordeLtoa of the fJ~ mp- Zf the tract is lmil,t. Lu Ibeees, each Jabsee abel). be l~o'- tor, sd from the' Z An ZOO y. ear ~rilsu~aL7 s~orm flows. ~2 ·° Te erosion oatfeZ Bee·eros abound be tap:Lee·need ~ZY *foXled.rig rough gredin! to prevent. depoei~ion of debr/e oat· doeuetfeam prop·rile· or drainage faci,%&tJ. ee, Deve:Zolment of t3~e prop·re7 ebouXd be eoordLnet.ed with ~he dove:Loire·el of ed:Jeeent properr, Lee to ensure that vetercoureee retain unobstructed ud el·teeters ere not. divert.ed fram oao v~terebed to nether, 2~zLe may require the eonotfua~ion of tomporery drainage feellilies or . offmit.m ao~stfuet~on and grading. 13. Zvidence of a viable saintenanee seehanima ehould be sub- matted to &he District snd County for revAev and app:ova~ prAor to reeordatAon of the fans& sap, 14- ~ A eop~ of the L,~,oveaeat plens, grading plans end final map along with sup~ting bydro:~ogLo and hydraulic csX- cu~Zstions ~ould be eulmeitted to the DistfAct via the Road DeparUent for review end approva~ prior to records- ~Lon of the final rap, dr·dang p:Lene ahouZd be epp:oved Fief to leansnee of grading permit.e, R,LckEngineering ComPany ~ CivtX Engineer lAyeraide Coun~T June 1;* At the option of the land dAvidat, upon fAXAug s- quAred affAdavit requestAn· defaceout of the of feeas t. be drainage bee as7 be paid to the Building IlLteeter It the t.~mo of issuance of · grad- -" tonerdAng'of ~be mdmdATA~Loa fiaaX map. or par·el --'- - orX Vhere gradAn· of ao~ be ezeretmml fir ~t~a~ed on the parcel viahAd the pfAor I Fog perAod, or peraA~e for either tAvl~y leave bean issued eta ~Jsa~ parcel Vhl=h remain .·stAve- .. .. · ads lhou'Xd be l~evaLed 8~ 'leeads i foot. above the'X00 3Fear flood pXala in Vie ed:Joren~ ariA·aSs faciZttAes. Ereglen pestcacAos should be IeovAded for six fA,X a,ope, 3..,!tydroZogt~al and hydr·uli~ ~·l~uZations for beth the U~ porarF and uXt. Ama~· draAnage factlit-tea should be sulmaktt. 4. Oneida armhag· fawlXltia8 learned out·ado of road righ~ of wy shouZd be conuined viahArt &Tit·aVe ease·ate shown on ~h· fans, map, A no~e should be added to the fAnl~ mp s~atAng0 '."DriLuage eases·n%· shal~ of buiXdAng·- and .obs~.Tuetions" * S. Off·its drainage facilities should be located viabin publicly dedice~ed-drainage easements obtained fro· the a fleeced property Mere, TIes dec·aeries should be re- recordat. ton of the fAnaX map, 6, A~Z :Lo~s should be graded U arein to the sd~acen~ sires or on sdsqust, o out~·~,, . The Z0 year store fAov should be contained viabin the marb and the 100 year e~orm fAov should be contained vlLld~ the ·troe~ righ~ of ray, Vhen either of these cr~t, eri· is exceeded, addt',lonal drainage hcili~iee should be Lns~,a~ed* Drainage fsclZi~ies outle~lng sump conditions should designed to convey the t. Tlbu~ar~ 100 year storm flora. JkddAtionaX emexgenc7 escape should axes be provided, e,,;~ . *_~;~lt~.lClilll" "" glass lbsll Im referred t tin 'lY,~vh&.s I* fell,' firesial Offher Vide roepoet' to the' seMitime of apprev~ lot the 'ibm referenced hal division, the fife Department racenaiads the ftlAoeb8 fire protection measures be provl-ed in acaerdaaee u~de gAvelaide Cents 0fibsues tad/of roeopined fire prateeLL u TIRZ pgOIT, CTIOg i Tee water mains shaft he capehie of payidLe8 a potontta~ fire flay of H00 Grit .: tad au actuaX fire f~ov availsiZe free as7 eee hydrant ehe3A he 3J00 Glq( for Ii hours duratLee at 20 ~JZ restdart egorating pressure, &pproved super fire hydrants, (6'u&=z2igli) nhelA be Zetated at oath Latersection and spaced sot nora than 330 feet apart in me7 directtoe ~ith portion of sty Xot frontale more the X65 feet free a hydrant* · Applicant/developer shtlA fuf~tsh sue ne?7 of dee water stores piano ~0 the rare Department for fretaM. ~lane ehaXl e~on to She ~draut ides, Xocattn ~ spacing, a~, ~e afore shall met dee fire ~a requireseats, ~u ~ k stSued/approved by a feltstared civ~ eqtaeer ~ ~e Zeal vaLor sapany d~ -. ,-**-,.,.-.,,,,..--. ', ..-", The requiral water aTetees tucludinl fire kTdrants, sha%% be betaXlsd and aecap by the appropriate valet aleacT prior to sac eeebuettblo butidLeS mtttl~ 9laced oa an lud/vtd~ lot. " ~ but~tnlu sha~X be eonst~cted ~ fire retardant r--flag material as described in lestion ~03 of the hiram lutld~S ~e. by wood or shakes shaZZ We a ~ass uS= fat~S ~d sheXZ he approved bY ~ hparaaut ~riof to slSnSf%unt efTsa~ m tim ststm IsiSreSt systm sd' ths m-as. Anlr inssuets RlBlwsys I3~SSIAo fro" OffieisXJ~ssie llBJmsr DeslBnst. im, md in ~bs ~ qssy my. vtsds ts bays UmSs taste affLels~y issS. pta4 ms s mr4 sa,snl. e TMs porL/ms of' stsU MBbs~ hSs been ofTloSslly desSfnsted ss · sU: bi~mSy, md (Jmvelmt fs Umim eorrilJoi, rodmould be mmm~m vSUs ~ s, '%1~' gs I~soojnissd timre, ~ ls SmsSdsrsb.%e IroNtie aasarn sbmrr, nol ' s(,Wosnt, t,o bssvf&y trsvmbd · Land dsvs%c{ms~, tn ads- v$t,h tall oarmorn, m7 rociJ~~% M~ Ktemssr, im mmmurmm, prWe'ty shm~ invade shy mmsmm~ WJ~ m~t. emmmtimm, Nero-m1 TSght ~f ray kd.~u~Smm t.e mk . Ilsus& st. root Ssprovm $,o prorids Im3.rddSC~.h m tIM StS~, h ~ snd S~, Stste Stmdsrd ' slonS the sun bl~sT. snd/or by t~s ix~psr plm~ssnt .of' eno pm"kinl® STEM, l posS%lve vehlaslm' IsrrSsr m%q tAe pr~.y frontaim Is provSdsd to: Vehlaslsr stress not be deve2ops4 dirmV,,~y te ths rotrote hlSl~my, Td~cu)sr aocess ~o the mute ~Sl~m7 be p~ovSded by · rosd-type eom~.ct · Farm 8-1s3:)1~ CasT. FsrBT) (Con~msed m fevers4) June FiJU4N Nsr2sr%ts Vllls2e FZsnnSuB Department Attention · ICstbJr 6afford. RiverJAdes CA 92501 Sis. Oaffords Thank You for She opportunity'to review the proposed VestinS Treats a33Tle 233TZ, sad Z))T3 Zoosted essterZy of · HerBariUm load between leaabe taXilamAs lose sad Ls Serene ~Zesse refer go the attached material on vhieb our ooments have been indicated br the item ohecked and/or by those ltess noted under addit~onaX samsanta. 2f any work is noessurf within the state hilhwa7 rABbi of ~lstriot 8 Fe~s~t'Offioo prior to be21nninl york. Zf sdditionsZ inferssimon is desired, pZesso ConnsZXY st (?iQ) 383-a38a- Very truly ymarse H. m. LEWANI:~WSE3: Dietriot Permits ~nfinear oos Lee Johnson, Riverside COunty load Department meRe Oil IH~ STATION · C/14) ~; · Tune Xo, 3.gee Jl,~i 13 l::d '~ ssOlO Ideson 2~t~ J~vex.sLde, Ca:H. fonds 12103 FLANNIN(:3 DEF, AhTMENT We are'In met of your 3et'~m dSt'ed due X, Xllll ,cetved by ~m orfi~ m ~m I, Zlll. ~. ~ ~JaH a ~vtewed ~e · l~:o:te~t 21371, will increase the populatLon 2vou~ by app~x~telN ~li~onh ~ea ~ m ~sse ~ :~l ~ml, ~ese fl~s~~ tired a~ by amm~ ~at ~ ,sZduces have a ~bm of m The desSt-able x. esiden~/deputY'ratLo! is l.I deputies per l,O00 persons ,.,., les~ IX mat ~ u n/stY4 ~pulatJon of app~x~a~ely QI,O00 per ~. A~ ~esu~, m bye one de~ ~o c~e~ ~s ~s; · . ~ y~ have ny ~~ qu~s~lo~ o~ conn~ h ~2a~s ~o ~s ~cm~lon offad, p~ease do ~ hesitate ~o con~ac~ ~h~s office, S~ncemly, COle B~.YI~ SI4F. R)'FF Zake Zl, Sinox-e' Station s m mmmmmm idmmimmPim~m2mmfUmmU~mMtSmTW~m~~~--t~re. & lmft-em'm 2mmmm $,....J..e4.,f mmnF mm:~.mr7 midamen&, tm pr'ov~ded mm tbm MfJmmTm; . Ummm mute MStnmmTo · em'mffXm mmmlF SndSomtSn8 b 'raminS g-e~%e flora ]mr~tmm-nm mind vohmmm, pe'ob~ impram, mmmd Im'eFmmed miUptim, mmmmm'mm tm prmpmrmd. m ~ offemU-o~ pmrkf~, utmim dmmm mmm roqulm. m bmc~f.n[ on~ ~t mU~e I "bopfolded. lot. be developed in · mt. lm% ~m~12 mmm% omume my ve!~culmr move sszrsasUs sun mstms .= lnf ne~mmam7 m~lmm ml;~um~.lm Im ~rm-t~m~ am par~ ~f ~ devt~ms~nl; mmf · ]".mama rmfmr f~m mT,~me. hed mddl%Smm~ rantre. · malq uf mmy litgram of spprmral mr rmvlMd spitram1, · ocqyy rod' may eee-.ent, m a.m:ordmtXomm rod' L u:.:ck prln~, of the ~.mnm f~ tony ~s~s-~vmtm ~ttl..~ thm s~m%e hif~dm~ rt bray, If required. · dsck lr&n'- ef *..bin Orsdin& and Drainage Plmna fw U~ls-properly uty.,~svm~ ATTACHMENT NO. 5 EXHIBITS S~ST&r. RIFT~23372V"rM. CC CITY OF TEMECULA_D I I I TY PARK I kRITA ~VlLLAGI //""' "' THE MEADOWS · SP_21,,I / .' (--~eUT'H~IE~TA~EA ~ CASE ,NO.~t~/,~ EXHIB: r NO. ,le;C. DATE CITY OF TEMECULA I0 Sa^ D,ego VICINITY MAP N.T.S. ):~'CASE NO.Y13~-?'-! EXHIBIT NO. ~P,C. DATE~_~ CITY OF TEMECULA ) A E NO C $ EXHIBIT NO. ~P.C. DATE leeR IN| CITY OF TEMECULA , r t IN l -./ I!lllilll ~C&SE NO.~/~ EXHIBIT NO. ~P;C. DATE ATTACHMENT NO. 6 DEVB. OPMENT FEE CHECKLIST $~TANciI~"~3372Vlld. CC 18 CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO.: Vesting Tomerive 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 AnDroyal Condition No. 1 Condition No. 15 Condition No. 9 Condition No.3 Condition No. 2 Condition No, 6 Condition No, 5 Consistent with Specific Plan Consistent with Future General Plan YES YES ITEM 20 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department April28, 1992 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373 RECO1VIMF-NDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the City Council: APPROVE the attached Stipulation and Order providing for the clean-up of the Long Valley Wash by the Buie Corporation, and; REAFFIRM Environmental Assessment No. 32547 for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373, and; ADOPT a Resolution entitled: "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula approving the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 23373 to subdivide 29.3 acres into 7 lots with 348 condominium units and 1 commercial lot located northerly of Rancho California Road on the west side of Meadows Parkway and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 923-210-014," and; APPROVE the First 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. BACKGROUND At the meeting of February 25, 1992 the .Council requested that Staff, the applicant, and representatives of the Villages Home Owners Association (VHOA) meet to discuss the situation relative to erosion. In response to that request the City Attorney, Director of Public Works, and representatives of Bedford Properties, the Buie Corporation and the VHOA met on March 3, 1992. S\STAFFKIY~23373 .CC 1 As a result of that meeting, a tentative resolution was agreed upon. Bedford Properties has agreed to pay the VHOA' $15,000.00 for past siltation and erosion problems. The Buie Corporation will pay an additional $5,000.00 if the VHOA installs a concrete ribbon in the wash. In addition, the Buie Corporation will clean the Long Valley Wash beginning no later than July 1, 1992 and completing the work no later than July 31, 1992 and assume the obligation of future maintenance of the Wash, until such time as the City releases erosion control bonds for the subject tract. The agreement will then be contingent on the bankruptcy court approval of the document. At its regular meeting on March 24, 1992 the City Council continued the consideration of the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373. This item was continued to the meeting of April 28, 1992. Staff's recommendation is contingent upon all of the documents being properly signed prior to the City Council meeting on April 28, 1992. If the documents are not properly signed, Staff's recommendation would be for a continuance. vgw Attachments: 2. 3. 4. Resolution - page 3 Stipulation and Agreement for the Long Valley Wash clean-up - page 9 City Council Minutes, March 24, 1992 - page 10 City council Report, March 24, 1992 - page 11 S\STAFF~373 .CO 2 ATTACHlVIP. NT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. S~STAFFRPT~23373.CC 3 ATTACHlVfENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 92-_ A RESOL~ON OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF THF~ CITY OF TEMECULA APFROVING ~ FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESIlNG TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23373 TO SUBDIVIDE 29.3 ACRES INTO 7 LOTS WITH 348 CONDOMIN1UM UNITS AND 1 COMMI~,RCIAL LOT LOCATEF} AT ~ NORTHWEST CORNER OF RANCHO CALI~'ORNIA ROAD AND MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 923-210-014. WHEREAS, The Buie Corporation fried 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 heating, 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 April 28, 1992, at which time interested persons had an oppermnity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Council hearing, the Council approved said Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following f'mdings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shah 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 S\STAFFRPT~23373.CC 4 2. The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: a. There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be: consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied Within a reasonable time. b. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan ff 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 mended 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 Vesting Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Cede, to wit: The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general 2. 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: a. 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. b. There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan ff 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. Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460, no subdivision may be approved unless the following f'mdings are made: specific plans. That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and S\STAFF~373 .CC 5 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. 3. That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of development. 4. That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the proposed density of the de~telopment. 5. 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. 6. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 7. 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. E. The Council in approving the proposed First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373, makes the following f'mdings, to wit: 1. There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law, due to the fact that the project is consistent with existing site development standards in that it proposes articulated design features and site amenities commensurate with existing and anticipated residential development standards. 2. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future and adopted general plan, if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that the project is in conformance with existing and anticipated land use and design guidelines standards. 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. S\STAFFRPT~23373.CC 6 provided along the projeet's public and private frontages; and the internal circulation plan should not create traffic conflicts as design provisions are in conformanee with adopted City standards. 5. The project as designed and condifioned will not adversely affect the public health or weftare, due to the fact that the conditions stated in the approval are based on mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate potential adverg impacts of the project. 6. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area, due to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the current zoning of the subject site. 7. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the Negative Declaration for the project, due to the fact that impact mitigation is realized by conformante with the project's Conditions of Approval. 8. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project currently proposes access points from Meadows 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 this application and herein incorporated by reference, due to the fact that they are referenced in the attached Sta/f Report, Exhibits, and Conditions of Approval. F. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373 is compatible with the health, safety and weftare 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 for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373 for the subdivision of 29.3 acres into 7 lots with 348 condominium units and 1 commercial lot located at the northwest corner of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway and known as Assessor's Parcel no. 923-210- 014 subject to the following conditions: Riverside County Conditions of Approval dated November 8, 1988. City of Temecula Conditions of Approval dated November 4, 1991. City of Temecula Conditions of Approval dated February 25, 1992. S',STAFYRPT~23373 .CC 7 ATTACItMENT NO. 2 STWULATION AND AGREEVI~NT FOR THE LONG VALLEY WASH CLEAN-UP SXSTAFFRFr~.3373.CC 9 1 2 4 5 7 9 10 11 12 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 2~. 24 25 26 27 28 SCOTT F, FIELD, CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TE~ECUI~; and BURKE, WILLIANS & SO~NS~ 3200 Bristol S~. Suite 640 Costa Nasa, Califo~ia 92626 (213) 23~-0~00 Attorneys for CITY OF T!~ECULA UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA In re MARGARITA VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Debtor. CASE NO. 91-14308-Hll STIPULATION FOR COMPROMISE OF CLAIMS AGAINST CHAPTER 11 ESTATE WHEREAS, the County of Riverside approved Tentative Tract Map Nos. 23371-A and 23371-B for Margarita Village Development Company ("MVDC"); WHEREAS, on or about March, 1989, MVDC signed an Agreement for EroSion Control and Landscape Improvements for Tract No. 23371-A; WHEREAS, on or about August, 1989, MVDC executed an Agree- ment for Erosion Control and Landscape Improvements for Tract No. 23371-B; WHEREAS, pursuant to both of these Agreements, MVDC graded said Tr&cts; WHEREAS, both of these Agreements required that MVDC 1 2 4 5 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2~ 24 25 26 27 28 maintain the'graded land until the development is complete, and during ~his maintenance period 'to restore, repair and replace, to the satisfaction of ~he Buildinq OffiCial, any defective work or labor done or defective materials furnishedl WHEREAS, an extensive amount of silt from said Tract Nos. 23371-A and B has been deposited downstream in the culvert underneath Palomar Village and in the Long Valley Wash adjacent to Tract No. 207351 WHEREAS, Bedford Development Company ("Bedford") owns Palomar Village; WHEREAS, as a condition of approval for the parcel map for real property comprising Palomar Village, located at Margarita and RanCho California Roads, the business association for said property was to guarantee maintenance of the culvert underneath said property, as documented in the letter from Riverside County Flood Control and Water District to Robert Been, William Frost and AssOciates, dated May li, 1989; WHEREAS, the Villages Homeowners Association ("VHA") has responsibility pursuant to Tract No. 20735 to maintain the Long Valley Wash a part of said Tract; WHEREAS, on December ~, 1989, the City of Temecula incorporated, succeeding to the rights and duties of the County of Riverside, including the performance bonds referenced below; WHEREAS, Section 6.14.O02(b) Of the Temecula Municipal 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 -2- ~ 1 2 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 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; WHEREAS, on or about November, 1990, the city of Temecula directed VHA to remove the silt deposited in Long Valley Wash, and VHA removed said silt at a cost of approximately $80,000.00; WHEREAS, VHA contracted for Soil Tech, Inc., to prepare a limited erosion study for Long Valley Wash; WHEREAS, said study,indicates that as of September 28, 1990, MVDC has contributed 78% of the soil deposited in Long Valley Wash, which was subsequently removed by VHA; WHEREAS, approximately 3,600 yards of additional silt has been deposited in the culvert underneath Palomar Villaqe and in Long Valley Wash since the previous cleanup, which silt has been derived almos~ entirely from Tracts 23371-A and B; WHEREAS, City asserts a claim against NVDC and Bedford pursuant to the City Grading, Nuisance and Subdivision Ordinances, and the Tract Map Conditions, to compel a cleanup of Long Valley Wash and the culvert under Palomar Village; WHEREAS, MVDC specifically denies each and every one of the above Recitals, but agrees to this Stipulation in order to buy its peace and to obtain an amicable resolution to the Recitals contained hereinabove; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS FOLLOWS: TBId/Ila733P.STP -3- 1 2 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23' 24 25 27 28 1, Bedford will pay to VHAwt~htn fifteen (15) business days of Court approval of thls order, Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000) to settle any claims of VHA, MVDC and the City as to silt in the culvert underneath Palomar Village, and to facilitate future maintenance of the culvert and Long Valley Wash. 2. MVDC shall, beginning no later than July 1, 1992, and completed no later than by July 31, 1992, repair and regrade the Lon~ Valley Wash between Yukon Road and Humbet Drive, along Rancho California Road, in Tract No. 20735 to planned elevati~ns by Robert Bein, WillJams Frost and Associates, dated December 1985, to the following specifications: A. Scope of work is to include the following: (1) Clearln9 and disposal of all trees, brush and trash. (2) Excavation and export of material to restore channel to planned elevations. (3) Fine regrading of flowlines and slopes to planned elevations and lines set by a registered California civil engineer, mutually acceptable to the parties, at MVDC,s expense. (4) If work is not completed by July 15, 1992, MVDC or its contractors shall use water trucks to irrigate the adjacent grass and trees. (5)All sprinklers and irrigation equipment shall 'rp-~llo733p.8'lT ~mvr2) --4-- ~ 1 2 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 -20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 C. D. E. be repaired and bs in good'working order upon completion. (6) Underground flow pipe shall be cleaned, repaired and put into good working order upon completion. All adjacent landscaping shall be replaced or repaired. (8) Notify VHA at least one week before work begins. MVDC or its contractor shall be responsible for locating a dump site of its choice. ~VDC or Its contractor shall hold VHAharmless of any problems occurring from dump site. MVDC, itself, or through its contractor shall provide all equipment, material, and labor necessary to perform said work at its cost, and shall indemnify and hold VHA, City and Bedford harmless from all claims for liability based upon, or damages arising from, work performed hereunder or breach of any portion of this Agreement by MVDC, its contractors, agents or employees. It will be MVDC's or its contractor's responsibility to contact Underground Service Alert and all other concerned agencies for the locations of all existing utilities within the described work area. MVDC and its contractor shall be solely I T'~M/! I0733P.S'I'r 4~t~,8?) -- 5 -- 1 3 7 10 11 14 ~5 responsible for protection of the streets, curb, sidewalk, landscaping, etc., at and between the job site and dump site. It shall also include all traffic control and street washing necessary to .perform its work at its sole cost. NVDC or its contractor shall name VHA, City and Bedford as additional insureds on its liability insurance policy and provide a certificate of insurance. NVDC or its contractor will supply' proof of appropriate workmen's compensation insurance. Construction water and construction water meter will be provided by HVDC or its contractor as it is needed. MVDC, or its successors and assigns, shall continue to maintain Long Valley Wash to the abo~ specifications in the manner provided above, at its sole cost, up to and until the City of Temecula releases Faithful Performance Bond for Erosion Control and Landscape Improvements for Tract 23371-1, Bond No. 7900527607, and Faithful Performance Bond for Erosion Control and Landscape Improvements for Tract 23371-B, Bond No. 7900529484. Further, nothing herein may be construed as a waiver by the City of its right, if any, to require the surety of said bonds to perform any obligation of MVDC under this 3'IDd/tIOT33P.S3T 4/08/92) 1 2 4 5 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 17 18' 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 Stipulation, or as provided for under said Bonds or the Agreements they secure· The City shall use its best efforts to notify VHA of any application for release of said bonds no less than sixty (60) days prior to the release of said performance bonds. All parties agree that prior to the release of said Bonds, Long Valley Wash must be cleaned and ragfaded ~o the above specifications and further, the underqround flowpipe shall be restored to a working order as well as the adjacent sprinkler systems. Further, If in the opinion of the City Engineer a significant amount of slit remains in the culvert underneath Palomar Village, a~ the end of the term of this Agreement, the bonds will not be released, and MVDC, its assigns or successors shall clean 'said Palemar box culvert as well. Further, any damaqe done to any concrete drainage improvements VHA installs, shall he repaired. VHA may submit an invoice up to the amount of $5,000 for building and completing concrete drainage improvements extending from Yukon to Mumber in the Long Valley Wash up until December 1, 1992. Upon submission of said invoices to MVDC in a timely fashion, said invoices shall be paid by MVDC up to the amount of $5,000 in not less than 10 days. T!3Jki/|IO?33P.rrP 4/(M~2) --7-- 1 2 5, 6 ? 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~ In consideration of the promises contained herein, VHA and its owners, agents, assigns and successors~ in interest do hereby release and discharge MVDC, its officers, agents, employees and successors in interest, from any and all rights, claims, demands, and damages of_any kind, known or unknown, asserted or unasserted, resulting from or related to the silt previously deposited, presently existing or which may be deposited f~om Tract 22371 in Long Valley Wash and the culvert beneath Palomar Village. In consideration of the promises contained herein, VHA and its owners, agents, assigns and successors in interest do hereby release and discharge the City, and Bedford, and their officers, agents, employees and successors-in-interest from any and all rights, ~laime, demands, and damages of any kind, known or unknown, asserted or unasserted, resulting from or related to the silt previously deposited, presently existing, or which may be deposited TromMVDC or other upstream undeveloped land in Long Valley Wash and the culvert beneath Palomar Village. In consideration of the promises contained herein, City, and its owners, agents, assigns and successors in interest do hereby release and discharge the VHA, and Bedford, and their 1 4 6 8 9 lo 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 officers, agents, employees and successors-in- interest from any and all rights, claims, demands, and damages of any kind, known or unknown, asserted or unasserted, resulting from or related to the silt previously deposited, presently existing, or which may be deposited from MVDC or other upstream undeveloped land in Long Valley Wash and the culvert beneath palomar Village, through the date of release of the bonds described at Section 2.H. In consideration of the promises contained herein, Bedford, and its owners, agents, assigns and successors in interest do hereby release and discharge the City and VHA, and their officers, agents, employees and successors-in-interest from any and all rights, claims, demands, and damages of any kind, known or unknown, asserted or unasserted, resulting from or related to the silt previously deposited, presently existing, or which may be deposited from MVDC or other upstream undeveloped land in Long Valley Wash and the culvert beneath Palomar VIllage- In consideration of the promises contained herein, MVDC, and its owners, agents, assigns and successors in interest do hereby release and discharge Bedford, the City and V~A, and their officers, agents, employees and successors-in- x 2 3 4 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 28 interest from any and all rights, claims, demands, and damages of any kind, known or unknown, ~ asserted or unasserted, resulting from or related to the silt previously deposited, presently existing, or which may be deposited from MVDC or other upstream undeveloped land in Long Valley Wash and the culvert beneath Polomar Village. 4. The parties hereto understand and agree that all of their rights under Section 1542 of the Civil Code of California or any similar law of any state or territory of the United States, are hereby expressly waived. Said Section reads as follows: "Section 1542. General Release-Claims ~xtinguished. A general release does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the time of executing the release, which if known by him, must have materially affected his settlement with the debtor.- 5. It is understood and agreed that this Stipulation represents settlement of disputed claims and is not to be construed as representing an admission of liability on behalf of any party to this stipulation. The Parties, however, intend to buy their peace and to forever provide a full and complete release and discharge from any and all liability arising out of the transactions, matters.and events more Particularly identified hereinabove. 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO ll 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6. The parties hereto expressly warrant, ~epresent, and agree that in executing this Stipulation, they do so with full knowledge of any rights which they have or may have with respect to the Other, and that they have received independent legal advice from their respective attorneys with respect to this Stipulation, and with respect to the hereinabove referenced dispute. The parties hereto acknowledge that after entering into this Stipulation, they may discover different or additional facts concerning the subject matter of this Stipulation or their understanding of those facts. The parties hereto, therefore, expressly assume the risk of such facts being so different and agree that this Stipulation, shall in all respects, be effective and not subject to reecission, cancellation or termination by reason of any such additional or different facts. 7. Should any party bring an action against the other for the purpose of enforcing the terms of this Stipulation, or for damages arising from its breach, then in such event, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its reasonable attorneys fees and costs in addition to any other award entered by the Court. 8. This Stipulation shall inure to the benefit of the parties and to their respective successors, representatives and assigns, and shall be binding upon each of the foregoing. 9. This Stipulation shall, in' all respects, be interpreted, enforced and governed by and under the laws of the State of California. This Agreement contains the entire ~xsew~px~ ~u~ -11- 1 5 ? lO 15 ~0 agreement and understanding between the parties ~oncerning the subject matter hereof and supersedes and replaces all prior negotiations, proposed agreements or agreements, whether written or oral. This Stipulation may be signed in counterpart. 10. This Stipulation shall be subJec= to Bankruptcy Court approval because it affects the rights and/or obligations of MVDC. This Stipulation shall not be binding on any of the parties hereto unless and until such approval is procured and the Stipulation becomes effective as to MVDC. MVDC shall apply for such approval within two (2) business days of MVDC bankruptcy counsel's receiving written notification of this Stipulation's execution by VHA, Bedford and MVDC. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing to the contrary, the enforcement and interpretation of this S~ipulation shall not be subject to the Jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court, except to the extent such enforcement or interpretation affects the rights or obligations of MVDC under this Stipulation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the undersigned have executed this Stipulation on the date and year indicated below. Each of the below named persons warrant that they are duly authorized to sign this agreement on behalf of their principal and are authorized to bind their principal to this Stipulation. 23 24 25 26 27 28 TEM/ilOT.13P.STP 4/(]8/~J2) --12-- ~ EgLIIT,' I'lGIfl. TEL 714- 676-~15,-1 P. 2 ~ ' I'll.r,'21 'c:32 12:28 1 2 4 6 9 · 10 11 12 14- 15 17 19 21 22 23 24 26 27 Dated: Dar-e~; Da~ad://~ Dated: Dated: Datad~ Dated: 1'992 , 1992 , 1992 1992 1992 ,-1992 1992 CITY OF TEMmO~LR By: PATKICIA BIRDSALL, MAY~R BEDFORD DNVNL,OPLg-k~ COMPANY Byz Name: Title: THE VXLLAOF. S ~iONEOWN~RS aSBOCZATZON COM~Ma, a California Joint venture By~ BUIE-RANCHO CALIFORNIA, LTD., · California limited partnership By: THE BUIE CORPORATION, a California corporation, General partner By: By: NEVADA-RAnCH6 CALIPORNIA, LTD- a California limited partnership By: NEVADA CAPITAL, LTD. a California corporation, General Partner By: TBl. e'fl0?]JP STP 4/Olrg"2) --13 ' 1 2 ;5 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ' 12 1-~ 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 APPROVED AS TO FORM: WILtlaMB & BO~tENBEN Scott F. Field, City Attorney CXTY OP T~MBCULa Dated: By: : Dated: ViCtor Vilaplana, Esq. Attorneys for MARGARITA VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT COMFANY EPSTEN & GRINNELL By: Dated: At r VILXAGE~ HOMg-OWNERS MBOCZa~TXON DZNNIB XLIMMEK By: Dennis Klimmek, Esq. Attorney for BEDFORD DEVELOPMEIT~ COMPANY Dated: , 1992 , 1992 , 1992 , 1992 TSUIt0733P~T~ 4me~nj -14- ATTACH1VI'!r. NT NO. 3 CITY COUNCIL MINUTF~, MARCH 24, 1992 S\STAFF~373.CC 10 City Council Minutes March 24. 1992 12.2 Authorize the release of street and water system Faithful Pe~ Warranty Certificate of Deposit in Parcel Map No. 24239 Direct the City Clerk to process the release of funds. ~ing Records Destruction/Retention Sc the staff report. to the destructi, over to City Clerk June Councilmember Mu~oz ob and requested that these be Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans su years. City Council Meeting video tapes for preservation. the tapes for five years instead of twc It was moved by Mayor Pro TE by Councilmember Mu~oz tc approve staff recommenda with the ~tion of Section E of the policy tc change the period of retE of videc tapes to 5 years. 4.1 Ado entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 92-17 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE 3 THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN PROVIDED BY SECTION 34090 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE OF CALIFORNIA The motion was unanimously carried. TEMECULal CO.RDS A~c STATE PUBLIC HEARINGS 13. VestinQ Tentative Tract 23372 - Buie Margarita Village (Continued from the meeting of 2/24/92) 14. Vestinq Tentative Tract 23373 - Buie Margarita Villaee (Continued from the meeting of 2/24/92) Mayor Birdsall opened the public hearings for Items 13 and 14 at 7:35 PM. Mi nutes\3\24~92 - 5- 04116/92 City Council Minutes' March 24. 1992 It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans to continue Vesting Tentative Tract 23372 and 23373 to the meeting of April 28, 1992. The motion was unanimously carried. rector of Planning Gary Thornhill presented the staff report. Birdsall opened the public hearing at 7:40 PM. Larry lam, 41750 Winchester Road, Ste N, representing the statec staff lended approval of this Zone Change at both Commissior hearings. tted subsequent to the hearings, a draft land u was developec that desi s area as commercial. He stated the deve is comfortable witr the uses propose~ 'staff, however in the continuing dialo with the school district several uses moved from unacceptable to V acceptable. He stated with these m~ :ations, the developer feels as made a substantial effor' at working out a favora ~romise. Mayor Birdsall asked for a of support people stood in support of ~e chang{ Robert Kosslyn, representing Tern objections of the School District. the audience. Approximately Unified School District, clarified the Mayor Birdsall called a brief reconvened at 8:59 PM. to change the tape. The meeting wa= Iris Abernathy, 43980 stating this property arita Road, spoke i; by property des of Change of Zone No. 18 ~ted commercial. Don Rohrabacker 1 Flores Drive, spoke in opt within the Los :hitos area. commercial developmen Melville 30600 De Portola, spoke in opposition to the of Zone. Terry tl speaking on behalf of the Board of the Los Ranch ~tion, spoke against development within the Los Ranchitos af set a preceden~t for further commercial development within Homeowner Anthony Rapoza, 44300 La Paz, spoke in opposition to the Change of Zone N~ to the Council recognizing a show of support from people whose addresses were not given. Minutes~3~24\92 -6- 04116/92 ATTACHIVfF~NT NO. 4 CITY COUNCIL REPORT, MARCH ?..4, 194)2 3\STA~373.CC l l APPRO~ CITY A'I'FORNEY TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Cou~cillCity Manager Planning Department March 24, 1992 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23372 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the City Council: REAFFIRM Environmental Assessment No. 32547 for Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 23372 and 23373, and; ADOPT a Resolution entitled: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula approving the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 23373 to subdivide 29.3 acres into 7 lots with 348 condominium units and I commercial lot located northerly of Rancho California Road on the west side of Meadows Parkway and known as assessor's parcel No. 923-210-014, and; APPROVE the First Extensions of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 23372 and 23373, based on the Analysis-and Findings contained in the staff report, and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. BACKGROUND At its regular meeting on February 25, 1992 the City Council continued the consideration of the First Extensions of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 23372 and 23373. The items were continued to the meeting of March 24, 1992. The Council requested that Staff, the applicant, and representatives of the Villages Home Owners Association (VHOA) meet to discuss the situation relative to erosion. In response to that request the City Attorney, Director of Public Works, and representatives of Bedford Properties, the Buie Corporation and the VHOA met on March 3, 1992. S%STAFFRFT%23373V'TM.MEM As a result of that mejting, a tentative resolution was agreed upon. Bedford Properties and the Buie Corporation have agreed to jointly pay the VHOA $15,000.00 for past siltation and erosion problems, plus an additional e5,000.00 if VHOA installs a concrete ribbon in the wash. In addition, the Buie Corporation will clean the Long Valley Wash in May, assume the obligation of future maintenance of the Wash, until such time as the City releases erosion control bonds for the subject tracts. The agreement will then be contingent on the bankruptcy court approval of the document. The Staff recommendation above is contingent upon all of the documents being properly signed prior to the City Council meeting on March 24, 1992. If the documents are not properly signed Staff's recommendation would be for a continuance. vgw Attachments: Resolution - page 3 City Council Minutes, February 25, 1992 - page 9 City Council Report, February 25, 1992 - page 10 S%STAFF:IF1'~3373V'TIA. MEM 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RESOLUTION NO. 5%.STAI::FRPI%23373V'TM.MEM 3 RESOLUTION NO. 92-._ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 'TEMECULA APPROVING THE RRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 23373 TO SUBDIVIDE 29.3 ACRES INTO 7. LOTS WITH 348 CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND I COMMERCIAL LOT LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 923- 210-014. WHEREAS, The Buie Corporation filed the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map on November 4, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS. at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map; WHEREAS, the City Council considered said First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map on March 24, 1992, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Council hearing, the Council approved said Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373; NOW. THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE. DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: The city is proceeding 'in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. S~STAFFRFT~23373VTM.IVEM 4 e 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 wi~h 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. S%STAFFRFT~3373VTM.MEM 5 That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general end specific plans. That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of development. That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. A land division may be approved if it is found that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record. or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. The Council in approving the proposed First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373, makes the following findings, to wit: There is a reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law, due to the fact that the project is consistent with existing site development standards in that it proposes articulated design features and site 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%STA~3373VTM.MEM 6 The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land usb in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and density, due to the fact that; adequate area is provided for all proposed residential structures; adequate landscaping is provided along the project's public and private frontages; and the internal circulation plan should not create traffic conflicts as design provisions are in conformsrice with adopted City standards. The 'project as designed end conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or v~elfare, due to the fact that the conditions stated in the approval are based on mitigation measures necessary ~o 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. Ge The project .as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the Negative Declaration for the project, due to the fact that impact mitigation is realized by conformance with the project's Conditions of Approval. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and us. able by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project currently proposes access points from Kaiser Parkway which have been determined to be adequate by the City Engineer. 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 prolDerty 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. e As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373 is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and the Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby reaffirmed. S%STAFFFIP'r~3373VTM~MEM 7 SECTION 3. Condido.ni. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves the First Extension of Time Vesting Tentative TraCt Map No. 23373 for the subdivision of 29.3 acres into 348 condominium units and 1 commercial lot located at the northwest corner of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway and known as Assessor's Parcel no. 923-210-014 subject to the following conditions: Riverside County Conditions of Approval dated November 8, 1988 City of Temecula Conditions of Approval dated November 4, 1991 City of Temecula Conditions of Approval dated February 25, 1992 SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVE) AND ADOPTED this 24th day of March, 1992. PATRICIA H. BIRDSALL MAYOR I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 24th day of March, 1992 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCILMEMBERS JUNE S. GREEK CITY CLERK S%STAFFlIP1'~3373VTM.IVEM ATTACHMENT NO. 2 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES, FEBRUARY 25, 1992 S'~,,STA;3373V'TIvI.ItaEM 9 FebHerr 25. 1992 tO 9, there is a'problem with the language regarding park improvements City for maintenance. He recommended approving the veloping a revised Section 7, accepting dedication pursum the Community Services District. ect ular It was moved approve the 8ttac subject to staff dev Pro Tem Lindemans, seconded by tmorandum of Understanding (MOU) g a revised Section 7, as Moore to Paloma del Sol, the City Attorney. The motion was carried b following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCIl Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Birdsall NOES: I COUNCILMEMI Mufloz ABSENT: 0 COUNCI None Councilmember M~ voted in opposition should be asse. t the original 65 acres instead Memorandu~ Understanding. ~use he feels the Quimby Fees amount listed in the RECESS BirdSall called a recess at 8:00 PM. The meeting was re( Cy Services District Meeting ht 8:16 PM. ling the PUBLIC HEARINGS 17. Vestina Tentative Tract 23372 - Buie Meroarita Villaae 18. VestinQ Tentative Tract 23373 - Buie Marqarita Village City Attorney Field stated the applicant does not agree with the Conditions of Approval contained in the staff report and is agreeable to a four week continuance to the meeting of March 24, 1992. Mayor Birdsall asked if those who submitted a request to speak slip would be willing to speak on the issue at a later point. David Michael, 30300 Churchill Court, President of the Villages Homeowners Association, asked that the concerned parties meet and work out a solution prior to the night of the Council Meeting. Minutee~2~25%S 2 -7- 03113/12 ,--.. ,-. DRAFT .. ,-, Councilmember MuSoz removed himself from discussion due to a conflict of interest. Loree Santamoro, addressed the Buie Margarita Village maintenance yard, stating that maintenance of this property has been neglected and other requirements have not been met. She stated permits have expired and this poses a health and safety issue. Mayor BirdSell stated this item is not on the agenda but asked staff to look into this problem and come back with e report. Mayor Pro Tem Lindemans asked that when an item is continued, public comment not be taken because it is unfair to the applicant who does not have the opportunity to respond. It was moved by Mayor Pro Tam Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to continue Items 17 and 18 to the meeting of March 24, 1992. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Birdsall NOES: 0 ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: Mufloz 20. MitiGated NeGative Declaration and Condemnation of Prooertv (AP No. 921-300-00ilk s moved by Mayor Pro Tern Lindemans, seconded by CouncilmembA, ' -~re to this item to the meetin'g of May 12, 1992. ,__ The moti~ by the following vote: AYES: 4 CILMEMBERS: NOES: 0 COUN. ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMB~.~, A:~ ' ~ -- -' Lind~> ;-/sS, Moore, Parks, BirdSall - ,-NOne None )Z ABSTAIN: 1 COUNCIl.r..,-.~ERS: Councilmember MuAo?..-: ~'~.~'ed' he abstained to avoid interest. ""' '-" ,, :" ":~/'- Ordinance~.2ouire Fire Resistive Roof CoverinGs Tony,-',.; ,so, Chief Building Official, presented the staff report, ..'-.dyor Birdsall opened the public hearing at 8:35 PM. 3rance of a conflict of Minutes%2%25%92 -8- 03113/12 A'i'i'ACHMENT NO. 3 CITY COUNCIL REPORT, FBRUARY 25, 1992 S%$TAFt:ItxT~23373V'TM.MEM 10 CITY ATTORI~'~i, ROV~~, TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA lIEPORT 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'. $~TA~3373-1 .CC At preeat, m joint application is being pursued by Buie Corporation end the City to obtain relief from the benlcruptcy stay to permit monies to be paid over to the Village Homeowners Ateoc, i.rti0n to clean out the wat~. On e related matter, the City Attorney has made demand upon Bedford to clean the silt oLrc of the underground culvert under Palemar V'dlmge in between Buie's property and the Village. As of ~ writing, no re~poetse has been received from Bedford. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Vesting Tentative Tract Map NO. 23373 DaTe Al~lxoved Public Wedca Department Prior to March 25, 1992, the Buie Corporation shall make arrangements to remove all the sedimeRrfrom the open channel end box culvert north of Rancho California Road between Margarita Road end Humber Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. $~TAFFIleT~337~l.CC 3 &Allif 04~1~l B13'RXZ, 'W"rr-'r-T-'a-m & ,.qOZLWa':eX' COl"rA Mr,,,IA, ~&I, JIPOIIINtA IReif Fe.bz'u&Ty ~0, ~992 ~tle lqklleeltii lull. D, Nr. Greg ~rl~cson BEDFORD PROPertieS 2876S Single Oak Drive Suite 200 Temecula, CA g2S90-0736 Re: 'rite Rox ~,lver'c -~R,r pmlowm~ V411age Dear Greg: At the last Council Resting and during the hearing on the Temeku tract map extension, it was brought out that the box culvert underneath Pal,mar Village in the Luck~ Shopping Center ~, is heavily clogged vith silt. The tract map conditions for thik 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 ll, 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 Ran-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. Febfaery Page Please call ms as soon as possible as to when we might expect the culvert will be cleared of silt, 2~ncerely, City Attorney CITY OF TE!~CUlA CC2 Gary Thornhill, Planning Director Tim Setlet, City Engineer Dennis Klismek, Esq. motion was c:eTied by the following yea: AYES: B COUNCILMEMBERS: Moore, Mufioz, Parks, NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 Norm RI:CFS-e Mayor Birdsell ellled · recall previoully Icheduled PUBLIC! HFARINn Councilmember review tapes C was reconvened following the although he was abeam st the to ~n~--te on the public hearings. jncil meeting, he did MuRoz stated he would be absent from voting on Items 10 11 due to a 10. Isall announced that Items 10 and 11 would be heard concurrently. yestina Tentative Tract MaD No. ~3372 - Buie Corporation - Maraarite ViilaDe Soecmc 11. Vestina Tentative Tract MaD NO. :~3373 - Buie Corporation - Maroarita ViilaDe Soecifi~ Ran 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 metricted 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. -?- January ~8. 1992 i)ireCtor Of Public Works Tun Sorlet, gave In update on drainage issues, stating he has received reports from TwO consulShis regarding The blockage of the Long Valley Wash. He expl·ined the Two reports reflect different viewpoints, one being the box culvert was plugged due To inadequate ~mintanance, and the other the blockage occurred due TO erosion from nighboring properties. HI reported, however, that the two maps in eluestion have not been graded. Myra Vonsalves, 41556 Zinfergiel Avenue, expressed concern that this development remain s SeNor project and not 8n 8parunent Complex. She requested that a feasibility study be conducted for The commercial site and stated the Vineyard tract has no barrier to this commercial ares. She also asked That s traffic study be completed. with the impact on The V'meyard tract considered. Mayer Birdsall called · brief recess st 9:30 PM to change the tape. The meeting was reconvenad st 9:31 PM. Mayor Parks asked that the Council hear from 8 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 Tam Lindemana 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. Diana Taylor, 41942 Humbar Drive. Villages Community, stated the Villages Homeowners Association has had to pay almost $100,000 in damages from silt. She stated that no one will take responsibility for this problem, and as a result residents have been hurt. Joseph R. Shekoski, 31999 %r:neyard 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 Marsay Court, stated the Villages Homeowners Association has had to pay approximately $80,000 to remove foreign material from the Long N'indtes%1'~28%f2 -!- 02114'1~;2 e-itv r-oMndl Min-tes .lenuarv ~B. 199~ Valley WiIh, He e.~pl~-nsd that little of ~ material originated from the Villages, most came from Bedford and Buie Projects. Jane vernon, 3026B Marmay Court, Itsted the develoliers causing this damage need to tak8 raspmY, iblty for their ectionl Ind clesfi up the wash. Mike Fiducia, showed · video tape to the City Council of · rain storm before the Palomar V'dlage ~14h~h~ Center was completed and before There was any erosion Control ,t'ti~e Bule Corporaljoe Project. ' David Michael, 30300 Churchill Court, President of Villages Homeowners Association, 8pproved by the Bolrd to speak, asked the City Council to for help in working with the developer to clean out the Long Valley Wash. He Mid 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 firm 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 contrd of property require the upstream landowner to be responsible for damage downstream. He asked that this problem be solved in the City Council forum and not in 8 court of law. it was moved by Mayor Pro Tern I. indemens, seconded by Councilmember Parks to extend the meeting until 11:00 PM. The motion was unanimously carried, with Councilmember Mufioz 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 s 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 end 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 ere granted, The issue of proper maintenance be addressed as well as a feasibility study for the commercial · iliMes%l~8%92 '9' 021 }, ~itv P-oVncil Mir-~tes January ~8.199:~ I~hase, In accordance with the request from citizens of the Vineyard Tract, he asked that a traffic ~tudy be completed, ..." Director of Planring Gary Thornhill recommend continuing Items 10 and 11 to the · meeting of February 25, 1992, It was moved by Councilmember PerkL ~econded by Councilmember Moore to Continue V. ercing Tentative Tract Map No, 23372 and 23373 to the meeting of February ~5, 1992 with Itaff 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 pur~ue the source of the silt problem end require · 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 ceffied by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Birdsall NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Mui%oz RECESS ~i ~,or Birdsall called · recess at 10:36 PM. The meeting was reconvened a . O'PM with ' a I~ hers present. 12. Chanqe ~o 5631 Te::at,ve Tract M It was moved by continue the public hearing t~ Of February 11, 1992. The motion was carried by 'th, 6ilowing AYES: 5 U~CILMEMBERS: Lir~cii~ Moore, Mui%oz, Parks, NOES: . ' 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ' MBERS : : None N i nutes%l%Zl\fZ - 10- 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 N0. 23373 TO SUBDIVIDE 29.3 ACRES INTO 7 LOTS WITH 348 CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND I COMMERCIAL LOT LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MEADOWS PARKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 923- 210-014. WHEREAS, The Buie Corporation filed the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map on November 4, 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map; WHEREAS. the City Council considered said First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map on 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: III · Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt: a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: Ae The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. $~$TAr-~RPT%23373V/M.CC 7 e The planning eger~y finds, in 8pproving projects end taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: I1) Them b · reasonable probebT~ty that the lend use or action propoe ~ will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or ~tudied or which will be studied within e reasonable time, (~J {3) There is little or no probebity of mbltantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately incormbtant with the plan, The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. The Riveride County General Ran, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Ran, (hereinafter 'SWAP') we~ odoptad prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riveride County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as i'cs 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 66360 of the Government Code, to wit: Ae 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, includir~3~ the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the followiP, (1) There is reasonable probability that the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which Will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are made: Ae That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. S~rAffN'T~?3V~LCC 8 That the site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of development. That the site of the proposed LInd division is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. That the design of the propoNd land division or proposed improvements are not likely to came substantial environmental damage or substantially and urmvoidably injure rLsh 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 problem, 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 accluired by the public. This subsaction 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. 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 effect 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 ESTAH~I~3373V'TId. C~ 9 adverse impacts of the project. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property becau ~ it does not represent a significaht change to the present or planned land use or the area, due to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the The project as designed and condltioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the Negative Declaration for the project, due'~o the fact that impact mitigation is rear~ed by conformonce with the project'a Conditions of Approval.- The project has ecceptsble access to · dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project cuffently proposes access points from Kaier 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 ere 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 s'~e plan and the project analysis. Said findings are supported by minutes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with this application and heroin incorporated by reference, due to the fact that they ere referenced in the attached Staff Report, Exhibits, and' Conditions of Approval. Ee 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 ~o the project, and the Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby reaffirmed. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves the First Extension of Time Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373 for the subdivision of 29.3 acres into 348 condominium units and 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. NT,Um'T~Sm?',V'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~TAFFIIR~3313VTM. CC 11 .APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TRIFC, I)LA AGENDA lIEPORT City IVlermger/City Council Garl/':l'homhill, 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: I~FsFRRM Environmental Assessment No. 32547 for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373, and; APPROVI: the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373, based on the analysis and findings contained in the staff report, and subject to The arcached 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~R~NeN.~33~Z.CC 1 Page 2 Vesting Terrtatiye Tract Map No. 23373, First Extension of Time ' As a matter of public record, a substantial amount of public protest has been receivea. 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 proje~ct is in conformence with the amended Specific Plan, and The originally approved Tentative Maps. As a result, Staff's recommendation remains unchanged. %'° vgw S~L.ANNNG~23372, CC 2 APPROVAL CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT T0: City Council/City Marroger FROM: DATE: Iqmvling Depmia,.mlt January 14, 1992 Subje : :i PREPARED BY: Rret Extension of Tune Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373 RECOMMENDATION: Mark Rhoadea The Planning Department Staff Recommends that the: Planning Commission: BF, AFFIRM Environmental Assessment No. 32548 for; Vesting Tern Tract Map No. 23373, and: NmPpnvl: the first Cxterdion 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, APPUCATION INFORMATION APPUCANT: Buie Corporetion REPRESENTATIVE: Mergerite Village Development Company PROPOSAL: Rrst Extension of Time for I residential/commercial subdivision on 29.3 acres with 348 dwelling-units proposed. LOCATION: Northwest comer of Rencho California Road end Kaise; Parkway. EXISTING ZONING: Specific Plan 199 (Margarita Village) $~TAI:F'N"T~3,1T3V"TM.CC SURROUNDING ZONING: North: South: East: West: Specific Plan 199 (Margarite Village) Specific Plan 199 IMargarite Village) R-1 (Singla-Family Residential) Specific Plan 199 (Mergerite Village) PROPOSED ZONING: Not mad EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Vacant South: Vacam East: Single Family Residential West: Vacant PROJECT STATISTICS: Cl},,e,Jrr.,;ll A~mlOI: 7.8 Total Acreage: 29.3 No. of Lots: 8 Rse~fet~G81 Acreage: 21.8 PropoNd Units: 348 Dermity:. 14.8 D.U.IAC BACKGROUND Vestinll Tentative Tract No. 23373 is located within the Mergerite Village Specific Nan No. 199. The map as tentatively approvecl by the County of Riverside in November of 1988. The City of Temecula Planning Commision recommended approval of the First Extension of Time on NoVember 4, 1991 by a vote of PROJECT DESCRIPTION Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. '~3373 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 Rencho California Road and Meadows Parkway, The project includes Planning Areas 38 and 39 of me Mergerite Village Specific Ran No, 199,. The project iS surrounded on the north, south and west ides 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 fie 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'a future adopted General Plan. Riverside County Environmental Aa·.s·sment No, 32548 we previously adopted for the proposed project,. It is recommended that the C,,jty Council re-affirm the previous environmental assessment, RNDNOS There 'i· · reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with me City's future General Plan, which will be completed in · reasonable time and in accordance with State law, due to the fact that the project is consistent with existing site dsveloprh&nt standards in that it proposes articulate deign features and site amenilia· commensurate with existing and anticipated residential development standards. There is not · Hkaly 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 stlndards, 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 Shah of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and density, due to the fact that: adequate area is provided for all proposed residential structures; adequate landscaping is provided along the project's public end 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 condill·ned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare. due to the fact that The conditions stated in the approval are based on mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate potential adverse impacts of the project. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it d.oes not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area, due to the fact that the proposed project is consistent with the current zoning of the Subject site. The project as designed and condill·ned will not adversely affect The built or natural environment as determined in the Negative Declaration for The project, due to the fact that impact mitigation is realized by conformance with the project's Conditions of Approval. The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and us,able by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project currently proposes access points from Kaiser Parkway which have been determined to be adequate by the City Engineer. S~iTAFFIqlq%Z3,1?3VTII&CC 3 The design of the subdivision, the tylx of imlxca.,~.~la and the resulting street layout am such that they 8re not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the . pro(~.tty within the prope~sd Ixojectl, due t~ the fact that this is clearly represente,' in the site plan and the project analysis. hid findings am supported by minutes, mix, exhibits and environmental documents associated with this aDpliution and heroin incorporatad by reference, due to the fact that they are rsf. sr.r~ed in the rotlathed Staff Report, Exhibits, and Conditions of Appro . vgw Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. :Planning AraBs 38 8nd 39 atT.~mrds, Specific Plan No. 199 - page 5 "Resolution- 1=ege 8 ;Conditions of Al~xov81 - page 12' Planning Commiuion'Stlff Report - I=lge 18 Exhibits - lage 17 Develor,,,.e,~t Fee Check I.bt - Ixge 18 4 ATTACItMBIT NO. 1 PLANNING AREAS 38 AND 3~ STANDARDS, SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 199 s~sTa. m,m,r~nvn,.cc 5 Please :z'eZer 'to Oztbmncs Xo,, :3,&S,2&22,,..(&~ 2, :Plea Zone Ozdi.nance ~ ) A XaJ or Retirement h,,J.,.~ ~ ~"ex'cm~' i planned at the entrance to Plann.tng Area 38 on k~o Cal~o~a bad. (See F~eI III-22 ~ 221-23,) ~or h~irasn~ Zn~ l~dsca~ ~rsa~ is along ~isar Parlay. (See Fi~ss ~I-24 & )uilding height shall n~t :-v~--4 3 at~-;:.' ,- ~ -.a height of 40 Zest. SubJ ec= to approval b~ =he Fire Chief and~d~~ DeparUment of Buildin~ and Safety, chimneys and/ encroachments shall be .ptvsitted in the front, side rear yard except as provided for in Sac=ion 18.19 Ordinance No. 348.2922. -140- * l*lmame refer demlgu-x..mlatmd -I(1 - l~le~ee :e~tr t:o Ozetmma:m Io, 34,8,.2922. c. p../a~,~4ns, e~'udarde 38 and the ad:Jo~Lng Please rere~ to Pro~ect4tde-Deetgsr opn~ I'candaFdo in lect:tm2 'I'Z.B,:Z,, ro.r l'uz'r. ht: land use atandazd~ that apply ette-w4de. Plane Ce~ez ~o Dostg~,euiMiTmr"in rect'£6n ZZZ, ro~ --142- AI'rACHMENT NO. 2 RESOLUTION NO. 92-.._ S~STAFFNrr~3373V'TIA. CC 6 ATTACHMENT 2 lIESOLUTION NO, g2~... A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THE RRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 233~3 TO SUBDIVIDE 28.3 ACRES INTO 7 LOTS WITH 348 CONDOMINIUM UNITS AND 1 COMMEROAL LOT LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNEt OF FIANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AND MEADOWS PA..RKWAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 923- 210014. WINIF. AS, The Buie Corpori tion flied the Fnlt Extension of Time for Vestingi TentatiVe Tam Map No. 23373 in accordance with the Nverdde County Land Usa, Zoning.~ Ptenrdn{I and Subdivision Ordinances. which the City hal adopted by reference; WiI...,.A8. said First Extermion of Twne for Vesting Tentative Tract Mai~ application was processed in the tim end manner prescribed by Sate and local law; WHBIF. A8, the Plsnning Commiui0n considered said Fffst Extension of TIme, for Vesting Teatie Tract Map on November 4, 1991, It which time interested pereons had an opportunity tO teSTify either in support or ol~xmition; WHEREAS. It 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 Vestingi Tentative Tract Map on January 14, 1992, at which time interested persons had 8n opportunity to testify either in sul~port or opposition; WHEREAS. st the conclusion of the Council hearing, the Council approved said Extension of Time Vesting Tentative Tract Map; NOW, THBEFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOE~ RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty {30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject To the requirement that a general plan be adopted! Or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan, The planning agency finds, in Naproving projects end taking other actions, includip; the issuance of building permits, each of-the following: {1) There is a reasonable probability that the land usa or action propose~ will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considereL studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) Them is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted lienatal llen if the proposed use or action is ultirrmtaly inconsistent with the plan. {3)' The proposed use or 8clion 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 me area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General latin 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 sat forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: A. The city is proceeding in s timely fashion with s preparation of the general plan. The City Council finds, in spproving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the followir,~ (1) There is reasonable probability that the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. (2) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances, Pursuant to Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460, no subdivision may be approved unless the following findings are made: Ae That the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. Be That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. eiT~73VTM-CC 8 -5, Thet the dte of the ~olx~ed lend div~on b phydcslly suitable for the tyne ~f development. That the site of the proud lend division is physically suitable for propond dimity of the develo~.,.,.~t. F.. Thit the dedgn of the proposed lend division or proposed improvements are n t likely to cam sulatl,~t.'d .l11%.~rbn,j.l~-I damage or substantially a~td T:hst the design of the proposed lend division or the type of improvements not fikely TO cam edota public health problem. That the deign of the proposed land division or the type of improvements w'll not conflict with ell:, .ants, acquired by the public tT hirge, for access througk, or use of, pro~ e. k.V' within the proposed land division. A hind division may be 8pproved if it hi found that mitemite :me,,ents for access or for use will be provided and that they wig be substantially equivalent to ones previous, y acquired by the public. This subsection shell apply only to easements of recofkl~ or to elements established by judgment of e court of comment jurisdiction. The Council in approving the proposed first Extension of T, ne for Vesting TentatiVe Tact Map, make The following findings, to wit: Them is a reasonable probability that this project wig be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be compleTed in a reasonable time and accordance with Sate law, due to the fact that the project is consistent existing site development standards in that it proposes articulated desik; features and site emenities commensurate with existing and anticipated residential development standards. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with inconsistent with the plan, due to the fact that the with existing and anticipated land use and deign guidelines standards. The proposed use or action complies with state planning and zoning laws, dUe to the fact that the proposed use conforms with those uses listed as "allowed" within the zoning designation of Specific Fqan 199, The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed lend use in terms of the si;e and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and densit-,, 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 me approval ere based on mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate potsntiS' SECTION 4. The City Clerk ihall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSliD, APPROVE) AND ADOPTB) this 14th day' of January, 1992. PATRICIA H. BIRDSALL MAYOR I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing ftleoil:tion we duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecule 8t · regulBr ,,~l B~,ql U,lr. eof, held on the 14th day of January, 1992 by the. following vote of the Co,,~cil: · AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCILIVIEMBERS COUNCILMEMBERS JUNE S. GREEK CITY CLERK 11 The proposal wgl not have an adverse effect on marrounding property becaL The project IS deigned and conditioned tell not adversely affect the built nm:ufll envirmnt 88 determined in the Negative Declaration for the project, due to the fact that impact mitigation is realize by conformence with pfo~ect's Conditioa of ADIxoval. The project has acceptable 8cceu to · dedicated right-of-way which is ope 'l to, and us·able by, vehicule traffic, due to the fact that the project currently propore am pojnt8 from IC·EBer Parkway whi{~ have been determined tl~ be adequate by the City r..ngine;,r. The deign of 'the subdiviion, the Type of improvements end the resultanti meet tsyout ere such that they are not in conflict with easements for ecces! through or use of the property within the proposed projects, due to the fact that this is clearly represented in the site plan end the project enelyia. Said findings are supported by ffdnmes, maps, exhibits and environmental documents associated with this ·pplicetion and her·in incorporated reference, due to the f·ct that they ere referenced in the attached Staff Report:, Exhibits, and Conditions of Approval. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, The Firm Extension of 'rime 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 te the project. and the Negative Declaration, therefore, is hereby reaffirmed. SECTION 3. Condilions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves the First Extension of Time Vestinf} 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 Mead owl Parkway and known as Assessor's Parcel no. 923-210-014 subject to the followinfil conditi.ons: A. Exhibit A. attached her·to. 10 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 CONDITIOI~ OF APPROVAL t2 AT"rAC:HMENT NO. 3 CfTY OF TEMECUI.A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Vesting Tentative Tact Map No. 23373 Feet Cxtenaion of Tnne Commialion Approval Date: November 4, 1991 Urdess previously Hid, prior to the issuance of 8 grading permit, the applicant shJI comply with the provisions of Ordinance No. 663 by paying the appropriate fee forth in that ordinance. Should'Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisioPs of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the apptcant shell pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. No building parmils shaft be issued by the City for any residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the developar's ,v:csssor's-iminterest provides evidence Of compliance with public facility financing measures. A cash sum of one-hundred dollars (8100) per IoUunit shaft be deposited with the City as mitigation for public librely 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 sectioi~. 13 Delete condition no, 15 of Riverside CounW Road Commissioner latter dated September 1980 and replace it with the following: Prior to recordsdon of the final map, the developer shall deposit with the Department impacts. mitigation fee, he may enter into s written agreement with the City deferrag said · payment to the time of issuance of s building permit. An erosion control end slope protection plan shall be submitted to the Department of PuNic Works for review end approval, The inltsllltion shell be certified by s registered Civil r. tegkiecr for location and elevation, and site conditions shall be maintained to protect adjacent properties from damage due to 'runoff and erosion, Developer shall post s performance bond for erosion control 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 isstance of permits. If the full Are8 Drainage Pien 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 shell receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rsncho California Water District: Eastern Municipal Water District; Riverside County Flood Control District; City of Temeculs Fire Bureau: Planning Department: Department of Public Works: Riverside County Healtl~ Department; and CAq'V Franchise, Community Services District Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CA"I"V Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CA'I'V Standards at time of street improvements. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and an encroachment parrnit shall be obtained from The City Engineer's Office, in addition to any other permits required. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT: Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon The property of project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation 8s required for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect at the time S~STiJqll~eT%23373v'rM.CC 14 of payment of fee. ff an interim or find pullc facility mitigation fee or district has net been finally eetabrmhed by the date on which developer requests its building permitS for the' project or any phase thereof, the developer shaft execute the Agreement payment of Pubr~ FecWW fee, · copy of which has been provided to develol~. Concurmnt~, with eacudno this AOrll.,.Int, developer shall post security to secure payment of the Public Facgjty fee. The mount of the mcudty shah be $2.00 per sure foot, not to exceed $10,000, Developer undoands that sejd Agreement may · require the payment of fee in exceu of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees). By :ex t ;-,tion of this Agreement, developer will waive any fight to protest the provisiorm from this Cm~ition, of this Agreement, the formadoq 4f any traffic impact fee lltfict, _or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this pr,0je: f~ ,-ovi,ied that developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonablenell of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIfiCATES OF OCCUPANCY: 10. Construct hall street improve:,~a.~ts including but not limited to, curb and gutter, A.C~ pavement, dewalL drive approaches, larkway Tree and street lights on all interior public streets, 11. All street improvements striping, maddng and signing shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works. TRANSPORTATION ENGINEEIUN6 PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS: 12. =Traffic striping, marking and meet name signing plane shall be designed as directed by the Department of Public Works. 13. A construction area traffic control plan-shill be deigned by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for any street olosure end detour or other disruptlee 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 perkland to comply with City Ordinance No, 460,93 (Quimby), The amount to be laid shall be determined by TCSD staff withie 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, NTad~3373V"IILCC 15 pT.~WN~NG COldrrOS:ON rrNUTwe November 4, 1991 S, V~BTING T~NTXTIVE TRACT NO, 23372 Proposal for exwcension of time for a 66 .Lot Condomini~'~ and apartment subdivision. 469 dwelling units on 46.9 acres. Located nor?,hofRancho California Road, westside of Kaiser Parkway. 9, VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23373 9.9 Proposal for ex~ension of time for 348 condominium units on 23.S acres witalan additional 7.5 acres of commercial. MARX R~OADES presented ~he staff report and clarified that ~he recommendation was for ~he first extension of time. COMN/BBX~ FAKEY questioned approving the extension without erosion control in place. MARK It HORDES advised that ~he expiration date of the map was November 8, 1991. ROBERT RI~RETTI advised ~hat the applicant is in a financial situation with their lender which they are currently working on$ however, ~he 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 wi~ the second extension of time, and this applicant will 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. TPCMIN11/4/91 -8- 11/6/91 PT.~!I'NT~G COId~3::BBZ:ON Xl'NT]T~I ~ovember 4, 199~ Meal P~OaDE2 advised ~hat due to the time constraints involved with the expiration, staff is trying to keep the map alive to address these issues. CllalPa~NBOaGLaNDQpenedthe public hearing at 7:45 P.M. Cxm~v.we GILL, 600 B Street, Suite 1100, San Diego, representing the Margarita Village Development Company.: ~ ~egardstothe fees, Mr. Gill advised that the project ls par~ 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 VTT23372 and VTT 23373: based on the changes to what was originally presented as a retirement community, the proposed densities and the impact those densities will have on traffic and schools and the developer's inability to provide adequate erosion control to date: CARL ABBOTT, 31987 Vineyard, Temecula. ANA BLANCO, 31748 Corte Totrosa, Temecula. THOMAS BENTLEY, 41473 Zinfandel Avenue, Temecula. RAPLH BROWNELL, 41487 Zinfandel Avenue, Temecula. J.R. BHEKOSKI, 31999 Vineyard Avenue, Temecula. WILLIAM BACCUS, 41571 'Zinfandel Avenue, Temecula. Mr. Baccus presented the Commission with a letter requesting that the Commission deny the request and presented the Commission with a petition. MARY PHILLIPS, 41532 Chenin Blanc, Temecula. MYRA GONSALVES, 41556 Zinfandel Avenue, Temecula. BTEVEN 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- 11/6/91 p~sMlqlNG OOlwMIBgION~~l : ~ovember 4, 1991 OOMMIBBZO!il3t TAXXY asked what ~he Commission's options v~a ~~g a~on on ~s ~n. ~ aO~SC~Vi~UGladvisedf-ha~ths Commission could deny the e~cension of ~e, approve ~e re~es~ for e~ension o~ ~s or ~s C~ission could condi~ionally approve ~e ~snsion. In relation ~o~e p~k fees, ~e Developmen~ ~men~ is no~ cls~ on~ is ad~essed wi~ respec~ ~o p~k fees; h~ev~, a~is ~in~, ~e City is ~ing ~e~ position ~a~ ~ose fe~ ~e appropriate, and ~e City Co~il ~an lis~ to ~e appli~an~'s ar~en~ f~~ ~d ~e ~e~ de~ision. COMMISSIONER FaHEY questioned what findings the Commission would have to make to deny based on a health and safety issue. JOG c~va&M~uG 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 fo'~, another year. He advised that this map does not have ah 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. COMMIBSIONERCHINIAEFF moved to close the public hearing at 8:45 P.M. and Adopt Resolution 91-[nex%) recommending that the City Council ADDrove the Firs= Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23372, contingent upon the implementation of corrective grading and erosion control measures to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the City Council approval, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. CBAIRMANBOAGLARD 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 companible with surrounding land uses, and TPCMIN11/4/91 -10- n/6/91 PLANIfING COltorrOSTON :)(,lqu'.L'.~.-S Novel~ber 4, ~991j stated that he had a ~roblem ~ccapting thia. COIOaBSXON~ CXXNI~FF requested ~ha~ his motion include~ =hat l~em No. 4-C-6 be deleted Zrom =he Resolution, with concurrence by coloasBxolr~ F3EEY. AYES: S COMMISSIONERS: NOES: 0 COBeaSSIONXRS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaef£, Hoagland None COMMISBIONE~IINIa~FF.moved to close =he public hearing[ a= 8:45 P.M. and A~oD% Resolution 91-fnex=) recommendingi that=he City Council Au-rove=he First Extension of Time; for Vesting Tentative Trac~ No. 23373, contingent upon; =he implementation of corrective grading and erosion control measures to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to =he City Council approval, and deleting Item 4-C-6 of =he Resolution, seconded by COMMISSIONER FAHEY. AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey, Ford, Chiniaeff, Hoagland NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None I I TPCMINll/4/91 -11- % % ATTACHMENT NO. 4 PLANNING COMMI~BION STAFF REPORT $~iT&Ir.~I~FT~3273V'T'M. CC 16 STAFF FEPORT - PLANNING CrTY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION November 4, 1991 Case No.: First Exlandofi of Time Vuting Ternativ~ Tram Map No. 23373 RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff Recommends that the Planning Commission: Armlet Resolution 91 ~ Recommending that me City Counci APPRnVI= the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tra~ No, 23373. conti, qient upon the implementation of cartact(v= grmding and eralion control romeaural to the satisfaction of the City r. ngi~s.,r Wior to the City Council sl=provsl. based on the Artclyde end findings contained in the staff report, and subjar. to the attached CoM~orm of Approval. APPUCATION INFORMATION APPUCANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTiNG LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Msr~srita Villmp Development Company Rrst Extension of Time for · residentislicommercid subdivision on 30 acres with 348 dwelling units proposed. Northwest corner of Rancho California Road and Kaise Parkway.. Specific Plan 199 (Merger(t· Village) North: Specific Plan 199 (Mergerits Village) South: Specific Plan 199 (Merger(re Village) East: R-1 (Single-Family Residential) West: Specific letan 199 (Merger(re Village) - Not requested Vscant North: Vacant South: Vacant East: Single Family Residential West: Vacant No. of Lore: 8 Residential AcmaOe: 23.8 Proposed Unim: 348 Density: 14.8 D.U./AC Commercial Acreage: 7.5 BACKGROUND Vesting Tentative Tact N0, 23373 as originally epproved by the Riverside County Board of Super~i. sore on November 8, 1988, The First Extension of Time was filed in October of 1990. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Vesting Tentatiwe"Trect NO. 23373 is a portion of Specific Plan No. 199, Margarita Village. The Tentative Map includes Ptanning Areas 38 and 39. Planning Area 38 is a 7 lot subdivision on 23.5 acres. Three hundred forty eight condominium units am proposed. The density of the resident project portion will be 14.8 dwelling units per acre. :Planning Area 38 ~is · 7.5 acre commercial lot. The proposed lot will provide neighborhood commercial and retail facilities, es identified in the Specific Plan. A plot plan will be :reQuired when development is proposed. FUTURE GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSI,STBICY The proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the epproved 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 Ran, ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 202 we previously adopted by Riverside County Specific Plan No. 199. Staff has determined that said EIR still applies to this subdivision. FINDINGS There is 8 reasonable probability that this project will be consistent with The City's future General Plan, which will be completed in · reasonable time and in accordance with State law, due to the fact that the project is consistent with existing site development standards in that it proposes articulated design features and site 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 configumion, circulation patterns, access, end density, due to the fact that; adequate area is provided fo~ d pro~,td residential mmctwes; adequate landscaping is provided 8long the projects public and private frontages; and the imemal circulates plan should not create traffic conflicts as design provisions ere i- conromance with adopted City slanderde. The project as designed and conditjoned will not adversely affect the punic health or Welfare, due to the fact that the conditions stated in the approval are based on mitigation measures necessary to reduce or erb,&~Stl potential adverse impacts of the! project. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No, 23373 is compatible with s4jrrounding land uses. The hermony'i~ scale, ixdk, height, density end coverage castes a compatible physic·l! relationship with adjoining piq)laefliel, 'due to the fact that the proposal is similar ir~ Compatibility with mj~ounding isnd uses; and adequate are and deign features provide for siting of prongled d;~sloN,,J.A in terms of landscaping and internal traffic circulation. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property because it does not represent.8 sigrdficant change to the present or planned isnd 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 ~esigned end conditioned will not adversely effect the built or natura! environment as dstl.,,~,~e cf in the BR for the project, due to the fact that impact mitigation is rea~zed by conformlace with the project's Conditions of Approval. The project ha ·ccept·bhl ·cceu to · dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and us·able by, vehicular traffic, due to the fact that the project currently proposes 8cce,. 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 ere nct in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed projects, due to the fact that this is clanfly represented in the site plan end 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. STAFF RECOMMENDATION vgw Attechnants: ,..% The Ptenning Department Staff Recommends that the Planning Commission: ArmleT Resolution 91-_,. Recommending that me City Council APPRnVI= the First Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Tram No, 23373, contingent upon tl~ implementation of corrective grading and erosion con measure to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior To the City Council approval, based on the Analysis and Rndings 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~sT,m,w,r~n .v~M 4 ~ ATTACHMENT NO. 1 RF~OLUTION NO. e I -._ AI &AI=~=IMIr=N11 REIOLLrnON NO, i1-10~ !A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OFTHE RRST EXTENSION OF TIME 'FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 23373-A 8 LOT RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL SUBDMSION ON 31 ACRES AND KNOWN AS A PORTION OF ASSESSOWS PARCEL'NO. 923-210014. WHEREA~, The Buie Corporation ~ed the Time Extension in accordance with the Riverside County Land Usa, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which me City has adk}pted by. reference; WHEREAS, said Time Extension application was processed in me time and manner prescribed by Stme and Ioc41 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; WHEREA~, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recomrnllded approval of said Time Extension. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I. Rndings That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that · general plan be adopted Or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. Be The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: (1) There is a reasonable probability that the 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~ST&PFNeT~3'173'V11A 6 e The ~c,p._,wf u~e car mctian complied with ell other applicable requirere·rile of m Imw end loud ordinances. The Riveride County General Plan, IS amended by the Southwest Area Cixnmunity Plan, 0We·tier "SWAP') we adopted prior to the i,~:mlxntion of Temecula as the Generld Plan for the 8oudmmet potdon of '.Rierdde County, including the area ~ wtthinthe~dtheCIty. Atthbtjm!,theCityhuadomedSWAP& s General Plan Oderam whib the CIty is Woe··nO in · dine/fa~don w~h the preparation of its Genmd Plan. The ix~ o e, d Time ban·ira b con:L m. A with the SWAP end mats the requirement· at forth in Section 85360 of the Gove:v,,.s.4 Code, to wit: City is Woceeing in · tbndy fashion with · preparation of the general plon. The Planfdng C~,,,,,,iadon finds, in eWoving projects and taking other actions, indv~e the iew-~r~e of budding pemia, pumuent to this titta, each of the following: (1) There is reesormble probebgity that the Time '_-_~e. aion Ixoposed will be · consistent with the Oenewll plan propoel being considered or studied or {2) There b tittle or no probability d sul~lambl detriment to or interference with the future adopted genera plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately incc.~istetkt with the plan. (3) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state taw end local ordinances. ~ Pursuant to Section 18.30(c). no Tim Extension may be spproved unless the following findings can be made: The proposed use must conform to all the General letan requirements and with ell applicable requiremenU of state taw end City ordinance. B. The proposed subdivision does not affect the general health, safety. and welfare of the public. The I~mnning Commission. in recommending approval of the proposed Tim Extension, makes the following findinga, 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 tim and in accordance with State isw. due To the fact that the projeCt is consistent with existing site development standards in that it proposes articulated design features end site amenities commensurate with existing and anticipated residential development standards. Them is not 8 likely probability of substantial domeeat To Or interf~rcr~e with the future end adopted general plan, if the proposed use or action+is ultimately i,v, ix'ls~ltlnt with the plan, due to the faCt that the project is in cmlfemance 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 mow uses listed as 'allowed' within the zoning designation of Specific Ran 19~. Thl litl is luitlbll to ICC6.,,,dXlITO tim propolld land use in terms Of the size and slaps of the lot configuration, mation patterns, acce , the project'a public end Wivats himtaps; end the internal circulation plan should not create traffic conflicts as deign provisions are in conformsacs with adopted City standards. The project as designed and conditioned wifi not adversely affect the public haa.l~h or welfare, due to the fact that the conditions stated in the approval' ere based on mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate pctential adverse impacts of the project. (6) The proposal will not hen an adverse effect on surrounding properW because it does not represent · significant change to the present Or planned land use of the ere, due to the fact that the proposed projeCt is conlistent with the cunlnt zoning of thl lubject sits. (7) The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the BR for the project, due to the fact that impact mitigation is realized by confonnance with tt18 project's Conditions of Approval. (8) The project has acceptable access to s dedicated right-of-way which is open to. and useable. by. vehicular traffic. due to the fact that th! 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 wi!th 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 futuite development of the surrounding property. S~T~'r~U}3.V~M 8 I~,vir~.,j-~td determination Adoption of BIR No. 202 stgl applies to said Tract Map (Extension of Tea). IBCTiONlil. Canedon& mlNx0ve the Fat Extm~on of Tene for Vestire Tentsthin Tract Map No. 23373 for an 8 Lot Z~:~m~,~ i:emmercMi eid)(lvldon on ~0 ~ and Iraown tm· portion of AtwmmmQ:'l e2s-21o-014 mjNect to thin .folowirm cmncitiom~ 1. ExI. Wbtt A;,tt~ hereto. SECTme N. PASSED, APPROVE) AND ADOPTED this 4th day of November, 1991. · JOHN E. HOAGLAND · CHAIRMAN ee .: ..... ~ H~Lu{ENY'C....~mr~ ~h~ ~e hmr~Nn{ I~mmd,~i~ wm~ duly mdol~ed by Rmr~ir~ Commimdm of{he City of Tm~,,mcm~m { · re{ulmr ,,.mm{;,,~ ~hereof. held on dey Of November I eel by the fonowinO vote of ~he Gommiuion: AYES: 5 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMIVlISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONER 9 ATTA~IIBrr NO. 2 CONDITION~ OF APPROVAL 10 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 Veting Tentative Tract Map No. 23373 FtratExtensiunefTene Unless previously paid, peior to the ~eeum~cs of a grading permit. the applicant I of · Habitat Conservation Plan Ixior To the pmr,,~e.4 of the fee required by Ordinance No. 663, the epplicem. shell pay the fee required by the Habitat Conservation Plan m implemente~l. by County ordinance or rlwdwelon. No building peraim Ihdl be ieued by the City for any residential lot/unit within the project boundary until the develNier's rr_csssor's in i,m:rest provide evidence Of compliance with public facility financing rneamares. A cash sum of one-hundred doliarl ($100) per IotJunit shell be de~.oe:ted with the City as mitigation for public library development. DEPARTMENT OF PUIILIC WORKI The following em the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approvel for This project, end shell be completed at no cost to any Gove,Y,,~snt Agency· NI questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shell be referred To the appropriate sTeff person Of the Departmerlt of Public Works. !t is Understood that the Developer has Correctly shown on the tentative map all existing easements, traveled ways, end drainage courses, end their omission may require the projeCt to be resubmitted for further review. The Developer shell comply with ell Conditions of Approval as previously imposed or amended and With the Conditions noted below. PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL MAP: e Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part of an existing Assessment Di~ct must comply with the requirements of said section. sma,wm~nan.vn~ 11 Delete cone·on no. 1 B of Riverside County Road Commissioner letter dated SePtember 22, 1988 mad replace it with the fdk. winti: Prior to rmcmdmtian of the final rap, the developer ~ deposit with the Department of Public Works a cash sum as astabrmhed, per lot. as mitigation towards traffic signll impacts. Should the develolar choose to defer the time of payment of traffic si nel mitigation fee, he may enter into · written' agreement with the City deferring ~ payment to the time of i~mmn~ of e ixtdin; permit. An erosion control and slope protection Ibm shell be submitted to the Department of PuNic Works for review end ·l)proval. The inmalletion shall be certified by a registered Civil Engine· for location and elevation, end site conditions shall be maintained tO protect adjacent properties fren de·age due to runoff end erosion. Develolar shell post 8 fai:ff,,,,ence Ixmd for 8rolion clmtrd and dope prot~.ction in an amount approved by the De.a: I~,~sat of Putdic Works. A flood mitigation charge Ihlll be laid. The charge shall eeltel the prevailing Ares Drainegg Plan fee rate multililed by the am of new development. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to ira·once 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 n, ca:us. f by the departminX of Public Works, the developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water r~sU;ct: Eastem Municipal Water District; Riverside County Rood Control District: City of Ternecul8 Rre Bureau; Department of Public Works; Riverside County Health Department; sod CATV Franchise. Community Services Prior to final map, the subdivider shall notify the City's CA'IV Franchises of the Inten~ ;to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to CA'I"V Standards at time of meet improvements. Prior to any work being performed in punic right-of-way, fees shall be paid an~i an encroachment permit shall be obtained from the City Enginer'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 end public facility mitigation as required for the project. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount in effect ST 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, s copy of which has been provided To developer. SWrARW'~33~3.V~M 12 "" Conckeen~, with :? er~ng this AOr, w.L,J:~L, evdoper shell post security to secure eymemofthePultchc~fee. The enomt of the eecuriW nll be $2.00 per 8cluore foot, not to exceed $10,000. DMioper understands that aid Agreement may reclubl thl ply~mnt of feel in exceel ofthoiNi now estimted (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of each feel). By execution of this Agreeant, developer will wljvt orly fight to protilt thl iglfObiligM fTO~l thil Cord~Ofl, Of th~ Agreement, r fmado~ of arty traffic impact fee ibgict, or the ix~clll, levy, or collection of.any traffic miti~ion or traffic impact fee for this ff0je cC mayideal that developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF Can, errGATES OF OCCUPANCY: dg0e Construct Tug street imtxo~a_,.e~da ind~..M but not limited to, curb and Oar, A. C4 pavement, dewelL drive aplx, a~chl l, parkway tees and strut lights on all interloft .puNic streets. 11. All street imlxove.,j. As striping, morking and dgning M be installed to the efl~sfvction of the Deperlment of Puldic Wodm. TRANSPORTATION BIOINEEI~6 PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY ENCROACHMENT PERMITS: 12. Traffic striping, fn~king and m~et name dgning piam d~all be deigned as directed by the Oepertment of Puldic Wofka, 13. A ConStriCtion area traffic control plan dell be designed by · mgisternd Civil EngineerT and aplxoved by the City F,j~,i~a.ir fof any street olosufe and detour of other disruption to traffic circulation as raNted by the City D~0ine.lr, TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICE8 DISTRICT: 14. Prior to racordation of the final map trie appear, or hie assignee shall pay the faie market value of 4.07 acres of raciuired peridand to comply with City Ordinance No, 460.93 (Quimby). The amount to be Hid shadl be determined by TCSD staff within thirty (30) days prior to racofdation of said map. 15. Exterior Mopes bordering an arterial street may be dedicated to the TCSD for maintenance following compiiance to TCSD stenderds end completion of the application proceu. ~ .s~Ame~33~3.v'm 13 ATTACHMelT NO. 3 STAff REPORT - COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PLanninG DEP& DATE: November 23, Z988 R~ T~'TrA,'~Y[ TRACT ~ :a. 2337; · E, A. IIINBE~: 3254~ REGIONAL TEAH NO. ~peblT~c ~l,ns Deer RIverside Cmntl .General- Quallty. Act of )JTO, and. · NegaZtve Oeclara' x APPROVE) tentative mp s.b~ect to the attached conditions. '-DENIED tentative mp based m attached fledtags.. The-~rBC. mp h. bae. f~uhd Co la calsf~nt ~lth .111 la~tnenr, el·men s Plan: and. tw- ta cmpltance'~dtb the California En~lrc rill not have I significant effect m Um envt A cendtttmal ly the Bol~l of $u pertod of Clam I~to~. Co the explral:lm exptraCtm dan ~ mp'~shell up(re Planwin 7krW~t · PIer the -ppr unless ~r tht the County lie for an. exZens (30)' days W extend the a s:e ~A and a .. d }as'.. ~Very truly'ymrs,. Ron Gold·n, Principal Planner' FILE- tHITE APPLICANT- CANARY ENGINEER- P:NK :J~-)9 (be. toll3) 4080 LEMON STREET, 9TM FLOOR RIVERSIDE. CALIFORN;A 92501 (714) 787-6181 46-209 OASIS STREE~ INDIO. CAL;F,: ,,~ (e.t~m 3 lrRO~v~ Planntng Deplrment SUB~r~ALDATE: Hovebet 8, 1988 ~ S~~: V~Z~ ~A~'~ ~d ~ATIVE ~$ located tn the "~ ~a~U Vtllage SNEt~c Plan (~ Zgg ~~n~ No. l) - F~r;~ ~ W ~t~ Su~,tso~al ~s~ - ~ ~11fo~ta Zoning RECOMMZNDED MOTIOI~ for ' APIQOVAL of Vest1 Tmtattve Tracts 2337X Amended No. 1, 23372 IM. :Z, ~/3 keentied lt. Z, 23470 and 23471 and *Tracu ell, ~3X00 MandBI ll; 10 2310Z~ 23102, and 23Z03 Mend, Prey. Agn. tel Depts. Cemmenle Dist. RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING CON(ZSSION KTNUTES OCTOBER V(~l~ iTEN$ S-Z, S-3, 5-4 - REEL ZOO3, SiDE Z - TAPE 6, SiDE Z) TRACT HAP 23373 AHBQED II0. X - EA 32548 - t~rg~rtta Vlllqe Develoimnt Comlan~ - itancho Ceiltorn1· Area - First/Third Supervisortel Dt - l_trtcts south of Rlncho Clltfornll Rd. vest of ratset Parkwy - 348 u~tts --3].t acres - SP 299 Zone. Schedule A VESTlIE TItACT lip FJ3TI AIIE]IDB) nO. 1 - EA 32545 - Here·rite V.lage hveloFeent COaplqy - ItlnChO CI11fornta Area - FIrst/Third Supervisortel DIstricts - north of Ranthe California lid. east of Hirgartta Rd - X183 units. 398~ acres,- SP Zgl Zone. khedule A VESTING TIL4~T 2337Z AleJIB NO. Z - EA 32547 - Parprlta Vtllage Development acres - $P 199 ioN. khedu10 A : TIE heartrigs ere opened at 6:50 p.m. and closed at 7:11 p.m. STAFF RECOmFJiDATZON~ Adoptton of the ne Ztve doclarettons for EA 32548 EA 32546, and EA 32547, approval of Vesttrig ~cC llps ~3373 Mended No. iX, 37 Amended h. I and 23372 Mended No. 1. 811 subject to the proposed condtt~ns Iqs. 61fford also recommended approval of a .aher of the length to vtdth IMrgarfta Vfllage $pectffc Plan, and would create ~76 residential lots and a golf course on 254 acres, Staff had found the tract mlps to be consistgrit vtth the adopted spectfic plan. Its, 61fford severe1 changes to the conditions of approval, Coma satgnat hrv~ance askl about aftscal Impact report, and vis Informed this report had been furnt; recentl~ for Amendment No, t to the spectftc plan, JIm Resney, representing the applicant, briefly reviewed the develoFment, advtstng they ~ere proposing a st·thor-the-art adult retirement comuntt~ whtch included a championship golf course vtth a 37.000 square foot clubhouse factltt~ tn the center of the project. He the referred to Condition 33C*) for all three tract maps. Whtch .required front Jrards to be provtded ~lth t landscaping and autonattc trr gabton. and requested that thts requirement deleted for larger lots. as (t yes his opinion that these homeowners prefer to do theft own landscaping. The CC&Rs would rsqu$re the to vtth specific standards. Hr. Resney requested that this condition be amendec by addtrig to the end "or shall be Installed vtthtn 75 days after close of escrow as provided tn the CC&Rs tn the 45xZO0 squire foot lot areas°. ROad Department. Condition 2Z for Tract Hip 23371 and Condition Z4 for the other two tract laps requtreda debrts retention vail where block Nulls ere requtred at the top of slopes. fir. Resney requested that thts condition be amended by addtrig: "If applicant can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Rand Comtssfoner that a Histar Homeowners Association or other anttry v111 satisfactorily mtntatn the slopes. the Road Comtsstoner may. at hts optton, watver. hls requirement of I debHs retention w111." He thought that tf they could convtnce the Road Comtsstoner-that there would be no stlting problems and that the slopes ~ould be maintained, the debrts retention wall ~ould not 53 RIVERSHE COUNTY PLANNING COleIZSSZON HXNUTES OCTOBER be needed. For aesthetic reasons, he felt tt vould be better not to have the had 'Deparment Condtttoo Z2 for Tract 23372 and Condttfon ZS for the other 1~o tract maps related to the lintmum 30 foot garage setback f,,:to8 face of curb fir. henry felt this oondiUon cooflittedthe spectfgc plan dave · t standards ~ht ch ell wed Z6 foot dri v vtth roll up doors, se;~U~aene~ther from the bad of curb or the back oe~Ysddmlk* He would prefer to have the specific plan standards applJedt bet requested tha the hearings not be contthded, Lee aohnson advtsed the slump ,all delineated tn bad Department Condition was a wall they had been requiring for the past three or four 7ears when the Phnntng Deparment required a block ,&11 at the top of a slope. Depending On t the Size of the slope, the Dead Department Destgn Engtneer could requtre a block htgh wll at the preFerSJr 1the to keep the debrts rashtrig down the slope from crossing the stdelk. The~ keuld be wt111ng to constrict any other alternative the develolmr might suggest, u lon9 as tt accomplished the that thts condition be ratathe . purpose of this 'condtttoo. He requested d Commissioner Donshoe asked abether addtng to the end 'or as epproved by the · .Road Departaerie" ~ould give the developer the opportunity to provide an alternative plan, and fir, aohnson agreed that fir. ~lohnson advtsed the rage setback required by Road Department Condition 22 for Tract 2337Z (Condition XS for Tracts 23372 and 23373) was the wantmum setback requtred Ordtnoncl 460, He had read the language requested b.y the applicant, but ~ou~d prefer to re~atn the condition as originally proposed in the Road Depar13nent letter. fir. Resney explained they had been dtscusstnr~he possibility of providing a 4 foot stdevalk, and would 11ke to have a 24 f~ . setback rather than the 26 foot; setback required bJf this condition. However, tf the Road Department preferred the existtrig language, they would accept tC. fir. Jo risen advised ~he condition would not alter ~e vddth of the stalewalk tn h any way. Coantsstoner kadltng referred tl~ fir. Resnty's request that front yard land- scaping and Irrigation not .be requtred for the laer lots, and stated she felt they should be requtred for all lots. fir. ~or~dmah requested thaC the condition be retatned as originally vTttten.: ' ' There was no further testimony, and the heartrig was closed at 7:11 p.m. FINDINGS AND CONI~USIOKS: Vesttng Tentative Tract Naps 2337Z Amended No. ~, 23372 Amended No. z and 23373 Amended No. Z are located vtthtn Village A of the Martsrite Village Spectftc Plan (No. Zgg); the three tract maps ~tll provide Z763 dwelltrig antes and a golf course on 254.acres; Tract 23372 ~nended No. Z has been condtttoned wt~h the spectftc plan's condition of approval to mtttgaT. e tapacts to the Stephens Kangaroo Rat habitat; the tracts have been condtCtoned ~o comply w~h Specific Plan lgg~ C~ange of Zone ~ase 5Z07, and Developmen1: Agreemen1: No. S; and a waiver of t;he lot length to w~dt;h -:*.~o v~11 .ke needed for Vesl:tn9 Tentative Tract 2337~ Amended No. ~. All env~ronmenl:al concerns hav~ been addressed tn EZRa Z07, 202, and the ~n~t~al 54 ItJVERSIDE COUNTY FLMNtN6 COt!HZSSXON ~NUTE$ OCTOBER S, 1988 studtes for these tract maps, led no SIgnificant tapacts have been found;; the dr 7 ud conform b the reWiremenU of Oral.Maces 460 and 348. The proposed project will not lave a significant el:act on the environment. HOTZOII: Upon rotJoe liar_ comlssJomr Me, seconded a unantmusl~ carrtd, the Coalslima adopt~ t.~e itlvl declirsttons ifor Amended lloe;t, and 23373 Ameeded h. Z, all subject to the proposed condition ampdad as follo~s, bash on the above fledlags aed conclusions and the recomudattm of sMff- Tract No. 23371 9 - Amend to r~flect the Septamber 30, Z988 bid Department letter. 'Z3(~) and 23(3) - Amend to requtr~ the developar to comply with the p.rimy . · landscaping requireeats u shown Is Specific Plan No, Ampdad No. 1 Unless mtntenance ts provided by a honeowners usoctattoe or other publtc eattry. 26 - hlete the last sentence ("11m final mp for Vesting Tract 23372 sial1 show the park as I 'numbered 33(c) - Roofeted mchentcll e, ptpaent shall not be parerifted withtn the subdivision, except for the clubhouse ublcll m), hie screened equtinent as approval by the Planntng Departmat; however, solar equipment or any other en slytag devtces shall be per,dtte~ z Planning Department approvecrYy. COndition 34(a) for Trsct. t 23371; 23372. and 33(1) for Tract 23373 'Add 'ned my be phased with the pro~ect°. tto ellrat7 that walls my be phased wiU~ the developneat ate'the tract. ' COndition 33(d) for Tracts 23371 and 23372. and 32{d) for Tract 23373 8utldtng separation between all buildings Including fireplaces shall less than ten feet unless approved by the Department'of Butldtn9 and and the FIre Oepartmn~. per Spectt~tc Plln lg9 Amended llo. 34(e) for Tracts 2337Z, 23372 and 33(e) for Tract 23373 - Delete Road Department Condition 21 for Trlct 23371 and 14 for Tracts 23372 and ~ld to the end "or Is approved by the bid Department' 5S RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COHHISSION HINUTES S[PTF~ Za, lgSS ~ ~ DIO0 ~D~ NO. 1 - ~ 323X8 - ~r borg ~ . ~- - ~ncho ~lfo~ts/~tnnsr ~ ~ss - FIrK $~ ~trd of ,~t~rfteld SUp ~, no~ ~ ~ncM ~11fo~ta M- 291 lo~ - Z22.~ ic~s - R-Z/SP bnd. ~dule a ~Ttfoet~$ktamr ~ ~ - Ft~t ~ ~1~ ~e~tso~al Dtstrtc~ - east of Qtser P~, ~ ~ k~ffield $~ ~ - 263 lo, - 87~ ic~ - T~ ~ ~Z~ - ~ ~S~ - ~rl~~ ~. ~- - bncho ~Ttfo~1i~kteer ~ ~ - Ft~t and ~t~ of Li ~na ly, mst of Butte~teld $Qp ~ - 37 lo~ - Z6.4~ acres - Y~-I ~nes. ~h~le a TRACT HAP 23203 AIqBQED NO. Z - EA 32535 - 14arlborough Day. Corp. - Rancho CallfornSa/Sktnner Lab-Are -Ftrst a d Third Supervtsor~al DIstricts - ~est of Butterfteld Stage_ IV, north of ilancC4 California IM - 18 lots - 29~ acres SP(R-A-1Zones~ aChedulnA The heartrigs ware opened at 9:49 a.m. and c~osed at 10:08 STAFF R[COI~ETiDATION: Adoptton of the negattve declarations for EA 323Z8, 32533, 32534 and 32535, and approval of Tentative Tract Naps 23200 Amended No. Z, ZJXOZ, 23202, and 23203 Amended No. Z ~lth a watver of the lot length to'vtdth ratto, subject to the proposed conditions. The subject tract raps ~ere located withtn Vtllage I of the Nargarita Ytllage Spectftc Plan, and :Zgg Amendment No. Z, and the zontng vhtch had been applted to the spectftc plan through Change of Zone Case SLOT. Hs. Glfford reconeended several changes to the conditions for these tract maps, relattng to requirements for maintenance of the open space areas, park requtrea~nts, useable yard areas, and fenctng requirements. fir. t(lotz suggested modifying the last condition for each tract map by beginning vtth the phrase "Developpent of thee· Commissioner aresson re~uested that changes be made throughout to refer to either *publlc use tratls" or *recreational tretls" tnstead of 'equestr4an tratls*; he felt these tarms would more accurately descrtbe thetr use. BatTy Burnell, representing the applicant, accepted the conditions as amended. It was hts understanding that tn the event any portton of the development agreement was held to he tnvaltd (for any reason), the conditions 1 null and void; thts was requiring compliance with that agreement woud be continned by County Counsel. There was no further testimony, and the hearings ware closed at 10:08 a.m. FIrIDING$ AND CONCLUSIONS~ Tentative Tract Paps 23100 Amended No. 1, 23101, 23~02, and 23103 Amended No. 1 are located wi~,,in Village B of the Pargart~a 2 COUNTY PLANNING COWqlSSIOel MINUTES SEPTHER 28. 1958 VIll 9e Slacfi~lc Plan; the four tract raps .ould d~vlde the 2~ ac~s Jnto s~lfic plan's ~Mlt~ W a~al U ~tlga~ 4~acU ~ ~e Stephen· UI~ ~~ ~* 1. All ~~~1 ~~ ~ve ~ edd~ssed tn Ell 107,~ Ell N~ ~ ~ tntttd s~dtu ~ ~n ~ raps, a~ ~ signtricot ~ral Plu (u m~d ~ ~1 No ~nt b. ISO), ~ctftc Plan ~nt b. 1 led h~ of hal bee 51~; ~ ~ raps artfore W ~e stFtfi~t ~f~ u ~ ~mt. HOTI :. Upon motion Cads·toner Dresson, seconded hr Coan4sstoner Beading and unantaous~ carried, the Coredsalon adopted the negative . go. 1 w4th · uetver of the lot length to Width rut4o, subJect.to the ,posed I on .conditions, ended as fol ous, based the above ftndtngs and conclusions and ~he rucanmendattons of staff. Tract Nap 23100 Amended No. I Amend to conform to Condition 24 (to provtde for rot·ten·ace of the cmnon open space am by etaher · County Servtco Are or · Hameo~mer Association). PTtor to the tssoance of occupancy porndts for 160 antes on Tract 23100, the park area-shall be developed par Spactftc Plln No. Mended Replace With the sUndaM alternative condition providing for mint·hence of the canon o n space area by esther · County Servtce Area or Horn·wears Assoctag~on. ' 37(b) W·11 and/or fence locations shall subs·an·lilly confom to attached Figure 111-28 of Spectftc Plan No. '199 kindmerit go. l. 38. The develop·eat of Tentative Tract No. 23100 keendad No. I shall compl~ with all provisions of Spectftc Plan no. 199 Amendment No. 1 and Develop·eat Agreement No. S Track Hap 23101 17[h) Rear 3ards and useable stde ~ards shall have an average flat area Of 2000 square feet. 22. Mend to conform to Condition 24 (to provtde for rat·Can·ace of the cc~on o~en space area by ett~er a County Service Area or i Homeo~ners Assoc~a~on~. 3 RZVERSXDE: COUNTY PLANNXNG CI)HHXSSXON KXNUTE:S SEPTE:~ER 25. 1988 23, Prior to the tssuance of occupanCy parEItS for 160 untie on Tract 23201o the park area shall be developed par $pactf4c Plan No. No, 2. 24, Replace vith the standard alternative condtt4on providing for m¶ntenance of the creme o space am by etaher · County hrvtce Area or Hometurin·r· Assocta~enH- 37(b) Ms1!, end/or face locations Shall substSntta113r confore to'attached Ft~re ZZ[-28 of 5peclftc Finn IIo, 299 Mendmet rio, 2, 38, The day·loin·at of Tentative Tract M, 2310Z shall compl vtth a11 rovtstons of _Specific FiLe lie, [FJ Meant llo, 2 and ~)evelopment ~eenenttlo, r 5 , TraCt Hap 23Z02 3o bend to conform vith Condition 33 {to provide for mint·n/rice of the comon open space am b~ etaher · County Servtce Area or · Horn·owners Association. Replace vith the standard alternative tendtalon providing for maintenance of the connon open space ires by etaher a Coynay Servtce Area or Horn·owners Association, 3S(b) Mall and/or fence locat4ons liE11 substantially conform to attached Ftgure [iX-28 of Spectftc Plan No, 199 Mendmet 36. The develolaent of Tentative Tract Ito. 23~02 shall comply ~ith rovtsions of _Specific Fish No. 199 Amendment IIo, Z and Development ~greement No, 5 Tratct Nap 23103 Mended No. 1 2~. Amend to canfore to CondiXon 22 (to provide for mint·hence of ~he con·on open. space ares by etaher a County Servtce Area or a Homeo~ers Assocl alton, 2e Replace vlth the standard alternative condition providing for mtntenance. of the camon open space area by etaher a County Servtce Area or Homeowner· Association. 34(a) IAll and/or fence locations shall substantially contom to attached Ftgure I[[-28 of Spectftc Plan No. 199 Men·at No. 1. 35. The daveloin·at of Tentative Tract No. 23103 Amended No. Z shall comply vrith all provisions of Spectftc Plan No. 199 Amendment Ho. 1 ant Development Agreement No. 5 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COHFKSSION FLTNUTES S[PTE~SER 29, 1~98 (AG'31DA XTEHS 1-3 AND 14 - REEL 1002, SIDE 1 - TAPE l, SIDE 1) TItACT lOP 22916 - EA 32505 ' nancho California by, 'Co. - PAnca ClllfornJ/ Are~ -Ftrst Supervisor1·1 DJstrtct - north of Pauba IV, west of Butterfit Stage lid - 2S~ lots - 103,3~ acres - Jt-lt/SP Zones, khedule A TItACT HAP U.F.S - EA 32S04 - RantS Cal(fornil Dev, Co, - Itsrich0 California Are -Ftrst Septrvtsorlal NatticS- south of Itancho Visa IM, west of Butte teld Stage Id - Z87 lots - F.,Gt acres - R-R/SP Zones. Schedule A First Superviso~d DIstrict - south of Itsecho California lid, west of Kaiser Pb(y - XSS lots - 4b acres - It-Z/SP Zones. khedule A VESTIt TRACT MAP 22470 - EA 32517 - rdtser bvelopnont Ca. - Itsecho California Area - first Su rvtsortal .DIstrict - north of it·echo VIsta lid, west of Kaiser Pkwy - 32S ~lots - 1.06.3 acres - R-X/SP Sc edule A h The :hearings ire open.ed at lO:lO a.;. and closed at ll:lO a.m. STAFF RECDIIE)G)ATION: Adoption of the attve declmrsttons for EA 32517, 325 8, EA 32S04, meal EA 3250S end mpprov~a of Tentative Tract Naps 229Z5 m ~J4 Z29{;,rmnd Vesting Tentative Trmct Naps 23470 and 2347Z sub:JetS to the n I Tr~lmsed conditions, and · betvet of the lot longlab to Width rests for mll out act asps, These four tract taps were located in Ytllage C of Spectf c Plae Z99 kneedmeet No. Z, led weuld divide the 34S acres lets 1020 resideells lots, provide · 20 acre school stte, a S acre park stte and 3 tot lots. Stiff had found the proposed lips to be consistent With the Comprehensive General Plan, tee adopted specific plan, and the zoning which had been spplted to t: property throvgh Chart e of Zone Class St07. Ms. 6tfford recoanended severs changes to the conditions of approve1; these changes related to the ateimam lot size, lot length to width rails requirements, park requireheels, landscaping/irrigation requiTenearS, and a requirement for develolnent of the tract maps tn accordance with the adopted spectftc plan and spproved devel oFnent agreement . Caratsstarter badling questioned Na. Gtfford's ,ecok~znditton for daleSton f the :conditions for Tract HIps 23470, Z29ZS and 229Z6 requiring landscaping trrtigstton, P!s. 6trYoral explained these three ten·tire raps rapDied Btntlma 7200 square foot lots and the County dtd not normally requtre V:ndscaping and for lots of thts size. fir, Sirester felt this condition could be re :tned, as tt wes County poltCy to requtre landscaping and Irrigation for 72~ square font lots tn the Rancho Cal.tfornta area. Robert rJmble, representing the applicant, advised they would prefer not to provtde the front 'yard landscaping and irrigation, and requested that the .-condition be deleted. Cctmtssloner Beadlerig asked whether Mr. KJmble had seen the letter subelated by fir. and firs. Pipher objecting to the density proposed the r estate type homes. At her request, Hr. Ktmble tn the ares adlacent to t located fir. Ptpherts subdivision which was next to Rancho VIsta ~ad. They were proposing the 7200 square foot lots allowed by the specific plan for this area. /~s. 6ifford advised the tract n-,p was a refiling of a previously 5 COUNTY PLANNING C(N~ISSION MINUTES SEPTF~ER 28, 1988 approved amp, and there yes no change in the denstty~ the .posed tract map ,as; Within the density range a11oved by the specific plan. Commissioner Beadllng quota frm the letter, ~htch requested that the densSty be redu~lL to the denstry originally proposed by the spoctftc plan. She wanted to k.. , what thts denstry kms, and ,as tnformed +.hera had been no change tn the density. 14r. Ktsble requested that Condition 4 of the rleod Control Dtstrtct's letter for Tract Z3471 be daletel. This condition required mtntenance ramps in th Condition 26 for Tract 22915 and CoM~tton 28 for Tract 22916 be amended by adding to the end "or Is approved by the bad Coaartsstonera; Hr. ~ohnson agreed to this change for beth tract laps. Condition 20 for Tract 22916 required the park to be full . improved and developed prior to the tssuance of butlding Farmtea for ~0 units, and * Ktmble requested that this condition be ended to reclutre the ark prtor to the: tssuance of occupancy for the 2Sgth lo1:. Providing the full~r tEprO:;d pa~k prtor to 150 antes veuld be a burden to the developer. Ha. 61fford advised FIr. ttEble's request .ould delay completion of the park until after the entire tract had been completed; staff felt IS0 untts would afford the applicant an opportunity to butld som untts, and at that potnt the Improve- ments could be tted tnto rud ImprovematS, The park would also be useful for the tract to the north, whtch was being developad by the sam developer. Hr. Ktmble requested clarification of the ned condition staff had sag ested for Trac~. 22916 regarding mitigation for the Stephens Kangaroo Pat. ~r. '~ Goldman explained this condition referred tack to the specific plan conall~ ttons, which required either a Hemrandum of IJnderstsndtng With the Department of Fish and Game or that the applicant comply with the Countybride program being established by Riverside County; . Robe~ Oudonay, also representing the applicant, advised he was acttvely involved vtth the task force appetnted by the Board of Supervisors regarding the Stephens Kangaroo Pat program. There was no set pro ram at the present time, and he Nanted to know whether they would be chargc~ the $750 per fee, or whether they would be held up until 'a specific program was estai~ ltshed. He did not want to be dela , as th_ey would be read to pull bu.$b~e~Od- tng permits vtthtn the next few wae~Yeds. it-. Klotz explained ~e Board had generally endorsed the concept of havt~g a developer make I depositdot per lot, accoaFanied by an agreement to pay the fee as ultimately a opt; this would allow the project to go fonird. He felt thts option would available to the developer. He explained this was not necessarily the ulttmate fee, but Has on1 a security to be deposited ITsthat the ulttmate mitigation fee. Thts explanation satisfied Fir. Dudonay s concerns. Hr. Ktmble advtsed tt was their understanding that tn the event Develorment Agreement No. S should be held invalid at some time in the future, the approval of the four tra:~ :z;s '~d s~11 stand, but the condition for .. / RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING CONHISSION MINUTES SEPTENBDt 28. 1988 c '11ante vlth the develolaent a ant wauld be null and votd. fir. tlo' ~ sdvmTsed ~hts as explicitly pro t~ed vlthtn the development v agreement, OPeNBITS: Bob; Ptpber, 41825 Ereentree bd, Tme~uh, edvtsed the dsvslolaent tn ahtch let'.sr requetttng that the porttons of the' eject tract asps ed:i·cent to the' r are· k requtred to crete lots stellar tn stze. Hr~ ~her had · m of ~be Hergartta VIllage 5poctfic Plan dated ~rch 30, 198 , 4ch shoed denStry tn thts area to be upproxtmtoly Mlf of the den·try currently pro sed. fir, Ptpher edvtse~ thts was an equestrian area, and paople res4d ng tn ~e area needed rtdtng tratls. He requested · connecting ~rat1 frm Pau~ to hncho fists along tie boundar~ bet·man thetr subdivision and the subject d develolanent or along ICatser Parlgmy; tbts multi provtde an · dtttonal landscaped buffer area. fir. Ptpher ·dvtsed the/had no probleE vith the proposed school stto, but lilt the :circulation s~stm _lH~.posed to serve the school was Inadequate. ~n hts optnton, Street "B" should be extended to Katser Partbey; thts ~ould then p~ovtde access to both the school ·1to and the park from ICatser P·rk~ly. At the present ttme there was · steady fN of traffic, and providing an access to the park stte and school frm gatser hay aould help everyone ¶n the area, tn addttton to mktng the park more accessible. Because of the traffic on Katser Park·y, fir. Pt her thou ht tt vould be difficult for people 11vtn- on the other ·1de to m~ the pa~'~. He therefore suggested that me or parks be requtred on the other stale of rat·st .Parkway, to benefit restdenb .n that area. Hr. Ptpher requested · solld wall along the bounds bo~een thetr develo nt and the sub:~ect project. The Nop10 restdtng tn ~h~s area wre requesting;m: buffer, and ~ould appreciate anything the Comisstoners could do to help - the. Zn ansver to · questton by Cmm4sstonar Bresson, fir. Pt her advtsed there bus no street between the area he was representing and ~e subject stte; the lots from the subject trac'~ nap ere bocktng up agatnst the lots tn hts subdivision. Hhen fir. Ptpher agatn requested equestr4an tratls, Ha. Gtfford brtefly revtewed the proposed ~a11 system, ~htch tncluded· tra11 along hncho California Road, golng up the ratset Park~y and !eID easement; no trells ware proposed tn the southern area as requested by fir, Ptpher. Comisstoner Ire·son requested that these tratls he designated u publlc access or recreational tr~ils tnstead of equestrian Crafts. Mr. Burnell adv4sed that an equestrian Ire11 had been established all along Pauba Road, gotrig east and west, and there vas a north/south trail tn the IMtropolttan Hater Dtstrtct easement gotrig by tJ~e school admJnts~ra1:ton stte, along Pancho California bad to Kaiser Parkway. The resideriLe of the Green Tree are could use the Ira11 along Pauba, whtch connected ~o 1:he trat] ·1on Green Tree Lane. Tht was · regional trall system, established under t. he d?rec~ton oF the Parks s Departmen1:. 'R:ZVERSZDE COUNTY PLANNXNG CQI~]:SiZQtl KZNUTES S~.PTFJ~3~.P. Z8, Z~88 Comtsstone~' aresson requested tnformtton on the t~q)e of buffer to be provided, fir, Burns11 ldvlsed there vould be insoar/rills tn the are nQ:~h and south of Rancho Vista bad; he thought th s keuld satisfy fir. Pipher*,. ~ conCerns. fir- Burial1 advised the PaWaria Village Specific Plan had originally been approved vlth a slJght1~ htgher denstry tn thts area. The~ had .added land vith the amended spectftc plan but had not changed densities in the 'are of the sub~ct tract raps, The exhibit presented by fir. Ptpher ds a conceptual exhtbtt prepared by the engtneer for tnternal use only and had u never been presented to the iX) nty. fir. Ktmbl · responded to fir. Pi pher' s request for in add1 tt one1 park on the other side of Katser Plrkvmy, by advtsl_ng CostJtn Homes yes providing a park planned for Tract Z271S to the north; they were planntng to upgrade both parks over and above the requtrmnts of the spectf~c plan. Caeadsstoner Donshoe asked Whether stiff Nas reamending that a condition he added to requtre the Na11 as a buffer between the subJec~ tract raps and the area represented by fir. Pipher, and Nas informed this Nasa condition of the specific plan. · Sec~4on of the Road Deparment) ~elt thts Nas an excellent recommendation. CirCulation tn this are wlght he improved by mktng this connection rat;her thin haytrig the school sewed by a cul-de-sac street. Thts would also the both the school and the park stto access frm a 6G foot vide street. Men Commissioner aresson asked whether thts could he accomplished viihour redestgntng the rap, fir. Johnson replied he felt the map would have to be ~ amended. 14r. Sireater felt thts provtdea inch better access. Commissioner Beadling felt that a lqng cul-de-sac street gotrig into a school was poor planning, as tt requtred .the ups and school busses bringtrig tn chtldren to wrap around and come back out the sue Nay. Extending the street would allow the vehtcles to drop off the chtldren and go out a different Nay. Commissioner aresson was concerned about cresttrig a 4-way intersection, and fir. Johnson agreed that a 3-ray tn'tersectton created less problems. However, he sltll felt that providing access to Katser Parkway would result tn better circulation servtce to the School slte. Mr. Burnell dtd not feel tt Nas necessa~/to extend "l' Street to Katser Park- way tn order to provtde adequate circulation for the school. He was concer~ed. that the change tn the roadway ndght cause problems vrith regard to the sever lines. fir. Burnell was also concerned about a 4-w~ intersection at Kaiser Park~a,v; he felt retaining the extsttng 3-way tritersection would provide an overall better circulation system for residents of the area. Conmtsstoner won d not encourage through Dresson preferred the cul-de-sac street because traffic along the school stte. fir. Johnson pointed out that there would be less opportunity to eventuall.v obtain signaltzatton for a )-wa.v tntersectjon than for a 4-way tritersection. . rk ilalali BrL la] DATE: June i, X988 - Dove Duds rye:or rimant froPro on · read Cantre1 DIstrict t. FCO, S PASS1 II,S. FosUT ~vl~ce SbertfPs Department - Ihrth t, Davidson JUH13 M 1lESTZig TIACT ~3373 - (Sp Pl: M' rU Impatient 31548- Ik rlto Villa · De-eh · ' - hngk~ Callfernlm Arem - FirSt iastd~r~rn Ilenlctpsl Witmr becho"Ca · a raise- Elslnorm Untm School NIt. ba 7,one - 21 Acres 348 Condmmlr Temecula Union Sdlo01 NIt. - (RB,ATED CASE TI 23371 & C37~ Sierra Club, San Gorgonis Chapter - AsP. 9Z3-Z%0-O23 Pleas -~ rev4ee the use described above, along ma the attache case nap, A Lore Dhls"on CaseStree meeting his bee tontathely scheduled for vt'l then 90 to public Marlel. Tour C~ents and recamendstlons are requested prior to bee S, tg88 tn orde, 11 include then In the stiff report for this particular use. Should 7on hive any question regarding this Item. plemse do not hesitate to con' 7 Kathy. G(fford It 78 063S6 ' F l anner nan and tStle 4080 LEMON STREET. 9"' FLOOR RIVERSIDE., CALIFORNIA 92501 (714) 787-6181 46-209 OASIS STkEFT. I INDIO. CALiF{" RZVERSID( COtm'TY Pt.ANNIN~ COI~!]:SS[ON t!IIIUTE:S SEPTF. NBER Z8, 1988 Hr. Ktmble.edvtsed they had net ~th the school district and showed the the tontattve rap; they were pleased vlth the conft rotton of the school stte aS well as the proposed street sTstma, Hr. krnel~edvtsed thetr ortgtnal de-~n showed the school/park site.adjacent Katser Parkway, and the school dtstrt~. had objected to thts plan because they dtd not ant the chtldren adjacent to a ma3or street. Camdsetoner Bressoe supported the tract map as currently' designed, .u tt ms saltsfactor7 to the school district. There m no further testimony, and the heartrig m closed at 11:10 i.e. FINDINGS AN~'~ONCLUSZOIIS: Tentative Tract' Flips 2291S, and 22916, and Vesttrig Tract Maps 23470 and 23471 are loutod .tthtn Vtllag! C of bctf4c Plan Amendment No, Z (the Fmrgartta VillageSpacific Plan); the four tract raps Nould dtvtde the 345 acres tnto 1020 residential lots; destgn manuals have been prepared for Vesttrig Tentative Tract Flaps 23470 and 23471; the tract maps have' been condtttoned to comply vith Spectftc Plan 199 kmndmnt Ho. 1, Change of ZOne Case SlO7, and Develofsnent &;ant No. S; · batvet for the length to krldth rat40 rill he needed for all four maps. All environrental concerns have ben addressed ¶n EXI 107, EXit 202, and the ¶ntttal s~udtes for them tract m s, and no significant trapacts ere losrid; the tract maps are consistent vt~ the Comprehensive 6onetel Plan (as amended by General Plan 5107.; a d c~nfom to the 4 n HOT! N: Upon morton b C__,,mt_sstonor Bresson, seconded by Comtsstoner Bead~lng and unanimously cartted, the Comatsston adopted the negattve declarations for EA 32517, EA 325Z8, EA 32504 and EA 32505, and apprnved Tentative Tract Naps 22915 and 22916, and Vesting Tract )laps 32470 and 23471. all wttha vatvet of the lot length to ~dth ratto, subject to the propostS, cond:tttons and based on the above findtngs and conclusions and the recomme,,-a- tlons of staff. Tract No, 23470 17.(a) - A11 lots shall have a mtntmum stze of 72OO square feet net. 17(b) - Delete enttrely 20 -Prtor to the tssuance of occupancy pemtts for 150 untts, one tot shall be taproved and fully daYeloped. 21 -Prtor to the tssuance of occupancy pemtLs for 275 untts, the second tot lot shall be traproved and fully developed. 27 -Prtor to the tssuance of ~tldtng permtts (balance to renatn the same) 36 - The development of Vestin Tentative Tract Hap 23470 shall comply wtth tts Destgn Hanna1, wtth aYl prOv4StOnS Of Spectftc Plan No. 199 Amendment No. 1 and w4th Development Agreement No. S RIYERSIBE ClXJN'TY 'PLA)aIIN6 ClX('ISSXON w I, Q:NUTES SEPTHER 28, ~.98e ZO - Prior to the tssuance of occupancT pamtts for 200 untts, one tot: shaft be tarored and fully developed. H - Prior to the 1nuance of Imlldtng parsits (balance to remtn the .sam) ~(f) - All front .yards shall be prwtdod vith landsuping and mnually rl flood ~nl, ol Condition 4 - Ialeto enZtroly and vIth Oeviiolaent Agreamnt No. S Delete Condition 4 of the flood Control letter dated aune it, Zg88. Tract No. 22915 24 - Prior to the Issuance of butldtng pamtts (balance to mutn the same) 3Z - The developrant of Tentative Tract Hip 229Z5 shall crop1 with all provisions of Spectftc Plan lie. lgg ~mendmmt RO. Z and ~evelopment Agreement No. 5 Road Departrant Condition 26 - Add: to the end "or is Ipproved b7 the bed Ccmtsstoner'. Trlc~ No. 22gZ6 2 - kid the folloedng: except for: the lot le~gth to width ratto. 20 - Prior to the Issuance of occupan peruIts for XSO untie tn Tentative Tract 229~6, the park shall be ~uc~ly tmprovod and developad. 25 - Prior to the Issuance of I~11dtng parmtto (balance to rera!n the sam) 32 - The developneat of Tentative Tract Hap Z3gX6 shall comply with all provisions of Spectftc Plan RO. Zgg Mendrant RO. 1 and Development Agreement No. S 33 - Prior to Issuance of gradtrig parmtts, Impacts to the Stephens rangiron Rat Hibttat shall be mitigated per the spactftc plan conditions of approval. Road Depir'ment Condition 28 - Add to the end 'or is approved by the Road CQmmtss4oner". 20 Zoutng Are: Ranca Cal lfor~tl Vesting Tentative Tract Nos.: 2337X Supervtsortd Nitriot: Ftrst led No, l, 23372 And. lto. 1, 23 And. TMrd Plinntng hands·.ion: XO-S'8173 No. Ageeda lien No,: S-2, 5-3, and S-4 E.JL. ItS: 22S46, 32S47, 32S0 Specific Plan Sectton .-SWFem · Ikrgartta VIllage Davelolae,nt Co, -* 2. F.J~tne~r: Rick heinesiN Cm;any 3 -~ ' · of Request: ' TM 3 tram will subdivide 472 acre~ · : ,. Typ ...--' into 1763 residential entte --"" '. '~ ' $P Z99 kmd~ No. Z zoning). ~"'-' "'i ZOnt · to. the esrth and vest '-"i6;~'- S. rrounding Zoning: A.2,~;;~, R-R, iS-X; Zontng to the south '7," Site Characteristics: " Vaunt land traversed with lw h.ls ~ 8. Area Characteristics: Located on eis~.tre edge of .~n¢ Caltfornt& coneuntidY '*' No, lSO ' proposes · era1* P! 10., Land Division Date: - · . VeSting Tries Acreage: · -:.... . , 233TL knd.- Re- Z 394 ...... 23372 Md.' No. Z 37 23373 bd. No. ). ~ · Danst ty (Ou/ac) Ill3 3 "' Z3Z 6 348 ,, . I -11- ~genCy liecomendat~ons= Z3371/ad, Io. I 23372 And. No. I 23373 lind. No. I H~ ' 9-22-88 3..~-88' 94248 th 7-ZS..I8 1,7-18 74S-U Flood 7.,~-88 7.424 7-22-88 Ft r~ 8-1748 847-18 8.17-88 lMrlff i-10-88. k10.48 6-1048 1L Lettersz 13. ~ Of InflaMe lnfiu. mce lane received as of thts riling it ~ts · CIty sphere These tracts have hams destgned to be' consistent utth then docume Is. The, table belov summarize the tracts* relationship and conststenc~ vith th~ Spectftc Plan's planntng Irene. As shoun, hem of the tracts exceed the penstread nunher of rutdenttal BIts. Tract IIo. Proposed 5pectf¶c Plan o. Untts Area vTr 23372 bd. no. 1 vTF 23372 Awl. No. Z VTT 23373Md. Ilo. I Pemlttld No. of Untts 1183 33-37; 42-45 1197 232 41 234' 348 38 · 348 A design mnual has been prepared for a11' three vesting raps ~hlch pro lde guidelines for landscaping, floor 1arise elevations end zoning. kousltu studies have ben pro sed and vt1T be beplmentnd as requtred conditions of approval. Mitigation for potsnttd trapsets to H~. Palomr also Included tn the conditions of approval. Additional evaluation found cul tufa1 resources onst te. Vesting Tentative Tract 2337X, Mended 11o. I tncludes an 18 hole golf course As also requtrecl by the spectftc plan condltlonsw the tract has bee to t rove t~e tart tn PTsnntq Area 45. Tn confermince .lt~ the condSg~an Vest~g Tenalive Tract ~3~, ~nded No. I has ~en ~ndttioned Tnvt~Ul useman ave d ta EZe tO7 and [~ ZO2 ~pard' for ~ ctfic ~u m ~-- ~ · 1. ~festlng Tentative Tract tie. 223TL Mended tie. 1, 2:3372 bonded He. !,linde 2. The ~hm tram-~r~11 provtda 170 dvellteg antes and golf couTse Wen spa~ on H4 164 acres- (Mende by plunJq C~mtss~on !0-5-88) 3. Tract 22372 kneaded Re, I has been cond¶gloned r. the '5pec4ftc Plan's condition of approval to Idaagate teaacts to the ~phens I~ngaToo Rat. -4. The ~'acts ave been condtttonad to comply vlth S act fie Plan tie. Tgg, Change of Zone No. SI07 and gevaloFaent. Agreement lie, ~- be mded fo Vesting Tentative 5. & ~atver for length to vldth ratio rill Tract 23)71 Mended No. ~- ~'1 C:~CLIJSTOR$: 1. &11 environmental concerns ~ve ~en ndd~ssed tn Uh ~07, 202 and ~ tateta1 s~dS~ f~ ~se tracU a~ ~ stg~tftcsn~ t~sc~ ha~ .bee found. 2. The trac~s are consistent' vlth General Plan Mendmeat He. ~50 Change c 7Jne tie. 5107, and $pectf¶C Plan Re. lgg, knendaent No. 1. 3. The tracts conforl to the requirements of Qrd¶nances 248 and 460. tnag the pro3ects nded IIo I 23372 Amended ! 1, and 2))7 ' ~.G :mob :rap RIVERSIDE COtroT1' KHmING DEPARTMENT SLIgDIVZSIQN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AreSDEem- s .' · sTrummAre mmmcm proceeding agatest the ~4~ of IUverstde or 1Is agents, officerS, o' mp_lo to attack, set astde, vedd or atom1 an appreval of the can of ~verStde, tt3 sdvtsory l~es, splm_l boards or legtslmttve bod conceruln Vesgtn Tentaghe Tract Z3:573 Janded IIo. brought :~:aT:|~tn the ttm period prOv_tded for tll California Goretitan ' ttvers td~ and vtll rate M1 tm the defense. if the CounQ, falls p~mptly notify ~e~c~lvtder :~Yany such elate, actton, or proceeding falls to cooperato fell ta the defense, the suMSrider shall thereafter, be rupons]Tble to defend, IndmntYy, or hold bernless 6 0 0 6 County of ItSvmrstde. The tentative suMtvts4on shall camp1 with the State of CalltOrn4 Subdivision Hap Act and to all the re'~[rosents of Ordinance 460, Schedul fl A, u~less malt ed by the conditions Itsted below. provided by Ordinance 460. 4. The ftnal mp shall be prepared by a license~ land surveyor subject to a' the requiremats of the State of California Subdivision HaP ACt m! Ordinance 460. · 5. The subdtvSdtr shall sutntt me copy of · sulls report to ~he ttverst County Surve~or's OffiCe and two copJes to the Department c: 8utldteg a I Safety. The report shall address the so ls stability and gelOgtc conditions of the stta.' 6. If an), 'gradtrig ts proposed, t~ subdivider sbe11 sutatt one print pl by Ordinance 457 and as maybe additionally provtded for tn conditions of approval. Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 23373 Mended Page 2 e A gradt pmmtt shall be obtatned from the Deparment of luilding~ and Safety ~or to umoncamnt of BeY gradtrig outstde of county mtntained road right of uNr* " My delinquent propert, taxes! stroll be paid prior to recordation of the find ~p, The subdivider shall conely vtth the street 1mr··merit cop7 of slick tS attached. 10o Legal access as requtred by Ordinance 460 shall be provided from the tracl map boundary to · County manrained road. :tl. All red easmnto sbo11 be off red for dedication to the publtc and shal~ continue in force until the ·rntag body accepts or alandons Suci offers. /11 dedications slm'TPvbe fr~e rm all encumbrances as approve, 12. Easements. vhon required for readray slopes, drainage facilities utilities etc.. shall be sho~n on the fins1 aNI If they are loate, ~lthtn. ~J~ laml division beundarJf. All elfera of dedication an conveyances shall be subfitted and recorded as directed b~ the Count, Surveyor. !3o Mater ud sewerage disposal facilities shall be installed in accordant v~th the provisions set forth In the liver·tale County Health Department' h letter dated 7-25-88 ·coNf of ~ 'ich is attached. 14. The subdivider shall comply vtth the flared control rocommenda'~toe outltned by the ittverstde Count~ Flood Control Nstrtct's letter date 7-22-88 · copJ~ of ~hlch is kitached. If the land division ltes Vtthln a adopted flood control drainage area pursuant to Sectton 10.25 of Ordtnan~ 460 appro fitto fees for the constructfort of area drainage factllttl shm~l be ~o~lected by the bad Comtsstoner. 15. The subdivider shall compl~ vlth. the' firs tmprov~nent recQmmend~tot nulltried tn the County Fire Pdrshll*s letter dated 8-1.7-88 a cop~ of vht, ts attached. 16. Subdivision phastng, Including any proposed ~ommon open space a~ Improvement phastng, tf applicable, shall be subject to Plannta Deparl:nent approval. Any propSsad phasing shall provide for sale;J· vehicular access to all lots tn each phase, and shall substantial conform to the tntent and purpose of the subd¶vtston approval. · Contit ttons of Approval Tentative Tract No, 23373 Mended No. l Page 3 17, Lob created bJr this suMlvtstoa shall eraply vith the folioring: tuner lets and .eaTugh .lets, tf awF, shall be provided n addttlenal am ;fibat te Secttin 3.18 of Ordtnace 460 and I ainufit of net am not to centaim has not am than the eat b. Lets cram by thts sdldlvtatoa shall be tn conformance vttb dt~elolaent standirds of the Specific Plan zoe. c. klhml lots are crossed by mJor publlc uttllty easements, each lo shall have · not usable am of net 1ell than 3,600 square feet exclusive of tim etllltF asSmeet. d. Graded but gndeveloped land shall ha netntatned In a reed-ire .- et pTanted vltb I aria landstapleS · condition and shall bil tier n 1dad Vith ether eroslea c~rL, ol measures as approved by th F~r of lutldtng and Safety. e. Trash btes, loadtag areu and tactdental storage areas shall b located a~a and vtsually s mead ira surrounding areas vtth the us of block :(ls and landsuP~ng. Prtor to RECORDATTON of the final mp the fellrating conditions shall satlsfiee: that all pertteat requlrmenta outltned tn the attached approva let~jrs from the folioring agenctes have'ken met. ~mnl~, fire Dopapbmn*. Count/Parks DepartBent fastere~ Pl~ntctpal liter Dtst. County lieulib Departanent County Irlannin Deplrtment lisaca Vlter lTstrtct b. Prtor to the recordalton of the ftnal rap, bneral Plan Amendment X5~ Spectftc Plan IIo. 1,99 Amndm~nt No. 1,, Development Agreement 110. ' and Change of Zone lio. 5107 aM11 ha approved by the hard Supervisors and shill be effective. Lots created by thtS dtvtston shall ha tn conforminca vtth the development standards Of 1: zone u111mte17 applled to the property. M1 extsttng structures on the subject property shall be removed prtor recordalton of the flea1 rap. Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 23373/mended No. 1 Page 4 ZO, The Common space area abel1 be shorn u a numbered lot on the nap and shal~ managed bY l .mar property owners assoctatfon. ftnal · ZZ, Prtor to recordalton ef the find subdivision subldt"the folioring documents to the Irlanntng Deparment for review, vhtch 41oceanhis shell be subject to the approval of that deparbaent! the O~ftce of the County Courtseli: 1) A declaration of covenants~ .cOmi. tttons and restricttens; and A sample document conveye~r~tle to the purchaser of an individual lol or untt ditch proride that the declaration of covenants, condt~tofl: and restrictions ts t.acorporatod therate b:r reference- The declaration of covenuts, conditions and restrictions submitted to1 roytee shall (a) pre!vt_de for a etntu tern of 60 3mars, (b) prmvtd~ fo~ the establtslment of a prepert~. owners* association comprlsed of omers of each Individual lot or antes (c) provtde for ownership of corona and (d) .contote to folioring provisions verbatim: 'Nothvtthstandlng any Irovtltoe tn thts DeclarstJon to the contrarJr the foilrating prorls4on shall apply: The propertar owners' assoCIation established heretn shill maflagt an conttnuouslJf ma4ntatn the 'comon area', ere particularly on Exhtbtt 'XX1-17' of ~e spectftc plan attached hereto, an,~hal not sell or transfer the 'cemnm area', or any part thereof, abser the prtor artteen consent of the Plenntng Dtrector of the County let vats1 de or the County' s successor-t n-t nearest. The property mmer's assoct tton shall have the right to assess tl owners of each tndJvtdu~ lot or untt for the rsasonable caste maintaining the 'comon'aroa' and shall have the right to 1ten tl property of any such near iho defaults tn the painefit · maintenance assessaunt. An assessment 1ten, once created, shal~fl prior to ali other 1tens recorded subsequent to the nottce~ assessment or other document crsattng the .assessment 1ten. Thts Declaration shall not be t~rmtnated, :substantially: &mended ropefly daunt/axed therefrom absent the prtor written consent Of t ;1arming Dtrector of the CoufltJr of RIverside or the Coeflt3f successor-In-Interest- A proposed &mendmetal shall be coilalder 'substantial' tf tt affects the extent, usage or rainenhance of t 'common area*. 1n the event of any confllct between thts Declaration and the Arttcl of Tncorporatton, the Bylaws or the property owners' association Rul and Regulations, tf any, this Declaration shall control.' Tentative TracZ llo. ~J373 handed No. Z Page S Once I~,bvtd, the declaration of covenants, conditions and restrio ,,,s shall be recorded st the sm ttae that the final amp ts recorded.' PriOr to Fenration of the tim1 rap, clarence shall be obtatned 'roe netropelJtau aster Mstr4ct :htive to the protect4on of the lublectr~rty, Lot line adjustments app14cable eumaento affecting shall ~lso be creep)credo The 4Haloper shall crop1 vitk the folioring porkray landau tag re ~realfil:J aS shoal1 t8 ~pe~fi4: Pla 'No. 1,99 kneedgrit No. X units m~atatned b7 HDA or other ImbllC eat t~. (Amndad by Planning Couutsston :Z0-5-88) Z) Prior to recordalton of the final mp the developor shall file an · app.11cat4 vith the ~ for the foralton of or annexation t , a '-pallmay 'laao~ntenance titstrict for Vesting Tentative Tract No. 2;373 · haended No,' X tn acco..~lF~41 v4th the Landscaplng and Lt httng Ac~ of 19720 'unless the project is irithta an existtag porkany mi~ntemsnct, 2) Prior to the Issuance of befidtng permits, the developor shall seCure approval of proposed landscaptn and Irrigation plans from the Co el) bad and Plinntng De resent, ~1 landscaping and Irrigation p~ans and speclficat4ons s~11 be pored tn a reproduc(ble format suitable for pertainant It]tag vith ~AweC~ Road Deportment. 3) 4) The developer shall post a landscape triotrounce bond vhtch shall released concurrent1 vtth the reT;ase of subdivision perfor ce bonds, quaranteetng Installed prtor to the assumption of the maintenance responsibility bJ the dlstfict. The developer, the developo~s successors-In-Interest or assignees shall be responsible for all pork landstaple mintchance Vntf such the as mtntenince Is taken overvary the dtst~ct. The developor shall be responsible for mintchance and upkeep of el' slopes, .landscaped areas and Irrigation systems unit1 such time as thos. ! Strut lights shall be provtded v4thtn the subdivision tn accordance vie the standards of Ordinance 46X and the following: x) Concurrently ~tth the liltnil of subdivision Improvement plans with th street light la~ut first f~ ~e bad Depsrment's traffic and ~en frm the app~pril~ u~tltt~ ~e~r. Conditions of Approve1 Tentative Tract No, 23373 Mended No. 2 Page 6 2) Felledna el;royal ef the street lighting layout by the Road DeN_rtmnt:S traffic engineere the developer shall also file a coed¶ttml approval of the appltutton from LAF~, unless the site is atehie an existing lighting district. 4) All street, 11ghts and other evident ltghttn shall be shrunken electrical p_lans setstit. ted to.the tie rtaent of Ltldtng and hint)' for plan check approval aid s~al~ comply v tab the requirements of RIverside County Oralthine No. SIS end the Riverside Count3r : Coe rehendve beers1 Plan, Prior to the lssuanca of GRADXN6 PER~ZTS the fellre(tag conditions shall be a. Prior to the issuance of grading peruits, detailed common open space area perking landscaping end Irrigation plans shall be submitted for Planning Departanna approval for the phase of development in process. The plans shall be certified by a landscape architect, end she1 provide for the Volleying. "~ 1 1) Peranent automatic ¶trigeaton s3mtems shall be installed Oh a31 landscaped areas requiring Irrigation. 2) Landscape screening vhere required shall be designed to be ope;e up to a adnbua height of six (6) feet st m~urtty. 3) M1 uttltty service areas led enclosures shall be screened from vie~ vith landscaping and decorative barFiers or ball're 1;reatments~ as approved b3f the Planning Director. Utilities shall be place~ underground, : cover, shahs and stdNlks, benches led otheF pedest~in Bentties vhe~ app~prta~ a~ app~ved by ~e PliAntrig ~pir~ent led S~ctfic Plan He. ~9S ~enbent . 1. S) Landscaping plans shall (nearpetite the use of specimen accent tree'. at key vtsual focal potnl:s wtthtn the pro~ect. Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 23373 Mended IIo. 1 Page 7 28. s) ~ clLeailt be Idutad dthta fight-of-vary o~ trite or lee ~ _WFeJect Im~ dee to lamrfflctent road streets end they shall k Fluted etstk ef tie road dgR-of-~y. Landscaping pl_aM dell Incorporate native and drought tolerant plats a rb;Hau. · All eftsUng specimen arms and signSfinal rock outcroppings on the sub act roy to be removed, rel outod and/o utnad. sh~(1 ~oP~o~se shall be shorn on the LroJect's Fading plans and FrO M1 .trees sial1 be Etatom double staked. Menbar and/or slow growing trees stall be steel staked. ZOO. Parklug layouts shall cop1). utah Ordinance 348. Section ZI. Z2. All existing native slotroe trees on the subject property shall be proserved bherover foulble. Share theY cannot be preserve they she. be relocatnd or replacnd vlth spool!me_ trees as apEroved by the Planntng Director. laplacemeat trees she1!1 be noted on approved landscaping plans. If ovteheeraT~OJect ts to be phased, Irtor to the approval of grading permits, in conceptual grading plan shall be submitted to the PlanMr- DIrector for I _lrovll. The plan shill be used as a guSdelino' subsequent deesteed grad1 g pla I for tndivt us1 phases of n n n d developme t d shall tncludn the following: 1) Techniques whtch will be utlltzod to prevent erosion and sedimentstie dart rig and aftor the gridtag process. · 2) Approximate ttme frames for gradtag led Identification of items ditch amy be graded during 'the thlglmr prolabillt~ rain months. of Janmar) through Parch. 3) P~oltmlnary pad and 4) A~eas of temporary grading outs.tde of a Particular phase. Gradtng plans shall confoe to hard ado ted H!11stde Develo an1 Standards: A1 cut and/or fill Slopes. or IndiVIdual combinations theP~f, vhtch exceed ten feet in verttcal hetght shall be modified b~ at a proprisen combination of a slmctal tortsting (benchIn) plan, lnc~ase s~ope ratio (i.e., 3:1), retaining veils, and/or slope pTanttng combInec Vith Irrigation. All driverays Shall not exceed a fifteen percent grade. Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract No. 23373 Annded No. 1 Page 8 1) 1he angle of the graded slolm shall be gradOally adjusted to the eng1~ of the natural terrain. 2) Angular form shall be dtscourage~ The graded form shall reflect natural tended tarrata. 3) The toe and tops of slopH shall be rounded With curves with .ndt dtstgned tn pro_portion to the total betght of the slopes Uher~ tab land t such round1 ng. dratnage and s tltty 4) ahere cut or f111 slo uceed 300 feet tn horizontal length, th, . hot4 ante1 contours of UmPt:l ope she11 bee curved t n i coat1 noons · undullttn9 fashion. Prtor to the tssuance of grad1 parades, a qualified paleontologist she1 be ratatried Irl the developer ~on~ consultorion and comnent on the propose grading with respect to patenttel pileontologtcll trapacts. $houlc th paleontologist find the potent el ts htgh for 1_rapact to stgntf'can resources, I pro-grade mel~Ing between the paleontologist and th excavation and F'adtng contractor shall be arranged. Vhen necessar/, th paleontologist or re resentstire shall hive the authority to temF r[1 dhert, redlrect or have grading acttvtty to 11ov recover/of foss..~- 32. Pr4or to the Issuance 'of BUILDZlN Pt~4XTS the following conditions She1 be saglsfted: In accordance with the ~rltten request of the developer to the _COunt f of Riveraide, a cops of vhtCh ts on ftle, and tn furtherance o t~ agreement between the 'developer and the COuntJ~ of Rlversldl, f building permtt~s shall be ISsued b~ the County of RIverside for ar parcels withtn .the subject tract unttl the developer, or tt developarts successors-In-Interest provided evidence of compliant with the terms of said Develo;nent Agreement No. S for the ftnanctf of Imbllc facilities. -' WIth the submittal of tmfld?ng plans to the Department of 9ufldt a: Safety the developer Will demonstrate compliance with the acous~tca stud~ prepared for Vesttrig Tentithe Tract 23371 Mended No. I uhIi established Ippro flare mitigation measures to reduce arabtent tntertt notse levels to 4~ Ldn and extertor noise levels below 65 Ldn. Roof-mounted mechanical equtFment shall not be permitted' within tl subdivision, however solar equt;ment or any other energy sly1; devices shall be permitted with Plinntng Department approval. 34. kildfng separation betwe all bllldtngs Including fireplaces anal ROt be hU tan tat (SO) feet utleu apprmd by the Departant o All strut side 3ard setbacks dell be · edna of 10 feet. A.H front 3mrds shall be' provt~ vith landscaping and automat1 Irrigation. Prior to the tssuance of OCCUPANCY ~IUII sS the rollertag conditions Shal be sat1 aft ed: Prtor to the find Imlldt luslmtlon apprml, by the eutldtn! an be1. The reqetrd va11 Shall be sub to the approval of n~ Nrector of the DepartBUt of k11~and hfe~ end the Plan r Nrector and my be phased vtth the project. (ABede by Plaim Cmdsston 10-5-88) ' b. Hall and/or fence locations: shall confore to attached Ftgure II:I-17 c Spectftc Plan No. ]Jl Mendlent, IM. Z. c. &11 landauping and 1trigaft; shall be Instolled tn accordance approved plans prtor to the ~asuance of acrepaP.-? paredis. If se .. conditions do not peruSt plantto , Interim landscaping and it.. control measures shall be utlltZ~K~ as approved by the Planntng Dtrrect~ and the Dim*or of klldln9 and Safety.. d. All perking, landscaping and Irrigation shall be Installed ~ accordance vith approved plus and shall be vettiled by a Plsnntl Departant, ~dd Inspec~-ton. Street trees shall be p!anted throughOU__t the suMtvtston tn accordan, via the standards of Ordinance 4SO and Spectftc Plan Ito. 1 bedmnt~o. I Developneat of Vest. tag Tentative Tract Ro. 23373 knendnd No. 1 sha camply vith all prevtstons of Spectflc Plan No. L99 Amencbnent No. 1 a Devel opuen~ Agren. ent No. S. : ° · OFFICE OF ROAD COa74G:IONER & COUNTY · ' It versi;e bunt~ Iqaanlq Cemisslee - ~,,.,__ . Jlvlrsldle CA IISO:Z ' Pal Tract Flip D373 - Amend It - ~:d ~orr Sclmdule A - Team SP Ladies and Gentlelens fOlioring street .improvement plans rod/or road dedications In accordance v Ordinance 460 led Riverside OBnTF bad llFrovement Steaderda (Ordlnancet44r6 appropriate Q'sB and that *,help minion or unacceptablllty .maWr rewire to be resulaltted for further consideration, Thue Ordlnancei and thl re' 1iv conditions are assangle1 parts and a requireant occurring In ONE Is as lind as though occurring in a11. They ire intended to be comphmentar/and describe the conditions for e cornplats design of the improvement. All qvest regarding the true mining of the conditions shill be referreel to the ~ Cornrot ss Ioner's Of iS ca. ' l~e landdhtder shall protect dramstrim properties from damages caused b~ alteration of the drainage patternst i.e., concentra- tion of diversion of fiN. Protection sh~11 be provided W adequate dratnage facilities including enllrgtng ~ constructing e . existin facilities or by seearia · drainage easement or by both. XI1 drainage easements shl~l be shim on the final mp and noted as fillers-~ °Drainage Easement;- no taildine, obstructions, or encroachmints b liml fills are allowerie. The protection s1~11 be as approved ~y the bad DepartJaent. ; :. The landdhider shall accept and properlJr dispose of all offella drainage finring onto or through the sits. · Zn the event the had Ccnmissloner permits the use of streets for drainage Im isis, the provisions of Art;Icle XZ of Ordinance He. 460 VllrT apply. Should the quahtltles exceed the street capacitY or the use of Streets be prohibited for drainage · purposes, the subdivider shall provide adequate drainage facilities Is approved by the Road I)epartaent. 4. JOl laterim' streets f~11 M bet'oval la accordance via Cou~tF Standard b. 1010 Him Am' Iretar U appruved kY the Reed Cerealssinner (mallfled m L The aidann centerline gradient shill not exceed 1St. 70 The ulna centerlie radii ai. 11 M is Ipproved b~ the Mad l, i'm11 be roved vith concrete curb Itsecho Call/orate bid f ~s ceaterb~ine and etch up asphilt and re gutter located 43 fez paving reconstructinS 4r riserfact of existing parts dndlc~ted right of weZ In ecoordu:a via I::eunV Stsndsrd no. ~oo. l. Kaiser PUrlsty shell be laproved vith concrete curb and prier located 38 feat from can line and aitr~ up as halt concrete dedicated right ef ely In accordance vigil CountNy Sti. dard · ' 20, Prior a the' filing of the final mp with the bunt;' Recorder'. Offices the developer 9811 provide evidence of continuous mintnuance of ell Iwoposed flyate streets viihis the davelope as approved b7 the bad aTiltHer, nl JU1 driverays shill conhm to ~he apihlcebla RIverside Count~ Standards end shill be Shone co the street lapreverent plans. 1~en blo~lNallS ere rtquird to be constructed on top of slope, a debris retention w11 lisa11 be constructed st the street right of bad vty 1inn to prevent silting of aidelks as approved b~ the Countssinner, ' ' 13, Concrete sldevalks shill be'constructed on hncho Cilltornll bid .and Itstsar hrkva7 In accordance wailS Count~ Standard No, 400 led · 4Ol {corb IJdewllk), ~n access road to the net,st paved road maintained by the Coun,.,y I ~ ~ ~rdat. la 0t' the find map, the developer shill · 11 rmnt IS Ipproved by the liver·Ida Court bad Connlsslonere ,-... 17o Electrical end cmmnlc·tloes l~enches s1~11 be provided in accord·rice with Ordinance 461, Standard 817, As haltic emlston (fog seal) shall be applied not less ~han Stand~ ~ Sp ec I f I clot aM · - b~er ~tkcks In contoronto vt~ hun~ S~ndard h. 805 ~11 h sho~ ~ ~e flail mp and afford for dedication- 2~ ~t access-sh~l k ~strlctd on h~ho ~lifo~ls bad and blsl Part~ and so nard on ~t final mp vl~ ~l e~eption of one opening on hncho ~llfo~ta had spp~im~17 4~* vestsrib-of intt~ection with hiser 2~* ~nddivlslo~ c~stlng' n~ or f111 slopes ad3acent 9 ~t s~reeO shall p~vide e~sion cantroll sight distance control and slope essmn~ as app~v~ by ~e bad bpar~nt* All entrance gate facilities shall be located · mlnlmum distance 60' from gate to flow' line.- ~). A~l centerline Intersections shill be st 90% . 24. Re street destg~ and Improvement concepl; of this project sha~l I coordinated with TR 23371 and TIt 23372. ,~age 4 $$. Street llghglq $b&11 la requli~d Is accerdsnc$ with Ordlnanc, -end 4SZ tbreughM the $,Hlvllloa. 1he bunV $arvtc~ Area Adnlalltrator GaminaS sherbet this IweFesal qu$11flas endir In · existing assessmat dillriot er M~, If MS, %1aera emir $hill dth ~ f~ annatim I reatleei 0f f11s an - . · eL! tlel Asmsmat District" I$ accerdance ~lth Sorermain1 Cede re'ion S$000. $S. Prier te recerdatla ef :the-flal mpo the landdivider sh$11 rico: -- 'CC l r$ Inv_ldl I and res$ fer Fa_rcml I thre 7 and . =,., ,....%""~,...~ ,, ,,...,,,., ,, ~....,. n Gg:lb V trulF 3m.~_, -. nttrt ~z Ibmdnllr'~'; ~4 standards: 1:be Mate: nabas ihelA be caprile of preyidleS · ~otenctaZ fire flay of UO0 mud an at:veX f~tl ~ IVanable fen ~ ~l h~rlut lh~ be ~ ~ fog 2 hours d~stln st ~ ~1 res~ ~gs~ ~rssnre- A,T,ea upar fare hydrates (6ws&e~i~l) 8ha~ be l~ated at each bee:section a~ spaced ~t mrs au 330 feat apart ~ any direction ~th portion of ny lot frontage Mrs thn 16S feet fra spacing. and. Y tattEed e~ ~tueer ~ ~e Zoc~ P stlned/appt~ed ~ a rob eZ certify t~t ~e alesap of ~u valet ~e foXXov~S cert~tcactous b accordance v~ ~e re,abusers preserved ~ is ~verstda ~ut7 Dm~mrm~ut.e · ~m rm~utTm~ vats: roymen, ~cludtu~ fbe hydrantram ~mll be tnmtmlle~ md me, by the appropriate vats: agency )tier t0 ~ g~umtiblm ~utldtuS material ~lmttd on ~ ~dtvtdumX ~X butldtngm mhmX% be teamrutted ~th fare rata:dane roof tug mateelm% mm described ~ Section 3203 of ~m U~fom Ju~d~l ~m. ~7 voo~ mhtngXmm or aRmkern mhmX% have m Cams ~' rmt~; mud mhm~ be mppr. md b7 ~e term ~mpartmmnt ~rior ~o ~mtm~mtm* lTior to the rsco. fvtl--s of ~ho find sap. I~e devdoper sba~ depoe~t rich the I~verside CoUnt7 tire Depart·erie. a eath ms of l&O0.O0 per Zotlun~t n u~tlleti, far fire protestion Ini~u. Jbnld tie de.,ebler ·boos· to defer the ties of fit questSms relsrdlsl tim esninl of ·seditious ths2i be .referred to the IAVIOIDI*III~I · ~ tin Deterrent ~Zsuner liVERSlOE COUNTY pL&m1111S 9EPAF. I~q4~ DA2'Z: July 2~. 1988 · The [nvlromeatal haiti Sirvim has misted Tract Rap 23373, Areadeal kp Ik I riBtad'July I~, Itll. Our earrent ~,,ents'-111 ramIn as previously Illted |11 .~.r letter dated June 1:3, I~11. AUG 3 1~1 ,.=, RIVEASIDE. C, Oi. itJTY PL&NNINA r);:.PAPTuEtiT · RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSL"RVATIC}N DISTRICT s arm t~m 1M.R.~.ct*m ,,w , .-Maligns I:rib3ap :in_en~®, amanhd T~ ~6, 19cos 4. follcsrS:~ x~ugh 9x-sdj-~ ~o ~z'evmt depoai~Lm of debris m~o dadn- strsam.lrcSer~es c~ dL~tns~e hcfiittes, d e° · DEPARTMENT ' ' ,' of HEALTH mm NI~I flee madame1'& m lit mm~m'mm ~ ~ Imllltlmmll mare. emilmess mml~ Nm mm mmsrr m,e,,lpemv e~Fm m m~me · m~smbm~'~. me.ms I Jmm II, 1111 : RIVERSlEt COg~ZT PLAI4NZJaI DEPT- 4010 Lemon Itreet .' Riverside, Ca lll0J see A%tJsm gst~y OiLLord XZl TRACT MAp illVii That tortmAn lind sits·Led in the unincorporated territory of the County ot Rivmrmidm, Stm or ~lJfm~ii, being Pmrcmle S, 1,3,4 ud S of Parcel Ha 31884 &m mhoe a s up mrmor tilmd in Book 144. PSgmm ~rngh 33 of P&reml M&pm ~ ghm orncm or thm C~Ly Rmcordmr or maid Rtvmrmidm C~ky kogmLhmr vi~ s portia thm ~cho Tmmmculs grukmd W khm 6wmr~mnt or the Ststmm st boric& ko Luim Vi~mm ~ p&Lmnt dated 1860 and rmcordmd in ~m Office or khm Co~y Rmcordmr, S~ Diego C~ty, Cmlito~is CO Lots) Gmnt~mmmnz ~m ~pmrtm~t of hb~tc Hmm~hsm rmYimved TentsLive No. :3373 ~d rmcmnmndm ~sk: · A vaLor cymtem shill be installed according plans and m~ectticatton as &pproved-by the utter compan7 and the Health Department* Permanent prints-st the plans st the valor syctmm mhsll be submittad in tripSJests, with a minimum meals no% loss than ohm inch equals 200 tool sisnO will the original drawing to the County Sat;oVer* The prints shill show the tntmrnsl pipe diameter. location st vaXvmm and tire hydrants; pips and Joint mpectticaLlonm, and the size st the olin at the Junction st the nov mymtmn to thm eximtin~ mymLem. The plans m2l rempectm vtth ~tv. g, Psrt A, Chspter 7 oF the California HmalLh and Safety Code. California Xdminimtrmttvo Code° Title 22. Chapter 16, and Ge Order No. 102 of the Public gtilittem Commission St&:e of California. when liverside County Isisfining Dept, 1be pistol sisoil be oilned by · registered engineer ud utor ooSpsay vit~ t~s'folleving certifications °l sort try Utst the design sf the vator system in Trsct Mop JlJYg is sccorducs vith the v~tsr systss sspustm pleas of the ebs Cs~tfornis Ilster District and LIter Use uter ssrv~aes,storsg· sad distribution system will be ·doquat'e to provide valor service to such tract, This ssrtificatiofs does not constitute t Iv&ruLes t~st tt rill supply voter to such tract st any specific quutittcsb tiers or pressures for fire protection or say other purpose', This certification : shill be signed by · reSPonsible official or the valor company. llst_nlsus_sut~,bt_nbaJA~td-~e-~ht-~ouu~Y- g£_vt g£_'t_9[f: it_ t_Lt it_v_sS-Lta · tve-v-t-ek-l-U r t · r t o the rtfglLt,~e~_Yshe recBfjA~°n of tbt_f~!lSl_lL9* This t)ep&rtsont his · sagCement from the lhncho Californts VaLor District ·Eresing to serve.domestic vaLor to each ud every lot in Use subdivision on dsmud providing satisfactory finmotel srrugesonts &re completed vtth the subdivider, :It viII be necessary for the finucisl srrugessnts to be Bade prior to the record&Lion of the rins~ sap, This Department his s statement from the Astern Municipal ester District sEresing to. slier the subdivision Beyago system to be connected to the severs or the District, The sever system shill be instilled sccording to plus sad . specific&Lions ss &pprovsd by the District, the County Surveyor sad Lhs He·lib bpsrtssnt, Portomint prints of the plus of Use sever systss shall be submitted in triplicate, sisrig villa Use ortginsl driving, to the County Surveyor, .The prints shill show Use internal pips diesfor, location of sanholes, complete profile·, pipe ud 3sial specificsLions ud Use size of Use severs &t the ~unction of the nov system to the existing system, Jk single plat indicating location of ·ever l/ass ud valor line· ·hall be a portion or the soysEe plus ud profile·, The plus shall bs signed by · registered engineer sad the ·ever district vith L!~o foXloving certifications *Z certify that the design of the sever system in Tract Xsp 23373 is in accordace vith the · ever system expknston plus of the EssLern Xuntcipsl VaLor District sad t.h&t the v&sLs disposal oyster is adequate st tract.' prior to the recordsLie ~f the final sip. to be made ncere~lr.' tL&ri" en~&l - toe /.- PLANNiNd TO: ses$or and hint7 - Dave Dude ! ct Ftsb& Game LUG), I Pals1 . g.S. Postal h~v~ce Davidsea "" JUN l 6 B88 PJVERSIDE CO'JNTy PLANNaN, DEP.AATMENT Eastern. Xun¶ctpal Mater DIet. Kenthe' California Mater Dtst. Dstnom Unton School DIet. - Temcula tJnton School DIet. Sierra Club, Sen Gorgonto Chapter Supervlsortal Natrice- II. California bad. I/. or his r P. n - (RELATED - A.P, gZ3-Z10-023 CALTKAXS el Please rev4ed the case described above, along vtth the attache case rap. A I' Z)htSton Corntrite meeting has been tantathely scheduled for ave· ! , XV · 11 rill then p to public hearing. O 88 ' Tour cements and reconnendattons are requested prtor to anne S, X988 tn order include r~m ta the staff reprg for thts particular use. Should ~og have any questions regardt'ng thts tim, El·as· do not hesitate to col I(ath3~ Gffford at 787-6356 P i anner . The Trainer· Ualo~ High School Dtstrtcg factlttSes are overcrovded and educational programs seriously tapacted by Increasing student populSttc caused by hey residential, comaerctal and industrial constructSon- Therefore, pursuant to California Governrant Code hctton 53080 of AB ~ end SB 3271 this district levtes·-fee against ·11 hey development pro: mrlthln Its boundaries- DATE: $~G~ATUP~ lq.E.~E print. name and t(tle 4080 LEMON STREET. 9" FLOOR · RIVERSIDE, CALJFO RNIA 92501 (714) 7874185 ~oseph Enserro, Assistant Super$ntendent 46-209 OASIS STri INDIO. CAL · ,0: AssesSor klldtn! and S/fet, y Serv r - Dave Duds lealib - Ralph laths Fire Protection flood Control Nstrlc~ .. Fish &Gee LAFCO, S hislee ' I,S, PosUl ~.rdce - lath E, Davidson dUN 13 1988 Rn/EP, SIDB COUNTY PL,t-NNIN6 DEPARTMENT :Shertff's Departmat Agrt~Ul~u 1ct i~V~V:i /,VESTZIIG TIACT 23373 - (Sp P1) - AirpOrts gain. rime ' 3~S48 - 14a fiZz Villa e Oevelolxnen bee h11forela Are - First EIsinoro Union School 04 P.-R Zone - 28 Acres 348 Condoeln'ue Tmcela gnJen Schoel 04 - (RBJ, TED CASE TIt 23371 Sierra Club, San Gorgonto Chalffar o Jwp. uleese rayted the use described itswe aloes vith the stZzche4 case rap. A Lend 988 · hision CoaSttee mating Ins been te~ta~hdy scheduled for dune Z0, Z . If it cl it; ~il then 9o to public Insring, ' Tour com~enr-s end recommendations ere recivested prtor to June S, 1988 tn order that 4nclude thin b the staff report for. this part. icular case. ~-h Should you I~ve any questions reSjerdln9 this item, please do not hesSeate to contact bthy Gtfford st 787-gS6 Planner DATE: ~'T'L~t~ SIGKATUIE PLFJLSt: prtnt ham a~ tttle t 080 LEMON STREW, gm ~ ~RSID~ ~FORN~ 92501 ~1~ 787~181 EASTERN INFbRMATION CENTER Afcnaeologicet Research Unit Universllty el California Rivers;de. CA 92521 4~20g 9ASIS STkEET. ROC INDiO. CALIFORNIA (619134: TO: Assessor Bu. dtog and SafeV krve3er - Dave Duda _ ... Road Departaent Ileltb - lalph bchs FIre Protection FlOod Control District Fish & GIn " '[C JUN13 b'fi~ Sheriffs Departant . ~armen~a ~. YESTIll TIACT 13373 o tip rl).-! AlPports Ptince ' :IIS4I - Ib rill villa e Day ~1 UCIi, Life Dept., V.. layhie - Robert Lr~, HillSam lrost k GROFIT .... ' · Ilncho California Area - First EaStern 1PunS clio1 tot DI Suporrlsorld Itstrice - I. elf Rancho"Caltforela 1hear Dlst. California bad, II. of Kaiser Pal Teaecula Unton School Dtst. - (IIELATED Sierra Club, San Gorgonto Chapter -A.P, 923-210-023 CALTRNG II Please revted the case descrtbd above, along vlth the attached case amp. A L~nnd DIvision Coraltree creating his been tentatively scheduled for aerie 20, 1988. if" tt v111 then 9o to public hearthS. Tour c~ents and recon~endattoes are requested prior to anne S, 1988 tn order Include them In the stiff report for this parttculir use. Should :you have any questions regirdt'ng this Item, please do not hesitate to Cone Kathy Gtffor~l at 787-63S6 Planner Jgl S I 'aM DATE: SXGHATURE I~FJ~SE pr4nt narre and tttle 4080 LEI~ON STREET. e"' FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 C7'14) 787-6181 46-209 OASIS STkEET, e INDIO. CALIF(' ( AI'rAa. IMBIT NO. ~ EXHmI'I1 S'~T~22272V'~LC~ 17 CITY OF TEMECULA te S&e Ckegu VICINITY MAP N,T,$, · EXHIBIT -NO. ' C .-'.SE P.C. D AT l I1,- I-4 CITY OF TEMECULA ,& :i.j~ 'MIN: L/· THE MEADOWS SP 211/' alee \/ )EXHIBIT NO. 'CASS NO.V't'~:..~,~"; · ~,.c. =ATE ~q-~l ~CITY OF TEMECULA '~ EXHIBIT NO. case. NO.v~I~!' ,P.C. DATE 11*14-qI CIT_Y OF TEMECULA ,) ee e, ~-,~~7.~ : 'CASE ,Im.C. DATE ATTACHMENT NO. 6 CTTY OFTEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHs:Clrl lET Vesting Tentadve Tract No. 23373 The following ~ were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this project. Habitat Cormervetion Plan (K-P4t) Parks and Recreation (Quimby) Public Facility (Traffic Mitigation) PuNic Facility (Traffic Signal Mitigation) Public Facility (Ubrary) Fire Protection Flood Control (ADP) Condition No. 14 Condition No. 9 Condition No. 3 Condition No. 2 Condition No. 6 CondiTion No. 5 19 ITEM NO. 21 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF ~ AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Phnning Department April 28, 1992 Conditional Use Permit No. 19, Valley Beat RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council: ADOPT Resolution 92- appwving Conditional Use Permit No. 19, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. BACKGROUND On April 6, 1992, the City Council, in response to a shooting incident at the Valley Beat night club, met to discuss methods to reduce the potential for conflicts at the chb in the future. At the meeting, the Council directed Staff to develop additional Conditions of Approval as they relate to the operation of the club. However, prior to bringing the matter back to the Council, Staff was directed to conduct a meeting of the Teen Council in order to get their input on any proposed conditions. This meeting occurred on April 9, 1992 and many of the conditions identified in the attached Conditions of Approval were derived from the meeting. In addition, because of concems relating to uses of this nature, the Council directed Staff to prepare an Urgency Ordinance requiting a Conditional Use Penit for these uses. The Urgency Ordinance was then scheduled for consideration by the Council on April 9th, and appmved on a 5-0 vote. The Council further requested that Staff schedule the matter for the next regularly scheduled Council meeting (April 28) for consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for the teen club operation. S\STAi~'RPT~VLYBBAT.CC2 In the interim, Staff lm met with the applicant relative to the proposed conditions. The Owner has agreed to all conditions, with the exception of Condition 14 (prohibition of freeway signage). The applicant feels very strongly that the implementation of this requirement would represent a hardship on his business. Once adopted by the City Council, the Conditions of Approval will be enforced by the staff. FISCAL IMPACT None Attachments: 1. Conditions of Approval - page 3 S~qTAPPRPT~VLYBEAT.CC2 2 ATTACItMENT NO. 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL S~"TAPPRPT%VLYBEAT.(~"2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Conditional Use Permit No. 19, Valley Beat Project Description: Teen Club Prior to Occupancy, the applicant shall comply with the following requirements: 1. Submit a dress code for City Planning Department review and approval, which shall then be the responsibility of the permittee to enforce. 2. No persons beyond the age of 20 shall be permitted without an 18 - 20 year old companion. 3. Hours of operation shall be limited to 7 a.m. 2:00 a.m. No deviations from those requirements without 30 days prior notice and approval by the City Planning Department. 4. Permitme shall consider loiterers as trespassers and request that they leave. Police shall be notified immediately if they refuse to leave. S. Permittee shall retain two security officers for the first 40 people and one for each additional 40 people thereafter up to a total of eight security officers. Security will be provided by the permittee for the outside parking area. 6. Permittee shall develop and utilize a single file queue mechanism at the outside entrance. 7. Policy for the use of the metal detector device shall be documented and implemented. 8. Purchase, install, and operate a video tape device for the area outside the building. 9. Require that all attendees provide picture identification cards for entrance. Permittee shall keep records on a nightly basis of all who attend. Records will be retained for 30 days. 10. The permittee agrees not to advertise the club outside of the Temecula/MurrietaIFallbrook area. Radio advertising outside of the Temecula area will be permitted if the radio broadcast is received in Temecula. S%.STAFFR,F'I~rl..~T.C'C2 4 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. The permittee shall notify and obtain approval from the City Planning Department 30 days in advance of conducting any special event (Holiday, Grad night, Seasonal, e.g.). All City costs incurred as a result of a special event, will be paid for by the permittee. All special events will be conducted in compliance with the City's special event regulations. Exterior Noise levels shah not exceed 65 decibels as measured 50 feet from the property line. Applicant shah bear the cost of a noise survey if noise level reading is requested as a result of a complaint to the City. Any disturbance at the site will be reported immediately to the Temecula Police Depaxtment. The security staff for the facility will maintain a daily security incident log and will pwvide that security log at the request of City Police or City Manager and on the hst day of each month to the Chief of Police. Permittee shall remove the sign with freeway exposure. Permittee shall not issue free entrance to attendees except for Ladies night on Thursday for female attendees only. Young adults shall be segregated into two age groups. Only teenagers who are ninth graders or younger shall be permitted inside the facility up to 8:30 p.m. Only persons who are fwrn high school sophomores to 20 yean of age will be permitted inside the facility fwm 9:00'p.m., until closing. Under no circumstances shall the two age groups attend the facility at the same time. In the event that there are problems with the club operations or the permittee fails to comply with any of the aforementioned conditions, the matter will then be scheduled before the Planning Commission for consideration of revocation of this Conditional Use Permit. This Conditional Use Permit is non-transferrable. S~TAFFRPT~VLYBSAT.CC2 I. TEM NO. 22 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECUIA AGENDA lIEPORT City Council/City Manage= Planning Department April 28, 1992 Ordinance Approving Zone Change No. 13 RECOMMF-NDATION: AN ORDINANCE OF TFIY~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEM~CULA, CALIFORNIA, ~ING ~ OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAm CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION CONTAINED IN CHANGE OF ZONE NO.' 13, CHANGING ~ ZONE FROM R-R 2 % (RURAL RESIDENTIAL, 2 % ACRE LOT SIZE MINIMUM) TO R-1 (SINGLE FAlVm.Y RESIDENTIAL) ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SERAPItlNA ROAD AND RITA WAY, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 914-260-039 TffROUGH 046. BACKGROUND At the City Council meeting of April 14, 1992, Staff was directed to make changes to the conditions of approval dealing with the recommended land uses and to prepare an ordinance reflecting the approval of the Zone Change. The attached ordinance has been prepared for introduction at this meeting. FISCAL IMPACT None Attachments: 1. Ordinance - page 2 vgw S~STAFFRF~I3CZ-ORD.CC 1 ATTACHMENT 1 ORDINANCE NO. 92.- AN ORDINANCE OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF T~MECULA, CALIIiORNIA, AMENDING OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAm CITY IN TBY. CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION CONTAINED IN CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 13, CHANGING TBY- ZONE FROM R-R 2 (RURAL RESIDENTIAL, 2 % ACRE LOT SIZE MINIMUM) TO R-1 (SINGLE FAlVIrLY RESIDENTIAL) ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON ~ NORTHWEST CORNER SERAPHrNA ROAD AND RITA WAY, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. ~14-260-039 THROUGH 046. THE CITY COUNCIL OF TKE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CAtX~ORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOL~ OWS: 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 Temeeula. The zoning district as shown on the attached exhibit is hereby approved and ratified as part of the Official zoning map for the City of Temecula as adopted by the City and as may be amended hereafter from time to time by the City Council of the City of Temecula, and the City of Temecula Official Zoning Map is amended by placing in effect the zone or zones as described in Change of Zone No. 13 and in the above rifle, and as shown on zoning map attached hereto and incorporated herein. Section 2. Notice of Adoption. Within 10 days-after the adoption hereof, the City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be posted in at least three public places in the City. Section 3. Taking Effect. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the date of its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 281h day of April, 1992. PATRICIA H. BIRDSALL MAYOR S\STAFFRPT~I3CT.-ORD.CC 2 ATTEST: hne S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss crn' OF TEM~ULA) I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 92--- was duly introduced and.placed upon its first reading at a regular me~ting of the City Council on the 28th day of April, 1992, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopt[ and passed a regular meeting of the City Council on the __th day of , 1992 by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCu-MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: APPROVED AS TO FORM: June S. Greek, City Clerk Scott F.Field City Attorney S%STAFFILu~I3C'Z-OilD.CC 3 CITY OF TEMP_EULA CITY COUNCIL MAP NO.: CHANGE OF ZONE NO~: ORDINANCE NO.: 13 " N "DRI VE (TR. 23428) HOT "F "STREET 8,eRiAiG ,, MURRIETA HOT SPRIN (TR. 25004) "i'u4u ,Z~ ¢zrY OF ! ?6"STREET '~--, · Z~f,~,~,~' ' , ,r..;.oo., l~ ~ S~$TAFFRF~I3CZ-ORD.CC 4 ITEM NO. 23 APPROVAL CITY .ATTORNEYS FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council/City Manager Department of Public Works April 28, 1992 Amended Condition of Approval Tract Map 26521, Greentree Lane PREPARED BY: Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council review the Amended Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map 26521 (Greentree Lane) and modify, if necessary. BACKGROUND: At the regular City Council meeting of March 24, 1992, the City Council heard an appeal of the Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 26521 as they related to the width of the proposed roadways. The Conditions of Approval as formulated by the Department of Public Works and approved by the Planning Commission required Greentree Lane, along with the road fronting the tract, to be paved to a width of 28', and the interior cul-de-sac to be paved to a width of 36'. The Council action of March 24 reduced the paved width of Greentree Lane to the tract boundary to 24', but did not address the width of the street fronting the tract or of the cul-de-sac street. There as been speculation that the action taken inadvertently omitted reducing the width of the frontage street to 24' and of the interior cul- de-sac from 36' to 28'. Staff is requesting that Council provide additional direction on this matter. FISCAL IMPACT: None. Attachment: Copy of 3/24/92 Council Action pw01\agdrpfi92\0428\tr26521 0420a City Council Minutes March 24. 1992 RECFS8 Mayor Birdsall called a recess at 8:55 PM. The meeting was reconvened following the Commun'.rty Services District Meeting at 9:16 PM. 16. ADoeel No. '~.~- ADoeel of Conditions of At}oroyal - Public Imt}rovements for Tentative Tract Met} No. ~65~1 Director of Planning Thornhill presented the staff report. Tim Sedet briefed the Council on the basis of :the appeal. He further requested that Council consider adding e condition requiring Rancho Vista Road to be improved (full width) prior to issuance of building permits. He recommended the appeal be denied and stated staff feels the conditions are appropriate. Mayor Birdsall opened the public hearing at 9:23 PM. Kenneth A. Wilch, 2440 S. Hacienda Blvd., #124, Hacienda Heights, representing the applicant, stated he feels the condition requiring a 28 ft. road is unreasonable and requested that this condition be modified from 28 ft. to 24 ft. He requested that a rural standard apply to this area. Counciimember Mufioz asked if rural standards would be appropriate in this area. Director of Public Works Tim Serlet stated that a rural standard has not been developed in the City, however these conditions would be appropriate as an interim rural standard. John Telesio, 31760 Via Telesio, Greentree Community, spoke in support of the applicant. He also requested that rural standards be developed for this area. I~ayor Birdsall closed the public hearing at 9:41 PM. Councilmember Muftoz stated he does not have a problem with reducing requirements for interior street improvements, however he feels full improvements for Rancho Vista are necessary. Councilmember Moore agreed with the need to improve Rancho Vista Road, but requested that substandard roads not be permitted that will create future problems for the City. Jim Wright, Fire Chief, stated that a 28 ft. road is necessary to enable emergency vehicles to operate. Minutes%3%24~92 -8- 03/30/92 Ciw Council Minutes March 94. 1992 It was moved by Mayor Pro Tam Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to approve staff recommendation with a modification to condition that all improvements of Rancho ~rma Road be finished prior to issuance of building permits. Councilmember Peru pointed out that the Greentree Lane improvements are not limited to the property frontages but in fact extend for a considerable distance out to Pauba Road. Mayor Birdseli stated she is willing to reduce the interior road width to 24 foot, with 28 foot required in front of the tract properties. Mayer Pro Tam Lindemans withdrew the motion. Councilmember Moore withdrew her second. It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Councilmember Mur~oz to approve staff recommendation with the exception that the pavement width from the tract boundary to Paube Road on Greentree Lane be reduced to 24 feet and the improvements to Rancho Vista Road be made (full width) prior to issuance of building permit. City Attorney Field suggested the addition of e condition that this tract will not protest the formation of an assessment district for the purpose of widening Greentree Lane. Counciimember Parks amended the motion to include condition. Councilmember Mu~oz amended the second. 16.1 Adopt the Negative Declaration Tentative Tract Map No. 26521; 16.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 92-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 26521 TO SUBDIVIDE A 10.80 ACRE TRACT INTO 10 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND DENY APPEAL NO. 22 ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON RANCHO VISTA ROAD AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 946-009-007 The motion was unanimously carried. It was moved by Mayor Pro Tam Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Moore to extend the meeting until 10:15 PM. The motion was unanimously carried. Minutes%3%24%92 4- 03/30/)2 ITEM NO. 24 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/City Council FROM: City Clerk DATE: April 28, 1992 SUBJECT: : Ordinance Establishing a Filing Fee for Processing Nomination Papers for Councilmanic Elections. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 92- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING A FILING FEE TO DEFRAY, IN PART, THE COST TO THE CITY OF PROCESSING :NOMINATION PAPERS FOR COUNCILMANIC ELECTIONS. BACKGROUND: Section 22843 of the Elections Code of the State of California allows the governing body (City Council) to establish and collect a filing fee, not to exceed twenty-five ($25.00) for each nomination filed, to defray the cost to the City of processing nomination papers. This Ordinance is required to establish the fee and it also establishes a method for allowing eligible persons to file, who might be unable to pay this fee. This method allows a petition in lieu of fees to be utilized. This Ordinance is not an urgency ordinance but under the provisions of Section 36937 (a) of the Government Code becomes effective upon its adoption as an ordinance relating to an election. JSG ORDINANCE NO. 92- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A FILING FEE TO DEFRAY, IN PART, THE COST TO THE CITY OF PROCESSING NOMINATION PAPERS FOR COUNCILMANIC ELECTIONS. THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals: il. 1 The cost to the City of processing nomination papers for councilmanic elections exceeds twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each nomination filed. 1.2 Pursuant to Section 22843 of the California Elections Code, the City may establish and cOllect a filing fee, not to exceed twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each nomination filed, to defray the cost to the City of processing such nomination papers. 1.3 It is in the best interests of the City that a filing fee be established and collected to defray as much of the cost as possible for processing nomination papers for councilmanic eilections. !1.4 It is also in the best interests of the City that no otherwise eligible person be excluded frOm candidacy for City Council membership because such person could not pay the filing fee connected with such candidacy. Section 2. Filing Fee Established: 2.1 There is hereby set and established a filing fee of twenty-five ($25.00) to defray, in part, the cost to the City of processing nomination papers for councilmanic elections within the Cit]/of Temecula. 2.2 The filing fee set and established by Section 2.1 of this Ordinance shall be payable in respect to each such nomination filed and shall be paid upon the filing of the nomination papers therefor. 2.3 Except as provided in Section 3.1 of this Ordinance, nomination papers for councilmanic elections shall not be accepted unless accompanied by the filing fee set and established by Section 2.1 hereof. 2.4 Filing fees collected pursuant to this Ordinance shall be paid into the general fund of the City. 2lORDS 36 I ~'1. Section 3. Petition in Lieu of Fees: 3.1 Notwithstanding any other provision of this Ordinance, a candidate for member of the City Council of the City of Temecula may submit, in lieu of all or part of the required filing fee, a petition containing four qualified signatures for each dollar of the filing fee not paid. 3.2 Within the meaning of Section 3 hereof, a qualified signature is the signature of a person who, at the time of providing such signature, was a registered voter within the City of Temecula. 3.3 Any petition submitted pursuant to this Section in lieu of all or part of the required filing fee shall be submitted to the City Clerk with nomination papers related thereto, together with the amount of the filing fee, if any, remaining to be paid. Section 4. No Extension of Filin~ Deadline: 4.1 Nothing contained in this Ordinance shall be construed to extend or otherwise modify the period of time for filing nomination papers for counciltannic elections. Section 5. Operation: 5.1 The filing fee set and established by the Ordinance shall be operative for councilmanic nominations for the general municipal election to be held on November 3, 1992 and for each special and general municipal election held thereafter for election to membership on the City Council. Section 6. Pursuant to Subdivision (a) of Section 36937 of the California government Code, this Ordinance shall become effective upon the date of its adoption as an ordinance relating to an election. Section 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published and posted as required by law. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _th day of ,1992. ATFEST: Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor June S. Greek, City Clerk [SEAL] 2/ORDS 36 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF [RntERSmE) SS crrY OF TEM~CULA ) I, June S. Greek., City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 92- was duly introduced upon it first reading at a regular meeting of the City .Coun(fil on the 28th day of April, 1992, and that thereafter said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of ,1992, by the following vote, to wit: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek City Clerk 2lORDS 36 3 "~. ITEM NO. 25 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AC, ENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department April 28, 1992 Appointment of Old Town Temecula Specific Plan Steering Committee RECOMMENDATION: It is requested that the City Council confirm the membership of the Old Town Specific Plan Steering Committee (OTSC). BACKGROUND: Urban Design Studio (UDS) has begun work on the Old Town Specific Plan. As part of the work program, UDS will conduct workshops with the OTSC to receive input regarding the issues and goals that will be used to develop the draR specific plan. The OTSC will consist of eleven (11) members representing local business, citizens, and other interested groups. On December 17, 1991, the City Council appointed Peg Moore as it's representative to the Old Town Specific Plan Steering Committee. Tile Planning Commission, Old Town Local Review Board, Economic Development Corporation, Temecula Town Association, and the Old Town Temecula Merchants Association were also asked to appoint representatives to the OTSC. Subsequently, the Council members were each asked to appoint one additional member to the Steering Committee. Staff is requesting that the City Council confirm the membership of the Old Town Specific Plan Steering Committee. The proposed memberShip of the OTSC is as follows: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Peg Moore, Counciimember Linda Fahey, Planning Commissioner Larry Markham, Old Town Local Review Board Cadene Danielsen, Economic Development Corporation Susan Bridges, Temecula Town Association Bonnie Reed, Old Town Temecula Merchants Association Bill Harker, Citizen-at-large appointed by Pat Birdsall Christina Grina, Citizen-at-large appointed by Karel Lindemans Helga Berger, Citizen-at-large appointed by Peg Moore Laveme Parker, Citizen-at-large appointed by Sal Mu~oz Steve Sanders, Citizen-at-large appointed by Ron Parks OLDTOWN~YrSt2MI~A.AR v$,w ITEM NO. 26 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Council FROM: City Manager DATE: April 28, 1992 SUBJECT: Assessment District 92-01 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize the City Manager to assemble a financing team for a special assessment district. BACKGROUND: Assessment District 92-01 is an assessment district which will facilitate the public improvements to approximately 500 acres. The acreage is south of Cherry and west of Diaz Streets. The improvements will include, but not be limited to, street improvements, water, sewer, engineering, design and a portion of a new bridge which will cross Murrieta Creek at Cherry Street. A previous assessment district, Assessment District 155, which covered much of this area, financed the Winchester bridge at Murrieta Creek and also provided funding for a minimal amount of infrastructure. Assessment District 155 was under the direction of the County of Riverside, who anticipated there would be subsequent series to complete the infrastructure improvements to this area. The county will not continue to be the lead agency in the installation of infrastructure for this area and therefore, the City of Temecula will become r~ot only the lead agency but if warranted, will reorganize and consolidate the previous assessment district with a new assessment district. The consolidation of the two districts will not be finalized until it is determined that it is that it is advantageous for the consolidation to take place. The County of Riverside had a financing team in place and although the members are all very professional and competent, the City needs to review that team and make whatever adjustments are necessary to meet the demands, requirements and policies of the City of Temecula. It is therefore, my recommendation that the City Council authorize the City Manager to form a new financing team to handle Assessment District 92-01. DFD:jsg ITEM NO. 27 APPROVAL ER_~ CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFIC MANAGER CITY _ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: April 28, 1992 City Council/City Manager Mark J. Ochenduszko, Assistant City Manager JOINT SCHOOL BOARD/CITY COUNCIL MEETING REGARDING SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITIES RECOMMENDATION: Select two Councilmembers to represent the City at the joint City of Temecula/Temecula Valley Unified School District School Facilities Meeting. DISCUSSION: At the meeting of April 14, 1992, City Council asked that a joint meeting be set up involving two councilmembers, two members of the school board, and staff to discuss school district facilities. Two school board members have been identified and the meeting is scheduled for May 4, 1992, at 7:30 a.m. at the City Hall conference room. The City Council must select two members of the Council for this meeting. FISCAL IMPACT: None. a:school.$tf DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS APPROVAL CITY ~ ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICE CITY MANAGER '~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: DAVID F. DIXON DATE: APRIL 28, 1992 SUBJECT: DEPARTMENTAL REPORT PREPARED BY: SHAWN D. NELSON, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR A joint City Council/Parks and Recreation Commission meeting was held on April 9, 1992 to discuss the Community Recreation Center (CRC) Project. The purpose of this meeting was to develop a consensus concerning the project components of the CRC i.e., floor plan of the building, type of community pool, amphitheater, and parking. The information derived from this meeting will be used to develop the final schematic drawings of the CRC Project. A selection committee meeting was held to review the qualifications of prospective landscape architectural firms to provide design services for the Park Site on Pala Road. As a result of this process, staff will enter into preliminary negotiations with the top ranked firm to determine a final scope of work and cost proposal for these services. The Annual Easter Egg Hunt was held on Saturday, April 18, at the Rancho California Sports Park. This event was co-sponsored by Rancon Real Estate and the Temecula Town Association. Over 1,000 people attended this event, which included a coloring contest, candies, prizes, and games. Because of the huge turnout, staff will investigate the possibility of separating various age groups throughout Sports Park to better accommodate the larger crowd. Staff has implemented a maintenance procedure for cleaning the Restroom/Snack Bar facility during the weekends by utilizing Recreation personnel during large community events and youth league programs. This revised schedule will assist in providing a more sanitary environment for our park users. Staff is preparing for an expanded summer recreation program that will include a comprehensive aquatics program, and a summer day camp.. Staff is coordinating with the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) through the existing joint use agreement to provide these recreation programs. The Teen Council is currently in the process of reviewing the teen recreation program that includes arts and crafts, aerobics, excursions, and special events. Included in this program is a Friday and Saturday night video program where teens will produce plays and various dramatic events that will be shown during the week at the Teen Recreation Center. Staff is also in the process of developing an expanded senior citizen recreation program at the Temecula Town Association's Community Center. The Mommy and Me program has been moved to the Teen Recreation Center to allow for senior programs on Mondays, Tuesdays and Fridays. Little League and Adult Softball are in full swing with games being played daily, except for Sundays, at Sports Park. An Adult Basketball League is also being offered on Sundays at Temecula Valley High School. APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER ~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Department of Public Works April 28, 1992 Public Works Monthly Activity Report (March) 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 March for the Department of Public Works. pwOl~agdrpt\92\O324~moactq>t.mar 041492 i-- Z 0 o~ .; ,( rn ~ 0 ooo 0 E 0 -r k-. 0 LU I-- 8 ~ ?-, 5 -is U 0 E TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL: CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICERjf~' CITY MANAGER City Council/City Manager Anthony Elmo, Chief Building Official/~ April 28, 1992 Building and Safety March Activity Report RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file. DISCUSSION: Building permit activity in March increased approximately 100% over permit activity for February. Building related permits totaled 414 as compared to 199 in February representing building construction valuation of approximately $8,242,863. New housing starts for the month totaled 64. The Department collected revenue totaling $74,864. Negotiations are currently underway with the firm chosen to administer the City's "Kiosk" sign program. A hearing date of June 2, 1992, has been scheduled for the hearing of the Pujol Street public nuisance case. The following is an update of projects of special note that staff is currently involved with and/or recently completed: New Constru~;tion Advanced Cardiovascular Systems Hungry Hunter Restaurant Spectrum Industrial Park 5 warehouse/office - Diaz Road Creekside Gas & Food Mart South Front Street 98% 25% 50% 15% v:\wp\agende.re~\cccrnO428 .rpt This Hon th DEPARTHENT OF BUILDINO AND SAFETZ Honthly Activity Report For: Hatch Last Honth This Last Fiscal Fiscal Yr/Date Last Calendar Yr/Date This Calandar Yr/Date PLANS CHECKED: Residential 2 I0 49 90 11 I2 Commercial 9 6 63 134 44 22 Industrial/W.H. 0 0 0 5 4 0 Others 13 6 125 80 15 44 TOTAL: 24 22 237 309 74 78 PERMITS ISSUED: BUILDING 136 76 879 1077 26i 293 Value 8,242,863 3,548,843 41,648,936 49,460,366 I6,058,194 I4,582,401 Fees 50,170 23,612 243,416 237,540 61,127 93,080 ELECTRICAL 118 58 614 715 292 237 Fees 8,831 4,727 48,467 49,319 9,856 16,887 PLUMBING 84 37 441 490 233 163 Fees 10,749 4,086 49,825 30,641 8,009 18,440 MECHANICAL 76 28 332 310 159 143 Fees 5,114 2,I44 22,725 13,047 2,565 9,174 TOTAL PERMITS: 414 199 2,266 2,592 945 836 ~- TOTAL FEES: 74,864 34,569 364,433 330,547 81,557 137,581 THIS MONTHS NO. OF NO/UNITS PLAN CHECK PERMIT FEES TOTAL FEES VALUATION PERMITS: PERHITS FISCAL YR FEES SINGLE FAMILY 64 158 11,246 36,861 48,107 5,700,156 DUPLEX 0 0 0 0 0 0 MULTI-FAMILY 0 5 0 0 0 0 COHHERCIAL 5 19 4,941 6,229 II,170 2,182,033 INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0 0 0 0 RMLOCATE/DEMO 0 5 0 0 0 0 SWIMMING POOLS 7 59 574 819 1,393 65,370 SIGNS 12 79 289 350 639 I8,804 OTHER 7 268 442 1016 1,458 43,361 ALTER/ADD .TO DWELLING 24 I85 1,101 1,498 2,599 74,437 TO COMMERCIAL 9 105 1,274 2,343 3,617 158,702 TO INDUSTRIAL 0 0 0 0 0.00 0 TOTAL: 128 883 I9,867 49,116 68,983 8,242,863 BUILDING VALUATION This Calendar Year to Date: Last Calendar Year to Date: ,'his Fiscal Year to Date: 41,648,936 Last Fiscal Year to Date: 49,460,366 14,582,401, 16,058,194, TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJE~T: APPROVAL CITY AT~)RNEY ~ FINANCE OFFICE ~ CITY MANAGER CITY OF ~ AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Planning Department~ April 28, 1992 Monthly Report pI~.pA.RI~-n BY: Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning RECO~ATION: Receive and File Discussion: The following is a summary of the Planning Department' s caseload and project activity for the month of March: Caseload Activity: The department received applications for 18 administrative cases, 3 consistency checks, 1 substantial conformante, 1 cenifidate of parcel merger, 1 temporary use permit and 4 public hearing cases. The following is a breakdown of case type for public hearing items: * Appeal (1) * Public Use Permit (1) * Plot Plan (2) Ongoin[ Projects: General Plan: A preferred land use plan was endorsed by the joint City Council/Planning Commission at a joint meeting on March 25, 1992. It was then presented to the public at a Town Hall meeting on April 16, 1992. Over seventy- five people attended the presentation. Staff has reviewed and commented on a draft of the Housing Element. Progress continues on the other General Plan Elements. S~MONTH1,Y.RFrXMAR.9~ I City Manager/City Council Monthly Report Apr~ 28, 1992 Page 2 Old Town Master Plan: Urban Design Studio (UDS) has begun work on the Specific Plan. The Council will confirm appointments to the Old Town Stccring committee ai it's April 28 meeting. UDS will begin conducting key interviews in late April. French Valley Airport: The first draft of the Comprehensive (Airport) Land Use Plan (CLUP) has been released for initial review and comment. City Staff attended the April 17, 1992 Technical Advisory Committee meeting. Staff will continue to monitor the ALLTP's progress and review the proposed CLUP. Tcmecula Regional Center Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report: This Specific Plan has been scheduled for a Planning Commission Workshop on May 4, 1992. Winchester Hills and Campos Vcrdes Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report: These Specific Plans have been scheduled for a Planning Commission Workshop May 4, 1992. Murdy Ranch Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report: This Specific Plan was presented to the Planning Commission at a Workshop on April 6, 1992. The Commission provided Staff and the applicant direction relative to design issues. The applicant will be incorporating these changes into the Specific Plan. Johnson Ranch Specific Plan: The Johnson Ranch Specific Plan is a mix of residential land uses and a mixed-use" resort village" core area on 1,765 acres located adjacent to Anza Road and Borel Road, north of Rancho California Road. This Specific Plan was submitted in early March. The Notice of Preparation was submitted to State Clearinghouse on April 17, 1992. A DRC meeting will be held for this Specific Plan in May. vgw S'~MONTHLY.~.92 2 C I APPROVAL TY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA . AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: BOARD OF DIRECTORS DAVID F. DIXON APRIL 20, 1992 DEPARTMENTAL REPORT PREPARED BY: SHAWN D. NELSON, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR A joint City Council/Parks and Recreation Commission meeting was held on April 9, 1992 to discuss the Community Recreation Center (CRC) Project. The purpose of this meeting was to develop a consensus concerning the project components of the CRC i.e., floor plan of the building, type of community pool, amphitheater, and parking. The information derived from this meeting will be used to develop the final schematic drawings of the CRC Project. A selection committee meeting was held to review the qualifications of prospective landscape architectural firms to provide design services for the Park Site on Pala Road. As a result of this process, staff will enter into preliminary negotiations with the top ranked firm to determine a final scope of work and cost proposal for these services. The Annual Easter Egg Hunt was held on Saturday, April 18, at the Rancho California Sports Park. This event was co-sponsored by Rancon Real Estate and the Temecula Town Association. Over 1,000 people attended this event, which included a coloring contest, candies, prizes, and games. Because of the huge turnout, staff will investigate the possibility of separating various age groups throughout Sports Park to better accommodate the larger crowd. Staff has implemented a maintenance procedure for cleaning the Restroom/Snack Bar facility during the weekends by utilizing Recreation personnel during large community events and youth league programs. This revised schedule will assist in providing a more sanitary environment for our park users. Staff is preparing for an expanded summer recreation program that will include a comprehensive aquatics program, and a summer day camp. Staff is coordinating with the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) through the existing joint use agreement to provide these recreation programs. The Teen Council is'currently in the process of reviewing the teen recreation program that includesarts and crafts, aerobics, excursions, and special events. Included in this program is a Friday and Saturday night video program where teens will produce plays and various dramatic events that will be shown during the week at the Teen Recreation Center. Staff is also in the process of developing an expanded senior citizen recreation program at the Temecula Town Association's Community Center. The Mommy and Me program has been moved to the Teen Recreation Center to allow for senior programs on Mondays, Tuesdays and Fridays. Little League and Adult Softball are in full swing with games being played daily, except for Sundays, at Sports Park. An Adult Basketball League is also being offered on Sundays a~ Temecula Valley High School. TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT, AGENDA ITEM 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE' TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT HELD APRIL 14, 1992 A regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 8:25 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 movedi by Director Lindemans, seconded by Director Moore to approve Consent Calendar Numbers 1-3. The motion was unanimously carried. 1. Minutef 1.1 Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2.1 Receive and file report. Status Report on Sports Park Improvements 3.1 Receive and file report. Approve the minutes of March 24, 1992. Director Mu~oz requested that the maintenance of the restrooms at the Sports Park be done on a continuing basis during events, such as the recent Little League opening. GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT None given. Minutes/O41492 -1 - O4/21/92 CSD Minutei COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT None given. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT None given. DIRECTORS REPORTS None. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Director Moore, seconded by Director Birdsall to adjourn at 8:30 PM. motion was unanimously carried. March 24. 1992 The ATTEST: June S. Greek, TCSD Secretary Ronald J. Parks, President Minutes/O41492 -2- O4/21/92 ITEM 2 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICE~ CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: DAVID F. DIXON DATE: APRIL 28, 1992 SUBJECT: CREDIT PROPOSAL FOR FY 1992-93 TCSD ASSESSMENTS PREPARED BY: SHAWN D. NELSON, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: Approve a credit towards the FY 1992-93 TCSD Assessments to affected property owners who were over assessed for slope maintenance services in FY 1990-91. DISCUSSION: The Temeculs Community Services District (TCSD)is divided into Service Levels that provide parks and recreation, median and slope maintenance, street lighting, and recycling and refuse collection services in the City of Temecula. However, in FY 1990-91, County Service Area 143 (CSA 143) developed the fee structure to provide for slope maintenance and streetlighting services in the City. Both streetlighting and slope maintenance services were combined into Zone A. Due to CSA 143's dedication process, several property owners were assessed for slope maintenance services in FY 1990-91 that were never received. The slope areas were either never dedicated or were dedicated to the TCSD at the end of FY 1990-91. It was also determined that some parcels were charged more than the cost to provide slope maintenance services. An analysis has been completed by Muni Financial Services, Inc., to verify the parcels that were assessed in FY 1990-91 that did not receive slope maintenance services; and verify the parcels that were overcharged for these services. As a result of this analysis, a total of $244,639 was overcharged to these property owners for slope maintenance services. "" 1%nelsons\lgeasse.sdn Therefore, staff is recommending that tlie affected property owners receive a credit towards their FY 1992-93 Assessments equal to the amount they were overcharged for slope maintenance services in FY 1990-91. FISCAL IMPACT: Cost to credit affected property owners towards FY 1992- 93 Assessments is $244,639, which will be funded from TCSD Fund Balance monies in Zone A. l\nelsons\ageasse.sdn COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION FEE ASSESSMENT ADMINISTRATION FY 1990-91 ASSESSED FEE ANALYSIS SUBJECT: FINAL STATUS OF THE ANALYSIS OF FY 1990-91 ANNUAL FEE ASSESSMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL SLOPE MAINTENANCE. in FY 1990-91 residential tracts were assessed by the TCSD for the cost to maintain landscaped slopes and open space areas associated with each individual tract located within the TCSD boundaries. Staff was given direction to conduct an analysis of the assessed fees levied for residential slope and open space maintenance services for FY 1990-91, The results of the aforementioned analysis are as follows: 1.2,357 residential homes were improperly assessed for slope and open space landscape maintenance services, resulting in an over collection of approximately $244,638,93 in FY 1990-91. 2. Of the 2,357 residential homes assessed, 2193 were assessed an approximate total of $228,238.93 for services not received (eg. slopes and open space areas were not dedicated to the TCSD until FY 1991-92; slopes and open space areas were never dedicated to the TCSD; etc.), (For more detail see attached). 3. The remaining 164 residential homes located in the residential tract known as "The Summit" were assessed a slope and open space landscape maintenance fee that appears to be excessive to the amount of approximately $100 per home owner or a total of $16,400. Executive Summary Muni Financial Services, Inc. (MFS) was retained to review the collections made for the fiscal year 1990/1991 for the Slope MaintenanCe and Drainage services provided by the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD). The eight subzones of Zone "A" of the 1990/1991 TCSD are to be compared to the current TCSD Level "C" service zone. The objective of the review was to compare the levies for slope maintenance and drainage service upon parcels within the 1990/1991 data base to those parcels which comprise Exhibit "C", represented by the City to identify those subdivisions which have both slope maintenance and drainage areas accepted for servicing by the City, and justifiably subject to the TCSD service fee. The total number of parcels reviewed for this analysis was 4..~91 Exhibit "C", furnished by City staff, consists of forty-four (44) recorded subdivisions totaling 2,357 lots of record. The levy amount for the Fiscal Year 1990/91 funded three different services for the Zone "A" subzones --Slope Maintenance, Drainage and Street Lights.. For the purposes of this analysis, Street Lights are not an issue. There was only one original subzone, A10, that levied for street lights only. Subzone A10 will be represented within this analysis as "0" participation. The Budget amounts for the 90/91 subzone levies were taken from the original collection year information (Appendix - Memo 06/12/90). The final credit amount was derived by a percentage of the slope maintenance and drainage budgets to the total budget for the subzone (Appendix - Table Ill). The resulting percentage was then taken from the final levy amount to arrive at the credit. There are two original subzones whose subdivisions were not a part of Exhibit "C", but merit examination for possible inclusion. As part of the conclusion of this study; Subzone A17 (Appendix - Table I) and Subzone A18 (Appendix - Table II) are being considered outside of this study, and therefore are not eligible for the credit. These subzones will be shown as "0" as the final action for their status is pending. The follOwing page illustrates the total Credit/Refund Program amount as determined by this analysis. I-- :::D 0 I--0 LUlD 0 Z 0 0 N I'- 0 I.- 0~~ c,~lr-,,c~c~ oo c,4 ,-- 0 0 0 0 ~1' 0 0 0 0 LLI ITEM NO. 3 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER ~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: BOARD OF DIRECTORS FROM: DAVID F. DIXON DATE: APRIL 28, 1992 SUBJECT: FLAG POLE PROPOSAL FOR RANCHO CALIFORNIA SPORTS PARK PREPARED BY: SHAWN D. NELSON, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: Consider proposal by the Rancho California Little League to install a flag pole and memorial monument in the Rancho California Sports Park in remembrance of Craig Lewis. DISCUSSION: The Rancho California Little League submitted a letter requesting that the City approve the installation of a flag pole and memorial monument in remembrance of Craig Lewis, a long time advocate of youth sports in the community. Little League has provided drawings proposing that the flag pole and monument be located adjacent to the new Restroom/Snack Bar facility. The entire cost associated with the installation will be paid by the Rancho California Little League. This proposal was reviewed by the Parks and Recreation Commission at their April 13, 1992 meeting. The Commission recommended that the Board of Directors approve the installation of the flag pole and monument in Sports Park. A presentation will be made by a representative from Little League concerning their proposal. Attached are copies of the site plan of the Rancho California Sports Park and the letter submitted by Little League for your review. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. 1 \nel$ons\agefiag 2. sdn // William R. Perlette 29630 Vallejo Avenue Temecula, CA 92592 (714)676-3197 ADrzi i. 1992 Fir. Shawn Nelson, Director of Community Services Temecu]a Community Services District 43174 Business Park Drive .- Temecui~. CA 92590 .'-'.-e: F!agpole/Memor-!al monument. Dear Shawn: i w.:uld !ik~ r_o than]< you and Mn'. Herman Par]<er for ~akjng' t~me -,- ..... ~=L Monday ~, dls~uss the ~roDosal to have a flagpole and '.'hes21l'ial iiiQFlUlherl! i~: yemernberaD. ce of Cl-~i,J Lewis ere.r~ed..at the R~.r~c'r:,> Vi~I5 5pc, rLs ~erk. As we discusse,!. the Ranch.:, Ca!ifornl.a. Little League is s:i.-._~.rlne.--~.ir:..~ .~n e=l Dl'l 3 pr.Pvz z. e all -= ....... ' ' , ' L ,_. ~ t~ Hi~' h=S,l, Cialed Wllh the !nsLai ldLi.l,n of a fla.~UDc. ie and monumenz. The .zetaiied drffw~ncs showinc the dimensions of the monument and the .<.r~z~c.n c.f the inszai;,~zion w!il ~2e pl-:l, vided ~,:, Vc',u wlthln the ' ,~ .... severa ~ days '~,~ f ~ a~nr ] e wi I I be of the ._g ...... · ..... sDeclrlcazlo~ {i be!i~ve i% is referred to as "he~.'wezgh~'] and .l.f i:.p aual!l~.'. -~-~ n':./.nLLn]er:l ~i: proposed zo be a-orc,:.r~ruatelv .... ~. - . ~, ..... ~':iZ?', : 3 x~ _. ~ , ....... N:C/~i' . lO~: ......... -- -/ -. . . ::-:e;- cue,. it',,.' s.zrface. w~ih & cast ,pladue insert. .x..f%aiiaLi,l,r~ c2 %he D,:,=e. m,:,nume:,: ant =lab will be eone wi:hin !".; ;e,z-an':e%ers .:,~ e, nd wilh the ,:<,-,:,r,~ir~sli,:,n C,f tj~e C,lqT~IUF~!I'y Ee:",'::'ee' i ;-?iii a.D[jreclate .in}' a:=si='zar~,:e w?'.l=l:h %'C,!.[I' ,._,~f;ce can ~emder ira -~-.~evlr:c c.DrnDieticr~ of 'his project both in terms of the ,:iena~is of the ins~=~ilanz,Dn itself as well ~s ensuring Xv zndersn~-n,i!nc. :f :'::a~ ~his :'=c:.,.,.+.~.-_ mu. st be b'r,:%::/bt k;efore b,-:~-h ih-i .'-alk-= a:'.:i ]u. ei'fea'-i'ir. ?2:im!iS~'~c:% a:'.d tile if!l; ,.'2ouncil, _ -,.-..-.,.: :c~ .asZ< u:-'.-'- %:".',s c.r':.z.:.s:l be ....... =.h-, ex r"" "' .l; ~"" l .'3.!'';' a,'.'endas au I]':-. +~_!'iiesl cl,-_-le..s'~ .D,>SBiZ~ie. ITEM NO. 4 APPROVAL CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: City Manager/Board of Directors FROM: Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer DATE: April 28, 1992 SUBJECT: Bond Issuance to Fund the Temecula Community Services District Capital Improvement Program, RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors authorize the City Manager to hire a financial advisor and bond counsel to proceed with the issuance of bonds in the amount of $5,3000,000. DISCUSSION: Based on the bond capacity study prepared by Fieldman, Rolapp and ASsociates, the Temecula Community Services District may currently issue $5,300,000 in tax allocation bonds to fund approximately $4,240,000 TCSD projects. Staff is requesting that the Board authorize the Executive Director to assemble a fi,nancing team including bond counsel and financial advisor. We will follow up with a recommended project funding list during May. ATTACHMENT: Executive Summary - Bond Capacity Study 13 EX~CIfI'IVE SUIV!~!ARY The Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula (the "RDA") and the Temecula Community Services District (the "CSD") have retained Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates to prepare a bond capacity analysis for debt issues to be secured by the RDA's Tax Increment Revenue and the CSD's Assessment Revenue. Within this analysis we have identified currently available revenues based upon information provided to us by the County of Riverside (the "County") and the City of Temecula (the "City"). Current revenue information and other fundamental data were used as a basis for formulating assumptions regarding bonding capability. We then gathered pertinent information from City Staff, County Staff, Bond Counsel, representatives of Standard & Poor's Corporation and representatives of major California municipal bond underwriting firms and have incorporated their input into our analysis. By eliminating inappropriate or obviously unsuitable bonding options and focusing on the most viable and advantageous financing solutions, we were able to reach conclusions and make recommendations regarding bonding capacity, effect on credit, effect on future debt issuance capabilities, and long and short range cost effectiveness. The following is a summary of our findings: CONCLUSIONS , , The P,.DA, by virtue of the advantageous increment agreement negotiated with the County, currently generates Net General Purpose Tax Increment Revenues of approximately $1.8 million" annually, available to meet debt service on long term debt obligations. This represents about three times the amount initially estimated by the City to be available. The CSD generated, in 1991, a total of approximately $1.9 million and it is anticipated that in 1992, a total of approximately $2.6 million will be generated. It is the wish of the City that no more than $500,000 annually be dedicated to the repayment of debt to be issued this year and secured by CSD revenues. If one debt issue rather than two debt issues were to be sold this year, there could be initial costs of issuance savings in the neighborhood of $10-$15,000 for bond counsel fees and perhaps $1,000 - $5,000 in official statement printing costs. The City of Temecula has the power to issue certificates of participation, indirectly secured by revenues of both the RDA and the CSD, but in doing so might unnecessarily, negatively affect the City's future debt issuance capability and credit without deriving significant cost savings. Additionally, the otherwise unnecessary transfer of acapital asset(s) might be required to effect the transaction. The RDA and the CSD and/or the City or other governmental entity may join together to form a joim powers authority for the purpose of issuing debt under the Marks Roos Bond Pool concept. In this fashion it would be possible to issue one series of revenue or other bonds rather than two separate debt issues secured respectively by RDA revenues and CSD revenues. Although there may be some initial costs of issuance savings, the cost of formation of the joint powers authority with centan caveats see Section I, Ia Redevelopment AgenO' Revenues -1- [1 ['1 10. 11. 12. the stigma of past Marks Roos bond pool abuses and probable higher long term interest cost as well as the CSD's and RDA's loss of flexibility in combining the issui~s make this a less desirable Choice. !t is advantageous to keep separate the RDA's and the CSD's revenue streams and the debt issues that these revenues secure. This is because of issues including, but not limited to, long term crecilt impact, interest cost, and retention of debt issuance flexibility and independence related to the RDA and CSD. The most cost effective and advantageous use of the RDA's tax increment revenues is through the issuance of tax allocation bonds. The most advantageous and cost effective method of issuing debt secured by CSD assessments is through the issuance of limited obligation improvement bonds by the CSD. To the extent that the CSD pledges all of its funds to meet debt service, with the knowledge that annual debt service will never exceed $500,000; the additional high coverage provided by the CSD's general revenue pledge will meaningfully reduce long term interest costs. The method of sale of tax allocation bonds must, by law, be via sealed competitive bid. The method of sale of CSD limited obligation improvement bonds may be either by negotiation or competitive bid. Low bond market interest rates have recently movecl higher, although the current market is still attractive. RECOMMENDATIONS , The powers, revenues and credit profiles of the RDA and CSD should be kept distinct and separate from one another and related entities for maximum future financing flexibility, minimum negative impact on related agencies and relative low interest cost and ease of current and continuing disclosure. The R6development Agency should issue tax allocation bonds of a par mount of approximately $16.3 million with 125% debt service coverage and sell them, as required by law, at competitive bid. The Community Services District should issue approximately $5.3 million in Limited Obligation Improvement Bonds with debt service of no more than $500,000 annually. Extremely high debt service coverage (300% +) would be provided by a pledge of all available CSD revenues. Because of the unique nature of the CSD, its historical collections, diversity and potentially high dabt service coverage ratio, the City should explore both negotiated and competitive methods of sale to determine if some benefit may be derived from negotiating the sale with a single underwriter versus approaching the bond market at large via a competitive sale. As the currently attractive low interest rates prevalent for the last year in the California municipal bond market have recently increased, bonds should be issued and sold as soon as possible. TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA ITEM 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY HELD APRIL 14, 1992 A regular meeting of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 8:30 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. AGENCY BUS~NESS 1. Minutes It was moved by Member Birdsall, seconded by Member Parks to approve the minutes of MarCh 24, 1992. The motion was unanimously carried. Appointments to Redevelooment Aaencv Old Town Advisory Committee City Manager Dixon presented the staff report. It was moved by Member Lindemans, seconded by Member Moore to approve a procedure to draw lots to determine which appointees will be elected and which will be appointed members. The motion was unanimously carried. It was moved by Member Birdsall, seconded by Member Lindemans to appoint Susie Bridges, Dallas Gray, Charles Jenkins, Nancy Maurice, Constance Pelonero, Bonnie Reed and Ron Walton. Member Moore suggested an amendment to appoint Bob Hemme. No second was received. The motion was unanimously carried. 4LRDAMIH\041492 - I - 04/22192 Temecula RedeVelopment Agency Minutes 3. April 14. 1992 ReDoR ~on Redevelooment Agency Old Town Advisory Committee Responsibilities It was moved by Member Parks, seconded by Member Birdsall to receive and file the report. The motion was unanimously carried. PurchaSe of Prooertv - West of Diaz, South of Cherry Street City Manager Dixon presented the staff report, and requested that a resolution allowing for reimbursement of costs on this project be added as recommendation 4.5. John Dedovesh, 39450 Long Ridge Drive, asked if it is the Agency's intention that a portion of this property be an investment, and if organizations using the property would be charged fees. City Manager Dixon stated that policy has for usage of the property is not before the Agency at this time, however any time a public facility is used, a fee needs to be charged. Chairperson Mu~oz stated he feels it is important to have a tally of funds expended versus funds that are available. He asked if the amount of monies spent on projects such as this are comparable to those used to refurbish or revitalized blighted section of the community. He also asked what would the immediate benefit to the City be from this purchase. City Manager Dixon said the purchase of property for parks transfers liquid cash to an asset o~ property. He stated in terms of quality of life, these purchases are of great value and have been a priority of this Council. Mr. Dixon explained that the five year Capital Improvement Program includes specific RDA projects that would address refurbiShing or revitalizing blighted areas. It was moved by Member Lindemans, seconded by member Birdsall to approve staff recommendations, adding recommendation No. 4.5. 4.1 Authorize the opening of escrow on property west of Diaz Road and south of Cherry Street and authorize the purchase of 40 acres of property with a right of first refusal on an additional 17 acres. The total purchase price is $3,484,800 which is $2 per square foot; 4.2 Authorize the City manager and City Attorney to handle and finalize the transaction and acquisition; 4.3 Appropriate $3,484,800 for RDA land acquisition; 4\RDAMIN~041492 -2- 04/22/92 Temecula RedeVelopmint Agency Minutes April 14. 1992 4.4 Authorize an advance of $3,484,000 from the General Fund revolving fund which will be repaid from RDA bond proceeds; 4.5 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. RDA 92-01 A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN FINDINGS REGARDING CITY EXPENDITURES IN CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY WEST OF DIAZ ROAD AND SOUTH OF CHERRY STREET AS REQUIRED BY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY REGULATIONS (SECTION 1.103-18) The motion was unanimously carried. EXECUTIVE DiRECTOR'S REPORT None given. GENERAL COUNSEL'S REPORT None given. AGENCY MEMBERS REPORTS None given. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Member Parks, seconded by Member Moore to adjourn at 9:00 PM. motion was unanimously carried. The ATTEST: June S. Greek' City Clerk/Agency Secretary J. Sal Mu~oz, Chairperson 4%RDAMIN\041492 -3- 04/22192 ITEM 2 ITEM NO. 3 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY~,~ FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER \ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: Executive Director/Redevelopment Agency Members FROM: Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer DATE: April 28, 1992 SUBJECT: Bond Issuance to Fund the Redevelopment Agency Capital Improvement Program. RECOMMENDATION: That the Agency Members authorized the Executive Director to assemble a financing team to proceed with the issuance of bonds in the amount of $16,000,000. DISCUSSION:: Based on the bond capacity study prepared by Fieldman, Rolapp and Associates, the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) may currently issue $16,000,000 in tax allocation bonds to fund approximately $13,000,000 RDA projects. Staff is requesting that the Board authorize the Executive Director to assemble a financing team including bond counsel and financial advisor. We will follow up witih a recommended project funding list during May. ATTACHMENT: Executive Summary - Bond Capacity Study J EI~CLTFVE SL~rlARY The Communi~:' Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula (the "RDA") and the Temecula Community Se~ices District (the "CSD") have retained Fieldman. Rolapp & Associates to prepare a bond capacity analysis for debt issues to be secured by the RDA's Tax Increment Revenue and the CSD's Assessment Revenue. Within this analysis we have identified currently available revenues based upon information provided to us by the County of Riverside (the "County") and the City of Temecula (the "City"). Current revenue information and other fundmental data were used as a basis for formulating assumptions regarding bonding capability. We then gathered pertinent information from City Staff, County Staff, Bond Counsel, representatives of Standard & Poor's Corporation and representatives of major California municipal bond underwriting firms and havg incorporated their input into our analysis. By eliminating inappropriate or obviously unsuitable bonding options and focusing on the most viable and advantageous financing solutions, we were able to reach conclusions and make recommendations regarding bonding capacity, effect on credit, effect on future debt issuance capabilities, and long and short range cost effectiveness. The following is a summary of our findings: CONCLUSIONS , The RDA, by virtue of the advantageous increment agreement negotiated with the County, currently generates Net General Purpose Tax Increment Revenues of approximately $1.8 million* annually, available to meet debt service on long term debt obligations. This represents about three times the mount initially estimated by the City to be available. The CSD generated, in 1991, a total of approximately $1.9 million and it is anticipated that in 1992, a total of approximately $2.6 million will be generated- It is the wish of the City that no more than $500,000 annually be dedicated to the repayment of debt to be issued this year and secured by CSD revenues. If one debt issue rather than two debt issues were to be sold this year, there could be initial costs of issuance savings in the neighborhood of $10-$15,000 for bond counsel fees and perhaps $1,000 - $5,000 in official statement printing costs. The City of Temecula has the power to issue certificates of participation, indirectly secured by revenues of both the RDA and the CSD, but in doing so might unnecessarily, negatively affect the City's future debt issuance capability and credit without deriving significant cost savings. · Additionally, the otherwise nnnece.ssary transfer of a capital asset(s) might be required to effect the transaction. The RDA and the CSD and/or the City or other governmental entity may join together to form a joint powers authority for the purpose of issuing debt under the Marks Roos Bond Pool concept. In this fashion it would be possible to issue one series of revenue or other bonds ' rather than two separate debt issues secured respectively by RDA revenues and CSD revenues. AlthOugh there may be some initial costs of issuance savings, the cost of formation of the joint powers authority with certain caveats see Section I, Ja Redevelopraent Agency Revenues -1- 10. 11. the stigma of past Marks Roos bond pool abuses and probable higher long term interest cost as well as the CSD's and RDA's loss of flexibility in combining the issues make this a less desirable Choice. It is advantageous to keep separate the RDA's and the CSD's revenue streams and the debt issues that these revenues secure. This is because of issues including, but not limited to, long term credit impact, interest cost, and retention of debt issuance flexibility and independence related to the RDA and CSD. The most cost effective and advantageous use of the RDA's tax increment revenues is through the issuance of tax allocation bonds. The most advantageous and cost effective method of issuing debt secured by CSD assessments is through the issuance of limited obligation improvement bonds by the CSD. To the extent that the CSD pledges all of its funds to m~t debt service, with the knowledge that annual debt service will never exceext $500,000; the additional high coverage provided by the CSD's general revenue pledge will meaningfully reduce long term interest costs. The metlaod of sale of tax allocation bonds must, by law, be via sealed competitive bid. The method of sale of CSD limited obligation improvement bonds may be either by negotiation or competitive bid. Low bond market interest rates have recenfiy moved higher, although the current market is still attractive. RECOMMENDATIONS The powers, revenues and credit profiles of the RDA and CSD should be kept distinct and separate from one another and related entities for maximum future financing flexibility, minimum negative impact on related agencies and relative low interest cost and ease of current and continuing disclosure. The Redevelopmerit Agency should issue tax allocation bonds of a par mount of approximately $16.3 million with 125% debt service coverage and sell them, as required by law, at competitive bid. The Community Services District should issue approximately $5.3 million in Limited Obligation Improvement Bonds with debt service of no more than $500,000 annually. Extremely high debt service coverage (300% +) would be provided by a pledge of all available CSD revenues. Because of the unique nature of the CSD, its historical collections, diversity and potentially high debt service coverage ratio, the City should explore both negotiated and competitive methods of sale to determine if some benefit may be derived from negotiating the sale with a single underwriter versus approaching the bond market at large via a competitive sale. - · As the currently attractive low interest rates prevalent for the last year in the California municipal' bond market have recently increased, bonds should be issued and sold as soon as possible. -1-