Agenda packet — Wildomar City Council, July 10, 2024 (part 2 of 2)

8.96.040. Holding tanks.

A holding tank may be approved by the Director if approval to utilize an OWTS has been denied. A holding tank is defined as a sewage facility, of a temporary nature, that has no means of discharge and requires the services of a registered liquid waste hauler for pumping and offsite disposal to an approved wastewater treatment facility.

A holding tank may be approved for a structure, if the following conditions are met:

A. A holding tank may be approved for a period not to exceed two years.

Documentation from the sewering agency for the area shall be submitted which indicates the site will be provided sewer service within the two-year period. An extension of the two-year connection requirement may be granted for cause. The final approval of the extension rests solely on the Department.

B. No holding tank facility shall be placed in any portion of a public right-of-way without written approval from the responsible public agency
C. No wholesale or retail food facilities shall use a holding tank.

D. When a sewer line becomes available, destruction or removal of the holding tank in the manner approved by the Department is required. Destruction or removal of the holding tank and connection to the sanitary sewer shall occur within sixty (60) calendar days of sewer availability.

E. A person proposing to use a Holding Tank shall submit a Land Use application with applicable fee and the following:

1. A site plan indicating the proposed location of the holding tank and structure(s), floor plan and plumbing layout.
284

2. A pumping contract with a liquid waste hauler who is registered the Department and a pumping schedule with a minimum frequency of once per week.

3. Details of a high-level alarm to notify the owner that the sewage that the tank has reached capacity.

Note: A holding tank may be approved as a replacement system for an existing single-family dwelling when sewer, a conventional OWTS or ATS is not feasible if approved in n writing by the Department

8.96.050. Operating permits.

A. All new or repaired alternative OWTS shall be subject to an annual operating permit.

B. Any OWTS subject to this section must be inspected yearly and cleaned (pumped) at least once every five years, unless otherwise specified by the manufacturer or department, by a person holding a valid permit as authorized by Chapter 8.68, as amended.

C. Renewal of subsequent operating permits shall be completed by the property owner or agent on or before the expiration of the permit on forms provided by the Department and shall include:

1. Proof of appropriate on-going maintenance;

2. Proof of septic tank pumping as per the above-specified time frame;

3. Alternative OWTS with advanced treatment shall include evidence of a current maintenance agreement with the manufacturer or other qualified service provider and copies of that company's evaluation/inspections of the OWTS.

Such agreement shall include evaluations by the service provider of a frequency no less than once every three months, with direct visual inspection at a frequency of no less than once every six months;

4. Proof of repairs or alterations to an OWTS must be submitted, when such repairs have been required by the Department;

5. Any and all OWTS reports required as part of the OWTS design approval.

D. Within 60 days of a change of ownership, the new owner or owners must transfer the permit into his, her or their names, using forms provided by the Department.

E. Every OWTS subject to this section shall be subject to an annual inspection by the Department to assure it is operating in a satisfactory manner. 285

8.96.060. Application review process for approval or permit.

A. Initial Application Review.

1. Applicants shall be notified of incomplete or inaccurate applications within 10 working days after the date of the filing of the application. The applicant may make the proper corrections and resubmit the corrected application.

2. Except as to incomplete or inaccurate applications as hereinabove provided, all applications shall be approved or denied, in whole or in part, within 15 working days after the date of filing. If an application is denied, in whole or in part, the applicant may amend the application and resubmit the amended application.

B. Revocations of Approvals or Permits.

1. An approval or permit may be revoked by the Director for failure of the applicant to provide proper, complete and accurate information regarding site conditions for a proposed OWTS.

2. An approval or permit previously granted may be rescinded if soil conditions change significantly prior to construction in a manner that would affect the proper operation of an OWTS.

C. Appeals Process: Any person whose application for an approval or permit has been denied, in whole or in part, , or entire approval or permit has been revoked may appeal this action to the director of environmental health, pursuant to the appeal procedure set forth in Riverside County Ordinance No. 650, as codified in Section 8.124.040 of the Riverside County Code of Ordinances.

8.96.070. OWTS failure.

A. In the event an OWTS is determined to be in failure by the Director, an order shall be given to abate the failure.

B. The property owner, agent or occupant shall be given a notice and reasonable time to abate the stated failure. If the OWTS failure is contributing to an immediate hazard or contamination to a public access or body of water, immediate remedy shall be required.

C. If a determination of an immediate hazard is made by the Director which could potentially contaminate a body of water or public area, such as but not limited to sewage effluent flow onto a public roadway, culvert, drainage ditch, dry or active stream or river bed, the property owner, agent and/or occupant must take measures to abate the failure immediately.

D. When reasonable effort to contact the owner, agent, or occupant is unsuccessful, or upon refusal to abate the OWTS failure, the Director may designate it an imminent hazard to health and safety and may abate the failure. Those remedies include, but are not limited to, the Department contracting to pump a septic tank to eliminate discharge; shutting off water to eliminate sewage discharge; providing alternate means of waste disposal, such as portable toilets or other 286
means deemed necessary to abate the nuisance. Further, the Department may recover the cost for abating the nuisance and its enforcement activities as provided for in Chapter 1.16.

E. The property owner, agent, or occupant may be required to secure a system certification by a qualified service provider as part of the abatement process.

F. Any and all component failures, deficiencies, or malfunctions identified by the system certification shall be repaired. Any and all major repairs are subject to the approval process as described in Section 8.96.030 of this chapter.

8.96.080. Fees.

A. The fees required to obtain an approval from the director of environmental health under the provisions of this chapter shall be as approved by the Board of Supervisors.

8.96.090. Enforcement and additional remedies, penalties, procedures.

A. It shall be the duty of the building official or director of code compliance or director of public works, or their designee, to enforce the provisions of this chapter.

B. Additional remedies, penalties, and procedures for violations of this chapter and for recovery of costs related to enforcement are provided for in Chapter 1.16.

8.96.100. Violations.

A. Any person violating any provision of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of an infraction or misdemeanor as hereinafter specified. Such person shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which any violation of any of the provisions of this chapter is committed, continued or permitted. Any person convicted of a violation of this chapter shall be: (1) guilty of an infraction offense and punished by a fine not exceeding $100.00 for a first violation; (2) guilty of an infraction offense and punished by a fine not exceeding $200.00 for a second violation on the same site. The third and any additional violations on the same site shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000.00 or six months in jail, or both.

B. Notwithstanding the above, a first offense may be charged and prosecuted as a misdemeanor. Payment of any penalty herein shall not relieve any person from the responsibility for correcting the violation.

8.96.110. Public nuisance declaration.

In addition, any violation of this chapter is declared to be a public nuisance and may be abated by the building official or director of code compliance or director of public works or Director of environmental health or his/her duly authorized agent irrespective of any other remedy hereinabove provided.
287
ORDINANCE NO. 640
(AS AMENDED THROUGH 640.14)

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 640 ESTABLISHING ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES FEES Section 1. Definitions.

Whenever in this Chapter the following terms are used, they shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this Section. “Accreditation Agency”means Riverside County Department of Environmental Health Special Projects Training Program. “CECH” means Continuing Education Contact Hour as defined by section 65802 of the California Code of Regulations.
"Department" means the County Department of Environmental Health. "Director" means the Director of the Department of Environmental Health for the County, or his or her designated representative.
"Person" means any person, firm, partnership, corporation, association, club, organization or governmental entity.
"Receipt" means a Riverside County Department of Environmental Health fee receipt which indicates fees have been paid for an activity covered by this Chapter. "Receipt" shall also mean service fee or fee.
“Registered Provider”means a provider of approved coursework that meets the provisions of section 65807 of the California Code of Regulations and is approved by an Accreditation Agency.
"Permit" means the certificate issued by the Director which allows a facility to operate. The issuance of this permit does not indicate or imply that the facility is in compliance with all State and County regulations related to its operation; and may be suspended or revoked by the Department. (Ord. 640.4 § 1, 1997) Section 2. Purpose and Authority.

The purpose of this Chapter is to establish fees sufficient to offset the expenses of the Director in enforcing State statutes, orders, quarantines, rules and regulations relating to public or environmental health, which expenses are found not to be met by the fees prescribed by the State of California. The authority for this Chapter is contained in Section 101325 of the California Health and Safety Code and in Section 43213 of the Public Resources Code (Ord. 640.5 § 1, 2000; Ord. 640.4 § 2, 1997).
288
Section 3. Area of Application.

This Chapter shall be enforceable within the area in which the Director enforces any State statute order, quarantine, rule, regulation or ordinance relating to public or environmental health, including incorporated as well as unincorporated territory. (Ord. 640.4 § 3, 1997
Section 4. Exception to Area of Application.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 4.52.030, any provision of this Chapter which is duplicated in scope by a valid municipal ordinance shall not be applicable in the incorporated territory affected by such municipal ordinance. (Ord. 640.4 § 4, 1997)
Section 5. Separate Activities.

Except as to vending machines and certain hazardous materials management activities, if a person shall conduct more than one of the activities for which a receipt is required, that person shall obtain a separate receipt for each such activity. (Ord. 640.4 § 5, 1997)
Section 6. Period of Receipt.

A receipt issued under this Chapter may be issued at any time during the year.

All such receipts shall expire annually on the one-year anniversary of the date of issuance, except for the following:

A. A receipt for Certificate of Competency relating to the inspection of a backflow prevention device, which receipt shall be valid for a period of three years from its issuance and shall expire the thirtieth day of September of the third year.

B. A receipt relating to a temporary food facility or occasional event which receipt shall be valid for no longer than twenty-five (25) or three days respectively in a ninety
(90) day period from the effective date of such receipt, as evidenced thereon.

C. A receipt relating to a vending machine, mobile food facility, mobile home park, recreational vehicle park, incidental camping area, shall be valid until the thirty- first day of December of the calendar year in which such receipt is issued.

D. A receipt relating to a caterer shall be valid until the thirtieth day of June of the calendar year in which such receipt is issued.

E. A receipt relating to a temporary recreational vehicle park which receipt shall be valid for eleven (11) days from the effective date of such receipt, as evidenced thereon.

F. If an initial application for a liquid waste hauler or medical waste generator receipt is made after the first three months of the calendar year, the fee shall be calculated on a pro-rated basis by quarter of the year and shall be rounded off to the nearest dollar.

G. A receipt for the annual operating permit for public water systems, State Small Water Systems or Labor Camp Water Systems shall be valid from July 1st to June 30th of each fiscal year (Ord. 640.4 § 6, 1997). 289
Section 7. Delinquency Dates and Penalties.

A. The delinquency date shall be, in the case of an initial application, the thirty- first day after commencement of the activity except as to the following:

1. Temporary food facility or occasional event, in which case the receipt specified in this Ordinance shall be delinquent if not obtained earlier than ten working days prior to the day such activity is commenced;

2. Temporary closure of an underground storage tank which shall comply with the requirements as contained in Chapter 8.140, (Ordinance 617); B. The delinquency date shall be, in the case of renewal, the thirtieth day following the expiration date shown on the receipt.

C. Except as provided in Subsection (A)(1) and (2) of this Section, the delinquency date of a temporary receipt issued pursuant to this Chapter shall be the second day after the commencement of the activity.

D. If any fee specified is not paid prior to the delinquency date, the applicant may be
required to pay, in addition to such fee, a penalty in an amount up to twenty (20) percent of such fee; if any fee specified is not paid within thirty (30) days of the delinquency date, the applicant may be required to pay in addition to such fee, a penalty in an amount up to one hundred (100) percent of such fee, except as to the following:

1. If the fee specified in this Chapter for a mobile home park, recreational vehicle park, incidental camping area is not paid prior to the delinquency date, the penalties for delinquency shall be as follows:
a. If such fees are paid on or after the first day of February and prior to the first day of March of the applicable calendar year, the applicant shall pay, in addition to the fee specified in Section 4.52.130, a penalty of the amount of ten (10) percent of such fee.
b. If such fees are paid on or after the first day of March of the applicable calendar year, the applicant shall pay, in addition to the fee specified in Section 4.52.130, a penalty in the amount of one hundred (100) percent of such fee. (Ord. 640.4 § 7, 1997)
Section 8. Temporary Receipts.

If the applicant for a receipt shows, to the satisfaction of the Director, that because an activity is of a seasonal nature, or because of statutory or ordinance regulations, or because of termination or loss of lease, or because of acquisition by the public of the premises on which the activity is situated, or because of similar reasons which are adequately documented, such activity can only be carried on for a limited period of time, not to exceed three-quarters of a year, a temporary receipt may be issued for such period and the fee shall be calculated on a pro rata basis by quarters of the year and rounded off to the nearest dollar amount. (Ord. 640.4 § 8, 1997)
290
Section 9. Receipt Applications.

Applications for receipts shall be filed with the Department on a form to be provided by the Department. Any individual person seeking to apply for a receipt with the Department shall provide proof of a current and valid Federal or State Government issued picture identification card with the application. Completed applications shall be accompanied by the required fee and penalty, if any. Unless otherwise provided in this chapter, such fees shall not be refundable.

Section 10. Transfer of Receipt.

A. No receipt issued pursuant to this Chapter shall be transferable unless a transfer fee for such receipt is provided as required in Section 4.52.130.

B. Where a receipt issued pursuant to this Chapter is transferable, such transfer may be accomplished upon application to the Department therefore such transfer application shall be made on a form provided by the Department and the completed application shall be accompanied by the required transfer fee as provided in Section 4.52.130. (Ord. 640.4 § 10, 1997) Section 11. Posting of Receipt.

Every person having a valid receipt issued pursuant to this Chapter shall post such receipt in a conspicuous place selected by the Director, showing the appropriate fees have been paid. (Ord. 640.4 § 11, 1997) Section 12. Posting of Permit.

Every person issued a valid permit pursuant to this Chapter shall post the permit in a conspicuous place selected by the Director. The permit may be revoked by the
Director for a facility’s noncompliance with County, State and Federal laws and regulations. (Ord. 640.4 § 12, 1997)
Section 13. Required Fees.

No person, corporation, association, firm, business or entity shall operate, perform, carry on, conduct or engage in any of the activities delineated in this Section without paying the fee listed in this section for the activity and obtaining a receipt therefore from the Department of Environmental Health.

Section 14. Annual Required Fees Adjustment
Effective July 1, 2016 the required fees listed in Section 13 above may be adjusted each year, without further action by the Board of Supervisors, to reflect changes in the relevant Consumer Price Index. In March of each year, the Department may apply up to the price index adjustment to produce new required fees to commence July 1st at the beginning of the new fiscal year. No later than April 15 th of each year, the Department shall file a report with the Board of Supervisors reporting the new required fees and certifying that: (1) the new required fees produce sufficient revenue to support the proposed costs of providing the services in the upcoming fiscal year for 291
which required fees are being charged and (2) the new required fees will not produce revenue that exceeds the proposed costs of providing the services in the upcoming fiscal year for which the new required fees are charged.

Section 15. Violations--Penalties.

A. Infractions.

Any person who violates any of the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of an infraction and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by: (1) a fine not less than fifty dollars ($50.00) or to exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00) for a first violation of this chapter; (2) a fine not less than one hundred dollars ($100.00) or to exceed two hundred dollars ($200.00) for a second violation of this chapter within one year; (3) a fine not less than three hundred dollars ($300.00) or to exceed five hundred dollars ($500.00) for each additional violation of this chapter after a second violation within one year.

B. Misdemeanor.

Notwithstanding the foregoing in subsection A of this section, a first and subsequent offense may be charged and prosecuted as a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished as provided by Penal Code, Section 19 as amended. Each day such violation is committed or permitted to continue shall constitute a separate offense.

C. Correction of Violations.

Payment of any penalty established by this chapter shall not relieve a person from responsibility of correcting any violation of this chapter, statute or regulation nor shall it relieve a person from the payment of a late fee imposed under this chapter. (Ord. 640.4 § 14, 1997)
Section 16. Effective/Operative Dates.

This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after its adoption.

Adopted:
640 Item 3.6 of 09/01/1987 (Eff: 10/01/1987)
Amended:
640.1 Item 3.7c of 06/13/1989 (Eff: 07/13/1989)
640.2 Item 11.1 of 06/08/1993 (Eff: 07/08/1993)
640.3 Item 11.1 of 05/03/1994 (Eff: 06/02/1994)
640.4 Item 12.1 of 01/28/1997 (Eff: 02/27/1997)
640.5 Item 3.10 of 03/14/2000 (Eff: 04/13/2000)
640.6 Item 7.3 of 07/31/2001 (Eff: 08/30/2001)
640.7 Item 9.1 of 08/19/2003 (Eff: 09/18/2003)
640.8 Item 9.3 of 06/08/2004 (Eff: 07/08/2004)
640.9 Item 9.2 of 06/06/2006 (Eff: 07/06/2006)
640.10 Item 15.10 of 05/22/2007 (Eff: 06/21/2007)
640.11 Item 15.1 of 06/10/2008 (Eff: 07/10/2008)
640.12 Item 3.27 of 09/30/2008 (Eff: 10/30/2008)
292
640.13 Item 9.3 of 07/27/2010 (Eff: 08/26/2010)
640.14 Item 9-4 of 07/15/2014 (Eff: 08/14/2014)
Fee Schedule Revised: Item 3-23 of 04/12/16 (Eff:07/01/2016) Fee Schedule Revised: Item 3.38 of 04/11/17 (Eff: 07/01/2017) Fee Schedule Revised: Item 3.7 of 03/20/18 (Eff: 07/01/2018) Fee Schedule Revised: Item 3.13 of 04/07/2020 (Eff: 07/01/2020) Fee Schedule Revised: Item 3.11 of 06/30/2020 (Eff: 07/01/2020) Fee Schedule Revised: Item 3.5 of 04/26/2022 (Eff: 07/01/2022) 293
ATTACHMENT C – Ordinance 640 Fee Schedule
Permit / Fee Effective
7/1/2022
1 Food Facility, as defined in Section 113789 of the California Health and Safety Code:
a. Per food facility 1 – 2,000 square feet
i. Food Market $714.00
ii. Restaurant $763.00
iii. Bar/Tavern $763.00
iv. 100% Prepackaged Food Facility $572.00
b. Per food facility 2,001 – 5,999 square feet
i. Food Market $1,076.00
ii. Restaurant $1,150.00
iii. Bar/Tavern $1,045.00
iv. 100% Prepackaged Food Facility $861.00
c. Per food facility 6,000 square feet or more
i. Food Market $1,498.00
ii. Restaurant $1,536.00
iii. Bar/Tavern $1,455.00
iv. 100% Prepackaged Food Facility $1,197.00
d. Per food facility 25-300 square feet dealing in 100% Prepackaged non-potentially hazardous food only $256.00 e.

Each additional food operation within a food
$212.00
facility 6,000 square feet or more
f.

Upon inspection and/or re-inspection of the facility
exceeding four previous inspections and/or re-
inspections per permit year for each hour or fraction
thereof $199.00
g. Each HACCP plan review or microbial challenge study
review, Per hour $199.00
h. Public and Private Schools
294
ATTACHMENT C – Ordinance 640 Fee Schedule
Receives food only from a central kitchen or facility; or only performs limited food preparation (such as heating or re-heating, or limited food assembly) as determined by the Department
Per site $469.00
Extensive food preparation or handling (such as a small, medium or central kitchen) as determined by the Department
Per site $940.00
i. Hotels and Motels
100% prepackaged food $276.00
Limited food preparation as determined by the
Department $545.00
2 Caterer, a food facility as defined in Section 113789 of the Health and Safety Code, operated for the purpose of catering parties, banquets, weddings, and other special events:
a. Per caterer $527.00
3 Commissary, as defined in Section 113751 of the California Health and Safety Code
a. Per commissary $649.00
4 Seasonal, nonprofit snack bar (which is considered a food facility as defined in Section 113789 of the California Health and Safety Code) operated by a nonprofit organization including but not limited to Little League, Pop Warner, or American Youth Soccer, per year at the same location:
a. Per seasonal nonprofit snack bar, operating for no
longer than six (6) consecutive months per year. $156.00 5 Produce stand, as defined in section 113879 of the California Health and safety Code or farm Stands, as defined in Section 113778.2 of the California Health and safety code:
a. Per Produce Stand $389.00
b. Per Farm Stand $291.00
6 Restricted food Service Facility,(per section 113893
of the California Health and Safety code) (Such as
“Bed and Breakfast” operations) with 20 rooms or
less
$397.00
295
ATTACHMENT C – Ordinance 640 Fee Schedule
7 A Cottage Food Operation (CFO), as defined in Ordinance 916 a. Per Class A CFO $186.00
b. Per Class B CFO $374.00
8 Food handler certification testing, as provided for in Riverside County Code Chapter 8.44 (Ordinance No. 567):
a. Per each in office test including duplicates) $27.00 b. Per each on-line test (including duplicates) $27.00
9 A Community Event is defined in section 113755 of the California Health and Safety code as an event that is of a civic political, public, or educational nature; including state and county fairs, city festivals, circuses, and other similar events as determined by the Department. The Following permit requirements of this section concern activities related to a “community event.” a.

A “Temporary Event” is as event where “Temporary Food Facilities,” as defined in section 113930 of the California Health and Safety Code, shall not operate in excess of 25 consecutive or non-consecutive days in any 90-day period in conjunction with a “Community Event.” The following permits are required for each community event:
i.

Event Organizer Permit. This requirement is defined in section114381.1 of the California Health and Safety Code. It requires the event organizer to obtain the permit ten (10) working days prior to the start of the community event. 1-5 vendors $347.00
6-10 vendors $643.00
11-15 vendors $939.00
16- 20 vendors $1,236.00
21-25 vendors $1,531.00
26-30 vendors $1,827.00
31-35 vendors $2,124.00
36-40 vendors $2,418.00
296
ATTACHMENT C – Ordinance 640 Fee Schedule
41-45 vendors $2,715.00
46-50 vendors $3,010.00
51 vendors or more $3,307.00
ii.

Temporary Food Facility Permit. This is required for
each temporary food facility, more commonly referred
to as a “Food Booth,” or Stationary Mobile food
Preparation Unit” which have any unpackaged food
items, any pre-packaged perishable food items, or
perform any food preparation activities.
$210.00
iii.
100% Pre-packaged Temporary food facility permit.

This is required for each temporary food facility, more commonly referred to as a “Food Booth,” which
services only 100% pre-packaged, non-perishable
foods.
$114.00
iv.

Stationary Mobile Food Preparation Unit Permit.

These mobile food facilities are more commonly
referred to as trailers, step vans, etc. These units
must be approved as to their construction by this
Department. A separate permit is required for each
unit.
$148.00
b.

An “Occasional Event” is defined as an event where Temporary Food Facilities may operate no more than three (3) days in any 90 Day period. The following permits are required for each occasional event:
i.

Event Organizer Permit. This requirement is defined in Section 114381.1 of the California Health and Safety Code. It requires the event organizer obtain the permit ten (10) working days prior to the start of the community event. 1-5 vendors $347.00
6-10 vendors $643.00
11-15 vendors $939.00
16-20 vendors $1,236.00
21-25 vendors $1,531.00
26-30 vendors $1,827.00
31-35 vendors $2,124.00
36-40 vendors $2,418.00
41-45 vendors $2,715.00
297
ATTACHMENT C – Ordinance 640 Fee Schedule
46-50 vendors $3,010.00
51 vendors or more $3,307.00
ii.

Occasional Food Facility Permit. This is required for
each occasional food facility, more commonly referred
to as a “Food Booth” or “Stationary Mobile Food
Preparation Unit”; which have any unpackaged food
items, pre-packaged perishable food items, or perform
any food preparation activities.
$102.00
iii.
100% Pre-packaged Occasional Food Facility
Permit. This is required for each occasional food
facility more commonly referred to as a “Food Booth,”
which serves only 100% pre-packaged, non-
perishable foods.
$64.00
iv.

Stationary Mobile Food Preparation Unit Permit.

Community event discounted permit fees. If the event organizer of a “Community Event” meets the following provisions, a discount as outlined below will be applied to food vendors operating at the event and the “Event Organizer Permit” fee will be waived:
i.

Provide the Department with a complete list of all food vendors, which will operate at the event at least two weeks prior to the start of the event. The list must include the owners name, business name, address, telephone number and category of operation as listed above, for each food vendor. ii.

Pay in full all permit fees required by this Department for each food vendor at least two weeks prior to the start of the event. Food vendors found at the Community Event that were not included on the list provided by the Event Organizer will not receive the discounted rate and/or may be required to leave the event.
iii. Temporary Events:
1-5 vendors $678.00
6-10 vendors $1,271.00
11-15 vendors $1,865.00
16-20 vendors $2,458.00
298
ATTACHMENT C – Ordinance 640 Fee Schedule
21-25 vendors $3,050.00
26-30 vendors $3,644.00
31-35 vendors $4,236.00
36-40 vendors $4,830.00
41-45 vendors $5,424.00
46-50 vendors $6,016.00
51-55 vendors $6,609.00
56-60 vendors $7,202.00
61-65 vendors $7,795.00
66-70 vendors $8,390.00
71-75 vendors $8,981.00
76-80 vendors $9,573.00
81-85 vendors $10,167.00
86-90 vendors $10,760.00
91-95 vendors $11,354.00
96 vendors or more $11,946.00
iv. Occasional Events:
1-5 vendors $207.00
6-10 vendors $332.00
11-15 vendors $453.00
16-20 vendors $575.00
21-25 vendors $698.00
26-30 vendors $822.00
31-35 vendors $944.00
36-40 vendors $1,067.00
41-45 vendors $1,190.00
46-50 vendors $1,311.00
51-55 vendors $1,435.00
56-60 vendors $1,558.00
61-65 vendors $1,681.00
299
ATTACHMENT C – Ordinance 640 Fee Schedule
66-70 vendors $1,803.00
71-75 vendors $1,925.00
76-80 vendors $2,048.00
81-85 vendors $2,172.00
86-90 vendors $2,294.00
91-95 vendors $2,416.00
96 vendors or more $2,539.00
10 Food Sales at Swap Meets: Food sales at swap meets are limited to the two following activities: Mobile Food Facilities (see Section 4.52.120, Section 10, a, b, c, and d) and Swap Meet pre-packaged food stands. a. Swap Meet 100% pre-packaged, non-potentially
hazardous food stand. $170.00
b
Swap Meet Organizer Permit: This requirement is defined in section 114381.1 of the California Health and Safety Code. It requires the organizer to obtain a permit at the beginning of each calendar year depending on the number of food vendors allowed at the swap meet. A listing of vendors must be provided and updated as needed to be current; additional vendors or substitutes may be added quarterly. If the number of vendors increases the organizer fee shall increase and the difference in fee shall be charged. No refunds will be issued for vendors that are excluded or discontinue participation at the swap meet during the year or quarter. 1-5 vendors $174.00
6-10 vendors $207.00
11-15 vendors $242.00
16-20 vendors $279.00
21-25 vendors $311.00
26-30 vendors $347.00
31-35 vendors $383.00
36-40 vendors $416.00
41-45 vendors $446.00
46-50 vendors $480.00
51 vendors or more $516.00
300
ATTACHMENT C – Ordinance 640 Fee Schedule
11 Mobile Food Facilities and Mobile Support Units as defined in Sections 113831 & 113833 of the California Health and Safety Code a.

Per each mobile food facility, must be 100% pre-
packaged foods (ice cream trucks, “cold trucks”,
ancillary carts, etc.)
$418.00
b. Per each 100% pre-packaged mobile food facility
(tamale push cart, ice cream push cart, etc.) $163.00
c.

Per each unpackaged mobile food facility (hot dog
carts, espresso carts, shaved ice carts, ancillary carts, etc.).
$589.00
d. A mobile food facility, motorized or un-motorized;
limited to selling only whole, uncut produce $251.00
e. Per mobile support unit $589.00
f. Mobile Food Truck Fee $754.00
12 Community Artisan Operation is a food provider
offering limited products prepared, stored, or
labeled in a permitted kitchen, requiring a kitchen
agreement letter from this department, signed by
the owner, operator and an Environmental Health
Specialist
$260.00
13 Certified Farmers’ Market as defined in Section 113742 of the California Health and Safety Code:
a. Per certified farmers’ market $522.00
14 Holiday operations; profit or nonprofit food establishment or food facilities operating for 30-45 days around a holiday:
a. Per Holiday operation $132.00
15 Vending Machine, as defined in Section 113938 of the California Health and Safety Code:
a. Per vending machine $78.00
16 Public Swimming Pool or Public Spa, as defined in California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Section 65501(includes wading or special use pool):
a. Per public swimming pool $422.00
301
ATTACHMENT C – Ordinance 640 Fee Schedule
b. Per public spa pool $422.00
c. Per Wading Pools $422.00
d. Per Water Features $422.00
e.

Public Pool and/or Spa that has been drained and
locked for longer than 6 months and still requires
monitoring for safety.
$192.00
17 Plan check fees and on-site evaluations:
a. Plan check for food facility, as defined in Section 113789 of the California Health and Safety Code.
i. New food facility 1 - 200 square feet, for each set of plans $865.00
ii. New food facility 201 - 1,499 square feet, for each set of plans $1,525.00
iii. New food facility 1,500 - 2,999 square feet, for each set of plans $1,831.00
iv. New food facility 3,000 - 5,999 square feet, for each set of plans $2,037.00
v.

New food facility 6,000 - 9,999 square feet, for each
set of plans $2,242.00
(not including any additional satellite food facilities) vi.

New food facility 10,000 - 19,999 square feet, for
each set of plans (not including any additional satellite food facilities)
$2,698.00
vii.

New food facility 20,000 or more square feet, for
each set of plans (not including any additional satellite food facilities)
$3,565.00
viii.

Where existing food facility for which a valid receipt has been issued, pursuant to this chapter, is remodeled or renovated. The plan check fee for each set of plans shall be based on the total square footage being remodeled or renovated with the same plan check fee as that for a new food facility of the same size, as specified elsewhere in this chapter.
302
ATTACHMENT C – Ordinance 640 Fee Schedule
ix.

Minor remodeling of existing food facilities;
including, but not limited to, the addition of large reach- in refrigerators, walk-in refrigerators, exhaust hoods, self-serve beverage bars, or changes involving
plumbing; evaluation of out of business facilities for the purpose of reopening when only minor items exist.

This fee would cover 3-4 inspections; any additional
inspections would be charged at the set hourly rate.
$493.00
x. Remodel Fee $865.00
b.

Where on-site evaluation of a previously operating food facility not in current operation is requested in lieu of or in addition to submission of a construction, remodeling or renovation plan, the fees for such on-site evaluation shall be in addition to such plan check fees, as specified elsewhere in this chapter. i. Each hour, or fraction thereof, of on-site evaluation $199.00 c. For plan check of Mobile Food Facilities and Mobile Support Units as defined in Sections 113831 & 113833 of the California Health and Safety Code. i. Each unpackaged mobile food facility $585.00
ii. Each mobile support unit or ancillary cart. $585.00 iii.

Each pre-packaged mobile food facility or ancillary
cart handling potentially hazardous foods as defined in Section 113871 of the California Health and Safety
Code
$292.00
iv. Each Mobile Food Facility Truck or Trailer $689.00
v.

Remodel required due to changes in existing food
service or changes to vehicle or cart will be charged
per hour
$199.00
d. Incidental pre-packaged food facilities where food sales are not the primary retail item:
i. 1 - 2,999 square feet, for each set of plans $495.00 ii. 3,000 - 7,999 square feet, for each set of plans $992.00 iii. 8,000 square feet and larger, for each set of plans $1,490.00 e. For plan check of public swimming pools, as provided for in the California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Section 65505:
i. Swimming pool 1 - 1,000 square feet, for each set of plans $1,425.00
303
ATTACHMENT C – Ordinance 640 Fee Schedule
ii. Swimming pool over 1,001 square feet for each set
of plans $2,037.00
iii. All spa pools $1,425.00
iv.

Minor remodeling of existing pool facilities; including, but not limited to, Virginia Graeme Baker upgrades (2
bodies of water per enclosure), new/changing of
fencing, or changing/adding equipment.
$493.00
v.

Multiple minor changes (and some major changes,
depending on scope of work) to pool. For example:
fencing + equipment changes + re-plastering;
equipment changes + re-plumbing; reviewing outdated
plans where additional inspections are required, etc.
$865.00
vi.

Resurface of pool or spa shell finish (re-plaster)
$ 249.00 per body of
water
Completion of worksheet; evaluation of surface
material (plaster) including the change in slope if
applicable; step risers and treads; handrails and
ladders; depth markers; rope and buoy anchors;
coping; skimmers; suction outlet covers.
f. Where on-site evaluation of a pool or spa facility is requested in lieu of or in addition to submittal of plans (and corresponding plan check fees paid) i. Each hour, or fraction thereof, of on-site evaluation $199.00 18 Requested or mandated inspections, re-inspections, consultations, site visits, response to illegal or unpermitted activities or any time spent to abate violations related to a business, home, or property; not supported by fees or otherwise provided for in this chapter:
a. For each hour, or fraction thereof $199.00
19 Poultry Ranches:
a. Each commercial poultry ranch $1,036.00
20 Mobile Home Park, Recreational Vehicle Park, Temporary Recreational Vehicle Park, and Incidental Camping Area, as defined, respectively, in Sections 18214, 18215, 18217, 18208 and 18502 of the California Health and Safety Code:
a.

Per mobile home park $140.00
Per recreational vehicle park or incidental camping
area $25.00
i. For each mobile home lot in a mobile home park,
add to fee $11.00
304
ATTACHMENT C – Ordinance 640 Fee Schedule
ii. For each recreational vehicle lot, add to fee $2.00 b. Temporary recreational vehicle park $25.00
c.

Mobile home park complaint re inspection fees per Title 25, section 1004.5c For the first hour; $196.00
For second and subsequent whole hours; $82.00
For each thirty minutes or fractional part thereof $41.00 d.

Change of name or transfer of ownership of mobile
home park, recreational vehicle park, temporary
recreational vehicle park, or incidental camping area
$10.00
e. Amendment of permit, other than change of name or
transfer of ownership, or for duplicate $10.00
f. Mobile Home Park State fees as set forth under the California Code of Regulations, Title 25, Section 1008:

Number of Lots State Fees
2-19 $40.00
20-49 $75.00
50-99 $175.00
100-249 $400.00
250-499 $800.00
500 or more $1,600.00
21 Organized camp, as defined in Section 18897 of
the California Health and Safety Code $682.00
a. For each food facility on the premises 1/3 normal fee b. For each swimming pool or spa pool on the premises 1/2 normal fee 22 a.

All Department staff time expended related to the
situation which caused the pendency to be placed shall
be reimbursed at the following hourly rate or fraction
thereof:
$199.00
b.

Other costs – All other costs related to the correction of the situation which caused the pendency to be placed on the property shall also be itemized as to their actual costs and must be reimbursed to the Department prior to the release of the pendency. 305
ATTACHMENT C – Ordinance 640 Fee Schedule
23 Reproduction of records, per each quarter hour or
any portion thereof $10.00
24 Clerical records research fee
First Page $0.50
Additional Pages $0.10
25 Hazardous material/spill impact report:

Per each report requested $79.00
26 Reproduction of master computerized billing/
database records: $18.48
27 Cleaning and/or transporting waste from septic tanks, chemical toilets, cesspools, seepage pits, aircraft holding tanks, or disposing of the cleanings thereof, and transporting animal by-products or sewage sludge as provided in Section 117405 of the California Health and Safety Code and Riverside County Code Chapter 8.84 (Ordinance No. 712).
a. First vehicle $371.00
b. Each additional vehicle thereafter $246.00
c. Per maintenance facility $186.00
d. Registration tag replacement $14.00
28 Processing privately owned or operated solid waste facility permit applications to include Full, Standardized, Registration and Notification Tier facilities as provided in Section 44006 of the Public Resources Code:
a. Permit application for new, revised or closure permits $9,539.00 b. Permit application for permit review or modification $1,980.00 c. Permit application for large multicounty landfills $16,600.00 29 Solid waste facilities permit as defined in Section 40194 of the Public Resources Code:
a.

Privately owned or operated material recovery facility, Privately owned or operated transfer station, Green Waste (or Wood Waste) Chipping and Grinding, Construction and Demolition and Inert Debris (CDI) Processing or Recycling or Disposal facilities as defined in Sections 17850 et. seq., 17837 et. seq. and 17380 et. seq. of Title 14, CA Code of Regulations
b. Full Permit $4,282.00
306
ATTACHMENT C – Ordinance 640 Fee Schedule
c. Registration Tier $1,112.00
d. Notification Tier $557.00
30 Administrative charge for placing a lien on a parcel pursuant to Ordinance 745 for unpaid trash
collection charges.
$77.00
31 Solid Waste Transfer Vehicle, 1st $201.00
a. Each Additional $98.00
If the County’s cost of conducting monitoring activities, including mandated inspections and complaint investigations, is greater than the permit fee the operator shall pay the difference to the County within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of an invoice. Solid waste landfill fees shall be submitted within thirty (30) days of the end of the month and shall include a statement indicating the daily amount of waste received per site. 32 Land Application of Class A Sewage Sludge per Ordinance 830 a. Review of a Registration:

Each Generator or Processor $618.00
Each Transporter $308.00
Each Tier 2, 3, or 4 site $245.00
b. Annual Inspection and Sampling Fees
Each Generator or Processor $496.00
Each Transporter $123.00
Each Tier 1 Site $418.00
Each Tier 2, Tier 3, or Tier 4 Application Site $629.00 33 Medical Waste Generators as defined in
Section 117705 of the California Health
and Safety Code.
a. Large quantity medical waste generators
Effective July 01, 2022
Annual Fee
With on-site Without on-site
Treatment Treatment
307
ATTACHMENT C – Ordinance 640 Fee Schedule
i. Large quantity Generators
1-99 beds $1,995.00 $1,331.00
100-199 beds $3,014.00 $1,907.00
200-250 beds $3,548.00 $2,440.00
251+ beds $5,321.00 $3,102.00
ii. Specialty clinics:

Surgical, dialysis or rehabilitation $1,441.00 $776.00
iii. Skilled nursing facility:
1-99 beds $1,275.00 $609.00
100-199 beds $1,444.00 $776.00
200+ beds $1,552.00 $885.00
iv. Acute psychiatric hospital $1,108.00 $443.00
v. Intermediate care facility $1,331.00 $665.00
vi. Primary care clinic $1,444.00 $776.00
vii. Licensed clinical laboratory $1,108.00 $443.00
viii. Health care service plan facility $1,444.00 $776.00 ix. Veterinary clinic or hospital $1,108.00 $443.00
x. Large quantity generator medical office $1,108.00 $443.00 b. Small quantity medical waste generator
i. No storage $111.00 $ 53.00
ii. Common storage facility serving:
10 or fewer generators $222.00
11 to 50 generators $553.00
51 or more generators $1,108.00
34 Public water system, as defined in the California Health and Safety Code, Section 116275 shall pay an annual operating fee pursuant to California Health and Safety Code, Section 116565:
a. Community water system
i. 15 to 24 service connections $614.00
ii. 25 to 99 service connections $978.00
308
ATTACHMENT C – Ordinance 640 Fee Schedule
iii. 100 to 199 service connections $1,223.00
b. Non-community water system (includes
$857.00Non-transient, non-community water systems)
c. Transient Non-Community non-food facility
$302.00water systems with no water consumption
d. Transient Non-Community food facility
$489.00water systems with no water consumption
35 Public water system permit application processing fees as provided in the California Health and Safety Code, Section 116570:
a. New community water system. $1,223.00
b. New non-community water system (includes Non-
transient, non-community water systems). $732.00
c. Amendment to a domestic water supply permit due to
a change of ownership. $368.00
d.

Amendment to a domestic water supply permit due to
addition or modification of the source of supply, or an addition or change in method of treatment of the water
supply.
$614.00
36 Each public water system shall reimburse the
Department of Environmental Health for actual
costs, at the following hourly rate or fraction
thereof, for enforcement as provided for in the
California Health and Safety Code, Section 116595,
(a) for activities related to the following:
$187.00
a. Preparing, issuing and monitoring compliance with an order or a citation; b. Preparing and issuing public notification;
c. Conducting a hearing pursuant to Section 116625 of the California Health and Safety Code.
d. Requests for exemptions, variances or waivers for any applicable requirement. 37 State Small Water Systems as defined in California
Health and Safety Code, Section 116275(n), annual
operating permit: $1,136.00
38 Employee housing water system, as addressed in
the Health and Safety Code section 17021, annual
operating permit:
$1,054.00
39 Water supply permit review for State small and
employee housing water systems as provided in
309
ATTACHMENT C – Ordinance 640 Fee Schedule
the California Health and Safety Code, Section
116340, per system $2,232.00
40 Bacterial water sample, as provided in the
California Health and Safety Code, Section 116340,
cost to collect sample:
$200.00
41 Each additional chemical constituent laboratory
analysis and collection as specified in Department
of Environmental Health policy as a part of a water
well evaluation.

At Lab Cost
42 Requested inspections/consultations relating to
water systems, not supported by fees as otherwise
provided for in this chapter, per hour or fraction
thereof:
$187.00
43 Unified Program Fees for Corrective Action at Contaminated Sites. A responsible party or person requesting the County’s oversight of corrective action to address a release of hazardous waste or hazardous constituents at a site shall pay the County for oversight costs incurred, while acting as the Unified Program Agency, pursuant to California Code of Regulations Section 68400 and Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.11. a.

All Department staff time spent on activities related to environmental consultations, reviews, and oversight of
assessments and cleanups, shall be reimbursed at the
following hourly rate or fraction thereof:
$199.00
b.

Other costs – Costs incurred by the Department for technical assistance or consultation services performed by outside agencies related to human health and/or environmental risk assessment evaluations shall be reimbursed at their actual cost. 44 State Surcharges/Service Fees pursuant to the Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program, California Code of Regulations, Title 27, Sections 15240 and 15250 shall be assessed each regulated business as applicable . The applicable State Surcharges/Service Fees will be published annually by the State and verified by both the Department and the Auditor-Controller prior to implementation into the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) Single Fee System. 45 Each regulated business pursuant to the Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program, California Code of Regulations, Title 27, Section 15210, may be assessed a Certified Unified Program Agency administrative oversight fee to fund the necessary and reasonable costs of implementing the unified program and large quantity generators.
310
ATTACHMENT C – Ordinance 640 Fee Schedule
46 Hazardous waste generators as defined in the Hazardous Waste Control Law of the State of California, Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5, Article 1, Section 25100 et seq., and Riverside County Code Chapter 8.60 (Ordinance 615).
a. Where from 1 to 10 persons are employed by and at the site of the applicant’s establishment $511.00
b. Where from 11 to 25 persons are employed by
$765.00and at the site of the applicant’s establishment c. Where from 26 to 50 persons are employed by
$1,086.00and at the site of the applicant’s establishment d. Where from 51 to 100 persons are employed by and at
the site of the applicant’s establishment $1,455.00
e. Where from 101 to 200 persons are employed by and
at the site of the applicant’s establishment $1,717.00
f. Where from 201 to 300 persons are employed by and
at the site of the applicant’s establishment $2,661.00
g. Where from 301 to 500 persons are employed by and
at the site of the applicant’s establishment $3,654.00
h.

Where 501 or more persons are employed by and at the site of the applicant’s establishment, the annual fee shall be $3,336.00 plus $4.50 for each employee over 500 employees.
47 Hazardous Waste/Tiered Permitting as defined in the State of California, Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5:
a. Permit By Rule $2,602.00
b. Conditionally Authorized $2,591.00
c. Conditionally Exempt $449.00
48 Hazardous materials business plans (disclosure) as defined in the Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law of the State of California, Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.95, Division 20, Sections 25500 et seq. and Riverside County Code Chapter 8.64 (Ordinance 651).
a. Agricultural handler $328.00
b. Special handler $534.00
c. Level I handler $849.00
d. Level II handler $1,130.00
e. Level III handler $1,695.00
f. Public Safety Enterprise Communication Sites, per hour $245.00 311
ATTACHMENT C – Ordinance 640 Fee Schedule
g.

Exempt facility: this is an annual fee for facilities that are exempt from the requirement for submission of a
business plan or amendments but that wish to provide
the plan for inclusion in the emergency response
database maintained by the hazardous materials
management division, per facility.
$250.00
49 California Accidental Release Prevention Program and Risk Management Plan reviews/inspections as defined in the State of California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.95 and/or Title 19 California Code of Regulations and/or Section 112 (r) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. § 7412) and/or 40 Code of Federal Regulations:
a. Review of Risk Management Plan/Facility Inspections, per hour $245.00
50 Underground storage tank systems as defined in the State of California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.7, Sections 25280, et seq., and Riverside County Code Chapter 8.140 (Ordinance 617).
a. Permit to operate an underground storage tank system:

Each underground tank system at a facility $633.00
b. Permit to construct, install or upgrade an underground storage tank system:
i.

First underground tank system at a facility (up to 6 hours review time, additional review time required will be
charged at $214.00 /hour)
$1,328.00
ii.

Each additional underground tank system at such a
facility (up to 2 hours review time, additional review time required will be charged at $214.00/hour)
$441.00
c. Permit to temporarily or permanently close an underground storage tank system:
i.

First underground tank system at a facility (up to 4 hours review time, additional review time required will be
charged at $214.00/hour) $944.00
ii.

Each additional underground tank system at facility (up to 1 hour of review time, additional review time required will be charged at $214.00/hour) $255.00
d.

Permit to repair or modify an underground tank
system, (for the first four hours of review time after
which the consultation rate for each additional hour or portion of shall be applicable at the rate of
$214.00/hour)
$944.00
e. Re-inspection fee (consultation rate per hour) $245.00 312
ATTACHMENT C – Ordinance 640 Fee Schedule
f. Emergency response hourly rate $245.00
51 Consultation rate – hazardous materials, per hour $245.00 52 Above Ground Petroleum Storage Act (APSA) Facilities APSA has been adopted in the California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.67. Under APSA, tank facility owners and operators are required to prepare and implement a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan. a. Exempt Facilities $77.00
b. Tier l facilities $77.00
c. Tier ll facilities $77.00
d. Non-Qualified Facilities $233.00
53 Tobacco Retailing as defined in Ordinance 838
a. For each Tobacco Retail Facility $475.00
54 Merchant Convenience Fee Charge for Credit &
Debit Card Payments

2.37% of total transaction
Charged
55 CECH Registered Provider
a. Accrediting a person/agency to become a registered provider for CECH’s:
application and course materials evaluation
Single course up to 10 CECH’s $480.00
Each additional course up to 10 CECH’s (per course) $ 240.00 per course Each additional CECH (over 10 CECH’s) $ 30.00 per CECH
b. Renewal of previously approved courses for CECH’s (through Riverside County Special Projects Training Program)
Single course up to 10 CECH’s $240.00
Each additional course up to 10 CECH’s (per course) $ 120.00 per course Each additional CECH (over 10 CECH’s) $ 15.00 per CECH
c. Audit(s) of course – at least one audit per course or 10% of course training dates (whichever is greater)
Within 60 miles of Riverside main office $ 200.00 per audit Within 120 miles of Riverside main office $ 400.00 per audit 313
ATTACHMENT C – Ordinance 640 Fee Schedule
More than 120 miles of Riverside main office
Travel expenses plus $
150.00 per hour of CECH
class
56 CECH Attendee
a. Cost per person for attending a Riverside County
hosted/sponsored CECH training
$ 10.00 per CECH plus
materials and share of
program/ speaker cost
b. Re-generation of CECH certificate of attendance (after 30 days of class up to two years of date of class)
$ 10.00 per certificate per
event
Fee Effective July 1,
2022

PERMIT / FEE
Fixed
Fee
Amount
Total
Amount
57 Well Construction or Destruction Permit and Related
Charges
Water Sample, Cost to Collect $29.00 $29.00
Extension of Time $81.00 $81.00
Contractor Permit Transfer $31.00 $31.00
Monitoring - Single Well $180.00 $180.00
Monitoring - Additional (Same Site and Same Submittal) $82.00 $82.00 Well Destruction $199.00 $199.00
Agriculture $202.00 $202.00
Individual $549.00 $549.00
Community $740.00 $740.00
Other Types (e.g., Extract or Inject) $346.00 $346.00
Cathodic $259.00 $259.00
314
ATTACHMENT C – Ordinance 640 Fee Schedule
Well Evaluation $463.00 $463.00
Well Driller Annual Registration $41.00 $41.00
Additional Well Inspections and Evaluations $199.00 $199.00 58 OWTS Plan Check, Installation and Related Charges
Conventional OWTS $795.00 $795.00
Advanced Treatment OWTS $1,114.00 $1,114.00
Holding Tank $170.00 $170.00
Grease Interceptors $249.00 $249.00
Septic Verification $118.00 $118.00
Sewer Verification $49.00 $49.00
OWTS Destruction/Removal (Two Hour Minimum) $199.00 $199.00 OWTS Restamp $51.00 $51.00
Second Visit, Same Site $112.00 $112.00
Division of Real Estate/Clearance Letter ( 1/2 Hour
Minimum) $79.00 $79.00
Consultation (1/4 Hour Minimum) $112.00 $112.00
59 Annual operating permit for alternative on-site waste water treatment systems (OWTS) as required by Riverside County Code Chapter 8.124 (Ordinance No.650)
a. Alternative OWTS or holding tank $233.00
b. Alternative OWTS with advanced treatment $309.00
60 Examination and issuance of certificate of competency for the inspection of backflow prevention devices, as provided for in California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Section 7605:
a. Initial certificate of competency $161.00
b. Three-year renewal, examination and $151.00renewal of competency c. Commercial certified backflow tester listing, per
individual or company $20.00
61 Body Art Facility as defined in Section 119301 of the California Health and Safety Code
a. Per Facility $255.00
315
ATTACHMENT C – Ordinance 640 Fee Schedule
62 Body Art Practitioner as defined in Section 119301 of the California Health and Safety Code
a. Initial Setup Fee (one time) $64.00
b. Registration Fee (annual) $64.00
63 Body Art Vehicle as defined in Section 119301 of the California Health and Safety Code
a. Per Vehicle $320.00
64 Body Art Demonstration Booths and vehicles as defined in Section 119317 of the California Health and Safety Code that operate at a singular event or site other than a permitted Body Art Facility that occurs no more than 7 days in a 90 day period and occur only at events or sites with an approved Sponsor a.

Sponsor, as defined in Section 119301 of the California Health and Safety Code, is responsible for the operating site of the Body Art Demonstration Booth(s) and shall secure an event permit based on the total number of Body Art Demonstration Booths. i. Body Art Event Sponsor Permit $300.00
b. Body Art Demonstration Booth $66.00
65 Body Art Facility/Vehicle Plan Check
a. Per Plan $516.00
66 Body Art Re-inspection fees $185.00
67 Body Art Event Practitioner “Temporary Event”
a. Registration $28.00
68 Ear Piercing Facility Registration as defined in Section 119325 of California Health and Safety Code
a. Per Facility $51.00
69 Industrial Hygiene activities including, but not
limited to: Asbestos, Lead evaluation, plus any
associated costs.
$188.00
70 Micro-Enterprise Home Kitchen Operations Permit $651.00 316

CITY OF WILDOMAR

CC - REGULAR MEETING

GENERAL BUSINESS
Agenda Staff Report # 3.3

Meeting Date: July 10, 2024
SUBJECT:

Grand Avenue East Side Land Use Designation Discussion
SUBMITTED BY:

Matthew Bassi, Community Development Director
PREPARED BY:

Matthew Bassi, Community Development Director

ACTION:

1. Receive Staff's Presentation on the Grand Avenue East Side Land Use Change;and

2. Take Public Comments; and

3. Discuss the Grand Avenue East Side Land Use Change and take one of the following final actions:

a) Keep the existing GP Land Use designation of Low Density Residential (LDR) for this specific area; or

b) Accept the Planning Commission's recommendation to change the land use designation to Estate Density Residential (EDR)
SUMMARY:

Planning Commission Study Session Summary (June 26, 2024):

Staff presented the Grand Avenue East Side Land Use Change discussion and which provided background and history regarding this (refer to discussion below and June 26 PC staff report (Attachment E). Following Staff's presentation, the Commission did not raise any questions for staff and opened the floor for public comments. There were 16 speakers in total on this topic with various view points.

Seven (7) residents spoke in favor of keeping the existing (our current GP land use map designation) LDR land use designation citing that this land use designation has been in existence for nearly 30+ years. According to the speakers, the east side Grand Avenue area was originally planned by Riverside County (prior to incorporation) to serve as a buffer area between the Palomar Road MDR/R-1 residential neighborhoods (Richmond American, Lennar, Meritage Homes, etc.) and the EDR residential neighborhoods on the west of Grand Avenue leading westwards into the Santa Rosa plateau.

Nine (9) speakers spoke in favor of the proposed Estate Density Residential (EDR) land use designation citing in part that the east side of Grand Avenue should have the same designation as the west side given that several of the parcels on the east side of Grand Avenue already has an estate "feel" to them. Some speakers expressed that keeping the Low Density Residential (LDR) land use designation (that would allow for 1/2-acre subdivisions 317
instead of 2-acre subdivisions) was too dense and may not be able to maintain the rural character of the Grand Avenue corridor.

After close of the public comments, the Commissioners present (Filar, Banks, & Cambero -- Strong recused, Bernard absent) had no questions for Staff. The Commission briefly discussed the land use and expressed belief that the EDR land use designation was more appropriate over the LDR designation. The Commission then voted 3 - 0 to keep the EDR land designation as shown on the proposed GP land use map.

DISCUSSION:

Grand Avenue East Side Land Use Area Discussion:

During Commission discussion of the final draft land use plan, Commissioner Strong introduced the idea of changing the existing LDR land use designation to EDR (Estate Density Residential) to match the existing EDR designation on the west side of Grand Avenue primarily because the east side parcels are larger lots (some developed as estate lots, some vacant). The EDR designation is also one of the city's rural land use designations allowing for the same rural residential uses as LDR with the exception that the minimum lot size is 2 acres with a density of 1 unit per 2 acres instead of 2 units/acre. Upon conclusion of the discussion and public feedback (which was varied), the Commission voted unanimously to recommend City Council accept the EDR land use designation for the east side of Grand Avenue.

Staff brought the Commission's recommendation to the City Council for discussion at their July 18, 2023 study session on the final draft land use plan. The Council, after public feedback (which was varied) and discussion, concurred with the Commission's recommendation and directed staff to revise the final draft land use plan to show the EDR designation for this area.

Most recently on March 20, 2024, the City Council held a 2nd study session to discuss the General Plan update and various other topics, including a revisit of the Grand Avenue land use change. The Council took public feedback on this issue which was varied depending on what side of Grand Avenue the speaker resided. Some expressed a desire to maintain the existing LDR designation (existing since incorporation) and others desiring have the EDR designation. After deliberating and considering public feedback, Council chose to keep the EDR designation so staff could finalize the DEIR and GP document for public distribution and comment.

Council also directed staff, at this meeting, to look into possible alternative ideas, such as "split-zoning" or establishing a "special policy statement/vision" for this small geographic area.

Staff created a "
draft
" version of a statement and standards (refer to Attachment B), but its only preliminary and has not been fully vetted for practicality. The east side of Grand Avenue to Murietta Creek has a number of physical/environmental constraints such as flood plain 318
issues (a portion of each lot is in the flood plain), sewer and water improvements, topography, etc. If this is something the Council still wants Staff to pursue, we recommend this effort be identified as a "future agenda item" so we could better analyze the issues and constraints and even prepare specific scope and budget for this effort. With public hearings on the DEIR and General Plan document set for August 2024, there is not adequate time and it would significantly delay the adoption of the General Plan update.

Following the March 20th Council study session, staff reached out to the east side property owners directly affected by the land use change rom LDR to EDR. Based on these conversations and meetings, most of the property owner expressed a desire to maintain the existing LDR land use designation versus the EDR land use designation. Two property owners staff spoke with did not have a preference. Staff also heard from several property owners residing on the west side of Grand Avenue who voiced their desire that the properties on east side of Grand Avenue should have the same EDR designation rather than the existing LDR designation.

From this outreach, the Planning Commission held a final study session on June 26, 2024 to discuss the Development Code update approach (well received with little comments) and the Grand Avenue east side land use change. Please refer to the summary section of the staff report for this discussion and the recommendation section for staff's final recommendations on this matter before the adoption hearings in August 2024.

Public Comments:

Staff has received several public comment letters over the last month or so regarding the Grand Avenue land use change. Please refer to Attachments F and G for reference.

Attachment G is a separate Pdf as this letter is locked and could not be grouped with the letters in Attachment F. Staff also mailed a meeting notice regarding the July 10, 2024 Council meeting to the property owners on the east side and west side of Grand Avenue (same process as the June 26, 2024 PC study session).

ATTACHMENTS:

Attach A - Grand Ave East Side Land Use Exhibit.pdf
Attach B - Draft Grand Avenue East Side Policy Doc.pdf
Attach C - Grand Ave Disc ppt.pdf
Attach D - NOPM-Residents-CC Mtg [7-10-24].pdf
Attach E - PC Study Session Rpt for reference [6-26-24].pdf Attach F - Grand Ave Land Use Change Comment Letters.pdf Attach G - Judy Richey Grand Ave Comment Letter.pdf
319
Grand Avenue Policy Area - Proposed Land Use Change - General Plan Update

320

321
DRAFT - Grand Avenue Neighborhood Land Use Policy Statement The Grand Avenue neighborhood policy area is located on the east side of Grand Avenue bounded by McVicar Street on the north, Murrieta Creek on the east and the northerly property line of the Tenaja SCE substation on the south (refer to map exhibit below).
 G
en. Plan Land Use Designation: Low Density Res (LDR) or Estate Density Res (EDR)  Zoning Designation: Rural Residential (R-R) – Existing to remain  Neighborhood Area Acreage: 98.7 acres +/- (
P
olicy Statement:

The properties falling within the boundary area noted above are subject to a “special design consideration” regarding future single family residential (SFR) development of this neighborhood boundary area. Due to the current topography, Murrieta Creek ﬂood plain constraints , and other constraints (to be determined by technical studies during entitlement process), development opportunities beyond a single house on a single lot, may utilize a “clustered design concept” as part of a future subdivision map provided the property owner or applicant/subdivider prepares a s peciﬁc “lot yield study” to be submitted to the ci ty concurrently with a subdivision application for approval by the Planning Commission.

E
ach property (or a combination of properties assembled) is allowed a maximum number of lots (i.e., total lot yield) based on the adopted land use designation (LDR or EDR). The design of the subdivision layout is subject to the following general design standards:
322
Lots fronting on the East Side of Grand Avenue (facing west):
• minimum lot size: 2 acres gross (measured to centerline of the street). • minimum lot width: 350 feet +/- (or matching lot width as lots fronting on west side of Grand Avenue). • minimum lot depth: 249 feet +/- (or matching lot depth as lots fronting on west side of Grand Avenue). • each subdivision development is only allowed one (1) public or private street from Grand Avenue leading into the interior of the site to provide ingress and egress for the lots in the rear of the property. • Minor deviations for existing parcels three (3) acres or less in size from the above standards m ay be allowed on a case by case basi s only if supported by technical studies and approved by the Planning Commission

Lots located behind the Grand Avenue lots:
• lot design: “clustering” is allowed subject to the following minimum standards:
• minimum lot size: 14,000 square feet gross (measure to centerline of interior street). • minimum lot width: 100 feet +/-
• minimum lot depth: 140 feet +/-
• each SFR development proposal is only allowed one (1) public/private street for ingress & egress off Grand Avenue leading into the interior of the site.
• Minor deviations for existing parcels three (3) acres or less in size from the above standards m ay be allowed on a case by case basi s only if supported by technical studies and approved by the Planning Commission
323
City Council Meeting
July 10, 2024
324
Grand Avenue Land Use Discussion
325
Grand Avenue Land Use Discussion
Background:

The recommendation to change the land use on the east side of Grand Ave. from the existing LDR (Low Density Res, ½ acre lots) designation to the EDR (Estate Density Res, 2 -
acre lots)
designation was brought forward by the Commission during the May 24, 2023

study session.

The Commission’s recommendation was presented to the City Council during a study session held on July 18,
2023,

at which time after public comment, the Council chose to accept the Commission’s recommendation of EDR.

Based on this direction, staff pressed forward with the final GP goals & policies, land use map and Draft EIR work.

One final City Council study session was held on March 20, 2024

at which time the Council
discussed the EDR land use designation as well as several new Development Code ideas. 
The public feedback was varied….some wanting the EDR designation and some wanting the LDR designation.

In the end, Council chose to keep the EDR designation, but asked Staff to consider split -
zoning
ideas that might balance future development of this area. 326 Grand Avenue Land Use Discussion
"Grand Avenue Neighborhood Land Use Policy Statement"

To address Council’s direction to help preserve the rural character of this corridor while facilitating potential development of “smaller lots” (i.e., 1/3 -
acre lots) in the rear
of properties, staff has drafted a “preliminary policy statement” & created a few development standards.

Summary of this is as follows:

properties within the boundary area are allowed “special design considerations.” 
due to the current topography, flood plain issues, and other constraints (not yet determined), future development opportunities beyond a single house on a single lot, may utilize a “clustered design concept.”

To be supported by a specific “lot yield study” as part of a tract map proposal. 
total lot yield would be based on the adopted land use designation (LDR or EDR). 
Development of the tract would be subject to the following Preliminary Standards (next page)
327
Grand Avenue Land Use Discussion
Lots fronting on the East Side of Grand Avenue (facing west):

2 -
acre minimum lot size fronting Grand Avenue

minimum lot width: 350 feet +/
-

(match lot width on west side)

minimum lot depth: 249 feet +/
-

(match lot width on west side)

One (1) public or private street extending from Grand Avenue leading into the interior of the site.

Minor deviations for existing parcels 3 acres or less in size can be permitted n a case
-
by
-
case basis only if supported by technical studies and approved by the Planning Commission.

328
Grand Avenue Land Use Discussion
Lots
located behind the Grand Avenue lots:

“clustering” is allowed subject to the following minimum standards:

minimum lot size: 14,000 square feet gross (1/3 acre +/ -
)

minimum lot width: 100 feet +/
-

minimum lot depth: 140 feet +/
-

One (1) public or private street extending from Grand Avenue leading into the interior of the site.

Minor deviations for existing parcels three (3) acres or less in size from the above standards may be allowed on a case
-
by
-
case basis only if supported by technical
studies and approved by the Planning Commission.

The above standards are preliminary and would require a special overlay study in order to

verify that these standards can be implemented.

This study would occur sometime in 2025 pending Council approval of a scope and budget to perform the work.
329
Grand Avenue Land Use Discussion
PC
Recommendation
f
rom June 26,
2024

Study Session:

The Planning Commission voted 3
–

0 (Strong recused / Bernard absent)

to k
eep
the GP
Land Use designation of Estate Density Residential (EDR) as presently shown on the
draft General Plan Land Use Map.

City

Council Options for Tonight:

Staff recommends the City Council take the following actions:
1)
Receive Staff's Presentation;
2)
Take Public Comments; and
3)
Discuss the Grand Avenue East Side Land Use Change and decide on one of the following final actions:
a)

keep the existing GP Land Use designation of Low Density Residential (LDR) for this specific area; or
b) accept the Planning Commission's recommendation of Estate Density Residential (EDR) for this specific area.
330

City Council Meeting: Notice is hereby given that the City Council will consider the Planning Commission’s recommendation regarding the “ Grand Avenue East Side Land Use Area” as described below on Wednesday, July 10, 2024 beginning at 6:00 PM in the Wildomar City Council Chambers located at 23873 Clinton Keith Road, Suite #105/106, Wildomar, CA 92595.

Project Case Type(s) and Number(s): Wildomar General Plan Update (GPA No. 2024-01)

Applicant’s Name/Address: City of Wildomar Planning Division, 23873 Clinton Keith Road, Suite #110

Description: The City Council will be discussing the Planning Commission’s recommendation from their recent June 26, 2024 study session to change the existing Low Density Residential (LDR) land use designation to the Estate Density Residential (EDR) land use designation for the area known as “ Grand Avenue East Side Policy Area ” (refer to exhibit below). T he City Council will discuss and take public comments regarding the general plan land use designation for this specific area and will provide final direction to staff.

Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before the July 10, 2024 meeting, or may appear in person and be heard in support of, or opposition to, the proposed agenda item during the meeting. If you challenge the project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondences delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the meeting. The July 10, 2024 City Council meeting agenda packet may be viewed online once it has been posted by the City Clerk https://www.cityofwildomar.org/cms/one.aspx?pageId=18045837. If you have questions concerning this notice, you may contact Mathew Bassi, Community Development Director at (951) 677-7751, Ext. 213 or via email at [email protected]

Mailed to Residents: June 24, 2024

331

332

CITY OF WILDOMAR

PC - SPECIAL MEETING

GENERAL BUSINESS
Agenda Staff Report # 3.1

Meeting Date: June 26, 2024
SUBJECT:

Wildomar Development Code Update and East-Side Grand
Avenue Policy Overlay Area Discussion - PC Study Session:

SUBMITTED BY:

Matthew Bassi
PREPARED BY:

Matthew Bassi

ACTION:

Staff recommends the Planning Commission take the following actions:

1. Receive Staff/Consultant presentation on the Wildomar Development Code update and discuss/provide feedback/ideas to Staff; and

2. Discuss the "East-Side Grand Avenue Policy Overlay Area" and recommend to the City Council one of the following actions:

a) Keep the GP Land Use designation of Estate Density Residential (EDR) as presently recommended; or

b) Revert the GP Land Use designation back to Low Density Residential (LDR); or

c) Adopt the "East-Side Grand Avenue Policy Overlay Area" language for the final General Plan Document.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

Wildomar Development Code Update:

General Overview and Background
The Development (zoning) Code is the most important tool for implementing the General Plan.

As with the General Plan, the City adopted the Riverside County regulations at the time of incorporation. As part of the update, we are also providing a comprehensive update to the development code.

A Development Code is comprised of two main components: Land Uses and Procedures.

Land Uses.

The land use table includes uses that are recognizable to most property owners.

Divided into allowable and conditional uses, the new code has tables rather than extensive text. The land uses allowed closely match the new General Plan, partially because they must be consistent, and partially because through the General Plan Update process there was a goal to ensure that existing neighborhoods were protected. Five new zoning districts: Mixed Use Low, Mixed Use High, Residential Mountainous, Public Facilities, and Open Space were 1 333
created to match similar land use designations in the General Plan. Numerous other zone districts were either combined into a single district, or eliminated as they don’t pertain to Wildomar. Remember the existing code was intended to regulate an entire county.

Procedures.

In addition to simplifying the zone districts, the procedures for reviewing projects have been streamlined. Ministerial projects will largely be approved at the staff level following objective design standards and the development code. Most projects that require discretion also trigger CEQA and would likely be reviewed by the Commission or Council.

In addition to these sections, the definitions were consolidated into a single section and referenced by the rest of the development code. This makes them easy to find and update as needed. While seemingly mundane, many disagreements over interpretation hinge on definitions. Making things clear and easy to understand helps the property owner, staff and ultimately the Commission when projects come before you.

In addition to these sections, the definitions were consolidated into a single section and referenced by the rest of the development code. This makes them easy to find and update as needed. While seemingly mundane, many disagreements over interpretation hinge on definitions. Making definitions clear and easy to understand helps the property owner, staff and ultimately the Commission/Council when projects come before you for consideration.

Workshop Goal
The goal of this workshop is to give an overview of the main approach to the Development Code update and to discuss items with the Commission and public. Ultimately the Commission will receive the entire code (it is currently under review by the City Attorney’s Office) and it will be posted online for public review. Following review, the new Development Code is expected after approval of the General Plan.

Next Steps
Based on input and direction from the Planning Commission at tonight's meeting, City staff and the project team will complete work on the draft Development Code to get it ready for public review. It is our intention to release the draft Development Code for public review in late summer 2024. Following the public review, public hearings on the draft Development Code and Consistency Zone Changes will be schedules for Commission and Council review in October/November 2024.

PROJECT ANALYSIS:

East Side Grand Avenue Policy Overlay Area Discussion:

Background:

The Grand Avenue land use recommendation was brought forward by the Commission during the May 24, 2023 study session. At this meeting, staff presented the final draft land use map for Commission discussion and consideration. Staff's recommendation on the final draft land use plan was to maintain (since incorporation in 2008) the existing Low Density Residential (LDR) land use designation for east side of Grand Avenue extending from McVicar Street south to the SCE substation and east from Grand Avenue to Murrieta Creek (Attachment C, Aerial Exhibit). The LDR land use designation is one of the city's rural land use designations allowing for rural residential uses on an existing parcel or as part of a new residential subdivision with half-acre (1/2) minimum lot sizes set a density of 2 units per acre. 2 334
During Commission discussion of the final draft land use plan, Commissioner Strong introduced the idea of changing the existing LDR land use designation to EDR (Estate Density Residential) to match the existing EDR designation on the west side of Grand Avenue primarily because the east side parcels are larger lots (some developed as estate lots, some vacant). The EDR designation is also one of the city's rural land use designations allowing for the same rural residential uses as LDR with the exception that the minimum lot size is 2 acres with a density of 1 unit per 2 acres instead of 2 units/acre. Upon conclusion of the discussion and public feedback (which was varied), the Commission voted unanimously to recommend City Council accept the EDR land use designation for the east side of Grand Avenue.

Most recently on March 20, 2024, the City Council held a 2nd study session to discuss the General Plan update and various other topics, including the Grand Avenue land use change.

The Council took public feedback from several members of the public and several property owners with parcels on the east side of Grand Avenue. The feedback and input on this issue was varied with some wanting to maintain the existing LDR designation and others wanting the keep the EDR designation that was recommended at the previous study sessions noted above. After deliberating and considering public feedback, Council chose to keep the EDR designation, but directed staff to look into possible alternatives, such as "split-zoning" or establishing a "special policy statement/vision" for this small geographic area. The reason being that a different approach/alternative to just the EDR designation (at 1 unit per 2 acres density) for this area could result in a blend of different sized lots along the Grand Avenue frontage (matching the west side) and allowing smaller lots (i.e., 1/3 acre sized lots) in the rear of the property. This approach could work given the physical/environmental constraints related to the Murietta Creek flood plain (a portion of each lot is in the flood plain), sewer and water improvements, topography, etc.

Discussion:

Following the March 20th Council study session, staff met with (or spoke with via phone) several east side property owners directly effected by the land use change from LDR to EDR.

Based on these conversations, each property owner expressed a deep desire to maintain the existing LDR land use designation versus the EDR land use designation. Most were also open to a hybrid approach if the EDR designation was to be formally adopted by the City Council. Staff has also heard and understands that property owners on the west side of Grand Avenue who have voiced their opinions either directly to staff, or at the March 20 study session, would prefer the EDR designation over the existing LDR designation.

Staff has created a preliminary version of a "Grand Avenue Neighborhood Land Use Policy Statement" for Commission consideration. It is important to note that this exhibit and the statements and standards therein are very preliminary and have not been studied in detail (i.e., no engineering design work) given the time constraints with our public hearings for the General Plan update and EIR scheduled for August 7, and August 28, 2024. If the concepts of this alternative are supported by Planning Commission and City Council, or some other variation, staff would recommend that any final decision on the idea be delayed and reviewed under a "future study plan" post General Plan update and EIR approval. 3 335

The following is a short summary of the Grand Avenue policy area statement and design standards for Commission consideration and direction. Please refer to Attachment D for more detail.

Policy Statement:

The Grand Avenue neighborhood policy area is located on the east side of Grand Avenue bounded by McVicar Street on the north, Murrieta Creek on the east and the northerly property line of the Tenaja SCE substation on the south (refer to map exhibit below).

The properties falling within the boundary area noted above are subject to a “special design consideration” regarding future single family residential (SFR) development of this neighborhood boundary area. Due to the current topography, Murrieta Creek flood plain constraints, and other constraints (to be determined by technical studies during entitlement process), development opportunities beyond a single house on a single lot, may utilize a “clustered design concept” as part of a future subdivision map provided the property owner or applicant/subdivider prepares a specific “lot yield study” to be submitted to the city concurrently with a subdivision application for approval by the Planning Commission.

Lots fronting on the East Side of Grand Avenue (facing west):
• minimum lot size: 2 acres gross (measured to centerline of the street). • minimum lot width: 350 feet +/- (or matching lot width as lots fronting on west side of Grand Avenue).
• minimum lot depth: 249 feet +/- (or matching lot depth as lots fronting on west side of Grand Avenue).
• each subdivision development is only allowed one (1) public or private street from Grand Avenue leading into the interior of the site to provide ingress and egress for the lots in the rear of the property.
• Minor deviations for existing parcels three (3) acres or less in size from the above standards may be allowed on a case by case basis only if supported by technical studies and approved by the Planning Commission

Staff is recommending the Planning Commission make one of three recommendations as listed in the "Recommendation Section." 4
336
Planning Commission
June 26, 2024
Development Code Study Session
337
Agenda

1. Introduction

2. Approach to Development Code

3. Overview of Amendments by Article

4. New Zone Districts

5. Zoning Map Revisions

6. Next Steps
338
Approach to
Development Code
339
Overarching Goals
 Change only what is necessary
- Change in zoning names to reflect the General Plan.
- Even with name change, keep the underlying zoning standard(s).  Clarify
- Explain in text and/or Graphics key points in the regulation. - Use tables rather than text-lists for uses.
 Provide the intent
- Intent statements will help the City in reviewing projects not yet envisioned. - Allow for, and document, interpretations of the development code.  Procedures
- Clarify what permits are approved at what level.
340

THE DEVELOPMENT CODE
 Focus on Wildomar
- Eliminates countywide range.
- Clarifies land uses and densities.
 Implements the General Plan
- Reflects revised land use designations.
- Clarifies land uses and densities.
 Adds New Zone Districts
- Open Space
- Mixed Use Low/Mixed Use High
 Procedures
- Streamlines approval process
341

OVERVIEW OF AMENDMENTS

BY ARTICLE
342
Article 1: General Provisions
• Minimal revisions to section
on legal non-confirming
structures and uses.
• Rezoning of parcels to be in
complete conformance with
the General Plan Land Use
Designation.
343
Table 17.05.020-1 Zoning and Implementing General Plan Land Use Designations Zone Name Implementing General Plan Land Use
Designation
R-M Residential Mountainous RM Rural Mountainous
R-A Residential Agricultural LLR Large Lot Residential
R-R Rural Residential EDR,
VLDR,
LDR
Estate Density Residential
Very Low Density Residential
Low Density Residential
R-1 Residential Low MDR Medium Density Residential
R-2 Residential Medium MHDR
HDR
Medium High Density Residential
High Density Residential
R-3 Residential Medium High VHDR Very High Density Residential R-4 Residential High HHDR Highest Density Residential
R-T Mobilehome Subdivisions and
Mobilehome Park
Any residential designation
C-G Commercial General CO
CR
Commercial General
Commercial Highway
C-H Commercial Highway CO
CR
Commercial General
Commercial Highway
M-I Manufacturing/Industrial B P, L I Business Park or Light Industrial O-S Open Area Combining Zone OS-R
OS-CH
Open Space Recreation
Open Space Conservation Habitat
MUL Mixed Use Low MUL Mixed Use Low
MUH Mixed Use High MUH Mixed Use High

Article 2: Zoning and
Allowable Land Uses
• Streamlined the number of
zones from 37 to 14 for ease of
reference and accessibility.
• The City now features 3 rural
zones, 5 residential zones, 2
commercial zones, 2 mixed-use
zones, one (1) industrial zone,
and one (1) open space zone.
• Removed minimum site area
requirement for dwelling unit
requirements in the R-2 and R-
T zones.
344
Article 3: Land Use Permits
and Procedures
• Simplified the approval
process.
• Included a table
summarizing the approval
authority for different
approval types.
• Consolidated all
procedures, including
appeals, into a single
Article.

Table 17.24.110- 1: Designated Authority for Approval
Approval Type (Chapter) Type of Action
Designated Authority
Community
Development
Director
Planning
Commission
City
Council
Accessory Dwelling Unit Permit Ministerial A
Conditional Use Permit Discretionary R A
Development Agreement Legislative R R A
Development Review, Minor Ministerial A
Development Review, Major Discretionary R A
Finding of Public Convenience and
Necessity Discretionary R A
General Plan Amendment Legislative R R A
Home Occupation Permit Ministerial A
Home-Based Business Discretionary A
Large Family Daycare Permit Ministerial A
Minor Exception Discretionary A
Official Code Interpretation Discretionary A
Planned Development Discretionary R R A
Reasonable Accommodation Discretionary A
Sign Permit Ministerial A
Similar Use Determination Discretionary A
Specific Plan Legislative R R A
Substantial Conformance
Determination Discretionary A
Temporary Use Permit Discretionary A
Variance Discretionary A R A
345
Article 3: Land Use
Permits and Procedures
(Continued)
• Summarizes Approval
Timelines.
• Clarifies when extension
must go to the
Commission.

Table 17.24.130-1 Permit Timelines, Expiration, and Extensions Type of Approval Initial
Time
Extension
Time
Total
Time
Number of
Extensions
Extension Approval
Authority
Ministerial N/A N/A 3 years N/A Community
Development Director
Discretionary 3 years 6 years 9 years 3 Planning Commission Development Review,
Minor 3 years 6 years 9 years 3 Community
Development Director
Development Review,
Major 3 years 6 years 9 years 3 Planning Commission
Conditional Use Permit 3 years 6 years 9 years 3 Planning Commission Variance 3 years 6 years 9 years 3 Planning Commission
346
Article 4: Site Development Regulations and Performance Standards • Added recreational vehicle provisions.
• Revised/clarified sign standards.
• Revised density bonus regulations to comply with State Law. • Revised development standards for nonresidential accessory structures. • Added cluster development subdivision regulations.
347
Article 5: Standards Related to Specific Uses
• Added standards for residential beekeeping, stables/boarding of large animals, aviaries, & aquaculture • Removed commercial fertilizer operations.
• Updated cannabis regulations to align with State law requirements. • Added standards for licensed residential care facilities, employee housing, emergency shelters, and transitional and supportive housing consistent with State law. • Added home occupation standards & standards for short-term rentals. • Added standards for RV & Boat storage uses in Commercial zones.

Table 17.07.020- 1: Residential Zones - Allowed Uses and Approval Requirements Allowed Use R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 R-T Additional
Requirements
Agricultural Uses
Animal Keeping, Noncommercial -- P -- -- -- Chapter xx
Animal Keeping, Poultry P P P P -- Chapter xx
Animal Keeping, Small -- P P P -- Chapter xx
Field crops, propagation, and culture purposes P P P -- -- Chapter xx Kennels and Catteries P P P -- P Chapter xx
348
Article 6: Definitions
• Consolidated definitions
from multiple/individual
sections into one
section.
• Removed all ‘regulations’
from the definitions.
349

NEW ZONE DISTRICTS
350
New Zone Districts
Open Space (OS)
 Replaces the Natural Asset Zone
 Allows for the conservation of open space and some recreational uses.

Mixed Use Low (MUL)
 Mixed Use Low (MUL) Zone. Provides for neighborhood-serving goods and commercial services and/or multifamily residential in a mixed-use format (vertical or horizontal).

Mixed Use High (MUH
 Provides for larger-sized properties to be developed with a mix of uses that may include buildings developed for single use (such as retail, office, restaurant, and housing) and/or structures that integrate multiple uses vertically (such as housing above ground level retail).

Residential Mountainous (RM)
 Allows for clustering of residential uses. Minimum lot size of 10 acres.

Public Facilities (PF)
 Allows for civic uses such as City administrative buildings and schools. 351
Manufacturing/Industrial Zone

1. All former industrial zones have been
consolidated into a single zone, the
Manufacturing/Industrial (M-I) zone.

2. The M-I zone allows for commercial/service
uses, hybrid commercial/industrial “maker
spaces,” research and development, storage,
automotive, and traditional industrial uses.
352

ZONING MAP REVISIONS
353

PROPOSED

GENERAL
PLAN
354

PROPOSED
ZONING
MAP
355
Next Steps
356
Next Steps
 Draft EIR and General Plan Public Review (May 9 – June 24, 2024)
 Planning Commission Workshop on the new Development
Code Update (June 2024)
 Public Hearings on EIR and General Plan (August 7 & 28, 2024)
 Public Hearings on Development Code Update and
Consistency Zoning Changes (October & November 2024)
357
Grand Avenue Land Use Discussion
358
Grand Avenue Land Use Discussion
Background:

The
recommendation
to change the land use on the east side of Grand Ave. from the existing LDR (Low Density Res, ½ acre lots) designation to the EDR (Estate Density Res, 2 -
acre lots)
designation
was
brought forward by the Commission during the May 24,
2023

study
session
.

The
Commission’s recommendation was presented

the

City

Council

during

study

session
held on July 18,
2023

final

City

Council

study

session

was

held on March 20,
2024

at which time the Council
discussed the EDR land use designation as well as several new Development Code ideas. 
The public feedback was varied….some

wanting

the EDR designation and some wanting the
LDR designation.

In the end, Council chose to keep the EDR designation, but asked Staff to consider split -
zoning
ideas that might balance future development of this area. 359 Grand Avenue Land Use Discussion
"Grand Avenue Neighborhood Land Use Policy Statement"

To address Council’s direction to help preserve the rural character of this corridor while facilitating potential development of “smaller lots” (i.e., 1/3 -
acre lots) in the rear
of properties, staff has drafted a “preliminary policy statement” & created a few development standards.

Summary of this is as follows:

properties within the boundary area are allowed “special design considerations.” 
due to the current topography, flood plain issues, and other constraints (not yet determined), future development opportunities beyond a single house on a single lot, may utilize a “clustered design concept.”

To be

supported

a specific “lot yield study” as part of a tract map proposal. 
total lot yield would be based on the adopted land use designation (LDR or EDR). 
Development of

the

tract

would

subject to

the

following Preliminary Standards
(next page)
360
Grand Avenue Land Use Discussion
Lots fronting on the East Side of Grand Avenue (facing west):

2 -
acre minimum lot size fronting Grand Avenue

minimum lot width: 350 feet +/
-

(match lot width on west side)

minimum lot depth: 249 feet +/
-

(match lot width on west side)

One (1) public or private street extending from Grand Avenue leading into the interior of the site. 
Minor deviations for existing parcels 3 acres or less in size can be permitted n a case -
by
-
case basis
only if supported by technical studies and approved by the Planning Commission.

Lots located behind the Grand Avenue lots:

“clustering” is allowed subject to the following minimum standards:

minimum lot size: 14,000 square feet gross (1/3 acre +/ -
)

minimum lot width: 100 feet +/
-

minimum lot depth: 140 feet +/
-

One (1) public or private street extending from Grand Avenue leading into the interior of the site. 
Minor deviations for existing parcels three (3) acres or less in size from the above standards may be allowed on a case
-
by
-
case basis only if supported by technical studies and approved by the Planning Commission. 361
Grand Avenue Land Use Discussion

The above standards are preliminary and would require a special overlay study in order to

verify that these
standards can be implemented.

This study would occur sometime in 2025 pending Council approval of a scope and budget to perform the work.

Recommendation for

tonight
Staff

seeking final direction from the Commission on one of the following:
1)

Keep the GP Land Use designation of Estate Density Residential (EDR) as presently recommended (and analyzed in the DEIR); or
2)
Change the Land Use designation for this area back to Low Density Residential (LDR) –

status quo since
incorporation; or
3)
Recommend further study of a “Preliminary

G
rand Avenue Neighborhood Land Use Policy Statement” to be prepared in 2025 pending City Council funding.

Staff

has

met

with

and discussed these alternatives with
a number

east

side

Grand Ave property owners since
the March 20, 2024, Council study session.….Conclusion is:

about 50% are in favor of the EDR land use designation… 
about 50% are in favor of the LDR designation…..and


1 or 2 property owners would prefer the MDR land use designation (R -
1 lots
similar to

the Beazer Tract). 362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
To the City of Wildomar:

First and foremost, I would like to apologize for my absence due to the passing of my mother-in-law.

With that said, I want to express my feelings on behalf of my parents wishes. My father purchased his land located at 22410 Grand Ave., Wildomar, CA between the years of 1973 and/or 1974. When we started going to the property my life changed instantly. I was hooked living this country lifestyle. I remember as a 9 year old child how open this area was. There were horse, sheep and cattle ranches all around this area. To me this was cowboy country. I was living the cowboy dream. Then in the late 80s the community started to grow and the cattle and sheep ranches started dwindling down. The sheep ranch next to us was barely operating due to the grazing land, across the road from us was bought up by developers. Homes were being built across from us, where my sister Doreen and I used to ride our horses and we used to hike up to a big rock up the hill that my sister Eileen named Flat Rock. This was a place were all of us kids went to relax and enjoy the beauty of the area. We were starting to feel sad because our riding areas and hiking trails were slowly being taken away from us.

Our new neighbors that moved across the road next to Robertson’s place used to come out of her home and tell us not to ride our horses on their street because horses poop and that she did not want horses or horse poop on their newly paved road. We respected the new neighbors wish and slowed down our riding on that road. My sister Doreen and I still had other areas that we rode. Especially down by the creek which is now the Bear Creek golf course. When Bear Creek was developed my sister Doreen and I were exiled out of that area. With that being said we were ok with it because my family still had 18 acres of land that we rode on. My favorite part of the place was in the back of the property. I remember there was a gate on the back of the property that my father and I built and my sister Evelyn and I would go to visit our childhood friends Debbie and Mike Fransisco. They had a ranch that was behind us. Sometime in the eighties the county of Riverside took two +/- acres from my family by imminent domain. It was depressing time in our life. They took 2 acres to make the reservoir which created more issues for a family ranch due to the flooding that it created on the property and across the road. In the late 90s and early 2000 I realized it was time for me to relocate due to all the growth of Wildomar and the population. We used to have beautiful views looking out our living room windows but now our views are red roof tops. In 2000 I finally moved to Northern California by the cascade and Sierra mountains.

It has always been my father‘s wish (may he rest in peace) that his property would be sold to a developer so other people can live in this community. He also felt it would provide for his family after he passed. At this time, my family has an opportunity to sell the property to a developer. If we are able to sell we will be able to care for my mother and to fulfill my father’s dying wish.

This community isn’t rural anymore it’s a City with new communities, shopping malls, restaurants and entertainment. This development would be great for new families to come live and it would increase the tax base for the city. Please let us fulfill my father’s dying wish.

Thank you,
Conrad Gonzalez
[email protected]
(530)249-5398
370
Dec. 19, 2023
Re: 22410 Grand Ave.

To whom it may concern,
Hello, my name is Eileen Gonzalez Caballero and I am executor for the Mary Louise Gonzalez Estate; property located at 22410 Grand Ave., Wildomar. I am in receipt of your letter written to Philip Bradburne/Warmington Residential. We are in the process of selling the property which has been in our family for over 50 years. My parents owned this land back in the 70's before Wildomar was incorporated in 2008.

My real estate broker, Trina Gonzales explained that the City of Wildomar has plans to downzone our property along with the neighboring properties at 22300 from the required 1/2 acre minimum lot size to a 2-acre minimum lot size. We find this very disturbing, especially since no one from the city has made any attempt to speak with our family. This action represents an enormous financial loss to us and we do not agree with it. The new zoning will literally cut our value in half. Further, how do you suggest we find a suitable developer willing to build homes on 2-acre lots in our drought ridden state? I would like to ask that someone from your office contact me or advise me of who we can speak to. I will be seeking advice for our next steps.

Sincerely,
Eileen Gonzalez Caballero
371

City of Wildomar Council 5/13/2024 23873 Clinton Keith Rd.

Wildomar, CA 92595

Re: 22410 Grand Ave. LDR to EDR concerns
Hello,

I wanted to write to you all one more time in the hopes that you would consider the needs of our family to sell this property for the highest and best use. As you know, we are in escrow to sell the property to Warmington Residential. They are a well-reputed developer and have agreed to pay an acceptable price - fair market value, for this land. Our ability to do so hinges on this decision.

Our parents purchased the land in the 70’s and planned to raise their 4 children and 8 grandchildren. My father, Conrad Gonzalez was a true horseman and provided and maintained a ranch lifestyle for us. I can remember when there was no construction around us for miles. At the time, there was no 15 freeway, there were no track homes in the distance, and Grand Ave was just a dirt road. We had planned to name it Grande Vista Stables because of the grand views from every angle of the ranch. For many years the ranch was a haven for horse lovers. Dad would lovingly board horses for others, and he treated them like his own. My siblings grew up participating in horse shows and rodeos.

Many years have passed, and our family has an immediate need to sell in order to pay for our mother’s living expenses. The property is her only asset, and she is 92 years old and suffering from dementia. Mom needs full-time care 24/7.

Finally, I would like to ask you again to please consider what this means to our family and the love that we all still have for the City of Wildomar. Please work with us to come to an amiable solution.

My parents chose this particular parcel of land over another parcel of land that was located in Murrieta on Washington because they had the vision that Grand Ave would remain more of a bedroom community than a commercial 4 lane road and realized that this area would bring residential communities between McVicar and the street that is now named Clinton Keith. So one of his last wishes spoken to me is that this property to be sold to a housing developer that will maintain the bedroom community feel where families will come together to raise their families like he and my mom have done

Respectfully submitted,

Eileen Gonzalez Caballero
372
May 26, 2024

Wildomar City Council Members,

The purpose of writing this letter is to share with you the ideas and dreams my father, Conrad Solis Gonzalez had for his property beyond his death. Initially, his intention was to make it a family compound which was the reason behind the four subdivided parcels on the property. As time passed, he decided it was best for the property located at 22410 Grand Ave, Wildomar to remain as one property for investment purposes.

When my parents sold their primary home in San Gabriel, California they had enough proceeds to build themselves a mini mansion and live a life in the comforts of a luxurious home. But, once again, my father decided it was best to leave the property as a whole piece for future potential investments. He chose to live in the original 1975 mobile home which he bought and installed essentially with his own two hands, and with the help of a few friends and family. My father always thought about what was best for the property and the community, even if it meant that his wife, children, and grandchildren were not in agreement.

Ultimately, “The Ranch”, his given name for the property was his sole priority. He made all the decisions and was never influenced by family to change his mind.

We had many discussions over the decades about his vision. He could not see the property as anything other than a community of homes. He had hoped it would become a park, or that maybe the city would incorporate a park into the plans.

My father was a visionary. Even though we (his wife and children) didn’t always agree with his vision, we respectfully honored it.

My mother who is now 91, turning 92 deserves to live life the way she chooses.

She was happy to live at “The Ranch” with her husband, but since his death she has not been able to live there. Her days of staying on the property are no longer possible. The 1975 mobile home needs repairs to make livable. As the legal guardian of my mother, I have decided that she deserves to live out her remaining years where she is comfortable and safe. The cost of my mother’s long-term care has almost depleted her savings. The sale of “The Ranch” has now become a priority to ensure she continues to have the necessary funds to provide her with quality care.
373
While we are anxious to sale the property, for our mother’s sake, we, her children, are also trying to abide by our father’s wishes. With “The Ranch” in currently in escrow, I am beginning to feel some relief and hope for my mother’s future care. She always wanted what my father wanted. She never had any say.

And now with her dementia she only knows that “The Ranch” is there. No one lives there and we are doing our best to fulfill our father’s wishes. Being in this conundrum of caring for my mother and at the same time pursuing a dream that my father had has made this a difficult journey for my siblings and me. For my mother, I want what she deserves which is to profit from her investment, to live her remaining years in comfort and peace.

For fifty years my father kept “The Ranch” as raw as possible to give back to the City of Wildomar and its future community members. We (the children) understand that the atheistic of the community is critically important.

Maintaining a rural look and feel is what makes Wildomar unique. I have chosen to make Wildomar my home since 1994. I have no plans to leave. It has always been my hope that I could afford a home on “The Ranch” property so that I in some way feel I am with my father. I think this would make him happy.

In closing, please know that the Gonzalez family wants what the City of Wildomar wants; for the west side to remain a rural lifestyle with families who appreciate our small-town feel, our small-town school (which I am retiring from after 35 years), and our small-town community outreach. Thank you for your time and consideration of either maintaining the current zoning of half acre parcels or preferably allowing multi-zoning for more affordable housing.

Respectfully,
Evelyn Gonzalez
22140 Hunters Run
Wildomar, CA. 92595
951-218-6628

374
From: KAREN ROBERTSON
To: Matthew Bassi
Subject: To the Council Members
Date: Sunday, April 7, 2024 9:07:39 PM
[The e-mail below is from an external source. Please do not open attachments or click links from an unknown or suspicious origin.]
Wildomar City Hall Council Chambers
23873 Clinton Keith Road Suite 106
Wildomar, CA 92595
Council Members,
My husband and I, along with several neighbors attended the March 20, 2024 Special Session to discuss the zoning of the 15 acres on Grand Avenue belonging to the Gonzalez family.

Presently, that parcel is zoned (LDR) Low Density Residential which would limit developers to 1/2 acre or more per parcel. The General Planning Commission suggested that the zoning be changed to EDR (Estate Density Residential) in order to match what is across Grand Avenue. It is all EDR from McVicar Street to almost Clinton Keith on the West side. Likewise on the East side with adjacent properties. So it makes sense to change the Gonzalez property to match the rest of the surrounding properties.

The Gonzalez family, on the other hand, would like (HDR) High Density Residential so they can make more money. That piece of property is not appropriate for denser population because of the water way through the middle, the river in the back, the topography in general, and the surrounding neighborhood. They claim they can’t sell because of the 1/2 acre limit. That’s not why they can’t sell. It’s because they are focused on selling to developers with hopes of small lots. It is a difficult piece of property to split into any smaller lots. Any developer would see the inconsistency and impossible challenges.

Based on the County Assessor's records and the city data base, the Gonzalez property is already split into four parcels. Lots of people are looking for 3 or 4 acre pieces where they can have horses, and there aren’t many left. Advertising each piece as horse property would be sold in a heartbeat.

We ask that you accept the commissions recommendation to change the zoning of the 15 acres to EDR (Estate Density) to be consistent with the area. We were also 375
assured at that meeting that we would all be invited to another discussion meeting before the final decision was made. We are looking forward to getting that invitation.

Respectfully,
Karen and Barry Robertson
33140 Claremont Street
Wildomar, CA 92595
951-212-1106
376
377
378
379

3090 Pullman Street, Costa Mesa, California 92626 t: 714.434.4463 HomesByWarmington.com City of Wildomar City Hall
23873 Clinton Keith Road, Suite 201
Wildomar, CA 92595

RE: 22300 & 22410 Grand Avenue

Dear Mayor Pro Tem DePhillippo and City Council of Wildomar,

We are writing to express our wholehearted support for the proposed development of two properties Southeast of McVicar & Grand into a subdivision within the city. As a family-owned and privately held homebuilding company with a rich history dating back 98 years, we are deeply committed to building high-quality homes that stand the test of time and enrich the lives of generations to come. Our longstanding presence in the industry reflects our dedication to craftsmanship, integrity, and community stewardship.

We are excited to present our vision for a single-family traditional neighborhood with larger lots, which we believe aligns perfectly with the goals outlined in Wildomar's "Draft Goals, Policies, and Actions." Our approach to development prioritizes the creation of a vibrant, cohesive community that preserves the cherished hometown feel while meeting the evolving needs of residents.

However, it is crucial to address the issue of development feasibility. If these properties' general plan land use designation is not changed from the current low density residential up to medium density residential, these properties will be deemed valueless to the current owners as no developer is able to pencil a deal at that low of a density given the cost of the land development and City fees. Thus, changing the designation is imperative to unlock the potential of these properties and ensure their viability for development while still fitting into the character of the City and the neighborhood.

While our subdivision may not be high density, it embodies the essence of responsible growth by providing increased housing choices that cater to a diverse range of lifestyles, physical abilities, and income levels. By offering larger lots and traditional single-family homes, we aim to create a sense of space, privacy, and tranquility that is often lacking in more densely populated areas. This approach reflects our commitment to fostering a sense of belonging and well-being among residents.

Moreover, our emphasis on quality craftsmanship and timeless design ensures that each home in the subdivision will be a source of pride and comfort for its occupants. Drawing upon decades of experience and expertise, we strive to create homes that blend seamlessly with the natural environment, respect the local architectural heritage, and withstand the test of time.

380

3090 Pullman Street, Costa Mesa, California 92626 t: 714.434.4463 HomesByWarmington.com As Wildomar continues to grow and evolve, it is essential to strike a balance between preserving the unique character of the community and embracing the opportunities for progress and innovation. We believe that our proposed subdivision represents a harmonious blend of tradition and modernity, offering residents the best of both worlds.

In conclusion, we are confident that the development of this subdivision will not only enhance the city's housing landscape but also enrich the lives of residents in meaningful ways.

We are committed to working closely with the city and stakeholders to ensure that this project is implemented with the utmost care, integrity, and respect for the community.

Thank you for considering our input on this matter. We look forward to the opportunity to bring our vision to life and contribute to the continued success and prosperity of Wildomar.

Sincerely,

Philip Bradburne
Land Acquisition Manager
Warmington Residential – Southern California

Philip Bradburne
381
City of Wildomar Planning Department & Planning Commission 23873 Clinton Keith Road, Suite 110 Wildomar, CA 92595 Re: 22300 Grand Avenue, Wildomar, CA 92595 I am wriJng to you as an engaged property owner in the city of Wildomar ahead of your planning commission meeJng scheduled for June 26th, 2024. My name is Judy Richey. I am not a resident of the city, but my family has owned property in this immediate area since the Mid 80s and they have played an integral role in the growth and development of this city and what it has become today. The property I wanted to address has been owned for over 25 years. It’s located at 22300 Grand Avenue, Wildomar. There is a proposed land use change that would transiJon this property from Low Density ResidenJal to Estate Density ResidenJal. I believe there wasn’t enough consideraJon put into the reason for this change for several reasons. One reason is that this was not included in the iniJal proposal of the General Plan Update. It was not originally part of the city staﬀ recommendaJon. It was not added to the General Plan Update unJl much later on in the process. Secondly, I have heard people talk about this area being a buﬀer zone between MDR (typical single family homes) and the larger estate style properJes which are on the west side of Grand Avenue. The area already does that. The homes on the west side of Grand Avenue beginning at the foothills are over two acres, then as you go downhill it transiJons to parcels which are mostly less than two acres. In fact, most of the properJes that have been developed on the east side of Grand as you travel north have been developed as MDR with lot sizes consistent with a single family residenJal development. It would make more sense that the area east of Grand Avenue and South of McVicar Street be transiJoned to MDR for several reasons. One reason is, that is what has happened to a majority of the parcels as you head north on Grand Avenue. ProperJes to the north and immediately east have been developed as MDR. Secondly Our parcel is just outside the high ﬁre severity zone. Third is that our site is generally ﬂat usable space which would lend well to an MDR development. The purpose of acquisiJon of this property so many years ago was to hold it for future development. The proposed land use change to EDR would obviously have a signiﬁcant ﬁnancial impact on the value of the property and would result in a substanJal loss for not only us but the other property owners as well as the community at large. Building a development consistent with the MDR DesignaJon would provide more access to market rate housing to the average person living in this community and will spark more commercial acJvity within the city. In light of the above, I kindly request that my property, be considered for the designated land use of "Medium Density ResidenJal." I am conﬁdent that this collaboraJon will yield posiJve outcomes for our community, and I am eager to contribute to its success. I have adached an exhibit reﬂecJng surrounding developments which are more consistent with an MDR designaJon.

Authentisign ID: DEA94A28-642E-EF11-86D4-000D3A8B7EDD
382
Thank you for your thoughful consideraJon of my proposal. I am enthusiasJc about the opportunity for further discussions and collaboraJon on this important endeavor. Please follow up with my Real Estate Broker, Jason Clayton. (714) 914-3007 or [email protected] Judy Richey Trustee Authentisign ID: DEA94A28-642E-EF11-86D4-000D3A8B7EDD
383
Authentisign ID: DEA94A28-642E-EF11-86D4-000D3A8B7EDD
384

CITY OF WILDOMAR

CC - REGULAR MEETING

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Meeting Date: July 10, 2024
SUBJECT:

Future Agenda Items
SUBMITTED BY:

Janet Morales

ACTION:

Title- Councilmember-Anticipated Date

1. Expand Pavement Management/Road Rehab Program for private and public roads - Marquez - TBD
385

CITY OF WILDOMAR

CC - REGULAR MEETING

CONSENT CALENDAR
Agenda Staff Report # 1.1

Meeting Date: July 10, 2024
SUBJECT:

April 10, 2024 - City Council/Cemetery District Regular Minutes SUBMITTED BY:

Janet Morales, City Clerk

ACTION:

Approve the minutes as presented.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Minutes 04-10-2024
386
MINUTESCITY OF WILDOMARCITY COUNCIL/CEMETERY DISTRICTWEDNESDAY, APRIL 10, 2024COUNCIL CHAMBERS23873 CLINTON KEITH ROAD SUITE 106WILDOMAR, CA, 92595 Regular Session 6:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER – REGULAR SESSION - 6:00 P.M.

The Regular Meeting of the Wildomar City Council was called to order by Mayor Moore at 6:00 p.m.

Mayor held a Moment of Silence in Memory of Desiree Nigg.

ROLL CALL
Members in attendance: Joseph Morabito, Ashlee DePhillippo, Bridgette Moore, and Carlos Marquez Members absent: Dustin Nigg
Staff in attendance: City Manager York, City Attorney Jex, City Clerk Morales, Community DevelopmentDirector Bassi, Economic Development Director Davidson, Administrative Services Director Schrader,Community Services Director Torres, Finance Manager Jantz, Code Enforcement Supervisor Parker,Human Resources and Risk Manager Wolf and Associate Engineer Luna

FLAG SALUTE
The flag salute was led by students from the Julie Lee Performing Arts Academy

PRESENTATIONS

1. Proclamation: Donate Life Month April 20242. Proclamation: Earth Day 20243. Proclamation: Volunteer Month4. Julia Lee Performing Arts Academy Innovation Update

DEPARTMENT REPORTS
Human Resources Update
General Plan Update and Development Code Progress Report #22

PUBLIC COMMENTS
The following individuals provided public comment on items not on the agenda:

1. Susan Lovett, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints

COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
387
The City Council members spoke regarding various committees, comm1ss1ons, and boards that theyserve on locally and regionally and community events including:

1. Riverside Conservation Authority (RCA)2. Riverside Transit Agency (RTA)3. Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC)4 League of California Cities5. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)6. Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA)7. Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG)8. Southwest Community Financing Authority (Animal Shelter)9. Ad Hoc & Subcommittees10. Community events11. Regional events12. Chamber of Commerce

APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED
Moved by Carlos Marquez; seconded by Ashlee DePhillippo to approve the agenda as presented.

Motion Approved: 4 - 0
Voting For: Joseph Morabito, Ashlee DePhillippo, Bridgette Moore, Carlos MarquezVoting Against: NoneAbstain: NoneAbsent: Dustin Nigg 1) CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Moore recused herself from Agenda Item #1.8 due to a conflict of interest.

Moved by Carlos Marquez; seconded by Joseph Morabito to approve the Consent Calendar.

Motion Approved: 4 - 0
Voting For: Joseph Morabito, Ashlee DePhillippo, Bridgette Moore, Carlos MarquezVoting Against: NoneAbstain: NoneAbsent: Dustin Nigg

1.1)January 17, 2024 - City Council/ Cemetery Regular Minutes Approved the minutes as presented.

1.2)March 2024 Warrant Register
Approved the following: For Fiscal Year 2023/20241. Warrant Register dated 03-07-2024 in the amount of $583,526.612. Warrant Register dated 03-14-2024 in the amount of $126,159.363. Warrant Register(s) dated 03-21-2024 in the amount of $226,747.454. Warrant Register dated 03-28-2024 in the amount of $1,244,454.855. Wire Transfer Register dated 03-31-2024 in the amount of $152,389.836. Payroll Register dated 04-01-2024 in the amount of $236,907.70.

1.3)February 2024 City Treasurer’s Report
Approved the Treasurer’s Report for February 2024.

1.4)Agreement with the US Department of Transportation (USDOT)/Federal Highway Administration(FHWA) for the Sedco Boulevard Roadway Safety Improvements Project (CIP 096) Authorized the City Manager to execute the FY 22 Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) 388
Implementation Plan Grant Award Agreement with FHWA for $2,218,531.02 in Federal funding,upon the agreement being finalized by USDOT/FHWA.

1.5)Vacation of Right-of-Way for Bayless Road adjacent to the Faith Bible Church Project (ProjectNo. 19-0179) Adopted a Resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2024 -16A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WILDOMAR, CALIFORNIA, VACATING THERIGHT-OF-WAY FOR BAYLESS ROAD FOR PUBLIC ROAD PURPOSES, INCLUDING PUBLIC UTILITY ANDPUBLIC SERVICE USES, MADE BY INSTRUMENT NUMBER 2021-0339322, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDECOUNTY, CALIFORNIA.

1.6)Acceptance of Improvements for the Baxter Village Development Project, Parcel Map 37941(Strata Baxter, LLC) Adopted a Resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2024 - 17A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WILDOMAR, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THEPUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARCEL MAP 37941 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TOPREPARE AND FILE THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION WITH THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY RECORDER ANDAUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AND FILE LIEN RELEASES WITH THE RIVERSIDECOUNTY RECORDER

1.7)A Resolution Opposing Initiative No. 21-0042A1, The Taxpayer Protection and GovernmentAccountability Act Adopted a Resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2024 - 18A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WILDOMAR, CALIFORNIA, TO OPPOSEINITIATIVE #21-0042A1

1.8)Wildomar Community and Parks Foundation Partnership Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)for an Earth Day Event.

1. Authorized the City Manager to sign the MOU with the foundation dependent that thefoundation fulfills all requirements.

2. Waived fees associated with the application and processing of the Temporary Event Permitdependent that the foundation fulfills all requirements.

1.9)Joint Use License Agreement with the Farm Property Owners Association Authorized the City Manager to sign the Joint Use License Agreement.

1.10)Community Services Department Community Events Update

1. Received and the filed the update.

2. Waived the Temporary Event Permit Application fee for the 2024 Memorial Day Event.

1.11)First Amendment to the Agreement for Maintenance Services with St. Francis Electric, LLC Approved and authorized the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to the Agreementfor Maintenance Services with St. Francis Electric, LLC.

1.12)Amendment to Post Closing Maintenance Agreement
Approved and authorized the City Manager to sign the First Amendment to the Post ClosingMaintenance Agreement. 389

1.13)Parking License Agreement for Special Events Held at Marna O’Brien Park.

Authorized the City Manager to execute the Parking License Agreement. 2) PUBLIC HEARINGS
No items scheduled.
3) GENERAL BUSINESS

3.1)Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation - Program Summary and Potential List of Streets for FY24/25 Project Associate Engineer Luna presented the staff report.

The City Council received and filed the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation (Road Rehab)Update and received and provided input on the proposed list of streets for the FY 24/25 RoadRehab Project.

3.2)45-Day Urgency Ordinance Establishing a Moratorium on Certain Uses The following individuals provided public comment:1. Allan Davis, Retail Development Advisors, in opposition of the item.2. James Prestininzi, Herwood Building Supplies, in opposition of the item.3. Pete Prestininzi, Herwood Building Supplies, did not speak but submitted public commentcard in opposition of the item.4. Jack Kofdarali, Developer, with time donated by Jake Kofdarali, developer, and Jay Brun, J&TManagement, for a total of 9 minutes, in opposition of the item.5. John B. Rogers, Engineer for Herwood Building Supplies, in opposition of the item.6. Joe Foley, property owner of pending application, in opposition of the item.7. Patrick Ellis, Murrieta/ Wildomar Chamber of Commerce President, in favor of the item.8. Nolan King, resident, in favor of the item.

Moved by Joseph Morabito; seconded by Bridgette Moore to Not Approve an Interim UrgencyOrdinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 240AN UNCODIFIED INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF WILDOMAR, CALIFORNIA,ESTABLISHING A MORATORIUM ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLE AND BOATSTORAGE FACILITIES, AUTOMOBILE FUELING STATIONS, CAR WASHES AND FAST FOODRESTAURANTS AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF, TO TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY Motion Approved: 2 - 1
Voting For: Joseph Morabito, Bridgette MooreVoting Against: Carlos MarquezAbstain: Ashlee DePhillippoAbsent: Dustin Nigg

3.3)Unlawful Possession of Catalytic Converter Ordinance Code Enforcement Supervisor Parker presented the staff report.

1. Daryl Terrell, Moreno Valley resident, provided public comment in favor of the item.

Moved by Joseph Morabito; seconded by Ashlee DePhillippo to 1. Determine that adoption ofthe Ordinance Amending Title 9 of the Wildomar Municipal Code meets the findings for aGeneral Rule exemption in accordance with Sections 15060 and 15061(b)(3) of the CEQAGuidelines; and 2. Introduce and Approve for First Reading an Ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 241AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WILDOMAR, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 390
9 (PUBLIC PEACE AND WELFARE) OF THE WILDOMAR MUNICIPAL CODE ADDING CHAPTER 9.54ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS PROHIBITING THE UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF CATALYTICCONVERTERS Motion Approved: 4 - 0
Voting For: Joseph Morabito, Ashlee DePhillippo, Bridgette Moore, Carlos MarquezVoting Against: NoneAbstain: NoneAbsent: Dustin Nigg

3.4)Measure Z Oversight Advisory Committee Appointments City Clerk Morales presented the staff report.

Moved by Carlos Marquez; seconded by Joseph Morabito to Appoint Kristi Bergdahl, JamesHowey and Timothy Underdown to serve on the Measure Z Oversight Advisory Committee forterms expiring February 2026.

Motion Approved: 4 - 0
Voting For: Joseph Morabito, Ashlee DePhillippo, Bridgette Moore, Carlos MarquezVoting Against: NoneAbstain: NoneAbsent: Dustin Nigg

CITY MANAGER REPORT
City Manager York presented the report.

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
There were no future agenda items added.

ADJOURN THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING
There being no further business, Mayor Moore adjourned the City Council Meeting at 9:16 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER THE WILDOMAR CEMETERY DISTRICT
The Regular Meeting of the Wildomar Cemetery District Meeting was called to order by Chair Moore at9:16 p.m.

ROLL CALL
Members in attendance: Joseph Morabito, Ashlee DePhillippo, Bridgette Moore, and Carlos Marquez Members absent: Dustin Nigg

PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.

BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
There were no board communications.

APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA AS PRESENTED
Moved by Carlos Marquez; seconded by Ashlee DePhillippo to approve approve the agenda aspresented.

Motion Approved: 4 - 0
391
Voting For: Joseph Morabito, Ashlee DePhillippo, Bridgette Moore, Carlos MarquezVoting Against: NoneAbstain: NoneAbsent: Dustin Nigg 4) CEMETERY CONSENT CALENDAR

4.1)January 17, 2024 - City Council/ Cemetery Regular Minutes Approved the minutes as presented.

4.2)March 2024 Cemetery Warrant Register
Approved the following: For Fiscal Year 2023/20241. Warrant Register dated 03-07-2023 in the amount of $880.012. Warrant Register dated 03-14-2023 in the amount of $2,160.613. Warrant Register dated 03-28-2023 in the amount of $1,994.26.

4.3)February 2024 Cemetery Treasurer’s Report
Approved the Treasurer’s Report for February 2024.

Moved by Ashlee DePhillippo; seconded by Carlos Marquez to approve approve the Consent Calendar.

Motion Approved: 4 - 0
Voting For: Joseph Morabito, Ashlee DePhillippo, Bridgette Moore, Carlos MarquezVoting Against: NoneAbstain: NoneAbsent: Dustin Nigg 5) CEMETERY PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were no items scheduled.
6) CEMETERY GENERAL BUSINESS
There were no items scheduled.

GENERAL MANAGER REPORT
There was no general manager report.

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
There were no future agenda items added.

ADJOURN THE WILDOMAR CEMETERY DISTRICT MEETING
There being no further business, Chair Moore adjourned the Wildomar Cemetery District Meeting at9:17 p.m. 392
Submitted by:
_____________________________Janet Morales, CMCCity Clerk 393

CITY OF WILDOMAR

CC - REGULAR MEETING

CONSENT CALENDAR
Agenda Staff Report # 4.2

Meeting Date: July 10, 2024
SUBJECT:

June 2024 Cemetery Warrant Register
SUBMITTED BY:

Nicholas Neidiffer
PREPARED BY:

Nicholas Neidiffer

ACTION:

Approve the following:

For Fiscal Year 2023/2024

1. Warrant Register dated 06-06-2024 in the amount of $266.92.

2. Warrant Register dated 06-13-2024 in the amount of $3,564.66.

3. Warrant Register dated 06-20-2024 in the amount of $133.20.

SUMMARY:

June 2024 Cemetery Warrant Register

DISCUSSION:

The Wildomar Cemetery District requires that the Trustees audit payments of demands and direct the General Manager to issue checks. The Warrant Registers are submitted for approval.

FISCAL IMPACT:

These Warrant Registers will have a budgetary impact in the amount and fiscal year noted in the recommendation section of this report. These costs are included in the Fiscal Year 2023/24 Budget.

ATTACHMENTS:

June 2024 Cemetery Warrant Register.pdf
394
06/06/2024
Voucher List
City of Wildomar
1 10:47:39AM
Page:

Bank code : wf
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218364 6/6/2024 000367 CINTAS CORPORATION 9274376110 SD EYEWASH SERVICE AGREEMENT 141.38 Total : 141.38
218365 6/6/2024 001720 STERICYCLE, INC 8007247377B CONTRACTUAL SHREDDING SVC 125.54 Total : 125.54
Bank total : 266.92 2 Vouchers for bank code : wf
266.92Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report 2
395
06/13/2024
Voucher List
City of Wildomar
1 4:42:12PM
Page:

Bank code : wf
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218399 6/13/2024 000088 ACE HARDWARE 308007/3 CEMETERY DEPT SUPPLIES 6.18

63.16CEMETERY DEPT SUPPLIES308042/3
Total : 69.34
218400 6/13/2024 001544 BROWN FAMILY SERVICES 2254 CEMETERY BACKHOE MISC REPAIR 822.65 Total : 822.65
218401 6/13/2024 000367 CINTAS CORPORATION 4193311863 STAFF UNIFORM & TOWEL MAINTENANCE 141.74

46.93STAFF UNIFORM & TOWEL MAINTENANCE4194078336
167.50STAFF UNIFORM & TOWEL MAINTENANCE4194751009
157.50STAFF UNIFORM & TOWEL MAINTENANCE4195506774
Total : 513.67
218402 6/13/2024 000367 CINTAS CORPORATION 5213904322 SD EYEWASH SERVICE AGREEMENT 155.11 Total : 155.11
218403 6/13/2024 002243 CORTEZ, JOSHUA 60524 REIMBURSEMENT FOR CLASS II SAFETY HOODIE

44.99 Total : 44.99
218404 6/13/2024 000012 ELSINORE VALLEY MUNICIPAL, WATER DISTRICT13001415 04/16/24-05/17/24 CEMETERY WATER

SERVICE
472.23
Total : 472.23
218405 6/13/2024 002082 MAIN SAIL PEST CONTROL 64460 PEST CONTROL SERVICES 75.00 Total : 75.00
218406 6/13/2024 000186 RIGHTWAY 386060 (2) CEMETERY RESTROOM

MAINTENANCE/SERVIC
452.18
Total : 452.18
218407 6/13/2024 000094 STAUFFERS LAWN EQUIPMENT 366965 FIRST AID/SAFETY 212.04 Total : 212.04
218408 6/13/2024 002214 UNITED STAFFING ASSOCIATES LLC 236515 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES W/E 4/28/2024 747.45 Total : 747.45
Bank total : 3,564.66 10 Vouchers for bank code : wf
396
06/13/2024
Voucher List
City of Wildomar
2 4:42:12PM
Page:

Bank code : wf
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 3,564.66Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report 10
397
06/20/2024
Voucher List
City of Wildomar
1 12:44:12PM
Page:

Bank code : wf
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 218427 6/20/2024 000367 CINTAS CORPORATION 4196140346 STAFF UNIFORM & TOWEL MAINTENANCE 126.71 Total : 126.71
218428 6/20/2024 000790 SPARKLETTS 18075184-061524 CEMETERY DRINKING WATER THROUGH 06/15/24

6.49 Total : 6.49
Bank total : 133.20 2 Vouchers for bank code : wf
133.20Total vouchers :Vouchers in this report 2
398

CITY OF WILDOMAR

CC - REGULAR MEETING

CONSENT CALENDAR
Agenda Staff Report # 4.3

Meeting Date: July 10, 2024
SUBJECT:

May 2024 Cemetery Treasurers Report
SUBMITTED BY:

Adam Jantz, Finance Manager
PREPARED BY:

Adam Jantz, Finance Manager

ACTION:

Approve the Treasurer’s Report for May 2024.

SUMMARY:

May 2024 Cemetery Treasurer’s Report

DISCUSSION:

Attached is the Treasurer’s Report for Cash and Investments for the month of May 2024.

FISCAL IMPACT:

This is only a report of balances for the Cemetery, therefore it has no fiscal impact.

ACCOUNT CODE:
300-1011
301-1011

ATTACHMENTS:

May 2024 Cemetery Treasurer's Report.pdf
399

PERCENT

OF DAYS STATED
FUND BOOK VALUE FACE VALUE MARKET VALUE PORTFOLIO TO MAT. RATE 301 $ 423,916.18 $ 423,916.18 $ 423,916.18 28.93% N/A 5.430% 300 $ 1,041,040.79 $ 1,041,040.79 $ 1,041,393.70 71.07% 838 5.070% $ 1,464,956.97 $ 1,464,956.97 $ 1,465,309.88 100.00%
+ + WITHDRAWALS/

BEGINNING DEPOSITS/ INTEREST SALES/ ENDING STATED

FUND BALANCE PURCHASES DEPOSITED MATURITIES BALANCE RATE 301 $ 421,974.47 $ - $ 1,941.71 $ - $ 423,916.18 5.430% 300 $ 1,039,588.82 $ - $ 1,451.97 $ - $ 1,041,040.79 5.070% $ 1,461,563.29 $ - $ 3,393.68 $ - $ 1,464,956.97 City Treasurer
In compliance with the California Code Section 53646, as City Treasurer for the Wildomar Cemetery District, I hereby certify that sufficient investment liquidity and anticipated revenues are available to meet the District's expenditure requirements for the next six months.

I also certify that this report reflects all Government Agency pooled investments and all of the District's Bank Balances.

Heidi Schrader 6/10/2024
Heidi Schrader Date
TOTAL

WILDOMAR CEMETERY DISTRICT

TREASURER'S REPORT FOR

CASH AND INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO
May 2024

DISTRICT INVESTMENT
ISSUER
ISSUER
TOTAL

CAMP POOL

CAMP MANAGED ACCOUNT

CAMP POOL

CAMP MANAGED ACCOUNT
400

Wildomar City CouncilJuly 10, 2024

Wildomar City Council
July 10, 2024