Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
112602 CC Agenda
in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to padicipate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting wilt enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title ~1] AGENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE NOVEMBER 26, 2002 - 7:00 P.M. At approximately 9:45 P.M., the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items can be considered and acted upon prior to 11:00 P.M. and may continue all other items on which additional time is required until a future meeting. All meetings are scheduled to end at 11:00 P.M. 6:00 P.M. - Closed Session of the City Council pursuant to Government Code Sections: 1. Conference with City Attorney and legal counsel pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a) with respect to one matter of existing litigation involving the City. The following case will be discussed: 1) City of Temecula v. Riverside County (Domenigoni-Barton). 2. Conference with real property negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 concerning the acqusition of real property located at the west side of Business Park Drive and north of Rancho Way (APN 921-020-079). The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and Beal Bank of Texas. Under negotiation are the price and terms of payment of the real property interests proposed to be conveyed and/or acquired. The City/Agency negotiators are Shawn Nelson, James O'Grady, and John Meyer. 3. Conference with City Attorney and legal counsel pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1) with respect to one matter of potential litigation. With respect to such matter, the City Attorney has determined that a point has been reached where there is a significant exposure to litigation involving the City based on existing facts and circumstances and the City will decide whether to initiate litigation. 4. Conference with real property negotiator pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 concerning the disposition and development of real property located at the east side of Pujol Street and south of Sixth Street (APN 922-053-005, - 007, and - 008). The negotiating parties are the City of Temecula and Beal Bank of Texas. Under negotiation are the price and terms of payment of the real property interests proposed to be conveyed and/or acquired. The City/Agency negotiators are Shawn Nelson, James O'Grady, and John Meyer. Public Information concerning existing litigation between the City and various parties m~ay be acquired by reviewing the public documents held by the City Clerk. R:Wgenda\112602 1 CALL TO ORDER: Prelude Music: Invocation: Flag Salute: ROLL CALL: PUBLIC COMMENTS Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 2002-13 Resolution: No. 2002-109 Mayor Ron Roberts Erika Weitzeil Pastor Larry Fisher of First Baptist Church of Temecula Councilman Pratt Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Stone, Roberts A total of 30 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Council on items that appear within the Consent Calendar or ones that are not listed on the agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council on an item which is listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and flied with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all Public Hearing or Council Business matters on the agenda, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Council addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. CiTY COUNCIL REPORTS Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made at this time. A total, not to exceed, ten (10) minutes will be devoted to these reports. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTICETO THE PUBLIC All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless Members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of October 8, 2002. R:~Agenda\112602 2 3 Resolution Approvinq List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A Consideration of Amendment to aqreement dated July 25, 2002, with Save Southwest Riverside County (SSRC) re,qardin,q proposed Valley-Rainbow Proiect RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Approve an amendment to the City's agreement with Save Southwest Riverside County (SSRC) to increase the amount of funding for consulting services from $25,000 to $50,000. Consideration of Joint Resolution with the Temecula Valley Unified School District expressin.q support for the continued viability of the French Valley Airport RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02- A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE CONTINUED VIABILITY AND OPERATION OF THE FRENCH VALLEY AIRPORT Approval of the Plans and Specifications and authorization to solicit Construction Bids for the Asphalt Crackfill Project - various streets for FY2002-2003 - Project No. PW02-24 RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Asphalt Crackfill Project - various streets for FY2002-2003 - Project No. PW02-24. R:~Agenda\112602 3 7 Liability Insurance Renewal RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Approve the City of Temecula Liability Insurance Policy Renewal with Clarendon America Insurance Company/Arch Specialty Insurance Company, in the amount of $259,775 for general and excess liability insurance plus $2,840 for automobile physical damage insurance for a total of $262,615 for the period of December 1, 2002 through December 1, 2003; 7.2 Approve the appropriation of funds in the amount of $80,000 for the purchase of liability insurance. Second Readin;I of Ordinance No. 02-11 (Development Code Amendment) RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 02-'11 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING STANDARDS FOR MODULAR STRUCTURES, ADOPTING CHAPTER 17.10 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE, AND MAKING OTHER MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 02-03'18) Second Readinq of Ordinance No. 02-12 (Lar,qe Family Day Care Home Facility) RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 02-12 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AMENDING TITLE 17 RELATING TO THE STANDARDS FOR LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME FACILITIES (PLANNING APPLICATION NO, 99-0382) RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY R:/Agenda\112602 4 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Stone ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: PUBLIC COMMENTS Next in Order: Ordinance: No. CSD 2002-01 Resolution: No. CSD 2002-11 Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Stone A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Board of Directors on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you decide to speak to the Board of Directors on an item not on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk Prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors should present a completed pink "Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of November 12, 2002. DEPARTMENTAL REPORT DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, December 10, 2002, 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:~Agenda\112602 5 ~LOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Next in Order: Ordinance: No. RDA 2002-01 Resolution: No. RDA 2002-09 CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Jeff Comerchero ROLL CALL AGENCY MEMBERS: Naggar, Pratt, Stone, Roberts, Comerchero PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Redevelopment Agency on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you decide to speak to the Board of Directors on an item not on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk Prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors should present a completed pink "Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name and address for the record. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of November 12, 2002. DEPARTMENTAL REPORT EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: Tuesday, December 10, 2002, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California, R:~Agenda\112602 6 RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public Hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the Approval of the project(s) at the time of the hearing. If you challenge any of the project(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. 10 Roripau.qh Ranch project and related applications: Planninq Application No. 94-0073 - Annexation; Planninq Application No. 99-0298 - General Plan Amendment; Planninq Application No. 94-0075 - Roripau!qh Specific Plan; Planning Application No. 94-0075 - Chanqe of Zone; Planninq Application No. 94-0076 - Environmental Impact Report; Planninq Application No. 01-0253 - Tentative Tract Map No. 29661; Planninq Application No. 01-0230 - Tentative Tract Map No. 29353; Planninq Application No. 99-0299 - Development A~qreement. RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED PLANNING APPLICATIONS ACTIONS AND ADOPTING THE ENVIRONEMNTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND THE STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PORGRAM AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED NEAR THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF BUTTERIFELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD (PLANNING APPLICATION 94-0076) 10.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0298 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) FOR THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AND ADOPTING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 11 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94- 0075) ON PARCELS TOTALING 804.7 ACRES LOCATED NEAR THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 957-130-001 AND 002, 957-340- 001,003, 007, 008, AND 958-260-001 AND 002 R:~Agenda\112602 7 10.3 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 02- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94- 0075 (DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT) AMENDING SECTION 17.16.070 TO INCLUDE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 11, ADOPTING THE DEVELOPMENT AND ZONING STANDARDS, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AND PRE- ZONING THE VALLEY NEIGHBORHOOD AS SPECIFIC PLAN ON PARCELS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 804.7 ACRES LOCATED NEAR THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD, AND FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 957- 130-001 AND 002, 957-340-001, 003, 007, 008, AND 958-260- 001 AND 002 10.4 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 02- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT ENTITLED "DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND ASHBY USA, LLC" FOR RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-0299) 10.5 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 0t- 0230 - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29353, A SUBDIVISION OF 804.7 ACRES INTO 39 LOTS AND 8 STREET LOTS WITHIN THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED NEAR THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD, AND FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 957-130-001 and 002, 957-340-001, 003, 007, 008, AND 958-260-001 AND 002 R:~Agenda\112602 8 10.6 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA01-0253 (TTM 29661), FOP, THE SUBDIVISION OF 158 ACRES INTO 509 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 20 OPEN SPACE LOTS WITHIN PLANNING AREAS lA, 1,B, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 5, 6, 7A, 7B, 7C, 8, and 9A OF THE P,ORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN; LOCATED NEAR THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD, AND FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 957-130-001 AND 002, 957-340-001,003, 007, 008 11 Introduction of the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Prof:lram Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 02- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS CITY MANAGER'S REPORT CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: City Council, Tuesday, December 10, 2002, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. R:~Agenda\112602 9 ITEM 1 ITEM 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 8, 2002 After the Closed Session that convened at 6:30 P.M., the City Council convened in Open Session at 7:00 P.M., on Tuesday, October 8, 2002, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. Present: Councilmembers: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Stone, Roberts Absent: Councilmember: None PRELUDE MUSIC The prelude music was provided by Natalie Vita and Eve Craig. INVOCATION The invocation was given by Pastor Gary Nelson of Calvary Church. ALLEGIANCE The flag ceremony was presented by Mayor Pro Tern Stone. PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS Fire Prevention Week Proclamation Battalion Chief/Fire Marshal McBride accepted the proclamation and thanked the City Council for the recognition. Race for the Cure Proclamation Mr. Bruce Cripe, Race Chairman for the Inland Valley Race for the Cure, extended appreciation to the City Council for the proclamation as well as for its continued support of the Race and invited the City Council and the public to participate in the Race. PUBLIC COMMENTS A. Ms. Barbara Wilder, 28560 Via Santa Rosa, President of Save Southwest Riverside County (SSRC), apprised the City Council and the public of an upcoming community forum on Wednesday, October 23, 2002, at 7:00 P.M., at the James L. Day Middle School in order to update the community on the SDG&E Valley Rainbow transmission line. B. Speaking for Mr. Pat Vesey, Lt. Colonel Linda Ray Tyler, representing the Veterans of Foreign Wars Post, thanked the City Council for its past and continued support of the upcoming Rod Run event and presented event memorabilia to each City Councilmember. C. In appreciation of the City's continued and enthusiastic support, Ms. Terrie Lubrami and Ms. Martha Minkler, P.O. Box 2337, representing the Arts Council of Temecula Valley, presented to the City Council a framed event poster of the 13 Annual Arts in the Country Festival. The Council was also apprised of an upcoming Art in Public Spaces event and advised that more information will follow. R:\Minutes\100802 1 Reiterating the Arts Council's appreciation of the City Council's support, Ms. Minkler extended appreciation to City staff including the Community Services Department, Economic Development Division, Police Department, Public Works Department, and the Webmaster. D. Stating that, in his opinion, individuals were receiving unjustified tickets, Mr. John Muller, 528 De Luz Road, Fallbrook, requested that the yellow turn signals at Rancho California Road and Ynez Road be addressed. E. Referencing the Riverside County Integrated Plan, Ms. Adrian McGregor, 34555 Madera de Playa, noted that current verbiage in the Plan which reflects the construction of freeway through the wine country and relayed her opposition to such construction. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS A. Councilman Pratt shared with the City Council a letter he had received from the Temecula Elementary School for his attendance at the September 1, 2002, event, in memory of the tragic events of September 11, 2001. Mr. Pratt requested that his report on combined traffic and public transportation mitigation program for the City of Temecula, adjacent cities, and the County of Riverside be agendized for the Qctober 22, 2002, City Council meeting; commented on continued population growth in Southwest Riverside County and the expected vehicles associated with this growth; and noted that he does not share the exuberance of the City accepting the League of California Cities Award for Outstanding Innovation and Achievement for solution to traffic problems both municipally and regionally. B. Congratulating and relaying his pride with regard to City staff's receipt of the Outstanding Innovation and Achievement Award, Mayor Pro Tem Stone viewed such receipt as a testimonial to staff's professionalism. in the Mayor's absence last week, Mr. Stone noted that he was honored to welcome the Macy's Department store to the City of Temecula, noting that this store will not only provide the residents with shopping opportunities but that it will, as well, provide significant sales tax revenue to the City which will, in turn, provide benefits to the residents of the City. Sharing his family experience with breast cancer, Mr. Stone advised that 75% of the monies raised will benefit the local community and that the City has donated $25,000 a year which has been earmarked for those residents with financial constraints. With regard to Ms. McGregor's comments pertaining to the construction of a freeway through the wine country, Mr. Stone ensured Ms. McGregor that the City is aware of the issues that affect the City and that the Council is united in its efforts to maintain a quality of life for its residents. C. Mayor Roberts informed the public that the Riverside County Transportation Commission will recommend that the Butterfield Stage Road will remain a City four-lane arterial road and advised that the actual freeway corridor will travel through Menifee and the 215 freeway. Mr. Roberts requested that the City pursue efforts on Caltrans relinquishing its right-of- way for State Routes 79 North and South. R:\Minutes\lO0802 2 CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions incJuded in the agenda. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of August 13, 2002; 2.2 Approve the minutes of August 27, 2002. 3 Resolution Approvin.q List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02-83 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH iN EXHIBIT A 4 City Treasurer's Report RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of August 31, 2002. 5 Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services A.qreement for John Warner/Santia.qo Road Assessment District Improvement Proiect - Hvdrolo.q¥ Study - Proiect No. PW02-07 - continued from the meeting of September 24, 2002 recommendation: 5.1 Approve Amendment No. 1 in an amount not to exceed $8,215.00 to the Professional Services Agreement with Engineering Resources of Southern California, Inc. to provide additional design services for the John WarnedSantiago Road Assessment District Improvement - Hydrology Study - Project No. PW02-07 and authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment. (Mayor Pro Tem Stone abstained with regard to this item.) R:\Minutes\100802 3 6 Authorize Temporary Street Closures for Temecula Fall Rod Run 2002 Event in Old Town (located at Old Town Front Street, between Moreno Road and Second Street, and other related streets) RECOMMENDATION: 6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02-84 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING STREET CLOSURES FOR TEMECULA FALL ROD RUN 2002 EVENT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO ISSUE A PERMIT.FOR THIS SPECIFIC SPECIAL EVENT (Mayor Pro Tem Stone abstained with regard to this item.) Authorize Temporary Par[iai Street Closures for the Race for the Cure Event on October 20, 2002, in the Promenade Mall area (located near Mar.qarita Road, Overland Drive, Ynez Road, and Solana Way) RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02-85 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING PARTIAL STREET CLOSURES FOR INLAND EMPIRE RACE FOR THE CURE EVENT ON OCTOBER 20, 2002, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO ISSUE PERMITS FOR THIS SPECIFIC SPECIAL EVENT 8 Parcel Map No. 30468 (located southeast of State Route 79 South and Jedediah Smith Road) RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Approve Parcel Map No. 30468 in conformance with the conditions of approval. Completion and Acceptance of Construction Contract for the Pala Road Phase I Improvements - Proiect No. PW99-11 9.1 recommendation: Accept the Pala Road Phase I Improvements - Project No. PW99-11 - as complete; 9.2 File a Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one-year Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract; 9.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven months after filing of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed. R:\Minutes\100802 4 10 Consideration of ioinin,q other California Cities in filing an Amicus Curiae Brief in the California Supreme Court in Support of the City of Burbank in the Invocation Case (Rubin v. City of Burbank) RECOMMENDATION: 10.1 Authorization to join with other California cities in the filing an amicus curiae brief (friend of the court brief) in support of the City of Burbank's position in the case of Rubin v. City of Burbank challenging the content of invocations given at the beginning of City Council meetings and authorize the City Attorney to file the necessary documents with the court. 11 Vandalism Reward for Norm Reeves 9-11 Memorial Monument (placed on the a,qenda at the request of Councilman Comerchero) RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Authorize a $2,500.00 matching award for information leading to the arrest of those responsible for vandalizing Norm Reeves 9-11 Memorial Monument; 11.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02-86 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF A REWARD FUND FOR PERSONS WHO FURNISH INFORMATION LEADING TO THE ARREST AND CONVICTION OF THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VANDALISM TO THE REEVES 9-11 MEMORIAL 12 Resolution of Suppor~ for Proposition No, 47 (Placed on the agenda at the request of Mayor Roberts) RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02-87 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING PROPOSITION NO. 47 - THE KINDERGARTEN-UNIVERSITY PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES BOND ACT OF 2002 13 Second Readinq of Ordinance No. 02-04 RECOMMENDATION: 13,1 Adopt an ordinance entitled: R:\Minutes\100802 5 ORDINANCE NO. 02-04 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01- 0522, A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY- 6 (PDO-5), AMENDING THE ZONING MAP AND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AND ADOPTING THE STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN THE ACCOMPANYING PDO DOCUMENT, GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF STATE HIGHWAY 79 SOUTH BEGINNING 480 FEET EAST OF JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD AND CONTINUING EAST FOR APPROXIMATELY 4,000 FEET, FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, & 10 OF TRACT NO. 15211; ALSO KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 959-060-001 THRU -005 & 959-070-00t THRU -006 MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 10 and 13 (Item Nos. 11 and 12 were pulled for separate discussion). The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stone and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Mayor Pro Tem Stone who abstained, with regard to Item Nos. 5 and 6. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS CONSIDERED UNDER SEPARATE DISCUSSION 11. Vandalism Reward for Norm Reeves 9-11 Memorial Monument (placed on the agenda at the request of Councilman Comerchero) RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Authorize a $2,500.00 matching award for information leading to the arrest of those responsible for vandalizing Norm Reeves 9-11 Memorial Monument; 11.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02-86 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF A REWARD FUND FOR PERSONS WHO FURNISH INFORMATION LEADING TO THE ARREST AND CONVICTION OF THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE VANDALISM TO THE REEVES 9-11 MEMORIAL Commenting on the monies his organization's employees had raised last year as well as this year in memory of the tragic events of September 11, 2001, Mr. Dick Kennedy, Vice President of Norm Reeves Auto Group, Temecula, apprised the City Council of the monies his organization matched; its desires to forward this year's monies to the City's local Police and Fire R:\Minutes\100802 6 Agencies; and advised that the local agencies had requested that the monies again be forwarded to New York. With regard to the vandalism of the embankment sign on his property (One Nation under God), Mr. Kennedy relayed his appreciation of the City's support of the reward money in order to find the individual(s) responsible for such action and to bring them to justice. Appalled by such action, Councilman Comerchero advised that he had requested that this item be placed on the City Council's agenda and relayed his support of the request. Qpposing the recommendation, Councilman Pratt noted that the approval of this recommendation would negate the skills of the Police Department and would be sending a wrong message. Speaking in opposition to Councilman Pratt's comment, Mayor Pro Tem Stone stated that, in his opinion, the approval such an expenditure would be money well spent to ensure that justice be brought for such a senseless act. MOTION: Councilman Comerchero moved to approve staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Stone and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Councilman Pratt who voted n._9.o. 12 Resolution of Support for Proposition No. 47 (Placed on the agenda at the request of Mayor Roberts) RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02-87 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING PROPOSITION NO. 47 - THE KINDERGARTEN-UNIVERSITY PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES BOND ACT OF 2002 Mr. Chuck Washington, 31205 Kahwea Road, Chairman of a Committee established by the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce to suppod a Valley-wide effort to help pass Proposition No. 47 ($13 billion school bond), urged the City Council to support the proposed resolution. MOTION: Councilman Comerchero moved to adopt Resolution No. 02-87. The motion was seconded by Councilman Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. At 7:46 P M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District and the Temecula Redevelopment Agency, and after a short recess, the City Council Meeting resumed with regular business at 8:15 P.M. R:\Minutes\100802 7 PUBLIC HEARING 14 Villages of Temecula General Plan Amendment (PA00-0138), Change of Zone (PA00- 0139), Development Plan (PA00-0140), and Tentative Parcel Map (PA00-0152) RECOMMENDATION: 14.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02-88 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM BASED ON THE INITIAL STUDY AND ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. 14.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02-89 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0138, A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO REALIGN THE PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (M) LAND-USE DESIGNATION BOUNDARIES OF A 23 ACRE SITE; GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, WEST OF COSMIC ROAD AND EAST OF THE MORAGA ROAD INTERSECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO(S). 944-290-012, 013, AND 014, BASED UPON THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT. 14.3 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 02-05 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION PA00- 0139, A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM PROFESSIONAL OFFICE (PO) AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (M) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY (PDO), AND ADOPTING THE STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS CONTAINED IN THE ACCOMPANYING PDO DOCUMENT, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, WEST OF COSMIC ROAD AND EAST OF THE MORAGA ROAD INTERSECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO(S). 944-290-012, 013,014. 14.4 Adopt a resolution entitled: R:\Minutes\100802 8 RESOLUTION NO. 02-90 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0'140, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A 160 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX AND EIGHT RETAIL / OFFICE BUILDINGS TOTALING 68,700 SQUARE FEET, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, WEST OF COSMIC ROAD AND EAST OF THE MORAGA ROAD INTERSECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO(S). 944-290-012, 013, AND 0'14. 14.5 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02-9'1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0152 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 29140 SUBDIVIDING THE SITE FROM 3 LOTS INTO 8 LOTS, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD, WEST OF COSMIC ROAD AND EAST OF THE MORAGA ROAD INTERSECTION OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO(S). 944-290-012, 0'13, AND 014 It was noted that because this item was continued from the September 24, 2002, City Council meeting, the public hearing is open. Planning Director Ubnoske presented the staff report (as per agenda material), advising that staff concurs with the proposed project as follows: · Removal of an entire apartment building along the eastern boundary of the project · Relocation of the apartment building along the southerly portion of the site, closest to the recreation building · Addition of a third-story floor to four of the apartment buildings · Additional garages located along the eastern property line · Lowering of the entire site by 8' · Addition of two acres of open space recreational area at the southwest corner of the property · Addition of three tot lots to the project. For the record, Councilman Naggar advised that he had viewed the tape of the last public hearing as instructed by the City Attorney. In response to Councilman Naggar, Planning Director Ubnoske noted the following: · That the General Plan amendment would be a reconsideration of the lot alignment, noting that the lots will be located vertically to Ranch California Road · That the commercial portion would be located closer to Rancho California Road and that multi-family podion would be located further to the rear of the property R:\Minutes\100802 9 · That a trail to connect the two-acre park area and the Kading property has not been explored · That conditions were placed on the operation of the gas station. For Councilman Naggar, Community Services Director Parker advised that, at this point in time, it would not be the City's intent to accept the two-acre park, noting that the proposed project will be a gated community; that there will be no public access to the park area; and that a large portion of the area is sloped. Mr. Larry Markham, 41635 Enterprise Circle, representing the applicant, expressed concurrence with the recommended conditions of approval and advised that the consultant team was available to answer questions the City Council may have. For Councilman Naggar, Mr. Markham noted that the applicant, if desirous by the City, would be willing to provide trail accessibility via the Alta Vista trail. It was also noted, for Councilman Pratt, that the project should be completed within the next 24 to 36 months. For Mr. David Boucher, Mayor Roberts read into the record a statement, thanking the City Council and staff for its diligent work or~ this project and commenting on communication being a common ground. At this time, Mayor Roberts closed the public hearing. Having met with Mr. Buchalter, Councilman Naggar noted the following: · That the property of discussion is currently zoned for the proposed use · That the General Plan amendment will enhance its use and will enable the City to satisfy the needs of the neighbors ,, That requirements of the Growth Management Plan are being met · That a traffic light on Rancho California Road would be necessary and that it would be necessary to ensure signal timing to prohibit undue stacking or traffic jams · That the conditions of approval on the gas station, prohibiting alcohol sales and hours of operation have been satisfied · That public access to the two-acre park area via Alta Vista should be explored to ensure a safe school route for the children. In closing, Mr. Naggar commended the developer and his willingness to cooperate with the community, staff, and City Council. In light of when this project will be completed and considering the anticipated population growth, Councilman Pratt expressed concern with the traffic impact this project will have. Commending the subcommittee members and staff on a job well done, Mayor Pro 'rem Stone applauded the developer for involving the community which, in turn, greatly benefited the Planning Commission and the City Council in its decision-making process. Referencing the village concept, Mr. Stone noted that this project would actually mitigate traffic and reduce impacts on the community and, therefore, spoke in opposition to Councilman Pratt's concern. Concurring with Councilman Naggar's desire to ensure a safe accessibility for school access, Mayor Pro Tem Stone also thanked the developer for the additional tot lots; relayed his support of an integrated trail between the Kading property and the site of discussion; noted some reluctance to accept the park area into the City system because of its close proximity to the residential area as well as the associated maintenance; echoed Councilman Naggar's comments with regard to the need for more passive parks; and viewed the proposed R:\Minutes\100802 10 development as a pedestrian friendly development - one which should be a model for future developments. At this time, Deputy City Manager Thornhill reiterated the conditions of approval for the gas station as follows: · Hours of operation - 5:00 A.M. to 11:00 P.M. Strongly requesting that the gas station not be required to close prior to 11:00 P.M., Mr. Buchalter expressed a willingness to readdress the hours of operation if problems were to arise. · No alcohol sales · No lighting that may spill outside the gas station boundary. In response to Mayor Roberts' comments regarding the future need to synchronize the traffic signals at Yukon Street and Rancho California Road, Public Works Director Hughes advised that the ability to synchronize those future traffic signals will be available. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Stone moved to approve staff recommendation 14.1, 14.2, 14.4, and 14.5 and to include that the two property owners (Kading and Villages of Temecula) negotiate the possibility of a trail and to reserve the right to revisit the possibility of the park area being accepted into the City system. The motion was seconded by Councilman Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. City Attorney Thorson introduces and read by title only Ordinance No. 02-05. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Stone moved to approve staff recommendation 14.3. The motion was seconded by Councilman Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. Mr. Buchalter reiterated his willingness to participate in a trail system. 15 General Plan Amendment: 2000-2005 Housinq Element (Planninq Application No. 99-0188) RECOMMENDATION: 15.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02-92 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADOPTING THE 2000-2005 HOUSING ELEMENT (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-0186) Deputy City Manager Thornhill reviewed the staff report (as per agenda material). Mayor Roberts opened the public hearing. There being no public input, the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Councilman Comerchero moved to approve the staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Stone and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. R:\Minutes\100802 11 Councilman Naggar commended staff on a job well done and Deputy City Manager Thornhill extended his appreciation to the consultants. COUNCIL BUSINESS 16 Development Review Process REC©MMENDATION: 16.1 Authorize staff to approve the following recommendations: 16.2 Identify, provide training, and implement a method of project tracking; 16.3 Create an appointment process for application intake; 16.4 Create City CEQA Guidelines to allow for a greater number of exemptions; 16.5 Revisit the Development Code's Approval Authority Matrix to possibly allow more projects to be considered at a Director's Hearing as opposed to the Planning Commission. Assistant City Manager O'Grady introduced the item and recognized Planning Director Ubnoske, Building and Safety Director Elmo, Deputy Building and Safety Director Harold, Public Works Director Hughes, Deputy Public Works Director Parks, Fire Marshal McBride, Redevelopment Director Meyer, Senior Planner Hazen, Human Resources Director Yates, Deputy City Manager Thornhill, and City Manager Nelson for their instrumental efforts in completing this project. Planning Director Ubnoske reviewed the staff report (of record), noting that the previous 15- week Development Review Process has been reduced to a seven-week process; that this reduction will be possible with the City Council's support to create an appointment process during which an applicant would meet with staff from the Public Works and Planning Departments after which the application would be deemed complete prior to submittal. Providing an update on the design guidelines, Ms. Ubnoske also commented on the request for proposal for updating design guidelines and relayed staff's intent to receive City Council, Commission, and development community input Councilman Comerchero applauded those involved with completing a needed task. In response to Councilman Comerchero, Planning Director Ubnoske assured the City Council that any proposed CEQA guideline changes will not compromise the current quality of review and it may even be determined that no changes are necessary. Councilman Naggar suggested the new Development Review Process be properly promoted and marketed by the City. MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to approve staff recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stone and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. R:\Minutes\100802 12 17 Authorization of additional staff time (requested to be placed on the agenda by Councilman Pratt.) RECOMMENDATION: 17.1 Provide direction for additional staff time to conduct further research on monorail system. Questioning the quoted cost of a monorail system, Councilman Pratt relayed his desire to further explore, in detail, the associated costs but advised that he would not be requesting any additional staff time at this point and that he would keep Mayor Pro Tern Stone and Senior Management Analyst Adams apprised of his findings. Having attended the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) Annual Conference in Las Vegas, Mayor Roberts presented to Mr. Pratt a book on monorails and commented on cost, funding, time frame, and density necessary to make a monorail system successful. Stunned at the cost associated with the construction of a 13-mile monorail system, Mayor Pro Tern Stone relayed appreciation to Mr. Pratt for his willingness to further investigate the matter. MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to receive and file the item. The motion was seconded by Councilman Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 18 Resolution supportin,q California BuildinR Officials RECOMMENDATION: 18.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02-93 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING OFFICIALS RECOMMENDATION TO THE BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION FOR THE ADOPTION OF A COMBINATION OF BUILDING RELATED CODES As President of California Building Officials, Building and Safety Director Elmo reviewed the Building Code adoption process; commented on the purpose of Building Codes and the need to keep them current and effective; advised that the State is mandating to continue to enforce the 1997 provisions of the Building Codes, which would be unacceptable to the California Building Officials; and, therefore, requested City Council support of the proposed resolution to ensure that the State operate with the most current code provisions. response to Councilman Comerchero, Building and Safety Director Elmo concurred that the affordability of a home should not be greatly impacted as a result of Code adoption changes. Echoing Councilman Comerchero's concern to ensure a balance of public safety and cost, Mayor Pro Tem Stone recommended that the building community be apprised of the potential Code changes to which Mr. EImo noted that, currently, City staff meets twice a year with developers to advise of newly implemented changes and that the California Building Officials, as well, provide training. R:\Minutes\100802 13 MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to approve the staff recdmmendation with the understanding that any Code changes not significantly impact the affordability of a home. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stone and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 19 Introduction of an Ordinance Amendinq the California Buildinq Code RECOMMENDATION: 19.1 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 02-06 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING CHAPTER 15.04 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT BY REFERENCE THE FOLLOWING CODES WITH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS THERETO: THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE; THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE; THE 2001 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE; THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE; THE 1999 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE; THE 2000 EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE FOR ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS; THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING CODE; AND THE 2001 EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL SWIMMING POOL, SPA AND HOT TUB CODE 19.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02-94 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING THE INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 15.04 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT BY REFERENCE THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE, THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE, THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE, THE 200t EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE, THE 1999 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE CODE, THE 2000 EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS, THE 2001 EDITION OF THE CALIFORNIA HOUSING CODE, AND THE 2000 EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL SWIMMING POOL, SPA, AND HOT TUB CODE, ALONG WITH AMENDMENTS TO EACH CODE AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR HEARING COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED CODES FOR OCTOBER 22, 2002 Deputy Building and Safety Director Harold presented the staff report (of record) and briefly highlighted the proposed changes. R:\Minutes\100802 14 City Attorney Thorson introduced and read by title only Ordinance No. 02-06. MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to introduce Ordinance No. 02-06. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Stone and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to adopt Resolution No. 02-94. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Stone and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. 20 An Ordinance amendinq the California Fire Code RECOMMENDATION: 20.1 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 02-07 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 15.16 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE VOLUME 1, CCR TITLE 24 PART 9, 2001 EDITION AND THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE STANDARDS VOLUME 2, 2000 EDITION 20.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 02-95 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING THE INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 15.16 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE VOLUME t, CCR TITLE 24 PART 9, 2001 EDITION AND THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE STANDARDS VOLUME 2, 2000 EDITION, ALONG WITH AMENDMENTS TO EACH CODE AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR HEARING COMMENTS ON THE PROPOSED CODES FOR OCTOBER 22, 2002 Battalion Chief/Fire Marshal McBride presented the staff report (as per agenda material) and, as well, relayed his support of the Building and Safety Code amendments. City Attorney Thorson noted that the need to adopt an Urgency Ordinance has been removed and introduced and read by title only Ordinance No. 02-07. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Stone moved to introduce Ordinance No. 02-07. The motion was seconded by Councilman Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Stone moved to adopt Resolution No. 02-95. The motion was seconded by Councilman Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. R:\Minutes\100802 15 CiTY MANAGER'S REPORT Echoing Mayor Pro Tem Stone's comments, City Manager Nelson commended Building and Safety Director Elmo on his position as the President of the California Building Officials. Commenting on the efforts expended with the revisions of the Development Review Process, Mr. Nelson commended the involved staff members on a job well done. In closing, City Manager Nelson thanked the City Council for its budget support which, in turn, enables the staff levels necessary to proceed with key projects such as the Development Review Process. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT With regard to Closed Session, City Attorney Thorson noted that there were no reportable actions. ADJOURNMENT At 9:34 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, October 22, 2002, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ATTEST: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] R:\Minutes\100802 16 ITEM 3 RESOLUTION NO. 02- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A, on file in the Office of the City Clerk, have been audited by the City Manager, and that the same are hereby allowed in the amount of $3,813,442.01. Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 26th day of November, 2002. ATTEST: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] R:/Resos2002/Resos 02- 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, hereby do certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 02- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the 26th day of November, 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:/Resos2OO2/Resos 02- 2 CITY OF TEMECULA LIST OF DEMANDS 11/07/02 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 11/08/02 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 11/14/02 TOTAL CHECK RUN: 11/07/02 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN: $ 1,243,002.47 1,891,597.02 389,864.73 288,977.79 TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 11/26/02 COUNCIL MEETING: DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND: CHECKS: 001 165 190 192 193 194 210 261 28O 3OO 320 330 340 471 GENERAL FUND RDA-LOW/MOD INCOME HOUSING COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ. FUND CFD 88-12 ADMIN EXPENSE FUND RDA-REDEVELOPMENT INSURANCE INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT SERVICES FACILITIES CFD 98-1 ADMIN EXPENSE FUND $ 2,947,983.46 20,052.42 167,208.22 37,749.73 51,908.48 672.79 205,064.47 5,040.65 24,834.73 7,197.22 30,320.56 11,886.17 13,045.32 1,500.00 $ 3,813,442.01 $ 3,524,464.22 COl 165 190 192 193 194 28O 300 32o 33O 34O GENERAL FUND RDA-LOW/MOD INCOME HOUSING COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D RDA-REDEVELOPMENT INSURANCE INFORMATION SYSTEMS SUPPORT SERVICES FACILITIES TOTAL BY FUND: PREPARED BY RETA WESTON, ACCOUNTING SPECIALIST SHAWN NELSON, CITY MANAGER 205,771.95 5,059.80 50,084.24 71.67 4,667.44 620.65 2,212.70 1,222.18 10,694.74 2,671.84 5,900.58 288,977.79 $ 3,813,442.01 , HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. apChkLst 11/07/2002 2:03:21PM Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date 53 11/7/2002 54 11/7/2002 55 11/7/2002 56 11/7/2002 57 11/7/2002 80248 11/7/2002 80249 11/7/2002 80250 11/7/2002 80251 11/7/2002 80252 11/7/2002 80253 11/7/2002 80254 11/7/2002 80255 11/7/2002 80256 11/7/2002 80257 11/7/2002 80258 11/7/2002 80259 11/7/2002 80260 11/7/2002 Final Check List City of Temecula Vendor Description 000245 PERS (HEALTH ;NSUR. PREMIU Employees health insurance 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' RETIREME Employees state retirement 000642 TEMECULACITY FLEXIBLE 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) Employee contribution to flex Employees fed pr taxes Emproyees fed pr taxes 003552 AFLAC 005687 APTUS&C 005288 ADAMS, GREG 000724 A & R CUSTOM SCREEN PRINTI Basketball t-shirt awards Supplemental std & cancer insurance Book:Cash Handling Manual Refund:Grant writing book for class 004901 ADVENTURES IN TEAM ESTEE QUARTERLY MGMTTRAINING ~ 005713 ALZHEIMER'S ASSOCIATION 000936 AMERICAN RED CROSS 001323 ARROWHEAD WATER INC 003203 ARTISTIC EMBROIDERY 004855 BABER, GABRIELE 004778 BERRYMAN & HENIGAR INC 005712 BINKY PATROL 2002-2003 Comm Svc Funding Award 2002-2003 Comm Svc Funding Award Bottled wtr servs @ CRC City Jogo shirt for TOSD City logo shirt for Info Sys TCSD instructor eamings Oct pmf design:Pavement mgmt 2002-2003 Corem Svc Funding Award 005716 BIRTH CHOICE OFTEMECULA 2002-2003 Cornrn Svc Funding Award Amount Paid 35,265.44 45,498.79 5,364.36 13,634.54 58,418.50 742.92 1,602.10 75.00 80.34 3,742.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 67.30 45.26 23.71 374.40 777.80 1,500.00 500.00 Page: I Check Total 35,265.44 45,498.79 5,364.36 13,634.54 58,418.50 742.92 1,602.10 75.00 60.34 3,742.00 1,000.00 2,000.00 67.30 68.97 374.40 777.60 1,500.00 500.00 Page:l apChkLst Final Check List 1110712002 2:03:21PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 80262 11/7/2002 003817 BLUE RIDGE MEDICAL 80263 11/7/2002 005416 BOUNDTREEMEDICALLLC 80264 11/7/2002 004380 BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA 80265 11/7/2002 004380 BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA 80266 11/7/2002 005711 BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA 80267 11/7/2002 004621 C-181NC 80268 11/7/2002 004038 CADZONE INC, THE 80269 80270 80271 (Continued) Description 80261 11/7/2002 004444 BLUE OCEAN SOFTWARE INC Upgrade Help Desk software:Info Sys Paramedic squad supplies:Fire Paramedic squad supplies:Fire Paramedic squad supplies:Fire Paramedic squad supplies:Fire Paramedic squad supplies:Fire Credit retumed:Paremedic supplies:Fir 2002-2003 Comm Svc Funding Award Proceeds:Halloween & Harvest cami 2002-2003 Comm Svc Funding Award Oct Street striping prgm Oct retention:Street striping prgm Fire zone software upgrade 11/7/2002 000128 CAL SURANCE ASSOCIATES I Insurance policy:F550 Fire Truck 11/7/2002 005384 CALIFORNIA BAGEL BAKERY & Refreshments:Music Academy Mtg 11/7/2002 004228 CAMERON WELDING SUPPLY Helium tanks refill:TCSD Misc. welding supplies for PW 80272 11/7/2002 005714 CAMP DEL CORAZON 2002-2003 Comm Svc Funding Award 003554 CANADA LIFE ASSURANCE CO Lifeinsurenceprem[um 80273 11/7/2002 80274 11/7/2002 80275 11/7/2002 80276 11/7/2002 80277 11/7/2002 002534 CATERERS CAFE 003047 CHAPARRAL HIGH SCHOOL 004210 CIRCUIT CITY 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH CHARI Refreshments:Fee Study committee Refreshments:Winchester Meadows M 2002-2003 Comm Svc Funding Award Digital photo printer:Police dept Photo printer for police dept Employees Charities contributions Amount Paid 2,727.50 108.92 1,130.87 173.85 46.60 45.73 -259.68 1,500.00 58.75 1,500.00 21,245.26 -2,124.52 1,535.00 648.00 24.00 25.70 16.55 4,000.00 1,162.50 102.28 13.16 5,000.00 538.74 161.58 136.50 Page: 2 Check Total 2,727.50 108.92 1,137.37 1,500.00 58.75 1,500.00 19,120.74 1,535.00 648.00 24.00 42.25 4,000.00 1,162.50 115.44 5,000.00 700.32 136.50 Page2 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 11/0712002 2:03:21 PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 80278 11/7/2002 80279 11/7/2002 80280 11/7/2002 80281 11/7/2002 80282 11/7/2002 80283 11/7/2002 80284 11/7/2002 80285 11/7/2002 80286 11/7/2002 80287 11/7/2002 80288 11/7/2002 80289 11/7/2002 80290 11/7/2002 80291 11/7/2002 80292 11/7/2002 80293 11/7/2002 80294 11/7/2002 001193 COMP U S A INC 000447 COMTRONIX OF HEMET 001264 COSTCO WHOLESALE 001233 DANS FEED & SEED INC 001393 DATATICKET INC (Continued) Description Misc Computer supplies:Info Sys Radio Installation:Po[ice Motomycles 8 Jack stands for Motomycles:Police Propane Gas for PW mntc Sept daily parking cite processing PARKING CITATION PROCESSING 002990 DAVID TURCH & ASSOCIATES FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE LOBBYIST 004450 DENNIS A HIBBERT PLUMBING Repair stn 84 water heater 005699 DIXON, CAROLYN E. Refund:Exemise-Belly Dancing:TCSD 004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELI Fuel for city vehicles Fue~ for city vehicles:Planning Fuel for city vehicles:PW Fuel for city vehicles:B&S Fuel for city vehicles:PW Fuel for city vehicles:PW 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVICES Rosales temp help PPE 10/18/02 Obmann temp help PPE 10/25/02 003223 EDAW INC 004990 ELEMENT K JOURNALS 002577 ENGINEERING RESOURCES Biological svcs-Pala Rd Bridge Subscription:inside Web Design Aug-Sept svc:J.Wamer/Santiago 003959 EVERETT & EVERETT PAINTI 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS tNC 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER 002939 ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS R Server CPU License:ArclMS Std Edit Res impr prgm: Villa, Richard Express mail services Express mail services xx-1405:Ubnoske:Pmf Mtgs/Interviews Amount Paid 138.63 2,498.18 775.72 13.09 243.74 140.00 6,000.00 489.00 18.86 941.15 401.20 356.26 190.03 164.23 20.80 1,881.48 1,740.20 112.50 167.00 10,405.00 2,706.63 1,600.00 313.24 85.37 184.96 Check Total 138.63 2,498.18 775.72 13.09 383.74 6,000.00 489.00 16.86 2,073.67 3,621.68 112.50 167.00 10,405.00 2,706.93 1,600.00 398.61 184.96 Page3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 11/0712002 2:03:21PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 80295 11/7/2002 002174 GROUP 1 PRODUCTIONS 80296 11/7/2002 004053 HABITAT WEST INC 80297 11/7/2002 000186 HANKS HARDWAREINC 80298 11/7/2002 000116 HEALTH NET DENTAL AND VI 80299 11/7/2002 80300 11/7/2002 80301 11/7/2002 80302 11/7/2002 80303 11/7/2002 80304 11/7/2002 80305 11/7/2002 80306 11/7/2002 80307 11/7/2002 80308 11/7/2002 80309 11/7/2002 80310 11/7/2002 (Continued) Description 9/11 dedication prgm video production LONG CYN DETENTION BASIN:MAI Hardware supplies:PW Hardware supplies:Fire Dept Hardware supplies: CRC Hardware supplies:TCSD Hardware supplies:Old Twn Hardware supplies:Planning Hardware supplies: Sr Center Hardware supplies: Museum Hardware supplies: PW Inspections Premium for ee vision plan Amount Paid 002107 HIGHMARK INC City life ins policy premium 000194 ICMARETIREMENTTRUST45 Retirement contributions 003938 lAN DAVIDSON LANDSCAPE - I Ldscp design svcs:First & Front St. 005717 IBARRA, DIVINIA V. Refund: Security Deposit 004219 INDUSTRIAL DISTRIBUTION GR Mntc Supplies for PW mntc Division 004942 INFOTOX INC PROFESSIONAL CERTIFIED ASBES 003670 INLAND OVERHEAD DOOR CON Repair stn 84 garage door 005715 JOSEPHSON INSTITUTE OF ET Book:Pwr of Character item#50-1780 003046 K F R O G 95.1 FM RADIO 002424 KELLEY DISPLAY INC 005727 KNOLL, JEFF, D. 005726 KUFFREY, CHER Halloween Radio ad:Old Town Tern Grape Banners:Eco Devel Christmas&Season Greetings banners Refund:Tiny Tots-Creative Beg:TCSD Ref und:Dance-Ballmom:TCS D 908.00 761.66 1,532.63 354.81 251.22 166.31 98.58 91.27 52.07 23.86 8.19 907.10 865.30 7,135.62 229.43 100,00 66.26 900.00 452.00 29.44 250.00 381.02 355.22 35.00 15.00 Check Total 908.00 761.66 2,578.94 907.10 565.30 7,135.62 229.43 100.00 66.26 900.00 29.44 35.00 Page~ apChkLst 11107/2002 2:03:21PM Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 80311 11/7/2002 80312 11/7/2002 80313 11/7/2002 80314 11/7/2002 80315 11/7/2002 80316 11/7/2002 80317 11/7/2002 80318 11/7/2002 80319 11/7/2002 80320 11/7/2002 80321 11/7/2002 80322 11/7/2002 80323 11/7/2002 80324 11/7/2002 80325 11/7/2002 80326 11/7/2002 80327 11/7/2002 80328 11/7/2002 Final Check List City of Temecula (Continued) Description 001085 L N CURTIS & SONS Paramedic squad supplies:Fire 005728 LAVIN, DINA RefundBreakfast w/Santa:Tiny Tots 000586 LEXISNEXIS MATTHEW BENDE Website annual storage svcs 003782 MAIN STREET SIGNS 002011 MARTIN, KATHARINA E. 003448 MELODYS AD WORKS Supplies for Sign replacement/repairs TCSD Instructor Eamings Hol. Mrkt/Promo Svcs for Old Town 003076 MET LIFE INSURANCE COMPAN City dental insurance 001905 MEYERS, DAVID WILLIAM 004208 MILANOS 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS 000230 MUNIFINANCIAL 003996 MUSIC HERITAGE, INC, 004898 NEIGHBORHOOD HEALTHCAR TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS Refreshments:Council wrkshop:l 0/29 3000 correction notices:B&S Dept Business Cards:generic Tern, P.D. FY 02/03 Arbitrage Rebate Services 2002-2003 Comm Svc Funding Award 2002-2003 Comm Svc Funding Award 005718 NORTH PARK APOSTOLIC CHU Refund:Sec Deposit/Room Rental 002100 OBJECT RADIANCE INC TCSD Instructor Earnings 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS Office Supplies:P.D. storefront stn 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE City vehicle maint/repair svcs City vehicle maint/repair svcs 002668 OMEGA LAKE SERVICES TEMECULA DUCK POND WATER Q Amount Paid 1,451.40 7.00 495.00 490.26 190.40 3,024.36 5,976.33 496.00 96.00 202.50 362.63 299.81 1,250.00 1,000.00 5,000.00 295.00 1,939.20 102.82 379.84 122.90 800.00 Page: 5 Check Total 1,451.40 7.00 495.00 490.26 190.40 3,024.36 5,976.33 592.00 202.50 662.44 1,250.00 1,000.00 5,000.00 295.00 1,939.20 102.82 502.74 800.00 Page5 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6 11/07/2002 2:03:21PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor (Continued) Description 80329 11/7/2002 001171 ORIENTAL TRADING COMPANY Halloween Camival Supplies 80330 11/7/2002 005020 P A THOMPSON ENGINEERING Telephone Cabling/Outlets:Aquatic Fa 11/7/2002 001958 PERS LONG TERM CARE PROG Employee benefits 80331 80332 80333 11/7/2002 000249 P~ ~¥ CASH 11/7/2002 001999 PITNEY BOWES 80334 11/7/2002 Petty cash reimbursement postage meter rental for 10/1-12/31/02 80335 11/7/2002 80336 11/7/2002 80337 11/7/2002 80338 11/7/2002 80339 11/7/2002 80340 11/7/2002 80341 11/7/2002 80342 11/7/2002 80343 11/7/2002 80344 11/7/2002 80345 11/7/2002 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN Sep:EERecruitmentAds:HR Sep:Display Ads:PW:CIP Construction Credit:Sep:EE Recruitment Ads:HR 003493 PRO-CRAFT OVERHEAD DOOR Res Imprv Prog:Zahyna, Jim Res imprv prgm: Alexander, Gene 002880 PRO-CRAFT SASH & SUPPLY Res Imprv Prgm: Alexander, Gene 005563 R E FLEMING CONSTRUCTION I Childrens Mus. Bldg Shell Imp~ 000981 R H F INC repair/maint P.D. radar equipment repair/maint P.D. radar equipment repair/maint P.D. radar equipment repair/maint P.D. radar equipment 004457 R J NOBLE COMPANY Prgs pmt #3:Pavement Rehab Prgm 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST Jul-Oct 01-04-10033-1 Long Cya Basi 000947 RANCHO REPROGRAPHICS Dupl. Blueprints:Crowne Hill 002412 RICHARDSWATSON&GERSH£ Sept 20021egal services 000266 RIGHTWAY 10/28/02-11/24/02 Long Cyn Crk Pk 003072 RIVERSIDE AREA RAPE CRISIS 2002-2003 Comm Svc Funding Award 001592 RIVERSIDECOINFOTECHNOL( repair/maint police radios Amount Paid 144.80 223.67 227.08 800.24 309.52 5,416.88 1,663.80 - 11.00 1,000.00 875.00 2,243.00 49,067.73 50.00 50.09 50.00 50.00 144,250.02 2,079.52 27.14 124,619.68 54.39 2,000.00 596.80 Check Total 144.80 223.67 227.08 800.24 309.52 7,069.68 1,875.00 2,243.00 49,067.73 200.00 144,250.02 2,079.52 27.14 124,619.68 54.39 2,000.00 596.80 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7 11107/2002 2:03:21PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 80346 11/7/2002 000955 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFF SW ST OTB DUI enforcement:Sept 2002 Amount Paid 1,321.72 530,364.32 15.00 107.00 476.00 80347 11/7/2002 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS DEP 7/1-24/02:1aw enforcement 80348 11/7/2002 000873 ROBERTS, RONALD H. Reim b:Rail-Volution:Wshgtn: 10/3-6 80349 11/7/2002 005227 SAN DIEGO COUNTY OF Withholding Support Pmt 80350 11/7/2002 003766 SMALL, SANDRA K. TCSD Instructor Earnings 80351 11/7/2002 000645 SMART & FINAL INC 80352 11/7/2002 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 80353 11/7/2002 80354 11/7/2002 Rec supplies for TCC Rec supplies for TCC Oct 2-05-791-8807 various mtrs Oct 2-02-502-8077 West Wing Oct 2-10-331-2153 TCC Oct 2-19-683-3255 Front St Ped OCt 2-19-683-3263 Front St Ped Oct 2-22-575-0876 O.T. Front St. Oct 2-20-798-3248 Childrens Mus. Oct 2-19-538-2262 various mtrs Oct 2-23-693-2810 Pala Rd Oct 2-24-077-3069 Pala Rd Oct 2-23-051-9399 Marg. Ped. 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTR£ Pest Control Srvcs: Sr Center Pest Control Svcs:Stn 92 P.D. Caboose pest control svcs 005724 SOUTHWEST FAMILY YMCA 2002-2003 Comm Svc Funding Award 135.12 85.41 3,748.02 1,949.33 910.93 543.88 400.85 330.47 140.95 125.22 52.61 37.02 15.01 195.00 42.00 29.00 2,000.00 80355 11/7/2002 005723 SOUTHWEST SOCCER CLUB 2002-2003 Corem Svc Funding Award 1,000.00 995.00 145.47 18,794.99 41.46 80356 11/7/2002 005720 SOUTHWEST TRADERS INC Refund:Eng Deposit 80357 11/7/2002 000293 STADIUM PIZZA Refreshments:Halloween Carnival 80358 11/7/2002 004420 STATE COMP INSURANCE FUN OCt workers'comp premium 80359 11/7/2002 005721 SUCCESSORIES, INC. Get Well/Thinking of You Cards:H.R. d Check Total 1,321.72 530,364.32 15.00 107.00 476.00 220.53 8,254.29 266.00 2,000.00 1,000.00 995.00 145.47 18,794.99 41.46 Page~ apChkLst 11/0712002 2:03:21PM Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 80360 11/7/2002 005719 T.W.I.T. PRODUCTIONS 80361 11/7/2002 000305 TARGET STORE 80366 11/7/2002 80367 11/7/2002 80368 11/7/2002 80369 11/7/2002 80370 11/7/2002 80371 11/7/2002 80372 11/7/2002 Final Check List City of Temecula (Continued) Description Refund:security deposit Rec supplies:Halloween Carnival Sales tax for inv# 1103215705 80362 11/7/2002 001547 TEAMSTERS LOCAL 911 Employee's union 80363 11/7/2002 005412 TEMECULA GARDEN & POWER Repair/maint of PW small equip Repair/maint of PW small equip 80364 11/7/2002 004541 TEMECULA RADIATOR/AUTO R repair/maint of Fire Prey. vehicles Repair/Maint of Medic Squad 73 80365 11/7/2002 004209 TEMECULA SUNRISE ROTARY F Bus bench placement/maint agrmnt 004209 TEMECULA SUNRISE ROTARY F 2002-2003 Comm Svc Funding Award 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY COMPAN HALLOWEEN CARNIVAL AWARDS~ 'Labor Day Bash" Toumament Awrds 005722 TEMECULAVALLEYGARDENC 2002-2003 Comm Svc Funding Award 000311 TEMECULA VALLEY HIGH SCH 2002-2003 Comm Svc Funding Award 004873 TEMECULA VALLEY HISTORI 2002-2003 Comm Svc Funding Award 003140 TEMECULA VALLEY TAEKWON Proceeds:Halloween/Harvest Fest. 000668 TIMMY D PRODUCTIONS INC 005414 TRI-ED DiSTRIBUTiON INC 000459 TUMBLE JUNGLE FITNESS GY 80373 11/712002 80374 11/7/2002 Sound System for 8/11 event Sound Sys:Dance @ Skate Prk:9/13 D.J. Svcs for Skater's Challenge:10/12 Sound Sys:Teen prgm event:8/17 Sound Sys:Band Jam:9/6 Sound Sys:Talent Sbow:10/12 VCR for Temecula Police TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCBD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings Amount Paid 100.00 126.39 7.54 2,919.00 64.16 29.84 291.53 206.69 3,000.00 500.00 454.06 48.49 500.00 5,000.00 2,500.00 67.75 1,500.00 400.00 400.00 350.00 150,00 150,00 442.73 1,420.80 1,383.20 1,262.40 1,058.40 652.80 572.00 Page: 8 Check Total 100.00 133.93 2,919.00 94.00 498.22 3,000.00 500.00 502.55 500.00 5,000.00 2,500.00 67.75 2,950.00 442.73 6,349.60 Page~ apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9 11/07/2002 2:03:21PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 80375 11/7/2002 004895 TUMBLES, J.W. 80376 11/7/2002 80377 11/7/2002 80378 11/7/2002 80379 11/7/2002 80380 11/7/2002 80381 11/7/2002 80382 11/7/2002 80383 11/7/2002 (Continued) 001065 U S C M WEST (DEF COMP) 000389 U S C M WEST (OBRA) 002702 U S POSTAL SERVICE 004486 UNION 76 000325 UNITED WAY Description Amount Paid TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS Employee def comp plan P/T EE retirement pmt Postage meter deposit City vehicle fuel usage Employee contributions 216.00 115.20 57.60 17,279.75 2,337.66 4,173.33 39.43 250.80 004819 UNUM LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERI Employee group health pmt 004504 VAIL RANCH SELF STORAGE Off-Site Storage for Records Mgmt 004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA OCT XXX-1408 P.D. OLD TOWN STN OCT XXX-5509 GENERAL USAGE OCT XXX-9897 GENERAL USAGE OCT XXX-2629 NAGGAR OCT XXX-1289 PRATT OCT XXX-0049 GENERAL USAGE 80384 11/7/2002 004864 VINEYARD OF THE NEW WINE 2002-2003 Comm Svc Funding Award 80385 11/7/2002 005725 VINEYARD VALLEY FEDERATE 2002-2003 Comm Svc Funding Award 80386 11/7/2002 003730 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC remove trees @ Ridgeview/Vail Ranch 80387 11/7/2002 000339 WEST PUBLISHING COMPANY I City Hall Legal Publications 80388 11/7/2002 005729 WILSON, KIMBERLY 5,901.90 30.00 421.19 145.92 89.46 55.29 45.72 38.08 1,500.00 2,500.00 835.20 150.85 Refund:Martial Arts-Wom Self-Def:TC 25.00 Sub total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA: Check Total 388.80 17,279.75 2,337.66 4,173.33 39.43 250.80 5,901.90 30.00 795.66 1,500.00 2,500.00 835.20 150.85 25.00 1,243,002.47 Page9 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 11/08/2002 3:34:11PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 80389 11/8/2002 004630 ADAIR, BILL LEE 80390 11/8/2002 004631 ADAMOVICH, DANIELJ. Description Amount Paid Check Total FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 521.49 521.49 FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 434.59 434.59 80391 11/8/2002 80392 11/8/2002 80393 11/8/2002 80394 11/8/2002 80395 11/8/2002 80396 11/8/2002 80397 11/8/2002 80398 11/8/2002 80399 11/8/2002 80400 11/8/2002 80401 11/8/2002 80402 11/8/2002 80403 11/8/2002 80404 11/8/2002 80405 11/8/2002 80406 11/8/2002 005423 ADVANCEDCARDIOVASCULA FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 001862 ADVANCED CARDIOVASCULAR FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 004632 AIRD, ELIZABETH O'CI'ILIE 005496 ALCALA, JOSE T. 004331 ALLEN, CAROLYN 005530 AMADOR, PETER 004633 ANDERSON, LEO O. 005435 ARCE, CEASAR R. 003873 ARDEN REALTY LP 003874 ARGONAUT HOLDINGS INC 003406 ASHLOCK, JANET C. 001823 ATKINSON, DAVID MICHAEL 005429 ATLANTIC FINANCIAL GROUP FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 002585 ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPAN FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 001740 ATVVOOD & ANDREVVS DEVEL FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 004321 AVILA, NICOLAS FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 48,451.60 21,800.68 185.46 956.05 185.46 185.46 564.95 478.04 30,647.40 21,350.20 185.46 185.46 75,781.53 2,543.64 22,996.12 185.46 48,451.60 21,800.68 185.46 956.05 185.46 185.46 564.95 478.04 30,647.40 21,350.20 185.46 185.46 75,781.53 2,543.64 22,996.12 185.46 Page:l apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 11/08/2002 3:34:11PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 80407 11/8/2002 001801 BAGSBY, SHERALD 80408 11/8/2002 80409 11/8/2002 80410 11/8/2002 80411 11/8/2002 80412 11/8/2002 80413 11/8/2002 80414 11/8/2002 80415 11/8/2002 80416 11/8/2002 80417 11/8/2002 80418 11/8/2002 80419 11/8/2002 80420 11/8/2002 80421 11/8/2002 80422 11/8/2002 80423 11/8/2002 80424 11/8/2002 003407 BAHR, JEFFREY S. 004635 BALES, LARRY 004636 BANELLIS, SHIRLEY J. 001168 BANK OF AMERICA 005432 BEL VILLAGGIO 005493 BENNETT, JONATHAN 004637 BENTLEY, WESLEY A. 003876 BLACKBURN, GLENN 005433 BLACKSTONE INV PROP IV 005489 BOGNER, JOHN J. 005475 BOYD, GLEN 004324 BRADLEY, DOROTHY A. 004638 BRADLEY, KATHLEEN R. (Continued) Description Amount Paid Check Total FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 185.46 185.46 185.46 185.46 185.46 185.46 185.46 185.46 2,295.08 2,295.08 66,447.82 66,447.82 608.40 608.40 521.49 521.49 185.46 185.46 741.84 741.84 521.49 521.49 FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbumement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 185.46 185.46 185.46 185.46 564.95 564.95 002957 BRADY, SCOTt C. & JENNIFER FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 004639 BRANDON, BARRY 003878 BRANDT, LAUREN 005532 BRAUN, RAYMOND JOHN FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 185.46 185.46 185.46 185.46 185.46 185.46 1,042.97 1,042.97 Page2 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 11/08/2002 3:34:11PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 80425 11/8/2002 80426 11/8/2002 80427 11/8/2002 80428 11/8/2002 80429 11/8/2002 80430 11/8/2002 80431 11/8/2002 80432 11/8/2002 80433 11/8/2002 80434 11/8/2002 80435 11/8/2002 80436 11/8/2002 80437 11/8/2002 80438 11/8/2002 80439 11/8/2002 80440 11/8/2002 80441 11/8/2002 80442 11/8/2002 004640 BRIONES, RUBEN 005541 BRIONES, RUBEN 001832 BRISENDINE, SHIZU 004641 BROTTEN, MICHAEL 005437 BROWN, CHRISTOPHER MICH 004642 BUCKLEY, KENNETH H. 003881 BUNCH, MICHAELA. 005644 BURDICK, JEFFREY A 005550 CALLERY, STEPHEN P. 005542 CAPACiA, RUELV. 005502 CARDENTE, KENNETH 005491 CARLISLE, JOHNIE 004644 CARMICHAEL, TAMARA 005533 CASTELLON, REGINALDO 004645 CASTRO, JUDY 005520 CHAFFIN, MA3q'HEW PAUL 004647 CHAPA, CARLOS A. 005548 CHATHAM, SHANTA (Continued) Description Amount Paid Check Total FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFO 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 521.49 478.04 185.46 521.49 478.04 478.04 185.46 185.46 478.04 478.04 478.04 185.46 185.46 478.04 434.59 478.04 521.49 521.49 521.49 478.04 185.46 521.49 478.04 478.04 185.46 185.46 478.04 478.04 478.04 185.46 185.46 478.04 434.59 478.04 521.49 521.49 Page3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 11/08/2002 3:34:11PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 80443 11/8/2002 80444 11/8/2002 80445 11/8/2002 80446 11/8/2002 005473 CHENG, GEORGE A. 005510 CHIODO, LORENZO 003882 CHRISTTHEViNE LUTHERAN 004649 CHRISTMAN, TIFFANY A. (Continued) Description Amount Paid Check Total FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 10,764~06 695.31 14,317.10 185.46 10,764.06 695.31 14,317.10 185.46 80447 11/8/2002 80448 11/8/2002 80449 11/8/2002 80450 11/8/2002 80451 11/8/2002 80452 11/8/2002 80453 11/8/2002 80454 11/8/2002 80455 11/8/2002 80456 11/8/2002 80457 11/8/2002 80458 11/8/2002 80459 11/8/2002 80460 11/8/2002 005438 CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 003883 CIRAULO, JOSEPH R. 004650 CLARKE, RONALD M. 004651 CLONTS, SAM OWEN 005635 CNL FUNDING 2000 A 005646 COCO, NIKKI 004652 COHN, STEPHEN R. 004653 COLLINS, NANCY E. FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 004329 COSTCOWHOLESALE GROUP FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 003409 COT INVESTMENTS 002154 CRANNEY, KAREN A. 002573 CROOK, DAVID W. 003410 CUMMINGS, JERI LIN 004654 CUMMISKEY, ROBERTJ. FY 01/02 OFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 39,177.79 185.46 564.95 782.24 5,037.58 185.46 185.46 185.46 72,916.47 5,810.95 185.46 185.46 185.46 434.59 39,177.79 185.46 564.95 782.24 5,037.58 185.46 185.46 185.46 72,916.47 5,810.95 185.46 185.46 185.46 434.59 Page~ apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 11/08/2602 3:34:11PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 80461 11/8/2002 80462 11/8/2002 80463 11/8/2002 80464 11/8/2002 80465 11/8/2002 80466 11/8/2002 80467 11/8/2002 80468 11/8/2002 80469 11/8/2002 80470 11/8/2002 80471 11/8/2002 80472 11/8/2002 80473 11/8/2002 80474 11/8/2002 80475 11/8/2002 80476 11/8/2002 80477 11/8/2002 80478 11/8/2002 005431 DAVIS, BARBARA W. 005476 DAVIS, GLORIA J. 002959 DEFRANK, MICHAEL 001735 DEL TACO RESTAURANT PRO 005474 DELAMATER, GERALD E. 005645 DELARIVA, LINDA A 005552 DENNEY, SUZANNE 002591 DESCHAUWER, PHILIPPE 003412 DIAZ, AUSENCIO 004655 DISTINCTIVE DINING INC 004656 DITTMAN, JAMES H. 005636 DOLLARD, DARREN W. 005421 DUESING, AARON SHAWN 005466 DURNIL, DONALD T. 005641 E A WHITE CONSTRUCTION 004658 EASTWOOD, GREGORY D. 001726 ELI LILLY&COMPANY 005424 ELLIOTr, ADAM (Continued) Description Amount Paid Check Total FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 782.24 782.24 478.04 478.04 185.46 185.46 2,016.90 2,016.90 434.59 434.59 FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 185.46 185.46 185.46 185.46 185.46 185.46 185.46 185.46 FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 4,477.86 4,477.86 564.95 564.95 695.31 695.31 521.49 521.49 999.52 999.52 556.38 185.46 741.84 521.49 521.49 78,567.34 78,567.34 478.04 478.04 Page5 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6 11/08/2002 3:34:11PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 80479 11/8/2002 80480 11/8/2002 80481 11/8/2002 80482 11/8/2002 80483 11/8/2002 80484 11/8/2002 80485 11/8/2002 80486 11/8/2002 80487 11/8/2002 80488 11/8/2002 80489 11/8/2002 80490 11/8/2002 80491 11/8/2002 80492 11/8/2002 80493 11/8/2002 80494 11/8/2002 80495 11/8/2002 80496 11/8/2002 004332 EMERALD CREST 003889 EMMER, JEAN M. 004659 ERiCKSON, MICHAEL EARL 002589 ESBENSEN, PHILLIP 005516 FAHY, MARGUERITEG. 002574 FERRIERA, RICHARD 005734 FERRO, MARLO 005553 FISHER, THOMAS W. 005643 FITCH, HARLEY H. 004660 FORD, RODNEY D. 004661 FREET, LLOYD N. 005494 FUENTE$, JORGE L. 005525 FUENTES, MIGUEL 005654 FUENTEZ, TRAVIS LEWIS 005634 FULLWILER, CINDY 005428 GARCIA, ANTHONY P. (Continued) Description FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursementt FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 005472 GARDEN FRESH RESTAURANT FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 003891 GARLAND, MICHAEL G. FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement Amount Paid Check Total 2,383.39 2,383.39 185.46 185.46 478.04 478.04 1,275.04 1,275.04 521.49 521.49 185.46 185.46 478.04 478.04 1,521.00 1,521.00 185.46 185.46 434.59 434.59 521.49 521.49 478.04 478.04 478.04 478.04 185.46 185.46 185.46 185.46 521.49 521.49 5,166.75 5,166.75 185.46 185.46 Pages apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7 11/08/2002 3:34:11PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 80497 11/8/2002 004663 GILL, AVTARSlNGH 80498 11/8/2002 80499 11/8/2002 80500 11/8/2002 003892 GILLEY, CURTISS w. 005441 GILLMAN, CRAIG W. 004664 GIVANT, FRED R. (Continued) Description Amount Paid FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 3,143.11 185.46 185.46 478.04 7,507.29 185.46 521.49 478.04 564.95 521.49 14,200.08 185.46 521.49 185.46 1,681.11 185.46 608.40 4,305.63 80501 11/8/2002 80502 11/8/2002 80503 11/8/2002 80504 11/8/2002 80505 11/8/2002 80506 11/8/2002 80507 11/8/2002 80508 11/8/2002 80509 11/8/2002 80510 11/8/2002 80511 11/8/2002 80512 11/8/2002 80513 11/8/2002 80514 11/8/2002 003893 GLOBAL HOTEL N~ORK INC FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 005545 GONZALEZ, SAL 005478 GORDON, HELEN 004665 GRAHAM, CAROLA. 004666 GRAJEDA, ESTHER 004667 GRANADOS, DAVID A. 005537 GREGORY, ROBERT C. 001812 GREGORYK,, THOMAS L. 004669 GRIFFIN, ROBERT C. 004333 GRIFFITH, PAULJON 005470 GRIMES, FRED DAVID 003414 GROFF, J. REBECCA 004671 GUlMONT, WILLIAM 004334 GUPTA, ASHOK K. FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbumement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement Check Total 3,143.11 185.46 185.46 478.04 7,507.29 185.46 521.49 478.04 564.95 521.49 14,200.08 185.46 521.49 185.46 1,681.11 185.46 608.40 4,305.63 Page~ apChkt-st Final Check List Page: 8 11/08/2002 3:34:11PM City of Temecu]a Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 80515 11/8/2002 80516 11/8/2002 80517 11/8/2002 80518 11/8/2002 80519 11/8/2002 80520 11/8/2002 80521 11/8/2002 80522 11/8/2002 80523 11/8/2002 80524 11/8/2002 80525 11/8/2002 80526 11/8/2002 80527 11/8/2002 80528 11/8/2002 80529 11/8/2002 80530 11/8/2002 80531 11/8/2002 80532 11/8/2002 004672 HAGBERG, PHILLIP K. 002961 HALLIGAN, MARCIA A. 004673 HARNER, DEBRA D. 005546 HARRIS, SALLY NOBLES 005560 HEATH, WILLIAM M. 004335 HEDBERG, VIRGINIA 004762 HENDERSON, STEVEN G. 005426 HENSLEY, ANETTE J. 004675 HESS, MA'FI'HE-W T. 004336 HILGER, BRADLEY D. 004677 HOFFMAN, NANCY J. 003896 HONORE, PATti A. 004678 HOSKINS, TIMOTHY A. 005535 HOUGHTALING, RICHARD JAM 004680 HUDSON, ERIK L. 005469 HUGAERT, EUGENE (Continued) Description FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbumement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbumement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbumement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbumement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbumement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbumement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbumement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbumement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement Amount Paid Check Total 002155 ILIESCU, MARIUS & ELIZABETH FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 003897 J C PENNY PROPERTIES INC FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 564.95 2,550.08 869.15 185.46 478.04 185.46 185.46 185.46 956.05 185.46 185.46 185.46 185.46 478.04 185.46 478.04 185.46 39,310.31 564.95 2,550.08 869.15 185.46 478.04 185.46 185.46 185.46 956.05 185.46 185.46 185.46 185.46 478.04 185.46 478.04 185.46 39,310.31 Page~ apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9 11/08/2002 3:34:11PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 80533 11/8/2002 80534 11/8/2002 80535 11/8/2002 80536 11/8/2002 80537 11/8/2002 80538 11/8/2002 80539 11/8/2002 80540 11/8/2002 80541 11/8/2002 80542 11/8/2002 80543 11/8/2002 80544 11/8/2002 80545 11/8/2002 80546 11/8/2002 80547 11/8/2002 80548 11/8/2002 80549 11/8/2002 80550 11/8/2002 004681 JAGO, MICHAEL D. 005427 JAMISON, ANNA L. 004682 JAURE, JOE G. 004337 JENNINGS, CHARLYNN 004338 JENSEN, JEFFREY S 004339 JESSEE, GRAHAM 004340 JOHNSON, AMY REBECCA 004685 JOHNSON, CHRISTEEN L. 005461 JOHNSON, DAWN MARIE 004684 JOHNSON, GREGORYW. 001775 JOHNSTON, JOSEPH R.&CAR 005733 JONES, EDWARD 003898 JRAKK PROPERTIES 002594 JUBANY, LUIS 004686 KAISERMAN, DONALD 005436 KANG, CHOONG DAE 002963 KATONA, EVELYN R 005514 KAUFMAN, MARGARET E. (Continued) Description Amount Paid Check Total FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 521.49 1,390.62 521.49 185.46 185.46 185.46 185.46 564.95 521.49 564.95 185.46 185.46 7,512.70 185.46 126,329.35 608.40 185.46 185.46 521.49 1,390.62 521.49 185.46 185.46 185.46 185.46 564.95 521.49 564.95 185.46 185.46 7,512.70 185.46 126,329.35 608.40 185.46 185.46 Page9 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 10 11/68/2002 3:34:11PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 80551 11/8/2002 80552 11/8/2002 80553 11/8/2002 80554 11/8/2002 80555 11/8/2002 80556 11/8/2002 80557 11/8/2002 80558 11/8/2002 80559 11/8/2002 80560 11/8/2002 005558 KEENAN, VINCENT P. 005499 KELLER, KARL HEINZ 001787 KERR, BARBARA L 004342 KHOURY, ALICE MARIE 004687 KIDD, sco'l-r 005484 KIESAU, JEFFREY D. 004688 KILMER, WALTER L. 003900 KIMCO PALM PLAZA 005505 KiNSELLA, LAWRENCE T. 005536 KORALEWSKI, RICHARD P. (Continued) Description Amount Paid FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 478.04 1,715.52 185.46 185.46 521.49 956.05 1,521.00 78,851.83 564.95 521.49 1,651.37 564.95 1,086.45 3,371.23 608.40 2,433.61 185.46 521.49 80561 11/8/2002 80562 11/8/2002 80563 11/8/2002 80564 11/8/2002 80565 11/8/2002 80566 11/8/2002 80567 11/8/2002 80568 11/8/2002 005477 KROHNFELDT, GREGORY T. 004689 KRUSE, DAVID E 005556 LANDEROS, VERONICA 005653 LANGLEY, THOMAS H. 005513 LARA, MANUEL ENRIQUE FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 005549 LAUTENSCHLAGER, STEPHEN FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 004691 LEAVERTON, ROBERT M. FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 005559 LEE, WELLINGTON C. FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement Check Total 478.04 1,715.52 185.46 185.46 521.49 956.05 1,521.00 78,851.83 564.95 521.49 1,651.37 564.95 1,086.45 3,371.23 608.40 2,433.61 185.46 521.49 Page:10 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 11 11/08/2002 3:34:11PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 80569 11/8/2002 80570 11/8/2002 80571 11/8/2002 80572 11/8/2002 80573 11/8/2002 80574 11/8/2002 80575 11/8/2002 80576 11/8/2002 80577 11/8/2002 80578 11/8/2002 80579 11/8/2002 80580 11/8/2002 80581 11/8/2002 80582 11/8/2002 80583 11/8/2002 80584 11/8/2002 80585 11/8/2002 80586 11/8/2002 005639 LEMAY, DIRIKI M. 003417 LEMKE, HERMAN GP 004692 LESUEUR, DANIEL J. 005528 LEVANG, PATRIC E. 005497 LEYDON, KAREN A. 005527 LIND, PAMELA COLVIN 004693 LIVELY, HSIAO LIN JEN 004695 LONG CANYON PARTNERS 002965 LOPEZ, ELISA MARIE 004696 LOPEZ, RAMON 003432 LOVE, PATRIClA B 005481 LOWTHER, JAMES G. 004698 LUJAN, LEE A. 005422 LUPERClO, ABRAHAM A. 004699 LYNN,,TROY M 002619 M E G INVESTMENTS 005512 MACY'S WEST INC 005504 MAEHLER, KURT E. (Continued) Description Amount Paid Check Total FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 185.46 185.46 5,646.16 5,646.16 434.59 434.59 738.77 738.77 185.46 185.46 1,042.97 1,042.97 521.49 521.49 6,936.23 6,936.23 FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 185.46 185.46 695.31 695.31 185.46 185.46 521.49 521.49 478.04 478.04 FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 478.04 478.04 711.07 711.07 28,634.20 28,634.20 46,143.89 46,143.89 564.95 564.95 Page:11 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 12 11/08/2002 3:34:11PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 80587 11/8/2002 002966 MANDEL, ARMIN 80588 11/8/2002 004700 MANICHANH, SISOUVANH 80589 11/8/2002 004701 MANISCALCO, JOSEPHJ. 80590 11/8/2002 005464 MANOS, DIANE Y. (Continued) Description Amount Paid Check Total FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 1,460.50 185.46 185.46 478.04 1,460.50 185.46 185.46 478.04 80591 11/8/2002 80592 11/8/2002 80593 11/8/2002 80594 11/8/2002 80595 11/8/2002 80596 11/8/2002 80597 11/8/2002 80598 11/8/2002 80599 11/8/2002 80600 11/8/2002 80601 11/8/2002 80602 11/8/2002 80603 11/8/2002 80604 11/8/2002 005515 MARGARITA MEDICAL CONDO FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 004702 MARGARITA VILLAGE 005443 MARTIN, DANNY L. 005444 MARTIN, DANNY LEE 004703 MARTINEZ, CORINNE MARIE 003905 MARUSKA, JOHN H. 003906 MAY DEPARTMENT STORES 004704 MC ADAM, CONSTANCE J. FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 005529 MC KENDRICKS, PATRICIA LYN FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 005501 MC NAMARA, KATHLEEN M. 004705 MC PHERSON, SCO3-1' 005521 MCLEAN AUTOMOTIVE INC 005534 MEMARSADEGHI, REZA H. 004706 MENDOZA, ALAN R. FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 6,802.84 22,827.61 1,086.45 521.49 564.95 185.46 52,571.61 185.46 478.04 521.49 608.40 11,100.41 782.24 434.59 6,802.84 22,827.61 1,086.45 521.49 564.95 185.46 52,571.61 185.46 478.04 521.49 608.40 11,100.41 782.24 434.59 Page:12 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 13 11/08/2002 3:34:11PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 80605 11/8/2002 80606 11/8/2002 80607 11/8/2002 80608 11/8/2002 80609 11/8/2002 80610 11/8/2002 80611 11/8/2002 80612 11/8/2002 80613 11/8/2002 80614 11/8/2002 80615 11/8/2002 001728 MERVYNS 004707 MESEK, DAVID B. 004708 MICHAEL, MARIA 001774 MICHALEK, CHARLENE 004346 MOORE, JOHN L 005465 MOWRER, DONALD J. 002967 MYERS JR, ANDREW L 005434 MYRIN, BRI'I-FA 004709 NEDELJKOVIC, TATIANA 005518 NEILAN, MARYC. 003908 NELSON, MARJORIE (Continued) Description Amount Paid Check Total FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbt~rsement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 14,581.84 14,581.84 564.95 564.95 564.95 564.95 185.46 185.46 185.46 185.46 478.04 478.04 FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 185.46 185.46 185.46 185.46 FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 608.40 608.40 478.04 478.04 185.46 185.46 80616 11/8/2002 80617 11/8/2002 80618 11/8/2002 80619 11/8/2002 80620 11/8/2002 80621 11/8/2002 80622 11/8/2002 002969 NESBITTPARTNERSTEMECUL FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 004710 NIELSEN, DWIGHT DAVID 001742 NORTH COUNTY BANK 005500 OGLE, KAROLYN M. 005557 OLVEDA, VICTOR 004712 ONG, RICHARD 005507 ORTEGA, LEOPOLDO FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 68-12 Reimbursement 11,799.94 11,799.94 608.40 434.59 1,042.99 1,437.32 1,437.32 478.04 478.04 185.46 185.46 564.95 564.95 564.95 564.95 Page:13 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 14 11/08/2002 3:34:11PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check# Date 80623 11/8/2002 (Continued) Vendor Description 005526 OVERLAND CORPORATE CEN FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 80624 11/8/2002 001790 PACHECO, DAVID E 80625 11/8/2002 005480 PADILLA, JAMES DAVID 80626 11/8/2002 005495 PALLASiGUI,JOSED. 80627 11/8/2002 003910 PALLER, JOANNEE. 80628 11/8/2002 005425 PAPA, ANDRESR. 80629 11/8/2002 005640 PARADIS, DOREEN L. 11/8/2002 004713 PASTOR, DOROTHY VIOLET 11/8/2002 004349 PAULL, BECKY 80630 80631 80632 80633 80634 80635 11/8/2002 11/8/2002 11/8/2002 11/8/2002 005647 PAWLOWSKI, REBECCA 004714 PEREA, DAVID L. 003911 PERSKY, GREGORY 003912 PHELPS, WAYNE W. 80636 11/8/2002 004715 PHUNG, THANG Q. 80637 11/8/2002 005492 PIERCE, JONJ. 80638 11/8/2002 005539 PINKHAM, ROCHELLE 80639 11/6/2002 004350 PLAZATEMECULA 80640 11/8/2002 005503 PLOUFFE, KENNETH D. Amount Paid FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 19,819.32 185.46 782.24 478.04 185.46 478.04 185.46 608.40 185.46 185.46 185.46 185.46 4,746.34 478.04 695.31 185.46 8,826.54 912.60 Check Total 19,819.32 185.46 782.24 478.04 185.46 478.04 185.46 608.40 185.46 185.46 185.46 185.46 4,746.34 478.04 695.31 185.46 8,826.54 912.60 Page:14 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 15 11/08/2002 3:34:11PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 80641 11/8/2002 80642 11/8/2002 80643 11/8/2002 80644 11/8/2002 80645 11/8/2002 80646 11/8/2002 80647 11/8/2002 80648 11/8/2002 80649 11/8/2002 80650 11/8/2002 80651 11/8/2002 80652 11/8/2002 80653 11/8/2002 80654 11/8/2002 80655 11/8/2002 80656 11/8/2002 80657 11/8/2002 80658 11/8/2002 003913 POAPST, PATRICIA J. 005637 PORTILLO, DAVID 004717 POZOS, RANDALL DEAN 004718 PROMENADE GAS STATION 004352 PSOMAS, JOANN M 004719 RABIDOU, GERALD B. 004720 RABINO, RODOLFO B. 002971 RANCHO CALIF HIGHLANDS II 005519 RAZUKAS, MATTHEW JAMES 001732 REEVES, DONNA L 005511 RIDDLE, LOUIS W. 005442 RINEHART, DALE J. 004721 RISTINE, PATRICK R. 005487 RODRIGUEZ, JILL ANN 004722 RODRIGUEZ, RONALD G. 005467 ROMERO, EMIL N. (Continued) Description FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 001843 ROOK, MICHAEL C & TRACEY L FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 002162 ROOKS, LEANNE FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement Amount Paid Check Total 185,46 185.46 185.46 185.46 478.04 478.04 5,166.75 5,166.75 185.46 185.46 478.04 478.04 521.49 521.49 14,073.03 14,073.03 478.04 478.04 38,964.62 38,964.62 185.46 185.46 695.31 695.31 521.49 521.49 478.04 478.04 564.95 564.95 478.04 478.04 185.46 185.46 185.46 185.46 Page:15 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 16 11/08/2002 3:34:11PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 80659 11/8/2002 80660 11/8/2002 80661 11/8/2002 80662 11/8/2002 80663 11/8/2002 80664 11/8/2002 80665 11/8/2002 80666 11/8/2002 80667 11/8/2002 80668 11/8/2002 80669 11/8/2002 80670 11/8/2002 80671 11/8/2002 80672 11/8/2002 80673 11/8/2002 004723 ROSIER, REX E. 005440 ROUGHAN, CONNIE L DACY 004724 ROY, SEAN BRANDON 005488 RUNYEN, JODI LYNNE 005544 S & L OIL 004725 SABELLA, ANGELA C. 001839 SALAZAR, RICHARDA& 005468 SALDIVAR, ENRIQUE A. 005509 SALDIVAR, LIZZETT 005445 SANCHEZ, DARLA ANDREA 005486 SANDERS, JENNIFER M. 005522 SANMILLAN, MICHAEL D. 004726 SCARPINE, MA'I-FHEW EUGEN 005523 SCHAFER, MICHAEL R. 005538 SCHNEIDER, ROBERTW. (Continued) Description Amount Paid Check Total FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 185.46 564.95 521.49 521.49 2,078.11 90,268.55 185.46 478.04 478.04 564.95 695.31 478.04 825.69 4,335.48 478.04 185.46 564.95 521.49 521.49 2,078.11 90,268.55 185.46 478.04 478.04 564.95 695.31 478.04 825.69 4,335.48 478.04 80674 11/~2002 80675 11/~2002 80676 11/~2002 003917 SEARS ROEBUCK & COMPANY FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 005471 SERRANO, GABRIEL 004727 SIMON, DANIEL D. FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 42,108.97 1,042.97 434.59 42,108.97 1,042.97 434.59 Page:16 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 17 11/08/2002 3:34:11PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 80677 11/8/2002 80678 11/8/2002 80679 11/8/2002 80680 11/8/2002 80681 11/8/2002 80682 11/8/2002 80683 11/8/2002 80684 11/8/2002 80685 11/8/2002 80686 11/8/2002 80687 11/8/2002 80688 11/8/2002 80689 11/8/2002 80690 11/8/2002 80691 11/8/2002 80692 11/8/2002 80693 11/8/2002 80694 11/8/2002 004728 SKVARLA, RICHARD PAUL 004730 SMITH, COOLY 005463 SMITH, DEVI T. 004729 SMITH, GREGORY M. 004731 SMITH, NElL ANDREW 004355 SMITHEY, BRE3q' E 005638 SNYDER, DEBORAH 005524 SORENSEN, MICHAEL 005540 SPARLING, ROGER 003921 SPEHAR BUSINESS PROPERTI 004732 STALLO, JOHNATHAN M. 003922 STANTON, LEE M. (Continued) Description Amount Paid FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 608.40 608.40 521.49 564.95 564.95 185.46 185.46 521.49 478.04 3,500.58 564.95 6,875.54 103,894.64 3,875.06 185.46 185.46 1,521.00 564.95 003923 STARWOOD WASSERMAN TEM FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 004357 STARWOOD WASSERMAN TEM FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 005498 STEED, KAREN M. 001802 STE~NART, JOSEPH C & JEAN 005485 STONE, JEFFREY E. 005642 TANNER-THOMPSON, FLOREN FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement Check Total 608.40 608.40 521.49 564.95 564.95 185.46 185.46 521.49 478.04 3,500.58 564.95 6,875.54 103,894.64 3,875.06 185,46 185.46 1,521.00 564.95 Page:17 apChkLst 11/08/2002 3:34:11PM Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 80695 11/8/2002 001753 TAVAGLIONE, NICHOLAS F. 80696 11/8/2002 80697 11/8/2002 80699 11/8,'2002 80700 11/8/2002 80701 11/8/2002 Final Check List City of Temecula (Continued) Description 005649 TEMECULA PAD H 005650 TEMECULA PAD O 003926 TEMECULA POWER CENTER 003927 TEMECULA SELF STORAGE IN 003928 TEMECULA TOWNE CENTER A FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement Amount Paid FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 185.46 5,295.91 3,875.06 39,881.17 14,460.83 159,208.56 3,441.16 93,050.21 434.59 185.46 564.95 185.46 185.46 16,320.56 564.95 1,459.91 608.40 80702 11/8/2002 000515 TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER FY 01/02 CFD 88o12 Reimbursement 80703 11/8/2002 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED S FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 80704 11/8/2002 004735 THAI, KHAM VAN 80705 11/8/2002 003930 THREET, RANDY 80706 11/8/2002 004736 TINSMAN, JULIE L. 80707 11/8/2002 005462 TOLTON, DENNIS R. FY 01/02 CFD 88412 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 80708 11/8/2002 002976 TOUSSAINT, RICHARD & SAND FY 01/02 CFD'88-12 Reimbursement 80709 11/8/2002 005554 TOWER OFFICE PLAZA I, II & III FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 8O710 80711 80712 11/8/2002 11/8/2002 004737 TRAN, AN HAl 11/8/2002 005555 TRIPLE D PROP OVERLAND 004738 VANDYK, BR~ ~ N. FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement Page: 18 Check To~al 185.46 5,295.91 3,875.06 39,881.17 14,460.83 159,208.56 3,441.16 93,050.21 434.59 185.46 564.95 185.46 185.46 16,320.56 564.95 1,459.91 608.40 Page:18 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 19 11/08/2002 3:34:11PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 80713 11/8/2002 001837 VEASEY, KENNETH 80714 11/8/2002 001781 VEDENTI, JAMES I. 80715 11/8/2002 80716 11/8/2002 80717 11/8/2002 80718 11/8/2002 80719 11/8/2002 80720 11/8/2002 80721 11/8/2002 80722 11/8/2002 80723 11/8/2002 80724 11/8/2002 80725 11/8/2002 80726 11/8/2002 80727 11/8/2002 80728 11/8/2002 80729 11/8/2002 80730 11/8/2002 004739 VELARDE, HENRY L. 005652 VERLOOP, THOMAS E 001786 VINCENT, CLAY'rON P & 004740 VINOLE, EMILIANO J. 004741 VIQUE, ERNESTO 004742 VNENK, MILOS M. 005483 VOLLMER, JEFFERY J. 005506 VOLTURNO, LENORE 004743 WEBB, JAMES 004744 WEGNER, MARY F. 004745 WEHBA, MOHAMED NIJEM (Continued) Description Amount Paid FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 185.46 185.46 825.69 185.46 185.46 521.49 1,042.97 608.40 956.05 185.46 1,228.68 185.46 478.04 185.46 185.46 185.46 3,407.84 185.46 001754 WEINGART, HAROLD V & RUTH FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 001798 WELD, LINDA N FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 001804 WELLENBRINK, HOWARD W & FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 003931 WELLS FARGO BANK NATL AS FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 005517 WHITE, MARTIN E. FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement Check Total 185.46 185.46 825.69 185.46 185.46 521.49 1,042.97 608.40 956.05 185.46 1,228.68 185.46 478.04 185.46 185.46 185.46 3,407.84 185.46 Page:19 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 20 11/08/2002 3:34:11PM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OFCALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 80731 11/8/2002 80732 11/8/2002 80733 11/8/2002 80734 11/8/2002 80735 11/8/2002 80736 11/8/2002 80737 11/8/2002 80738 11/8/2002 80739 11/8/2002 80740 11/8/2002 80741 11/8/2002 80742 11/8/2002 80743 11/8/2002 80744 11/8/2002 80745 11/8/2002 80746 11/8/2002 80747 11/8/2002 80748 11/8/2002 004746 WILLE, JOHN 005543 WILLIAMS, RUTH A. 001844 WILSON, MAUREENA 001863 WINCHESTER, NANCY G 004361 WOODSlDE CHANTEMAR INC 005482 WOODWARD, JAMES M. 005562 XINWEI LIN 004749 YATES, PATRICIA 005561 YATES, WILSON P. 004363 YEAGER, SHANNON M 004365 yNF7 TWO 004750 YOUNG, sco'l-r 004366 ZAM II PROPERTIES 005490 ZAREMBA, JOHN J. 005648 ZEEB, STEPHEN J 005551 ZEIF, STEVE LOUIS 005479 ZENK, HENRY 004752 ZONA, KIMBERLY K. (Continued) Description Amount Paid FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 521.49 FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 185.46 FY 01/02 CFD 88712 Reimbursement 185.46 FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 185.46 FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 16,992.01 FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 1,086.45 FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 478.04 FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 608.40 FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 478.04 FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 185.46 FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 8,649.46 FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 185.46 FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 14,732.90 FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 912.60 FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 782.24 FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 564.95 FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 521.49 FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 608.40 Sub total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA: Check Total 521.49 185.46 185.46 185.46 16,992,01 1,086.45 478,04 608.40 478.04 185.46 8,649.46 185.46 14,732.90 912.60 782.24 564.95 521.49 608.40 1,891,597.02 Page20 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1 11/15/2002 10:33:15AM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 80749 11/14/2002 80750 11/14/2002 80751 11/14/2002 80752 11/14/2002 80753 11/14/2002 80754 11/14/2002 004973 ABACHERLI, LINDI 004765 ACTIVE NETWORK INC, THE Descri~ion TCSD instructor earnings Software Subscription for Rec Ware 001916 ALBERT A WEBB ASSOCIATES Admin Sales Tax Consulting svcs:CFD 88-1 Consulting Srvcs:CFD 98-1 Spcl Tax A Sales Tax Consulting Srvcs:CFD 88-1 002527 AMERICAN FLAG AND BANNER 10-City of Temecula Custom Flags 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. Atkinson temp help PPE 10/19/02 Hall/Moore temp help PPE 10/19/02 Atkinson temp help PPE 10/12/02 Atkinson temp help PPE 09/28/02 Atkinson temp help PPE 09/21/02 Moore temp help PPE 10/12/02 002648 AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN CA Membership: Rick Serven 46770517 Membership: Ryan Castillo 54068262 Membership: Jim Smith 67481325 80755 11/14/2002 005709 BAMM PROMOTIONAL 80756 11/14/2002 005744 BARAT, JACQUELINE 80757 11/14/2002 005739 BARON, O3q-O 80758 11/14/2002 005312 BITCH'N STITCH'N 80759 11/14/2002 005055 BROWN, STEVE CPRS golf tournament supplies:TCSD Refund: Tiny Tots-Creative Beg Refund: Admin Cite 2126 SAFE DRIVER AWARD JACKET Reimb:APA Nat'l Conf:4/13-17 80760 11/14/2002 004081 BUSINESS FURNITURE GROUP Office furniture for IS Manager's Office 36" LATERAL FILE, HIGH BACK 80761 11/14/2002 002099 BUTTERFIELD ENTERPRISES Nov restroom lease: Old Town 80762 11/14/2002 004621 C-18 INC Oct Street Striping Program Project 80763 11/14/2002 003214 CALMAT PW patch truck materials Amount Paid 375.60 3,701.22 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 2,801.50 442.00 344.50 331.50 273.00 273.00 58.50 44.00 44.00 44.00 169.98 47.50 50.00 162.70 653.40 4,020.81 1,189.79 826.00 6,476.30 1,957.43 Check Total 375.60 3,701.22 4,500.00 2,801.50 1,722.50 132.00 169.98 47.50 50.00 162.70 653.40 5,210.60 826.00 6,476.30 1,957.43 Page:l apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2 11/15/2002 10:33:15AM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 80764 11/14/2002 003214 CALMAT 80765 11/14/2002 80766 11/14/2002 80767 11/14/2002 80768 11/14/2002 001054 CALIF BUILDING OFFICIALS 004248 CALIF DEPT OF JUSTICE/ACCT 80769 11/14/2002 80770 11/14/2002 80771 11/14/2002 004093 CARDIO CARE PLUS 80772 11/14/2002 004161 CDTOONS (Continued) Description PVV patch truck materials Bldg Energy code:Harold:12/17/02 DUI/Drug/Alcohol Screening svc:Poli Credit:Incorrect billed 4 cases 005660 CALIF EMS AUTHORITY License renewal:Curtiss Tate 000152 CALIF PARKS & RECREATION S Award SubmittahAquatic Fac Design Award SubmittakBest Single Brochure Award Submittak Poster/Calendar Award Submittal:Neighborhood/Comm 000837 CALIF STATE OF FRANCHISE T '01 Exempt Tax Retum:1838458 2000 004971 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES, CITY COPIER CONTRACT FY 02/03~ TCSD instructor earnings Entertainment:Holiday Party 12/7/02 80773 11/14/2002 005708 CLEAR CHANNEL BROADCASTI Broadcasting Old Twn Events 80774 11/14/2002 003151 COMMERCIALTRANSPORTATI Comm. Driver License for PW mntc 80775 11/14/2002 001193 COMPUSAINC 80776 11/14/2002 002631 COUNTS UNLIMITED INC 80777 11/14/2002 003511 DELL COMPUTER CORPORATI 80778 11/14/2002 004888 DESERT PUBLICATIONS INC 80779 11/14/2002 002701 DIVERSIFIED RiSK 80780 11/14/2002 003610 DOMENOE, JIM Misc Computer supplies:lnf Sys Misc Computer supplies:lnf Sys Mist Computer supplies:lnf Sys Misc Computer supplies:lnf Sys Pref Svcs Citywide Traffic Count Data Pentium 4 Lap-top:Police Dept Advertising:Ontario Guide Magazine Oct special events premiums Reimb:Homeland Security:lO/27-30 Amount Paid 99.13 40.00 840.00 -140.00 130.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 40.00 10.00 6,871.59 496.00 650.00 445.00 2,492.68 746.33 323.66 232.06 -126.50 1,200.00 2,450.24 2,500.00 1,989.87 695.42 Check Total 99.13 40.00 700.00 130.00 160.00 10.00 6,871.59 496.00 650.00 445.00 2,492.68 1,175.55 1,200.00 2,450.24 2,500.00 1,989.87 695.42 Page2 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3 11/15/2002 10:33:15AM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 80781 11/14/2002 004192 DOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELI Amount Paid Fuel for city vehicles 467.48 Check Total 467.48 80782 11/14/2002 001380 ESIEMPLOYMENTSERVICES 80783 11/14/2002 000161 EDEN SYSTEMS INC 80784 11/14/2002 005052 EMCOR SERVICE 80785 11/14/2002 005251 EQUIPMENT REPAIR SERVICE TEMP HELP - OFC ASST & BLDG IN Hansen tamp help PPE 09/06/02 Hansen temp help PPE 09/20/02 Hansen tamp help PPE 10/04/02 Hansen temp help PPE 10/18/02 Obmann temp help PPE 11/01/02 Cammarota tamp help PPE 11/01/02 TEMP HELP - OFC ASST & BLDG IN Montecino temp help PPE 11/01/02 Rosa tamp help PPE 11/01/02 Inforum gold upgrade: Inforum gold upgrade: Inforum gold upgrade: Inforum gold upgrade: H.V.A.C. repair @ City Hall H.V.A.C. repair @ City Hall H.V.A.C. repair @ CRC H.V.A.C. repair @ CRC Mobile Equip & Truck Repairs PW 2,735.20 2,531.73 2,468.83 2,262.22 2,219.28 1,740.20 1,208.62 1,147.74 1,109.60 1,107.65 2,000.00 830.64 781.25 406.25 600.01 546.02 276.00 95.70 308.03 18,531.07 4,018.14 1,517.73 308.03 80786 11/14/2002 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE 80787 11/14/2002 000478 FAST SIGNS Oct landscape Mntc svcs Oct Idscp impr: 1-15 Fwy & Off Ramps Exhibit Supplies:Museum 92,445.00 2,465.00 22.89 94,910.00 22.89 80788 11/14/2002 002832 FENCE BUILDERS 80789 11/14/2002 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER 80790 11/14/2002 000795 FRED PRYOR SEMINARS/CARE Res imprv prgm: Clack, Ronald & Hea RES IMPRV PRGM: VILLA, JOSE & L Res Imp Prog-Lovell, Jacqueline xx-6165 Yates:Prof Mtg/Conf/Supplies XX-7824 Comerchero:Conf expenses xx-9277 R.Roberts:Coof expenses xx-2292 G.Roberts:Conf/Mtg/Supplies xx-1143 Parker:Mtgs & Conf expenses xx-0432 Elmo:Conf/Pmf mtgs Speed Read:Obmann/Windsor: 1/23 1,725.00 1,517.00 1,295.00 2,201.13 1,158.40 1,014.89 808.11 788.16 560.94 298.00 4,537.00 6,531.63 298.00 Page3 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4 11115/2002 10:33:15AM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check# Date 80791 11/14/2002 80792 11/14/2002 80793 11/14/2002 Vendor Description 000795 FREDPRYORSEMINARS/CARE BusinessWriting:12/4:Thornsley 004178 FREEDOM SIGNS 005304 GANIME, MARITZA Amount Paid Check Total Business Writing:12/4:Ching Business Writing:12/4:Long Business Writing: 12/4:Simpkins Business Writing: 12/4:Mclntyre Business Writing: 12/4:Noland Business Wdting:12/4:Preisendanz FAC IMP PRGM: OLD TOWN OLD TOWN PLAZA LIGHTING Fac Imp Prgm: Temecula Country Sto FAC IMP PRGM: THE JUNKYARD Fac Imp Prgm: Penfold Building Fac Impr prgm:The Junkyard bldg prm Deduction: BCSE-404757 Refund:Tiny Tots-Fabulous 4&5s 89.00 89.00 89.00 89.00 89.00 89.00 89.00 3,870.00 3,628.12 3,440.00 3,171.25 2,499.80 190.00 -25.00 51.00 623.00 16,774.17 51.00 80794 11/14/2002 000173 GENERAL BINDING CORPORAT Laminationsupplies:CopyCtr 362.67 362.67 80795 11/14/2002 005056 GUTIERREZ, BETH Reimb:Eden Conf:10/14-17/02 52.03 52.03 80796 11/14/2002 005311 H20 CERTIFIED POOL WATER CRC - Swimming Pool Mntc Svc 1,264.62 1,264.62 80797 11/14/2002 000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC Hardware/tools for TCSD mntc crew 782.51 782.51 80798 11/14/2002 002906 HEMET FENCE COMPANY ReslmpPrgm:Gutierrez, Ramon 2,510.00 2,510.00 80799 11/14/2002 80800 11/14/2002 002126 HILLYARD FLOOR CARE SUPPL Cleaning Supplies: CRC Cleaning Supplies: CRC 000871 HILTON Htl:Calif Narcotic Conf:11/23-26 156.34 118,58 501.40 274.92 501.40 80801 11/14/2002 003622 I C M A- MEMBERSHIP Membership:Grant Yates:265743 767.71 767.71 80802 11/14/2002 004219 INDUSTRIAL DISTRIBUTION GR Mntc Supplies for Pub[ic Works 26,22 26.22 80803 11/14/2002 001407 INTER VALLEY POOLSUPPLY I Pool sanitizing chemicals 101.72 101.72 80804 11/14/2002 003266 IRON MOUNTAIN OFFSITE Records mgmt microfilm storage unit 270,00 270.00 Page~ apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5 11/15/2002 10:33:15AM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check# Date 80805 11/14/2002 80806 11/14/2002 80807 11/14/2002 80808 11/14/2002 80809 11/14/2002 80810 11/14/2002 80811 11/14/2002 80812 11/14/2002 80813 11/14/2002 80814 11/14/2002 80815 11/14/2002 (Continued) Vendor Description 003046 K F R O G 95.1 FM RADIO Advertising:Halloween in Old Twn 005448 K LOG INC Bookcase for B&S Dept 002424 KELLEY DISPLAY INC Banners:Rod Run/Race for the cure 000548 KIPLINGER CALIFORNIA LETTE Subscription:Calif Letter:M.Naggar 004062 KUSTOM SIGNALS INC HAND HELD RADAR UNIT:TEM POL 002863 LAWSON PRODUCTS INC Hardware supplies:PW crew Hardware supplies:PW crews 004905 LIEBERT, CASSIDY&WHITMOR Bkgrd&Disciplinary:11/19:Gutierrez 80816 11/14/2002 80817 11/14/2002 80818 11/14/2002 80819 11/14/2002 80820 11/14/2002 80821 11/14/2002 004174 LIGHT IMPRESSIONS 002634 LITELINES INC 005740 LOTT, DEBBIE 004141 MAINTEX INC 001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SER 000217 MARGARITA OFFICIALS ASSN 002693 MATROS, ANDREA 000220 MAURICE PRINTERS INC 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS 000883 MONTELEONE EXCAVATING Exhibit Supplies:Museum Sprts prk elect supplies:TCSD Refund: Sci Adv Camp-Wings Flying C,R.C Custodial Supplies C.R,C Custodial Supplies City Hall Custodial Supplies Senior Center Custodial Supplies T,C.C. Custodial Supplies tamp help w/e 10/27 Dankworth Oct sports officiating services TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS Employment Applications for H.R. Business cards:D.Long Construction 3 Desilting Construction Desilting Pond:John War Road Grading Service Level "R" Areas Amount Paid 250.00 169.00 2,834.98 58.00 3,685.05 708.80 365.21 100.00 19.95 200.72 209.00 361.54 90.77 90.77 45.38 45.38 354.75 3,250.00 249.60 533.36 42.83 6,950.00 4,250.00 1,680.00 Check Total 250.00 169.00 2,834.98 58.00 3,685.05 1,074.01 100.00 19.95 200.72 209.00 633.84 354.75 3,250.00 249.60 533.36 42.83 12,880.00 Page5 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 6 11/15/2002 10:33:15AM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 80822 11/14/2002 002925 NAPA AUTO PARTS 80823 11/14/2002 80824 11/14/2002 80825 11/14/2002 80826 11/14/2002 80827 11/14/2002 80828 11/14/2002 80829 11/14/2002 80830 11/14/2002 80831 11/14/2002 80832 11/14/2002 80833 11/14/2002 80834 11/14/2002 80835 11/14/2002 80836 11/14/2002 80837 11/14/2002 002734 P V P COMMUNICATIONS INC 000249 PE'I-rY CASH 002185 POSTMASTER - TEMECULA 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN (Continued) Description pads for Paramedic Squad vehicle 003964 OFFICE DEPOT BUSINESS SVS Office Supplies for Finance Dept Office Supplies for Finance dept Credit:items returned:Finance dept Police Motorcycle Helmets Petty cash reimbursement P.D.:P.O. Box Annual Fee:892050 Info Sys:l 1/05/02-11/03/03 subscr. 003493 PRO-CRAFT OVERHEAD DOOR Res imp Prgm: DeRose, Judy 002880 PRO-CRAFT SASH & SUPPLY 000635 R & J PARTY PALACE 004453 R C ENTERPRISES 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST 000947 RANCHO REPROGRAPHICS 002412 RICHARDS WATSON & 000266 RIGH35NAY 000268 RIVERSIDE CO HABITAT 001592 RIVERSIDE CO INFO Res imprv prgm: Clack, R. rental equipment for ESG Replacement Ink Pad:Finance Dept. Various water metem Various water meters 9/24-10/29 01-04-10033-2 Marg Rd 9/24-10/29 01-02-98010-0 Stn 84 9/27-11/01 01-08-38009-0 Stn 92 Oct 01-06-84860-5 Pujol St. 9/24-10/29 01-02-98000-0 Stn 84 Dupl. blueprints:Comm. Theater Sept 2002 legal services 11/4-12/1 equip rental:Riverton Prk 11/4-12/1 equip rental:Veterans Prk Oct 2002 K-Rat payment rental/repair/maint of P.D. radios Amount Paid 20.32 20.32 -20.32 3,239.05 493.92 410.00 150.80 635.00 1,800.00 330.25 5.73 21,014.32 3,476.75 578.22 288.78 62.41 56.39 12.62 62.09 77.94 54.39 2,830.00 596.80 Check Total 8.84 20.32 3,239.05 493.92 410.00 150.80 635.00 1,800.00 330.25 5.73 25,489.49 62.09 60.90 132.33 2,830.00 596.80 Page~ apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7 11/15/2002 10:33:15AM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check# Date 80838 11/14/2002 80839 11/14/2002 80840 11/14/2002 80841 11/14/2002 80842 11/14/2002 80843 11/14/2002 80844 11/14/2002 (Continued) Vendor Description 000955 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFF SW ST DUI Enforcement Svcs:Sept 2002 Concert on the Greens:9/29/02 DUI Enfomement Svcs:05/31/02 004270 RUFFIAN SPECIALTIES 005742 RUPINSKI, BEVERLY ANN 005018 SACHER, SUZANNE L 6 computer briefcases for Fire Dept Refund: Ex Sr - Welks Musical TCSD Instructor Earnings TCSD Instructor Earnings 005630 SADDLEBACK MATERIALS CO., Pumhase sandbags for PW Maint 005227 SAN DIEGO COUNTY OF Support pmt: BCSE-404757 004562 SCHIRMER ENGINEERING COR Fire Prevention Plan Check Svcs 80845 11/14/2002 80846 11/14/2002 80847 11/14/2002 80848 11/14/2002 80849 11/14/2002 80850 11/14/2002 80851 11/14/2002 80852 11/14/2002 003843 SCREEN DOCTOR, THE 000645 SMART & FINAL INC 000537 SO CALIF EDISON 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 005743 SOMMER, EVELYN 002366 STEAM SUPERIOR CARPET CL 004570 STEPHEN G WHtTE, MAI 005745 STERGER, PATRICIA Res Imp Prgm: DeRose, Judy supplies for Team Pace events Teen prgm supplies Nov 2-01-202-7330 Street Lamps Nov 2-01-202-7603 Arterial St Lt Nov 2-02-351-5281 CRC Nov 2-00-987-0775 Vail Ranch Nov 2-06-105-0654 various mtrs Nov 2-22-417-8772 Rancho Vista Nov 2-10-331-1353 Stn 84 Nov 2-23-548-1975 various mtrs various City fac. gas meters Nov 095-167-7907-2 Stn 84 Refund:Dog Obedience Emerg carpet cleaning svs:Chapel Appraiser svcs:Wolf Creek CFD Refund: Arts/Crofts-Cartooning Amount Paid Check Total 1,302.36 556.26 406.72 2,265.34 330.79 330.79 65.00 65.00 64.00 36.00 100.00 1,072.11 1,072.11 25.00 25.00 10,640.00 10,640.00 371.74 371.74 160.52 46.97 207.49 33,781.55 13,766.90 5,498.56 5,146.28 2,724.99 2,457.92 920.43 28.81 64,325.44 2,540.35 112.41 2,652.76 68.00 68.00 285.00 285.00 7,500.00 7,500.00 30.00 30.00 Page2 apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8 11/15/2002 10:33:15AM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA Check # Date Vendor 80853 11/14/2002 000305 TARGET STORE 80854 11/14/2002 80855 11/14/2002 80856 11/14/2002 80857 11/14/2002 80858 11/14/2002 80859 11/14/2002 80860 11/14/2002 80861 11/14/2002 80862 11/14/2002 80863 11/14/2002 80864 11/14/2002 80865 11/14/2002 000309 TEMECULA COPIERS (Continued) Description Office supplies for PW dept. Recreation Supplies for TCC supplies for camera:TCSD Teen prgm supplies Recreation Supplies - Sports Oct usage costs:B/W Copiers 000168 TEMECULA FLOWER CORRAL Sunshine fund 003677 TEMECULA MOTORSPORTS LL repair/maint of P.D. motorcycles 005737 TEMECULA PAD PQ FY 01/02 CFD 88-12 Reimbursement 003067 TEMECULA R V repair/maint of PD Command Ctr RV 000306 TEMECULA VALLEY PIPE & SU Parks irrigation/maint supplies 003862 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR. Elev. monitoring svcs:Museum 002452 TOP LINE INDUSTRIAL parts/supplies for PW vehicles 004261 VERIZON CALIFORNIA OCT XXX-5029 GENERAL USAGE Oct xxx-1540 Old Town Parking Lot NOV XXX*1941 PTA CD TTACSD OCT XXX~5840 GENERAL USAGE OCT XXX-5780 GENERAL USAGE OCT XXX-2730 ELEVATOR OCT XXX-2670 911 AUTO DIALER 004279 VERIZON CALIFORNIA INC. OCT ACCESS-CRC PHONE LINE OCT ACCESS-RVSD CO PHONE Li 004789 VERIZON INTERNET SOLUTION Phone svcs/EOC backup @ stn 84 003730 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC Citywide tree trimming maint svcs Amount Paid Check Total 149.22 127.23 77.52 33.43 7.32 394.72 2,720.65 2,720.65 417.71 417.71 1,200.31 1,200.31 8,309.86 8,309.86 23.16 23.16 122.72 122.72 96.00 96.00 46.32 46.32 676.48 178.88 59.16 32.37 32.37 28.65 28.65 1,036,56 346.30 268.20 611.50 69.95 69,95 14,524.40 14,524.40 Page~ apChkLst Final Check List Page: 9 1111512002 10:33:15AM City of Temecula Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued) Check # Date Vendor Description 80868 11/14/2002 004774 WOODCRESTUNIFORMS 80867 11/14/2002 004764 XEROX ENGINEERING SYSTEM Amount Paid P.D. explorer/vol, prgm uniforms P.D. e)~plorer/vol, prgm uniforms P.D. explorer/voL prgm uniforms P.D. explorer/vol, prgm uniforms P.D. explorer/voL prgm uniforms P.D. explorer/vol, prgm uniforms P.D. explorer/voL prgm uniforms P.D. explorer/vol, prgm uniforms P.D. explorer/voL prgm unifonms maintenance for P.W. engineering cop 108.85 107.15 106.72 92.91 69.76 47.37 20.30 14.23 9.85 552.00 Check Total 577.14 552.00 80868 11/14/2002 005746 YONKER, JADA Reimb:Eden Conf:10/14-15/02 16.30 16.30 Sub total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA: 389,864.73 Page~ ITEM 4 CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT APPROVAL.~..---~ CITY A'I-I'ORN EY l/'~/'"~, DIRECTOR OFFINANCE,~'/-~ ClTY MANAGER ~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City ManageflCity Council ~' Jim O'Grady, Assistant City Manag~ November 26, 2002 Consideration of Amendment to Agreement Dated July 25, 2002 with Save Southwest Riverside County (SSRC) regarding proposed Valley- Rainbow Project RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve an amendment to the City's Agreement with Save Southwest Riverside County (SSRC) to increase the amount of funding for consulting services from $25,000:': to $50,000. BACKGROUND: On July 23, 2002, the City Council approved an agreement with SSRC to share costs for political consulting and other services relating to our joint opposition to the proposed Valley-Rainbow project. Since then, SSRC has retained the firm of Winner and Associates for this purpose. Because of the length and complexity of the hearing process, it is necessary to authorize additional funding if this effort is to continue. We are now at a critical phase of this project, and staff recommends approval of the attached amendment to our original agreement. This amendment authorizes additional expenditures by the City of Temecula up to a maximum of $50,000, which is an increase of $25,000 above the existing amount. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of this amendment will increase the City's cost for opposing this project by up to $25,000, depending on actual costs. Funds are currently available in the City Attorney Budget (account 999-130-5246). However, because of the costs of Valley-Rainbow litigation and other significant litigation not anticipated when the FY 2002/03 Budget was prepared, a request for a supplemental appropriation is being prepared and will be presented for City Council consideration on December 10, 2002. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Amendment 2. Agreement with SSRC dated July 25, 2002 R:\Ogrady~SDG&E Transmission I.[ne~genda ,~endment to SSRC Agreement.doc FIRST AMENDMENT TO COST-SHARING AGREEMENT This First Amendment to Cost-Sharing Agreement dated as of this 26th day of November, 2002 (this "Agreement"), is entered into by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation (the "City"), and Save Southwest Riverside County, a non-profit organization ("SSRC"). All or one of the parties to this Agreement are referred to herein as Party, or collectively referred to herein as the "Parties." WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the City and SSRC are "lntervenors" in the matter of the Application of San Diego Gas & Electric (U 902-E) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the Valley-Rainbow 500 kV Interconnect Project ("Project") before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California (the "Proceedings"); WHEREAS, the Par[les have already entered into a Joint Prosecution, Cost- Sharing and Confidentiality Agreement, dated on or about February 12, 2002, with respect to the opposition of the Project in the Proceedings; WHEREAS, the Parties have already entered into a Cost-Sharing Agreement, dated on or about July 23, 2002, to fund Consulting Services to assist the Parties' opposition to the Project at various administrative levels and agencies of the State of California (hereafter "Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the Parties now wish to increase the City's share of funding for the Consulting Services under the Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the Parties hereby agree to the following modifications of the Agreement: Section 1. Section 1 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: 1. Maximum Contribution Amount. The City agrees to pay up to a maximum of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) towards such Consulting Services. Section 2. Section 2 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: 2. Sequence of Contribution Payment. The payment for the Consulting Services will be sequenced to reflect contributions from other Cities as follows: the City of Temecula will commence payment after (1) an initial payment by the City of Murrieta of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000), and a contribution of the City of Hemet, if any. After such payments, Temecula and Murrieta shall pay for the balance, if any, of such Consulting Services on a matching, i.e., dollar-for-dollar basis,' up to the maximum contribution amount set forth in Section 1 hereof. Section 3. Except as specifically provided in this First Amendment to Cost Sharing Agreement, alt other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been signed by the Parties as shown below. Dated: November 26th, 2002 CITY OF TEMECULA Attest: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan Jones, CMC, City Clerk Approved as to form: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney Dated: November ,2002 SAVE SOUTHWEST RIVERSIDE COUNTY By: Name: Title: COST-SHARING AGREEMENT This Cost-Sharing Agreement dated thir=~ay_ o~2002 (this "Agreement"), is entered into by and between the City of Temecula,~a municipal corporation (the "City"), and Save Southwest Riverside County, a non-profit organization ("SSRC"). All or one of the parties to this Agreement are referred to herein as "Party", or collectively referred to herein as the "Parties." WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the City and SSRC are "lntervenors" in the matter of the Application of San Diego Gas & Electric {"SDG&E") (U 902-E) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity ("CPCN") for the Valley-Rainbow 500 kV Interconnect Project (the "Project") before the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California (the "Proceedings"); WHEREAS, the Parties have already entered into a Joint Prosecution, Cost-Sharing and Confidentiality Agreement, dated on or about February 12, 2002, with respect to the opposition of the Project in the Proceedings; WHEREAS, acknowledging that the Joint Prosecution, Cost-Sharing and Confidentiality Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, the Parties also wish to obtain consulting services to assist the Parties' opposition to the Project at various administrative levels and agencies of the State of California ("Consulting Services"); WHEREAS, SSRC has agreed to retain such Consulting Services, and other cities have pledged to assist in retention of such Consulting Services; WHEREAS, the City and SSRC acknowledge at the time of entering into this Agreement, that the Parties' interests are mutually aligned in opposing the Project, and thus, wish to coordinate their efforts to oppose the Project in a cost- effective manner; and NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the Parties hereby agree to the following cost-sharing agreement: 1. Maximum Contribution Amount. The City agrees to pay up to a maximum of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00) towards such Consulting Services. 2. Sequence of Contribution Payment. -The payment for the Consulting Services will be sequenced to reflect contributions from other Cities as follows: the City of Temecula will commence payment after (1) an initial payment by the City of Murrieta of fifty -two thousand dollars ($52,000), and a contribution of the City of Hemet, if any. After such payments, Temecula and Murrieta shall pay for the balance, if any, of such Consulting Services on a matching, i.e., dollar- for-dollar basis, up to the maximum contribution amount set forth in Section 1 hereof. 3. Protocol For Payment. SSRC, through its Counsel of Record in the Proceedings, shall forward a copy of billing invoices for such Consulting Services to the City's counsel of record in the Proceedings. The billing invoices shall reflect the total amount of the fees and costs incurred, and a calculation of amount due and owing by the City pursuant to the sequencing and share provisions in this Agreement. The City, through its Counsel of Record in the Proceedings, will then remit said amount to the consultant providing such Consulting Services. 4. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement between the Parties, and all prior negotiations and understandings, whether oral or written, between the Parties, have been merged herein. 5. Agreement Binding on Others. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure the benefit of the respective officers, directors, servants, agents, employees, attorneys, predecessors, successors, and assigns, as applicable, of each of the Parties. 6. Other Documentation. The Parties agree to execute such other documents, if any, as are necessary to carry out the intent of this Agreement. 7. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original. 8. Arms-Length Transaction. This Agreement is a product of arms- length negotiations. Thus, none of the Parties can claim any ambiguities to any term of the Agreement should be construed against any of the other Parties to this Agreement. This Agreement is also entered into without prejudice or precedential value and is not intended to be, nor shall it be used as evidence, or in any other manner, in any court or dispute resolution proceeding regarding any other claims between the Parties, if any. 9. .Govern ng Law. This Agreement is governed by and shall be interpreted according to the laws of the State of California. 10. Waiver of B__reach. No waiver of any breach of any term or provision of this Agreement shall be construed to be, or-shall be, a waiver of any other breach of this Agreement. No waiver shall be binding unless in writing and signed by the Party waiving the breach. 11. Headings. The various headings of the paragraphs of this Agreement have been inserted for convenience of reference only and shall not affect the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement or any provision hereof. 12. No AssiRnment. The Parties hereto, and each of them, represent and warrant that there has been no assignment, encumbrance, hypothecation or other transfer of any interest in any of the claims released under this Agreement. 13. Separate Counsel. Each of the Parties represents and warrants to each other Party hereto that it has had an opportunity to receive independent legal advice from attorneys of its own choosing with respect to the legal effect of this Agreement, and further represents and warrants that it has carefully reviewed this entire Agreement and that each and every term thereof is understood and that the terms of this Agreement are contractual and not a mere recital. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement has been signed by the Parties as shown below. Dated:~. ~3~', 2002 'efer M. Thorson, C~y Attorney Dated:.~__~_~, 2002 THE CITY OF TEMECULA ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC~, City Clerk SAVE SOUTHWEST RIVERSIDE COUNTY ITEM 5 I APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINAN.C~E CITY MANAGER ~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Manager/City Council Jim O'Grady, Assistant City Manager November 26, 2002 Consideration of Joint Resolution with the Temecula Valley Unified School District expressing support for the continued viability of the French Valley Airport RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve a resolution titled: RESOLUTION NO. 2002-_ A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE CONTINUED VIABILITY AND OPERATION OF THE FRENCH VALLEY AIRPORT BACKGROUND: Previously the City Council has discussed the importance of maintaining the viability of the French Valley Airport in the face of development pressures. Recently the City/School District Subcommittee (Mayor Roberts and Councilmember Naggar) discussed this issue and concluded that a joint resolution of suppod would be an appropriate way to formally express support for the Airport. The attached resolution has been drafted as a result of this meeting, and was approved by the Board of Trustees of the Temecula Valley Unified School District at their meeting of November 19, 2002. Staff recommends approval of this resolution. If approved by the City Council, staff would send copies of the resolution to Airport officials, the County Board of Supervisors, and our State and Federal elected officials. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENT: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE CONTINUED VIABILITY AND OPERATION OF THE FRENCH VALLEY AIRPORT WHEREAS, Southwest Riverside County enjoys a reputation as a highly desirable location to live and work, and is one of the fastest growing areas in California, and WHEREAS, the entire Temecula Valley region is served by the French Valley Airport which is recognized as a premier General Aviation airpod, and WHEREAS, the continued viability of this Airport is important to this region as a transportation facility as well as a strategic resource in bringing new companies and jobs to this area, and WHEREAS, future development of Southwest Riverside County should be planned in a way that is mindful of, and complementary to French Valley Airport NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Temecula, that the City of Temecula and the Temecula Valley Unified School District hereby express their support for the continued viability and operation of the French Valley Airport, and urge agencies having jurisdiction in this region to take actions that support the operation and continued success of this airport. this PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula ~ay of 2002. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the governing Board of the Temecula Valley Unified School District this .day of 2002. CITY OF TEMECULA ATTEST: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 02- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the th day of ,2002, by the following vote: AYES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS None NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AYES: 0 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 BOARDMEMBERS BOARDMEMBERS: BOARDMEMBERS: None None None Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk Barbara Tooker, Chairman Temecula Valley Unified School District ITEM 6 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE~,~ CITY MANAGER ClTY OFTEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: City Manager/City Council /~.~/William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer November 26, 2002 SUBJECT: Approval of the Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Solicit Construction Bids for the Asphalt Crackfill Project - Various Streets for FY2002-2003, Project No. PW02-24 PREPARED BY: /'~,,~ Butler, Principal Engineer Weck, Assistant Engineer2'-~ RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for the Asphalt Crackfill Project - Various Streets for FY2002-20.03, Project No. PW02-24. BACKGROUND: This Asphalt Crackfill Project is part of the Annual Street Maintenance Program. The project involves removing debris from cracks in the road surface and filling the cracks with an asphalt crackfiller material. This will inhibit the infiltration of water into the road structural section and prolongs the service life of the pavement. The roads included in this project are: · Rancho California Road · Via Puesta del Sol · Ynez Road · Paseo BriIlante · Rancho Vista Road · Paseo Rayo del Sol · Meadows Parkway · Via Beso del Sol · Margarita Road · Via Cuesta al Sol · Solana Way · Paseo Sonrisa del Sol · Winchester Road · Avenida Cima del Sol · Business Park Drive · Single Oak Drive · Pauba Road The specifications and contract documents have been completed and the project is ready to be advertised for construction bids. The contract document is available for review in the City Engineer's office. The Engineer's Construction Estimate for this project is $56,000.00. FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are available in the Public Works Department, Maintenance Division, Routine Street Maintenance Fiscal Year 2002-2003 Operating Budget Account No. 001-164-601 - 5402. ATTACHMENTS: Location Map R:~AGENDA REPORTS~002~I 12602¢W02-24BID.DOC --] ITEM 7 APPROVAL ClTY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OFFINANC~ff'--~ CITY MANAGER ,~.<.,z~'/ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City ManagedCity Council Genie Roberts, Director of Finance November 26, 2002 Liability Insurance Renewal PREPARED BY: Gus Papagolos, Fiscal Services Manager RECOMMENDATION: Thatthe City Council: 1 ) Approve the City of Temecula Liability Insurance Policy Renewal with Clarendon America Insurance Company/Arch Specialty Insurance Company, in the amount of $259,775 for general and excess liability insurance plus $2,840 for automobile physical damage insurance for a total of $262,615 for the period of December 1, 2002, through December 1, 2003. 2) Approve the appropriation of funds in the amount of $80,000 for the purchase of liability insurance. DISCUSSION: In preparation for the City's Liability Insurance Policy renewal with Royal Indemnity Company expiring on December 1,2002, staff requested that the City's insurance broker, CaI-Surance, market the City for liability and auto physical damage insurance. In response to this request, CaI-Surance obtained three proposals from the following companies in the amounts listed below. These premiums have been quoted with a minimum self-insured retention (SIR) of $150K and range up to $250K. Two insurance companies, American International Group Companies (AIG), and Genesis Insurance Company, were unwilling to provide quotes at self-insured retentions under $250,000. Three insurance companies, Royal Indemnity Company, Coregis Insurance Company, and Discover Reinsurance Company did not quote a premium. Clarendon America Insurance Company General Liability $5mil Excess Liability $5mil American International Group Companies, AIG (Insurance Company at the State of Pennsylvania) General Liability $10mil Genesis Insurance Company General Liability $2mil Royal Indemnity Company General Liability Coregis Insurance Company General Liability Discover Reinsurance Company General Liability FIN2%NCE/PAPAGG/~NSU]~CE/RENEWA 03 .ANG $150K SIR $200K SIR $250K SIR $ 259,775 $ 239,775 $ 214,775 Not Quoted Not Quoted $150,500 Not Quoted Not Quoted $ 200,000 No Longer Writing Municipalities Would Not Quote Will Not Quote SIR Under $350,000 Royal Indemnity Company, the City's insurance carrier for the current year, is no longer writing municipalities, citing difficulties in securing reinsurance support. Clarendon America Insurance Company has an "A" rating with a financial size category of IX. Arch Specialty Insurance Company has an "A-" rating with a financial size category of X. This proposal by Clarendon America Insurance Company/Arch Specialty Insurance Company is coverage for $10 million per occurrence and $10 million aggregate for a fixed premium of $259,775. The total liability premium of $259,775 is broken down between general liability ($199,000) and excess liability ($60,7'75). This proposal covers the entire year, regardless of changes in the City's operating status. In addition, the City's automobile physical damage premium is quoted at $2,840. Since of the automotive physical damage insurance premium quoted is $30,000 for the City's entire fleet, and the City's current auto insurance premium is $10,198, staff recommends that automobile physical damage coverage be placed on vehicles with a value greater then $30,000 (for a total of 6 vehicles). ~n addition a~l of the City's vehicles will be insured for theft and property loss on the City's property insurance policy, which renews in February 2003. Considering the City's increasing exposure associated with growth and increased activities, staff recommends that the City accept the C~arendon America Insurance Company/Arch Specialty Insurance Company proposal. The below schedule of past years' general and excess liability insurance premiums are provided for your review: 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Premium $103,000 $98,633 $90,966 $92,205 $92,761 $71,283 $72,750 $102,999 $140,291 $259,775 Policy Limits $5 Mil $5 Mil $5 Mil $10 Mil $15 Mil $20 Mil $20 Mil $20 Mil $15 Mil $10Mil The above premium history shows a tightening liability insurance marketplace following a very favorable period between the years 1996 to 1999. However, the current premium in comparison with premiums paid in 1993 to 1995 is still competitive, when taking into consideration the policy limit of $5 million versus the current policy limit of $10 million and the City's growth. Amedcan International Group Companies, AIG, has provided the second most competitive proposal but can only provide an SIR of $250,000 per occurrence. American international Group Companies, AIG, provided a proposal of $150,500 for coverage for the entire year however, the premium is subject to audits and rate increases based on population. Although the AIG insurance premium is less than the recommended Clarendon policy, claims costs can rapidly exceed the SIR level of $150,000 therefore at the expense of a higher premium the lower SIR is recommended. The City has raised the SIR from $50,000 to the recommended SIR level of $150,000 over the past two years, because of poor insurance market conditions, which typically runs in cycles. Also, before the City increases the SIR to $250,000 or higher, staff will investigate additional insurance options. Genesis Insurance Company was the third most competitive proposal with the annual liability premium cost of $200,000 for a limit of only $2 million and it is also quoted based on an SiR of $250,000 per occurrence. Based on the information provided herein, staff recommends that the City renew liability and automobile physical damage coverage with Clarendon America Insurance Company/Arch Specialty Insurance Company for coverage, from December 1,2002, through December 1, 2003, for an annual premium of $262,615 with a self-insured retention of $150,000. The self-insured retention is $50,000 more than last year's policy however, the $150,000 self-insured retention level is the lowest available to the City. FISCAL IMPACT: An additional appropriation of $80,000 will be necessary to fund this renewal. Attachment: Clarendon America Insurance Company/Arch Specialty Insurance Company Proposal CLARENDON AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY/ARCH SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY TERM: December 1,2002 - December 1,2003 FORMAT: Occurrence NAMED INSURED: City of Temecula Temecula Community Services District Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula Winchester Hills Financing Authority Temecula Public Facilities Financing Corporation Temecula Public Financing Authority SELF-INSURED RETENTION (SIR) $150,000 TOTAL LIMITS/COVERAGE ROYAL INDEMNITY INSURANCE MUNICIPAL GENERAL LIABILITY OVER SIR $5,000,000 Occurrence/S5,000,000 Aggregate PUBLIC OFFICIAL'S ERRORS & OMISSIONS OVER SIR $5,000,000 Occurrence/Aggregate MUNICIPAL AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY OVER SIR $5,000,000 Occurrence/No Aggregate TOTAL AUTOMOBILE PHYSICAL DAMAGE ENDORSEMENT $199,000 INCLUDED INCLUDED $ 2,84O ARCH SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY EXCESS FOLLOWING FORM OVER (GENERAL LIABILITY, ERRORS & OMISSIONS, AND AUTOMOBILE) $5,000,000 Occurrence/Aggregate $ 60,775 TOTAL COMBINED ANNUAL PREMIUM COST FINANCE/PAPAC, k~/INSU~CE/RENEWA 03 .;{NG ITEM 8 ORDINANCE NO. 02-11 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING STANDARDS FOR MODULAR STRUCTURES, ADOPTING CHAPTER 17.10 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE, AND MAKING OTHER MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE (PLANNING APPLICATION 02-0318) WHEREAS, Section 65800 of the Government Code provides for the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations by cities to implement such general plans as may be in effect in any such city; and WHEREAS, Sections 65860 of the Government Code requires that a zoning ordinance shall be consistent with the adopted General Plan of the city; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 18, 2002 and October 2, 2002, and recommended that the City Council approve the following amendments to the City Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, this Ordinance complies with all the applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances; and, WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, Temecula Library, Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commeme; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on November 12, 2002 to consider the proposed amendments to the City Zoning Map and the Temecula Municipal Code. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. read as follows: Modular Buildinq Standards. Section 17.10.020.1 is hereby adopted to Modular Buildings and Structures. Modular buildings may be allowed in some circumstances as described in this Section if they comply with the following requirements: Accessory Structure. Modular buildings may be approved as accessory structures to a larger permanent building. The accessory buildings or structures shall be smaller in size than the main permanent building. Accessory structures can be allowed, subject to the approval of a development plan, for the following uses or activities: Religious Institutions in all zones, except the Open Space and Conservation zone. Industrial uses in the Business Park, Light Industrial, and Service Commercial zones. R:/Ords 2002/Ords 02-11 1 Temporary Facility and Construction Offices in all zones, except the Open Space and Conservation zone. Temporary Structures. Modular buildings may be approved as a temporary structures for non-profit community based organizations and religious institutions in all zones, except the Open Space and Conservation zone. The temporary structure may be approved subject to the following requirements: The approval of a development plan or conditional use permit (as appropriate) for the permanent facilities. The site shall be fully landscaped in conformance with the approved landscape plan. c. The term of the temporary approval shall not exceed 5 years. A removal bond shall be provided to ensure the removal of the temporary structure. Building Design and Screening. All modular units shall comply with the following standards to soften the appearance of the structures. If the modular is not visible from a street or a public gathering place, the modular structure shall provide at least minimal design compatibility with the surrounding area. Examples of minimal design compatibility include the use of exterior trim elements, similar colors, and other features to soften the modular appearance of the structure. Modular buildings that are potentially visible from the public street shall have architectural detailing similar to permanent structures. Examples include: accentuated entrances, pop-out features, windows, integrated with the minimal design compatibility components described above. Supplemental landscaping, to further screening the structure may also be required. All accessory modular units shall be screened from the public streets and gathering spaces in such as way as to be un-noticeable. This screening may include a combination of the following: permanent buildings or structures, screening walls, and landscaping. Not withstanding these requirements, all other landscape and site layout criteria required by the Development Code and Design Guidelines shall also apply to modular buildings." Section2. Supplemental Development Standards. Establish Chapter 17.10, Supplemental Development Standards and adopt Section 17.10.010 to read as follows:" "17.10.010 PURPOSE. The Purpose of this Chapter is to consolidate a variety of Municipal Code sections from Title 17 that provide supplemental development standards. Some of these standards will apply to R;/Ords 2002/Ords 02-11 2 development activities in residential, commercial or industrial zones. Other standards my apply to activities in multiple zoning districts." Section 3. Typo,qraphic and Minor Amendments To The City Municipal Code. The following clarifications to Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code are hereby adopted: A. Amend Chapter 17.16, by removing the word "overlay" from all titles, headings, sections, and subsections. B. Amend Section 17.18, by removing the word "overlay" from all titles, headings, sections, and subsections. C. Amend Section 17.06.050.D by adding subsection 8 to read as follows: "Animals Accessory to a Residential Use. The keeping of certain non-exotic or non-wild animals is considered accessory to a residential use. No more than four cats and dogs, over the age of four months, are allowed. Caged pets, including small amphibians, birds, mammals, and reptiles may be kept on the premises. This provision also includes the keeping of fish and up to two chickens. The keeping of household pets shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 6 of the Temecula Municipal Code." D. Amend Table 17.08.030 to replace the listing for "Retail support use (15 percent of the total development square footage in the BP and LI)' with the following: Description of Use NC CC HT SC PO BP LI Retail support use to a non-commercial business P P (Limited to the sale of products manufactured or assembled on-site and occupying less that 25% of the floor area of the business) E. Amend Table 17.08.030 to replace the listing for "Religious institutions, without a daycare or private school" with the following: Description of Use Religious institution, without a daycare or private school NC CC HT SC PO BP LI P P P C P C C F. Amend Table 17.12.030 by adding the following line: Description of Use similar Membership clubs, organizations, lodges and non-profit community uses Public/Institutional District (PI) C R:/Ords 2002/Ords 02-11 3 G. Amend Table 17.03.010 to replace the listing for Sign Programs with the following: Approval Sign Programs Admin. Approval X Planning Planning Director Commission City Counc H. Amend 17.28.280.A.2 to read as follows: "Maximum area of each sign shall be 3 square feet." I. Amend Chapter 17.34 by changing the following the phrase "Overhang, vehicle" to "Vehicle Overhang." J. Amend Chapter 17.34 of the Temecula Municipal Code be deleting the definitions for the following: amusement park, animal kennel, billiard parlor family, camp public, circulation master plan, clinic, club, condominium, drive-in operation, drive-in theater, employees quarters, equipment rental yard or contractor yard, farm, food store, garage private, garage public, hospital general care, inhabited area, merger, minimum building pad, neighborhood center, land use plan, parcel map vesting, parcel map tentative, parking area private, plat, police power, public services offices or uses, public service use facility, restaurant walkup, retention basin, structural alterations, travel trailer, travel trailer park, truck stop, unique natural feature, and wing wall. K. Section 17.06.050.N is hereby repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.A is adopted to read as follows: "Agricultural Uses. 1. Permitted Uses. The following agricultural uses are permitted by right in all zones, except the hillside residential and open space/conservation. Farms of orchards, trees, field crops, truck gardening, flowering gardening, and other similar enterprises carried on in the general field of agriculture. Raising, grazing, breeding, boarding or training of large or small animals, except concentrated lot feeding and commercial poultry and rabbit raising enterprises, are allowed on properties one-half net acre or larger in size subject to the following requirements: Large animals (cattle, horses and mules). Two animals per half- acre plus one additional animal for each additional half-acre of lot area. Animals under the age of twelve-months are not counted. ii. Small animals (burros, goats, pigs, ponies, and sheep). Two animals per half-acre plus three additional animals for each additional half-acre of lot area. Animals under the age of six- months are not counted. R:/Ords 2002/Ords 02-11 4 iii. Poultry. Limited to 50 poultry per acre. The minimum lot size for keeping poultry is one half-acre. For lots smaller than one acre, only 12 poultry are allowed. Poultry under the age of three- months are not counted. All poultry must be confined. The keeping of roosters is prohibited. iv, Outdoor Aviary. For lots larger than one acre, limited to fifty birds per acre. For lots smaller than one acre, limited to 24 birds. Birds under the age of six-months are not counted. All birds must be confined. All animals shall be kept a minimum distance of seventy (70) feet from any adjacent residence, school, hospital or church that is located on an adjacent property. This requirement applies to the location of corrals, fenced enclosures, barns, stables or other enclosures. In no event shall there be any limit to the permissible number of sheep which may be grazed per acre, where such grazing operation is conducted on fields for the purpose of cleaning up unharvested crops, stubble, volunteer or wild growth where such grazing operation is not conducted for more than four weeks in any six-month period. Apiary; provided, that all hives or boxes housing bees shall be placed at least four hundred (400) feet from any public streets or highways, any public school, park, property line to an a different ownership, or from any dwelling or place of human habitation other than that occupied by the owner or caretaker of the apiary. Additionally, a water source shall be provided on-site. Conditional Use Permit Required. The following agricultural uses are permitted with a conditional use permit, except in the open space/conservation zone. Wholesale distributor and processor of nursery-plant stock. Retail nursery where incidental and contiguous to propagation of nursery stock and/or wholesale distributor. Outdoor storage and display are prohibited except for nursery-plant stock. b. Dog kennels, dog training schools, and small animal shelters. c. Dog or cat breeding establishments with more than four adult animals. The raising of chinchilla, nutria, hamsters, guinea pigs, cavy, rabbits, and similar small animals. e. Frog farms. f. Worm farms. The keeping of exotic or wild animals, including the keeping of exotic or wild animals as pets." R:/Ords 2002/Ords 02-11 5 Section 4. Additional Supplemental Standards. Relocate the following Municipal Code sections to Chapter 17.10 as described below. A. Section 17.08.050.G is hereby repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.B is adopted to read as follows: "Alcoholic Beverage Sales. All businesses or establishments offering the sale of alcoholic beverages, except for the incidental sale of beer and wine at a restaurant, shall require the appropriate license from the state of California and the city and be subject to a conditional use permit. Any automotive service station which proposes to sell beer and wine concurrently with motor vehicle fuel shall require a conditional use permit which permit shall be subject to the provisions of Business and Professions Code Section 23790 et seq. and shall require that: a. The decision shall be based on written findings. A denial of an application for a conditional use permit is subject to appeal to the city council in accordance with Section 17.03.090 of this code. The same procedure for noticing, and conducting the conditional use permit hearing that is utilized by the city for all other conditional use permits shall be used to provide for all parties to be present and to present evidence. The decision and findings be based on substantial evidence in view of the whole record to justify the ultimate decision. The above businesses shall not be located within five hundred feet of any religious institution, school or public park. The license application shall be reviewed by the city's police services prior to city approval." B. Section 17.08.050.C is hereby repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.C is adopted to read as follows: "Amades. Arcades shall be approved subject to the approval of a conditional use permit by the planning commission. 1. Applications for an arcade shall include following: Three sets of typed gummed labels, listing the name and address of all businesses within a shopping center and all landowners within a three- hundred-foot radius of the shopping center or arcade. A description of the types of machines, a floor plan, and hours of operation. R:/Ords 2002/Ords 02-11 6 2. The planning commission may apply any condition deemed necessary. These conditions may address, but are not limited to, the following: a. Need for adult supervision; b. Hours of operation; c. Inside and outside security measures; d. Noise attenuation; e. Bicycle facilities; and, f. Interior waiting areas." C. Section 17.08.050.S is hereby repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.D is adopted to read as follows: "Automobile, Motomycle and Truck Dealership Landscape Standards. 1. Landscape Standards. The following standards shall be applied to all new automobile, motorcycle and truck dealerships or substantial alterations to existing automobile, motorcycle and truck dealerships. Display areas: a minimum five foot (5') wide landscape island shall be required at the end of all display area lanes adjacent to the main entry drive lane. A one-foot strip, made of concrete or other materials acceptable to the Community Development Director, shall be located next to the curb immediately adjacent to the end display parking space. Said landscape islands shall have a mixture of trees, shrubs and groundcover shall have automatic irrigation. Street frontages. All portions of the property which have street frontage shall meet one of the following criteria: A minimum of twelve feet (12') of landscaping shall be provided, measured from the rear of the sidewalk to the display area length and shall be surrounded by Iow growing shrubs, groundcover and turf; or ii. A minimum of twenty feet (20') of landscaping shall be provided, measured from the rear of the sidewalk to the display area, with display area allowed to encroach into eight feet (8') of the landscape area. (A) Display areas shall be paved with concrete, a maximum of twenty (20) feet in length and shall be surrounded by Iow growing shrubs, groundcover and turf. (B) The number of display areas allowed shall be calculated in the following manner: 3 display spaces per 100 linear feet R:/Ords 2002/Ords 02-11 7 of street frontage. Fractional spaces (0.5 and over) shall be rounded up. (c) No display area shall be located immediately adjacent to another display area. Landscaping shall be provided between display areas. Development adjacent to existing and proposed residential uses. All portions of the property which abut an existing or proposed residential use shall have a minimum ten foot (10') wide landscape buffer. All other portions of the property which do not abut a street or existing or proposed residential uses shall have a minimum five foot (5') wide landscape buffer. All customer parking on the site shall be clearly identified, either through special paint (i.e. curb painting) or signage and shall be subject to the landscape requirements contained in Section 17.24.050H of the Development Code. Service bays shall not be visible from a public street and shall be adequately screened from adjacent residential uses. Inventory and vehicle-in-repair storage areas on the site shall be clearly identified and will not need to be internally landscaped. If they are located on the perimeter or adjacent to residential development or sensitive areas they shall be screened in the manner discussed above." D. Section 17.08.050.F is hereby repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.E is adopted to read as follows: "Used Motor Vehicle Sales 0Nithout the sales of new motor vehicles). The minimum lot width of any site supporting a used motor vehicle sales business shall be one hundred feet. 2. The minimum lot area shall be ten thousand square feet. Buffer walls and landscaping shall be as provided as required for the zoning district in which the use is located. A building containing not less than two hundred square feet shall be maintained on the lot supporting the business. The building shall be a permanent structure; modular or portable buildings, or mobile homes are not permitted." E. Section 17.06.050.Q is hereby repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.F is adopted to read as follows: "Bed and Breakfast Establishments (B&Bs). Bed and breakfast establishments shall be developed in the following manner: R:/Ords 2002/Ords 02-11 8 1. The facility shall comply with all land use regulations and site development standards of the zoning district in which it is located. 2. The use shall be incidental to the primary use of the residential structure to ensure compatibility with adjacent residential uses. 3. Owner/lessee shall reside in the primary residence and operate the business. 4. The exterior appearance of the structure shall have a residential/single-family character. 5. Service of meals shall be for registered guests only. 6. There shall be no separate/additional kitchens for the guests. 7. No guest shall stay more than fourteen consecutive days in any thirty-day period. 8. All B&Bs shall be subject to the city's hotel/motel room tax. 9. B&Bs shall meet all of the requirements of the city fire department and county health department. 10. The B&B shall be developed on a site that has a minimum lot size of sixty thousand square feet. 11. No receptions, private parties or similar activities, for which a fee is paid shall be permitted." F. Section 17.08.050.D is hereby repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.G is adopted to read as follows: "Car Washes. A conditional use permit shall be required for all full-service or self-service car washes within the commercial districts. Car washes shall comply with the following criteria: 1. Such businesses shall be located at least two hundred feet from any residential district. 2. Wash bays and vacuum areas shall be screened from public view. 3. Regular monitoring of the facility by an attendant shall be provided during business hours to control noise, litter, and other nuisances. 4. Hours of operation shall be limited to seven a.m. to ten p.m., unless otherwise specifically established as a condition of approval. Automatic shut-off of water and electrical systems, except for security and fire protection, shall be provided during non-business hours." G. Section 17.08.050.B is hereby repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.H is adopted to read as follows: R:/Ords 2002/Ords 02-11 9 "Entertainment Establishments Providing Dancing, Music and Similar Activities. Noise levels shall not exceed the standards set forth in the noise element of the general plan or the environmental performance standards of this development code (Section 17.08.070). Dancing, music, and similar entertainment uses shall be limited to between the hours of six p.m. and two a.m. The city may apply additional requirements or limitations depending on the location, surrounding uses and other considerations" H. Section 17.08.050.O is hereby repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.J is adopted to read as follows: "Outdoor Sales of Memhandise. All businesses shall be conducted complete within an enclosed building. The following outdoor sales and commercial activities may be permitted to operate outdoors, within their respective districts and subject to any required reviews and permits. The outdoor display of merchandise accessory to an on- site business is addressed in Subsection K Automobile, boat, trailer, camper, and motorcycle sales and rentals (subject to a conditional use permit); Building material, supplies and equipment rental and sales (subject to a conditional use permit); 3. Fruit and vegetable stands (required temporary use permit); 4. Horticultural nurseries (subject to a conditional use permit); 5. Gasoline pumps, oil racks and accessory items when located on pump islands; 6. Outdoor recreation uses; Parking lot and sidewalk sales (subject to temporary use permit and regulations set forth in this chapter); and Other activities and uses similar to those above as determined by the director of planning." I. Section 17.08.050.P is hereby repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.K is adopted to read as follows: "Outdoor Display of Merchandise Accessory to Current On-Site Business. Any outdoor display must be done in conjunction with the business being conducted within the building and shall comply with the following regulations: The items being displayed shall be of the same type that are lawfully displayed and sold inside the building on the premises. R:/Ords 2002/Ords 02-11 10 2. The aggregate display area shall not exceed twenty-five percent of the linear frontage of the store front or ten linear feet, whichever is greater. 3. Items shall not project more than four feet from the store front. No item, or any portion thereof, shall be displayed on public property; provided, however, items may be displayed within the public right-of-way if an encroachment permit has first been procured from the city. Items shall be displayed only during the hours that the business conducted inside the building on the premises is open for business. No item shall be displayed in a manner that: causes a safety hazard; obstructs the entrance to any building; interferes with, or impedes the flow of pedestrian or vehicle traffic; is unsightly or creams any other condition that is detrimental to the appearance of the premises or any surrounding property; or in any other manner is detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or causes a public nuisance." J. Section 17.08.050.E is hereby repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.L is adopted to read as follows: "Permanent Indoor Swap Meet Facilities. Indoor swap meets shall be established only in buildings containing five thousand square feet or more of gross floor area. City business licenses and state seller permits shall be obtained by every tenant operating a stall space. No more than one business license shall be granted per one hundred fifty square feet of building floor area. The minimum average square footage of a partitioned cubicle or stall space (booth) shall be one hundred fifty square feet. The minimum size for an individual stall shall be one hundred square feet, and no more than twenty-five stall spaces shall be permitted to contain one hundred square feet. No adult business, as defined in the Temecula Municipal Code shall be permitted. No loudspeakers or sound equipment which can be heard from exterior or semipublic areas shall be used on the premises. Each stall space shall be partitioned with partition walls at a height of not less than five feet, six inches. Scissor-type gating shall not be used to separate vendors or vending areas. All floor areas of indoor tenant spaces, shall be covered with a high-grade tile or carpeting. 9. Aisles shall have a minimum width of seven feet. R:/Ords 2002/Ords 02-11 11 10. Security personnel shall be provided during hours of operation." K. Section 17.06050.H is hereby repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.M is adopted to read as follows: "Senior Housing/Congregate Care Facilities/Affordable Housing. Senior housing, congregate care facilities, and affordable housing projects are permitted in the zoning districts identified below subject to the approval of a development plan. Affordable senior housing projects shall comply with the affordable housing provisions contained in Subsection 0.3. Senior housing shall comply with all the provisions of the Development Code unless modified by the following provisions: a. The maximum densities for senior housing projects are as follows: In the H residential zoning district, the maximum density shall be thirty (30) units per acre. ii. In the M residential zoning district, the maximum density shall be twenty (20) units per acre. iii. In the LM, L-2, and L-1 residential zoning districts the maximum density shall be eight (8) units per acre. iv. In all approved Specific Plans, the maximum density shall not exceed 50% of the target density in the planning area. The net livable area for each dwelling unit shall not be less than four hundred (400) square feet for an efficiency unit, five hundred fifty (550) square feet for a one-bedroom unit, and seven hundred (700) square feet for a two-bedroom unit. Kitchenettes may be permitted, provided they are sized to meet the immediate needs of the occupants of the unit. Congregate care projects shall comply with all the provisions of the Development Code unless modified by the following provisions: The maximum densities for congregate care facilities are not limited specifically to density requirements so long as all the site development standards are met (i.e. required setbacks, parking, landscaping, open space, etc.) The handicapped units shall comply with the standards set forth in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations. Affordable housing and affordable senior housing projects are entitled to receive various incentives provided the project meets the requirements of Section 65915 of the California Government Code. Affordable housing projects will receive at least one incentive from Subsection 3.a and at least one concession from Subsection 3.b. The project incentives and concessions are as follows: R:/Ords 2002/Orals 02-11 12 Density Incentives. Affordable housing projects are entitled to receive an increase in the allowable density of at least 25% over the density target in each residential zoning district. The maximum densities for affordable housing projects are as follows: In the H residential zoning district, the maximum density shall be thirty (30) units per acre. ii. In the M residential zoning district, the maximum density shall be eighteen (18) units per acre. iii. In the LM residential zoning district, the maximum density shall be eight (8) units per acre. iV, In all approved Specific Plans, the maximum density bonus shall not exceed 50% of the target density in the planning area. Development Standard Concessions. Any of the following development standard concessions may be granted by the approval authority for the project, unless a finding is made that these concessions are not necessary to provide the affordable housing units being proposed: i, An increase in the amount of required lot coverage; ii. A modification to the setback or required yard provisions; iii. An increase in the maximum allowable building height; iv. A reduction in the amount of required on-site parking; A reduction in the amount of onsite landscaping, except that no reduction in on-site recreational amenities may not be approved unless the affordable housing is in a close and easily accessible proximity to a public park with recreational amenities; vi. A reduction in the minimum lot area; or, vii. Approval of an affordable housing project in the Professional Office zone with the approval of a conditional use permit. The provisions of this Subsection also apply to all approved specific plans within the City of Temecula unless the specific plan contains specific standards for the type of housing being considered." L. Section 17.08.050.R is hereby repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.N is adopted to read as follows: "Self-Storage or Mini-Warehouse Facilities. Development Standards. The following standards shall be applied to all new self-storage or mini-warehouse facilities: R:/Ords 2002/Ords 02-11 13 The design of the facility shall be compatible with the surrounding area in terms of design, bulk and mass, materials and colors. Building exteriors shall not be corrugated metal or similar surface, but shall be of finished quality. Metal containers are prohibited. In commercial zoning districts the rear and side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 10 feet. In industrial zoning districts no rear or side yard setbacks are required. The director of planning may increase the setbacks to a maximum of 25 feet when adjacent to an existing residential development project. The front yard setback shall maintain the setback for the underlying zoning classification. c. The maximum lot coverage shall be 65 percent. The development site shall provide a minimum of 10% landscaped open space for a project within commemial districts. In industrial districts, the total landscaping shall be equal to the required setback areas. No interior landscaping is required, but the setback areas shall be landscaped. e. A manager's residential unit may be provided, but is not required. Required parking spaces may not be rented as, or used for, vehicular storage. However, additional parking area may be provided for vehicles, boats, buses, trailers, etc., provided that the storage area is adequately screened from public view with enhanced landscaping, decorative walls, fences, or other methods as deemed appropriate by the director. 2. Performance and Use Regulations Any business activity, other than rental of storage units, including the on- site sale of merchandize or garage sales, and transfer/storage businesses which utilize vehicles as part of the business is prohibited. No servicing or repair of motor vehicles, boats, trailers, lawn mowers, or any similar equipment is permitted. Storage units shall not be used for the storage of flammable liquids, highly combustible or explosive materials, or hazardous chemicals. Truck or vehicle rental is prohibited without obtaining all necessary approvals subject to the Development Code Schedule of Permitted Uses." M. Section 17.08.050.M is hereby repealed and a new Section 17.10.020.O is adopted to read as follows: "Drive-Thru Facilities. Commercial uses including restaurants, financial institutions or other business providing drive-thru facilities shall be subject to the following requirements. 1. All drive-thru facilities shall require the approval of a conditional use permit. R:/Ords 2002/Ords 02-11 14 Pedestrian walkways should not intersect the drive-thru aisles. If pedestrian walkways do cross the d. rive aisles, they shall be clearly marked with paving or striping. Drive-thru aisle shall have a minimum width of eleven feet on the straight sections and twelve feet on curved portions. For fast food restaurants, the drive-thru aisles shall have a sufficient stacking area behind the menu board to accommodate six cars. The speakers shall be located so as to protect adjoining residential areas from excessive noise." N. Renumber the remaining subsection of Sections 17.06.050 and 17.08.050 and make the appropriate code section references to reflect the renumbered subsection numbering. O. Amend Footnote No. 1 to Table 17.06.030 to read as follows: "1. Affordable housing and congregate care facilities may exceed the stated densities pursuant to the provisions of Section 17.10.020.M." P. Add Footnote No. 6 to Table 17.06.030 to read as follows: "6. Subject to the supplemental development standards contained in Chapter 17.10." Q. Amend Table 17.06.030 to include the reference to Footnote No. 6 to the following uses: Bed and breakfast establishments, Congregate care residential facilities for the elderly, and Agricultural/open space uses, Kennels and catteries, and the Noncommercial keeping of horses, cattle, sheep and goats. R. Replace Footnote No. 1 of Table 17.08.030 to read as follows: "6. Subject to the supplemental development standards contained in Chapter 17.10." S. Delete Footnote Nos. 4 and 6 from the end of Table 17.08.030 and replace the existing Footnote Nos. 4 and 6 with a Footnote No. 1. T. Amend Footnote No. 5, and renumber to become Footnote No. 4, of Table 17.08.030, to read as follows: "4. In addition to any applicable supplemental development standards listed in Chapter 17.10, senior housing residential projects in the CC, SC, HT, and PO zones shall use the development and performance standards for the High Density Residential zone. Senior housing residential projects in the NC zone shall use the development and performance standards for the Medium Density Residential zone and the applicable supplemental development standards in Chapter 17.10." U. Amend Table 17.08.030 by removing the existing footnote references to Footnote Nos. 4, 5, and 6 and add a reference to Footnote No. 1 for the following uses: Alcoholic beverage sales, Arcades (pinball and video games), Automobile dealers (new and used), Automobile service stations with or without an automated car wash, Automobile service stations selling beer and/or wine-with or without an automated car wash, Banks and financial institutions, Congregate care housing for the elderly, Restaurant drive-in/fast food, Swap Meet, entirely inside a permanent building." R:/Ords 2002/Ords 02-11 15 V. Add Footnote No. 2 to Table 17.12.030 to read as follows: "2. Subject to the supplemental development standards contained in Chapter 17.10." W. Amend Table 17.12.030 to include the reference to Footnote No. 2 to the following uses: Congregate care housing, Congregate care living facility, Residential care facility for the elderly, and Residential-senior housing. Section 5. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. Section 6. Environmental Compliance. The proposed amendment represents a labeling change to more accurately reflect how those sections of the Development Code operate when implemented. No additional development will result from this amendment and no changes to the environment will occur from the adoption of this Ordinance. As a result, the ordinance is not a project as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act and is exempt from further review or analysis. Section 7. Notice of Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places. Section 9. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage; and within fifteen (15) days after its passage, together with the names of the City Council members voting thereon, it shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in said City. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of November, 2002. A'I-rEST: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] R:/Ords 2002/Ords 02-11 16 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 02-11 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 12th day of November, 2002 and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 26th day of November, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:/Ords 200P_/Ords 02-11 17 ITEM 9 ORDINANCE 02-12 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AMENDING TITLE 17 RELATING TO THE STANDARDS FOR LARGE FAMILY DAY CARE HOME FACILITIES (PLANNING APPLICATION 99-0382) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the Planning Staff prepared Planning Application No. 99-0382 (the "Application") in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance; WHEREAS, the Planning Application No. 99-0382 (the "Application") has been prepared in a manner in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Application on October 2, 2002, at after a duly noticed public hearing recommended that the City Council adopted the proposed ordinance; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearings and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, Temecula Library, Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has held a duly noticed public hearing on November 12, 2002 to consider the proposed amendments to the City Zoning Map and the Temecula Municipal Code. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 17.06.050.J of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "J. Family Day Care Home Facilities. Small family day care home facilities, as defined in Chapter 3.4, Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, are permitted in all residential zoning districts. Although no specific permit is required, compliance with the performance standards contained in Section 17.06.050.J.3 of the Temecula Municipal Code is required. 2. Large family day care home facilities, as defined in Chapter 3.4, Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, are permitted in all single family zoning districts R:/Ords 2002/Ords 02-__ I with the approval of a permit for a large family day care home facility pursuant to the provisions of Section 17.04.050 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Compliance with the performance standards contained in Sections 17.08.050.J.3 and J.4 of the Temecula Municipal Code are required. 3. All day care home facilities shall comply with the following requirements. a. All day care facilities shall be state licensed and shall be operated according to all applicable State and local health and safety requirements and regulations. b. The facility shall comply with all land use regulations and site development standards of the zoning district in which it is located. c. An outdoor play area shall be located in the rear yard area. Stationary play equipment shall not be located in required side yard setbacks or in the actual front yard. The outdoor play areas shall be securely locked and appropriately landscaped. d. A solid decorative fence or wall at least five feet in height shall be constructed on all property lines, except in the front yard. Materials, textures, colors, and design of the fence or wall shall be compatible with on-site and adjacent properties. All fences and walls shall provide for safety with controlled points of entry. e. All on-site lighting shall be stationary, directed away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way, and of an intensity appropriate to the use it is serving. f. Outdoor playtimes must be limited to between the hours of 8:00 a.m to 7:00 p.m. g. On- or off-street parking must be adequate enough to accommodate both employee parking and passenger loading and unloading. Parking and loading/unloading areas must not restrict access to neighboring properties or utilize the parking space of neighboring properties. 4. In addition to the provisions of Subsection J.3 above, large family day care home facilities shall comply with the following requirements. a. In all single family zoning districts and planning areas, large family day care home facilities shall not be located any closer than: i. Three hundred (300) feet of another large family day care home facility, and ii. Six hundred (600) feet of another large family day care home facility when the most reasonable direct route from the arterial road network to each site utilizes the same residential streets. b. Large Family Day Care Home facilities must provide one (1) off- street employee parking space. The parking space may be in the third space of an extra wide driveway or in the garage. At least two driveway spaces shall be open for access and loading. c. At least one (1) loading space, either in the driveway of the home, or at the curb immediately in front of the home, must be available for passenger loading and unloading. d. Any additional design or operational requirements that may be necessary to ensure compatibility of the facility with the surrounding R:/Ords 2002/Ords 02-__ 2 area and protect the public health and safety." Section 2. Section 17.04.050 creating Large Family Day Care Permits is hereby added to the Temecula Municipal Code to read as follows: "17.04.050 Large Family Day Care Permits Purpose and Intent. A large family day care permit is intended to allow the establishment of large family day care home facilities, as defined in Chapter 3.4, Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding area and that protects the general public health, safety and welfare. Application Requirements. Applications for large family day care permits shall be completed in accordance with the Section 17.03.030 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Notice. Upon the determination that a large family day care permit application is complete, the following shall occur: 1. A public notice shall be sent to every residence within three hundred (300) feet of the site. The notice shall be mailed first class and postage pre-paid to the applicant and all occupants (at the site address) and property owners. The Notice shall indicate the following information: a. The location and address of the proposed large family day care home facility. b. A description of the proposed activity, including the maximum number of permitted children and the days of the week and hours of the day that the facility is proposed to operate. c. A statement that the City will hold a hearing for the proposed use. The statement will inform the recipients of their right to attend the hearing and raise their issues and concerns regarding the proposed use. The requirements of Section 17.03.040.B.2 of the Temecula Municipal Code to notify at least thirty (30) property owners does not apply to the requirements of this hearing notice. Approval. A large family day care permit may be approved, conditionally approved or denied after a public hearing. As determined to be necessary and appropriate, the director may refer any application to the Planning Commission. Decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council, pursuant to Section 17.03.090 of the Temecula Municipal Code. Findings. The Director of Planning, may approve or conditionally approve a large family day care permit only when the following findings can be made: 2. The proposed use is compatible with the nature, character and use of the surrounding area. 3. The proposed use will not adversely affect adjacent residents or structures. 4. The nature and location of the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of the community and does not concentrate children in a dangerous R:/Ords 2002/Ords 02-_ 3 Code. location. Notice of Decision. A copy of the notice of decision shall be provided to the applicant in accordance with Section 17.03.040.E of the Temecula Municipal Code. Revocation. A large family day care permit may be revoked or modified by the director in accordance with the provisions of Section 17.03.080 of the Temecula Municipal Code." Section 3. The following minor changes are hereby made to the Temecula Municipal Table 17.03.010 of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended to add the following row: Administrative Planning Planning City Approval Approval Director Commissio Council n Large Family Day X Care Home Facility Footnote 1 of Table 17.06.040 is hereby amended to read as follows: "Subject to the provisions of Section 17.04.050 and Section 17.06.050.J., Family Day Care Home Design Standards." SECTION 4. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places. SECTION 6. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage; and within fifteen (15) days after its passage, together with the names of the City Councilmembers voting thereon, it shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in said City. SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. R:/Ords 2002/Ords 02-__ 4 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of November, 2002. Ron Roberts, Mayor A'FI'EST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 02-12 was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 12th day of November, 2002, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 26th day of November, 2002, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:/Ords 2002/Ords 02-__ 5 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ITEM 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT NOVEMBER 12, 2002 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 7:24 P.M., at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. President Stone presiding. ROLL CALL PRESENT: 4 DIRECTORS: Comerchero, Naggar, Roberts, Pratt ABSENT: 1 DIRECTORS: Stone Also present were General Manager Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and City Clerk Jones. PUBLIC COMMENTS No comments. CONSENT CALENDAR Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of October 22, 2002. MOTION: Director Naggar moved to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by Director Comerchero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of President Stone who was absent. PUBLIC HEARING 2 Tract Map No. 23209 - Service Level B, Proposed Residential Street Li.qhtin.q Serv ce Leve C, Perimeter Landscapin.q and Slope Maintenance and Service Level D, Trash and Recycl[n¢! Collection Services Rates and Charqes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: Minutes,csd\111202 1 RESOLUTION NO. CSD 02-10 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT ORDERING, CALLING, AND GIVING NOTICE OF AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON JANUARY 6, 2003, REGARDING SERVICE LEVEL B AND SERVICE LEVEL C RATES AND CHARGES FOR TRACT MAP NO. 23209 IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH SERVICE LEVEL B AND SERVICE LEVEL C RATES AND CHARGES BEGINNING FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XlIID, SECTION 6, OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION 2.2 Approve the Election Notice Ballot, Procedures for the Completion, Return, and Tabulation of the Ballots; 2.3 Authorize staff to mail the ballots to the affected property owners pursuant to the aforementioned process. MOTION: Director Naggar moved to approve staff recommendation with the adoption of Resolution No. CSD 02-10. The motion was seconded by Director Comerchero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of President Stone who was absent. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT No comment. GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT No comment. BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS No comments. ADJOURNMENT At 7:28 P.M., the Temecula Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, December 10, 2002, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. ATTEST: Jeffrey E. Stone, President Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk/District Secretary [SEAL] Minutes,csd\l 11202 2 TCSD DEPARTMENTAL REPORT APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OFTEMECULA AGENDA REPORT Board of Directors Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Servic~ November 26, 2002 Departmental Report PREPARED BY: Gail L. Zigler, Administrative Secretary The Master Plan for the Temecula Public Library was adopted at the September 26, 2000 City Council Meeting. Staff has negotiated a contract with LPA for the final construction documents and specifications for the Temecula Public Library. Staff is resolving the final issue with the construction documents and they will be submitted for final plan check. Staff released an RFQ for grant writing services to apply for the California State Library's Bond Act 2000. Staff and the consultant worked tirelessly to complete the grant application, which was delivered in person by Phyllis Ruse and Aaron Adams to Sacramento on June 13, 2002. The Board of Directors awarded a construction contract to R.E. Flemming, Inc. at their September 17, 2002 Board meeting. This contract will construct the white box tenant improvements for the Children's Museum. These improvements will include replacement of the roof, replacement of the wood siding on the building, reconstruction of the porch area and also reconstruction of the restroom facilities, office space and the driveway entry. The exhibitry for the interior of the building is under construction and progressing well in San Diego at the warehouse of Sparks Exhibits and Environment. Exhibits are currently under construction and installation should begin sometime in the near future. RHA Landscape Architects is preparing the construction documents for the improvements to Vail Ranch Park Site "C" adjacent to Pauba Elementary School. This project is identified in this year's ClP. The new amenities will include a tot lot, picnic shelter, tables, benches and walkways. The Community Services Commission reviewed and approved the conceptual master plan at their February 11, 2002 Commission meeting. This project is currently in plan check. The conceptual Master Plan for the Wolf Creek Sports Complex will go forward to the Community Services Commission on Monday, December 9, 2002. Following the Commission's recommendation, the conceptual Master Plan will go forward to the Board of Directors at their first meeting in January of 2003. The Wolf Creek Sports Complex is 43 acre park which proposes parking, restroom/concession buildings, maintenance building, four lighted basketball courts, four lighted soccer and four lighted softball/baseball fields, tot play equipment, picnic areas and walkways. R:~ZIGLERGLXDEPTRPT~I 102.doc November 20, 2002 The Development Services Division continues to participate in the development review for projects within the City including Wolf Creek, Roripaugh, Villages of Old Town and Harveston, as well as overseeing the development of parks and recreation facilities, and the contract for refuse and recycling, cable television services and assessment administration. The Maintenance Division continues to oversee the maintenance of parks and recreation facilities and assist in all aspects of Citywide special events. The Recreation Division is currently planning for the upcoming holiday festivities including the Holiday Tree Lighting Ceremony to be held Thursday, December 5, 2002 at the Temecula Duck Pond, Winter Wonderland, December 7, 2002, Temecula's Electric Light Parade to be held Friday, December 13, 2002 and the Annual Holiday Lights and Festive Sights. In addition, staff is putting the final touches on the WintedSpring 2003 Guide To Leisure Activities, which will be mailed out to Temecula residents the first week of December 2002. R:~ZIGLERGLXDEPTRPTX 1102.doc November 20, 2002 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ITEM 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY NOVEMBER 12, 2002 A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 7:28 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula. ROLL CALL PRESENT: 4 AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Pratt, Roberts, and Naggar ABSENT: 1 AGENCY MEMBER: Stone Also present were Executive Director Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and City Clerk Jones. PUBLIC COMMENTS No input. CONSENT CALENDAR 1 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of October 22, 2002. MOTION: Agency Member Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1. The motion was seconded by Agency Member Roberts and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Agency Member Stone who was absent. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT No comment. AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS No comment. R:\Minutes.rda\1111202 1 ADJOURNMENT At 7:29 P.M., the Temecula Redevelopment Agency meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, December 10, 2002, in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, California. Jeff Comerchero, Chairman ATTEST: Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk/Agency Secretary [SEAL] R:\Minutes,rda\l 111202 2 RDA DEPARTMENTAL REPORT APPROVAL CITY A'i-rORNEY FINANCE DIRECTOR. CITY MANAGER _~__~ TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Executive Director/Redevelopment Agency Members John Meyer, Redevelopment Director ~ November 26, 2002 Monthly Departmental Report Attached for your information is the monthly report as of November 26, 2002 for thc Redevelopment Department. First Time Homebuyers Program Funding in the amount of $200,000 is available for FY 02 -03. Residential Improvement Programs The program budget for FY 01/02 was $250,000 and $237,192 was funded on 57 units. The program budget for FY 02~03 is $250,000, with $96,000 funded on 20 units. Affordable Housing The Planning Commission approved the tentative map on August 21. The project is currently in plan check. Old Town Community Theater The Architect has submitted the construction drawings to the City for plan check. The Mercantile Buildin.q Retrofit Council approved the construction contract for the retrofit on August 13, 2002- The retrofit has begun with an estimated construction period of 60-90 days. R:\SYE RS K'uMO NTH LLY~reportnov2002.doc 1 Facade ImprovementJNon-Conformin~ Sic~n Pro.qram The following facade improvement/sign projects are in process or have recently been completed: · Old Town Plaza Lighting/Sign Program · Penfold Building Sign Program · The Junk Yard Sign Program · Old Town Root Beer Sign Program · Temecula Country Store Sign Program · Fuzzy Elephant Sign Program Old Town PromotionslMarketin,q Erie Stanley Gardiner The Agency, in conjunction with the Temecula Museum and Temecula Valley Players sponsored the Ede Stanley Gardner Murder Mystery Weekend on November 2 and 3, 2002 in Old Town Temecula. The weekend kicked off with a presentation of "Erie Stanley Gardner's Lifetime" by Columnist John Hunneman at the Mary Phillips Senior Center; a mystery writing competition for youth and adults; Writing Seminars /Discussions with authors, Special Guests, featuring Mr. Gardner's secretaries, Betty Burke and Lillie Golden; an Erie Stanley Gardner Exhibit at the Temecula Valley Museum, a Erie Stanley Gardner fiim Debut never before seen on "The Six or Seven Lives of Erie Stanley Gardner." In addition, a Murder Mystery Contest was conducted in which a cast of characters strolled through Old Town leaving various clues for contestants to solve the Perry Mason Murder Mystery. Contestants were asked to determine the murderer and the motive and fill out the contest applications and submit their entries to the Museum. The weekend concluded on Sunday as the Temecula Valley Players performed the Perry Mason Murder Mystery script in its entirety to reveal the murderer and the winner of the contest. DICKENS CHRISTMAS IN OLD TOWN Santa arrives in Old Town Saturday, November 23rd to kick off Dickens Christmas in Old Town Temecula. Dickens carolers will be serenading Santa as he makes his ride through Old Town on a horse-drawn sleigh. The Temecula Vintage Singers will be riding aboard a horse-drawn trolley from 12 noon to 2 p.m. and the trolley will be providing free R:\SYERS K'~IONTH LLY~report n ov2002.doc 2 rides to the public until 5 p.m. Temecula's Frontier Days Rodeo Queens will also help escort Santa to his destination. Visits and photos with Santa will be available every Saturday and Sunday from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. at 3rd and Front Street in Old Town Temecula. The event will consist of carolers, bell-ringing choirs, and children dancing to holiday tunes, holiday decorations and a variety of live bands. The Old Town Temecula Stage will feature a variety of musical performances every weekend from November 30 through December 22. R:\SYERSK\MONTHLLY~reportnov2002.doc 3 I I eI Saturday & Sunday 1 N°vember 2 and 2002,.w ,, and Temecula Valley Players MURDER MYSTERY CONTEST Watch for clues throughout Old Town Temecula all Weekend as our Cast of Characters stroll through town. 694-6412 Weekend or visit the website at www. temeculacalifornia.com Crime Clue Locations Country Porch (Front St) The Sh~re (Front a r'l~) Texas Ubs (5t~ and Main) TemeculaVaL-y Mu~dm Painted Garde~ (St~ S~-eet) Nam's An~ques (Front &3rd) County S~re (From St.) Wild Cactus (From St) (St~ O.my) Rooster Creek (Butter'Id Square) Calico Coffee (Front Street) The Grange Il (Front S~eet) Serend~ity (Hain Street) T,~n ecuh Olive Oil Company The J~'~d (F~o~t S.'eet) Rosas CantJna (Front& Main) ChaparralAr~que Mall (From S~reet) Te~ecula Smoke gnoppe (Front Sa'eet) V'mtage Friends (5th and Front Se~et) J. Gordon & Co. (Main Street)Temecula Temecuh Root Beer Company (Front St.) Temecula Olive Oil Company Country Porch Countrf Store/Junkyard Temecula Valley Museum Performances and Suspect Si_~htin~ Country Sellers/The Shire Come- of Front Street and Main Street Oancters aed dues perbTred (OIdTemeculaJai] CO~ throu~ Nana~ Amique Fark~ng Lot) Characters and due~ penS:~med ~ and dues performed Comer of Old Town Front Slreet and 3rd Street Characters and due~ peformed Characten and dues peformed Characters and dues peformed Characters and dues pefonned Comer of Moreno Road aed Hercedes Smeet Erie S~nley Gardner spea~ Erie S~nle/Gardner spe~s MURDER MYSTERY ENTRY BLANK Saturday II zn~and 21xr~ Saturday I I~r~and 3 Fn~ Saturday 2 p~ Sunday I I a~z Saturday 3'~0 ~ Saturday 1:30 p.nt Sunday 1:30 p.m. Guess the murderer and motive. Correct guesses will be placed into a drawing for the $S00 shopping spree. No purchase is necessary. Clues will be performed and available throushout Old Town Temecu h on Novembe~ 2 ~nd 3, 2003. Perry Mason Mystery Performance, Sunday, November 3rd at the Mary Phillips Senior Center will reveal murderer and motive. Orawin~ for shoppin~ spree will be conducted at the end of the Perry iVlason performance. ENTRANTS NAME: ADDRESS: PHONE # killed Donald Briggs because Submit Entry Blank at Temo~da Valley Muse--m or paflieipating meP~h~w~s. ERLE STANLEY GARDNER MURDER MYSTERY WEEKEND NOVEMBER 2~ & 3~° MYSTERY SOLVING CONTEST Erie Stanley Gardner Mystery Weekend in Old Town Temecula November 2 and 3 Erie Stanley Gardiner was the creator of the Perry Mason Series and wrote 82 novels featuring crime-solving attorney Perry Mason. He was a resident of Temecula since 1937 where he continued to write for the next three decades until he passed away in 1970. A series of clues will be performed and left around town for snooping sleuths to use in the Mystery Solving Contest (see attached schedule for times and locations) Written clues will also be provided throughout Old Town Temecula Contestants are asked to determine the murderer and the motive and fill out the contest application, which is available around Old Town or the Temecula Valley Museum and submitted to most of the Old Town Merchants/Shops (See Attached Application Form) On Sunday, November 3 at 2:00 p.m. all entries will be collected and correct answers sorted from the entry forms ~, 3:00 p.m. the Temecula Valley Players will perform the Perry Mason script in its entirety and reveal the murderer Correct entries will be placed in a drawing with winner receiving a $50 shopping spree in Old Town Temecula R:~Special EventsXEARL STANLEY OARDINER~cheat sheet.doc MYSTERY WRITER CONTEST WINNER TO BE AWARDED ON SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 3 AT TIlE CONCLUSION OF THE ERLE STANLEY GARDNER MYSTERY WEEKEND Amateur adults and youths in middle and high school submitted brief mystery stories to be judged by a panel. The winners will be awarded on Sunday, November 3 at the conclusion of the Erle Stanley Gardner Mystery Weekend. Winning entries in the adult category will receive: $200 for first place; $100 for second place; $50 for third place. Winning entries in the school categories will receive $100 Savings Bond for first place; $50 Savings Bond for second place and $25 Savings Bond for third place. All entries in all levels will receive certificates of participation. WORKSHOPS/SPECIAL GUESTS Workshops begin Saturday at 1 p.m. with an informative talk on the life and history of Erie Stanley Gardner by columnist John Hurmeman who has studied the background of Erle Stanley Gardner At the conclusion of his talk Hunneman will introduce two of Erle Stanley Gardner's secretaries, Betty Burke and Lilie Golden. Workshops will follow throughout the day (See Attached Schedule of Times and Locations) ERLE STANLEY GARDNER EXHIBIT AT TEMECULA VALLEY MUSEUM An Exhibit of books, photographs and other memorabilia will be displayed at the Temecula Valley Museum through November 24 ERLE STANELY GARDNER FILM DEBUT - MARY PHILIPS SENIOR CENTER - NOVEMBER 2, 4:00 P.M. Old Town Temecula's Murder Mystery Weekend has uncovered some lost unpublished footage of the Perry Mason creator Erle Stanley Gardner. A biography rifled the "The Six or Seven Lives of Erle Stanley Gardner", produced by J. Douglas Allen and Robert de Roos will debut Saturday, November 2nd at 4:00 p.m. at the Mary Phillips Senior Center. RssPCCial Evcnts~BARL STAlqLEY GARDINER~cheat sheet.doc SCHEDULE OFEVENTS SATURDAY~ NOVEMBER 2 10 AM Temecula Valley Museum Exhibit "Erie Stanley Gardner - Mystery Writer" 11 AM-5 PM Murder Mystery Clues performed throughout Old Town Temecula 1 PM "Erie Stanley Gardner's Lifetime" by Columnist John Hunneman at Mary Phillips Senior Center 1:40 PM Introduction of special guests Mr. Gardner's seereataries Betty Burke and Lille Golden at Mary Phillips Senior Center Mystery Writer Lecture - Marilyn Meredith Mary Phillips Senior Center Mystery Writer Lecture - Martha Laurence Mary Phillips Senior Center Workshop/Discussions with authors Mary Phillips Senior Center "The Six or Seven Lives of Erie Stanley Gardner" a biography filmed by Doug Allen 2:00 PM 2:45 PM 3:30 PM 4:00-5:30 PM SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 3 11 AM-2 PM Murder Mystery Clues performed throughout Old Town Temecula 1:30 PM Mystery Writer Lecture and Workshop Barbara Seranella at Temecula Valley Museum 2 PM Mystery Contest entries due 3 PM 4 PM Perry Mason Mystery Show performance by Temecula Valley Players where murder and motive are revealed. Winner of Shopping Spree Drawn I PM-5PM Temecula Valley Museum Exhibit "Erie Stanley Gardner" ITEM 1 0 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: AP PROV'~.Z,,~ CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINA~C.E, CITY MANAGER CITY OFTEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager November 26, 2002 Roripaugh Ranch Project and Related Applications: Planning Application No. - 94-0073 - Annexation Planning Application No. 99-0298 - General Plan Amendment Planning Application No. 94-0075 - Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Planning Application No. - 94-0075 - Change of Zone Planning Application No. 94-0076 - Environmental Impact Report Planning Application No. -01-0253 - Tentative Tract Map No. 29661 Planning Application No. 01-0230 - Tentative Tract Map No. 29353 Planning Application No. 99-0299 - Development Agreement Prepared by: Saied Naaseh, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council: 1. ADOPT a resolution entitled: CC RESOLUTION NO. 2002 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED PLANNING APPLICATIONS ACTIONS AND ADOPTING THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND THE STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED NEAR THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF BUTI'ERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD. (PLANNING APPLICATION 94-0076). R:\S PhRoripaugh Ranch SPXnew\CCXStaff Report 11-26-02 A.doc 2. ADOPT a resolution entitled: CC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99- 0298 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) FOR THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AND ADOPTING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 11 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0075) ON PARCELS TOTALING 804.7 ACRES LOCATED NEAR THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF BUTI'ERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 957-130-001 AND 002, 957-340-001,003, 007,008, AND 958-260-001 AND 002. READ by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 2002- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0075 (DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT) AMENDING SECTION 17.16.070 TO INCLUDE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 11, ADOPTING THE DEVELOPMENT AND ZONING STANDARDS, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AND PRE-ZONING THE VALLEY NEIGHBORHOOD AS SPECIFIC PLAN ON PARCELS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 804.7 ACRES LOCATED NEAR THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF BU'I'FERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD, AND FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 957-130-001 AND 002,957-340-001,003, 007, 008, AND 958- 260-001 AND 002. READ by title only and introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 2002- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CERTAIN AGREEMENT ENTITLED "DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND ASHBY USA, LLC" FOR THE RORIAPUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN, (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-0299). ADOPT a resolution entitled: CC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0230 - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29353, A SUBDIVISION OF 804.7 ACRES INTO 39 LOTS AND 8 STREET LOTS WITHIN THE R:~S P~Rofipaugh Ranch SP~new\CC~S~aff Report I 1-26~)2 A.doc 2 RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED NEAR THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD, AND FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 957-130-001 and 002, 957-340-001,003, 007, 008, AND 958-260-001 AND 002. 6. ADOPT a resolution entitled: CC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA01- 0253 (TTM 29661), FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 158 ACRES INTO 509 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 20 OPEN SAPCE LOTS WITHIN PLANING AREAS lA, 1,B, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 5, 6, 7A, 7B, 7C, 8, and 9A OF THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN; LOCATED NEAR THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF BUTrERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD, AND FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 957-130-001 AND 002, 957-340-001,003, 007, 008. BACKGROUND This project has been in the planning stage for over 10 years. Since that time, not only has the size and layout of the project changed, so has the applicant. The current applicant began work on this project in late 1999. Two Community Meetings and several Subcommittee Meetings were held after the Planning Commission hearings in 2001. During the past year, staff and the applicant have worked together to finalize the details of the project that is presented in this staff report. On October 16, 2002 and October 30, 2002, the Planning Commission held hearings, took public testimony, and recommended approval of the project with some modifications that will be discussed later in the staff report (4-1 vote). Chairman Chiniaeff voted no, clarifying that he was not opposed to the project but strongly opposed to the proposal to not extend Calle Contento through the project. Attachments 7 through 10 include the Planning Commission Staff Reports and draft minutes. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan includes the following: General Plan Amendment Approve a General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element: · To incorporate the proposed land uses by the project. · To incorporate the annexation area into the City Limits. · To add Planning Areas 33A and 33B to the Specific Plan Overlay Exhibit. Approve a General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element: · To eliminate the connection between Nicolas Road and Calle Contento through the project. · To change the designation of Butterfield Stage Road between Murrieta Hot Springs Road and R:\S PXRofipaugh Ranch SP~ew\CC~Staff Report 11-26~}2 A.doc 3 Nicolas Road from 110' (Arterial Highway with 4 lanes) to Specific Plan Road, add North and South Loop Roads as Specific Plan Road, and add streets A and B as Collector Road. Zone Change Approve a Zone Change: · To pre-zone the annexation area with the Specific Plan Zoning Designation. · To incorporate the Specific Plan zoning development standards and design guidelines into Chapter 17.16 of the Development Code. Specific Plan The proposed Specific Plan includes a maximum of 2,015 single-family detached units including up to 167 zero lot line dwelling units in the Medium Density Residential Clustered Courtyard (M2) areas of the plan. The Specific Plan area is divided into two residential neighborhoods. The Plateau portion includes Planning Areas (PAs) lA, 1 B, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 5, 6, 10 11, 12. The Valley portion of the project includes PAs 14 through 31,33A, and 33B. The Plan also includes 110,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial retail space, a 12 acre elementary school site and a 20 acre middle school site, two public parks sites including a 19.7 acre Sports Park with lighted playing fields and a 4.8 acre neighborhood park with passive uses, three private recreation facilities, private and public trails and paseos, a fire station site, and 202.7 acres of natural open space to be 3reserved as permanent habitat. Tentative Tract Map 29353 The applicant is proposing Tentative Tract Map No. 29353 to subdivide 804.7 acres into 39 lots and 8 lettered lots for streets. The lots created by this tentative map are consistent with the boundary of the Planning Areas of the Specific Plan. This map will be used for conveyance purposes and no construction with the exception of infrastructure improvements will result from it. The lots roughly conform to the proposed Planning Area boundaries Tentative Tract Map 29661 The applicant is proposing Tentative Tract Map No. 29661 to subdivide approximately 158 acres into 509 residential lots, a 5.1 -acre Neighborhood Park, a 4.8-acre Pdvate Recreation Center, and a 0.3-acre Mini Park. The minimum lot size for the residential lots is 5,000 square feet with an average Io1 size of 6,288 square feet. The proposed map includes Planning Areas lA, 1 B, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 5, 6, 7A, 7B, 7C, 8, and 9A which is generally referred to as the Plateau Neighborhood in the Specific Plan. The entire area, excluding the public park site (lot 518) and the open space habitat sites (lots 516 and 517) are proposed to be within a gated community with private streets, recreational facilities, and trails. Development Aqreement The Applicant has requested to enter into a Development Agreement with the City. The Development Agreement has been included as Attachment 4, Exhibit A. The Development Agreement was based on the following major Deal Points: A Community Facilities District (CFD) will be formed and funded prior to issuance of the 1st building permit to pay for the major infrastructure of the project. R:\S PXRoripaugh Ranch SPXnew\CC~taff Report I 1-26q)2 A.doc 4 The developer is responsible to provide all road improvements as specified in Attachment 5 of the Development Agreement. The City will provide the following fee credits to the developer in exchange for improvements provided by the project: a. One hundred percent (100%) credit for the Street Improvements, Traffic Signal, Parks and Recreation, and Fire components of the DIF. b. A partial credit of the Development Agreement fee totaling $1,352,500. c. One hundred percent (100%) credit for the Open Space fee of $150 per residential unit (total of $302,250). The Developer is responsible to pay the following fees: a. A payment of $2,000,000 for the construction of the Fire Station and purchase of a fire truck. b. Payment of 100% of the Library and Corporate Facility. c. Payment of 100% of the Public Art fee, $50.00 per residential unit (total of $100,750). d. The developer will pay the adopted TUMF. The developer is responsible to negotiate any potential credits with the agency responsible to administer the TU MF. The developer will provide 50 on-site park-n-ride spaces prior to issuance of any building permits in Phase 2. 6. The developer will contribute $300,000 to a Shuttle Service program. 7. The Development Agreement will have a 10 Year Term. Annexation Approximately 634 acres will be annexed into the City. The City Council adopted Resolution No. 2001-063 on June 26, 2001 to initiate this annexation. After the adoption of the Specific Plan and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report, staff will forward them along with the Plan of Services and the Fiscal Impact Report to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Staff expects that in approximately 60 to 90 days after the City Council approval of the project, LAFCO will hold a public hearing on the annexation. ANALYSIS The Planning Commission discussed a number of issues identified by the surrounding residents and the members of the Commission. For a complete list of the issues, refer to Attachment 11. For all correspondence received from the community refer to Attachment 12. The following provides a summary of the major issues discussed by the Commission: Number of Units and Bufferinq · Total number of units and the Density of the project · Plateau and Valley Buffering R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new\CC~Staff Report 11-26-02 A.doc 5 · Increasing the width of the 30' fuel modification and providing landscaping Traffic and Circulation · Varying widths of Nicolas Road and Buttedield Stage Road · Construction traffic and dust on Nicolas Road · Improvements to existing unimproved roads (Jessie Cimle, Liefer Road, and Vista Del Monte) and including the improvements to Liefer Road in the project CFD · Shared access driveways on the Plateau map (Tract Map Design Issue) Sidewalks and Parkways · Curb Separated Sidewalks and Parkway Widths for Major Roads · Curb separated sidewalks for local roads Trails · Elimination of the Nature Walk Miscellaneous Items · SB221 and 610 compliance which requireanalysisfromthewateragenciesthata20-yearwater supply exists for the project. · Two school sites should not be adjacent to each other · Requirement of single story and two story houses Planninq Commission Recommendations The Planning Commission recommended the following changes to the Specific Plan. These changes have been incorporated into the Specific Plan with the applicant's consent, refer to Attachment 13 for a complete list: 1. Additional buffering will be provided for the east and south side of the Valley Neighborhood. Refer to Attachment 14 for the specific areas that have changed. 2. Planning Areas 33A and B will have minimum 1 acre lots along the western boundary and minimum 1/2 acre lots everywhere else to partially compensate for the units lost as a result of increased buffering. 3. The Design Guidelines for all Planning Areas needs to include language that the street scene for all these areas will include a reasonable mix of single-story units. Required curb separated sidewalks for Murrieta Hot Springs Road and increased the parkway landscaping on the south side of Murrieta Hot Springs. The Planning Commission recommended the following changes to the Plateau Map that have been R:\S PXRoripaugh Ranch SP~new\CCXStaff Report 11-264)2 A.doc 6 incorporated into the tentative map with the applicant's consent: Elimination of the two drive aisles that provided access to 5-6 lots and redesigning the area to provide direct access from private streets. Required curb separated sidewalks for Murrieta Hot Springs Road and increased the parkway landscaping on the south side of Murrieta Hot Springs. The Planning Commission also recommended the applicant to improve Nicolas Road with 4 lanes from the MWD easement to Calle Girasol and provide curb-separated sidewalks for all local streets. However, the applicant has not agreed to these items. The following provides a discussion of these items: Nicolas Road Widenin.q. The Planning Commission recommended requiring the construction of Nicolas Road with 4 lanes from the MWD easement to Calle Girasol. Since this requirement is not mitigating a project impact, at the meeting, staff advised the Planning Commission that this requirement could not be included in the Conditions of Approval. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommended it to be included in the Development Agreement. The applicant will only agree to this improvement if in turn they are only required to build two lanes of Buttertield Stage off-site. It is staff's position that the construction of four lanes of Butter[ield Stage Road off-site is more important than constructing 4 lanes of Nicolas Road instead of the proposed 3 lanes. Curb Separated Sidewalks. The Planning Commission recommended requiring curb- separated sidewalks for local streets. For almost two years, staff had informed the applicant on numerous occasions that the Planning Commission might require curb-separated sidewalks for local streets. However, staff has been unable to convince the applicant to propose curb-separated sidewalks along the proposed private local streets. Staff believes curb separated sidewalks are more aesthetically pleasing and provide a more inviting environment for walking. The Planning Commission also discussed the following issues but did not recommend changes to the project: Continuin,q the Calle Contento Connection. Chairperson Chiniaeff stated that he supports all aspects of the project with the exception of the elimination of the Calle Contento connection through the project site. The rest of the Commission did not support this position. The project Traffic Study assumed this elimination and proposed the current mitigation measures. Residential Habitat View Fence. The Planning Commission expressed concern regarding the aesthetic impact of the chain link component of the proposed residential habitat view fence along the south side of PA 13. This fence is a combination of block (18" high) and black vinyl coated chain link fence with a total height of 6 feet. This fence is a dual-purpose fence for providing view opportunities for the proposed lots and also limiting the interface of wildlife within the habitat area and the domestic pets associated with typical urban development. Upon further review, staff agrees with the Planning Commission's concern regarding the aesthetic value of the chain link fence. A glass fence could replace this fence and provide the same functions. If the City Council agrees to require the glass fence, the City Council shall direct staff to add a Condition of Approval to require this glass fence along the south side of PA 13. R:\S PXRoripaugh Ranch SP~new~CCXStaff Report 11-26~)2 A.doc 7 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Because of the scope and impacts of the project, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared for this project. The DEIR analyzed the impacts of the project and proposed mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of the project to insignificant levels. However, despite incorporating changes and alterations into the Project, four environmental categories were found to have direct unavoidable and significant adverse environmental effects. The following direct environmental impacts were found to be significant in the DEIR: 1. Loss of Agricultural Land; 2. Transportation and Circulation; 3. Air Quality; and 4. Aesthetics. The potential impacts were concluded to be significant because the impacts could not be reduced below thresholds of significance by the proposed Project changes and mitigation measures. In addition, the EIR found that growth in the area would cumulatively have considerable impacts on traffic, noise, air quality, and water consumption. The DEIR was circulated for public review from April 3, 2002 to May 17, 2002. Response to Comments were prepared and distributed to the commenting agencies on October 1,2002 as part of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). Notices were sent to individuals who commented on the DEIR which notified them of the availability of the FEIR and the response to their comments. Staff received a letter from the California Indian Legal Services requesting the following language for Mitigation #2 of the FEIR: "(2) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall enter into a Pre-Excavation Agreement with the local Native American (NA) Pechanga Band to fund up to 2 NA representatives to monitor all ground breaking activities and set for the treatment for Native American remains and cultural items found on the prelect site..." This letter and a letter from the Gas Company in response to the FEIR are included in Attachment 15. The Statements of Overriding Consideration (SOC) are proposed for the significant impacts of the project. The $OC and the Findings for the EIR are included in Attachment 1 as part of the Resolution for the Certification of the FEIR. The Mitigation Monitoring Program is also included in Attachment 1. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS This project has been in the Planning stage for over a decade. When the Planning Commission held a public hearing approximately one year ago, many of the issues surrounding this complex project were not addressed adequately. However, staff believes the project has evolved to provide reasonable buffering, include a vision for a quality development with many amenities for its future residents. It also provides the City with needed road improvements that may not happen without the development of this site. A summary of the project's benefits has been included in Attachment 16. R:\S PXP. oripaugh Ranch SPXnew\CC~Staff Report 11-264)2 A.doc 8 FISCAL IMPACT: In addition to the Development Impact Fees (DIF), this project will be paying a Development Agreement Fee and a fee for purchase of open space/habitat~public art. The developer has received credits in exchange for improvements for many aspects of the project. The following summarizes these fees and credits: Development Impact Fees · Residential DIF o Street Improvement Component- 100% credit for the $793.85 per detached unit fee. o Traffic Signal Component- 100% credit for the $118.69 per detached unit fee. o Park and Recreation Component- 100% credit for the $1754.33 per detached unit fee. o Corporate Facilities Component - Payment of the $241.74 per detached unit fee. o Fire Protection Facilities Component-100% credit forthe $59.89 perdetached unit fee. o Libraries Component- Payment of the $226.50 per detached unit fee. · Commercial DIF, Retail Commercial o Street Improvement Component - 100% credit for the $3.00 per square foot fee. o Traffic Signal Improvement Component - 100% credit for the $0.45 per square foot fee. o Fire Protection Facilities Component- Payment of the $0.02 per square foot fee. o Corporate Facilities Component - Payment of the $0.12 per square foot fee. Development Aqreement Fees · Development Agreement Fee, A partial credit of $1,352,500 and Payment of $2,000,000 based on $1,500.00 per residential unit for a total of $3,022,500 (2,015 x $1,500) and Commercial Component Fee of $3.00 per square foot for a total of $330,000 (110,000 x $3.00) for a grand total of $3,352,500. · Open Space Fee, 100% credit for the $150 per residential unit (total of $302,250). · Public Art fee, 100% credit for $50.00 per residential unit (total of $100,750). · Transit Mitigation Fee, $300,000 prior to the 510th building permit. R:~S P~Rofipaugh Ranch SP~new\CC\StaffRcport [ 1-26~02 A.doc 9 Attachments: City Council Resolution No. 02-__ Certifying the Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring Program-Page 11 Exhibit A - Mitigation Monitoring Program City Council Resolution No. 02 Approving the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan--Page 12 Exhibit A - General Plan Land Use Map Exhibit B - General Plan Specific Plan Overlay Exhibit C - General Plan Circulation Map Exhibit D _ Conditions of Approval for Specific Plan 11 Exhibit E - Land Use Plan, Specific Plan Volumes I and II (provided under separate cover) City Council Ordinance No. 2002- Approving the Development Code Amendment and Zoning Standards, Amendment of the Official Zoning Map of the City of Temecula, and Pro- zoning the Valley Neighborhood to Specific Plan - Page 13 Exhibit A - Chapter 5 of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Development Standards Exhibit B -Zoning Map Exhibit C -Pro-zoning the Valley Neighborhood City Council Ordinance No. 2002-~ Approving the Development Agreement - Page 14 Exhibit A - Copy of Development Agreement City Council Resolution No. 2002- Approving Tentative Tract Map 29353 - Page 15 Exhibit A- Tentative Tract Map 29353 Exhibit B-Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map 29353 City Council Resolution No. 2002- Approving Tentative Tract Map 29661 - Page 16 Exhibit A- Tentative Tract Map 29661 Exhibit B-Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map 29661 Planning Commission Staff Report Dated October 16, 2002 - Page 17 8. Planning Commission Draft Minutes Dated October 16, 2002 - Page 18 9. Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 30, 2002 - Page 19 10. Planning Commission Draft Minutes Dated October 30, 2002 - Page 20 11. Issues Discussed by the Planning Commission - Page 21 12. Community Correspondence - Page 31 13. Planning Commission's Recommendations - Page 32 14. Buffering Recommendations by the Planning Commission - Page 35 15. Agency Corrospondence- Page 36 16. Summary of Project Benefits - Page 37 R:\S p~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new\CC\Staff Report 11-264)2 A.doc 10 ATrACHMENT 1 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2002- CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM R:\S l~Roripaugh Ranch SPknew\CCXStaff Report 11-26q)2 A.dcc ATTACHMENT NO. 1 CC RESOLUTION NO. 2002 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AND RELATED PLANNING APPLICATIONS ACTIONS AND ADOPTING THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND THE STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED NEAR THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD. (PLANNING APPLICATION 94-0076). Statement of Findings of Fact Pursuant to Section 21081 of the California Public Resources Code State CEQA Guideline Section 15091 For the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (Including All Actions Arising Under Planning Application 94-0076) and the Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring Program Under California Public Resources Code 21081.6 and Section 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines WHEREAS, the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (Specific Plan) and related actions as reflected on PA 940076 (Actions), were initiated and prepared by Ashby USA, LLC and were submitted to the City of Temecula for its review and consideration. The Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan proposes the development of 804.7 acres, including the annexation of 634 acres of 634 acres to the City of Temecula; Related actions include a General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element to incorporate the proposed land uses, and to include Planning Areas 33A and 33B to the Specific Plan Overlay Figure; a General Plan Amendment to the Circulation element to eliminate the connection between Nicolas Road and Calle Contento through the project and to upgrade the designation of Butterfield Stage Road between Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Nicolas Road from 4 lanes to Specific Plan Road; a Zone Change to pre-zone the annexation property to the SP zoning designation and to amend the Development Code Section 17.16.070 of the City of Temecula Development Code to adopt a Specific Plan for 804.7 acres to provide zoning and development standards for the development of 2,015 dwelling units within several gated communities, 110,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial retail space, a 12 acre elementary school site and a 20 acre middle school site, two public parks sites including a 19.7 acre Sports Park with lighted playing fields and a 4.8 acre neighborhood park with passive uses, three private recreation facilities, private and public trails and paseos, a fire station site, and 202.7 acres of natural open space to be preserved as permanent habitat, related flood control improvements to Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash; a tentative map to subdivide the project for conveyance purposes; a tentative map to create 509 residential lots within a gated community, a 4.8 acre private recreational facility, a .3 acre private mini park, private paseos and trails, a 5.1 acre public park site, and two open space lots (21.9 acres) to be preserved as permanent habitat; and a Development Agreement to grant the developer R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SPhlew\CC~Resos and ord CC l.doc development rights for ten years and secure the construction of certain infrastructure improvements by the developer. The actions include a statutory development agreement, including a prezoning of the portion of the site not in the City. WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City is the lead agency for the Actions as the public agency with both general governmental powers and the principle responsibility for implementing the Specific Plan; and, WHEREAS, On June 1, 1999, the City issued a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan project (SCH# 97121030). The 45-day public comment period ran from June 1 to July 16, 1999, during which 26 comment letters were received. On June 8, 2001, the City issued a Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for this project, and 16 comment letters were received from various agencies and individuals during the 45-day public review period, which ran from June 11 to July 26, 2001. Subsequent to circulation of the Revised DEIR, the applicant revised the project based on input from the City and local residents. On April 1, 2002, the City issued a 2nd Revised DEIR on the Roripaugh project. Sixteen (16) comment letters were received during the 45-day public review period, which ran from April 3 to May 17, 2002. Responses to comments received on the Revised DEIR and 2nd Revised DEIR were included in the Final EIR for this project dated September 26, 2002; and, WHEREAS, written statements were received by the City in response to the Notice of Preparation, which assisted the City in narrowing the issues and alternatives for analysis in the Draft EIR; and, WHEREAS, a Draft EIR was prepared by the City pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15168 to analyze potential adverse environmental impacts of Specific Plan implementation pursuant to CEQA; and, WHEREAS, upon completion of the Draft EIR dated November 2, 2000, the City initiated a 45-day public comment period by filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Reseamh in November 2, 2000; and, WHEREAS, the City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft EIR in a newspaper of general circulation. Copies of the Draft EIR were sent to public agencies, organizations, and individuals. In addition, the City placed copies of the Draft EIR in public libraries in Riverside County and made copies available for review at City offices; and, WHEREAS, during and before the official public review period for the Draft EiR, the City received 16 written comments, all of which were responded to by the City. Those comments and the responses are included as part of the Final Environmental Impact RepoWResponse to Comments document (Final EIR); and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, the City provided its responses to all commentors on October 1,2002; and, WHEREAS, on October 16, 2002 and October 30, 2002 the Planning Commission held public hearings, and on November 26, 2002 the City Council held a public hearing; and, RAS P~Rodpaugh Ranch SP~ncw\CC'~Resos and ord CC l.doc WHEREAS, Public Resources Code Section 21081 and Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines prevent the City from approving or carrying out a project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies any significant environmental effects unless the City makes one or more of the following written finding(s) for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding: A. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the final EIR; or, B. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or, C. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR; and, WHEREAS, Section 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that if the Specific Plan will cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts; and, WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant, but which the City Council finds can be mitigated to a less than significant level through the imposition of mitigation measures and/or conditions identified in the Final EIR and Specific Plan and set forth herein are described in Section 1 hereof; and, WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final EIR as potentially significant but which the City Council finds cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures described in Section 42 hereof, and, WHEREAS, alternatives to the Specific Plan that might eliminate or reduce significant environmental impacts are described in Section 4; and, WHEREAS, a discussion of Specific Plan benefits identified by City staff and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the environmental impacts that cannot be fully mitigated to a~ less than significant level are set forth in Section 3 hereof; and, WHEREAS, Public Resources Code section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to assure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures; and, WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record including the Final EIR, and all oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Actions. No comments or any additional information submitted to the City have produced any substantial new information requiring circulation or additional environmental review of the Final EIR under CEQA, nor do the minor R:~S PXRoripaugh Ranch SP~ncw\CC~Resos and ord CC l.doc clarifications and modifications to the Final EIR require additional public review because within each no new significant environmental impacts were identified and no substantial increase in the severity of any environmental impacts will occur as a result of the clarifications. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findings, Impacts of the Project that have been mitigated to insignificant Levels. The following issues were found to be less than significant based on detailed technical data supporting a conclusion that mitigation measures identified in the EIR and administrative record will be implemented reducing the impacts to below a level of significance. In the following presentation each resoume issue is identified and followed by (A) a description of the potential significant impact, (B) a discussion of the finding in the entire administrative record, primarily the EIR, (C) any mitigation measures that will be implemented to achieve a non- significant impact are identified, and (D) the facts supporting the finding. A. The City Council hereby finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project, which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment for the resources addressed below. Public Resources Code Section 21081 states that no public agency shall approve or carry out a Project for which an environmental impact report has been completed which identifies one or more significant effects unless the public agency makes one, or more, of the following findings: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the completed environmental impact report; 2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and such changes have been adopted by such agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; and/or 3. Specific economic, social, or other consideration make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. B. The City Council hereby finds, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081, that the following issues are less than significant based on implementation of the mitigation measures outlined below and that no additional mitigation measures or Project changes are required to reduce these impacts below a significant level. These issues and the measures adopted to mitigate them to a level of insignificance are as follows: Land Use and Planning A. Potential Significant Impact The Project site is currently classified as a Specific Plan in the City of Temecula General Plan, which allows a gross density of 3 units per acre. (DEIR, p. 3-9 to 3-11) The County's Southwest Area Plan (SWAP) also designates the "Valley" portion of the site for Iow density housing (DEIR, p. 3-10). (Ibid.) The proposed net density of the Project is 2.5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). (DEIR, p. 3-11) Short-term impacts will occur as the land use on the property changes from unimproved vacant land, to a construction site, and finally to a Iow to moderate intensity residential neighborhood. (DEIR, p. 3-11) Due to the design of the project, development of the R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SPXnew\CCXResos and ord CC 1.doc site will not have long-term impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods to the southwest, south, and east (DEIR, pp. 3-9 to 3-11). In addition, the Valley portion of the project will be annexed into the City of Temecula - this is not expected to have any significant land use impacts. B. Finding The current combination of standard conditions, uniform codes, and Project design features help reduce the overall land use impacts of the Project on surrounding land uses by creating larger lots around the perimeter of the site with smaller lots on the "inside" of the Project (DEIR, pp. 3-9 to 3-11 ). The following measures are proposed to mitigate potential land use impacts of the proposed project relative to regional plans (i.e., the French Valley Airport Master Plan): C. Mitigation Measures 1. The Specific Plan has been transmitted to the County's Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for review and comment.. Official comments, including the Conditions of Approval prepared by ALUC, have been transmitted to the City and included into the Mitigation Monitoring Program and Conditions of Approval as part of the decision-making action on the project. 2. The developer has provided the County's Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) with Avigation Easements for all the parcels in Planning Areas 1-9, and sends a copy of that proof to the City Planning Department. 3. The developer has also provided the City with proof that avigation easements have been obtained for all the lots in Planning Areas 1-5. 4. Prior to recordation of any maps in Planning Areas 1-5, the developer shall demonstrate to the City Planning Department that retail buyer information contains a statement regarding avigation easements. This information shall be provided either in the White Report or supplementary information with an affidavit of disclosure by the developer. 5. The developer has demonstrated to City that proposed structures comply with the current height restrictions of the French Valley Airport and ALUC for Planning Areas 1- 9. 6. One or both of the proposed school sites can be converted to residential use provided that all of the following are met: (a) approval of a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) is obtained from the City to convert from Educational Designation to Low Medium Residential Designation; (b) the School District has indicated in writing that they are no longer interested in using Planning Areas 28 and/or 29 as schools sites; and (c) the total number of units for the entire project does not exceed 2,015 units. 7. Incorporate noise attenuation measures into any building construction to ensure interior noise levels are at or below 45-decibel levels. (Refer to Noise Mitigation Measures 3.10-5 and 3.10-6). 8. Install hoods or shields to prevent either spillage of lumens or reflections into the sky (lights must be downward facing). R:~S P~Rodpaugh Ranch SP~ew\CC~Resos and ord CC l.doc 9. The Plan and EIR are amended to recognize the approved CLUP and the airport is to include the appropriate text and graphic illustrations. 10. No obstruction of the "FAR Part 77 Conical Surface" shall be permitted. (Refer- see Land Use & Planning Mitigation Measure 3.1-5) 11. The following uses shall be precluded in Planning Areas 1-9: a) stadiums; b) amphitheaters; c) lighted ball fields; and d) churches because of the ALUC's conditions. 12. The following uses shall be prohibited: a) Any use which would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white, green, or amber colors associated with airport operations toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing at an airport, other than an FAA- approved navigational signal light or visual approach slope indicator; b) any use which would cause sunlight to be reflected towards an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing at an airport; c) any use which would generate smoke or water vapor or which would attract large concentrations of birds, or which may otherwise affect safe air navigation within the area; or d) any use which would generate electrical interference that may be detrimental to the operation of aircraft and/or aircraft instrumentation. 13. Prior to recordation of any final maps, or the recordation of any avigation easements, whichever is first, the Temecula Community Services Department (TCSD) shall approve the wording for, and authorize the filing of, an avigation easement for the neighborhood park (Planning Area 6). The avigation easement for PA 6 shall be recorded and documented with the Planning Department prior to construction of the park. D. Facts in Support of the Finding 1. The density of the Project (i.e., Iow density suburban intensity of 2.5 units/acre) complies with the General Plan and has been organized to minimize impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods (Draft EIR, p. 3-11). 2. With implementation of the standard conditions, uniform codes, Project design features, and the recommended mitigation measures, the Project will not significantly impact surrounding land uses and is consistent with the City's General Plan, and will thus create no significant short- or long-term impacts on land use. (Draft EIR, p. 3-15) 3. Development in the Temecula area is expected to continue and result in a fundamental change in the character of the area (DEIR, p. 6-6). However, the change need not be cumulatively considerable if proper planning is exercised. It is not anticipated the Project will contribute to cumulative land use and planning impacts in the Temecula area. (DEIR, p. 6-11) EaCh Resources A. Potential Significant Impact Various regional faults, such as the San Andreas Fault, are capable of producing major earthquakes and substantial ground shaking. (Draft EIR, p. 3-28) Development of the proposed Project will introduce additional homes and residents into an area subject to moderate ground shaking, settling, and other seismic related hazards. (Ibid.) R:~S PXRodpaugh Ranch SP~new\CC~Resos and ord CC 1.doc Soils on the site have a moderate to high potential for erosion if the vegetative cover is removed. (Draft EIR, p. 3-30, 3-34) The Project will temporarily increase the potential for erosion by removing vegetation during grading activities for roads and building pads. (Ibid.) Long-term increases to erosion potential will occur as a result of increased surface runoff rates due to road paving and construction of impermeable structures. (Ibid.) B. Finding The following measures are recommended to prevent earth-related impacts from becoming significant: C. Mitigation Measures 1. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, engineering reports addressing geologic, seismic, or soil limitations and foundation design will be prepared for the following Planning Areas: PA(s) 12 14 15 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 27 28 31 33A, B Nicolas Report Topic(s) Liquefaction liquefaction, landslides landslides Landslides Liquefaction (south end) landslides and liquefaction for lots along creek landslides and liquefaction for lots along creek lic lic lic lic lic lic Ii(: lic uefaction uefaction uefaction uefaction (sports park) uefaction (school site) uefaction uefaction uefaction (offsite improvements) 2. If a particular lot cannot accommodate appropriate setbacks, it will not be built. These reports will specify appropriate foundations and other design parameters to alleviate identified potential geotechnical impacts. These reports will be prepared and approved by the City Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of grading permits. 3. Prior to the issuance of grading permits for offsite improvements related to the project, engineering reports addressing geologic, seismic, or soil limitations and foundation design will be prepared for any affected areas that have not already had such studies, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 4. At least two days prior to scheduled blasting, the developer shall post a clearly visible sign at the intersection of Nicolas Road and Calle Girasol to notify residents of the Nicolas Valley if and when blasting will occur. Any blasting activities will be limited to the hours of 9 AM to 4 PM, Monday through Friday. Prior to any blasting, the developer shall obtain permission from the City Engineer to post notice in at least one newspaper of local circulation at least one week in advance. A note to this effect shall be placed on the grading plans. R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new\CCXResos and oral CC 1.doc 5. Water Resources (below) contains mitigation measures for erosion control and sedimentation (i.e., water erosion). Section 6 on Air Quality contains mitigation measures for dust control (i.e., wind erosion and revegetation of disturbed areas). D. Facts in Support of the Finding 1. While development of the proposed Project will introduce additional homes and residents into an area subject to moderate ground shaking, settling, and other seismic related hazards, these hazards are similar to those experienced throughout the mountain region, and most of Southern California. (Draft EIR, p. 3-28) These hazards are not substantially elevated for the Project site and will not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects. (Ibid.) Aisc, the residential structures will be designed to withstand anticipated seismic stresses and soil conditions, further minimizing potential impacts to new residents. (Draft EIR, p. 3-30, 3-34) 2. Implementation of standard conditions, existing codes, proposed Project design features, and the mitigation measures listed above, will assure that potential geologic, seismic, soil, and other earth-related impacts remain less than significant. (Draft EIR, p. 3-39) Development throughout the region will also introduce thousands of new residences and residents into areas subject to considerable ground shaking and some that have soil limitations. However, with proper design and engineering, no cumulative impacts to earth resources are expected. Therefore, the Project's potential impacts to earth resources are not cumulatively considerable. (DEIR, p. 6-6) Water Resources A. Potential Significant Impact Development of the Project site will increase the amount of onsite runoff by covering pervious native soils with various impervious surfaces such as asphalt, concrete, and buildings. (DEIR, p. 3-45) Based on the proposed development plan, approximately 254 acres (32 percent) of the site will be covered by impervious surfaces (e.g., roadways, parking areas, homes, patios, etc.). (DEIR, p. 3-47) The covering of existing native soils with impervious surfaces could slightly change recharge of local groundwater. (Draft EIR, p. 3-48) Santa Gertrudis Creek presently has an outlet flow off the Project site of 3,479 cfs - the proposed drainage plan will not increase that flow. Similarly, Long Valley Wash presently has an outlet flow of 4,460 cfs - the proposed drainage plan will not increase that flow with construction of the proposed drainage facilities (FEIR, pp. 11, 12) Present runoff is mostly limited to natural sediments from the surrounding agricultural land. (Draft EIR, p. 3-48) Conversion of the site to urban uses means that runoff entering the storm drain system will contain minor amounts of pollutants typical of urban use, including pesticides, fertilizers, oil and rubber residues, detergents, grease, hydrocarbon particles, dust particles, and other debris. (Ibid.) This runoff, although typical of urban use, will contribute to the incremental degradation of downstream water quality in Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash. (Ibid.) R:XS P~Roripaugh Ranch SPXnevACC~Resos and ord CC I.doc B. Finding With compliance with NPDES requirements and implementation of the following mitigation measures, water resource related impacts will be mitigated to a less than significant level: C. Mitigation Measures 1. Prior to the issuance of a rough grading permit, the developer shall provide a Drainage Management Plan (DMP) covering both Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Creek immediately downstream of the project site. The DMP must provide erosion control measures sufficient to protect properties downstream of Santa Gertrudis Creek, Long Valley Wash, and the Plateau portion of the project from flooding, scour, erosion, and/or other drainage-related damage up to a 100-year storm. The DMP will demonstrate that runoff leaving the project site will not increase velocity or flow. The report will demonstrate how total offsite flows from the 2 channels can be reduced to the greatest extent feasible from existing flows. The DMP will identify maintenance responsibilities and be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department and the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. The DMP shall incorporate any changes to the project drainage reports and demonstrate the project meets all applicable requirements of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD) relative to drainage improvements and drainage-related construction activities. The DMP must demonstrate the planned improvements will prevent downstream erosion and flooding impacts and any increases in offsite runoff. If it cannot demonstrate these conditions are met, no building permits shall be issued, to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department and the RCFCWCD. For the purposes of this measure, downstream impacts also refer to MWD pipelines that could be impacted. 2. Prior to recordation of any maps, or issuance of grading permits, whichever is first, the developer shall provide a maintenance agreement for the portions of the Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Creek on the project site. It must be mutually agreeable to the City Public Works Department, the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD), and the Home Owners Association (HOA). This agreement shall state that the City is only responsible for maintaining flood control facilities under public roads, and is not responsible for maintaining the Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash channels or detention basins, and the other facilities must be maintained by RCFCWCD/HOA, with funding provided by the HOA. 3. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the developer shall coordinate any construction that could impact facilities of the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) to assure that their facilities are not damaged by project construction, either onsite or offsite. 4. Prior to issuance of rough grading permits, as part of implementation of the mass grading plan, the developer shall identify and make, as necessary, interim channel improvements including, but not limited to, grading and construction of detention basins during the period before Phase 2 permanent channel improvements are constructed to protect downstream facilities constructed during Phase 1, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Interim improvements will require a mass-grading permit. 5. The City reserves the right to require the developer to mitigate any concentrated offsite flows near the project improvements and to adequately disperse them by the use of rip-rap, armor[lex, or equivalent improvements, as approved by and to the satisfaction R:~S PXP, oripaugh Ranch SP~new\CC~Resos and ord CC I.doc of the City Engineer. This measure shall be in force during the entire development process for the project. 6. The timing of all bridge improvements shall be consistent with the transportation mitigation measures, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 7. Prior to recordation of any final map, the developer shall provide a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLMR) and comply with that process, to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department. 8. Prior to issuance of the first building permit for Phase 2, the developer shall submit appropriate documentation to the Federal Emergency Management Agency sufficient to update the Flood Insurance Rate Maps for Planning Areas 12, 13, 14, 27, 33A, and 33B for Santa Gertrudis Creek, and Planning Areas 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 31 for Long Valley Wash. 9. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall prepare and submit a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to the SDRWQCB for review and comment covering both construction and occupancy of the project. The WQMP shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department. D. Facts in Support of the Finding 1. The amount of water that will be required for the Project is not substantial on a regional basis, and will not result in any significant change to the overall direction or flow rate of groundwater and will mainly use imported water supplied by EMWD. (Draft EIR, p. 3-45) 2. With implementation of the proposed drainage master plan, runoff and peak flows will not increase (FEIR, pp. 11, 12) The Project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. (ibid.) Also, the Project will not substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on or off-site. (Ibid.) 3. With implementation of the standard conditions, uniform codes, Project design features, and the recommended mitigation measures, the Project will not significantly alter flows to Santa Gertrudis Creek or Long Valley Wash, and will have no significant short- or long-term impacts on water-related resources. (Draft EIR, p. 3-54) 4. As development occurs, local water resources, both surface and underground, will be incrementally impacted as native soils are covered over, runoff is increased, and more urban pollutants are introduced into local runoff. (Draft EIR, p. 3-58) However, these impacts are not expected to be significant as long as the County continues to require developers to not increase offsite runoff and to properly plan flood control improvements for new development. (Ibid.) As growth continues, there may be cumulative significant impacts to water resources, (Ibid.) However, the Project will not make a significant contribution to potential cumulatively considerable impacts on water resources. (Ibid.) R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch Sl~new\CCXResos and ord CC l.doc 10 Biological Resources A. Potentially Significant Impact 1. The Project site contains several vegetation types, including 248.5 acres (31%) covered by sage scrub, transitional and grasslands, 24.6 acres of riparian vegetation, 7.8 acres of woodlands, and 537.5 acres (67%) of disturbed land. (Draft EIR, p. 3-117) The site contains two major drainages (Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash) plus several other minor tributary drainages. The site supports a number of listed or otherwise protected species, including the California gnatcatcher, Quino butterfly, Stephen's kangaroo rat, and possibly burrowing owls. 2. After circulation of the first DEIR, the Project was extensively revised and was made consistent with the Assessment District 161 Sub-Regional Habitat Conservation Plan recently approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (DEIR, pp. 3-125 to 3-129). The Project is also consistent with the draft habitat and conservation areas identified in the CETAP maps of the Riverside County Integrated Plan (FEiR, p. 15). The Project, as proposed, will remove 154 acres of the onsite sage scrub, transitional, and grassland vegetation, 9.9 acres of the riparian vegetation, and almost all of the woodland vegetation. Almost all of the proposed development will be on land already disturbed (DEIR, p. 3-131) The site provides extensive raptor foraging habitat, so its removal could have cumulative impacts on raptors. (DEIR, p. 3-134) Due to preservation of much of the Santa Gertrudis environs in the AD 161 SHCP, the proposed Project will not adversely affect biological resources on, or wildlife movement across, the site. (Draft EIR, 3-140) B. Finding Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce impacts to biological resources to less than significant levels: C. Mitigation Measures 1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or map recordation, whichever is first, the developer shall obtain Streambed Alteration Agreements (SAA) with the California Department of Fish and Game for impacts to onsite drainages, including but not limited to, Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Creek. While this is a standard agency requirement, several unique requirements of the Roripaugh site require this measure to be spelled out in detail. Existing disturbed wetland areas on the site will be restored and maintained according to conditions of approval of the SAA. The two flow-by/detention basins shown in the Master Drainage Plan in the two major drainage channels will be constructed with "soft" (i.e., natural) bottoms and be allowed to revegitate naturally (in Planning Areas 13 and 25). They will be maintained on a regular basis for flood control purposes. Willow and other appropriate riparian species will be planted in areas designated by the CWA 404 permit being processed for this project. This vegetation will create new wetland habitat (approximately 1.22 acres) to compensate for the loss of existing onsite wetlands (0.61 acres). The project is expected to impact a total of 2.69 acres of land under ACOE jurisdiction. It is also expected to impact 3.0 acres of land under CDF&G jurisdiction, of which 0.83 acres is riparian habitat. The revegetation areas may be near the flow-by/detention basins or within the creek channels, as approved by the Army Corps in approved 404 permitting documents. As shown in Figure 3.4-3, R:XS P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~ew\CCSResos and ord CC I.doc Master Drainage Plan, the basins will be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits for the following areas: Basin Location South end of PA-7C Southwest portion of Santa Gertrudis Creek Long Valley Wash (PA 25 & 26) Constructed prior to issuance of... 1st building permit PA 3, 4A, or 4B 1st building permit in PA lA, 2, or 3 PA lA (PA 7B) 250th building permit in PA lA, 2, or 3 (PA 13) 1 st building permit east of Butterfield Stage Road (PA 14, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, or 31) and concurrent with Long Valley channel improvements These basins shall be maintained by the Developer, although the basin in Planning Area 13 may be maintained by the County's designated conservation organization under the AD 161 SHCP. Non-pedormance of maintenance duties will be cause for suspension of building permits for the project, regardless of development phase. In addition, the developer shall transmit a copy of the approved CWA 404 permit for the project within 30 days of approval by the ACOE. 2. The developer has retained a qualified biologist to prepare a directed survey to locate on site coastal California gnatcatcher nests, and no occupied gnatcatcher nests were present. In addition, no grading or removal of habitat will take place within 100 feet of known nesting sites during the nesting and breeding season (mid-February through mid-July). The developer shall provide the City with a copy of the report approved by the appropriate resource agency. 3. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any vegetation clearing, including offsite roadway or other improvements, a focused burrowing owl survey will be completed and any burrowing owls occurring on the site will be excluded from active burrows. Owl surveys and burrow exclusion will follow the CDFG protocols for this species (CDFG 1993). The developer shall provide the City with a copy of the report approved by the appropriate resource agency. 4. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any vegetation clearing, including offsite roadway or other improvements, a directed survey shall be conducted to determine the presence or absence of nesting raptor species. Surveys will be conducted between April and June. If raptor nests are present, no grading or removal of habitat will take place within 500 feet of known nesting sites during the nesting/breeding season (mid-March through mid-July). The developer shall provide the City with a copy of the report approved by the appropriate resource agency. 5. The open space in Planning Areas 8, 9A, 9B, and 13 will be managed by a conservation organization authorized by the most current AD 161 SHCP Agreement. Prior to recordation of a final map, the developer shall provide the City with a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) signed by the agency that will own and maintain the habitat area, covering activities related to the AD 161 Habitat area on the project site (Planning Areas 8-10). The HMP will address the exact boundaries of the area, fencing, lighting, landscaping, fuel modification, access roads for fire equipment, pedestrian and equestrian trails, and access gates to the preserve area, including public access to the Johnson Ranch and UCR property. The Developer shall comply with all applicable requirements of the AD 161 SHCP and the approved HMP, including but not limited to the following: R:\S PhRodpaugh Ranch SP~newXCeXP, esos and ord CC 1 .doc a. Roadways in or adjacent to the open space areas, including security and maintenance roads, shall have highly visible signs notifying drivers of the potential for wildlife (e.g. "WARNING - WILDLIFE XING"). Speed laws near corridors should be strictly enforced. b. No fences shall impede movement within the corridor. If a fence is necessary in these areas, it should be a two-strand smooth-wire or split-rail type. The bottom strand or rail should occur no lower than 20 inches above the ground, with the second strand or rail occurring no higher than 40 inches above the ground. c. Fencing shall be installed and maintained along the perimeter of the open space areas (Planning Areas 8, 9A, 9B, and 13) to minimize intrusion by humans, pets, vehicles, etc. d. Habitat or corridors shall be screened from the direct view of adjacent homes, roads, etc. by trees and shrubs. Dense vegetative screening is required for the edge of any developed areas adjacent to corridors. e. If nighttime lighting is necessary in the area of wildlife corridors, only appropriate restrictive lighting pointed away from the corridor should be allowed. In addition, streets should not terminate at the edge of the corridor because this may promote turning of automobiles, which would flood the corridor with headlight illumination. Streets that do terminate shall have fencing or other visual screening to limit light intrusion into the habitat area. f. During the vegetation clearing or grading, all areas of Riversidian sage scrub proposed to be preserved in the vicinity of construction activities shall be protected through the construction of temporary fencing. No construction access, parking or storage will be permitted within the fenced area. Vehicle transportation routes between cut-and-fill locations will be restricted. Failure of the developer to abide by the guidelines of AD 161 SHCP and the HMP will be grounds for suspension of building permits for the project, regardless of phase. This action can be appealed to the City Council in disputed cases. 6. Prior to final map approval, the Developer shall document that an effective Fuel Modification Zone (FMZ) has been planned around the AD 161 SHCP area (Planning Areas 8-10), to the satisfaction of the City Planning and Public Works Departments, City Fire Department, and the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. No maps shall be approved until a mutually agreeable FMZ plan is approved by the City Public Works Department, subject to concurrence with the other affected agencies/departments. 7. Prior to approval of any final maps, all mature trees should be shown on an exhibit (mature = 3 inches truck diameter at breast height or larger). The developer shall replace mature trees lost through development at a minimum 1.5:1 ratio as outlined in the Master Landscape Plan and Landscape Material Palette in Section 5 of the Specific Plan at appropriate locations throughout the project. R:\S PXRoripaugh Ranch Sl~new\CCXResos and oral CC 1.doc D. Facts in Support of the Finding 1. The proposed mitigation measures will establish a Habitat Management Plan for the habitat land of AD 161 SHCP within the Project site (PAs 8, 9A, 9B, and 13) which will help assure the long-term health of this habitat area for the gnatcatcher, Quino butterfly, and Stephen's kangaroo rat. (Draft EIR, pp. 3-133 to 3-136) Payment of a regional fee will mitigate impacts to the Stephen's kangaroo rat, and protocol surveys and possible relocation will prevent impacts to any burrowing owls. Other sensitive species will also benefit by the 201 acres of habitat land set aside on the site. 2. With implementation of standard conditions, uniform codes, and recommended mitigation measures, impacts to biological resources will be reduced to less than significant levels. (DEIR, p. 3-140) 3. Ongoing development will put additional pressure on local biological resources, especially the loss of foraging land for raptors (DEIR, p. 6-7) Since the Project is mitigating its own impacts, and it will not contribute to cumulatively considerable impacts to biological species. (Ibid.) Energy and Mineral Resources A. Potential Significant Impact The project area does not contain any significant energy resources. The State is currently experiencing an energy "crisis" but is expected to resolve it in the coming months. The Santa Gertrudis Creek channel does contain sand and gravel resoumes, and a small mining operation is currently extracting aggregate from the channel onsite. The proposed Project will preserve Santa Gertrudis Creek channel intact so no significant impacts are expected to mineral resources. (DEIR, p. 3-142) The Project will consume additional electricity and natural gas, but this increase is not considered significant when viewed over the long-term (DEIR, p. 3-142) B. Finding Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential energy impacts to less than significant levels: C. Mitigation Measures Compliance with the State's energy conservation regulations contained in Title 24, D. Facts in Support of the Finding Over the long-term, the public and private utility companies serving Southern California are expected to have adequate supplies of electricity and natural gas, despite the current short-term "crisis" (DEIR, p. 3-141) R:~S l~oripaugh Ranch Sl~new~CC'hRcsos and ord CC l.doc 14 Hazards A. Potential Significant Impact Occupancy of the proposed Project will require the use of a number of common hazardous materials such as cleaners, fertilizers, etc., however, these are not considered a significant impact (DEIR, p. 3-145). Hazardous materials from former vehicle-related activities were found in several small areas in the center of the site, as delineated in a Phase 1 report for the site. These contaminated areas have since been remediated according to applicable requirements. The site will also expose hundreds of residents to increased hazards related to overflights from the French Valley Airport, which is considered significant. (DEIR, p. 3-146) B. Finding The previous Section 1 entitled Land Use and Planning proposes mitigation measures related to avigation easements for future project residents and land uses (DEIR, pp. 3-14, 3-15) Implementation of the mitigation measures in the Land Use section regarding avigation easements and the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) will reduce impacts related to overflight hazards to less than significant levels. Compliance with existing laws and regulations regarding hazardous materials are considered adequate to control potential exposure of Project residents to hazardous materials. In addition, the following measures are recommended to assure there are no impacts regarding hazardous materials: C. Mitigation Measures 1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall demonstrate that the contaminated areas identified in the 1999 Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) report have been remediated according to applicable regulations, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. 2. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, the developer shall contact the Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) if cleanup oversight is required, and contact a DTSC if a Preliminary Endangerment Assessment must be prepared. 3. Prior to the City's acceptance of the grant deeds for the 2 park sites (Planning Areas 6 and 27) and the fire station site (Planning Area 32), the developer shall demonstrate that the sites are not contaminated by hazardous materials, to the satisfaction of the Temecula Community Services Department (TCSD), Public Works, and the Fire Department. 4. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall contact the State's Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) to identify any hazmat permitting authority or agency related to the project. 5. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall obtain a hazardous waste storage permit if so directed by the State's Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). R:\S PXRotipaugh Ranch SPXnew\CCXResos and ord CC l.doc 15 D. Facts in Support of the Finding 1. With respect to hazardous materials, large amounts of such materials will not be stored onsite and only small amounts of chemicals typical in suburban uses will be used during operation of the Project. Therefore, significant impacts related to hazardous materials are not anticipated for the proposed Project. (Draft EIR, p. 3-145) In addition, the proposed Project will not result in a cumulatively considerable impact on the use or disposable of hazardous materials. (Draft EIR, p. 6-8) 2. Notifying residents of potential hazards from the proximity to French Valley Airport and restricting building heights will not prevent accidents, but obtaining an avigation easement from all involved property owners is the required mitigation for residential land uses within this zone. With these, the impacts of the Project relative to hazards of aimraft overtlight have been mitigated to less than significant levels (DEIR, p. 147). Noise A. Potential Significant Impact The project area is relatively quiet at present due to the lack of major roads and largely rural condition. The proposed Project will generate both short-term construction noise and long-term noise, mainly in the form of vehicular traffic on local roadways. (Draft EIR, pp. 3-157 to 3-162) At buildout, the Project will increase ambient noise levels by 2.6 dB which is below the specified 3 dB CEQA threshold. Area-wide noise impacts from planned growth are expected to be cumulatively considerable (DEIR, p. 6-8) B. Finding Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce short-term noise impacts from construction and long-term noise impacts from project occupancy to less than significant levels: C. Mitigation Measures 1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall prepare and file a Noise Control Plan (NCP) with the City Public Works Department. The NCP will commit the developer to the following measures. Failure of the developer to abide by these restrictions will be grounds for suspension of building permits, regardless of phase, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Department: a. All construction and general maintenance activities, except in an emergency, shall be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, except for holidays. b. All construction equipment shall use properly operating mufflers, and no combustion equipment such as pumps or generators shall be allowed to operate within 500 feet of any occupied residence from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. unless the equipment is surrounded by a noise protection barrier. c. All construction staging shall be performed as far as possible from occupied dwellings. The location of staging areas will be subject to review and approval by the City prior to the issuance of grading and/or building permits. R:XS PxRoripaugh Ranch SPXncw\CC'XP, esos and oral CC 1.doc 16 d. Prior to precise grading plan approval, a noise mitigation analysis shall be performed for single family residences or multi-family residential buildings within 200 feet of the edge of right-of-way for Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road, or for any other noise-sensitive uses on the project site potentially exposed to exterior noise levels in excess of 60 dB CNEL. The analysis must demonstrate that planned noise protection will meet City standards, to the satisfaction of the City Community Development Department. e. Prior to precise grading plan approval, the developer shall prepare a noise mitigation analysis for all non-residential uses within 100 feet of the edge of right-of-way for Murrieta Hot Springs Road or residences along Butterfield Stage Road (e.g., Planning Area 11 ), or for any other noise-sensitive uses on the project site potentially exposed to exterior noise exceeding 70 dB CNEL. The noise analysis must demonstrate that planned noise protection will meet City standards, to the satisfaction of the City Community Development Department. f. Prior to approval of the final park design, the developer shall document that outdoor recreational areas are designed to have exterior noise levels of less than 70 dB CNEL, to the satisfaction of the City Community Development and Community Services Departments. Noise attenuation along Butterfield Stage Road for the sports park should be in the form of berms rather than walls. g. Prior to precise grading plan approval, the developer shall document that interior living areas have noise levels less than 45 dB CNEL, to the satisfaction of the City Community Development Department. h. Prior to the issuance of building permits for homes in Planning Areas 1-4B, the developer shall demonstrate that the homes will have double-paned windows with at least 25 STC ratings installed to reduce noise from occasional aircraft overflights from French Valley Airport. i. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits in each Planning Area, the developer shall demonstrate that written information is available and being provided to prospective residents in Planning Areas 1-4B on avigation easements, height restrictions, and occasional overflights (noise and hazards). j. Measures 2 and 3 under Land Use and Planning (Section E, sub- section 1) address potential noise impacts related to operations at the French Valley Airport. D. Facts in Support of the Finding Construction of the Project may temporarily increase noise levels along local roads for several months. However, due to the topography and distance from occupied structures these noise levels should not exceed significance criteria. (Draft EIR, p. 3-154) 1. Potential noise impacts from the proposed Project will occur ~n its opening year (2003) as well as at buildout (+2015) but are not expected to be significant (i.e., +2.6 dB) (Draft EIR, pp. 3-157 to 3-162). Due to the amount of growth anticipated, cumulative noise impacts are expected to be considerable (+6 dB), although the proposed Project's contribution will not be significant (Draft EIR, p. 6-8) R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SPXnew\CC~Resos and ord CC I.doc 17 2. Implementation of the mitigation measures described above, as well as standard conditions and uniform codes, will reduce potential noise impacts to a less than significant level. (Draft EIR, p. 3-165) Public Services A. Potential Significant Impact 1. Fire Protection: Almost the entire Project site is currently outside of the 5- minute response time requirement of the Temecula Fire Department (FD) (DEIR, p. 3-166) In addition; the Project will require an extensive Fuel Modification Zone (Ibid.) The Project is providing a new fire station site (DEIR, p. 3-167) 2. Police Protection: Law enfomement services are provided by the Temecula Police Department and the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. When annexed, the entire site will be under the jurisdiction of the City Police Department. (DEIR, p. 3-173) The Project would require the service of an additional 6 deputies. (Ibid.) 3. Schools: At present, all local school sites of the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) are impacted by local growth and the State's mandatory class-size reduction program. (Draft EIR, p. 3-175) Data from the TVUSD shows that all of the schools that would serve the Project site are currently at or over capacity. (FEIR, p. 16) In addition, the TVUSD is expecting enrollments to continue increasing and expects to accommodate the continued growth by using portables. (Ibid.) Consequently, cumulative impacts to school services will be significant due to continued growth (DEIR, p. 6-8) The Project is making available a new 12-acre elementary school site and a new 20-acre middle school site southeast of Butterfield Stage Road and Nicolas Road. (DEIR, p. 2-9) 4. Recreation: The proposed Project could generate as many as 5,743 new residents, which would create a need for approximately 28.7 acres of parkland, based on State and local Quimby Act standards (DEIR, p. 3-179) The Project will provide an amount of parkland equivalent to 28.7 acres, including a 5.1-acre neighborhood park in the Plateau area, a 19.8- acre community sports park just west of the middle school site, and 9.1 acres of private recreational facilities. (Ibid.) As the area grows, additional parkland will have to be provided to assure there are no cumulatively considerable recreation impacts. (Draft EIR, p. 6-8) 5. Library: The proposed Project will increase the area population and community demand for library services. The City of Temecula has adopted a Library Component of the Development Impact Fee to mitigate the impacts of the projects. The project will be required to pay this fee prior to the issuance of each building permit. B. Finding Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce impacts to public services to less than significant levels: R:XS [~Roripaugh Ranch SI:~new\CCXResos and ord CC l.doc C, Mitigation Measures 1. Fire Protection: a. Prior to both issuance of a nonresidential use and noncommercial use building permit in any Planning Area other than 1, 2, or 3A, and the completion of a permanent onsite fire station, the developer shall demonstrate that the proposed unit is located within a 5-minute response time from an existing station for the City Fire Department. b. The developer shall provide, in fee title, a permanent fire station site to the Temecula Fire Department (Planning Area 32). The station shall be operational, including all permanent utilities, prior to issuance of the 250th building permit within Planning Areas lA, 2, or 3. No additional building or occupancy permits shall be granted until adequate onsite fire services are available, as determined by the Temecula Fire Department. c. Prior to issuance of the 251st building permit for the project, and if a permanent fire station is not yet operational, the developer shall provide a site, construct, and fund the operation of a temporary firs station. The location and other parameters of this station are up to the discretion of the City Fire Chief. d. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the developer shall pay the appropriate fire component of the Development Impact Fee (DIF), to the satisfaction of the City Building Official. 2. Police Protection a. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall incorporate the following crime prevention measures within the detailed design plans for each tract map submitted to the City for review. The City of Temecula, Crime Prevention Officer shall review detailed design plans for proposed residential and commercial uses in order to insure incorporation of these measures: i. On-site street, walkways and bikeways shall be illuminated in order to enhance night time visibility; ii. Doors and windows shall be visible from the street and between buildings in order to discourage burglaries and potential suspect hiding places; iii. Fencing heights and materials utilized are intended to discourage climbing; iv. The numbering identification system utilized on-site shall be visible and readily apparent in order to aid emergency response agencies in quickly finding specific locations; and v. (e) Walls along backbone streets will utilize graffiti resistant materials in their construction. In addition, shrubs, vines, and espaliers shall be planted along the outside of these walls in order to provide coverage thereby further discouraging graffiti and climbing. R:~S PXRoripaugh Ranch SPXnew\CCXResos and ord CC I.doc 19 3. Schools a. The developer shall 'pay applicable developer fees according to SB 50 and state law. Under current law (SB-50, 1998), developers are required to pay a Level 2 or Level 3 developer fee prior to building permit issuance for each residential unit not covered by a developer/TVUSD negotiated mitigation agreement. TVUSD has established $3.32 and $6.63 per square foot as the Level 2 and Level 3 fees, respectively, in compliance with the SB- 50 provisions. Level 2 applies until the state declares Level 3 is allowed, at which time TVUSD's Level 3 rate will take effect immediately, pursuant to TVUSD Governing Board Resolution. The Level 2 and Level 3 rates are subject to change as they are re-calculated and the revised rates are adopted annually pursuant to the SBo50 provisions. City Resolution 96- 119 is no longer in effect. 4. Recreation (Parks, Trails, and Open Space) a. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit, the developer will demonstrate that a minimum of 28.7 acres of park credit has or will be provided to the satisfaction of the City Community Services Director. (See Figure 3.11-4) b. Prior to approval of the private recreational facility plans, all private recreational facility parking areas shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department and the Director of Community Services, to ensure that they are in accordance with the City of Temecula standards, including permanent utilities. c. Prior to the issuance of the 400th building permit in the project area, the 5.1-acre park site (Planning Area 6) will be developed, including all permanent utilities and the 90-day maintenance period, and the grant deed accepted by the City Council. d. Prior to issuance of the 100th building permit, 0.3-acre mini-park site (Planning Area lB) will be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director, including all permanent utilities e. Prior to the issuance of the 250th building permit, the park portion of the private recreation area in the Plateau area (Planning Area 5) will be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. f. Prior to the issuance of the 350th building permit, the building and pool portion of the private recreation area in the Plateau area (Planning Area 5) will be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. g. Prior to the issuance of the 700th building permit in the project area, the 19.8-acre sports park site (Planning Area 27) will be developed, including all permanent utilities and the 90-day maintenance period, and the grant deed accepted by the City Council. h. Prior to the issuance of the 800th building permit, the park portion of the private recreation area in the Valley area (Planning Area 30) will be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~ew\CC~Resos and ord CC l.doc 20 i. Prior to the issuance of the 1150th building permit, the building and pool portion of the private recreation area in the Valley area (Planning Area 30) will be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. j. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the developer shall pay the appropriate parks component of the Developer Impact Fee (DIF) or enter into a DIF credit agreement, to the satisfaction of the City Building Official. k. All proposed TCSD slope/landscaping maintenance easements should be offered for dedication on the final maps. I. Prior to final map approval, the developer will certify to the City that ownership and maintenance of all open space areas will be the responsibility of an appropriate conservation organization. TCSD does not assume maintenance of open space or habitat areas. m. Prior to issuance of the 400th building permit, the Plateau trail in Planning Area 7A and the trail between Planning Areas 4B and 6 shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. n. Prior to A map recordation for the Valley portion or B map tentative map approval for the Valley portion, the developer shall provide written authorization from RCFCWCD that the maintenance roads along both sides of Long Valley Wash can be used as trails. o. Prior to tentative map approval by City, separate trails shall be designed and shown on the tentative map outside of the flood control right-of-way if the Long Valley Wash trails cannot be constructed within the maintenance roads and shall be constructed 3ursuant to Section C.4.q. and C.4.r below. p. Prior to issuance of the 1st building permit in Phase 2 as specified in the Specific Plan, the Riverwalk multi-use trails within the maintenance roads on both sides of Long Valley Wash shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. q. If the maintenance road along the north side of Long Valley Wash cannot be used as a multi-use trail, a separate trail along the north side of Long Valley Wash shall be completed prior to issuance of the 50th building permit in Planning Area 31, to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. r. If the maintenance road along the south side of Long Valley Wash cannot be used as a multi-use trail, a separate trail along the south side of Long Valley Wash shall be completed prior to issuance of the 75th building permit in Planning Areas 22, 23, or 24, to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. s. Prior to issuance of the 75t~ building permit for Planning Areas 22, 23, or 24, the developer shall construct a pedestrian bridge across Long Valley Wash, consistent with the guidelines in the Specific Plan, and to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. t. Prior to the issuance of any building permits in Planning Areas 19, 20, or 21, the developer shall construct a 15-foot wide multi-use trail within a 30-foot wide fuel R:~S P~Rofipaugh Ranch SPmew\CC~Resos and ord CC l.doc modification zone along the south side of Planning Areas 20, 21, the south and west sides of Planning Area 32, and the east sides of Planning Areas 19 and 20, to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. The trail will be designated as an easement for public use on any tentative maps for these areas. 5. Library Services a. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Developer shall pay the appropriate Library DIF fee component. D. Facts in Support of the Finding 1. Fire Protection: Development of the proposed Project will increase the need for fire service, but the project will provide a new fire station. (DEIR, p. 3-168) The Project will also contribute additional tax revenues and other City and County funds to help offset additional fire service costs (FIA, p. 5). 2. Police Protection: The proposed Project will incrementally increase the need for police services, but it is not expected to have any direct significant impacts on police services (DEIR, p. 3-174). In addition, access to the site and surrounding area by police personnel, as well as response times for emergency and non-emergency calls, should not be significantly impacted. (Ibid.) The Project will also contribute additional tax revenues and other City funds to help offset additional police service costs (FIA, p. 6) 3. Schools: The Project will contribute additional students at all grade levels to the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) but this will be offset by offering two new school sites. (Draft EIR, p. 3-175 to 3-176). Also, recent changes in school financing laws indicate that payment of developer impact fees (or their equivalent in facilities) represents full and complete mitigation under CEQA. (lb__id.) 4. Recreation: The Project will provide 24.8 acres of new developed parkland to serve project residents and the community at large (DEIR, p. 3-157) In addition, the proposed Project will provide private recreational facilities and passive open space for Project residents. (Ibid.) The Project will provide $131,321 in additional revenues to the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) compared to additional costs of $115,523 (FIA, p. 6, 8) 5. Librarv Services: At Project build-out, property taxes and other user based revenues will provide approximately $603,052 annually to the City for library services to offset annual operating costs. This will assure there are no significant impacts on library services. (DEIR, p. 3-186, FIA, p. 6); accordingly no further conditions of approval or mitigation measures will be required to respond to the Project's demand for services. 6. Medical Services: The Project will incrementally increase the need for hospital and paramedic services, however, no significant impacts to medical services were identified. (DEIR, p. 3-187) 7. Roads: Project residents will place additional demands on local and regional roads (DEIR, p. 3-189) However, the Project and its attendant CFD will provide for the construction of a number of critical improvements of local and regional roadways, intersections, and traffic signals. In addition, the Project will provide additional funds to the City and County through increased property and gasoline taxes to help fund road maintenance (FIA, pp. 6-7) RAS F~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new\CCXResos and ord CC 1 .doc 22 8. Government: Upon annexation, the Project will provide additional funds to the City in the form of increased sales taxes, subventions, and other taxes to help fund governmental services. (FIA, p. 5) After build-out, the proposed Project will provide estimated recurring revenues totaling $1,338,571 and will generate service costs of $1,279,312, for an annual surplus of $59,259. (Ibid.) Therefore, the proposed Project will not produce any significant impacts related to general government services. (Ibid.) 9. With the standard conditions and uniform codes as part of the Project's design features, as well as implementation of the above mitigation measures, potential impacts to public services will be reduced to less than significant and will have positive impacts to the City. (DEIR, p. 3-190) Utilities A. · Potential Significant Impact 1. Water: Project residents will increase the consumption of water provided by the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) by 1.33 million gallons per day (DEIR, p. 3- 191) The EMWD expects to be able to serve the Project by the construction of various on- and off-site pipelines and other improvements (DEIR, p. 3-193) 2. Sewer: Project residents will increase the generation of wastewater collected and treated by the Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) by 611,500 gallons per day (DEIR, p. 3-169) The EMWD expects to be able to serve the Project by the construction of various on- and off-site pipelines and other improvements (DEIR, p. 3-198) 3. Electricity/Natural Gas: The Project will consume 36,940 kilowatt-hours per day of electricity and 464,667 cubic feet per day of natural gas. (DEIR, p. 191) Edison International and the Southern California Gas Company have indicated they can serve the Project. (DEIR, pp. 3-203, 3-204) 4. Solid Waste: At buildout, the Project will generate approximately 13 tons per day of waste (DEIR, p. 3-205), which can be disposed of at existing County facilities (Ibid) B. Finding Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce impacts to public services to less than significant: C. Mitigation Measures 1. Water a. Prior to the recordation of maps, the developer will demonstrate that water in adequate volume and of adequate quality is available to serve project start-up through completion and full occupancy per requirements of the Eastern Municipal Water District and Rancho California Water District, as applicable. b. The developer has provided the City with adequate documentation from the local water purveyors (EMWD and RCWD) that they have adequate water supplies according to the requirements of SB 221 and SB 610. R:\S P~Rofipaugh Ranch SP~new\CexResos and ord CC l.doc 23 2. Sewer a. The developer shall install reclaimed water piping for irrigating the two private recreational facilities, the public park sites, and all common landscaped areas on the project site, to the satisfaction of the Temecula Community Services and Public Works Departments. 3. Electricity/Natural Gas * None proposed 4. Solid Waste a. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the developers will inform all refuse generators within the project site in writing about opportunities for recycling and waste reduction (i.e. buyback centers, curbside recycling, etc.). The use of such facilities will be encouraged by the developer through information (e.g. materials, accepted locations, etc.) provided in sales literature. b. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer will provide adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials (recycling areas) in the commercial and multi-family residential areas. This will help the City comply with the California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991 (AB 1327). The developer will also demonstrate compliance with established standards for design, siting, and operation of recycling areas and programs. c. All commercial wastes shall be processed at the Materials Recovery Facility in the City of Perris, or similar recovery facility. d. The developer shall provide proof to TCSD that construction debris, including but not limited to lumber, asphalt, concrete, sand, paper, and metal is recycled through the City's solid waste hauler. D. Facts in Support of the Finding The Project will consume additional water, electricity, and natural gas, and generate additional wastewater and solid waste. However, local serving agencies indicate they have adequate resources to serve the Project, and thus no significant impacts are expected (DEIR, p. 3-197. 3- 200, 3-203, 3-204, 3-205, 3-207) Scientific Resources A. Potential Significant Impact Although a site survey revealed no sur[icial archaeological artifacts, the Temecula Valley has yielded archaeological resources in the past (DEIR, p. 3-229). In addition, certain local geologic formations have yielded paleontological resources in the past, and the Project site contains some of these formations. (Ibid) Based on the above information, the Project site could yield scientific resources during grading. (Draft EIR, p. 3-230) R:\S P~Rofipaugh Ranch SPXnew\CCXResos and ord CC l.doc 24 B. Finding Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce impacts related to cultural resources to less than significant: C. Mitigation Measures 1. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall retain an archaeological/paleontological monitor to observe onsite grading, including excavated soil stockpiles, especially in areas where Pauba or unnamed Sandstone formations are disturbed, for evidence of paleontological, archaeological, or historical artifacts (e.g., shells, fossils, bones, pottery, charcoal deposits, arrowheads, etc.). If any artifacts are discovered during grading, work will be halted and qualified personnel will be retained to examine, evaluate, and determine the most appropriate disposition of the resource(s). 2. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall enter into an agreement with the local Native American (NA) Pechanga Band to allow for up to 2 NA representatives to monitor all groundbreaking and grading activities. This effort will be coordinated through the archaeological monitor, to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department. 3. If human remains are found, and determined by the County Coroner's office to be Native American, and it is determined by the Native American Heritage Commission that member(s) of the Pechanga Band are the most likely descendants, the Developer shall allow reburial of the remains and associated goods within the project boundaries, to be "capped" to prevent further disturbances in the future. The site of such burial shall not be disclosed to the public, pursuant to Government Code §6254. Details of the reburial shall be negotiated between the Developer and the Pechanga Cultural Resources Committee. 4. If human remains are found, and not determined by the County Coroner's office to be Native American, but believed by the Pechanga Band to be so, the Developer shall be required to pay reasonable costs to determine whether the remains are Native American. 5. All Luiseno cultural items and associated grave goods found on site, other than human remains, are to be avoided, relocated, salvaged, returned to the Pechanga Band or any other option decided by the Pechanga Band to be appropriate, before development of the area in which the item was found is to resumed. 6. The Developer shall provide for tribal archaeological monitors to be present during any Phase II and potential Phase Ill surveys of all sites within the project. D. Facts in Support of the Finding 1. Although the Project area is considered sensitive for archaeological and paleontological resources, no such resources were found on the Project site during a walkover survey. (Draft EIR, p. 3-230) In addition, qualified personnel will be onsite to monitor grading in case such resources are discovered (DEIR, p. 3-230) 2. In addition, the Project's potential impacts will not be cumulatively considerable provided the County and City continue to require archaeological surveys and mitigation as part of its development approval process. (Draft EIR, p. 6-9) Through the R:\S PxRoripaugh Ranch SPXnew\CCXP, esos and ord CC l.doc 25 implementation of the above mitigation measures, potential impacts to scientific resources will be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 3-231) Section 2. Findings Significant Unavoidable Impacts of the Project A. Despite incorporating changes and alterations into the Project, four environmental categories were found to have direct unavoidable and significant adverse environmental effects. The following direct environmental impacts were found to be significant in the EIR: 1) loss of agricultural land; 2) transportation and circulation; 3) air quality; and 4) aesthetics. The potential impacts were concluded to be significant because the impacts could not be reduced below thresholds of significance by the proposed Project changes and mitigation measures. In addition, the EIR found that growth in the area would have cumulatively considerable impacts on traffic, noise, air quality, and water consumption. The following discussion outlines the four direct significant, unavoidable impact categories of the Project and describes both the anticipated effects of the Project as well as the mitigation measures designed to minimize them to the degree feasible. Agriculture A. Significant Unavoidable Impact The Project site has supported agriculture for many decades, and is classified as locally important farmland in the Temecula General Plan and contains prime agricultural soils according to the federal Natural Resources Conservation Service (DEIR, pp. 3-16 to 3-17) B. Finding Conversion of the site to suburban uses will eventually eliminate all agricultural activities on the site. There is no effective mitigation other than precluding its development, which would not achieve the overall goals of the project. C. Mitigation Measures No mitigation is therefore recommended. D. Facts in Suppod of the Finding Loss of agricultural activities on the site is unavoidable if the site is converted to suburban uses. This is therefore a significant unavoidable impact of the Project (DEIR, p. 3-21 ) Transportation and Circulation A. Significant Unavoidable Impact 1. Existing traffic levels in the vicinity of the Project site are relatively Iow and most intersections in the immediate area are operating at acceptable Levels of Service (LOS) except some intersections near the Temecula Mall (DEIR, p. 3-60) at buildout, the Project will generate 28,165 vehicle trips. As the Project builds out, it will cause the LOS at the intersections of the 1-15 southbound ramps at Rancho California Road Winchester Road at Margarita Road to exceed City standards by 2007. In addition, the intersections of the 1-15 R:~S l%Roripaugh Ranch SPmevACC~Resos and ord CC l.doc 26 southbound ramps at Winchester Road, Ynez Road at Winchester Road, and Ynez Road at Rancho Caflfornia Road will exceed City LOS standards with or without the project at buildout. These intersections represent a significant traffic impact (DEIR, p. 3-97). 2. Continuing development in the surrounding area is expected to produce significant traffic impacts. Therefore, the Project will make a significant contribution to cumulative traffic impacts. (Ibid.) B. Finding The following mitigation measures will help reduce traffic and circulation related impacts to the greatest degree practical: C. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures will be imposed upon the developer in the event the statutory development agreement which is anticipated to be entered into between the City and the developer is not entered into or, if entered into, is deemed unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction prior to either party tendering substantial performance of its obligations under the Development Agreement. In the event the Development Agreement is executed by the parties and not judicially deemed unenforceable then the mitigation measures described in Section 3, Traffic and Circulation, 3.1. hereunder will be rejected by this City Council and replaced with those provisions regarding traffic as are set forth in the Development Agreement and the conditions of approval applied to each development entitlement arising under the Actions. Functionally, and not withstanding anything to the contrary, the developer shall pay all required fair share payments and make all identified improvements at the time and of the nature required by the FEIR. City shall aggregate the fair share payments and shall, rather than retain the incremental portions of the various fair share components, consolidate the monies and apply them to public projects that will result in the full improvement of certain specified intersections. It is believed that the immediate improvement of the intersections identified in Section 3, Traffic and Circulation b, d, and e will bring a greater public benefit than will the retained incremental economic contributions toward future improvements. This alternative mitigation measure program is believed to provide a greater level of traffic mitigation at the present while not substantially impairing the future development of the remaining intersections at the time traffic demand warrants the improvements. At such time the City of Temecula will fund on it own account, the necessary traffic and circulation improvements. 1. The following shall be used to implement the mitigation measures in this section: (a) all proposed road improvements shall include associated flood control, storm drain, water, and sewer lines; (b) all references to bridges shall mean hydro-arch bridges or other designs as approved by the City Engineer; (c) full-width improvements shall consist of the complete street and landscape improvements with the right-of-way; (d) half-width improvements shall consist of the construction of the improvements from curb to the raised landscaped median, the full-width raised landscaped median, where applicable, and a travel lane adjacent to the median on the unimproved half; (e) on center improvements shall mean (1) a 38'width improvement consisting of two 14' travel lanes and a 10' turn lane, or (2) a 40' width improvement consisting of two 14' travel lanes and a 12' turn lane. R:~S PLRoripaugh Ranch Sl~new\CCSResos and ord CC l.doc 27 2. Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase, the developer or the CFD must construct the improvements identified (in Table 1). The City reserves the right to withhold building permits in excess of those indicated until the mitigation measures necessary to improve the Level of Service to LOS D or better are completed for each phase of development, except the following five intersections that will exceed City standards even without project- related traffic: a) 1-15 southbound ramps at Winchester Road; b) 1-15 southbound ramps at Rancho California Road; c) the intersection of Ynez Road at Winchester Road; d) the intersection of Ynez Road at Rancho California Road; and e) the intersection of Margarita Road at Winchester Road. However, the developer is still responsible to comply with the mitigation measures for the improvement of the above five intersections. The developer and/or CFD will be responsible for acquiring right-of-way where necessary for any required onsite and offsite improvements. The City will require additional or supplemental traffic studies prior to approval of future tentative tract maps. If these studies confirm that area intersections are operating below LOS D or otherwise pose an unsafe condition from project traffic, then the developer shall be responsible for mitigating these conditions, in addition to the mitigation measures already identified in the EIR. In general, the supplemental traffic studies will: (a) document ambient traffic volume conditions; (b) estimate trip generation for the particular development phase; and (c) assess traffic conditions with the traffic added by the particular development phase. The exact study area to be addressed in each of the traffic studies should be defined through discussions with the City Traffic Engineer. In general, the study area should include the immediate access intersectiQns and roadways which would serve the new development phase, and those critical offsite intersections and roadways that will provide primary access to the new development. Critical intersections/roadways are defined as those facilities that are experiencing high levels of peak period traffic congestion at the time the traffic study is to be performed. The traffic study determinations would assist the City in proactively planning for area roadway improvements. NOTE: The proposed improvements and their phasing are summarized in the attached Table 1. 3. The developer must make a fair share contribution towards the improvement of the following intersections identified (in Table 2). The City reserves the right to withhold building permits in excess of those indicated until the mitigation measures necessary to improve the Level of Service to LOS D or better are completed for each phase of development, except the following five intersections that will exceed City standards even without project- related traffic: a) 1-15 southbound ramps at Winchester Road; b) 1-15 southbound ramps at Rancho California Road; c) the intersection of Ynez Road at Winchester Road; d) the intersection of Ynez Road at Rancho California Road; and e) the intersection of Margarita Road at Winchester Road. However, the developer is still responsible to comply with the mitigation measures for the improvement of the above five intersections. The developer and/or CFD will be responsible for acquiring right-of-way where necessary for any required onsite and offsite improvements. Additional or supplemental traffic shall be conducted studies prior to approval of future tentative tract maps. If these studies confirm that area intersections are operating below LOS D or otherwise pose an unsafe condition, then the developer shall be responsible for mitigating these conditions, in addition to the mitigation measures already identified in the EIR. R:\S PXRoripaugh Ranch SPXnew\CCkResos and ord CC I.doc 28 In general, the supplemental traffic studies will: (a) document ambient traffic volume conditions; (b) estimate trip generation for the particular development phase; and (c) assess traffic conditions with the traffic added by the particular development phase. The exact study area to be addressed in each of the traffic studies should be defined through discussions with the City Traffic Engineer. In general, the study area should include the immediate access intersections and roadways which would serve the new development phase, and those critical offsite intersections and roadways that will provide primary access to the new development. Critical intersections and roadways are defined as those facilities that are experiencing high levels of peak period traffic congestion at the time the traffic study is to be performed. The traffic study determinations would assist the City in proactively planning for area roadway improvements. NOTE: The proposed improvements and their phasing are summarized in the attached Table 2. 4. When the appropriate warrants are met, the developer will contribute a fair share contribution towards the installation of traffic signals and related intersection improvements at: (a) Butterfield Stage Road at La Serena Way; and (b) Meadows Parkway at La Serena Way. 5. Prior to approval of the street improvement plans, the developer shall demonstrate that the sight distance at each of the project entrances meets City and Caltrans standards, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 6. Prior to the approval of the tentative tract maps for Planning Areas 17, 18, and 19, the streets shall be designed to provide safe horizontal and vertical alignments including special considerations to speed control on steep grades. 7. A General Plan Amendment to the Circulation Element is being approved for the following: (a) the designation of Calle Contento as a Principal Collector Road is recommended to be deleted within the project site; and (b) the designation of Butterfield Stage Road as an Specific Plan Road (122' right-of-way) from Murrieta Hot Spring Road to Nicolas Road (c) the designation of North and South Loop Roads as Specific Plan Roads (76' right-of- way), and (d) the designation of A and B street as Collector Roads (66' right-of-way). 8. Prior to approval of development plans for Planning Area 11, the developer shall provide pedestrian and bicycle facilities in this area, to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department. 9. Prior to issuance of any building permit for Planning Areas 10, 11, 12, 14- 31, 33A, or 33B, the developer shall provide and construct 50 designated Park-N-Ride spaces in Planning Area 11. 10. Prior to the first building permit in Phase 2, the developer shall fund operation of a shuttle bus service to and from the project. The developer shall pay the RTA to operate the shuttle bus service for a period of 3 years for project residents, but may be expanded to serve areas outside of the project on a fair share basis. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and RTA. 11. Prior to tentative tract map approval in each phase, the developer shall coordinate with the RTA to incorporate transit-related facilities and design features into the project, to the satisfaction of the City Public Works Department. R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SPmew\CC~Resos and ord CC l.doc 29 12. In conjunction with constructing Nicolas Road offsite in Phase 1, the developer shall install a 6-foot wide asphalt path along the north side of Nicolas Road. This path shall be built to the satisfaction of the Temecula Community Services and Public Works Departments. The asphalt path shall be extended from 450 feet east of the Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection to the bridge over Santa Gertrudis Creek during Phase 2. 13. Prior to issuance of the grading permits and/or building permits, the developer shall provide the City with a letter stating that all contractors will be prohibited from using Nicolas Road for construction-related traffic. 14. Prior to tentative map approval for Planning Area 19, the 15-foot wide multi-use trail within a 30-foot fuel modification zone shall be designated to be screened from offsite homes on an as needed basis. Screening shall be accomplished through the use of either landscaping or topography, to the greatest extent feasible. However, the primary goal of this trail is to provide access to the trail from adjacent onsite and offsite lots. D. Facts in Support of the Finding 1. Even with implementation of all these mitigation measures, two intersections will still exceed City standards as a result of Project traffic through year 2007 but it is anticipated that the full scope of improvements at project build out will conform all intersections to City standards. Therefore, the Project will still have significant traffic impacts even after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures (DEIR, p. 3-97) Air Quality A. Significant Unavoidable Impact 1. Temporary or short-term emissions will occur during construction of the Project (approximately 2000 to 2005). Such emissions include on-site generation of dust and equipment exhaust, and off-site emissions from construction employee commuting and/or trucks delivering building materials. (Ibid.) Evaporative emissions of volatile organic compounds from paints, asphalt, and other coatings will also be generated, and will exceed SCAQMD significance levels.. (DEIR, p. 3-108) 2. SCQAMD daily significance thresholds will also be exceeded for CO, ROC, NOx, and PM10 (DEIR, p. 3-111) however, the mobile nature of the on-site construction equipment and off-site trucks will prevent any violation of CO standards in the immediate Project area. (DEIR, p. 3-111) B, Finding The following measures are recommended to reduce potential short-term (construction-related) and long-term (operational) air quality impacts to the greatest extent feasible: C. Mitigation Measures 1. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the developer will submit a Dust Control Plan (DCP) to the City consistent with SCAQMD guidelines. These requirements apply to offsite as well as onsite improvements. The DCP will include activities to reduce onsite and offsite dust production. Such activities will include but are not limited to: R:XS F~Roripaugh Ranch SPmew~C~Resos and ord CC 1.doc 3O a. Throughout grading and construction activities, exposed soil will be kept moist through a minimum of twice daily watering to reduce fugitive dust. b. Street sweeping will be conducted, as needed, alone, paved site access roadways to remove dirt dropped by construction vehicles or dried mud carried off by trucks moving dirt or bringing construction materials. Site access driveways and adjacent streets will be washed if there are visible signs of any dirt track-out at the conclusion of any workday. c. All trucks hauling dirt away from the site will be covered to prevent the generation of fugitive dust. d. During high wind conditions (i.e., wind speeds exceeding 25 mph), areas with disturbed soil will be watered hourly, sprayed with chemical binders, or activities on unpaved surfaces will be terminated until wind speeds no longer exceed 25 mph. Chip sealing access roads (if needed) Hydroseeding exposed soil surfaces. Chemical binders or surfactants to water. During the construction phase of the project, if the measures identified in the DCP are not implemented as proposed, the City shall halt construction until such time as the situation is corrected, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. 2. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, the developer will document to the City that appropriate construction equipment has had tune-ups or equivalent work to assure Iow NOx emissions. These requirements apply to offsite as well as onsite improvements. This documentation must be provided prior to the commencement of any work on any equipment anticipated to be used for more than 30 days. In addition, the developer shall encourage the use of alternative fuels (e.g., compressed natural gas) on construction vehicles and equipment. All diesel equipment and vehicles must be equipped with particulate filters and use only Iow sulfur fuels (less than 15 ppm sulfur content). 3. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, the developer will document to the City that ail workers have been encouraged to carpool, and workers will be informed in writing. These requirements apply to offsite as well as onsite improvements. 4. Prior to the issuance of building permits, individual contractors will submit a Traffic Management Plan to the Public Works Department that includes, but is not limited to: a. scheduling receipt of construction materials to non-peak travel periods (i.e., 7:30 - 8:30 AM and 4:00 - 6:00 PM); b. routing construction traffic through areas of least impact sensitivity; c. limiting lane closures and detours to off-peak travel periods; d. staging areas away from existing residential uses; and e. staging areas away from existing residential uses. R:x.S PW. oripaugh Ranch SPXnew~CCSResos and oM CC l.doc 5. In addition to these measures to control construction-related emissions, the Mitigation Measures portion of the Transportation and Circulation section of this document (Section 5, above) includes several transportation system management/transportation demand management (TSM/"rDM) measures to help reduce long-term (operationally-related) air quality impacts, including a shuttle bus, transit node, and design for alternative transportation options. D. Facts in Support of the Finding 1. Due to the size and nature of the project, its construction and occupancy will generate amounts of air pollutants that will exceed SCAQMD thresholds (DEIR, pp. 3-108, 3-111). While implementation of the proposed mitigation will help reduce pollutant emissions, they are not likely to reduce them to less than significant levels (DEIR, p. 3-115) 2. Future development will contribute to incremental increases in air pollution over the long-term (i.e., as units are occupied) as a result of vehicular traffic and energy consumption. (Draft EIR, p. 6-7) According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(I)(3), "a lead agency may determine that a Project's incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the Project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program which provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem within the geographic area in which the Project is located." (Ibid.) In this case, a Project's cumulative impact can be mitigated to a level of less than significant by compliance with SCAQMD's AQMP guidelines. (Ibid.) Aesthetics A. Significant Unavoidable Impact 1. As the Project builds out, the surrounding rural neighborhoods will presented with views of suburban housing (Draft EIR, pp. 3-214 to 3-217)..In addition, lighting for the athletic fields at the community park will introduce new sources of light and glare to the Project site and surrounding areas and roads. (Ibid.). These are considered significant aesthetic impacts on the rural Nicolas Valley and Temecula Wine Country areas (Ibid.) B. Finding The following mitigation measures will help reduce potential aesthetic impacts to the greatest degree practical: C. Mitigation Measures 1. The developer will submit all architectural and landscape design plans, along with plant material palettes, to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits in conformance with the approved Specific Plan. 2. Prior to approval of the tentative tract map or Development Plan, whichever is applicable, for Planning Area 31, a 25-foot building setback consisting of a landscaped buffer zone or an internal street or driveway, shall be provided along the north and west boundary of Planning Area 31. If one or both of the schools are built prior to approval of the tentative map or the Development Plan for Planning Area 31, and an equivalent buffer, as determined by the Planning Director, is provided on the school sites, the developer may request the City to reduce or eliminate the buffering requirement. R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch Sl~new\CC~Resos and oral CC 1,doc 32 3. The Community Services Director shall review and approve the sports field lighting during design development. 4. The City will evaluate the commercial center lighting for potential offsite impacts prior to the issuance of building permits for Planning Area 11. The lighting in these areas will be adequately shielded or directed to minimize offsite impacts, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director. 5. The developer shall submit plans for rural-oriented lighting for Planning Areas 14-26, 30, and 31. These plans are subject to review and approval by the City Community Development and Public Works Departments. No final maps will be approved until the lighting plan is approved. 6. The Master developer shall provide prospective homebuyers with notice that the community sports park will include sports field lighting for evening use. Proof of the notification shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to the recordation of the final map. 7. Prior to recordation of final maps or issuance of a grading permit, the developer shall submit plans to the Planning Department for Planning Areas 10, 12, and 14 through 17 for those uses adjacent to the AD 161 SHCP open space areas of sufficient scale and detail for City staff to review potential lighting impacts on the open space areas. The developer shall make any changes to the plans, including reduction in the amount or placement of streetlights, night Fighting, fencing, etc. to preclude light spilling into the habitat areas. Review of plans for possible changes to street lighting shall be coordinated with the City Public Works Department. D. Facts in Support of the Finding 1. The only effective way of eliminating aesthetic impacts of the Project (i.e., views and night lighting) would be to substantially reduce the density of the project and eliminate the night lighting at the community park. According to the developer, the Project density is needed to fund its various local and regional improvements, and the night lighting is needed for youth sports to make effective use of the community park. Therefore, construction of the Project as proposed, including the recommended mitigation measures, will result in significant aesthetic impacts (Draft EIR, p. 3-219) Cumulative Impacts The Project was found to have potentially significant cumulative impacts on: (1) traffic; (2) air quality; 3) noise; and water consumption. Even with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures for this Project, its contributions to cumulative impacts cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 6-6 to 6-9) Facts in Support of the Finding The project's contribution to loss of agricultural land on a regional basis is cumulatively considerable (i.e., significant). The DEIR concluded that development throuqhout the reqion, includinq the proposed proiect, could have cumulatively considerable impacts to 1) traffic; 2) air quality; 3) noise; 4) water consumption; and 5) loss of agricultural land. However, the Roripaugh project will mitigate its contributions to these cumulative impacts to the greatest degree practical, except for loss of agricultural land. The project will use reclaimed water when R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~CCXResos and ord CC l,doc 33 it is available, and has received SB 221 and SB 610 certifications from the local water suppliers. Therefore, the project has mitigated its water use impacts to the greatest degree practical (i.e., less than significant project impacts too). The project's aesthetic impacts are not cumulatively considerable but are individually significant on a project level due to its location and the proposed sports field lights at the community park. Section 3. Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of mitigation measures outlined in the Draft EIR, the following impacts cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant level, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore included herein: A. This section of the findings addresses the requirements in Section 15093 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. Section 15093 requires the lead agency to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable significant impacts, and to determine whether the Project related significant impacts are acceptably overridden by the Project benefits. As outlined in Section 2 above, the Project would produce direct unavoidable significant impacts in four environmental categories: 1) loss of agricultural land; 2) transportation and circulation; 3) air quality; and 4) aesthetics. It will also make contributions to cumulatively considerable impacts related to traffic, air quality, noise, and water consumption. B. The City Council's findings set forth in the preceding sections have identified all of the adverse environmental impacts and the feasible mitigation measures which can reduce impacts to less than significant levels where feasible, or to the lowest achievable levels where significant unavoidable impacts remain. These impacts and mitigation measures are discussed in Section I and 2 of this document. With the implementation of the mitigation measures discussed in the EIR and administrative record, these effects can be mitigated to a level of less than significant except for unavoidable significant impacts as discussed in Section 2. C. The findings have also analyzed three action alternatives (but of a total of seven alternatives) to determine whether they are reasonable or feasible alternatives to the proposed action or whether they might reduce or eliminate the unavoidable significant impacts of the proposed action. These significant impacts have been outlined in Section 4 and the City Council finds that all feasible alternatives and mitigation measures have been adopted or identified for implementation by the City or Responsible Agencies. D. The Council finds that the Project's benefits are substantial and outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects to air quality, Agriculture, Transportation, and aesthetics and cumulative impacts associated with the Project. This finding is supported by the fact that major infrastructure improvements will benefit the community through improvements to flood control facilities, fire protection, improvements to the local water system and road improvements affecting the whole community. Moreover, the Project site will now be managed where currently no management occurs, greatly benefiting the property as well as the surrounding community. Moreover, the Project will add a high quality development with diverse housing opportunities. The Council finds that these benefits and others set forth above, when balanced against the four unavoidable significant adverse impacts, outweigh the impacts because of the social and economic values, which accrue to the community. E. The City Council hereby declares that to the extent any mitigation measures recommended in the EIR could not be incorporated, such mitigation measures are infeasible because they would impose restrictions on the Project that would prohibit the realization of specific economic, social, and other benefits that this Council finds outweigh the unmitigated impacts. The City Council further finds that except for the Project, all other alternatives set forth in the EIR are infeasible because they would prohibit the realization of Project objectives and/or RSS P~Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new\CCXResos and ord CC l.doc 34 of specific economic, social and other benefits that this City Council finds outweigh any environmental benefits of the alternatives. F. The City Council hereby declares, that, having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of the Project to the extent feasible by adopting the proposed mitigation measures, having considered the entire administrative record on the Project, and having weighed the benefits of the Project against its unavoidable adverse impacts after mitigation, the City Council has determined that the following social, economic, and environmental benefits of the Project outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse impacts and render those potential adverse environmental impacts acceptable based upon the following overriding considerations: TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 1. The Project will provide various regional and local roadway improvements that will be installed by the developer or funded through the Community Facilities District, and that are beyond the Project's fair share contributions, are substantial and outweigh the significant traffic impacts of the project. 2. The Project will provide various traffic signals and intersection improvements that exceed its fair share contributions in this regard, and earlier than currently proposed, which therefore outweigh the identified significant traffic impacts at several local intersections. 3. The Project will construct the following intersection improvements selected by the City for early completion, and in lieu of its fair share contributions to area intersections, as identified in Section 6 and 7 below: a. If warranted, bonds shall be posted to secure traffic signal and intersection improvements prior to recordation of final maps with construction complete prior to issuance of building permits. b. North General Kearney Road at Nicolas Road to be constructed by the 1st building permit in accordance with the ultimate lane configurations: Northbound N General Kearney Rd: I Through Lane, 1 Right Turn Lane ii. Southbound N General Kearney Rd: 1 Shared Left, Through, Right Turn Lane iii. Eastbound Nicolas Rd: I Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes, 1 Right Turn Lane iv. Westbound Nicolas Rd: 1 Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes, 1 Right Turn Lane c. Pourroy Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road to be constructed by the 400th building permit. d. Winchester Road at Nicolas Road to be constructed by the 510th building permit in accordance with the ultimate lane configurations: R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SPXnew\CC~Resos and ord CC I .doc 35 i. Northbound Winchester: 2 Left Turn Lanes, 4 Through Lanes, 1 Free Right Turn Lane. ii. Southbound Winchester: 2 Left Turn Lanes, 4 Through Lanes, I Right Turn Lane. iii, Eastbound Nicolas Road: I Left Turn Lane, 1 Through Lane, 1 Right Turn Lane. iv. Westbound Nicolas Road: 3 Left Turn Lanes, 1 Through Lane, 1 Right Turn Lane. Buttedield Stage Road at Rancho California Road by the 510th building permit. i. Northbound BSR: 1 Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes ii. Southbound BSR: 1 Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes iii. Eastbound RCR: 2 Left Turn Lanes, 2 Through Lanes iv. Westbound RCR: 1 Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes f. Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Butterfield Stage Road to be constructed by the 510th building permit. building permit. Nicolas Road at Butterfield Stage Road to be constructed by the 510th building permit. Calle Chapos at Butterfield Stage Road to be constructed by the 510th i. Traffic signals may be required, as warranted, at the two other project entrances from Murrieta Hot Springs Road located to the east and west of the Pourroy Road main project entrance. j. The Developer shall execute an agreement with the City to contribute a fair share portion of the total construction costs for traffic signals at the following percentages: i. 5.8% for the traffic signal at 1-215 Freeway (Southbound Ramps) at Murrieta Hot Springs Road including southbound left turn lane, southbound right turn lane, eastbound through lane, eastbound right turn lane, westbound through lane, and westbound free right turn lane; ii. Undetermined percentage for the lane improvements at Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Alta Murrieta in the City of Murrieta including improvements to be specified. iii. 12.4% for the traffic signal at Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Margarita Road. R:~S PXRoripaugh Ranch SPXnew\CCSResos and ord CC l.doc 36 iv. 11.1% for the traffic signal at Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Winchester Road. k. If warranted, bonds shall be posted to secure traffic signal and intersection improvements prior to recordation of final maps with construction complete prior to issuance of building permits. I. The following intersections fair share contributions are deemed satisfied by the completion of the intersection improvements in Section 3, 4, and 5 above. i. 1-15 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Rancho California Road - southbound left turn lane, westbound free right-turn lane, eastbound free right turn lane, and southbound free right-turn lane ii. Ynez Road at Winchester Road - southbound right-turn overlap iii. Ynez Road at Rancho California Road - eastbound through lane iv. Buttedield Stage Road at Rancho California Road - traffic signal v. 1-15 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Winchester Road southbound left-turn lane, southbound right-turn lane, westbound free right-turn lane, right-turn lane, westbound through lane, eastbound through lane, and eastbound free right-turn lane. vi. Traffic signal and related intersection improvements, as warranted, at the intersection of La Serena and Meadows Parkway. vii. 1-15 Freeway northbound left-turn lane, northbound free westbound free right-turn lane (northbound ramps) at Winchester Road right-turn lane, westbound through lane, and viii. I- 15 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Rancho California Road - southbound left-turn lane, southbound, eastbound, and westbound free right-turn lanes. ix. 1-15 Freeway (northbound ramps) at Rancho California Road - northbound left-turn and right-turn lanes x. Ynez Road at Winchester Road - southbound left-turn lane, southbound right-turn overlap, and eastbound left-turn lane xi. Ynez Road at Rancho California Road - westbound left-turn lane, westbound right-turn lane, southbound through lane, southbound free fight turn lane, eastbound free right-turn lane, and eastbound through lane xii. Margarita Road at Rancho California Road - northbound and southbound through lanes, southbound right-turn lane, eastbound left-turn lane, eastbound right-turn overlap, westbound left-turn lane, northbound right-turn lane, and westbound right turn overlap xiii. Calle Contento at Rancho California Road - eastbound left-turn lane, eastbound through lane, westbound left-turn lane, and westbound through lane R:~S PxRofipaugh Ranch Sl~new~CC~Resos and ord CC l.doc 37 m. In addition, Butterfield Stage Road between Murrieta Hot Springs mad and the northern project boundary will not be constructed since the construction of this segment will not connect to an existing road. BIOLOGICALRESOURCES 1. The Project will dedicate 201 acres for the long-term maintenance of habitat as its part of the Assessment District 161 Sub-Regional Habitat Conservation Plan. 2. The Project will improve Long Valley Wash so as to provide for enhanced wildlife movement through the area. 3. The Project will provide over 10 acres of new and/or restored (i.e., revegetated) biological habitat onsite, including riparian and wetland areas along Santa Gertrudis Creek and the Long Valley Wash. WATER RESOURCES 1. The Project will provide for needed flood control improvements along these critical stretches of Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash, and help protect downstream properties from historical flooding, which substantially exceeds its fair share contribution in this regard. 2. The Project will provide for the long-term maintenance of proposed flood control facilities to minimize additional cost to the City for protecting offsite properties from historical flooding, 3. The Project will construct a new water distribution system onsite and connect to area-wide water service system of the Eastern Municipal Water District. 4. Without the Project, the existing uncontrolled drainage will continue to occur. FIRE PROTECTION 1. The Project will provide a site and funding for a new fire station for the Temecula Fire Department. 2. The Project will significantly improve existing emergency and commemial access to the local community, thereby allowing increased access for fire control services to the Project site and surrounding area. SCHOOLS 1. The Project will make available a new 12-acre elementary school site to the Temecula Valley Unified School District. 2. The Project will make available a new 20-acre middle school site to the Temecula Valley Unified School District. FISCAUHOUSING 1. The Project will facilitate the formation of a Community Facilities District (CFD) to fund needed public improvements, such as roads, drainage, bridges, fire station, landscaping, R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new\CC~Resos and ord CC 1.doc 38 intersections, and traffic signals, at a minimum cost of approximately $33.3 million, including roads such as Butterfield Stage Road, Murrieta Hot Springs Road, etc. 2. The Project will pay off an estimated $835,000 left in the AD 161 fund through formation of the CFD 3. The Project will facilitate the formation of a master Homeowner Association (HOA) to maintain the onsite landscaped and open space areas not already maintained by the County or its designee for habitat under the AD 161 SHCP program. 4. The Project will enhance and increase available housing choices in the area, by providing additional housing types through the provision of approximately 2,015 single-family residential units. 5. The Project will augment the County's economic base through increased property taxes, gasoline tax, sales taxes subventions and other taxes. At full buildout, the Project will provide estimated recurring revenues totaling $1,338,571 versus service costs of $1,279,312, resulting in an annual surplus of $59,259. (Fiscal Impact Assessment, September 2002). 6. The Project will increase employment, during the short-term from such jobs as construction, landscaping and sales-related jobs, and during the long-term from such jobs as maintenance, security, various onsite office uses, and increase retail sales of goods in the Temecula area. 7. The Project will increase property values in the area through development of a series of gated communities throughout the Project. Private roads and landscaped medians on non-arterial roads will be maintained by the private Homeowners Association without cost to the general public. RECREATION 1. The Project will provide benefits to the community through the construction of a 5.1-acre neighborhood park and a 19.8-acre community sports park to meet a portion of its 28.7 acres of parkland required under the Quimby Act. 2. The Project will provide two private recreational facilities on 9.1 acres for Project residents in addition to the public parks, thereby reducing the demand on public facilities and providing the balance of the 28.7 acres of parkland required under the Quimby Act. 3. The Project will create an interconnected system of sidewalks and trails to allow pedestrians, bicyclists, and equestrians efficient non-vehicular access through the project site. SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES 1. The Project will provide benefit to the community through the documentation and curation of any notable archaeological and/or paleontological material that may be discovered during excavation and grading of the site. Without such actions, such archaeological and/or paleontological resources would be unrecognized. R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new\CC~Resos and ord CC l.doc 39 SUMMARY The City Council hereby declares that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through approval and implementation of the Project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts of the Project which cannot be mitigated. The City Council finds that the Project benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. Section 4. Alternatives. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires discussion of a reasonable range of project alternatives that could feasibly attain the project's objectives (14 CCR § 15126(f)). CEQA requires that an EIR evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project, or to the location of the Project, which: (1) offer substantial environmental advantages over the Project proposal, and (2) may be feasibly accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time considering the economic, environmental, social and technological factors involved. The purpose in analyzing alternatives to a proposed project is to determine if an alternative is capable of eliminating or reducing potential significant adverse environmental effects, "even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the Project objectives, or would be more costly" (§ 15126.6). A. The Draft EIR identified the City's objectives for the proposed Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Project, which are to provide: 1) a master-planned community; 2) a variety of housing options; 3) be sensitive to natural features; 4) provide unifying themes within the community; 5) provide a variety of major public improvements; 6) provide backbone infrastructure for the site and surrounding area; 7) be consistent with the City's goals and policies; 8) minimize impacts to surrounding residents, public services, and utilities; and 8) neighborhood commercial uses. (DEIR, p. 2-20) The EIR considered a total of seven alternatives to the proposed action which were examined in detail as follows: Alternative Locations 1. The alternative that considered another location was eliminated from detailed analysis. In the process of preparing the EIR, it was necessary to consider possible alternative locations to the proposed Project to ascertain whether potential significant impacts could be reduced below a significant level. Assuming that development would occur on a comparable area and with the same uses, same general density, and same intensity, no alternative site could be found which could feasibly reduce or eliminate the unavoidable significant impacts of a comparable project. The California Supreme Court ruled that a feasible alternative must take into account economic factors, including whether a property is owned or can be reasonably acquired by the Project proponent. (Citizens of Goleta Valley et al. v. City Council (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553.) (Draft EIR, p. 7-24) In addition, the Court ruled that it is not necessary to consider alternative sites when the proposed Project is in accordance with an approved regional planning framework, such as the Riverside County General Plan. (Ibid.) 2. The EIR concluded that, based on the outcome of the Goleta II case, under the circumstances, a more thorough discussion of an alternative site for the Project was not necessary. (DEIR, p. 7-24) Further, the EIR concluded that, for the unavoidable significant impacts of the Project on air quality, demographics, schools and traffic, an alternative location would differ very little from those of the proposed Project. (DEIR, p. 7-24) Also, the "Alternative Sites" alternative is infeasible because the developer does not own or control any other large R:\S PXRoripaugh Ranch SP~new\CC~Resos and ord CC 1.doc 40 parcels of vacant land in the area, and the proposed Project was developed specifically for this site, so it is likely the Project, as proposed, could not be reasonably "moved" or developed on some other site. (DEIR, p. 7-24) For these reasons, the Draft EIR determined that no feasible alternative sites exist. Finding 1. The Council finds that the conclusion in the EIR regarding an alternative location for the proposed Project was properly eliminated from further detailed consideration because no alternative project site can feasibly meet the objectives established for the proposed Project. The Council also finds that no alternative location is capable of eliminating or reducing the identified significant effects of the proposed action. Therefore, no alternative location offers substantial environmental advantages over the proposed Project and the City Council rejects this alternative because such locations are considered environmentally infeasible. This concludes the discussion of the alternative that was eliminated from further consideration. A discussion of the five alternatives given detailed consideration follows: No-Action Alternatives Evaluated in Detail A. No Project - No Development Alternative (0 units) 1. Under this alternative, much of the 804.7 acres of private property would remain in agricultural use (i.e., vacant) (DEIR, pp. 7-7, 7-8). The City Council finds that although the "No Project - No Development" alternative is the environmentally superior alternative to the proposed Project; it is infeasible because it fails to meet Project objectives. 2. Under the "No Project - No Development" alternative, all significant Project specific impacts will be avoided, assuming that the site remains undeveloped. (DEIR, pp. 7-7, 7-8) However, since the property is currently designated for residential development, it can reasonably be anticipated that another residential development project would be submitted in the future, if the proposed Project is not approved. Future development of any residential project for the site would likely result in environmental impacts similar to those of the proposed Project. (DEIR, p. 7-8) Notwithstanding these future speculations, the "No Project - No Development" alternative as' described in the Draft EIR would result in less impacts to the environment than the proposed Project. (Ibid.) Therefore, it is an environmentally superior alternative. (Ibid.) However, this alternative does not meet the Project's objectives of developing a residential project consistent with the General Plan land use designation for the site. (Ibid.) Also, this alternative does not meet the Project objectives regarding providing a variety of quality housing opportunities, providing backbone public infrastructure, etc. (DEIR, p. 7-23). Therefore, the City Council finds that the "No Project - No Development" alternative is infeasible because it fails to meet Project objectives and rejects it. Active Alternatives Evaluated in Detail Alternative 1 - Agriculture-Clustered Development (472 units) Alternative 1 would cluster Iow-medium density suburban housing along the south side of Murrieta Hot Springs Road and along both sides of Butterfield Stage Road. The remaining portions of the property that were not within Santa Gertrudis Creek or an improved Long Valley Wash would remain for agricultural use (380 acres). This alternative would eliminate significant all of the significant impacts associated with the proposed Project (i.e., loss of agricultural land, air quality, traffic, and aesthetics)(DEIR, p. 7-25) and lighted sports facilities. R:XS P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~ew\CCkResos and ord CC 1 .doc The City Council finds that Alternative I fails to meet Project objectives as compared to the Project. With the proposed modifications, the Project's impacts and density are only slightly reduced from those of the proposed Project. The City Council finds that Alternative I is less feasible because it does not meet Project objectives to the same degree as the proposed Project, such as the ability to fund the various major public improvements (e.g., parks, schools, roads) and the provision of lighted sports facilities. Alternative 2 - Reduced Intensity (1,131 units) Alternative 2 would eliminate all the medium density residential uses and distribute Iow and Iow medium density housing throughout the site. This alternative would reduce impacts of the proposed Project related to traffic and aesthetics to less than significant levels, although impacts to agriculture and possibly air quality would remain. The City Council finds that Alternative 2 is environmentally superior to the proposed Project, but is not feasible because it fails to meet many of the Project objectives, including the ability to fund the various major public improvements (e.g., parks, schools, roads) and lighted sports facilities. Alternative 3 - Rural Density (166 units) Alternative 3 would limit development to rural densities (2.5 and 5-acre lots) on the entire property. This alternative would eliminate all significant environmental impacts of the project except loss of agricultural land. However, it would not provide enough units to support formation of a CFD to finance the planned major improvements. The City Council finds that Alternative 3 is environmentally superior to the proposed Project but is not feasible because it fails to meet Project objectives, and rejects it. Environmentally Superior Alternative State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 subdivision (e) requires a discussion of the "No Project" alternative. (Ibid.) However, the State CEQA Guidelines stipulate that if the "No Project" alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6, subd. (e)(2)). Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 are all considered by the Draft EIR as "environmentally superior" to the proposed Project. (Ibid.) These alternatives eliminate two or more significant impacts of the Project. (Ibid.) For these reason, the Draft EIR determined that Alternatives 1,2, and 3 are considered "environmentally superior" alternatives to the proposed Project. (DEIR, p. 7-16) However, none of the alternatives contain enough units to support a CFD to fund necessary regional road improvements. Therefore, the City Council rejects all of the alternatives in favor of the proposed Project. Section5. Growth Inducing Impacts. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126 requires the evaluation of growth-inducing impacts of a proposed project. This discussion must address ways the Project could encourage economic and population growth and construction of additional housing either directly or indirectly. (DEIR, p. 6-1) The proposed Project is somewhat growth inducing as it introduces utilities, roads, etc. into areas that are currently vacant or support rural residential uses. A. The City Council finds that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through approval and implementation of the Specific Plan outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts of the Specific Plan which cannot be mitigated. The City Council further finds that each of the Specific Plan benefits outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Draft EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. Each of the benefits listed above, standing alone, is sufficient justification for the City .Council to override these unavoidable environmental impacts. R:~S PXRoripaugh Ranch Sl~ncw\CCXResos and ord CC l.doc 42 B. The City Council finds that it has reviewed and considered the Final EIR in evaluating the Specific Plan, that the Final EIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully complies with the CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines and the City's local CEQA Guidelines and that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the Council. Section 6. Certification. The City Council hereby certifies the Environmental Impact Report based on the following findings and conclusions: A. Findings. Section 2 includes impacts of the project as identified in the DEIR that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance even after the imposition of mitigation measures. B. Conclusions 1. All significant environmental impacts from implementation of the Specific Plan have been identified in the Draft EIR and, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of insignificance, except for those impacts listed in Section 6 above. 2. Other reasonable alternatives to the Specific Plan, which could feasibly achieve the basic objectives of the Specific Plan, have been considered and rejected in favor of the Specific Plan. 3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits derived from the development of the Specific Plan override and make infeasible any alternatives to the Specific Plan or further mitigation measures beyond those incorporated into the Specific Plan. Section 7. Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program A. The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. In the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures as set forth herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control. Section 8. Location of Records A. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these Findings have been based are located at the City of Temecula, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California 92590. The custodian for these records is the City of Temecula Planning Director. This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6. R:\S PXRoripaugh Ranch SP~new\CCAResos and ord CC l.doc 43 Section 9. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula this day of 2002. A']rEST: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2002- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the th day of vote: AYES: 0 NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: None ,2002, by the following Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk R:\S PxRoripaugh Ranch SPXnew\CC~Resos and ord CC 1.doc TABLE 1 PHASE 1 (Planning Areas 1-4B, 6, and 32) Onsite Prior to issuance of the 34th building permit, the following improvements shall be completed: 1. Secondary Access - Provide secondary access limited to right-turns only from Planning Areas lA, 2, or 4A to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Prior to issuance of the 108th building permit, the following improvements shall be completed: 2. Butterfield Stage Road - Construct half-width improvements from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to the south project boundary at Planning Area 32, including construction of two full-width bridges within and over Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash. 3. Butterfield Stage Road - Dedicate full-width right-of-way from the northern project boundary to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. 4. Murrieta Hot Springs Road - Construct full-width improvements from east of Pourroy Road at the northern project boundary to the MWD pipeline property. 5. Murrieta Hot Springs Road - Construct half-width improvements from the MWD pipeline property to Butterfield Stage Road. 6. Nicolas Road - Offer a dedication for a 110' right-of-way from Buttedield Stage Road to the west project boundary. 7. Nicolas Road - Construct half-width from Butterfield Stage Road to the western project boundary. 8. South Loop Road - Construct half-width in front of fire station (Planning Area 32). Prior to issuance of the 400" building permit, the following improvements shall be completed: 9. "A" Street - Construct full-width from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Butteffield Stage Road. 10. "B" Street - Construct full-width improvements from Nicolas Road to "A" Street. 11. North Loop Road - Construct a full-width bridge over and within Santa Gertrudis Creek and connect the bridge to Butterfield Stage Road with full width improvements. 12. Traffic Signals - Construct traffic signals and related intersection improvements as warranted at: (a) Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Pourroy Road and (b) All project entrances on Murrieta Hot Springs Road. R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SPXnew\CC~Resos and ord CC l.doc 45 Offsite Prior to the issuance of the 108" building permit, the following improvements shall be completed: Nicolas Road - Construct 40' width on center improvements from the western project boundary to 450' east of the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection. Secondary Access - The required secondary access for the Plateau area shall be provided by one of the following options: If Nicolas Road is designated as the secondary access route, the following improvements shall be completed: Construct 40' width on center improvements from 450 feet east of the existing Nicolas Road / Calle Girasol intersection to Liefer Road including the full width bridge structure over and within Santa Gertrudis Creek. ii. Realign existing Calle Girasol to its ultimate intersection with Nicolas Road including right-of-way acquisition. If Calle Chapos from Butterfield Stage Road to Walcott Lane and Calle Girasol from Walcott Lane to the existing Nicolas Road / Calle Girasol intersection is designated as secondary access, the following improvements shall be completed: Calle Chapos from Butterfield Stage Road to Walcott Lane - Construct 38' width improvements on center to existing pavement. ii. Calle Girasol from Walcott Lane to the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection Construct 38' width on center improvements, as required by the City Fire Chief and City Engineer (including right-of-way acquisition), on Calle Girasol from Walcott Lane to the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection. If Butterfield Stage Road from the southern project boundary to Rancho California Road is designated as secondary access, construct half width improvements from the southern project boundary at Planning Area 32 to Rancho California Road, excluding any existing improvements. PHASE 2 (Planning Areas 10, 11, 12, 14 - 24, 27 - 31, 33A, and 33B) Prior to the issuance of any building permit in Phase 2, the following improvements must be completed: Onsite Butterfield Stage Road - Construct remaining half-width improvements from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to 550' south of the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Nicolas Road. R:\S PXRoripaugh Ranch Sl~new\CCSResos and ord CC l.doc 46 2. Butterfield Stage Road - Construct or bond for grading and full-width improvements from the northern project boundary to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Murrieta Hot Springs Road - Construct remaining half-width improvements from the MWD pipeline property to Butterfield Stage Road. North Loop Road - Construct full-width improvements from the bridge structure at North Loop Road/Santa Gertrudis Creek crossing to the Long Valley Wash Bridge structure at South Loop Road. South Loop Road - Construct the full width bridge structure crossing Long Valley Wash and construct full width street improvements from this bridge to Butter[ield Stage Road. Nicolas Road - Construct remaining improvements from Butterfield Stage Road to western project boundary. Traffic signal - Construct traffic signals and related intersection improvements, as warranted, at the intersections of: Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Butterfield Stage Road, Butterfield Stage Road at North Loop Road, and Butterfield Stage Road at South Loop Road. Offsite Buttedield Stage Road - Construct remaining half-width improvements from 550' south of the intersection of Buttedield Stage Road and Nicolas Road to the south project boundary at Planning Area 32. Buttedield Stage Road - Construct full width improvements from the southern project boundary at Planning Area 32 to Rancho California Road excluding any existing improvements. Nicolas Road - Construct 40' width improvements from 450 feet east of the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection to Liefer Road including the full width bridge structure over Santa Gertrudis Creek. Calle Girasol and the Nicolas Road / Calle Girasol intersection - Realign existing Calle Girasol to its ultimate intersection with Nicolas Road including right-of-way acquisition. Calle Chapos - Construct 38' width on center improvements from Butterfield Stage Road to the existing paved terminus at Calle Girasol. R:\S PXRoripaugh Ranch SP~new\CCXResos and ord CC I.doc 47 TABLE 2 PHASE 1 (prior to issuance of Ist building permit in Planning Areas 1-4B, 6, and 32) 1-15 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Rancho California Road - southbound left turn lane, ...... ,vestbound free nght-turn lane, =nd eastbound free right turn lane1 and southbound free riqht-turn lane 1-215 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Murrieta Hot Springs Road - southbound left-turn lane, southbound right-turn lane, eastbound through lane, eastbound right-turn lane, westbound through lane, and westbound free right-turn lane 3. Ynez Road at Winchester Road - southbound right-turn overlap 4. Ynez Road at Rancho California Road - eastbound through lane 5. North General Kearny Road at Nicolas Road - traffic signal. 6. Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road - traffic signal Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Alta Murrieta Drive (in the City of Murrieta) - lane improvements (as yet undetermined). The developer shall provide the City of Temecula with a letter from the City of Murrieta stating that a fair share contribution to identified improvements at this intersection has been made. PHASE 2 (prior to issuance of Ist building permit in Planning Areas 10 - 12, 14 - 24, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33A, and 33B) 1-15 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Winchester Road - southbound left-turn lane, southbound right-turn lane, eastwestbound free riqht-turn lane, right-turn lane, westbound through lane, eastbound through lane, and eastbound free right-turn lane. Traffic signal and related intersection improvements, as warranted, at the intersection of La Serena and Meadows Parkway. 1-15 Freeway (northbound ramps) at Winchester Road - northbound left-turn lane, northbound free right-turn lane, westbound through lane, and westbound free right-turn lane I- 15 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Rancho California Road - southbound left-turn lane, southbound, eastbound, and westbound free right-turn lanes. 1-15 Freeway (northbound ramps) at Rancho California Road - northbound left-turn and right-turn lanes Ynez Road at Winchester Road - southbound left-turn lane, southbound right-turn overlap, and eastbound left-turn lane Ynez Road at Rancho California Road - westbound left-turn lane, westbound right-turn lane,wv.~w,,.~"~'*~ .... '~ *~,...v~=.,~' !cnc, southbound through lane, southbound free fight turn lane, eastbound free right-turn lane, and eastbound through lane R:\S PXRoripaugh Ranch SPXnew\CC'xP, esos and ord CC 1.d~c 48 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Margarita Road at Winchester Road - eastbound left-turn lane, southbound right-turn lane, westbound right-turn lane, and southbound right-turn overlap Margarita Road at Rancho California Road - northbound and southbound through lanes, southbound right-turn lane, eastbound left-turn lane, eastbound right-turn overlap, westbound left-turn lane, northbound right-turn lane, and westbound right turn overlap Margarita Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road - northbound shared left-through lane, eastbound through lane, and westbound through lane Winchester Road at Nicolas Road - northbound left-turn lane, northbound free right turn ever~lane, westbound left-turn lane, northbound through lane, southbound left-turn lane, southbound through lane, and eastbound right-turn overlap, :nd '.":cctbc'-'nd !cfi Winchester Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road - northbound through lane, southbound through lane, and westbound through lane Butter[ield Stage Road at Rancho California Road - northbound left-turn lane, northbound through lane, southbound left-turn lane, southbound through lane, eastbound left-turn lane, eastbound through lane, westbound left-turn lane, and westbound through lane Calle Contento at Rancho California Road - eastbound left-turn lane, eastbound through lane, westbound left-turn lane, and westbound through lane R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new\CC~Resos and ord CC 1 .doc 49 These improvements shall be constructed and the developer shall provide appropriate fair share contributions to these improvements as shown below: PROJECT FAIR SHARE CONTRIBUTIONS Project Percent of New Roadway (N/S) Intersection (E/W) Traffic AM PM 1-215 Freeway - SB Ramps Murrieta Hot Springs Road 4.4 5.8 1-215 Freeway - NB Ramps Murrieta Hot Springs Road 7.3 6.8 1-15 Freeway- SB Ramps Winchester Road 3.2 5.7 Rancho California Road 5.7 6.8 1-15 Freeway- NB Ramps Winchester Road 2.4 4.9 Rancho California Road 7.8 10.0 Ynez Road Winchester Road 4.5 5.6 Rancho California Road 6.2 5.9 Margarita Road Murrieta Hot Springs Road 11.4 12.4 Winchester Road 11.1 11.2 La Serena Way 6.6 7.4 Rancho California Road 5.6 6.4 Winchester Road Murrieta Hot Springs Road 11.1 9.3 Nicolas Road 10.1 12.3 N. General Kearny Road Nicolas Road 18.6 18.3 Meadows Parkway La Serena Way 30.5 22.1 Rancho California Road 28.6 23.6 Butterfield Stage Road Murrieta Hot Springs Road 23.2 24.2 Nicolas Road 39.7 35.7 Calle Chapos 29.5 25.8 La Serena Way 20.8 19.0 Rancho California Road 21.3 19.1 Calle Contento Rancho California Road 10.3 11.3 Alta Murrieta Drive Murrieta Hot Springs Road TBD TBD (City of Murrieta) TBD = to be determined based on fair share calculations Source: Table 6-1 from Urban Crossroads, November 2001 (as shown in Table 3.5-8 from 2'd Revised DEIR) N:\31367~doc\EI R\SOC&Findings5.doc R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~nevACC~Resos and ord CC l.doc 50 EXHIBIT A (FOR A'I-I'ACHMENT 1) MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM R:\S PxRoripaugh Ranch SP~new\CCXResos and ord CC l.doc 51 Ir m~ "r ATTACHMENT 2 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2002- APPROVING THE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND SPECIFIC PLAN R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new\CCXStaff Report 11-26-02 A.doc ATFACHMENT NO. 2 CC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99- 0298 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) FOR THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN AND ADOPTING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 11 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0075) ON PARCELS TOTALING 804.7 ACRES LOCATED NEAR THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF BU'I-rERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 957-130-001 AND 002, 957-340-001, 003, 007, 008, AND 958- 260-001 AND 002. WHEREAS, Ashby USA, LLC filed Planning Application Nos. PA94-0075 and PA99- 0298 (the "Application"), in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code, CEQA Guidelines and California State CEQA Guidelines; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the Application on October 16, 2002, at duly noticed public hearings as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearings and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Application on November 26, 2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Council hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Council approved of the Application, and certified the Environmental Impact Report, made all required findings and determinations relative thereto and adopted the Mitigation Monitoring Program after finding that the project proposed in the Application conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan as amended; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findings. That the City Council, in approving the Application, hereby makes the following findings as required in Chapter 17.16 of the Temecula Municipal Code: R:~S PxRo~ipaugh Ranch SP~new~CC~Resos and ord CC 1,doc 53 General Plan Amendment. A. The project as proposed and conditioned is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. The project has been reviewed by agencies and staff and determined to be in conformance with the City's General Plan, Development Code, Design Guidelines and Growth Management Program Action Plan. These documents set policies and standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. Access and circulation are adequate for emergency vehicles. B. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project proposes similar residential neighborhoods adjacent to existing surrounding neighborhoods as it provides a transition in lot sizes, with interface buffers and full roadway improvements. C. The proposed project will not have an adverse effect on the community because it remains consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The project does not represent a significant change to the planned land uses for the site. The General Plan Amendment is a relocation and reallocation of existing land use designations that conforms to the design of the specific plan. Specific Plan A. The proposed specific plan is consistent with the General Plan, as it is proposed to be amended, and development code. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the general plan and development code. The Specific Plan is a reallocation and redistribution of the majority of the existing Land Use Designations and serves as an implementation tool for the General Plan. Therefore, as proposed, the Specific Plan is consistent with the general plan, as it is proposed to be amended, and development code. B. The proposed Specific Plan would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the city. The project has been reviewed by agencies and staff, and is determined to be in conformance with the City's General Plan (as it is proposed to be amended), Development Code, Design Guidelines and Growth Management Program Action Plan. These documents set policies and standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. In addition, the Specific Plan is a master planned community with specific design guidelines and standards that ensure compatibility and interface with the surrounding community in terms of density, design and circulation since it provides a transition in lot sizes. Therefore, as proposed, conditioned and designed, the Specific Plan is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. C. The subject property is physically suitable for the requested land use designations and the anticipated land use developments. There are no physical constraints of the site which would preclude or prohibit the requested land use designations or anticipated developments. Moreover, the proposed Specific Plan land uses are consistent with the land uses of the General Plan and will serves as the tool to regulate and implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. The applicant has submitted applications for Tentative Tract Maps which indicate that the site is physically suitable for the land uses and development proposed in the Specific Plan. D. The proposed project shall ensure development of desirable character which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood as it provides a transition in lot sizes. The project proposes similar residential land uses adjacent to R:XS PXRoripaugh Ranch SPmew\CC\Resos and ord CC l,doc 54 the existing surrounding neighborhoods, with landscape buffers and interfaces. The Specific Plan took under consideration the existing developments and surrounding zoning classifications to ensure development that will be complementary and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Section 3. Environmental Compliance. The City Council of the City of Temecula has certified the Final Environmental Impact Report, made all required findings and determinations relative thereto and adopted the Mitigation Monitoring Program after finding that the project proposed in the Application conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan, as amended, for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan in order to approve the Application. Section 4. General Plan Amendment. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves the Application Amending the Land Use Element to amend the General Plan Land Use Map and to incorporate the annexation area into the City Limits (Figure 2-1of the General Plan, Exhibit A) and to Amend the General Plan Specific Plan Overlay Exhibit (Figure 2-5 of the General Plan, Exhibit B) to include Planning Areas 33A and 33B and amending the General Plan Circulation Element (Figure 3-1 of the General Plan, Exhibit C) to eliminate the connection between Nicolas Road and Calle Contento through the project and to change the designation of Butter[ield Stage Road between Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Nicolas Road from 110' (Arterial Highway with 4 lanes) to Specific Plan Road, Add "A" and "B" Streets as Collector, and add North and South Loop Road as Specific Plan Road for 804.7 acres on property located near the future intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Nicolas Road, and known as Assessor Parcet Nos. 957-130-001 and 002, 957-340-001,003, 007, 008, AND 958- 260-001 and 002. Section 5. Specific Plan. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves mixed use specific plan known as the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (SP No. 11) subject to the Conditions of Approval included in Exhibit D and as shown on Exhibit E (the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Document Volumes I and II), on property locate near the future intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Nicolas Road, and known as Assessor Parcel Nos. 957-130-001 and 002, 957-340-001, 003, 007, 008, AND 958-260-001 and 002 subject to that attached Conditions of Approval. RSS PXRoripaugh Ranch SP~evACCSResos and ord CC l.doc 55 Section 6. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of Temecula Planning Department this ............ day of .......... 2002. ATTEST: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2002- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 2002, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk RAS PXRoripaugh Ranch SP~ew\CC~Resos and ord CC 1.doc 56 EXHIBIT A FOR ATFACHMENT 2 PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP R:\S [~Roripaugh Ranch SPXnew\CCxResos and ord CC l.doc 57 EXHIBIT B FOR ATTCHMENT 2 PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN THE SPECIFIC PLAN OVERLAY EXHIBIT R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new\CC~Resos and oral CC l.doc 58 SPECIFIC PI.AN OVERIJAY '~::~AreasAppr°ved Specific Plan Proposed Specific Plan Areas No~e: S~ nsm~ d S~l'~ Nsn PA 33 A and B ,'he City of [ TEMECULA ~' General Plan Program' FIGURE 2-5 EXHIBIT C FOR A'I-FACHMENT 2 PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION MAP R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SPXnew\CC\Resos and ord CC l.dcc 59 ~,UeUJpUaLU¥ ~,uetuel3 uop, elnoJ!o Ueld IBJeUeD pesodoJd EXHIBIT D FOR ATTACHMENT 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~CC~Rcsos and ord CC l.doc 60 EXHIBIT D FOR ATTACHMENT 2 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No. PA94-0075 (Specific Plan) - Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan No. 11 Project Description: A Specific Plan for 804.7 acres to provide zoning and development standards for the development of 2,015 dwelling units within several gated communities, 110,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial retail space, a 12 acre elementary school site and a 20 acre middle school site, two public parks sites including a 19.7 acre Sports Park with lighted playing fields and a 4.8 acre neighborhood park with passive uses, three private recreation facilities, private and public trails and paseos, a fire station site, and 202.7 acres of natural open space to be preserved as permanent habitat, related flood control improvements to Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash. Assessor's Parcel Nos. 957-130-001 and 002, 957-340-001, 003, 007, 008, AND 958- 260-001 and 002 Approval Date: November 26, 2002 PLANNING DIVISION Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Nine Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($928.00) which includes the Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($850.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Environmental Impact Report required under Public Resources Code Section 21151 and California Code of Regulations Section 15904. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the Applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)). R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new\CCXResos and ord CC l.doc General Requirements Approval of this Specific Plan is contingent upon and shall not become effective nor shall it vest until a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Zone Change are approved by the City Council, and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) or any other environmental review under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are certified by the City Council. Within thirty (30) days of approval of the Specific Plan, the applicant shall submit a final copy reflecting all the changes necessary to make the document consistent with City Council's final action including the Errata Sheet dated 10-30-02 included in the October 30, 2002 Planning Commission Report and curb Separated sidewalks on local streets. The final Specific Plan shall be reviewed for consistency and approved by the Planning Director. Grading permits shall not be issued until all changes to the Specific Plan document are approved by the Planning Director. (Amended by the Planning Commission on 10-30-02) The approval granted by this Resolution shall become effective upon the Effective Date of the Development Agreement, as the term Effective Date is defined in the Development Agreement adopted concurrently with this Resolution. In addition to the foregoing, in the event a Development Agreement is entered into that supemedes or alters these conditions of approval and the applicant causes a default or terminates by conduct the Development Agreement, then the City shall immediately consider the revocation of the approval granted by this Resolution. The Specific Plan shall not be effective for the portion of the site not within the City Limits until the annexation of the property is completed or by other means as approved by the City Attorney. R:\S PXRoripaugh Ranch SPXnew\CC'xResos and oral CC 1.doc 62 EXHIBIT E FOR ATFACHMENT 2 PROPOSED RORIPAUGH SPECIFIC PLAN DOCUMENTS (VOLUME I AND II, Provided Under Separate Cover) RAS P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new\CC~Resos and ord CC I.doc 63 Ueld 9Sll pue-I pesodoJd A'I'FACHMENT 3 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 2002- APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT AND ZONING STANDARDS, AMENDMENT OF THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND PRE-ZONING THE VALLEY NEIGHBORHOOD TO SPECIFIC PLAN R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new\CC~Staff Repor~ 11-26-02 A.doc 13 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 ORDINANCE NO. 2002- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94- 0075 (DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT) AMENDING SECTION 17.16.070 TO INCLUDE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 11, ADOPTING THE DEVELOPMENT AND ZONING STANDARDS, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, AND PRE- ZONING THE VALLEY NEIGHBORHOOD AS SPECIFIC PLAN ON PARCELS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 804.7 ACRES LOCATED NEAR THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD, AND FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 957- 130-001 AND 002, 957-340-001, 003, 007, 008, AND 958-260- 001 AND 002. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Add the following to the end of the list contained in Section 17.16.070 of the Temecula Municipal Code: "SP-11 Roripaugh Ranch SP- 13 Harveston" Section 2. The City Council for the City of Temecula hereby adopts Chapter 5 of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, Development Standards as an un-codified ordinance, Exhibit A. Section 3. The City Council for the City of Temecula hereby amend the Official Zoning Map of the City of Temecula to the Designate the project site as the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, Exhibit B. Section 4. The City Council for the City of Temecula hereby pre-zones the Valley Neighborhood as Specific Plan, Exhibit C. Section 5. Notice of Adoption. Within 10 days after the adoption hereof, the City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be posted in at least three public places in the City. Section 6. Environmental Compliance. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby finds that the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and mitigation monitoring reporting program is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and that it accurately addresses the impacts associated with the adoption of these Ordinances implementing the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. Section 7. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any R:~S l~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new\CCXResos and ord CC 1 .doc 65 sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance. Section 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be posted as required by law. Section 9. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause copies of this Ordinance to be posted in three designated posting places. Section 10. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its passage; and within fifteen (15) days after its passage, together with the names of the City Council members voting thereon, it shall be published in a newspaper published and circulated in said City. Section 11. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula this __ day of 2002. ATTEST: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 02- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the __ day of 2002, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the __ day of ,2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk R:~S PXRoripaugh Ranch SP~new\CC~Resos and ord CC l.doc 66 EXHIBIT A FOR ATTACHMENT 3 PROPOSED ZONING MAP CHAPTER 5 OF THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~ncw~CC~Resos and ord CC 1.doc 67 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE 5.1 PURPOSE ANDINTENT The zoning for the Specific Plan area is Specific Plan Overlay. This section of the Specific Plan establishes zoning districts and land use regulations and standards that will control land use and development in the land uses identified for the Specific Plan area. These regulations amend and supersede the regulations of the Temecula Development Code. Where standards and regulations are not specified in this Specific Plan, the requirements of the Temecula Development Code shall provide the regulatory authority. This section also identifies the procedures to be used to review site plans for development projects proposed within the Specific Plan area. Special standards for residential development are also included here. The Site Planning and Amhitectural Design Guidelines in Section 4.0 are intended to be used in conjunction with the zoning and development standards stated here. The following standards will serve as the primary mechanism for implementation of the land uses for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. These regulations provide an appropriate amount of flexibility to anticipate future needs and to achieve compatibility between land uses. Principal land uses for the Specific Plan shall be as follows: Residential Land Uses: · Low Density (L) Single-Family Detached: (PA 10, 19, 20, 21,33A and 33B) · Low Medium (LM) Density Single-Family Detached: (PA 1A-4B, 16 - 18) · Medium (M1) Density Single-Family Detached: (PA 23 and 24) · Medium (M2) Density Single-Family Detached and Attached clustered: (PA 12, 14, 15, 22 and 31 ) 2. Commercial: · Neighborhood Commercial: (PA 11) Parks and Open Space: · Private Recreation Centers (PA 5, 30) · Private Mini-Park (PA lB) · Parks (PA 6, 27) · Open Space · Habitat (OS1): (PA 8, 9A, 9B, and 13) · Flood Control (OS2): (PA 7B, 7C, 25, 26, and portions of 14 and 27) · Landscape Slope (OS3): (PA 7A and portion of 6) 4. Elementary and Middle School: (PA: 28 and 29) 5. Fire Station: (PA 32) Rod@au~h Ranch Specific Plan 5-1 C:~DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS'~AASEHS%OCAL SETTINGS\TEMP\SPSECT5CCDOCUMENT. DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE 5.2 GENERAL PROVISIONS This section of the development regulations states the general rules that must be observed by all development projects in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare. These regulations apply to all planning areas within the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, unless otherwise specified. 1. Roripaugh Ranch Site Planning and Amhitectural Design Guidelines All development within the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan area is subject to the policy provisions of the Site Planning (Section 4.0) and Amhitectural Design Guidelines (Section 4.0) adopted by ordinance of the Temecula City Council. The Design Guidelines in conjunction with the development standards contained in this Specific Plan and those of the Temecula Development Code shall regulate development within the Specific Plan area. The Design Guidelines will be administered through the City of Temecula Planning Department. All development within the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan area shall be subject to the Development Standards in this section of the Specific Plan. 2. Code Compliance All construction and development within the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan area shall comply with applicable provisions of the Specific Plan, the Uniform Building Code and the various related mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire codes, water ordinance, grading and excavation codes and subdivision codes, in effect in the City of Temecula at the time grading/building permits are obtained. 3. Setback Requirements The setback requirements are as specified within the standards identified in the plan for each zoning district. If not otherwise specified, all setbacks shall be determined as the perpendicular distance from the existing or planned street right-of-way line or property line, to the foundation point of the closest structure. 4. Exceptions If specific development standards have not been established or if an issue, condition or situation arises er occurs that is not clearly understandable in the Specific Plan, then those regulations and standards of the City of Temecula Development Code that are applicable for the most similar use, condition or situation shall apply as determined by the Community Development Director. 5. Enforcement Enforcement of the provisions herein shall be in the manner specified in the Temecula Municipal Code for zoning enforcement. 6. Unspecified Uses Whenever a use has not specifically been listed as being a permitted use in a particular zone classification within the Specific Plan, it shall be the duty of the Planning Director to determine if said use is: (1) consistent with the intent of the zone; and (2) compatible with other listed permitted uses. Any person aggrieved by the decision may appeal to the Planning Commission. Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan 5-2 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS',NAASEHS\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMP\SPSECT5CCDOCUMENT.DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE 5.3 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan provides a mix of diverse housing products, including five different housing types that fall within three of the City's General Plan residential designations: Temecula General Plan Specific Plan Desiqnatlon Residential Deslqnation L (20,000 sq. ft.) Single-Family (1-2 du/ac) LM (5,000 and 6,000) Single-Family (2-5 du/ac) (Min. 5,000 sf lot size) M1 and M2 (4,000 and NA) Single-Family (7-12 du/ac) Min. (standard) 4,000 sf lot size Min. (clustered 3,000 sf lot size for detached Low Density Residential Single-Family (.5-2 du/ac) Low Medium Density Residential Single-Family (3-6 du/ac) Medium Density Residential Single-Family (7-12 du/ac) Rodpaugh Ranch Specific Plan 5-3 C:~DOCUMENTS AND SETI-INGS~IAASEHS%OCAL SETTINGS\TEMP~PSECT5CCDOCUMENT.DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE 5.3.1 DESCRIPTION OF RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (L) - PLANNING AREAS NOS. 10, 19, 20, 21, 33A AND 33B The Low Density Residential (L) zoning district is intended to provide for the development of single- family detached homes on large lots with a unique character of development. Typical lot sizes in the L zoning district will be a minimum of 20,000 square feet with 1 acre minimum lots along the exterior perimeter of Planning Areas 19, 20, 21, and 33A. Private equestrian use will only be allowed on lots one acre or larger adjacent to the multi-use trail in Planning Areas 19, 20, 21. Planning Area 33B shall not be developed as a part of Roripaugh Ranch. This planning area shall eventually be combined with the adjacent residential areas to the north. LOW MEDIUM DENSITY (LM) - PLANNING AREAS NOS. lA, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 16, 17 and 18 The Low Medium (LM) zoning district is intended to provide for the development of single-family homes on lots of 5,000 square feet to 6,000 square feet. Planning Areas 1,2, 3, 4A, 4B, and 16 shall have a minimum lot size of 5,000 sq. ft. Planning Areas 17 and 18 shall have a minimum lot size of 6,000 sq. ft. MEDIUM DENSITY - STANDARD (M1) - PLANNING AREAS NOS. 23 AND 24 The Medium (M) zoning district is intended to provide for the development of single-family homes on lots 4,000 minimum square feet. MEDIUM DENSITY - CLUSTERED (M2) - PLANNING AREAS NOS. 12, 14, 15, 22 AND 31 The Medium (M) zoning district is intended to provide for the development of clustered single-family development on minimum lot sizes of 3,000 sq. ft. Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan 5-4 C:'~DOCUMENTS AND SETrlNGS'~IAASEHS~.OCAL SETFINGS\TEMP~PSECT5CCDOCUMENT.DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE 5.3.2 USE REGULATIONS The list of land uses in the following table shall be permitted in one or more of the residential zoning districts as indicated in the columns corresponding to each residential zoning district. Where indicated with a letter "P", the use shall be a permitted use. Where indicated with a "-", the use is prohibited within the zone. Where indicated with a letter "C", the use shall be conditionally permitted subject to approval of a conditional use permit. Table 5.1 Schedule of Permitted Uses - Residential Districts Single-family detached P P P Single-family attached P Single-family zero lot line P P Single-family attached greater than two units Multiple family Manufactured homes P P P P Mobilehome park Facilities for the mentally disordered, handicapped, or dependent or P P P P neglected children (six or fewer) Facilities for the mentally disordered, handicapped, or dependent or neglected children (seven to twelve) Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility (six or fewer) P P P P Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility (seven or more) Residential care facilities for the elderly (six or fewer) P P P P Residential care facilities for the elderly (seven or more) Congregate care residential facilities for the elderly Boarding, rooming and lodging facilities Secondary dwelling units as defined by City Development Code P P Granny Flat P P Family day care homes-small (four or fewer) P P P P Family day care homes-large~ C C Day care centers C C Bed and breakfast establishments Emergency shelters Transitional housing Nonresidential Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan 5-5 C:~DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS'uXfAASEHS~LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMP~SPSECTSCCDOCUMENT.DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE Agricultural/open space uses Religious institutionss C C C C Utility facilities C C C C Educational institutions Public libraries Public museums and art galleries (not for profit) Kennels and catteries Non commemial keeping of horses P4 Temporary real estate tract offices P P P P Recreational Vehicle Storage Yards Parking for commercial uses Nonprofit clubs and lodge halls Convalescent facilities Golf Courses Home occupations P P P P Construction Trailers3 P P P P 1. A CUP processed for large family day care homes is subject to Health and Safety Code Section 1597.46(a)(3). In accordance therewith, notice of the application being filed shall be mailed to surrounding property owners within one hundred feet only and the notice shall indicate that unless a request for a hearing is made by such surroundlng property owner or other "affected person', the CUP will issue within twenty days of the notice. If a hearing is requested, the planning department shall schedule such hearing within thirty days of the request and the hearing shall be held within thirty days of being scheduled. 2. Allowed only within a single-family residence. 3. The Planning Director shall have the discretion to waive submittal of an Administrative Development Plan if it is determined that the construction trailer will not have an adverse impact on adjacent rosidences or businesses. 4. The keeping of horses shall only be permitted in Planning Areas 19, 20 and 21 on lots abutting the multi-use trail. No more than two (2) horses and one (1) offspring up to six (6) months of age may be kept on each one acre lot. All horses shall be kept in a stall/coral (12' x 12' for each horse) located a minimum distance of fifty (50) feet fram neighboring dwellings, ten (10) feet from the main dwelling on the lot and ten (10) feet from the side or rear property line. 5. Religious institutions shall not be permitted in Planning Areas lA, 2, 3, 4A and 4B Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan 5-6 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS'~NAASEHS~LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMP\SPSECTSCCDOCUMENT. DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE 5.3.3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS In the Low (L), Low Medium (LM) and Medium (M) Zones are as follows: Table 5-2 Development Standards - Residential Districts Residential Development L LM LM M1 M2 Standards 20,000 5,000 6,000 4,000 (Minimum Lot Size in Feet) Planning Area 10, 19, 20, lA, 2, 3, 17 and 18 23 and 24 12, 14, 15, 22 21, 33A 4A, 4B and 31 and 33B and 16 Minimum gross lot ama 20,000 5,000 6,000 4,000 3,000 (square feet) 1 acre* -* Lots in PA 19, 20 and 21 that abut eastern and southern property boundary shall be a minimum of 1 acre. Thirty (30) foot fuel modification zone shall not be included in lot area. Dwelling units per net acre 1.2 du/ac 5.2 du/ac 4.0 du/ac 6.1 du/ac 10.1 du/ac Minimum lot frontage at 30 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. NA front property line Minimum lot frontage for a 25 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. NA flag lot at front property line Minimum width at required 50 ft. 40 ft. 40 ff. 40 ft. NA front yard setback area Minimum lot width 60 ft** 40 ft. 40 ft. 40 ft. 40 ft. * For both 20,000 sq. ft. lots and 1 acre lots shall be substantially the same. Minimum lot depth 90 ft. 80 ft. 80 ft. 80 ft. NA Minimum front yard setback 25 ft. 10 ft 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. - Front entry garages 18 ft. 18 ft. 18 ft. 18 ft. 18 ft. - Side entry garages 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ff. - Lots abutting Murrieta Hot Spdngs between Pourrey Rd. and the M~ND easement may be reduced by three (3) feet. Minimum corner side yard 15 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. setback Setbacks for lots abutting Murrieta Hot Springs between Pourroy Rd. and the MVVD easement may be reduced by three (3) feet. *Minimum interior side yard 10 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. setback Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan 5-7 C:~DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS~NAASEHS~OCAL SE'rTINGS\TEM P\SPS ECT5CCDOCU M ENT.DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PI. AN ZONING ORDINANCE Table 5-2 Development Standards - Residential Districts Residential Development L LM LM M (Standard) M Standards 20,000 5,000 6,000 4,000 (Clustered) (Minimum Lot Size In Feet) Minimum rear yard setback 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. - Setbacks for lots abutting 25 ft. Planning Area 7A along the southern property line shall have a 25' minimum rear yard setback. - Lots abutting Multi-use trail in 50 ft. PA 19, 20 and 21. - Setbacks for lots abutting Murrieta Hot Springs between Pourroy Rd. and the MWD easement may be reduced by staff by three (3) feet. Planning Area 10, 19, 20, 1, 2, 3, 17 and 18 23 and 24 12, 14, 15, 22 21, 33A 4A, 4B and 31 and 33B and 16 Maximum height 2 2 stories, 2 2 2 Y2 2 Fz 2 Yz 35 feet stories, 35 stories, 35 stories, 35 stories, 35 feet feet feet feet Maximum pementage of lot 50% 60% 60% 60% 60% coverage Minimum Garage Size 20' x 20' 20' x 20' 20' x 20' 20' x 20' 20' x 20' (interior space) * Rreplaces may project not more than two (2) feet into the side yard setback provided the width of the fireplace does not exceed eight (8) feet in width. Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan 5-8 C:~)OCUMENTS AND SETTINGS'~IAASEHS',.LOCAL SE'rTINGS\TEMF~SPSECT5CCDOCUMENT. DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE 5.4 5.4.1 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (PLANNING AREA 11) DESCRIPTION OF NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL Neighborhood Commemial (Planning Area No. 11), will include a variety of different types of land uses. Uses within this planning area include smaller-scale business activities which generelly provide retail and/or convenience services for residents within Roripaugh Ranch. The following are site planning guidelines relating to Planning Area No. 11. 5.4.2 USE REGULATIONS The list of land uses in the following table shall be permitted in the neighborhood commemial zoning district. Where indicated with a letter "P", the use shall be a permitted use. Where indicated with a ~-~, the use is prohibited within the zone. Where indicated with a letter "C", the use shall be conditionally permitted subject to approval of a conditional use permit. Table 5-3 Schedule of Permitted Uses - Neighborhood Commercial Center (PA-11) Description of Use I NC A Adult business subject to Chapter 5.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code Aerebics/dance/gymnastics/jazzemise/martial arts studios (less than 5,000 sq. ft. P Aerebics/dance/gymnastics/jazzemise/martial arts studios (greater than 5,000 sq. ft. P Alcoholism or drug treatment facilities Alcohol and drug treatment (outpatient) Alcoholic beverage sales C Ambulance services Animal hospital/shelter Antique restoration Antique sales (Less than 5,000 sq. ff.) P Apparel and accessory shops P Appliance sales and repairs (household and small appliances) P Amades (pinball and video games) Art supply stores P Auction houses Auditoriums and conference facilities C Automobile dealers (new and used) Automobile sales (brokerage)- showroom only (new and used)-no outdoor display Automobile repair services Automobile rental Roripau~h Ranch Specific Plan 5-9 C:'~DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS',NAASEHS~LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMP~SPSECT5CCDOCUMENT.DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE Automobile painting and body shop Automobile service stations with alcoholic sales Automotive service stations (not selling beer and/or wine) with or without an automated P car wash Automobile parts-sales C Automobile oil change/lube services with no major repair C B Bakery goods distribution Bakery retail P Bakery Wholesale Banks and financial institutions P Barber and beauty shops P Bed and breakfast Bicycle (sales, rentals, services) P Billiard parlor/poolhall Binding of books and similar publications Blood bank P Blueprint and duplicating and copy services P Bookstores P Building materials sales (with the exterior storage/sales areas greater than 50 pement of total sales area) Building materials sales (with the exterior storage/sales areas greater than 50 pement of total sales area) Butcher shop P C Cabinet shop Cabinet shops under 20,000 sq. ft.- no outdoor storage Camera shop (sales/minor repairs) P Candy/confectionery sales P Car wash, full service/self service Carpet and rug cleaning Catering services P Clothing sales P Co[ns, pumhase and sales P Roripau~h Ra~nch Specific Plan 5-10 C:~DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS~IAASEHSU. OCAL SETTINGS\TEMP\SPSECT5CCDOCUMENT.DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE Communications and microwave installations ' Communications equipment sales~ C Community care facilities C Computer sales and services P Congregate care housing for the elderly 2 C Construction equipment sales, services or rental Contractor's equipment, sales, service or rental Convenience market Costume rentals P Crematoriums Cutlery P D Data processing equipment and systems Day care centers P Delicatessen P Discount/department store P Distribution facility Drug store/pharmacy P Dry cleaners P Dry cleaning plant E Emergency shelter Equipment sales and rentals (no outdoor stprage) P Equipment sales and rentals (outdoor storage) F Feed and grain sales Financial, insurance, real estate offices P Fire and police stations P Floor covering sales P Florist shop P Food processing Fortunetelling, spiritualism, or similar activity P Freight terminals Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan 5-11 C:'~DOCUMENTS AND S= ~ ~ ~NGS~IAASEHS",LOCAL SETTINGS\TEM P\S PSECT5CCDOCU MENT.DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE Fuel storage and distribution Funeral parlom, mortuary Furniture sales (Less than 10,000 sq. ft.) P Furniture transfer and storage G Garden supplies and equipment sales and service Gas distribution, meter and control station General memhandise/retail stores less than 10,000 sq. ft. P Glass and mirrors, retail sales P Government offices P Grocery store, retail P Grocery store, wholesale Guns and firearm sales H Hardware stores P Health and exemise club P Health food store P Health care facility P Heliport Hobby supply shop P Home and business maintenance service Hospitals Hotels/motels I Ice cream parlor P Impound yard Interior decorating service P J Junk or salvage yard I K Kennel Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan 5-12 C:~OCUMENTS AND SETTINGS'~IAASEHS\LOCAL SE'CrlNGS\TEMP~SPSECT5CCDOCUMENT.DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE L Laboratories, film, medical, reseamh or testing centers Laundromat P Laundry service (commercial) Libraries, museums, and galleries (private) C Liquid petroleum, sales and distribution Liquor stores C Lithographic service Locksmith P M Machine shop Machinery storage yard Mail order business P Manufacturing of products similar to, but not limited to the following: Custom-made product, processing, assembling, packaging, and fabrication of goods, within enclosed building (no outside storage), such as jewelry, furniture, art objects, clothing, labor intensive manufacturing, assembling, and repair processes which do nor involve frequent truck traffic. Compounding of materials, processing, assembling, packaging, treatment or fabrication of materials and products which require frequent truck activity or the transfer of heavy or bulky items. Wholesaling, storage, and warehousing within enclosed building, freight i handling, shipping, truck services and terminals, storage and wholesaling from the premises of unrefined, raw or semi-refined products requiring further processing and manufacturing, and outside storage. Uses under 20,000 sq. ft. with no outside storage Massage 3 p Medical equipment sales/rental P Membership clubs, organizations, lodges C Mini-storage or mini-warehouse facilities Mobilehome sales and services Motion picture studio Motorcycle sales and service Movie theaters C Musical and recording studio N Nightclubs/taverns/bars/dance club/teen club Roripau~h Ranch Specific Plan 5-13 C:'~DOCUMENTS AND SE'CI'INGS'~IAASEHS~LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMP~SPSECT5CCDOCUMENT.DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE Nurseries (retail) Nursing homes/convalescent homes C 0 Office equipment supplies, sales/services P Offices, administrative or corporate headquarters with greater than 50,000 sq. ft. Offices, professional services with less than 50,000 sq. ft., but not limited to, business P law, medical, dental, veterinarian, chiropractic, amhitectural, engineering, real estate, insurance P Paint and wallpaper stores P Parcel delivery services Parking lots and parking structures C Pawnshop Personal service shops p Pest control services Pet grooming/pet shop P Photographic studio P Plumbing supply yard (enclosed or unenclosed) Postal distribution Postal services P Printing and publishing (newspapers, periodicals, books, etc.,) Private utility facilities (Regulated by the Public Utilities Commission) P Q Reserved R Radio and broadcasting studios, offices Radio/television transmitter Recreational vehicle parks Recreational vehicle sales Recreational vehicle, trailer, and boat storage within an enclosed building Recycling collection facilities P Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan 5-14 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS'~IAASEHS~OCAL SETTINGS\TEMP\SPSECT5CCDOCUMENT.DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE Recycling processing facilities Religious institution, without a daycare or private school C Religious institution, with a private school C Religious institution, with a daycare C Restaurant, drive-in/fast food C Restaurants and other eating establishments P Restaurants with lounge or live entertainment C Rooming and boarding houses S Scale, public Schools, business and professional C Schools, private (kindergarten through Grade 12) C Scientific research and development offices and laboratories Solid waste disposal facility Sports and recreational facilities C Swap meet, entirely inside a permanent building Swap meet, outdoor Swimming pool supplies/equipment sales P T Tailor shop P Taxi or limousine service Tire sales Tobacco shop P Tool and die casting Transfer, moving and storage Transportation terminals and stations C Truck sales/rentals/service TV/VCR repair P U Upholstery shop [ Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan 5-15 C:'~DOCUMENTS AND S~ t ~ tNGS'u'~IAAS EHS%OCAL SETTINGS\TEM P\SPSECT5CCDOCU M ENT. DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE V Vending machine sales and services W Warehousing/distribution Watch repair P Wedding chapels Welding shop Welding supply and service (enclosed) Y Reserved Z Reserved 1. Subject to the provisions contained in Section 17.40 of the City of Temecula Development Code 2. Subject to the provisions contained in Section 17,06.050.H of the City of Temecula Development Code 3. Subject to the provisions contained in Section 5.22 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan 5-16 C:~DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS'~IAASEHS%OCAL SETTINGS\TEMP',~PSECT5CCDOCUMENT.DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE 5.4.3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The following standards of development shall apply in the Neighborhood Commemial: Table 5-4 Development Standards - Neighborhood Commercial (Commercial Uses - PA 11) Minimum gross area for site 2 acres for common lot centers, 30,000 square feet for single lots Target floor area ratio .3 Maximum floor area ratio with intensity bonus as per Section .50 17.08.050 Front yard adjacent to street: - Butterfield Stage Road/Murrieta Hot Springs Road 20 feet; structure & parking - "A" and "B" Street 20 feet, structure & parking Yard adjacent to residentially zoned property 25 feet, structure & parking Accessory structure side/rear yard setback 10 feet Minimum building separation: - One story: 10 feet - Two stories: 15 feet - Three stories or more: 20 feet Maximum building height 50 feet Maximum pement of lot coverage 30% Minimum required landscaped open space 20% Fence, wall or hedge screening outdoor storage maximum height 6 feet Minimum building setback separation: - Two stories: 15 feet - Three stories or more: 20 feet Roripau~h Ranch Specific Plan 5-17 C:~DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS~IAASEHS'J.OCAL SETTINGS\TEMP~SPSECT5CCDOCUMENT. DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE 5°5 5.5.1 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE (Planning Areas Nos. lB, 5, 6, 7A, 7B, 7C, 8, 9A, 9B, 13, 27, 25, 26 and 30) DESCRIPTION OF PARKS AND OPEN SPACE Parks (P) and Open Space (OS) zoning district is intended to promote a wide range of public and private recreational uses in the community, These uses include community facilities, golf courses, health clubs, public parks and recreation areas, sports parks, or other outdoor athletic facilities and similar outdoor commemial recreational uses, 5.5.2 USE REGULATIONS The list of land uses in the following table shall be permitted in one or more of the park and open space zoning district as indicated in the columns corresponding to each zoning district. Where indicated with a letter "P", the use shall be a permitted use. Where indicated with a "-", the use is prohibited within the zone. Where indicated with a letter "C", the use shall be conditionally permitted subject to approval of a conditional use permil. Table 5-5 Schedule of Permitted Uses - Parks and Recreational Uses Schedule of Uses P P OS~ OS2 OS3 (Private) (Public) lB, 5 Planning Area and 30 6 and 27 8, 9A, 7B, 7C, Portions 9B, and 25 and of 6 and 13, 26 7A Agricultural Uses Athletic Field P P Bicycle paths P P P P Campground Caretakers quarters Cemeteries, mausoleums and related uses Game courts, badminton, tennis, racquetball P P Golf driving range not part of a golf course Golf course and clubhouse P P Government and public utility facilities C C P P Gymnasium p p Microwave antenna/tower1 Nature centers/exhibits Nurseries P P Group Picnic Facilities Private parks and recreation facilities P P P P Parking areas P P Roripau~h Ranch Specific Plan 5-t8 C:',DOCUM ENTS AND S~.I I iN G S'~',IAAS EH S~LOCAL S ETTINGS\TEM P~SPS ECT5CCDOCUMENT.DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE Public parks and recreational facilities P P P P Recreational vehicle park Riding stable, public or pdvate Shooting galleries, ranges, arche~j coumes Single-family dwellings Tree Farms 1. See Zoning Appendix of Development Code 17.40 for antenna information. Roripau~h Ranch Spec{ftc Plan 5-19 C:~DOCUMENTS AND SE'rTINGS'~IAASEHS%OCAL SE3-rlNGS\TEMP~SPSECT5CCDOCUMENT,DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE 5.5.3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS in the Parks and Open Space districts development standards are as follows: Table 5-6 Development Standards - Parks and Open Space Standards Development Standards I P I OS Planning Ama lB, 5, 6, 27 and 7A, 7B, 7C, 8, 31 9A, 9B, 13, 25 and 26 Minimum lot size 10,000 sq. ft. Maximum lot coverage 25% Maximum height 35 feet~ Floor area ratio .1 Setback from parking structure 25 feet Setback from parking structure 25 feet Minimum open space/landscaping 75% 100% 1. Excludes light poles and communication facilities. Roripau~lh Ranch Specific Plan 5-20 C:',OOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS'd',IAASEHS'd. OCAL SETTINGS\TEMP~SPSECT5CCDOCUMENT.DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE 5.6 PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICTS (PLANNING AREAS 28 AND 29) 5.6.1 DESCRIPTION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT AND PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT The purpose of this district is to facilitate the construction of an Elementary School site and Middle School site. Planning Area 28 will be developed as a Middle School site and Planning Area 30 will be developed as an Elementary School site. 5.6.2 USE REGULATIONS Planning Areas 28 and 29 shall only be designated to be used as a Middle School site and an Elementary School site, respectively. Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan 5-21 C:~DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS'~IAASEHS~LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMP",SPSECT5CCDOCUMENT.DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE 5.7 PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL (PLANNING AREA 32) 5.7.1 DESCRIPTION OF PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL (FIRE STATION) The purpose of this district is to facilitate construction of public and quasi-public uses in appropriate areas of the city. Planning Area 31 will be developed as a fire station on a 1.5 acre site. 5.7.2 USE REGULATIONS Planning Area 31 shall only be designated as a Fire Station. Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan 5-22 C:~OCUMENTS AND SETTINGS~NAASEHS',LOCAL SET-FINGS\TEMP~SPSECTSCCDOCUMENT.DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE 5.8 PARKING REQUIREMENTS Refer to Chapter 17.24 of the City Development Code for parking requirements. Rodpaugh Ranch Specific Plan 5-23 C:~OCUMENTS AND SETTINGS',AIAASEHS~OCAL SETTINGS\TEMP~SPSECT5CCDOCUMENT.DOC November. 2002 EXHIBIT B FOR ATFACHMENT 3 PROPOSED ZONING MAP R:XS PXRoripaugh Ranch SP~new\CC~Resos and ord CC 1.doc 68 FIGURE 1-2 BP L COUNT OF RIVERSIDE CH OS-R OS-R i LAKE S~NNER CH SP CITY ~ CITY LIMITS V L Very Low Residential (0.4-2.0 du/ac) LM Low Medium Residential (L2-14du/ac) PF Public Facilities SP Specific Plan (Rodpaugh Rar'~h Panhandle) OS Open Space ~ PROJECT SITE COUNTY SOUTHWEST AREA PLAN DESIGNATION RR Rural Residential (<0.2 du/ac) A Agriculture CH Conserval~o~ Habitat SP Specific Plan (Rancho Bella V'~la) VL Very Low Density (0.4-2.0 du/ac) L Low Density (2.0-5.0 du/ac) M Medium Density (5.0-8.0 du/ac) BP Business Park CC Community Center OS-R Open Space- Recreation RC Retail Commercial PF Public Facilities LThe Kei~;h Comp. nie~111~c EXHIBIT C FOR ATTACHMENT 3 PREZONING THE VALLEY NEIGHBORHOOD AS SPECIFIC PLAN R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SPXnew~CC~Resos and ord CC l.doc 69 FIGURE 1-2 11 OS-R ~ LAKE SKINNER OS-R CH cr~ ~"" CITY LIMITS V L Vet'/Low Residential (0.4-2.0 du/ac) LM Low Medium Residential (L2.-14du/ac) PF Public Facil~ies SP Specific Plan (Rodpeugh Ranch Panhandle) OS Open Space ~ PROJECT SITE COUNTY SOUTHWEST AREA PLAN DESIGNATION RR Rural Residential (<0.2 du/ac) A /~griculture CH Conservation Habitat SP Specific Plan (Rancho Belia Vi_ Ve~/Low Density (0.4-2.0 du/ac) L Low Density (2.0-5.0 du/ac) M Medium Density (5.0-8.0 alu/ac) BP Business Pad( CC Community Center OS-R Open Space- Renreatio~ RC Retail Commercial PF Public Facilities LThe Kei:h CompenlesJTKC iN O Tiii~ii TO $ C ALE R onpaugt Rancli A'I-I'ACHM ENT 4 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE 2002- APPROVING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT R:\S PXRoripaugh Ranch SP~new~CC~Staff Report 11-26-02 A.doc 14 ATrACHMENT NO. 4 ORDINANCE NO. 2002- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING THAT CETAIN AGREEMENT ENTITLED "DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF TEMECULA AND ASHBY USA, LLC" FOR THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN, (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-0299). THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. declare that: The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and A. Ashby USA, LLC ("Owner") filed Planning Application No PA99-0298 (General Plan Amendment), PA 94-0073 (Annexation), PA94-0075 (Specific Plan, Development Code Amendment and Specific Plan Zoning Standards), PA 94-0076 (Environmental Impact Report), PA 94-0075 (Change of Zone), PA99-0299 (Development Agreement) PA01-0253 (Tentative Tract Map 29661), PA01-0230 (Tentative Tract Map 29353), (the "Application") in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code for land use approvals for a 804.7 acre planned community located Northeast of the City near the future intersection of Butter[ield Stage Road and Nicolas Road, ("Project"). B. Government Code Section 65864 authorizes the City to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property in order to, among other matters: ensure high quality development in accordance with comprehensive plans; provide certainty in the approval of development projects so as to avoid the waste of resoumes and the escalation in the cost of housing and other development to the consumer; provide assurance to the applicants for development projects that they may proceed with their projects in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations and subject to conditions of approval, in order to strengthen the public planning process and encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the private and public economic costs of development; and provide for economic assistance to Owner for the entitlements authorizing development related improvements. C. On October 16, 2002 October 30, 2002 the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula held a duly noticed public hearing on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, the proposed Development Agreement(s) and the other land use applications for the Project at which time all persons interested in the Draft EIR, proposed Development Agreement and the Project had the opportunity and did address the Planning Commission on these matters. D. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings and due consideration of the proposed Development Agreement and the Project, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2002- recommending to the City Council that the Development Agreement be approved, subject to certain recommended conditions. E. On November 26, 2002 the City Council of the City of Temecula held duly noticed public hearings on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, proposed Development Agreement(s) and the other land use applications for the Project at which time ali persons R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch Sl~new\CC~Resos and ord CC l.dec interested in the proposed Development Agreement and the Project had the opportunity and did address the City Council on these matters. F. Following consideration of the entire record of information received at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council, and due consideration of the proposed Final EIR, Annexation, General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, Code Amendment, Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance, Tentative Tract Maps 2966! and 29353, and Development Agreement, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2002- , entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula Certifying the Environmental Impact Report Prepared for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan No. 11 (Planning Application No. 94- 0076) and Related Actions, and Adoption of the Environmental Findings Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in Connection Therewith." Section 2. declares that: The City Council of the City of Temecula further finds, determines and A. In consideration of the substantial public improvements and benefits to be provided by Owner and the Project, in further consideration of the implementation of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and in order to strengthen the public financing and planning process and reduce the economic costs of development, by the Development Agreement, the City intends to give Owner assurance that Owner can proceed with the development of the Project for the Term of the Development Agreement pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement and in accordance with the City's General Plan, ordinances, policies, rules and regulations existing as set forth in the Development Agreement. In reliance on the City's covenants in the Development Agreement concerning the development of the Property, Owner has and will in the future incur substantial costs in site preparation and the construction and installation of major infrastructure and facilities in order to make the Project feasible. B. The Development Agreement and the Existing Project Approvals, as defined in the Development Agreement, implement the goals and policies of the City's General Plan, and the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, provide balanced and diversified land uses, and impose appropriate standards and requirements with respect to land development and usage in order to maintain the overall quality of life and the environment within the City. C. The City has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential impacts of the Project as well as the various potential benefits to the City by the development of the Project and concluded that the Project is in the best interests of and is not detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the City. D. The Development Agreement is consistent with the City's General Plan, and each Element thereof, and the City's Growth Management Action Plan, and constitutes a present valid exercise of the City's police power. E. The Development Agreement is being entered into pursuant to and in compliance with the requirements of Government Code Section 65867. F. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. Section 3. The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby approves certain agreement entitled "Development Agreement by and Between the City of Temecula and Ashby R:XS PXRoripaugh Ranch SPXnewXCCXResos and ord CC I,doc 72 USA, LLC." and authorizes the Mayor to execute said agreement attached hereto as Attachment A. Section 4. If any sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. Section 5. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same or a summary thereof to be published and posted in the manner required by law. Section 6. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _ day of ,2002. A'i-I'EST: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan Jones, CMC City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 02- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the __ day of ,2002, and that thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the __ day of ., 2002 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: APPROVED AS TO FORM: SUSAN JONES, CMC CITY CLERK Peter M. Thorson City Attorney R:~S PXRoripaugh Ranch SPXnew\CCkResos and ord CC l.doc 73 EXHIBIT A FOR ATTACHMENT 4 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT R:\S P~Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new~CC~esos and ord CC l.doc 74 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT By and Between THE CITY OF TEMECULA, City, and ASHBY USA, LLC Owner. R:kD ALRoripaugh DA~DA 11-19-02 from Curle¥.DOCR:~D A~.zripaugk DAY.DA ! ! !9 92 .*rcm Cur!ey DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND PREANNEXATION AGREEMENT THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND PREANNEXATION AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is entered into as of the __ day of , 2002 ("Agreement Date"), by and between Ashby USA, LLC, a Limited Liability Corporation ("OWNER"), and the CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation, organized and existing under the laws of the State of California (hereinafter "CITY"), pursuant to the authority of Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the California Government Code and Article XI, Section 2 of the California Constitution. NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority contained in the Development Agreement Legislation, pursuant to Article XI, Section 2 of the California Constitution, and in consideration of the foregoing recitals of fact, all of which are expressly incorporated into this Agreement, the mutual covenants set forth in this Agreement, the parties agree as follows: INTENT OF THE PARTIES This Agreement is predicated upon the following facts: A. The following paragraphs refer to and utilize certain capitalized terms which are defined in this Agreement. The parties intend to refer to those definitions in conjunction with the use thereof in these Recitals. B. The Development Agreement Legislation authorizes the CITY to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property in order to, among other matters: ensure high quality development in accordance with comprehensive plans; provide certainty in the approval of development projects so as to avoid the waste of resources and the escalation in the cost of housing and other development to the consumer; provide assurance to the applicants for development projects that they may proceed with their projects in accordance with existing policies, rules and regulations and subject to conditions of approval, in order to strengthen the public planning process and encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the private and public economic costs of development; assist in the financing of public improvements; protect against initiatives, moratorium (processing or development) and other actions inconsistent with the Project anticipated by this Agreement; assure reimbursement of OWNER in accordance with the terms of this Agreement and state and federal law; and provide for economic assistance to OWNER for the entitlements authorizing development related improvements. C. OWNER is the owner of certain real property (the "Property"), as more particularly described in Attachment "1", including a plat graphically depicting the real property contained in Attachment "2". A portion of the property 713471.1 11/19/2002 1 is within the current boundaries of CITY and a portion is proposed to be annexed into CITY from Riverside County. OWNER desires to develop the Property in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, the Existing Regulations and those regulations of other agencies exercising jurisdiction over the Project which are not inconsistent with the terms of this Agreement and the Existing Regulations. Owner will refrain from developing any portion of the Property in a manner inconsistent with this Agreement and the Existing Regulations regardless of which public agency has land use jurisdiction over the Property. The agreed upon Scope of Development of the Property is set forth in this Agreement expressly or by incorporation. D. OWNER has sought, and the CITY has agreed to, this Agreement in order to assist in the creation of a beneficial project and a physical environment that will conform to and complement the goals of the CITY, create a development project responsive to community needs, facilitate efficient traffic circulation, and develop the Property in a manner beneficial to all parties. As part of the process of granting this entitlement, the City Council of the CITY has required the preparation of and has certified the Project EIR in order to identify any significant environmental effects arising from the Development and has otherwise carried out all requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") of 1970, as amended. E. The following actions were taken with respect to this Agreement and the Project: 1. On ,2002, following a duly noticed and conducted public hearing, the City Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Project, this Agreement, the proposal, annexation, the General Plan amendments, the Specific Plan, and Tentative Map No. 29353 (hereafter "A Map") and 29661 (hereafter "B Map"), by adoption of its Resolution No. __ and making the findings of fact thereto; 2. On , after a duly noticed public hearing and pursuant to CEQA, the City Council certified the Project EIR and adopted the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program by adoption of its Resolution No. __ and making the findings of fact thereto; 3. On , after a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council approved proceeding with the annexation, the General Plan Amendments, the Specific Plan and the A Map and B Map by adoption of its Resolution No. , Ordinance No. __ and making the findings of fact thereto; 4. On the City Council introduced Ordinance No. __ execution of this Agreement and on ., after a duly noticed public hearing, approving and authorizing the , the City Council adopted 713471.1 11/19/2002 2 the Ordinance, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk of the CITY, and the findings and conditions pertaining thereto. F. The CITY has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential impacts of the Project under the California Environmental Quality Act and all applicable Existing Regulations, as well as the various potential benefits to the CITY by the development of the Project and concluded that the Project is in the best interests of the CITY. G. In consideration of the substantial public improvements and benefits already provided and those to be provided by OWNER and the Project, as described in this Agreement, in further consideration of the benefits that will inure to the CITY in conjunction with the implementation of the Project and in order to strengthen the Project's public financing and planning process and reduce the economic costs of development, by this Agreement, the CITY intends to give and by this Agreement gives, OWNER assurance that OWNER can proceed with the Development of the Project for the Term of this Agreement pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and in accordance with the Development Plan Approval(s) and the Existing Regulations. This entitlement shall be effective for that portion of the Property within the jurisdiction of CITY upon the Effective Date and shall be effective for that portion of the Property which is to be annexed to CITY from the County of Riverside upon the Annexation Date. In reliance on the CITY's covenants in this Agreement concerning the Development of the Property, OWNER has and will in the future incur substantial indebtedness, as well as costs in planning, engineering, site preparation and the construction and installation of major infrastructure and facilities that OWNER would not incur but for the covenants of CITY provided in this Agreement. Each party agrees to act in good faith and shall reasonably cooperate with the other to cause the annexation of the County of Riverside's portion of the Property to be completed at the earliest possible opportunity. H. Pursuant to Section 65867.5 of the Development Agreement Legislation, the City Council has found and determined that: (i) this Agreement and the Development Plan Approval(s) implement the goals and policies of the CITY's General Plan and the Specific Plan, provide balanced and diversified land uses and impose appropriate standards and requirements with respect to land development and usage in order to maintain the overall quality of life and the environment within the CITY, (ii) this Agreement and the Project are in the best interests of and not detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare of the CITY and its residents; (iii) adopting this Agreement is consistent with the CITY's General Plan and constitutes a present exercise of the CITY's police power; and (iv) this Agreement is being entered into pursuant to and in compliance with the requirements of Section 65867 of the Development Agreement Legislation. I. As to the portion of the Property presently within the jurisdiction of County of Riverside, this Agreement shall serve as the prezoning of such real 713471.1 11/19/2002 3 property, as the term is utilized in California Government Code Section 65859. This Agreement shall become effective as to the County of Riverside portion of the Project concurrently with the annexation becoming effective, without further action by either party. J. The CITY and OWNER agree that it may be beneficial to enter into operating memoranda, additional agreements or to modify this Agreement with respect to the implementation of the separate components of the Project when more information concerning the details of each component is available, and that this Agreement should expressly allow for such contemplated operating memoranda, additional agreements or modifications to this Agreement. 1. Definitions. Unless the context otherwise requires, the terms defined in this Section 1 shall, for all purposes of this Agreement, or any supplemental agreement, and any certificate, opinion or other document herein mentioned, have the meanings herein specified. All references herein to "Articles," "Sections" and other subdivisions are to the corresponding Articles, Sections or subdivisions of this Agreement, and the word "herein," "hereof," "hereunder" and other words of similar import refer to this Agreement as a whole and not to any particular Article, Section or subdivision hereof. "Accept" means Acceptance pursuant to the regular and ordinary procedures of the CITY. "Acceptance" shall mean the CITY's final approval of the entirety of an On-Site or Off-Site Improvement as issued in the ordinary course of business by the CITY for the certain type of On-Site or Off-Site Improvement under review. "Annexation" means the process by which real property is lawfully brought under the jurisdiction of the City of Temecula pursuant to the procedures of the County of Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission and all applicable law. "Annexation Date" means the date upon which the Annexation is final and effective as established by the County of Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission. "Authorizing Ordinance" means Ordinance No. __ approving this Agreement. of the CITY "CITY" means the City of Temecula, a California municipal corporation, duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of 713471.1 11/19/2002 4 California, and all of its officials, employees, agencies and departments and assignees or successors. "City Council" means the duly elected and constituted City Council of the CITY. "Commencement Date" shall mean the date of the issuance of the first building permit within the project or the one year anniversary of the Effective Date whichever occurs first. "Develop" or "Development" or "Developing" means the improvement of the Property for purposes consistent with the Development Plan, including, without limitation: subdividing, grading, the construction of infrastructure and public facilities related to the Off-Site Improvements, the construction of structures and buildings and the installation of landscaping, all in accordance with the phasing provided for herein. "Development Agreement Legislation" means Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the California Government Code as it exists on the Agreement Date. "Development Impact Fees" or "DIF" means, individually and in the aggregate, the CITY's current development impact fees as set forth in Ordinance No. 97-09, as amended, as set forth in the Temecula Municipal Code in Section 15.06 which are in effect on the Effective Date. "Development Plan" means the plan for Developing the Property contained in this Agreement, the City of Temecula General Plan as amended on ,2002 and as thereafter amended in accordance with Section 3.6 hereof, the Specific Plan entitled the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, the A Map and the B Map and the Project Final EIR (including Mitigation Monitoring Program). Any Future Development Approvals, approved in conformance with Section 3.7 hereof shall become an element of the Development upon the final approval of the same. "Development Plan Approval(s)" means the approvals of the City Council and other governmental agencies and other actions and agreements described in Attachment 3 hereto, including those amendments to this Agreement made in accordance with Section 3.5, those amended to the Development Plan Approvals made in accordance with Section 3.6 and those Future Development Approvals made in accordance with Section 3.7. "Development Transferee" means a person or entity that expressly assumes obligations under this Agreement pursuant to Section 2.5 hereof. "Effective Date" means the date the Authorizing Ordinance becomes st effective. This date shall be the thirty-first (31) day after the second reading of the Authorizing Ordinance. 713471.1 11/19/2002 5 "Existing Regulations" means those ordinances, rules, regulations and official policies of the CITY other than the Development Plan Approval(s) in effect on the Effective Date, which govern the permitted uses of the Property, building heights, the size of structures, the density and intensity of use of the Property, the timing, fees, and conditions to Development, exactions, assessments, the procedures for, and types of, permits required for the Development, the provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the Property and the infrastructure required for the Development. By way of enumeration, and not limitation, the Existing Regulations include those portions of the items identified on Attachment 4. The CITY has certified two copies of each of the documents listed on Attachment 4. The CITY has retained one set of the certified documents and has provided OWNER with the second set. The Existing Regulations also are approved and imposed as the zoning and development criteria that apply to the portion of the Property currently within the County of Riverside, pursuant to the City's authority to prezone property pursuant to California Government Code Section 65859. "Future Development Approvals" means those entitlements and approvals that are made in accordance with Section 3.7. By way of enumeration, and not limitation, the Future Development Approvals include actions such as development plan review, tentative maps, final maps, use permits, variances, grading permits, occupancy permits and building permits. "Merchant Builder" means a buyer, assignee, or transferee of one or more individual lots or tracts of the Project, acquiring such lots or tracts for the purpose of engaging in the business of developing, constructing improvements, improving, or using such lots or tracts for development. "Off-Site Improvements" includes the improvements set forth on either or both Attachment 5 and in the Development Plan Approval(s). "On-Site Improvements" means physical infrastructure improvements or facilities that are or will be located on the Property as described either or both in the Development Plan Approval(s) and Attachment 5. "OWNER" is Ashby USA, LLC and others who subsequently are assigned the rights and obligations of OWNER pursuant to Section 2.5 hereof. "Planning Commission" means the duly appointed and constituted planning commission of the CITY. "Project" means the development of the Property as set forth in the Development Plan Approval(s). "Project EIR" means that environmental impact report prepared for the Project, as certified on ,2002. 713471.1 11/19/2002 6 "Property" means that certain real property described in Attachment 1 hereof. "Public Art Program" means the plans, guidelines, and design criteria that will guide the CITY's review of public display art associated with the project. "Public Infrastructure Improvements" mean the improvements intended to be utilized by the public and described on Attachments 5. "Specific Plan" means the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, approved by the CITY on ,2002 and as thereafter amended from time to time in accordance with Section 3.6 of this Agreement. Any reference in this Agreement to a Planning Area shall mean the specified Planning Area as the same is set forth in the Specific Plan as adopted or as amended. "Specific Plan Area" means the Property, regardless of its location within or without the CITY on the Effective Date. "Term" means the time frames set forth in Section 2.3. 2. General Provisions. 2.1 Bindin.q Covenants. Except as otherwise provided for in this Agreement, the provisions of this Agreement to the extent permitted by law, constitute covenants which shall run with the Property for the benefit thereof, and the benefits and burdens of this Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the parties, all successors in interest to the parties hereto to the extent provided for in this Agreement. 2.2 Interest of OWNER. OWNER represents that OWNER holds fee simple title interest in the Property. 2.3 Term. This Agreement shall become effective on the Effective Date and shall continue for a ten (10) year term from the Commencement Date unless terminated pursuant to this Agreement. Unless terminated pursuant to Section 2.4, this Agreement shall terminate at 11:59 p.m. on the tenth (10th) anniversary after the Commencement Date. The final day of this Agreement's regulation of the Property shall change subject to and upon the facts and terms relating to a specific extension(s), rome majeure, revision(s), and termination provisions of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that a court of competent jurisdiction takes any action that stay or delays the Effective Date, and subsequently enters after all appeals or time to appeal have been exhausted, of a final judgment or issuance of a final order directed to the CITY to set aside, withdraw, or abrogate the approval of the City Council of this Agreement, then this Agreement shall be deemed to have no force or effect upon either party. 713471.1 11/19/2002 7 2.4 Termination. This Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further effect, except for any express covenants and agreements that expressly survive termination, upon the occurrence of any of the following events: 2.4.1 Termination occurring pursuant to any provision of this Agreement, including, without limitation, a termination in the event of default; 2.4.2 The completion of the total build-out of the Development pursuant to the terms of this Agreement and the CiTY's Acceptance of all dedications and improvements required to complete Development; or 2.4.3 The expiration of the Term as set forth in Section 2.3. 2.4.4 The failure to form a Public Facilities Financing District (Community Facilities District) prior to the Commencement Date. 2.4.5 OWNER'S failure to complete any Off-Site Improvements or On-Site Improvements within the time frames and/or in the manner approved for such construction activities after any and all cure or remedial periods have lapsed with OWNER. To provide notice to all, and not as a condition of the effectiveness of a termination of this Agreement, the parties agree to execute and record terminations of or releases of this Agreement as may be requested by either party. 2.5 Transfers and Assignments. 2.5.1 Right to Transfer or Assign to End User. OWNER and .any Memhant Builder, shall, without the consent of the CITY or any other party, have the right from time to time and on such number of occasions as it chooses, to sell, assign or otherwise transfer any or all individual lots on final maps approved on the Property or any portion thereof, to any retail purchaser intending to occupy the unit as his or her principal residence ("End User") at any time during the Term of this Agreement. Absent an express written assumption of the obligations or rights hereunder, upon the sale, assignment, or other transfer to an End User of one or more individual lots, this Agreement shall terminate with respect to such lots without the execution or recordation of any further documentation. For purposes of documentation only, the transferor/assignor shall provide CITY with written notice of the name of the any End User, that assumed rights or obligations hereunder, together with a description of the assumed rights and obligations. 713471.1 11/19/2002 8 2.5.2 Right to Assign to Merchant Builder. Provided OWNER has previously delivered the security required of that OWNER by Section 2.5.4 hereof to the CITY, that OWNER shall, without the consent of the CITY or any other party, have the right from time to time and on such number of occasions as it chooses to sell, assign or otherwise transfer its interests in a portion of the Property together with some or all of its rights and obligations under this Agreement with respect to the portion of the Property which is subject to transfer (the "Transferred Property"), to any Merchant Builder at any time during the Term of this Agreement. if the OWNER has not delivered the security required of that OWNER by Section 2.5.4 hereof to the CITY, any assignment or transfer of the Transferred Property together with some or all of that OWNER's rights and obligations under this Agreement with respect to the Transferred Property to a Merchant Builder requires the prior written consent of the CITY, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Any transfer or assignment must be pursuant to a sale, assignment or other transfer of an interest of such OWNER in a portion of the Property and shall be subject to the following criteria and conditions: (i) the transferor/assignor shall notify the CITY at least twenty (20) days prior to the transfer of the name of the Merchant Builder, together with the corresponding rights and obligations, if any, being transferred to such Merchant Builder; and (ii) the agreement between the transferor/assignor and Merchant Builder pertaining to such transfer shall provide, and OWNER shall give CITY notice of such provision, which obligations of OWNER under this Agreement the Merchant Builder shall be liable to perform, and acknowledging those obligations OWNER retains. 2.5.3 Assignment of Rights to Subsequent OWNER. Provided OWNER has previously delivered the security required of that OWNER by Section 2.5.4 hereof to the CITY, that OWNER shall, without the consent of the CITY or any other party, have the right from time to time and on such number of occasions as it chooses to sell, assign or otherwise transfer its interests in the Transferred Property together with its rights and obligations under this Agreement as an OWNER with respect to the Transferred Property to another person or entity ("Subsequent Owner") at any time during the Term of this Agreement. If the OWNER has not delivered the security required of that OWNER by Section 2.5.4 hereof to the CITY, any assignment or transfer of the Transferred Property together with its rights and obligations under this Agreement as an OWNER with respect to the Transferred Property to a 713471.1 11/19/2002 9 Subsequent Owner requires the prior written consent of the CITY, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. Any transfer or assignment must be pursuant to a sale, assignment or other transfer of an interest of such OWNER in a portion of the Property and shall be subject to the following criteria and conditions: (i) the transferor/assignor shall notify the CITY at least twenty (20) day prior to the transfer of the name of the Subsequent Owner, together with the corresponding rights and obligations, if any, being transferred to such Subsequent Owner; and (ii) the agreement between the OWNER and Subsequent Owner pertaining to such transfer shall provide, and OWNER shall give CITY notice of such provision, which obligations of OWNER under this Agreement the Subsequent Owner shall be liable to perform and acknowledging those obligations OWNER retains. Upon transfer of title to the Transferred Property, the Subsequent Owner will be considered an OWNER for all purposes under this Agreement. 2.5.4 Security for Transfer. Prior to transferring or assigning all or a portion of that portion Property without obtaining the prior written consent of the CITY, OWNER shall post a corporate guarantee as security for the construction of the improvements described in Attachment 5 in an amount equal to the costs attributed to those improvements listed on Attachment 5. The amount of the corporate guarantee will be proportionately reduced as the improvements described in Attachment 5 are completed. 2.5.5 Effect of Assi.qnment or Transfer. Unless expressly set forth to the contrary in this Agreement CITY shall require OWNER to perform all promises, duties and obligations set forth in the Development Agreement with the sole exception of those which CITY has consented to be assigned or transferred to a Development Transferee with Obligations. CITY shall look only to the Development Transferee with Obligations to perform the obligations such party is expressly obligated to perform under this Agreement or the action occurring as required by this Agreement and shall require OWNER to perform all other Obligations. 3. Development Provisions. 3.1 Vestin.q. 3.1.1 Project. CITY covenants that OWNER has, during the term of this Agreement, the right to implement the Development pursuant to the Development Plan Approvals and the Existing Regulations, including, without limitation, all specified uses, 2,015 residential dwelling units and 110,000 square feet of commercial retail development, at the building heights, building sizes, lot sizes, infrastructure standards and specifications, densities and types of development provided for in the Specific Plan, and the CITY shall have the right to control the Development in accordance with the Existing Regulations and the Development Plan Approval(s) ("Vested Right"). Except as otherwise expressly specified in this Agreement, the Development Plan Approval(s) shall control the 713471.1 11/19/2002 10 design and development, and review and approval of all Future Development Approvals and all Off-Site Improvements and appurtenances in connection therewith. Except to the extent it has been amended, canceled, modified or suspended in accordance with the terms of this Agreement, this Agreement shall be enforceable by CITY, OWNER or their respective assignees .notwithstanding any change in any Existing Regulation. 3.1.2 Limits on Development. The California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Company v. City of Camarillo, 37 Cal.3d 465 (1984), that the failure of the parties to address certain limits on a CITY's ability to restrict or regulate a development allowed a later adopted initiative to restrict the development. This Agreement cures that deficiency by expressly addressing the timing for the Development, the vested rights afforded by this Agreement and the scope of the CITY's Reserved Authority. Except as expressly set forth in the Development Plan Approval(s), regardless of any future enactment, by initiative, or otherwise, OWNER shall have the discretion to develop the Development in such order, and at such rate, in one phase or in multiple phases, at such times as OWNER deems appropriate within the exercise of its subjective business judgment. Specifically, the CITY agrees that OWNER shall be entitled to apply for and receive the Future Development Approvals and to develop and use the Property at any time during the term of this Agreement, provided that such application is made and such Development occurs in accordance with this Agreement, the other Development Plan Approval(s) and the Existing Regulations. The CITY covenants that no Existing Regulation purports to limit the scope, rate or timing of Development or alter the sequencing of Development in a manner inconsistent with the Development Plan Approval(s). No future amendment of any CITY law, or future adoption of any CITY law or other action, that purports to limit the scope, rate or timing of Development on the Property shall apply to the Property. In particular, but without limiting any of the foregoing, no numerical restriction shall be placed by CITY on the number of dwellings units or amount of commercial development that may be built in any particular year on any portion of the Property other than permitted by this Agreement. 3.1.3 Entitlements, Permits and Approvals - Cooperation. 3.1.3.1 Processing. CITY agrees that it shall accept and expeditiously process, pursuant to CITY's regular procedures, OWNER's applications for amendments to this Agreement, amendments to the Development Plan Approval(s) and the Future Development Approvals. 3.1.3.2 Further Mitigation. In connection with the issuance of any Future Development Approvals which are subject to review under CEQA, unless required under the California Public Resource Code and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, the CITY shall not impose any environmental land use project alternatives or mitigation measures on OWNER or the Property beyond those referenced in the Development Plan Approval(s). 713471.1 11/19/2002 11 3.1.3.3 Other Permits. The CITY further agrees to reasonably cooperate with OWNER, at no cost to the CITY, in securing any County, Local Agency Formation Commission, State and Federal permits or authorizations which may be required in connection with Development of the Property. Except as expressly provided for in this Agreement, this cooperation shall not require any economic contribution or similar consideration by the CITY. 3.1.3.4 Litigation. The CITY agrees to reasonably cooperate with OWNER in all reasonable manners in order to keep this Agreement in full force and effect. If any legal action is instituted by a third party or other governmental entity or official challenging the Development Plan Approval(s) or Future Development Approvals, the parties hereby agree to cooperate in the defense of this action. CITY shall defend its interests under this Agreement using attorneys of its own sole selection and OWNER agrees that OWNER shall be responsible for all of CITY's costs, including, but not limited to, attorneys fees, costs, expert witnesses, travel, exhibits, displays and the like. OWNER shall reimburse CITY its costs within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of any invoice(s) by OWNER requesting payment for any such costs. 3.1.3.5 Acquisition of Off-Site Property. 3.1.3.5.1 The CiTY shall not postpone or refuse approval of a Future Development Approval because the OWNER or Development Transferee has failed to acquire off-site property required for the construction or installation of Off-Site Improvements so long as OWNER complies with Subsection 3.1.3.5.3. CITY shall use its authority pursuant to California Government Code Section 66462.5 to seek to acquire the necessary interests. 3.1.3.5.2 if there are delays in the acquisition of the right-of-way for the off-site or County of Riverside portions of Butterfield Stage Road, CITY may in its discretion, issue additional building permits beyond the Five Hundred Tenth (510th). The additional building permits beyond the 510th shall be limited to no more than Fifty (50) every six months. In no event, shall the CITY issue more than a total of Two Hundred (200) additional building permits beyond the initial 510 permits. 3.1.3.5.3 To the extent the OWNER or a Development Transferee does not have sufficient title or interest in the real property to be improved to permit an Off-Site Improvement to be made the OWNER or Development Transferee shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required property in a timeframe calculated to allow for the orderly development of the Project. If the OWNER or Development Transferee is unable to acquire the required property, the CITY shall consider in good faith the acquisition of the required property. Subject to the following, if the CITY is unable to acquire the required property by negotiation or condemnation within the time frame provided for in Government Code Section 66462.5, the CITY shall not use such failure as 713471.1 11/19/2002 12 grounds to deny Future Development Approvals except for building permits for the Project despite the fact that the Off-Site Improvement has not been completed, subject to OWNER delivering to CITY the full sum of monies described hereafter. Further, the CITY's obligation to continue to issue Future Development Approvals as provided for in this Section is contingent upon: (i) the applicable OWNER or Development Transferee having made a timely submittal of the improvement plans required for the respective Off-Site Improvement to the CITY; and (ii) consistent with Government Code Section 66462.5, the OWNER or Development Transferee enters into an agreement with the CITY to reimburse the CiTY for costs incurred by the CITY in acquiring the required property; and (iii) so long as OWNER or Development Transferee has deposited with CITY an amount equal to the CITY's calculation of the costs necessary to design the Off- Site Improvements, acquire the real property, enter into a contract for such public work subject to all legal requirements and to construct the Public Infrastructure Improvement(s) which are uncompleted. CITY may use these funds for community circulation/transportation improvements within the Specific Plan Area in its sole discretion. 3.2 Reserved Authority. 3.2.1 Uniform Codes. This Agreement shall not prevent the CITY from applying new "uniform" construction standards adopted by the State of California as State Codes, such as the Uniform Building Code, National Electrical Code, Uniform Mechanical Code or Uniform Fire Code, to the Development, provided those same standards are applied to all other development within the CITY. 3.2.2 State and Federal Laws and Regulations. Subject to compliance with the requirements of this Section 3.2.2, the Property may be subject to subsequently enacted state or federal laws or regulations which preempt local regulations, or mandate the adoption of local regulations, and are in conflict with the Development Plan Approval(s). Upon the identification of a subsequently enacted federal or state law meeting the requirements of this Section, CITY or OWNER shall provide the other parties with written notice of the state or federal law or regulation, provide a copy of the law or regulation, and a written statement of conflicts with the provisions of this Agreement. Promptly thereafter CITY and OWNER shall meet and confer in good faith in a reasonable attempt to determine whether a modification or suspension of this Agreement, in whole or in part, is necessary to comply with such federal or state law or regulation, in such discussions, CITY and OWNER agree to preserve the terms of this Agreement and the rights of OWNER as derived from this Agreement to the maximum feasible extent while resolving the conflict. CITY agrees to cooperate with OWNER in resolving the conflict in a manner which minimizes any financial impact of the conflict upon OWNER without materially increasing the financial obligations of CITY under this Agreement. CITY also agrees to process in a prompt manner OWNER's proposed changes to the Project as may be necessary to comply with such Federal or State law; provided, however, that 713471.1 11/19/2002 13 the approval of such changes by CITY shall be subject to the discretion of CITY, consistent with this Agreement. 3.2.3 Regulation for Health and Safety. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to be in derogation of CITY's police power to protect the public health and safety from a sudden, unexpected occurrence, involving a clear and imminent danger, demanding immediate and interim action to prevent or mitigate loss of, or damage to, life, health, property, or essential public services involving the Property or the immediate community ("Exigent Event"). Upon discovery of an Exigent Event, CITY may suspend this Agreement for a period reasonably necessary to analyze, evaluate and develop a response to the Exigent Event following delivery of written notice of suspension to OWNER. Immediately thereafter, the suspension shall end and CITY shall provide the OWNER with written notice of the existence of the Exigent Event, a detailed explanation of the CITY's proposed action, and a written statement of conflicts with the provisions of this Agreement. Promptly thereafter CITY and OWNER shall meet and confer in good faith in a reasonable attempt to determine whether a modification or suspension of this Agreement, in whole or in part, is necessary to comply with the Exigent Event. In such discussions, CITY and OWNER agree to preserve the terms of this Agreement and the rights of OWNER as derived from this Agreement to the maximum feasible extent while resolving the conflict. CITY agrees to cooperate with OWNER in resolving the conflict in a manner which minimizes any financial impact of the conflict upon OWNER without materially increasing the financial obligations of CITY under this Agreement. CITY also agrees to process in an expedited manner OWNER's proposed changes to the Project as may be necessary to comply with the Exigent Event; provided, however, that the approval of such changes by CITY shall be subject to the discretion of CITY, consistent with this Agreement. 3.3 Further Assurances to OWNER Reqardin,q Exercise of Reserved Authority. 3.3.1 Judicial Review. Based on the foregoing, if OWNER judicially (including by way of a reference proceeding) challenges the application of a future rule, regulation or policy as being in violation of this Agreement and as not being applied in accordance with the Reserved Authority, OWNER shall bear the burden of alleging that such rule, regulation or policy is inconsistent with the Existing Regulations and the Development Plan Approval(s) and the CITY shall thereafter bear the burden of proof in establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that such regulation was adopted pursuant to and in accordance with the Reserved Authority and was not applied by the CITY in violation of this Agreement. 3.4 Consistent and Inconsistent Enactments. 3.4.1 No Conflicting Enactments. The CITY shall not enact a rule, regulation, ordinance, policy, permit or other measure (collectively "Law"), 713471.1 11/19/2002 14 nor take any action applicable to the Project or the Property, which governs the rate, timing, scope, intensity, use, density, manner, or sequencing of the Development, or any pad thereof and which is inconsistent or in conflict with the Development Plan Approval(s). By way of enumeration, and not limitation, any law, action or inaction, whether by specific reference to the Project, this Agreement or otherwise, shall be considered to conflict if it: 3.4.1.1 Restricts the Vested Rights described in the Agreement or in any way limits or reduces the rate, timing, scope, intensity, use, density, manner, or sequencing of the Development or otherwise requires any reduction or increase in the number, size, height or square footage of lot(s), structures, buildings or other improvements, modifies the standards and specifications applicable to the infrastructure required for the Development or requires additional dedications, exactions, fees or mitigation other than that provided for in the Agreement; 3.4.1.2 Is consistent with Section 3.4.1.1 hereof, but is not uniformly applied by the CITY to all substantially similar development within the CITY; or 3.4.1.3 Imposes a new permit requirement or procedure not already part of the Existing Regulations. 3.4.2 Consistent Enactments, By way of enumeration and not limitation, the following types of enactments shall be considered consistent with this Agreement and Existing Regulations and not in conflict: 3,4,2,1 Transfers of units or permitted uses as requested by OWNER within the Property as provided for in Sections 2 and 3 of the Specific Plan; 3.4.2.2 Changes in the phasing of the Development pursuant to an application from OWNER and as first approved by the CITY; and 3.4.2.3 Any enactment authorized by this Agreement. 3.4.3 Consistency Between This Agreement, the Development Plan Approval(s) and Existing Regulations. To the extent a conflict exists or develops between the Existing Regulations and the Development Plan Approval(s), the Development Plan Approval(s) shall be controlling. To the extent a conflict exists or develops between this Agreement and any other Development Plan Approval(s), this Agreement shall be controlling. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the mitigation requirements within the EIR shall be carried out as set forth therein, or as may be amended from time to time. 713471.1 11/19/2002 15 3.4.4 Map Act Consistency. As required by California Government Code Section 65867.5, any tentative map prepared for the Project shall comply with California Government Code Section 66473.7. 3.5 Amendment of Development Agreement. 3.5.1 Initiation of Amendment. Either CITY or OWNER may propose an amendment to this Agreement. An operating memorandum, as defined below, is not an amendment of this Agreement. 3.5.2 Changes Requiring an Amendment. Unless otherwise required by law, neither an amendment to the Development Plan Approval(s) nor the approval of a Future Development Approval shall require an amendment of this Agreement unless the amendment: 3.5.2.1 Materially alters the permitted uses of the Property as a whole in a manner inconsistent with the procedures established in the Specific Plan; 3.5.2.2 Property as a whole; Increases the density or intensity of use of the 3.5.2.3 Increases the maximum height and size of permitted buildings. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, an amendment of this Agreement is not required if OWNER pursues entitlements, permits or approvals pursuant to a waiver of vested rights as provided for in Section 4.1. 3.5.3 Procedure. Except as set forth in Section 3.5.5 below, the procedure for proposing and adopting an amendment to this Agreement shall be the same as the procedure required for entering into this Agreement in the first instance. 3.5.4 Consent. Any amendment to this Agreement shall require the written consent of both the CITY and the OWNER whose portion of the Property would be materially affected by the amendment. No amendment to all or any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless set forth in writing, signed by duly authorized representatives of the CiTY and the applicable OWNER, and adopted pursuant to legal requirements imposed on CITY. An amendment of this Agreement does not require the consent of a Development Transferee unless the rights, duties, or obligations of the Development Transferee are affected. To the extent the consent of the OWNER that did not initiate the amendment is necessary, that OWNER shall not unreasonably withhold its consent. Notwithstanding the above, that OWNER shall consent to the amendment on or before the thirtieth (30"~) day after receipt of notice of the initiation of the amendment if, as determined in that OWNER's reasonable 713471.1 11/19/2002 16 business judgment, that proposed amendment will not have a material adverse impact on the Development of that OWNER's portion of the Property. 3.5.5 Operating Memoranda. The parties acknowledge that refinements and further development of the Project may demonstrate that changes are appropriate with respect to the details and performance of the parties under this Agreement. The parties desire to retain a certain degree of flexibility with respect to the details of the Development Plan and with respect to those items covered in general terms under this Agreement. If and when the parties and, if applicable, a Development Transferee, mutually find that nonsubstantive changes, adjustments, or clarifications are appropriate to further the intended purposes of this Agreement, and such are not materially inconsistent with the Development Plan Approval(s), they may, unless otherwise required by law, effectuate such changes, adjustments, or clarifications without amendment to this Agreement through one or more operating memoranda mutually approved by the City Manager, or designee, on behalf of the CITY and by any corporate officer or other person designated for such purpose in a writing signed by a corporate officer on behalf of OWNER, which, after execution, shall be attached hereto as addenda and become a part hereof. Unless otherwise required by law or by the Development Plan Approval(s), no such changes, adjustments, or clarifications shall require prior notice or hearing, public or otherwise. Nothing herein shall authorize the delegation of authority to the City Manager, or designee, contrary to California or Federal Law. 3.6 Future Amendments to Development Plan Approval(s). The following rules apply to future amendments to the Development Plan Approval(s), except that Section 3.5 shall control with respect to a nonsubstantive adjustment of this Agreement and Section 3.7 shall control with respect to Future Development Approvals: 3.6.1 OWNER's Written Consent. It is contemplated by the parties that mutually agreed upon amendments to the Development Plan Approval(s) may be necessary. Any amendments to the Development Plan Approval(s) to which OWNER does not agree in writing shall not apply to the Property or the Project while this Agreement is in effect. 3.6.2 Concurrent Development Agreement Amendment. Any entitlement requiring amendment of this Agreement, as provided for in Section 3.5 hereof, shall be processed concurrently with an amendment to this Agreement in the manner required by law. 3.6.3 Effect of Amendment. Except as expressly set forth within this Agreement, an amendment of the other Development Plan Approval(s) will not alter, affect, impair or otherwise impact the rights, duties and obligations of the parties under this Agreement. To the extent an amendment to the Development Plan Approval(s) is approved in accordance with Section 3.6.1, the 713471.1 11/19/2002 17 amendment shall constitute for all purposes a Development Plan Approval and shall be treated as if it were in existence on the Agreement Date. 3.7 Future Development Approvals. 3.7.1 Exercise of CITY Discretion. In connection with Future Development Approval or any other actions which the CITY is expressly permitted to make under this Agreement relating to the Project, the CITY shall exercise its discretion or take action in a manner which complies and is consistent with the Development Plan Approval(s) and the Existing Regulations. 3.7.2 Concurrent Development Agreement Amendment. Any Future Development Approval requiring amendment of this Agreement, as provided for in Section 3.5 hereof, shall be processed concurrently with an amendment to this Agreement. 3.7.3 Effect of Future Development Approvals. Except as expressly set forth within this Section 3.7, a Future Development Approval will not alter, affect, impair or otherwise impact the rights, duties and obligations of the parties under this Agreement. To the extent a Future Development Approval is approved in accordance with Sections 3.7.1 and 3.7.2, the Future Development Approval shall constitute for all purposes a Development Plan Approval and shall be treated as if it were in existence on the Agreement Date. 4. Obli.qations of the Parties. 4.1 Fee and Exaction Related Responsibilities. 4.1.1 Development Impact Fees. CITY has adopted an ordinance requiring the payment of Development Impact Fees ("DIF"). This Agreement affects the means by which the DIF are collected and accounted for as regards the Project. The CITY will credit, and thus not require cash payment to the CITY from OWNER, except as where cash payments are specified in this Agreement. The per unit credit against otherwise payable DIF will be calculated at the time each building permit is obtained by OWNER as issued by CITY. CITY will carry the credit in its accounts, and the same will be evidence of an indebtedness OWNER owes to CITY. CITY will grant the credit to OWNER and deem the debt satisfied at such time as CITY Accepts that part of either/or both the On-Site and Off-Site Improvements that are within the scope of each individual DIF category specified hereunder. In the event OWNER fails to obtain the CITY's Acceptance of either or both any On-Site or Off-Site Improvement then CITY may elect to (i) deem the DIF that is applicable to the type of improvement or subject matter then due and payable in the full amount OWNER would have been required to pay pursuant to the DIF schedule in effect when the Building permit is issued by CITY for each building permit; (ii) cease issuance of building permits for all or any portion of the Project; (iii) seek specific performance of the On-Site or Off-Site Improvements; or (iv) seek any other 713471.1 11/19/2002 18 remedy available in law or equity. CITY's election may include any one or any combination of the foregoing remedies. The DIF is comprised of several components, each corresponding to different elements of the On-Site and Off-Site Improvements. The individual component and the credit, if any, is set fodh hereunder. 4.1.1.1 Street Improvement DIF Component. The OWNER shall be granted a credit for One Hundred Percent (100%) of the Street Improvement component so long as OWNER completes and CITY Accepts the On-Site and Off-Site Improvements. 4.1.1.2 Traffic Signal DIF Component. The OWNER shall be granted a credit for One Hundred percent (100%) of the Traffic Signal component so long as OWNER completes and CITY Accepts the On-Site and Off-Site Improvements. 4.1.1.3 Library and Corporate Facilities DIF Components. These components require cash payment of the fees in effect at the time of issuance of each building permit. 4.1.1.4 Fire DIF Component. The OWNER shall be granted a credit for One Hundred percent (100%) of the Fire component so long as OWNER completes and CITY Accepts the Fire Service Improvements as defined in Section 4.1.6 a and b. 4.1.1.5 Park and Recreation DIF Component. The OWNER shall be granted a credit for One Hundred percent (100%) of the Park's component so long as OWNER completes, and CITY Accepts, the park improvements. The Parks shall be built in accordance with the Specific Plan, which includes the following specific matters. a. A 19.7-acre Sports Park (Planning Area 27). b. A 5.1-acre Neighborhood Park (Planning Area 6). c. The developer shall also be responsible to design and construct not less than a half-width street and right-of-way improvements, related grading and utility connections to the park site at the Developer's cost with no credits towards the Park and Recreation Component of DIF. In addition to any other improvements OWNER shall construct, at its own cost, not later than the thirtieth (30th) day before the Acceptance of each park, including the following: 1. Street and right-of-way improvements adjacent to the Sports Park, including Butterfield Stage Road and the North Loop. 713471.1 11/19/2002 19 2. Street and right-of-way improvements adjacent to the Neighborhood Park including Murrieta Hot Springs Road and "A" Street as referenced in the Specific Plan. 4.1.1.5.1 General Parks Provisions. a. All real property shall be conveyed as provided for in Section 4.1.1.5 and 4.4.1 OWNER shall demonstrate the condition of title pursuant to CLTA title insurance policies, in an amount equal to both the value of the land and the actual costs of the improvements located thereon. b. OWNER shall work with the CITY to design the Community Sports Park and the Neighborhood Park site to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Services and consistent with the requirements of Section 4.2.1 of the Specific Plan. c. The Community Sports Park will generally be improved with two (2) lighted full sized soccer fields, two (2) lighted full sized ball fields, two (2) lighted basketball courts, a restroom/concession/maintenance building, age appropriate play structures, picnic shelter, concrete walkways and parking improvements. The Park Development Impact Fee credit allocated to OWNER under this Agreement for the design and construction of the Community Park is $2,909,989.00. OWNER shall provide verification to the CITY of actual design and construction costs. Any and all design and construction cost in excess of $2,909,989.00 shall be the sole responsibility of OWNER. The Community Sports Park shall be completed, including the completion of the 90-day maintenance and establishment period to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Services and the grant deed Accepted by the City Council, prior to the issuance of the 700th residential building permit in the Project. d. The Neighborhood Park will generally be improved with age appropriate play structures, one (1) lighted basketball court, restroom, picnic shelter, open turf area, concrete walkways and parking improvements. The Park Development Impact Fee credit allocated to OWNER under this Agreement for the design and construction of the Neighborhood Park is $625,000. OWNER shall provide verification to the CITY of actual design and construction cost. Any and all design and construction cost in excess of $625,000 shall be the sole responsibility of OWNER. The Neighborhood Park shall be completed, including the completion of the 90-day maintenance and establishment period to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Services and the grant deed Accepted by the City Council, prior to the issuance of the 400th residential building permit in the Project. 713471.1 11/19/2002 20 4.1.2 Quimby Fee. The Project, pursuant to the requirements of Section 16.33 of the CITY's Subdivision Ordinance is obligated to provide 28.71 acres of real property for park and recreation purposes. This requirement will be satisfied in full upon CITY's Acceptance of the real property and the OWNER's completion of the private recreation components as described in Sections 2.8.1 and 4.2.2 of the Specific Plan. 4.1.3 Development Agreement Fee. OWNER shall pay to the CITY the aggregate sum of money determined by the following formula. Add the sum of the following formula: $1,500 x 2015 (the maximum number of residential dwelling units allowed under the Specific Plan) = $3,022,500 To the sum of the following formula: $3.00 x 110,000 (the maximum amount of square feet of commercial development allowed under the Specific Plan)= $330,000 Total sum due CITY: $3,352,500. 4.1.3.1 CITY Collection of Funds. a. OWNER recognizes that the City will draw a sum of Two Million Dollars $2,000,000 from the CFD proceeds shall pay to CITY, and CITY shall accept the sum of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) for CITY-to use for the provision of the Fire Service Improvements described in Section 4.1.6. The monies shall be paid to CITY within thirty (30) calendar days of the formation and funding of the public finance district referenced in Section 4.3. b. CITY shall defer collection of the remaining monies attributable to this fee ($1,352,500.00) to the formation of the public finance district. At the time the public facilities finance mechanism, as referenced in Section 4.3, is funded, this debt will be deemed satisfied in full. If the financing mechanism is not in place on the one year anniversary date of this Agreement, OWNER shall, without demand by CITY, deliver CITY the sum of $1,352,500.00 on the day immediately following the described one year anniversary date. 4.1.4 Fee for Public Art, Open Space and Habitat Preservation. In consideration of CITY's performance pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, OWNER agrees to pay to City a fee of Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) per dwelling unit which the CITY agrees to use for City-owned public art and open space and habitat preservation purposes. The fee will be paid upon the issuance of each building permit for a dwelling unit. The CITY agrees to use all proceeds of the art fee paid pursuant to this Section on a site located within the Property. 713471.1 I 1/19/2002 21 Notwithstanding the foregoing, CITY agrees to waive and/or defer the following sums pursuant to the following terms: a. Credit in the amount of One Hundred Fifty Dollars ($150.00) per residential unit in consideration of OWNER'S contribution of approximately 200 acres of open space and other contributions towards the acquisition of open space lands. b. Credit in the sum of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) per residential unit so long as OWNER provides the full sum "Art in Public Places" monies calculated by multiplying the number of units permitted by the Specific Plan times the $50.00 sum per unit. Prior to the issuance of the 301st building permit, the OWNER shall prepare, and submit to CITY for review and approval, a Public Art Program. The design of the art piece(s) shall be approved by the Community Services Director pursuant to such Public Art Program. The location of the art piece(s) shall be consistent with the approved Public Arts Program. The approved public art shall be installed by OWNER and Accepted by CITY prior to the issuance of the 510th building permit within the Project. 4.1.5 Transit Contributions, a. Transit Mitigation Fee. A Transit Mitigation Fee in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000.00) shall be paid by OWNER to CITY prior to the 510th building permit being issued by CITY for the project. The funds may be used to further any objective of the Agreement between the CITY and RTA. b. Park-N-Ride. OWNER shall provide, as described in the Specific Plan, fifty (50) designated park-n-ride spaces for public use prior to st the issuance of the 1 building permit in Planning Areas 10, 12, 14 through 23, 31,33A, and 33B. The spaces shall be consistent with the standards set forth in the Specific Plan. 4.1.6 Fire Service Improvements. The following shall satisfy OWNER's obligations regarding this component. th a. Conveyance of Land. On or before the thirtieth (30) calendar day after the Annexation Date of this Agreement, OWNER accomplish the following: 1. Fee simple title shall be conveyed to CITY, free and clear of all liens and matters of record; 2. OWNER shall provide CITY a CLTA insurance policy insuring CITY's title to the Station Site in an amount equal to the fair market value of the Station Site. 713471.1 11/19/2002 22 3. The parcel shall have not less than one and one-half (1.5) acre of flat land usable for development as a CITY fire station. In no event shall the site be in excess of three (3) gross acres. b. Gradinq. Prior to the issuance of the first (1st) building permit, OWNER shall rough grade the parcel. c. Construction. Pursuant to the following, OWNER shall tender and CITY shall Accept from OWNER the unrestricted right to utilize sum of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000.00) for the purpose of CITY to design and construct a Fire Station and acquire title to a fire truck of City's selection. Until the Fire Station is constructed, manned, equipped and deemed operational by the Fire Chief of CITY and the secondary access, as defined ion Attachment 5, is completed OWNER, and any Development Transferee, shall not be issued and shall not seek the issuance of any building permit in any Planning Area, as the same is defined in the Specific Plan, with the sole exception of a total of One Hundered Seven (107) residential building permits within Planning Areas lA, 2, and 3. Upon receipt of the right to the development monies and the real property CITY shall commence and complete the design and construction of the Fire Station. CITY anticipates completing the construction of the Fire Station on or before twenty-four (24) months from the date the monies and land are received. The Fire Chief, in his sole discretion may allow a maximum of 250 residential building permits total for the project to be issued within Planning Areas lA, 2, 3, 4A, and 4B so long as the permanent fire station and the secondary access, as defined in Attachment 5 are substantially under construction at the time such additional building permits are requested. d. Fire Station Construction Street Improvements. OWNER shall, subject to final review and Acceptance by CITY, construct the street improvements adjacent to the Fire Station in conformance with the conditions set forth in this Agreement and subject to the CITY's approved street improvement plans for the public street(s) which are immediately adjacent to the Fire Station. OWNER shall commence and complete the street improvements, including but not limited to, asphalt concrete travel lanes, concrete curb and gutter, sidewalk per Specific Plan and right-of-way landscaping as required by CITY. The improvements described in this Section shall be completed not less than thidy (30) calendar days prior to the date the CITY will place the Fire Station in full operation. e. Release. Upon the funding of the public finance district or other financing mechanism and CITY's ability to utilize such monies for construction of a permanent fire station as described in Section 4.1.6, and the Acceptance of title to the site, then OWNER's further obligations to pay the Fire Component of the Development Impact Fee will be credited by CITY, and CITY 713471.1 11/19/2002 23 shall not impose restrictions on building permit issuance based upon nonpayment of the Fire Component of the Development Impact Fee. f. Limitation on Participation. The OWNER agrees to not participate in the design or construction of the fire station, even if it is funded by a public financing district. However, to ensure architectural compatibility with future development, CITY agrees to allow OWNER's amhitect to coordinate with the architect hired by CITY for the sole purpose of providing input into the architectural themes of the exterior to the fire station. 4.1.7 Other Fees. a. Processing and Application Fees. OWNER shall pay the application and processing fees customarily imposed on the type of entitlement or permit sought at the rate, and in the amount, imposed by CITY pursuant to the fee schedule, resolution or ordinance applicable to all projects in the CITY and in effect at the time the application is submitted to and accepted as complete by the CITY. b. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). TUMF is anticipated to be adopted by both CITY and the County of Riverside. OWNER shall pay all TUMF fees that are required to be paid under TUMF, in accordance with the terms of the program that are in effect at the time OWNER obtains each building permit. 4.2 Physical Improvements. In consideration of the CITY's promises and performances OWNER agrees to the following: 4.2.1 Off-site Improvements Subject to CITY's assistance pursuant to Section 3.1.3.5. OWNER shall be solely responsible for funding, acquiring right-of-way, slope easements, rights of entry, temporary construction easements, as well constructing all improvements identified in Attachment 5. 4.2.2 On-Site Improvements. OWNER shall be solely responsible for funding, acquiring right-of-way, slope easements, rights of entry, temporary construction easements, as well constructing all other on-site improvements. A list of important on-site improvements is identified in Attachment 5. 4.3 Public Facility Financing Plan. In consideration for OWNER's commitments under this Agreement to provide certain On-Site and Off-Site Improvements and to assist in the formation thereof, the CITY agrees to use best efforts to cause to be formed a means to finance the Improvements, which most likely will be a Community Facilities District ("CFD"). The parties agree that no building permit within any Planning Area, regardless of whether the improvements will be public or private or commemial or residential, shall be 713471.1 11/19/2002 24 issued until the CFD is formed and funded. CITY shall determine the appropriateness of all proposed improvements financed through the CFD. 4.4 Related Real Property Conveyances; Conditions to Development A,qreement. 4.4.1 Liens, Encumbrances and Environmental Conditions. All real property dedicated to the CITY pursuant to this Agreement shall be free and clear of any and all matters of record that the CITY objects to in its sole discretion, including but not limited to matters which require the direct payment of money (excluding all non-delinquent taxes and assessments), including but not limited to, deeds of trust and mechanic liens. The real property shall also be dedicated free of other encumbrances of record that would prevent the CITY from using such dedicated facility for its intended use as identified herein or as reasonably inferred as relating. Further the real property shall be warranted, to the best of OWNER's actual knowledge, to be free of any known environmental conditions that would prevent the real property from being used as intended by the CITY. OWNER shall provide the CITY copies of all reports, investigations and analysis that discuss the environmental condition of the real property. 5. Indemnification. Except to the extent of the active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified Parties (as defined below), OWNER, with respect to the Property, and the Development Transferee, with respect to the portion of the Property transferred to that Development Transferee, agree that during the Term of this Agreement, to defend the CITY and its agents, officers, contractors, attorney, and employees (the "Indemnified Parties") from and against any claims or proceeding against the Indemnified Parties to set aside, void or annul the approval of this Agreement. OWNER and Development Transferee may be individually referred to herein as "Indemnifying Party" and collectively as "Indemnifying Parties". Each Indemnifying Party shall retain settlement authority with respect to any matter concerning that Indemnifying Party provided that prior to settling any such lawsuit or claim with respect to that Indemnifying Party, the Indemnifying Party shall provide the CITY and the other Indemnifying Parties with a minimum ten (10) business days written notice of its intent to settle such lawsuit or claim. If the CITY or the other Indemnifying Parties, in their reasonable discretion, do not desire to settle such lawsuit or claim, it may notify the applicable Indemnifying Party of the same, in which event the applicable Indemnifying Party may still elect to settle the lawsuit or claim as to itself, but the non-settling parties may elect to continue such lawsuit, at their cost and expense, so long as: (i) with respect to the CITY, the CITY's decision is predicated upon a legitimate and articulated threat to either the exemise of its police powers or a risk of harm to those present within the CITY; or (ii) with respect to the other Indemnifying Parties, the decision is predicated upon a legitimate and articulated threat to the Development of that Indemnifying Party's property. 713471.1 11/19/2002 25 6. Relationship of Parties. OWNER is not the agent or employee of the CITY. The CITY and OWNER hereby renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between them, and agree that nothing contained in this Agreement or in any document executed in connection with the Project shall be construed as making the CITY and OWNER joint ventures or partners. 7. Periodic Review of Compliance with A,qreement. 7.1 Periodic Review. The CITY and OWNER shall review this Agreement once every 12-month period from the Effective Date until the Agreement terminates. The CITY shall notify OWNER in writing of the date for review at least thirty (30) days prior thereto. 7.2 Good Faith Compliance. During each periodic review, OWNER shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with all material terms of this Agreement. The parties recognize that this Agreement and the documents incorporated herein could be deemed to contain hundreds of requirements and that evidence of each and every requirement would be a wasteful exercise of the parties' resources. Accordingly, OWNER shall be deemed to have satisfied its good faith compliance when it presents evidence of substantial compliance with the material provisions of this Agreement. Generalized evidence or statements of compliance shall be Accepted in the absence of any evidence that such evidence is untrue. 7.3 Failure to Conduct Annual Review. The failure of the CITY to conduct the annual review shall not constitute, or be asserted by OWNER or CITY as a breach of this Agreement. 7.4 Initiation of Review by City Council. In addition to the annual review, the City Council may at any time initiate a review of this Agreement by giving written notice to OWNER. The Notice must describe in detail the specific issues which caused the CITY to question OWNER'S good faith compliance and the evidence the CITY believes is necessary for the review. Within thirty (30) days following receipt of such notice, OWNER shall submit evidence to the City Council of OWNER's good faith compliance with this Agreement and such review and determination shall proceed in the same manner as provided for the annual review. The City Council shall initiate its review pursuant to this Section 7.4 only if it has probable cause to believe the CITY's general health, safety or welfare is at risk as a result of specific acts or failures to act by OWNER in violation of this Agreement. 7.5 Administration of A.qreement. Any final decision by the CITY staff concerning the interpretation and administration of this Agreement and Development of the Property in accordance herewith may be appealed by OWNER first to the Planning Commission and thereafter to the City Council, provided that any such appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within thirty (30) days after OWNER receives written notice that the staff decision is final all as 713471.1 11/19/2002 26 pursuant to routine planning appeal procedures. The City Council shall render, at a noticed public hearing, its decision to affirm, reverse or modify the staff decision within thirty (30) days after the appeal was filed. 7.6 Availability of Documents. If requested and reimbursed for all costs, by OWNER, the CITY agrees to provide to OWNER copies of any documents, reports or other items reviewed, accumulated or prepared by or for the CITY in connection with any periodic compliance review by the CITY, provided OWNER reimburses the CITY for all reasonable and direct costs and fees incurred by the CITY in copying the same. The CITY shall respond to OWNER's request on or before ten (10) business days have elapsed from the CITY's receipt of such request. 8. Events of Default: Remedies and Termination. Unless amended as provided in Section 3.5, or modified or suspended pursuant to Government Code Section 65869.5 or terminated pursuant to this Section 8, this Agreement is enforceable by any party hereto. 8.1 Defaults by OWNER. If, after following the procedures established in Section 7 hereof, the CITY determines on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence that OWNER has not complied in good faith with the material terms and conditions of this Agreement, the CITY shall, by written notice to OWNER specify the manner in which the allegedly defaulting party has failed to so comply and state the steps the allegedly defaulting party must take to bring itself into compliance. If, within thirty (30) days after the effective date of notice from the CITY specifying the manner in which the allegedly defaulting party has failed to so comply, the allegedly defaulting party does not commence all steps reasonably necessary to bring itself into compliance and thereafter diligently pursue such steps to completion, then the allegedly defaulting party shall be deemed to be in default under the terms of this Agreement and the CITY may terminate this Agreement with respect solely to the allegedly defaulting party's property pursuant to Government Code Section 65865.1 or may seek specific performance as set forth in Section 8.3. 8.2 Defaults by CITY. If OWNER determines on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence that the CITY has not complied in good faith with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, OWNER shall, by written notice to the CITY, specify the manner in which the CITY has failed to so comply and state the steps the CITY must take to bring itself into compliance. If, within sixty (60) days after the effective date of notice from OWNER specifying the manner in which the CITY has failed to so comply, the CITY does not commence all steps reasonably necessary to bring itself into compliance as required and thereafter diligently pursue such steps to completion, then the CITY shall be deemed to be in default under the terms of this Agreement and OWNER may terminate this Agreement and, in addition, may pursue specific performance as set forth in Section 8.3. OWNER shall not retain the right to seek, and hereby expressly 713471.1 11/19/2002 27 waives, the right to seek damages against CITY for any action or failure to act under this Agreement. 8.3 Specific Performance Remedy. Due to the size, nature and scope of the Project, it may not be practical or possible to restore the Property to its natural condition once implementation of this Agreement has begun. After such implementation, OWNER may be foreclosed from other choices it may have had to utilize the Property and provide for other benefits. CITY and OWNER has already invested significant time and resources and performed extensive planning and processing of the Project in agreeing to the terms of this Agreement and will be investing even more significant time and resources in implementing the Project in reliance upon the terms of this Agreement, and it may not be possible to determine the sum of money which would adequately compensate OWNER for such efforts. For the above reasons, the CITY and OWNER agree that damages may not be an adequate remedy if the CITY or OWNER fails to carry out its obligations under this Agreement and that CITY or OWNER shall have the right to seek and obtain specific performance as a remedy for any breach of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the CITY is authorized by Section 8.4.1 to withhold an approval or permit upon a specified condition being satisfied by OWNER in the future, and if OWNER then fails to satisfy such condition, the CITY may be entitled to specific performance for the sole purpose of causing that nonperforming party, and only that nonperforming party, or any party with an obligation to so perform the condition, to satisfy such condition. The CITY's right to specific performance shall be limited to those circumstances set forth above, and the CITY shall have no right to seek specific performance to cause OWNER or a Development Transferee to otherwise proceed with the Development of the Project in any manner, with the express exception of the Off-Site Improvements 8.4 Institution of Legal Action. Any legal action hereunder shall be heard by a reference from the Riverside County Superior Court pursuant to the reference procedures of the California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 638, et seq. OWNER and the CITY shall agree upon a single referee who shall then try all issues, whether of fact or law, and report a finding and judgment thereon and issue all legal and equitable relief appropriate under the circumstances of the controversy before him. If OWNER and the CITY are unable to agree on a referee within ten (10) days of a written request to do so by either party hereto, either party may seek to have one appointed pursuant to the California Code of Civil Procedure Section 640. The cost of such proceeding shall initially be borne equally by the parties. Any referee selected pursuant to this Section 8.4 shall be considered a temporary judge appointed pursuant to Article 6, Section 21 of the California Constitution. 8.4.1 Effect of Noncompliance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent the Development Plan Approval(s) expressly provide(s) that Development of the Project or a portion thereof is directly dependent upon the performance of material obligations assumed by OWNER or a Development 713471.1 11/19/2002 28 Transferee, which material obligations have not been performed, the CITY may, in its reasonable discretion, withhold any permits and/or approvals, including, without limitation, certificates of occupancy, with respect to those directly dependent portions of the Project from OWNER and/or Development Transferee until such obligations have been substantially performed. 8.5 Estoppel Certificates. A party may at any time deliver written notice to the other party requesting an estoppel certificate (the "Estoppel Certificate"). A party receiving a request for an Estoppel Certificate shall provide a signed certificate to the requesting party within thirty (30) days after receipt of the request. The City Manager or any person designated by the City Manager may sign Estoppel Certificates on behalf of the CITY. Any officer or member of a private party may sign on behalf of that party. An Estoppel Certificate is intended to be relied on by assignees and mortgagees. If that one party requests an Estoppel Certificate from the other, the requesting party shall reimburse the other party for all reasonable and direct costs and fees incurred by such party with respect thereto. The Estoppel Certificate shall address issues such as whether: 8.5.1 The Agreement is in full force and effect and is a binding obligation of the parties. 8.5.2 The Agreement has been amended or modified either orally or in writing and, if so amended, identifying the amendments. 8.5.3 A default in the pertormance of the requesting party's obligations under the Agreement exists and, if a default does exist, the nature and amount of any default. 9. Waivers and Delays. 9.1 No Waiver. Failure by a party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other party, and failure by a party to exemise its rights upon a default by the other party hereto, shall not constitute a waiver of such party's right to demand strict compliance by such other party in the future. 9.2 Third Parties. Non-performance shall not be excused because of a failure of a third person, except as provided in Sections 9.3 or 9.4. 9.3 Force Majeure. A party shall not be deemed to be in default where failure or delay in performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement is caused by floods, earthquakes, other Acts of God, fires, wars, riots or similar hostilities, strikes and other labor difficulties beyond that party's control, action or inaction by the CITY, which actions or inactions are breaches of any term of this Agreement, judicial decisions, or litigation regarding the Development Plan Approval(s) or Future Development Approvals or other similar events. 71347 l. l 11/19/2002 29 9.4 Extensions. The Term of this Agreement and the time for performance by a party of any of its obligations hereunder or pursuant to the other Development Plan Approval(s) shall be extended by the actual period of time that any of the events described in Section 9.3 exist and/or prevent performance of such obligations. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, the performance by CITY of its obligations shall not be delayed or extended by the action or inaction of the CITY. 9.5 Notice of Delay. OWNER shall give prompt notice to the CITY of any delay which OWNER anticipates or believes to have occurred as a result of the occurrence of any of the events described in Sections 9.3 or 9.4. In no event, however, shall notice of a delay of any length be given later than thirty days after the end of the delay or ten (10) days before the end of the Term (unless the cause of the delay arises during that time), whichever comes first. 10. Notices. All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered in person, sent by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested or by Federal Express or other similar nationwide overnight delivery service, Notices required to be given to the CITY shall be addressed as follows: City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Attention: Planning Director With a copy to: Richards, Watson & Gershon Thirty-Eighth Floor 333 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071-1469 Attention: Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney 713471.1 Notices required to be given to OWNER shall be addressed as follows: Ashby USA, LLC USA Propedies 470 E. Harrison Street Corona, CA 92879 Attention: Richard Ashby With a copy to: Cox, Castle & Nichoison, LLP 11/19/2002 30 19800 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 600 Irvine, CA 92612-2435 Attn: Deborah Rosenthal, Esq. Any notice given as required by Section 10 shall be deemed given only if in writing and upon delivery as provided for in this Section 10. A party may change its address for notices by giving notice in writing to the other party as required by this Section 10 and thereafter notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. 11. Attorneys' Fees. If legal action is brought by any party against another for breach of this Agreement, including actions derivative from the performance of this Agreement, or to compel performance under this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of its costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, and shall also be entitled to recover its contribution for the costs of the referee referred to in Section 8.4 above as an item of damage and/or recoverable costs. 12. Recordin,q. This Agreement and any amendment or cancellation hereto shall be recorded, at no cost to the CITY, in the Official Records of Riverside County by the City Clerk within the period required by Section 65868.5 of the Government Code. 13. Effect of A.qreement on Title. 13.1 Effect on Title. OWNER and the CITY agree that this Agreement shall not continue as an encumbrance against any portion of the Property as to which this Agreement has terminated or released. 13.2 Encumbrances and Lenders' Ri,qhts. The mortgagee of a mortgage or beneficiary of a deed of trust encumbering the Property, or any part thereof, and their successors and assigns shall, upon written request to CITY, be entitled to receive from CITY written notification of any default by OWNER of the performance of OWNER's obligations under the Agreement which has not been cured within the time frame established in Section 8.1 hereof. 13.2.1 Notwithstanding OWNER's default, this Agreement shall not be terminated by CITY as to any mortgagee or beneficiary to whom notice is to be given and to which either or the following is true: (i) the mortgagee or beneficiary cures any default by OWNER involving the payment of money within ninety (90) days after receipt from CITY of the written notice of default; (ii) as to defaults requiring title or possession of the Property or any portion thereof to effectuate a cure: (i) the 713471.1 11/19/2002 31 mortgagee/beneficiary agrees in writing, within ninety (90) days after receipt from CITY of the written notice of default, to perform the proportionate share of OWNER's obligations under this Agreement allocable to that part of the Property in which the mortgagee/beneficiary has an interest conditioned upon such mortgagee's/beneficiary's acquisition of the Property or portion thereof by foreclosure (including a trustee sale) or by a deed in lieu of foreclosure; (ii) the mortgagee/beneficiary commences foreclosure proceedings to reacquire title to the Property or applicable portion thereof within said ninety (90) days and thereafter diligently pursues such foreclosure to completion, and (iii) the mortgagee/beneficiary promptly and diligently commences to cure such Default after obtaining title or possession. 13.2.2 Notwithstanding Section 13.2.1 of this Agreement, if any mortgagee/beneficiary is prohibited from commencing or prosecuting foreclosure or other appropriate proceedings including by any process of injunction issued by any court or by reason of any action by any court having jurisdiction of any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding involving OWNER, the times specified in Section 13.2.1 of this Agreement for commencing or prosecuting foreclosure or other proceedings shall be extended for the period of the prohibition. 13.2.3 Neither entering into this Agreement nor a breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any existing or future mortgage or deed of trust on the Property made in good faith and for value. 14. Severability of Terms. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement shall be determined invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby if the tribunal finds that the invalidity was not a material part of consideration for either Party the Agreement as a whole. If the tribunal finds that the invalidity was a material part of the consideration, this Agreement will terminate unless CITY and OWNER agree to amend this Agreement as provided for herein. Upon a termination arising from the application of this Section 14, each Party agrees the Specific Plan shall suspend as to all unpermitted development activity pending the CITY's determination regarding repeal or modification of the same. 15. Subsequent Amendment to Authorizin.q Statute. This Agreement has been entered into in reliance upon the provisions of the Development Agreement Legislation in effect as of the Agreement Date. Accordingly, subject to Section 3.2.2 above, to the extent that subsequent amendments to the Government Code would affect the provisions of this Agreement, such amendments shall not be applicable to this Agreement unless necessary for this Agreement to be enfomeable or required by law or unless this Agreement is modified pursuant to the provisions set forth in this Agreement.. 16. Rules of Construction and Miscellaneous Terms. 713471.1 11/19/2002 32 16.1 Interpretation and Governin,q Law. The language in all parts of this Agreement shall, in all cases, be construed as a whole and in accordance with its fair meaning. This Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. The parties understand and agree that this Agreement is not intended to constitute, nor shall be construed to constitute, an impermissible attempt to contract away the legislative and governmental functions of the CITY, and in particular, the CITY's police powers. In this regard, the parties understand and agree that this Agreement shall not be deemed to constitute the surrender or abnegation of the CITY's governmental powers over the Property or any decision arising from the Agreement, directly or indirectly. 16.2 Section Headings. All section headings and subheadings are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect any construction or interpretation of this Agreement. 16.3 Gender. The singular includes the plural; the masculine gender includes the feminine; "shall" is mandatory, "may" is permissive. 16.4 No Joint and Several Liability. No breach hereof by OWNER or Development Transferee shall constitute a breach by the non breaching party. Any remedy, obligation, or liability, including but not limited to the obligations to defend and indemnify the CITY, arising by reason of such breach shall be applicable solely to the party that committed the breach. However, the CITY shall send a copy of any notice of violation to all OWNERS and Development Transferee, including those not in breach. 16.5 Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealin,q. No party shall do anything which shall have the intentional effect of harming or injuring the right of the other parties to receive the benefits provided for in this Agreement; each party shall refrain from doing anything intentionally which would render its performance under this Agreement impossible; and each party shall do everything which this Agreement contemplates that such party shall do in order to accomplish the objectives and purposes of this Agreement. 16.6 No Waiver of Vestin.q. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as limiting or impairing any vested rights to proceed with the Development or use of the Property arising independently from entitlements, including those approved for the Project, issued by the CITY or others prior to, concurrently with, or subsequent to the approval of this Agreement, Federal and State Constitutions, statutes, or decisional law. 16.7 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence regarding each provision of this Agreement of which time is an element. 16.8 Recitals. All Recitals set forth herein are incorporated in this Agreement as though fully set forth herein. 713471.1 11/19/2002 33 16.9 Entire Aqreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and the Agreement supersedes all previous negotiations, discussion and agreements between the parties, and no parol evidence of any prior or other agreement shall be permitted to contradict or vary the terms hereof. 17. Extension of Maps. In accordance with Government Code Section 66452.6(a), any tentative map which relates to all or a portion of the Property shall be extended for the greater of (i) the Term of the Agreement or (ii) expiration of the tentative map pursuant to Section 66452.6. 18. Not for Benefit of Third Parties. This Agreement and all provisions hereof are for the exclusive benefit of the CITY and OWNER and its assignees pursuant to Section 2.5 and shall not be construed to benefit or be enforceable by any third party. 19. Attachments. The following attachments are hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set out in the body of this Agreement. Attachments Description 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Legal Description of the Property Plat of the Property Described in Attachment 1 Zoning District Development Standards Existing Regulations Off-Site Improvements Selected On-Site Improvements 20. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and year dated below. Dated: ., 2002 "CITY" CITY OF TEMECULA, a municipal corporation By:. Name: Title: Mayor ATTEST: 713471.1 11/19/2002 34 City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Dated: ,2002 "OWNER" ,a By: Name: Title: State of California ) ) ss County of Riverside ) On before me, , personally appeared , personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(les), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal, Signature of Notary State of California ) ) ss County of Riverside ) 713471.1 11/19/2002 35 On before me, ., personally appeared , personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(les), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. Witness my hand and official seal, Signature of Notary 713471.1 11/19/2002 36 ATTACHMENT "1" (Legal Description of the Property) 713471.1 11/19/2002 37 ORDER'Nig. R-192289-4 EIQIIBIT "A" THE LAND RE~'~LRED TO IN THIS REPORT IS SIRII~I~3 IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE /EqD IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEl, A: THAT PORTION OF THE I~DRTH HALF OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANGE 2 WEST, SAN BERAIARDIAIO BASE AIq) MERIDIAN, SHOWN AS "NOT A PART" ON PARCEl, MAP ON FILE IN ROOK 1, PAGE 44 OF PARCEL MAPS, REfDRDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: Bt~SIABViA1S AT A POIIff ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID "NOT A PART" SOUTH 0° 33' 55" WEST, 974.13 ~'~1' FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER THERt~OF; THENCE NORTH 89° 26' 05" WEST, 771.64 ~'~:".'1' pAR~LT.k"I. Wi'Il{ THE SOl/IH L]/qE OF SAID "NOT A PART" TO A POIIFr ON THE EAST LINE OF THE ~'it<OttDLITAN W~r~i< DISTRICT RIGHT-OF-WAY SOUTH 12° 32' 02" WEST 1004.04 ~'~:~.'1' FROM THE NORTHNEST CORNER OF SA/D "AIOT A PART"; THENCE SOUTH 12° 32' 02" WEST, 278.15 ~'~i~r ON SAID EAST NI~'iiiOPOLi'~ WAi~.~i DISXRICT LINE; [IIqENCE SOU%H 89° 26' 05" EAST, 829.32 ~'~.'~.'l' pARAI.IRI. WITH SA~]D SOI/UH LINE TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID "NOT A PART" SOUTH 0° 33' 55" WEST, 1246.24 ~'~.'~.'1' FROM SAID NORTHEAST CORNER; THt,IqcE NORTH 0° 33' 55" EAST, 272.11 ~?_a~'l' ON S/lID EAST LINE TO THE POINT OF BtK}INNING. PARCEl, B: THAT PORTION OF THAT PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 20, ~IP 7 SOUIH, RAiq3E 2 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, S~ AS "AIOT A PART" AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 1, PAGES 44, 45 Aiq) 46 OF PAI~CRI, MAPS, ]/q %HE OFFICE OF R'HE COLIXrfY RECORDER OF S/kID COUNTY, DESCRIBt~D /tS FOLLOWS: Bt~GINNIN3 AT A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF SAID "NOT A PART" SOU/H 0° 33' 55" WEST, 1,246.24 ~'~.'~.'I' FROM THE NORTHEA.5'r~liLY CORNER OF SA/D "NOT A PART"; %I-IENCE CONTIA]UI~ SOI3IH 0° 33' 55" WEST ALOLIG SAID EAS'iEFLY LINE 375.50 ~'~:~.'±' TO A POilU; THt,~ICE NORTH 89° 26' 05" WEST 904 ~'~:,:r, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE EASiEF. LY LINE OF LAND CONVEYSD TO THE M~iI<OPOLITAN WAi'~I< DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNLA BY D~:.:~) RECORDED APRIL 24, 1968, AS INb'It<UMENT NO. 37774, OFFICIAL RECORDS, SA_ID POINT ALSO BEIL13 THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THAT C~i~rAIN PARCEl, CONVEYED TO MATCHAM REALTY BY I;,;~il; RECORDED OCTOBER 21, 1971, AS INSTRUMENT NO. 120094, OFFICIAL RECORDS; TI-IENCE ALOA1D SAID EASTERLY LINE NORTH 12° 32' 02" EAST (RECORDSD NORTH 12° 34' 14" EAST) 383.24 ~'~.'~:r TO A POINT THAT IS SOUTH 12° 32' 02" WEST (OF RECORD SOLrI~ 12° 34' 14" WEST) 1,282.19 ~'~r FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SA/I) "AIOT A PART"; THt.lqCE SOUTH 89° 26' 05" EAST 829.32 ~'~:~.'1', MORE OR LESS, TO THE PO]/~T OF B~GINN]/~. PARCEL C: THAT PORTION OF THAT Cif~TAIN PARCEL OF LAND DEL]i~_J~i~3 D/q) DESIGNkrm3 "NEff A PART" ON A MAP FII,ED IN BOOK 1, PAGE 44 OF PARCEl, MAPS, IN RI-IE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF RIVERSIDE COUN]TY BEIA1S A PORTION OF THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 7 SOI3IH, RAL!3E 2 WEST, SAN BERNARD]/qO BASE /Eq) MEP_]]DIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS .- CONTINUED ORDER NO. R-192289-4 ~CING AT THE NORTHEAST fDRNER OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF SAID SECTION 20 AS SHOWN ON PARCEl, MAP Jig BOOK 1, PAGE 44; THENCE ALON3 THE EAST LINE OF SAID SECTION SOUTH 0° 33' 55" WEST, 1,621.74 ~'~l' TO THE TRUE POII~T OF BEGINNINg; 7/-~CE CONTINUIN3 SOUTH 0° 33' 55" WEST, 98.5 ~'~.'~.'1'; TH]~gCE NORTH 89° 26' 05" WEST 928 ~1', MORE OR LESS, TO THE EAS'±~tLY LINE OF LAND CONVEY~I) TO THE ~'Ii<OPOLIqlAN ~1'~.~ DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNTA BY DEED RECORDED APRIL 24, 1968, AS INb'I}<C~ENT NO. 37774, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS; THENCE ALONG SAID EAS'I~<LY LINE NORTH 12° 32' 02" EAST, (RECORDfD NORTH 12° 34' 14" EAST) 100 ~'~:,.'±', MORE OR LESS, TO AN IN±'~/{SECTION ON A LINE BEARIN~ NORTH 89° 26' 05" WEST FROM THE TRUE POIArf OF B~I~INN]/g~; THENCE SOUIH 89° 26' 05" EAST 904 ~'~.'".'£', MORE OR LESS, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BS~INNIAG. PARCEl, D: THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUI~, RAN3E 2 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE A~D MERIDIAN, THE CITY OF T~gECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEP~DF. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: A STRIP OF LASD 70 ~'":~.'l' WIDE IN THE NORTH HALF OF ~ NORTH HALF OF SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RAN3E 2 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE ~ MERIDIAN, ACCORDIN3 TO UNIT~3 STATES GO~ SURVEY APPROVED ~'~f~L~ARY 18, 1860, SAID STRIP OF LAND 70 ~'~.'..'l' WIDE LYING 17.5 ~'~.'".'1' SOUT~'£~{LY ~ 52.5 ~'~.'".'1' NORTHWES'I~LY, MEASURED AT RIGHT AN3LES, FROM THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED SURVEY LIIgE: B~GINNIN~ AT A POI/gT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 20 DISTANT THEREON NORTH 88° 36' 09" WEST, 211.47 ~'~.'~,'1' FROM TI-IE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 20, SA33D PO]/gT BEI/gG ON A LINE WHIC~ IS PARAT.TRr. WITH AND 17.5 ~'..'~.',' NORTHWE$".'~::~LY, MEASURED AT RIGHT AN3LES, FROM THE NORTH~Es'±'~F~LY LINE OF 77-IE PERMANENT EASEMENT, 50 ~'~:~.'1' WIDE, CONVEYED TO THE NI".'I~<OPOLITAN Wkl'~ DISTRICT OF SO~ CALIFORNTA BY DEED RECORDED MARCE 7, 1960, IN BOOK 2649, PAGE 317, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, R/VERSIDE COllgTY RECORDS; THENCE CONT~ ALONG A LINE PAP~T.Lk~r. WITH ~ 17.5 ~'~.'~.'1' NORTHWES'IE~LY, MEASURED AT RIG~rf ANGLES, FROM THE NORTHWES'IE~LY LINE OF SJkID PERMANENT EASSlV~F~ THE FOLLOWIN3 COURSES ~ DISTANCES: SOUTH 20° 14' 43" WEST, 664.24 ~'~.'~.'1'; SOUTH 12° 34' 14" WEST, 703.83 b'~.'~.'l' TO A POIlgT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF SECTION 20 DISTASrf THEREON NORTH 83° 35' 26" WEST, 581.31 ~'~.'~.'1' FROM THE SOUTH~T CORNER OF THE SAID NORTH HALF OF 7/-]E NORTH HALF OF SECTION 20. THE SIDE LINES OF SAID ABOVE DESCRIBED 70 FOOT WIDE STRIP OF LAND SHALL BE PROLONGED OR SHORTENED SO AS TO 'IEF~4INATE NORTHERLY AND SOUTHERLY IN THE NORTH AND SOUTH LIA!ES, RESPECTIVELY, OF 7~HE SA~D NORTH HALF OF 77-~E NORTH HALF OF SAID SECTION 20. PARCEl, E: SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 7 SOUTH, RANG~: 2 WEST, THE CITY OF TS~4ECULA, COUNIY OF RIVERSIDE, OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF. SAN BERNARDINO BASE ~ MERIDIAN, IN STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDIlg3 TO THE ATTACHMENT "2" (Plat of the Property Described in Attachment 1) 713471.1 11/19/2002 38 ATTACHMENT "3" (Zoning District Development Standards) 713471.1 11/19/2002 39 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE 5,1 PURPOSE ANDINTENT The zoning for the Specific Plan area is Specific Plan Overlay. This section of the Specific Plan establishes zoning districts and land use regulations and standards that will control land use and development in the land uses identified for the Specific Plan area. These regulations amend and supersede the regulations of the Temecula Development Code. Where standards and regulations are not specified in this Specific Plan, the requirements of the Temecula Development Code shall provide the regulatory authority. This section also identifies the procedures to be used to review site plans for development projects proposed within the Specific Plan area. Special standards for residential development are also included here. The Site Planning and Architectural Design Guidelines in Section 4.0 are intended to be used in conjunction with the zoning and development standards stated here. The following standards will serve as the primary mechanism for implementation of the land uses for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. These regulations provide an appropriate amount of flexibility to anticipate future needs and to achieve compatibility between land uses. Principal land uses for the Specific Plan shall be as follows: Residential Land Uses: · Low Density (L) Single-Family Detached: (PA 10, 19, 20, 21,33A and 33B) · Low Medium (LM) Density Single-Family Detached: (PA 1A-4B, 16 - 18) · Medium (M1) Density Single-Family Detached: (PA 23 and 24) · Medium (M2) Density Single-Family Detached and Attached clustered: (PA 12, 14, 15, 22 and 31) 2. Commemial: · Neighborhood Commemial: (PA 11) Parks and Open Space: · Private Recreation Centers (PA 5, 30) · Private Mini-Park (PA lB) · Parks (PA 6, 27) · Open Space · Habitat (OS1): (PA 8, 9A, 9B, and 13) · Flood Control (OS2): (PA 7B, 7C, 25, 26, and portions of 14 and 27) · Landscape Slope (OS3): (PA 7A and portion of 6) 4. Elementary and Middle School: (PA: 28 and 29) 5. Fire Station: (PA 32) Rodpau,~h Ranch Specific Plan 5-1 C:~)OCUMENTS AND SETTINGS'~.JAASEHS\!_OCAL SETTINGS\TEMP\SPSECT5CCDOCUMENT. DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE 5.2 GENERAL PROVISIONS This section of the development regulations states the general rules that must be observed by all development projects in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare. These regulations apply to all planning areas within the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, unless otherwise specified. 1. Roripaugh Ranch Site Planning and Architectural Design Guidelines All development within the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan area is subject to the policy provisions of the Site Planning (Section 4.0) and Architectural Design Guidelines (Section 4.0) adopted by ordinance of the Temecula City Council. The Design Guidelines in conjunction with the development standards contained in this Specific Plan and those of the Temecula Development Code shall regulate development within the Specific Plan area. The Design Guidelines will be administered through the City of Temecula Planning Department. All development within the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan area shall be subject to the Development Standards in this section of the Specific Plan. 2. Code Compliance All construction and development within the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan area shall comply with applicable provisions of the Specific Plan, the Uniform Building Code and the various related mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire codes, water ordinance, grading and excavation codes and subdivision codes, in effect in the City of Temecula at the time grading/building permits are obtained. 3. Setback Requirements The setback requirements are as specified within the standards identified in the plan for each zoning district. If not otherwise specified, all setbacks shall be determined as the perpendicular distance from the existing or planned street right-of-way line or property line, to the foundation point of the closest structure. 4. Exceptions If specific development standards have not been established or if an issue, condition or situation arises or occurs that is not clearly understandable in the Specific Plan, then those regulations and standards of the City of Temecula Development Code that are applicable for the most similar use, condition or situation shall apply as determined by the Community Development Director. 5. Enforcement Enforcement of the provisions herein shall be in the manner specified in the Temecula Municipal Code for zoning enforcement. 6. Unspecified Uses Whenever a use has not specifically been listed as being a permitted use in a particular zone classification within the Specific Plan, it shall be the duty of the Planning Director to determine if said use is: (1) consistent with the intent of the zone; and (2) compatible with other listed permitted uses. Any person aggrieved by the decision may appeal to the Planning Commission. Rodpau~h Ranch Specific Plan 5-2 C:~DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\NAASEHS%OCAL SETTINGS\TEMP\SPSECT5CCDOCUMENT.DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE 5.3 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan provides a mix of diverse housing products, including five different housing types that fall within three of the City's General Plan residential designations: Temecula General Plan Specific Plan Designation Residential Desiqnation L (20,000 sq. ft.) Single-Family (1-2 du/ac) LM (5,000 and 6,000) Single-Family (2-5 du/ac) (Min. 5,000 sf lot size) M1 and M2 (4,000 and NA) Single-Family (7-12 du/ac) Min. (standard) 4,000 sf lot size Min. (clustered) 3,000 sf lot size for detached Low Density Residential Single-Family (.5-2 alu/ac) Low Medium Density Residential Single-Family (3-6 du/a¢) Medium Density Residential Single-Family (7-12 du/ac) Rodpau~h Ranch Specific Plan 5-3 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SE~q'INGS~',IAASEHS%OCAL SETTINGS\TEMP\SPSECT5CCDOCUMENT.DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE 5.3.1 DESCRIPTION OF RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (L) - PLANNING AREAS NOS. 10, 19, 20, 21, 33A AND 33B The Low Density Residential (L) zoning district is intended to provide for the development of single- family detached homes on large lots with a unique character of development. Typical lot sizes in the L zoning district will be a minimum of 20,000 square feet with 1 acre minimum lots along the exterior perimeter of Planning Areas 19, 20, 21, and 33A. Private equestrian use will only be allowed on lots one acre or larger adjacent to the muiti-use trail in Planning Areas 19, 20, 21. Planning Area 33B shall not be developed as a part of Roripaugh Ranch. This planning area shall eventually be combined with the adjacent residential areas to the north. LOW MEDIUM DENSITY (LM) - PLANNING AREAS NOS. lA, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 16, 17 and 18 The Low Medium (LM) zoning district is intended to provide for the development of single-famiiy homes on lots of 5,000 square feet to 6,000 square feet. Planning Areas 1,2, 3, 4A, 4B, and 16 shall have a minimum lot size of 5,000 sq. ft. Planning Areas 17 and 18 shall have a minimum lot size of 6,000 sq. ft. MEDIUM DENSITY - STANDARD (M1) - PLANNING AREAS NOS. 23 AND 24 The Medium (M) zoning district is intended to provide for the development of single-family homes on lots 4,000 minimum square feet. MEDIUM DENSITY - CLUSTERED (M2) - PLANNING AREAS NOS. 12, 14, 15, 22 AND 31 The Medium (M) zoning district is intended to provide for the development of clustered single-family development on minimum lot sizes of 3,000 sq. ft. Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan 5-4 C:~DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS'~IAASEHS%OCAL SETTINGS\TEMP\SPSECT5CCDOCUMENT.DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE 5.3.2 USE REGULATIONS The list of land uses in the following table shall be permitted in one or more of the residential zoning districts as indicated in the columns corresponding to each residential zoning district. Where indicated with a letter "P", the use shall be a permitted use. Where indicated with a "-", the use is prohibited within the zone. Where indicated with a letter "C", the use shall be conditionally permitted subject to approval of a conditional use permit. Table 5.1 Schedule of Permitted Uses - Residential Districts Description of Use I ' I'MIM~IM2 Single-family detached P P P Single-family attached P Single-family zero lot line P P Single-family attached greater than two units Multiple family Manufactured homes P P P P Mobilehome park Facilities for the mentally disordered, handicapped, or dependent or P P P P neglected children (six or fewer) Facilities for the mentally disordered, handicapped, or dependent or neglected children (seven to twelve) Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility (six or fewer) P P P P Alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facility (seven or more) Residential care facilities for the elderly (six or fewer) P P P P Residential care facilities for the elderly (seven or more) Congregate care residential facilities for the elderly Boarding, rooming and lodging facilities Secondary dwelling units as defined by City Development Code P P Granny Fiat P P Family day care homes-small (four or fewer) P P P P Family day care homes-largeI C C Day care centers C C Bed and breakfast establishments Emergency shelters Transitional housing Nonresidential Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan 5-5 C:'~DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS'uNAASEHS%OCAL SE~I'INGS\TEMPVSPSECT5CCDOCUMENT. DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE Agricultural/open space uses Religious institutionss C C C C Utility facilities C C C C Educational institutions Public libraries Public museums and art galleries (not for profit) Kennels and catteries Non commemial keeping of horses P4 Temporary real estate tract offices P P P P Recreational Vehicle Storage Yards Parking for commemial uses Nonprofit clubs and lodge halls Convalescent facilities Golf Courses Home occupations P P P P Construction Trailers3 P P P P 1, A CUP processed for large family day care homes is subject to Health and Safety Code Section 1597.46(a)(3). In accordance therewith, notice of the application being filed shall be mailed to surrounding property owners within one hundred feet only and the notice shall indicate that unless a request for a headng is made by such surrounding property owner or other "affected person", the CUP will issue within twenty days of the notice. If a hearing is requested, the planning department shall schedule such hearing within thirty days of the request and the hearing shall be held within thirty days of being scheduled. 2. Allowed only within a single-family residence. 3. The Planning Director shall have the discretion to waive submittal of an Administrative Development Plan if it is determined that the construction trailer will not have an adverse impact on adjacent residences or businesses. 4. The keeping of horses shall only be permitted in Planning Areas 19, 20 and 21 on lots abutting the multi-use trail. No more than two (2) horses and one (1) offspring up to six (6) months of age may be kept on each one acre lot. All horses shall be kept in a stall/coral (12' x 12' for each horse) located a minimum distance of fifty (50) feet from neighboring dwellings, ten (10) feet from the main dwelling on the lot and ten (10) feet from the side or rear property line. 5. Religious institutions shall not be permitted in Planning Areas 1 A, 2, 3, 4A and 4B Roripau~h Ranch Specific Plan 5-6 C:~DOCUMENTS AND SETTtNGS'~AASEHS\LOCAL SETrlNGS\TEMP\SPSECT5CCDOCUMENT.DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE 5.3.3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS In the Low (L), Low Medium (LM) and Medium (M) Zones are as follows: Table 5-2 Development Standards - Residential Districts Residential Development L LM LM M1 M2 Standards 20,000 5,000 6,000 4,000 (Minimum Lot Size in Feet) Planning Area 10, 19, 20, lA, 2, 3, 17 and 18 23 and 24 12, 14, 15, 22 21, 33A 4A, 4B and 31 and 33B and 16 Minimum gross lot area 20,000 5,000 6,000 4,000 3,000 (square feet) 1 acre* -* Lots in PA 19, 20 and 21 that abut eastern and southern property boundary shall be a minimum of 1 acre. Thirty (30) foot fuel modification zone shall not be included in lot area. Dwelling units per net acre 1.2 du/ac 5.2 du/ac 4.0 du/ac 6.1 du/ac 10.1 du/ac Minimum lot frontage at 30 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. NA front property line Minimum lot frontage for a 25 fl. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. NA flag lot at front property line Minimum width at required 50 ft. 40 ft. 40 ft. 40 ft. NA front yard setback area Minimum lot width 60 ft.* 40 ft. 40 ff. 40 ft. 40 ft. * For both 20,000 sq. ft. lots and 1 acre lots shall be substantially the same. Minimum lot depth 90 ft. 80 ft, 80 ft. 80 ft, NA Minimum front yard setback 25 ft. 10 ft 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. - Front entry garages 18 ft. 18 ft. 18 ft. 18 ft. 18 ft. - Side entry garages 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. - Lots abutting Murrieta Hot Springs between Pourroy Rd. and the MWD easement may be reduced by three (3) feet. Minimum corner side yard 15 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. setback Setbacks for lots abutting Murrieta Hot Springs between Pourroy Rd. and the MWD easement may be reduced by three (3) feet. *Minimum interior side yard 10 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft. setback Roripau~]h Ranch Specific Plan 5-7 C:~DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS~IAASEHS\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMP~SPSECT5CCDOCUMENT.DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE Table 5-2 Development Standards - Residential Districts Residential Development L LM LM M (Standard) M Standards 20,000 5,000 6,006 4,000 (Clustered) (Minimum Lot Size in Feet) Minimum rear yard setback 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. - Setbacks for lots abutting 25 ft. Planning Area 7A along the southern property Sine shall have a 25' minimum rear yard setback. - Lots abutting Multi-use trail in 50 ft. PA 19, 20 and 21. - Setbacks for lots abutting Murrieta Hot Springs between Pourroy Rd. and the MWD easement may be reduced by staff by three (3) feet. Planning Area 10,19,20, 1,2,3, 17and 18 23 and 24 12,14,15,22 21, 33A 4A, 4B and 31 and 33B and 16 Maximum height 2 2 stories, 2 2 2 Y2 2 ~ 2 V~ 35 feet stories, 35 stories, 35 stories, 35 stories, 35 feet feet feet feet Maximum percentage of lot 50% 60% 60% 60% 60% coverage Minimum Garage Size 20' x 20' 20' x 20' 20' x 20' 20' x 20' 20' x 20' (interior space) * Fireplaces may project not more than two (2) feet into the side yard setback provided the width of the fireplace does not exceed eight (8) feet in width. Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan 5-8 C:~DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS~IAASEHS~LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMP\SPSECT5CCDOCUMENT. DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE 5.4 5.4.1 NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (PLANNING AREA 11) DESCRIPTION OF NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL Neighborhood Commemial (Planning Area No. 11), will include a variety of different types of land uses. Uses within this planning area include smaller-scale business activities which generally provide retail and/or convenience services for residents within Roripaugh Ranch. The following are site planning guidelines relating to Planning Area No. 11. 5.4.2 USE REGULATIONS The list of land uses in the following table shall be permitted in the neighborhood commemial zoning district. Where indicated with a letter "P", the use shall be a permitted use. Where indicated with a ,,.,, the use is prohibited within the zone. Where indicated with a letter "C", the use shall be conditionally permitted subject to approval of a conditional use permit. Table 5-3 Schedule of Permitted Uses - Neighborhood Commercial Center (PA-11) Description of Use I NC A Adult business subject to Chapter 5.08 of the Temecula Municipal Code Aerobics/dance/gymnastics/jazzemise/martial arts studios (less than 5,000 sq. ft. P Aerobics/dance/gymnastics/jazzemise/martial arts studios (greater than 5,000 sq. ft. P Alcoholism or drug treatment facilities Alcohol and drug treatment (outpatient) Alcoholic beverage sales C Ambulance services Animal hospital/shelter Antique restoration Antique sales (Less than 5,000 sq. ft.) P Apparel and accessory shops P Appliance sates and repairs (household and small appliances) P Arcades (pinball and video games) Art supply stores P Auction houses Auditoriums and conference facilities C Automobile dealers (new and used) Automobile sales (brokerage)- showroom only (new and used)-no outdoor display Automobile repair services Automobile rental Roripau~h Ranch Specific Plan 5-9 C:'~DOCUMENTS AND SECI'INGS~IAASEHS¥_OCAL SETrlNGS\TEMP\SPSECT5CCDOCUMENT.DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE Automobile painting and body shop Automobile service stations with alcoholic sales Automotive service stations (not selling beer and/or wine) with or without an automated P car wash Automobite parts-sales C Automobile oil change/lube services with no major repair C B Bakery goods distribution Bakery retail P Bakery Wholesale Banks and financial institutions P Barber and beauty shops P Bed and breakfast Bicycle (sales, rentals, services) P Billiard parlor/poolhall Binding of books and similar publications Blood bank P Blueprint and duplicating and copy services P Bookstores P Building materials sales (with the exterior storage/sales areas greater than 50 pement of total sales area) Building materials sales (with the exterior storage/sales areas greater than 50 percent of total sales area) Butcher shop P C Cabinet shop Cabinet shops under 20,000 sq. ft.- no outdoor storage Camera shop (sales/minor repairs) P Candy/confectionery sales P Car wash, full service/self service Carpet and rug cleaning Catering services P Clothing sales P Coins, purchase and sales P Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan 5-10 C:~DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS~NAASEHS\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMP\SPSECT5CCDOCUMENT.DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE Communications and microwave installations ' Communications equipment sales~ C Community care facilities C Computer sales and services P Congregate care housing for the elderly 2 C Construction equipment sales, services or rental Contractor's equipment, sales, service or rental Convenience market Costume rentals P Crematoriums Cutlery P D Data processing equipment and systems Day care centem P Delicatessen P Discount/department store P Distribution facility Drug store/pharmacy P Dry cleanem P Dry cleaning plant E Emergency shelter Equipment sales and rentals (no outdoor storage) P Equipment sales and rentals (outdoor storage) F Feed and grain sales Financial, insurance, real estate offices P Fire and police stations P Floor covering sales P Florist shop P Food processing Fortunetelling, spiritualism, or similar activity P Freight terminals Roripau~h Ranch Specific Plan 5-11 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SE'FTINGS',NAASEHS%OCAL $~ i HNGS\TEMP\SPSECT5CCDOCUMENT.DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE Fuel storage and distribution Funeral parlors, mortuary Furniture sales (Less than 10,000 sq. ft.) P Furniture transfer and storage G Garden supplies and equipment sales and service Gas distribution, meter and control station General memhandise/rataii stores less than 10,000 sq. ft. P Glass and mirrors, ratail sales P Government offices P Grocery store, retail P Grocery store, wholesale Guns and firearm sales H Hardware stores P Health and exercise club P Health food store P Health care facility P Heliport Hobby supply shop P Home and business maintenance service Hospitals Hotels/motels I Ice cream parlor P Impound yard Interior decorating service P J Junk or salvage yard I K Kennel I Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan 5-12 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS'vNAASEHS~LOCAL SE~rlNGS\TEMP'v~PSECTSCCDOCUMENT.DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE L Laboratories, film, medical, research or testing centers Laundromat P Laundry service (commemial) Libraries, museums, and galleries (private) C Liquid petroleum, sales and distribution Liquor stores C Lithographic service Locksmith P M Machine shop Machinery storage yard Mail order business Manufacturing of products similar to, but not limited to the following: Custom-made product, processing, assembling, packaging, and fabrication of goods, within enclosed building (no outside storage), such as jewelry, furniture, art objects, clothing, labor intensive manufacturing, assembling, and repair processes which do nor involve frequent truck traffic. Compounding of materials, processing, assembling, packaging, treatment or fabrication of materials and products which require frequent truck activity or the transfer of heavy or bulky items. Wholesaling, storage, and warehousing within enclosed building, freight handling, shipping, truck services and terminals, storage and wholesaling from the premises of unrefined, raw or semi-refined products requiring further processing and manufacturing, and outside storage. P Uses under 20,000 sq. ft. with no outside storage Massage 3 p Medical equipment sales/rental P Membership clubs, organizations, lodges C Mini-storage or mini-warehouse facilities Mobileheme sales and services Motion picture studio Motorcycle sales and service Movie theaters C Musical and recording studio N Nightclubs/taverns/bars/dance club/teen club I Roripau~lh Ranch Specific Plan 5-13 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SE3q-INGS\NAASEHS~.OCAL SE3-1'INGS\TEMP\SPSECT5CCDOCUMENT. DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE Nurseries (retail) Nursing homes/convalescent homes C 0 Office equipment supplies, sales/services P Offices, administrative or corporate headquarters with greater than 50,000 sq. ft. Offices, professional services with less than 50,000 sq. ft., but not limited to, business P law, medical, dental, veterinarian, chiropractic, architectural, engineering, real estate, insurance P Paint and wallpaper stores P Pamel delivery services Parking lots and parking structures C Pawnshop Personal service shops p Pest control services Pet grooming/pet shop P Photographic studio P Plumbing supply yard (enclosed or unenclosed) Postal distribution Postal services P Printing and publishing (newspapers, periodicals, books, etc.,) Private utility facilities (Regulated by the Public Utilities Commission) P Q Reserved R Radio and broadcasting studios, offices Radio/television transmitter Recreational vehicle parks Recreational vehicle sales Recreational vehicle, trailer, and boat storage within an enclosed building Recycling collection facilities P Rod@au,(:jh Ranch Specific Plan 5-14 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS~IAASEHS~LOCAL SE~FINGS\TEMP\SPSECT5CCDOCUMENT.DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE Recycling processing facilities Religious institution, without a daycare or private school C ReligioL~s institution, with a private school C Religious institution, with a daycare C Restaurant, drive-in/fast food C Restaurants and other eating establishments P Restaurants with lounge or live entertainment C Rooming and boarding houses S Scale, public Schools, business and professional C Schools, private (kindergarten through Grade 12) C Scientific reseamh and development offices and laboratories Solid waste disposal facility Sports and recreational facilities C Swap meet, entirely inside a permanent building Swap meet, outdoor Swimming pool supplies/equipment sales P T Tailor shop P Taxi or limousine service Tire sales Tobacco shop P Tool and die casting Transfer, moving and storage Transportation terminals and stations C Truck sales/rent als/se rvice TV/VCR repair P U Upholstery shop I Roripau,~h Ranch Specific Plan 5-15 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS'u~IAASEHS\LOCAL SETTINGS\TEMP\SPSECT5CCDOCUMENT.DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE V Vending machine sales and services W Warehousing/distribution Watch repair P Wedding chapels Welding shop Welding supply and service (enclosed) Y Reserved I Z Reserved 1. Subject to the provisions contained in Section 17.40 of the City of Temecula Development Code 2. Subject to the provisions contained in Section 17.06,050.H of the City of Temecula Development Code 3. Subject to the provisions contained in Section 5.22 of the City of Temecula Municipal Code Roripau~h Ranch Specific Plan 5-16 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETI'INGS'u',IAASEHS~.OCAL SETTINGS\TEMP\SPSECT5CCDOCUMENT.DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE 5.4.3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The following standards of development shall apply in the Neighborhood Commemial: Table 5-4 Development Standards - Neighborhood Commercial (Commercial Uses - PA 11 ) Minimum gross area for site 2 acres for common lot centers, 30,000 square feet for single lots Target floor area ratio .3 Maximum floor area ratio with intensity bonus as per Section .50 17.08.050 Front yard adjacent to street: - Butterfield Stage Road/Murrieta Hot Springs Road 20 feet; structure & parking - "A" and "B" Street 20 feet, structure & parking Yard adjacent to residentially zoned property 25 feet, structure & parking Accessory structure side/rear yard setback 10 feet Minimum building separation: - One story: 10 feet - Two stories: 15 feet - Three stories or more: 20 feet Maximum building height 50 feet Maximum percent of lot coverage 30% Minimum required landscaped open space 20% Fence, wall or hedge screening outdoor storage maximum height 6 feet Minimum building setback separation: - Two stories: 15 feet - Three stories or more: 20 feet Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan 5-17 C:~DOCUMENTS AND SEqq'INGS~'qAASEHS~LOCAL SE3q'INGS\TEMP\SPSECT5CCDOCUMENT.DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE 5.5 5.5.1 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE (Planning Areas Nos. lB, 5, 6, 7A, 7B, 7C, 8, 9A, 9B, 13, 27, 25, 26 and 30) DESCRIPTION OF PARKS AND OPEN SPACE Parks (P) and Open Space (OS) zoning district is intended to promote e wide range of public and private recreational uses in the community. These uses include community facilities, golf courses, health clubs, public parks and recreation areas, sports parks, or other outdoor athletic facilities and similar outdoor commercial recreational uses. 5.5.2 USE REGULATIONS The list of land uses in the following table shall be permitted in one or more of the park and open space zoning district as indicated in the columns corresponding to each zoning district. Where indicated with a letter "P", the use shall be a permitted use. Where indicated with a "-", the use is prohibited within the zone. Where indicated with a letter "C", the use shall be conditionally permitted subject to approval of a conditional use permit. Table 5-5 Schedule of Permitted Uses - Parks and Recreational Uses P P OS1 OS~ OS3 Schedule of Uses (Private) (Public) 1B, 5 Planning Area and 30 6 and 27 8, 9A, 7B, 7C, Portions 9B, and 25 and of 6 and 13, 26 7A Agricultural Uses Athletic Field P P Bicycle paths P P P P Campground Caretakers quarters Cemeteries, mausoleums and related uses Game courts, badminton, tennis, racquetball P P Golf driving range not part of a golf coume Golf course and clubhouse P P Government and public utility facilities C C P P Gymnasium p p Microwave antenna/tower~ Nature centers/exhibits Nurseries P P Group Picnic Facilities Private parks and recreation facilities p p p p Parking areas P P Roripaul]h Ranch Specific Plan 5-18 C:~)OCUMENTS AND SETTINGS'WAASEHS~.OCAL SETI'INGS\TEMP\SPSECT5CCDOCUMENT. DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE Public parks and recreational facilities P P P P Recreational vehicle park Riding stable, public or private Shooting galleries, ranges, archery courses Single-family dwellings Tree Farms 1. See Zoning Appendix of Development Code 17.40 for antenna information. Ro~ipau,(:]h Ranch Specific Plan 5-19 C:\DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS~'~IAASEHS%OCAL SE3~-INGS\TEMP\SPSECT5CCDOCUMENT.DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE 5.5.3 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS In the Parks and Open Space districts development standards are as follows: Table 5-6 Development Standards - Parks and Open Space Standards Development Standards I P I OS Planning Area 1 B, 5, 6, 27 and 7A, 7B, 7C, 8, 31 9A, 9B, 13, 25 and 26 Minimum lot size 10,000 sq. ft. Maximum lot coverage 25% Maximum height 35 feet~ Floor area ratio .1 Setback from parking structure 25 feet Setback from parking structure 25 feet Minimum open space/landscaping 75% 100% 1. Excludes light poles and communication facilities. Rod@au(,]h Ranch Specific Plan 5-20 C:~DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\NAASEHS%OCAL SETTINGS\TEMP\SPSECT5CCDOCUMENT.DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE 5.6 PUBLIC/INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICTS (PLANNING AREAS 28 AND 29) 5.6.1 DESCRIPTION OF SCHOOL DISTRICT AND PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT The purpose of this district is to facilitate the construction of an Elementary School site and Middle School site. Planning Area 28 will be developed as a Middle School site and Planning Area 30 will be developed as an Elementary School site. 5.6.2 USE REGULATIONS Planning Areas 28 and 29 shall only be designated to be used as a Middle School site and an Elementary School site, respectively. Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan 5-21 C:'~DOCUMENTS AND SET-rlNGS'~NAASEHS%OCAL SE'FrlNGS\TEMP\SPSECT5CCDOCUMENT. DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE 5.7 PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL (PLANNING AREA 32) 5.7.1 DESCRIPTION OF PUBLIC INSTITUTIONAL (FIRE STATION) The purpose of this district is to facilitate construction of public and quasi-public uses in appropriate areas of the city. Planning Area 31 will be developed as a fire station on a 1.5 acre site. 5.7.2 USE REGULATIONS Planning Area 31 shall only be designated as a Fire Station. Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan 5-22 C:~DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS\NAASEHS'd. OCAL SETTINGS\TEMP\SPSECT5CCDOCUMENT.DOC November, 2002 SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE 5.8 PARKING REQUIREMENTS Refer to Chapter 17.24 of the City Development Code for parking requirements. Rodpau,~h Ranch Specific Plan 5-23 C:'~DOCUMENTS AND SETTINGS'u'qAASEHS~.OCAL SETTINGS\TEMP\SPSECT5CCDOCUMENT.DOC November, 2002 ATTACHMENT "4" (Existing Regulations) Attachment No. 4 2. 3. 4, 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. EXISTING REGULATIONS City General Plan The Development Code (Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code) The Subdivision Ordinance (Title 16 of the Temecula Municipal Code) Citywide Design Guidelines Habitat Conservation Ordinance Mount Palomar Lighting Ordinance Uniform Building Code, as locally adopted Uniform Fire Code, as locally adopted Standard Drawings for Public Works Construction 713471.1 11/19/2002 40 ATTACHMENT 5 ON-SITE AND OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS The following shall be used to construct the improvements included in this Attachment: (a) All proposed road improvements shall include associated flood control, storm drain, water, and sewer lines; (b) All references to bridges shall mean hydro-arch bridges or other designs as approved by the City Engineer; (c) Full-width improvements shall consist of the complete street and landscape improvements with the right-of-way; (d) Half-width improvements shall consist of the construction of the improvements from curb to the raised landscaped median, the full-width raised landscaped median, where applicable, and a travel lane adjacent to the median on the unimproved half; (e) On center improvements shall mean a. A 38'width improvement consisting of two 14' travel lanes and a 10' turn lane, or b. A 40' width improvement consisting of two 14' travel lanes and a 12' turn lane. PHASE 1 (Planning Areas 1-4B, 6, and 32) Onsite Prior to issuance of the 34th building permit, the following improvements shall be completed: 1. Secondary Access - Provide secondary access for each Planning Area to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Prior to issuance of the 10~h building permit or as otherwise specified in the Development Agreement, the following improvements shall be completed: 2. Butter[ield Stage Road - Construct half-width improvements from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to the south project boundary at Planning Area 32, including construction of two full-width bridges within and over Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash. 713471.1 11/19/2002 41 3. Butterfield Stage Road - Dedicate full-width right-of-way from the northern project boundary to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. 4. Murrieta Hot Springs Road - Construct full-width improvements from east of Pourroy Road at the northern project boundary to the MWD pipeline property. 5. Murrieta Hot Springs Road - Construct half-width improvements from the MWD pipeline property to Butterfield Stage Road. 6. Nicolas Road - Offer a dedication for a 110' right-of-way from Butterfield Stage Road to the west project boundary. 7. Nicolas Road - Construct northerly half-width plus 10 feet from Butterfield Stage Road to the western project boundary. 8. South Loop Road - Construct southerly half-width in front of fire station (Planning Area 32). Prior to issuance of the 40~h building permit, the following improvements shall be completed: 9. "A" Street - Construct full-width from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Butterfield Stage Road. 10. "B" Street - Construct full-width improvements from Nicolas Road to "A" Street. 11. North Loop Road - Construct a full-width bridge over and within Santa Gertrudis Creek and connect the bridge to Butterfield Stage Road with full width improvements. 12. Construct the following traffic signals and related intersection improvements: a. Pourroy Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. b. Traffic signals may be required, as warranted, at the two other project entrances from Murrieta Hot Springs Road located to the east and west of the Pourroy Road main project entrance. Offsite Prior to the issuance of the Ist building permit, the following improvements shall be completed: 1. North General Kearney Road at Nicolas Road traffic signal with the ultimate lane configurations of: a. Northbound N General Kearney Rd: 1 Through Lane, I Right Turn Lane. b. Southbound N General Kearney Rd: I Shared Left, 1 Through lane, Right Turn Lane. 713471.1 11/19/2002 42 c. Eastbound Nicolas Rd: 1 Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes, 1 Right Turn Lane. d. Westbound Nicolas Rd: 1 Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes, 1 Right Turn Lane. These improvements are in addition to the existing improvements and lane configurations and shall supplement not replace existing turning movements. Prior to the issuance of the 10~h building permit or as otherwise specified in the Development Agreement, the following improvements shall be completed: Nicolas Road - Construct 40' width on center improvements from the western project boundary to 450' east of the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection. Secondary Access - The required secondary access for the Plateau area shall be provided by one of the following options: a. If Nicolas Road is designated as the secondary access route, the following improvements shall be completed: i. Construct 40' width on center improvements from 450 feet east of the existing Nicolas Road / Calle Girasol intersection to Liefer Road including the full width bridge structure over and within Santa Gertrudis Creek. ii. Realign existing Calle Girasol to its ultimate intersection with Nicolas Road including right-of-way acquisition. If Calle Chapos from Butterfield Stage Road to Walcott Lane and Calle Girasol from Walcott Lane to the existing Nicolas Road / Calle Girasol intersection is designated as secondary access, the following improvements shall be completed: i. Calle Chapos from Butterfield Stage Road to Walcott Lane - Construct 38' width on center improvements to existing pavement. ii. Calle Girasol from Walcott Lane to the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection Construct 38' width on center improvements, as required by the City Fire Chief and City Engineer (including right-of-way acquisition and horizontal curve realignment), on Calle Girasol from Walcott Lane to the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection. If Butterfield Stage Road from the southern project boundary to Rancho California Road is designated as secondary access, construct half width improvements from the southern project boundary at Planning Area 32 to Rancho California Road, excluding any existing improvements. 4. The Developer shall contribute an undetermined percentage of the total construction costs for traffic signals for the lane improvements at Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Alta Murrieta in the City of Murrieta including improvements to be specified. The developer shall provide the City of Temecula with a letter from 713471.1 11/19/2002 43 the City of Murrieta stating that a fair share contribution to identified improvements at this intersection has been made. The Developer shall contribute 5.8% of the total construction costs for the traffic signal and additional improvements identified as: southbound left turn lane, southbound right turn lane, eastbound through lane, eastbound right turn lane, westbound through lane, and westbound free right turn lane at 1-215 Freeway (Southbound Ramps) at Murrieta Hot Springs Road. PHASE 2 (Planning Areas 10, 11, 12, 14 - 24, 27 - 31, 33A, and 33B) Prior to the issuance of any building permit in Phase 2, the following improvements must be completed: Onsite Butterfield Stage Road - Construct remaining half-width improvements from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to the south project boundary at Planning Area 32, including construction of two full-width bridges within and over Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash. Murrieta Hot Springs Road - Construct remaining half-width improvements from the MWD pipeline property to Butterfield Stage Road. North Loop Road - Construct full-width improvements from the bridge structure at North Loop Road/Santa Gertrudis Creek crossing to the Long Valley Wash Bridge structure at South Loop Road. South Loop Road - Construct the full width bridge structure crossing Long Valley Wash and construct full width street improvements from this bridge to Butterfield Stage Road. Nicolas Road - Construct remaining improvements from Butterfield Stage Road to western project boundary. Offsite The developer shall construct the following traffic signals and related intersection improvements: a. Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Butterfield Stage Road. b. Nicolas Road at Buttedield Stage Road. c. Calle Chapos at Butterfield Stage Road. Butterfleld Stage Road - Construct full width improvements from the southern project boundary at Planning Area 32 to Rancho California Road excluding any existing improvements. 713471.1 11/19/2002 44 Nicolas Road - Construct 40' width improvements from 450 feet east of the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection to Liefer Road including the full width bridge structure over Santa Gertrudis Creek. Calle Girasol and the Nicolas Road / Calle Girasol intersection - Realign existing Calle Girasol to its ultimate intersection with Nicolas Road including right-of-way acquisition. Calle Chapos - Construct 38' width on center improvements from Butterfield Stage Road to the existing paved terminus at Walcott Lane. Winchester Road at Nicolas Road traffic signal to be constructed with the following ultimate lane configurations: Northbound Winchester: 2 Left Turn Lanes, 4 Through Lanes, 1 Free Right Turn Lane. Southbound Winchester: 2 Left Turn Lanes, 4 Through Lanes, 1 Right Turn Lane. Eastbound Nicolas Road: 1 Left Turn Lane, I Through Lane, 1 Right Turn Lane. Westbound Nicolas Road: 3 Left Turn Lanes, 1 Through Lane, 1 Right Turn Lane. These improvements are in addition to the existing improvements and lane configurations and shall supplement not replace existing turning movements. Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road traffic signal with the ultimate lane configurations of: Northbound BSR: I Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes Southbound BSR: 1 Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes Eastbound RCR: 2 Left Turn Lanes, 2 Through Lanes Westbound RCR: 1 Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes These improvements are in addition to the existing improvements and lane configurations and shall supplement not replace existing turning movements. The Developer shall contribute 11.1 % of the total construction costs for traffic signals and northbound through lane, southbound through lane, and westbound through lane improvements at Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Winchester Road. The Developer shall contribute 12.4% of the total construction costs for traffic signal and northbound shared left-through lane, eastbound through lane, and westbound through lane for Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Margarita Road. 713471.1 11/19/2002 45 DEFINITIONS GENERAL PROVISIONS Binding Covenants Interest of OWNER Term Termination Transfers and Assignments DEVELOPMENT PROVISIONS Vesting Reserved Authority Further Assurances to OWNER Regarding Exercise of Reserved Authority Consistent and Inconsistent Enactments Amendment of Development Agreement Future Amendments to Development Plan Approval(s) Future Development Approvals OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES. FEE AND EXACTION RELATED RESPONSIBILITIES PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS Public Facility Financing. Plan Related Real Property Conveyances; Conditions to Development Agreement INDEMNIFICATION RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES PERIODIC REVIEW OF COMPLIANCE WITH AGREEMENT Periodic Review Good Faith Compliance Failure to Conduct Annual Review Initiation of Review by City Council Administration of Agreement Availability of Documents EVENTS OF DEFAULT: REMEDIES AND TERMINATION Defaults by OWNER Defaults by CITY 4 7 7 7 7 8 8 10 10 13 14 14 16 17 18 18 18 2_4-2 2._ 596 26.__~ 26..._~ 26._~ 2_6 2_0_6g-7- 2._~698 2._~7~ 27__~ 27__~ 27__~ 713471.1 11/19/2002 46 Specific Performance Remedy Institution of Legal Action Estoppel Certificates WAIVERS AND DELAYS No Waiver Third Parties Force Majeure Extensions Notice of Delay NOTICES ATTORNEYS' FEES RECORDING EFFECT OF AGREEMENT ON TITLE Effect on Title Encumbrances and Lenders' Rights SEVERABILITY OF TERMS SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENT TO AUTHORIZING STATUTE RULES OF CONSTRUCTION AND MISCELLANEOUS TERMS Interpretation and Governing Law Section Headings Gender No Joint and Several_Liability Covenant of_Good Faith and Fair Dealing No Waiver of Vesting Time of Essence Recitals Entire Agreement EXTENSION OF MAPS NOT FOR BENEFIT OF THIRD PARTIES ATTACHMENTS COUNTERPARTS 28__ 28__ 29__~ 2~930 29__~ 29__~ 2._~994- 3_o- 31__~ 3.~133 31__~ 31~ 31~ 32._~ 32._~ 32__~ 33~ 33__~ 33._~ 33~34 33~ 33._~ 33__~ 3_4-3-5 3 4-3-5 3_4-3-5 713471.1 11/19/2002 47 ATFACHMENT 5 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2002- APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29353 R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new\CCSStaff Report l 1-26-02 A.doc 15 A'FrACHMENT NO. 5 CC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01- 0230 - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29353, A SUBDIVISION OF 804.7 ACRES INTO 39 LOTS AND 8 STREET LOTS WITHIN THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED NEAR THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF BUTFERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD, AND FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 957-130-001 and 002, 957-340-001, 003, 007, 008, AND 958-260-001 AND 002. WHEREAS, Ashby USA, LLC filed Planning Application No. PA01-0230 AND PA01- 0253 (the "Application") in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on October 16, 2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearings and after due consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to and based upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Application on November 26, 2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Council hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Council approved of the Application, and certified the Environmental Impact Report and adopted the Mitigation Monitoring Program after finding that the project proposed in the Application conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan; WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findinqs. That the City Council, in approving the Application, hereby makes the following findings as required in Section 16.09.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code. R:\S PXRoripaugh Ranch SPxncw\CCXRcsos and ord CC I.doc 76 A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, any applicable specific plan and the City of Temecula Municipal Code; B. The proposed subdivision map is consistent with the subject specific plan and related General Plan Amendment. C. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a Land Conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following division of the land will not be too small to sustain their agricultural use; D. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the tentative map; E. The design of the subdivisions and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval, are not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat as no sensitive species or habitant exist within the project boundaries; F. An environmental impact report has been prepared and a finding has been made, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) (3), finding that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report; G. The design of the subdivisions and the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems; H. The design of the subdivisions provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible; I. The design of the subdivisions and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be provided. (Quimby). The subdivisions are consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Residential projects approved under a Specific Plan are exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Section 15182 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. All environmental impacts were previously identified and in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and Mitigation Monitoring Program in order to approve the project. Section 4. Conditions. The City Council of the City of Temecula approves Planning Application No. 01-0230 - Tentative Tract Map No. 29353 (Exhibit A) for the subdivision Of 804.7 acres into 39 lots and 8 street lots within the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, subject to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit B, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference together with any and all other necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary, for the property located near the future intersection of Buttertield Stage Road and R:~S PXRoripaugh Ranch SPXnevACCXResos and ord CC 1.dec 77 Nicolas Road, and further identified as Assessor Pamel Nos. 957-130-001 and 002, 957-340- 001,003, 007, 008, and 958-260-001 and 002. Section5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of ., 2002. ATTEST: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2002- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the of 2002, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new\CCXResos and ord CC 1 .doc 78 EXHIBIT A FOR ATrACHMENT NO. 5 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29353 R:~S P~Rorlpaugh Ranch Sl~new\CCXResos and ord CC l.doc 79 EXHIBIT B FOR ATTACHMENT NO. 5 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0230 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29353 R:~S PXP, oripaugh Ranch SPXaew\CCXResos and ord CC 1.doc 80 EXHIBIT B FOR A~-I'AHCMENT 5 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0230 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29353 Project Description: The subdivision of 804.7 acres into 39 lots and 8 street lots which conform to the Planning Areas of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. Assessor's Parcel Nos.: 957-130-001 and 002, 957-340-001, 003, 007, 008, and 958-260-001 and 002. Approval Date: November 26, 2002 Expiration Date: November 26, 2004 PLANNING DIVISION General Requirements The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of the Temecula Subdivision Ordinance, unless modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date. The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resoumes Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate the land use approval without further notice to the applicant. R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new\CCXResos and ord CC I.doc This project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be consistent with Specific Plan No. 11, the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, and the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program thereof. Within thirty (30) days of the final approval of the project by the City Council, the tentative map shall be submitted to the Planning Department in final form for review and approval. It shall include all conditions of approval and all modifications made by the Planning Commission and City Council. (Amended by the Planning Commission on 1 0-30-02) The approval granted by this Resolution shall become effective upon the Effective Date of the Development Agreement, as the term Effective Date is defined in the Development Agreement adopted concurrently with this Resolution. If Subdivision phasing is proposed, a phasinq plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Director. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be subject to Roripaugh Ranch Development Agreement (PA99-0299). AC pavement shall be provided at intersections and approaches at all existing roads. (Added by the Planning Commission on 10-30-02) Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 10. A copy of the grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Division. 11. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. 12. Prior to the City approval of the grading plans or any other plans requiring MWD clearance that may impact their property and easement, the developer is responsible to provide the City with MWD's clearance for the said plans. Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 13. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division: a. A copy of the Final Map. b. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes: i. This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No. 655. R:~S PtRorJpau~h Ranch SP~new\CC~Rcsos and ord CC 1 .doc 82 ii. The Roripaugh Ranch Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for this project and is on file at the City of Temecula Community Development Department - Planning Division. iii. Lots 31,32, and 33 shall be designated as permanent open space. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) i. CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The CC&R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, exterior of all buildings and all landscaped and open areas including parkways. ii. No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owner's group or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the City for provisions required as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the city prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. iii. Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such dwelling unit or lot, either (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association owning the common areas and facilities. iv. All future property owners shall agree to be a part of the proposed Community Facilities District (CFD) or any other similar financing mechanism. 14. Prior to the City approval of the grading plans, improvement plans, the final map, or any other plans requiring MWD clearance that may impact their property and easement, the developer is responsible to provide the City with MWD's clearance for the said plans. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 15. With the exception of lot 22 (fire station site) no building permits shall be issued for the lots created by this tentative map. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Unless otherwise noted, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. R:~S l~Roripaugh Ranch S P~new~CC~Resos and ord CC I.dcc 83 General Conditions 16. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the Tentative Map all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, paseos, pedestrian trails, improvement constraints, detention basins, and drainage courses, and their omission will subject the project to further review and may require revision. 17. A Grading Permit for mass, rough, and/or precise grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. 18. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. An Encroachment Permit may be issued for all roads designated as private streets. 19. The Developer shall participate in a Cooperative Agreement with the County allowing the City to act on their behalf, if at the time prior to issuance of a grading permit in the County area the annexation process has not been completed. 20. The Developer shall submit a Maintenance Agreement to maintain flood control facilities for the portions of Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash located within the project site. It must be mutually agreeable to the City Director of Public Works, Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD), and the Home Owners Association (HOA). The Maintenance Agreement shall contain a funding mechanism whereby all residential dwelling units in the proposed project will be equally assessed for the Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash maintenance. The Maintenance Agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of the first building permit. 21. The Developer shall agree to the formation of a Community Facilities District for the construction of, but not limited to, road, bridge, drainage, traffic signal intersection, landscape, and fire station improvements in accordance with the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. The form of the Agreement shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney and shall be executed prior to final map recordation. 22. All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Works. 23. The Developer shall obtain letters giving permission to grade or easements for any off- site work pedormed on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the Department of Public Works. 24. The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of the Final Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount R:~S PXRoripaugh Ranch SPmew\CCXResos and ord CC 1.doc 84 given in an appraisal report obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. 5. A development phasing plan addressing the schedule of necessary infrastructure requirements shall be approved by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Director prior to approval of any subsequent application. 26. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. 27. All utility systems such as electric, including those which provide direct service to the project site and/or currently exist along public rights-of-ways adjacent to the site (except electrical lines rated 33 kv or greater), gas, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be placed underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. Circulation 28. Adequate primary and secondary access shall be provided for each phase of development as approved by the Department of Public Works. Vehicular access easements shall be secured across undeveloped areas to provide secondary access. The exact location and number of access points shall be subject to review and approval by the Department of Public Works at the time of submittal of future individual tentative tract maps and/or development applications. Additional right-of-way at entries may be required to provide for turning lanes as directed by the Department of Public Works. 29. Access along Murrieta Hot Springs Road, Butterfield Stage Road, Nicolas Road, and the Loop Roads as shown on this master tentative tract map shall be restricted except at street intersections and driveways to be identified in individual tentative tract maps and approved by the Department of Public Works. 30. All street sections shall correspond with the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, Figures 2-4, 2-4A, 2-5, 2-5A, and 2-5A-1 and by reference made a part of these conditions of approval, typical roadway cross sections and requirements of the Cimulation Element of the City's General Plan, and City ordinances and standards. 31. The Developer shall obtain permission from adjacent affected property owners along Nicolas Road and Butterfield Stage Road to allow for grading and any related driveway improvements necessary to continue to allow legal vehicular access through the use of some mechanism approved by the City's Public Works Department including but not limited to: permission to grade offsite letters, blanket or specific right of entry letters, and temporary construction easements. 32. Prior to approval of the street improvement plans, the developer shall demonstrate that adequate sight distance at intersections and approved driveways meet City and Caltrans standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 33. Bridge structure type shall be approved by the City Public Works Department and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Proposed bridges shall provide acceptable crossing over waterways to accommodate all necessary R:XS P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new\CC~Resos and ord CC I,doc 85 vehicular, pedestrian, equestrian, dry and wet utilities, future utilities including but not limited to conduit for fiber optic cable or traffic signal interconnect if not placed within street pavement. The bridge design shall include, but not be limited to the following studies: foundation analysis, scour analysis, and protection measures. 34. The Developer shall submit to the City Public Works Department for review and approval street improvement plans, signing and striping plans, traffic signal plans, and traffic control plans for all improvements in the phasing section of these conditions. Traffic Mitigation Monitoring Program 35. The Traffic Mitigation Monitoring Program proposes that a traffic study be approved prior to the issuance of the first building permit for each additional phase of development. The intent of the Traffic Mitiqation Monitoring Proqram is not to re-define mitigation responsibility, but rather to assist in the refinement of area improvement needs and the timing of the improvements. The traffic study would: 1 ) document ambient traffic volumes conditions; 2) estimate trip generation for the particular development phase; and 3) assess traffic conditions with the traffic added by the particular development phase. The exact study area to be addressed in each of the traffic studies should be defined through discussions with the City Traffic Engineer. In general the study area should include the immediate access intersections and roadways, which would serve the new development phase and those critical off-site intersections and roadways that will provide primary access to the new development. Critical intersections/roadways are defined as those facilities that are experiencing high levels of peak period traffic congestion (at the time the traffic study is to be performed). The traffic study findings would assist the City in proactively planning for area roadway improvements. 36. Ensuing Traffic Reports, analyzing traffic impacts associated with subsequent development stages of the Specific Plan, shall be submitted to identify implementation and timing of the necessary improvements to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts. Drainage 37. The Developer shall, as required by the City and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns including concentration or diversion of flow and increases in flow and/or velocity. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate channel improvements, drainage facilities, and by securing drainage easements, as necessary. 38. Drainage and flood control facilities shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the City and/or Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD). All drainage facilities shall be designed to convey 100-year storm flows, subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. 39. Prior to issuance of a grading permit affecting the creek areas, the Developer shall submit a Drainage Management Plan covering both Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash to the City and RCFC&WCD to review the adequacy of the proposed and existing downstream drainage facilities. The Drainage Management Plan will address how the planned improvements will prevent downstream erosion and flooding impacts. R:XS P~,orlpaugh Ranch SPmew\CCXResos and ord CC I.doc 86 40. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, the Developer shall provide a flood control Maintenance Agreement for the portions of Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash within the project site. It must be mutually agreeable to the City Department of Public Works, the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and the homeowners association. This agreement shall state that the City is only responsible for maintaining flood control facilities under public roads, and is not responsible for maintaining the Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash channels or detention basins. 41. The Developer shall construct the proposed on and offsite drainage facility improvements and interim detention basins and/or flow by basins as recommended in the Specific Plan and Drainage Study documents and/or as directed by the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. 42. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Developer shall identify and design, as necessary, interim channel improvements including, but not limited to, grading and construction of detention basins before permanent channel improvements are constructed. 43. Drainage facilities within each phase shall be constructed immediately after the completion of the site grading and prior to or concurrently with the initial site development within that phase. 44. The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site. The Developer, in procuring the protection of downstream properties, has elected to construct two detention basins in the "Plateau Area", a detention basin in Santa Gertrudis Creek and a flow by basin in Long Valley Wash. These detention and flowby basins shall be adequately sized so as not to increase the flow and velocities exiting the project boundary. 45. The Developer shall provide adequate bank protection, as approved by the City Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, to allow a bridge crossing at Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol along Santa Gertrudis Creek. Nicolas Road will not be accepted into the City's maintained street system until all offsite channel improvements are complete and accepted by the City and RCFC&WCD. 46. The Developer shall provide maintenance roads to all proposed detention basins to provide access for maintenance. Road specifications such as width and type shall be per Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District requirements. 47. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Developer shall coordinate any construction that could impact Metropolitan Water District (MWD) facilities to assure that their facilities are not damaged by project construction, either onsite or offsite. 48. The City reserves the right to require the developer to mitigate any concentrated offsite flows and to adequately disperse them by the use of rip-rap or equivalent improvements, as approved by and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. This condition shall be in force during the entire development process for the project. 49. A Flood Plain Development Permit and Flood Study shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The flood study shall be in a R:\S l%Roripaugh Ranch SPXnew\CCXRcsos and ord CC I.doc 87 50. 51. 52. Water 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. format acceptable to the Department and include, but not be limited to, the following criteria: a. Drainage and flood protection facilities which will protect all structures by diverting site runoff to streets or approved storm drain facilities. b. Adequate provision shall be made for the acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. c. Identify and mitigate impacts of grading to any adjacent floodway or floodplain. d. The location of existing and post development 100-year floodplain and floodway. Prior to issuance of a grading permit in the floodplain, the Developer shall provide a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) or equivalent Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) application and comply with that process. Prior to issuance of occupancy permits in those lots adjacent to either Santa Gertrudis Creek or Long Valley Wash, the Developer shall submit appropriate documentation to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and obtain approval of Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). A flood mitigation charge shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. and Sewer Water and sewer facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the City, Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD), and Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Such requirements shall be applied at the subdivision or plot plan stages of the development. Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall comply with the Water Master Plan to EMWD and RCWD to check for adequacy of the proposed water facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the water system from EMWD and RCWD. Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall comply with the Sewer Master Plan to EMWD to check for adequacy of the proposed sewer facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the sewer system from EMWD. Prior to approval of the final map, the developer shall provide the City with adequate documentation from the local water purveyors (EMWD and RCWD) that they have adequate water supplies to serve project start-up through completion and full occupancy according to the requirements of Senate Bills 221 and 610. The Developer shall install reclaimed water lines to irrigate landscaped areas to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Temecula Community Services Departments if R:~S PkRoripaugh Ranch SP~new~CC~Resos and ord CC I.doc 88 throughout the course of development and until such time the project is complete, reclaimed water lines become available within 300 feet of any project boundary. Grading 58. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: State of California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Where appropriate, the terms, conditions, and recommendations of the noted agencies shall be incorporated as Conditions of Approval into the areas of development. 59. No grading shall be permitted for any development area prior to tentative map approval. 60. Grading plans and operations shall be in accordance with the California Building Code, City Grading Standards, the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report, or any subsequent reports prepared for the project, the conditions of the grading permit, and accepted grading construction practices and the recommendations and standards specified in the Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) documents. 61. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, erosion control plans shall be prepared in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements. 62. The Developer shall comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board, and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) implemented by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. 63. The Developer shall post a clearly visible sign at the intersection of Nicolas Road and Calle Girasol to notify residents of the Nicolas Valley if and when blasting will occur at least two days prior to scheduled blasting. Any blasting activities will be limited to the hours of 9 AM to 4 PM, Monday through Friday. Prior to blasting, the Developer shall obtain permission from the City Engineer to post notice in at least one newspaper of local circulation at least one week in advance. 64. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Developer shall submit a Dust Control Plan (DCP) to SCAQMD that is consistent with Rule 403 guidelines for approval. The Developer shall submit written proof to the City that SCAQMD has reviewed and approved the DCP. The DCP shall be applicable for all onsite as well as offsite work and includes but is not limited to the following activities: twice daily soil watering, street sweeping, covering of trucks hauling soil away, chip sealing access roads, hydroseeding exposed soil surfaces, and adding chemical binders or surfactants to water used for watering. Also, the Developer shall provide the City with documentation that appropriate construction equipment that is anticipated to be used for more than 30 days has had tune-ups or equivalent work to assure Iow NOX emissions. In addition, all diesel equipment and vehicles must be equipped with particulate filters and use only Iow sulfur fuels. R:~S PxRoripaugh Ranch SP~new~CC~Resos and ord CC I .doc 89 65. Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, the individual contractors shall submit a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) to the Public Works Department that includes but is not limited to: scheduling receipt of construction materials to off-peak travel periods routing construction traffic through areas of least impact sensitivity, limiting lane closures and detours to off-peak travel periods, and staging areas away from existing residential uses. 66. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall prepare and file a Noise Control Plan (NCP) with the Public Works Department. The NCP will be generally consistent with the mitigation monitoring program and the City's construction noise ordinance. 67. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained weed-free and planted with interim landscaping, such as hydroseed, and temporary irrigation within ninety days of completion of grading, unless building permits are obtained. 68. Paleontologists and Archeologists shall be present during grading, including excavated soil stockpiles, in accordance with the Environmental Impact Report mitigation measure. 69. An import/export route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading permit. The plan shall include limitation to the duration of the grading operation and construction activities, a Traffic Control Plan, and a daily time schedule of operations. 70. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections. 71. A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering geologist and submitted to the Department of public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and identify any geotechnical hazards for the site including location of faults and potential for liquefaction and landsides. The report shall include recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. 72. If subsequent Geotechnical and Soils Reports determine that dewatering of the site is necessary during construction, necessary permits (ie. in compliance with NPDES permit) shall be obtained from appropriate agencies prior to approval of the grading plans. 73. All public streets shall be maintained and cleaned if necessary on a daily basis during grading operation and construction activities. Cash deposit, letter of credit or posting of bond to guarantee maintenance of all public rights-of-way affected by the grading operations and construction activities, shall be posted prior to issuance of grading permits. Specific Plan Phasing 74. Construction of the development permitted by the Specific Plan, including recordation of subdivision maps, may be carried out in stages provided that, adequate vehicular access is constructed for all dwelling units in each stage of development and further provided R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~ew\CC~Resos and oral CC l.doc 90 that such development conforms substantially with the intent and purpose of the Specific Plan Conceptual Phasing Plan Figure 2-10 and Phasing of Road Improvements Section 2.2.6. 75. In the event that the City is unable to construct the street and slopes, acquire the additional right of way and complete any related proceedings associated with that process, for the segment on Butterfield Stage Road from Chemin Clinet to Rancho California Road, by the 510th building permit, the Developer shall be responsible for completing this work by the 510th building permit. 76. Prior to the issuance of the designated number of building permits for each phase, the developer or the CFD must construct the improvements identified below. The City may require additional or supplemental traffic studies prior to approval of future tentative tract maps. If these studies confirm that area intersections are operating below LOS D or otherwise pose an unsafe condition, then the developer shall be responsible for mitigating these conditions, in addition to the mitigation measures already identified in the EIR. SPECIFIC PLAN PHASE 1 ONSITE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Prior to issuance of the 34th building permit, the following improvements shall be completed: i. Secondary Access - Provide secondary access from Lots 1, 3-4, 6-7 to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Prior to issuance of the 108th building permit, the following improvements shall be completed: ii. Improve Murrieta Hot Springs Road from existing improvements east of Pourroy Road to the MWD Easement (Specific Plan Arterial Highway - 110' R/W) to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and a 14-foot wide raised landscaped median. All proposed improvements shall be coordinated with existing improvements including raised landscaped median and lane width transitions as approved by the City Traffic Engineer. iii. Improve Murrieta Hot Springs Road from the MWD Easement to Butterfield Stage Road (Specific Plan Modified Arterial Highway - 110' R/W) to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements including a 14-foot wide raised landscaped median and a 14-foot wide travel lane adjacent to the median on the unimproved half, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Driveways shall be constructed to provide access to the MWD property and easement. iv. Improve Butter~ield Stage Road from Nicolas Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road (Specific Plan Augmented Arterial Highway - 122' R/W) to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SPmew~CCXResos and ord CC I,doc b4 improvements plus a 14-foot wide raised landscaped median and a 12-foot travel lane adjacent to the median on the unimproved half, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). v. Dedicate full-width right-of-way on Butterfield Stage Road from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to the northern project boundary (Specific Plan Arterial Highway - 110' RNV). vi. Improve Buttedield Stage Road from Nicolas Road to the southern project boundary (Specific Plan Arterial Highway - 110' RAN) to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements including a 14-foot wide raised landscaped median and a 14-foot wide travel lane adjacent to the median on the unimproved half, full-width bridge structures over Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). vii. Improve Nicolas Road from Butterfield Stage Road to the western project boundary (Specific Plan Modified Secondary Highway- 110' RNV)to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of the northerly half-width plus 10 feet of street improvements including paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, soft surface path, split rail fence, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). viii. Improve South Loop Road from Butterfield Stage Road to the end of the fire station site frontage (Specific Plan Modified Principal Collector Road - 76' R/W) to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of the southerly half-width plus 6 feet of street improvements including paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Prior to issuance of the 400th building permit, the following improvements shall be completed: ix. Improve "F" Street along Lot 8 frontage (Specific Plan Modified Collector Road - 66' RAN) to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements including paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). x. Improve North Loop Road from Butterfield Stage Road to the east side of Santa Gertrudis Creek (Specific Plan Modified Principal Collector Road - 76' RAN) to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements including a full-width bridge over Santa Gertrudis Creek, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). OFFSiTE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS Prior to issuance of the 108th building permit, the following improvements shall be completed: R:\S PXRoripaugh Ranch SPXnew\CCXResos and oral CC I.doc 92 ii. iii. Improve Nicolas Road from the western project boundary to 450 feet east of the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection (Specific Plan Modified Secondary Road - 110' R/W, Section K) to include installation of 40-foot width on center improvements, paving, asphalt concrete berm including signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) and a 6-foot wide curb separated asphalt concrete path on the north side. The Developer shall obtain permission from adjacent affected properly owners to allow for grading and any related driveway improvements necessary to continue to allow legal vehicular access onto Nicolas Road through the use of some mechanism approved by the City's Public Works Department including but not limited to: permission to grade offsite letters, blanket or specific right of entry letters, and temporary construction easements. Provide secondary access by constructing improvements for one of the following options: a. If Nicolas Road is designated as the secondary access route, the following improvements shall be completed: i. Construct 40 foot on center improvements (Specific Plan Modified Secondary Road - 110' R,NV, Section K) from 450 feet east of the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection to Leifer Road including paving, asphalt concrete berm, including signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) and the full- width bridge structure over and within Santa Gertrudis Creek. ii. Realign existing Calle Girasol to its ultimate intersection with Nicolas Road including right-of-way acquisition. iii. The Developer shall provide adequate bank protection, as approved by the City Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, to allow a bridge crossing at Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol along Santa Gertrudis Creek Nicolas Road will not be accepted into the City's maintained street system until all offsite channel improvements are complete and accepted by the City and RCFC&WCD. b. If Calle Chapos from Butterfield Stage Road to Walcott Lane and Calle Chapos to Calle Girasol from Walcott Lane to the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection is designated as secondary access, the following improvements shall be completed: i. Construct 38-foot width on center improvements (Specific Plan Modified Collector Road - 66' R,NV, Section L) from Butterfield Stage Road to the Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection including paving and signing and striping. ii. Provide horizontal realignment and right-of-way acquisition, as required by the City Fire Chief and City R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new\CCXResos and ord CC I.doc 93 Engineer, from Walcott Lane to the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection. c. If Butterfield Stage Road (Specific Plan Arterial Highway- 110' R/VV) is designated as secondary access, construct half-width improvements from the southern project boundary to Chimen Clinet including dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements, including a 14-foot wide raised landscaped median and a 14-foot wide travel lane adjacent to the median on the unimproved half, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), exluding any existing improvements. c. TRAFFIC SIGNALS The developer must make a fair share contribution towards the improvement of the following intersections identified below. The improvements listed below are in addition to the existing improvements and lane configurations and shall supplement but not replace existing turning movements. Additional or supplemental traffic studies shall be conducted prior to approval of future tentative tract maps. If these studies confirm that these intersections are operating below LOS D or otherwise pose an unsafe condition, then the developer shall be responsible for mitigating these conditions, in addition to the mitigation measures already identified in the EIR. Prior to issuance of the 1st building permit in Lots 1-7, 8, and 22 i. 1-15 Freeway (Southbound Ramps) at Rancho California Road: southbound leff-tum lane, southbound free right-turn lane, westbound free right-turn lane, and eastbound free right-turn lane. ii. 1-215 Freeway (Southbound Ramps) at Murrieta Hot Springs Road: southbound left-turn lane, southbound right-turn lane, eastbound through lane, eastbound right-turn lane, westbound through lane, and westbound free right-turn lane. iii. Ynez Road at Winchester Road: southbound right-turn overlap. iv. Ynez Road at Rancho California Road: eastbound through lane. v. North General Kearney Road at Nicolas Road: traffic signal. vi. Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road: traffic signal. vii. Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Alta Murrieta: lane improvements as yet undetermined. The developer shall provide the City of Temecula with a letter from the City of Murrieta stating that a fair share contribution to identified improvements at this intersection has been made. viii. Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Pourroy Road: construct traffic signal and related intersection improvements as warranted. d. WATER IMPROVEMENTS i. Install water mains per Eastern Municipal Water District requirements. ii. The Developer shall install reclaimed water lines to irrigate landscaped areas to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Temecula Community R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SPXnew\CC~esos and ord CC 1.doc 94 Services Departments if throughout the course of development and until such time the project is complete, reclaimed water lines become available within 300 feet of any project boundary. SEWER IMPROVEMENTS i. Install sewer main in Murrieta Hot Springs Road west of Pourroy Road. ii. Install sewer main in Nicolas Road per Eastern Municipal Water District requirements. DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS i. Construct detention basin west of Lot 1 and detention basin south of Lot 5 along southern "Plateau" area. ii. Construct storm drains and related outlet facilities as required by the hydrology/hydraulics studies. SPECIFIC PLAN PHASE 2 Prior to issuance of the 510th building permit or any building permit in Phase 2, the following improvements must be completed: a. ONSITE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS i. Improve Murrieta Hot Springs Road from the MWD Easement to Butterfield Stage Road (Specific Plan Modified Arterial Highway- 110' RAN) to include installation of remaining half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). A 14-foot wide raised landscaped median shall be constructed in Phase 1. ii. Improve Butterfield Stage Road from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Nicolas Road (Specific Plan Augmented Arterial Highway- 122' RNV) to include installation of remaining half-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). A 14-foot wide raised landscaped median shall be constructed in Phase 1. iii. Improve Butter[ield Stage Road from Nicolas Road to the southern project boundary (Specific Plan Arterial Highway - 110' RAN) to include installation of remaining half-width improvements including installation of paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). A 14- foot wide raised landscaped median shall be constructed in Phase 1. iv. Construct or bond for grading and full-width improvements on Butterfield Stage Road from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to the northern project boundary (Specific Plan Arterial Highway - 110' RNV) to include installation of full-width street improvements including a 14-foot wide raised landscaped median, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). v. Improve North Loop Road and South Loop Road (Specific Plan Modified Principal Collector Road - 76' PAN) to include dedication of full-width R:\S PxRodpaugh Ranch SPXnew\CCXResos and ord CC l.doc 95 street right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, construction of a full-width bridge over Long Valley Wash, raised landscaped median, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). vi. Improve Nicolas Road from Butterfield Stage Road to the western project boundary (Specific Plan Modified Secondary Highway- 110' R/W, Section D) to include remaining southerly half-width street improvements including paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, soft surface path, split rail fence, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities {including but not limited to water and sewer). vii. Improve "F" Street from the southern boundary of Lot 8 to Butterfield Stage Road (Specific Plan Modified Collector Road - 66' R/W) to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements including paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). viii. Improve "E" Street from "F" Street to Nicolas Road (Specific Plan Modified Collector Road - 66' R/W) to include dedication of full-width street right-of- way, installation of full-width street improvements including paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). OFFSITE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS i. Improve Butterfield Stage Road from the southern project boundary to Rancho California Road excluding existing improvements (Specific Plan Arterial Highway - 110' R/W) to include installation of full-width improvements except sidewalk on the County side, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and a 14-foot wide raised landscaped median. ii. Improve Nicolas Road from 450 feet east of the Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection to Leifer Road (Specific Plan Modified Secondary Road - 110' R/W, Section K) to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of 40-foot width improvements including full-width bridge improvements at Santa Gertrudis Creek, paving, asphalt concrete berm, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer) and a curb separated asphalt concrete path along the northerly side. iii. Improve Calle Chapos from Butterfield Stage Road to Walcott Lane (Specific Plan Modified Collector Road - 66' R/W, Section L) to include installation of 38-foot on center improvements to include paving, asphalt concrete berm, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). iv. Realign existing Calle Girasol to its ultimate intersection with Nicolas Road including right-of-way acquisition. R:~S PxRoripaugh Ranch SP~new\CC~Resos and ord CC l.doc 96 TRAFFIC SIGNALS The developer must make a fair share contribution towards the improvement of the following intersections identified below. Additional or supplemental traffic studies shall be conducted prior to approval of future tentative tract maps. If these studies confirm that these intersections are operating below LOS D or otherwise pose an unsafe condition, then the developer shall be responsible for mitigating these conditions, in addition to the mitigation measures already identified in the EIR. Prior to issuance of the 1st building permit in Phase 2 as defined in the Specific Plan i. Buttedield Stage Road and Nicolas Road/North Loop Road: construct traffic signal and related intersection improvements, as warranted. ii. Butterfield Stage Road and Calle Chapos/South Loop Road: construct traffic signal and related intersection improvements, as warranted. iii. Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Butterfield Stage Road: construct traffic signal and related intersection improvements, as warranted. iv. La Serena Way and Meadows Parkway: construct traffic signal and related intersection improvements, as warranted. v. 1-15 Freeway (Southbound Ramps) at Winchester Road: southbound left- turn lane, southbound right-turn lane, westbound through lane, westbound free right-turn lane, eastbound through lane, and eastbound free right-turn lane. 1-15 Freeway (Northbound Ramps) at Winchester Road: northbound left- turn lane, northbound free right-turn lane, westbound through lane, and westbound free right-turn lane. 1-15 Freeway (Northbound Ramps) at Rancho California Road: northbound left-turn and right-turn lanes. Ynez Road at Winchester Road: southbound left-turn lane, southbound right-turn overlap, and eastbound left-turn lane. Ynez Road at Rancho California Road: westbound left-turn lane, westbound right-turn lane, eastbound through lane, southbound through lane, southbound free right-turn lane, and eastbound free right-turn lane. Margarita Road at Winchester Road: eastbound left-turn lane, southbound right-turn lane, westbound right-turn lane, and southbound right-turn overlap. Margarita Road at Rancho California Road: northbound and southbound through lanes, southbound right-turn lane, eastbound left-turn lane, eastbound right-turn overlap, westbound left-turn lane, northbound right- turn lane, and westbound right-turn overlap. Margarita Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road: northbound shared left- through lane, eastbound through lane, and westbound through lane. Winchester Road at Nicolas Road: northbound left-turn lane, northbound free right-turn lane, westbound left-turn lane, northbound through lane, vi. vii. viii. ix. xi. R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~ncw~CC~Resos and ord CC 1.doc 97 southbound left-turn lane, southbound through lane, and eastbound right- turn overlap. xiv. Winchester Road at Murrieta Hot Springs Road: northbound through lane, southbound through lane, and westbound through lane. xv. Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road: northbound left-turn lane, northbound through lane, southbound left-turn lane, southbound through lane, eastbound left-turn lane, eastbound through lane, westbound left-turn lane, and westbound through lane. xvi. Calle Contento at Rancho California Road: eastbound left-turn lane, eastbound through lane, westbound left-turn lane, and westbound through lane. ONSITE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS i. Install full width box culverts or equivalent drainage facilities where Santa Gertrudis Creek crosses North Loop Road and Butterfield Stage Road. The drainage facilities shall be designed to convey the tributary 100-year storm flows. ii. Install full width box culverts or equivalent drainage facilities where Long Valley Wash crosses South Loop Road and Butterfield Stage Road. The drainage facilities shall be designed to convey the tributary 100-year storm flows. iii. Construct Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel through Lots 33, 37 and 38. The channel shall be designed to convey the tributary 100-year storm flow and have adequate bank hardening and/or other treatment to protect the adjacent properties from flooding. iv. Construct the detention basin on Lot 38. The detention basin should be designed to regulate outflow rate such that the peak flow in Santa Gertrudis Creek west of Butterfield Stage Road is equal to or less than the undeveloped condition. v. Construct the flow-by basin on Lot 34. The flow-by basin should be designed to regulate outflow rate such that the peak flow in Long Valley Wash west of Butterfield Stage Road is equal to or less than the undeveloped condition. vi. Construct Long Valley Wash through Lots 34 and 35. The channel shall be designed to convey the tributary 100-year storm flow and have adequate bank hardening and/or other treatment to protect the adjacent properties from flooding. OFFSITE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS i. Construct Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel from the box culvert or equivalent drainage facility crossing Butterfield Stage Road westerly to the confluence with the existing Santa Gertrudis Creek. The channel shall be designed to convey the tributary f 00-year storm flow, have adequate bank hardening and/or other treatment to protect the adjacent properties from flooding. The channel shall be extended a sufficient distance and designed in a manner that flows will return to the existing conditions at the outlet point. Access roads shall be constructed as necessary to provide R:\S PxRofipaugh Ranch SPXnew\CC~Resos and oral CC 1.dcc 98 adequate channel maintenance. The channel, access roads and confluence structures shall be contained within drainage easements obtained by the developer. WATER IMPROVEMENTS i. Install water mains per Eastern Municipal Water District requirements and per Rancho California Water District requirements, as necessary. ii. The Developer shall install reclaimed water lines to irrigate landscaped areas to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Temecula Community Services Departments if throughout the course of development and until such time the project road infrastructure is complete by phase, reclaimed water lines become available within 300 feet of any project boundary. SEWER IMPROVEMENTS i. Install a sewer main in Nicolas Road from Butterfield Stage Road to Leifer Road and then to Joseph Road where it will connect to an existing 21 -inch sewer line. ii. Install sewer mains per Eastern Municipal Water District requirements and City Standard No. 609. Trench shall be per City Standard No. 407, which will require the overlay of half of Nicolas Road between Leifer Road and Joseph Road COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT General Requirements: 77. If any of the following conditions of approval differ from the Specific Plan text or exhibits, the conditions enumerated herein shall take precedent. 78. All perimeter slope/landscape areas designated as Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) maintenance areas, shall be identified and offered for dedication to the TCSD as a maintenance easement on the final map. Underlying ownership of the respective areas shall remain with the individual property owner or the Homeowner's Association. All other landscape areas, open space, trails, entry monumentation, signage, pedestrian portals, bus shelters, pedestrian bridge, fences, walls and private gated areas shall be maintained by the Homeowner's Association (HOA), private maintenance association or property owner. 79. The current park dedication requirement (Quimby) for this development is 28.71 acres, based on 2015 single-family units. This requirement shall be satisfied with the 19.7 acre community sports park (Lot 30), the 5.1 acre neighborhood park (Lot 8) and the HOA owned and maintained recreational areas identified in the Roripaugh Specific Plan including the private recreation centers (Lots 5 and 27) and the private mini park (Lot 2). 80. The design of the 19.7 acre community sports park (Lot 30) and the 5.1 acre neighborhood park (Lot 8) shall be in substantial conformance with the conceptual designs and guidelines identified within the Specific Plan. Prior to submittal of construction plans, the developer shall meet with the Director of Community Services to determine the location and specifications of the park amenities to be provided on site. R:~S PXRoripaugh Ranch SPXnew\CC~Resos and ord CC l.doc 99 Construction plans and specifications must be approved by the Director of Community Services. 81. All park and slope/landscape plans submitted for consideration for TCSD maintenance shall be in conformance with the City of Temecula Landscape and Irrigation Specifications and Installation Details and the Park Land and Landscape Dedication Process. 82. The design of the 19.7 acre community sports park (Lot 30) and the 5.1 acre neighborhood park (Lot 8) shall provide for pedestrian circulation and shall be in compliance with American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. 83. The developer is entitled to receive a credit against the park and recreation component of the City's Development Impact Fee (DIF) pursuant to a Development Agreement or a DIF Credit Agreement between the applicant and the City prior to approval of the final map. 84. Construction of the 19.7 acre community sports park, the 5.1 acre neighborhood park, landscaped medians and proposed TCSD slope/landscape maintenance areas shall commence pursuant to a pre-construction meeting with the developer and TCSD Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD review and inspection process may preclude acceptance of these areas into the TCSD maintenance programs. 85. The Home Owner's Association (HOA) portion of Lot 8 shall be developed concurrently with the public park portion of Lot 8. The City will not accept the conveyance of the public park until all improvements have been completed within Lot 8. 86. The developer, the developer's successor or assignee, shall be responsible for all maintenance of the park sites, slopes/landscape areas and landscaped medians until such time as those responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD or other responsible party. 87. The public parks shall be improved and conveyed to the City free and clear of any liens, assessment fees, or easements that would preclude the City from utilizing the property for public purposes. A policy of title insurance for the value of the land and the cost of the improvements and a soils assessment report shall also be provided with the conveyance of the property. 88. The design of the private mini-park (Lot 2) and the private recreation centers (Lots 5 and 27) shall be consistent with the conceptual designs and guidelines identified in the Roripaugh Specific Plan. 89. Class II bicycle lanes, as specified in the Roripaugh Specific Plan, shall be identified on the street improvements plans and constructed in concurrence with the completion of said street improvements. 90. A multi-use trail will be constructed along both sides of Long Valley Wash (Lot 35) and along the north side of Lot 34. If the maintenance roads for the Long Valley Channel are proposed for this purpose, written authorization from RCFCWCD must be provided to the City allowing public access for trail purposes prior to approval of any tentative map for the Valley portion. If RCFCWCD determines that that the "River Walk" cannot be located within the channel right-of-way, then the trail area shall be located outside the R:~S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP~new\CC~Resos and ord CC l.doc 100 flood control area. These trails shall be designed and shown on the respective tentative map for this area. 91. The developer shall dedicate on the final map a fifteen (15) foot easement for public access within the 30 foot fuel modification zone and construct an multi-use trail along the westerly edge of Lot 22, the southerly edge of Lots 20, 21, and 22 and the easterly edge of Lots 19 and 34. 92. All residential street lighting will be maintained by the Home Owner's Association (HOA). 93. The developer shall contact the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of the construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris. 94. The developer shall provide adequate space for a recycling bin within any trash enclosure in the commemial area (Lot 10). Prior to Approval of the Final Map: 95. All slope/landscape areas intended for dedication to the TCSD for maintenance shall be identified on each final map by numbered lots with the square footage of said lot numbers indexed as proposed TCSD maintenance areas. 96. Construction drawings for all parks, landscaped medians and proposed TCSD slope/landscape maintenance areas shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services prior to the approval of the respective final map. 97. The developer shall post security and enter into an agreement to improve the public parks, landscaped medians and proposed TCSD slope/landscape maintenance areas prior to the approval of the respective final map. 98. An equestrian crossing shall be approved by the Water Quality Control Board (WQCB) for the multi-purpose trail connection between Lots 19 and 20 across the easterly edge of Lot 34 prior to the approval of the respective final map. 99. The developer shall file a notice of intention with the Temecula Community Services District to initiate election proceedings for acceptance perimeter slope/landscape into the TCSD maintenance program. All costs associated with this process shall be borne by the developer. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits: 100. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. 101. The private mini-park (Lot 2) shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community th Services Director prior to the issuance of the 100 residential building permit. 102. The park portion of the private recreation center (Lot 5) shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director prior to the issuance of the 250th residential building permit in Lots 1,3, 4, 6 and 7. R:~S PXRodpaugh Ranch SP~new~CCXResos and oral CC l,doc 101 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. The building and the pool portion of the private recreation center (Lot 5) shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director prior to the issuance of the 350th residential building permit Lots 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7. The 5.1 acre neighborhood park (Lot 8) shall be improved, including the completion of the 90-day maintenance period, and the conveyance accepted by the City Council prior to the issuance of the 400th residential building permit for the overall Roripaugh Development. The Paseo connecting Lot 7 and Lot 8 shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director prior to the issuance or the 400th residential building permit in Lots 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7. The Nature Walk and adjacent landscape areas (Lot 36) shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director prior to the issuance of the 400th residential building permit in Lots 1,3, 4, 6 and 7. The 19.7 acre sports park (Lot 30) shall be improved including the completion of the 90- day maintenance period, and the conveyance accepted by the City Council prior to the issuance of the 700th residential building permit for the overall Roripaugh Development. The park portion of the private recreation center (Lot 27) shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director prior to the issuance of the 800th residential building permit for the overall Roripaugh Development. The building and the pool portion of the private recreation center (Lot 27) shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director prior to the issuance of the 1150th residential building permit for the overall Roripaugh Development. The "River Walk" and the landscaping adjacent to the maintenance roads on both sides of Long Valley Wash (Lot 35) and along the north side of Lot 34 shall be completed prior to the issuance of the 700th overall residential building permit in the project. If the maintenance road along the north side of Long Valley Wash cannot be used for a multi-use trail, a separate trail with landscaping shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director prior to the issuance of the 50th building permit in Lot 26. If the maintenance road along the south side of Long Valley Wash cannot be used for a multi-use trail, a separate trail with landscaping shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director prior to the issuance of the 75th building permit in Lots 23, 24 and 25. A pedestrian bridge will be constructed across Long Valley Wash (Lot 35) connecting Lots 24 and 26 to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and the Community Services Director prior to the issuance of the 75th building permit in Lots 23, 24 and 25. The developer shall construct a 15 foot soft surface trail within the 30 foot fuel modification zone to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director along the westerly edge of Lot 22, the southerly edge of Lots 20, 21, and 22 and the easterly edge of Lots 19 and 34 prior to the issuance of the first building permit in Lots, 19, 20 and 21. R:\S PXRoripaugh Ranch SP~new\CC~Resos and ord CC l.doc 102 115. Prior to the installation of arterial street lights or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, the developer shall file an application, submit approved Southern California Edison street light plans and pay the appropriate fees to the TCSD for the dedication of arterial street lights into the appropriate TCSD maintenance program. Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy: 116. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within each phase map, the developer shall submit the most current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to the final project. 117. It shall be the developer's responsibility to provide written disclosure of the existence of TCSD and its service level rates and charges to all prospective purchasers. FIRE DEPARTMENT 118. Any previous existing conditions for this project will remain in full fome and effect unless superceded by more stringent requirements here. 119. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 120. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for residential land division per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a 2-hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix 121. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix III.B, Table A-III-B-1. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix 122. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for commemial land division per CFC Appendix Ill-A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 4000 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a 4 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix ~H-A) R:XS PkRoripaugh Ranch SP~ew\CCXResos and ord CC 1 .doc 103 123. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix Ill-B. Table A-Ill-B-1. Super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B) 124. Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul-de-sac shall be thirty-seven (37) feet for residential and forty-five (45) feet for commercial. (CFC 902.2.2.3, CFC 902.2.2.4) 125. Private entry driveways with divider medians must be a minimum of 16 feet wide on each side unless the median is held back 30 feet from face of curb of perpendicular road. 126. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) This will include all internal roads, connecting roads between phases, and construction gates. All required access must be in and available prior to and during ALL construction. Phasing is approved on a separate map, and is ultimately subject to final approval in the field. 127. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 lbs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) 128. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GWN with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. (CFC sec 902) 129. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6)inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) 130. Prior to building construction, dead end roadways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) 131. Prior to building construction, this development and any street within serving more than 35 homes or any commercial developments shall have two (2) points of access, via all- weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1) 132. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be: signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be R:XS P~Roripaugh Ranch SPXncw\CCXRcsos and ord CC I.doc 104 presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1) 133. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) 134. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) Special Conditions 135. Prior to issuance of building permits, fuel modification plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval for all open space areas adjacent to the wildland-vegetation interface. (FC Appendix II-A) 136. Prior to issuance of building permits, plans for structural protection from vegetation fires shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval. The measures shall include, but are not limited to, enclosing eaves, noncombustible barriers (cement or block walls), and fuel modification zones. (CFC Appendix II-A) 137. Prior to map recordation the applicant shall submit to the Fire Prevention Bureau a georectified (pursuant to Riverside County standards) digital version of the map including parcel and street centerline information. The electronic file will be provided in a ESRI Arclnfo/ArcView compatible format and projected in a State Plane NAD 83 (California Zone VI) coordinate system. The Bureau must accept the data as to completeness, accuracy and format prior to satisfaction of this condition. o. OTHER AGENCIES 138. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated October 21, 2002, a copy of which is attached. The fee is made payable to the Riverside County Flood Control Water District by either a cashier's check or money order, prior to the issuance of a grading permit (unless deferred to a later date by the District), based upon the prevailing area drainage plan fee. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant Signature R:\S PXRoripaugh Ranch SPXnew\CC~Resos and ord CC l.doc 105 DAVID P. ZAPPE General Manager-Chief Engineer OCT 2 4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 909.955.1200 909.788.9965 FAX 51180.1 City of Temecula Planning Department Post Office Box 9035 Temecula, California 92589-9033 Attention:'~/x.t ~C, ~AP,,~I4 Ladies and Gentlemen: The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not plan check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for sucn cases. District comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and draina.qe facilities which could be considered a logical componen[or extension of a master plan system, and District Area urainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, information of a general nature is provided. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other such issue:. This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional interest proposed. This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check inspection and administrabve fees will be requ red. This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diam.e~er, or other facil~ies that could be considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted Ivtt)¢._,~'l'~ ~' ~ Master Drainage Plan. The District would consider accepting ownership or such facilities bn written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards and District plan check and inspection will be requ red for D str ct acceptance. P an check, nspect on and adm n strat ve fees w II be required. This project is located within the limits of the District's I~u¢.¢-. ~-¢:r~/~rc.~_.z:~c,16 ~J~.u.~.~ Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted; appl~:able fees should be pal0 by cashier's check or money order only to the Flood Control District prior ~o issuance of building or gradingpermits wh chever comes first. Fees to be pa d shou d be at the rate in effect at the time of issuance of[he actual permit. GENERAL INFORMATION This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading recordation, or other final approva/should not be given until the Cty has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)mapped flood plain then the City should require the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans and other ~nformation required to meet FEMA requirements and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) pr or to grad ng, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) prior to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is impacted by this project, the City should require the applicant to obtain a Section 1601/1603 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game and a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or written correspondence from these ag. encies indicating the project is exempt from these reqmrements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certlrication may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit. Verytruly yours, ~ STUART E. MCKIBBIN Senior Civil Engineer Date: ~L.~- ~- ~O ATFACHMENT 6 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2002- APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29661 R:\S P~Rofipaugh Ranch SPXnew\CCXStaff Report 11-26-02 A.doc 16 ATFACHMENT NO. 6 CC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA01-0253 (TFM 29661), FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 158 ACRES INTO 509 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 20 OPEN SAPCE LOTS WITHIN PLANING AREAS lA, 1,B, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 5, 6, 7A, 7B, 7C, 8, and 9A OF THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN; LOCATED NEAR THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND MURRIETA HOT SPRINGS ROAD, AND FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 95~-130-001 AND 002, 957-340-001,003, 007, 008. WHEREAS, Ashby USA, LLC filed Planning Application No. 01-0253 (Level "B' Map) - Tentative Tract Map No. 29661 (the "Application") in a manner in accord with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance; WHEREAS, the Application was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at a regular meeting, considered the Application on October 16, 2002 and October 30, 2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify either in support or opposition to this matter; of the based WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearings and after due consideration testimony, the Commission recommended approval of the Application subject to and upon the findings set forth hereunder; WHEREAS, the City Council considered the Application on 2002, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Council hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Council approved of the Application, and certified the Environmental Impact Report and adopted the Mitigation Monitoring Program after finding that the project proposed in the Application conformed to the City of Temecula General Plan; WHEREAS, all legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. Findinqs. That the City Council, in approving the Application, hereby makes the following findings as required in Section 16.09.140 of the Temecula Municipal Code. R:XS PxP. ofipaugh Ranch SP~new\CCXP, esos and ord CC 1 .doc 107 A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is consistent with the Development Code, General. Plan, any applicable specific plan and the City of Temecula Municipal Code; B. The proposed subdivision map is consistent with the subject specific plan and related General Plan Amendment. C. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a Land Conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following division of the land will not be too small to sustain their agricultural use; D. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by the tentative map; E. The design of the subdivisions and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval, are not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat as no sensitive species or habitant exist within the project boundaries; F. An environmental impact report has been prepared and a finding has been made, pursuant to Public Resoumes Code Section 21081 (a) (3), finding that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report; G. The design of the subdivisions and the type of improvements.are not likely to cause serious public health problems; H. The design of the subdivisions provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible; I. The design of the subdivisions and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be provided. (Quimby). The subdivisions are consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements Section 3. Environmental Compliance. Residential projects approved under a Specific Plan are exempt from further environmental review pursuant to Section 15182 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. All environmental impacts were previously identified and in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and Mitigation Monitoring Program in order to approve the project. Section 4. Conditions. The City Council of the City of Temecula approves Planning Application No. 01-0253 (Exhibit A) - Tentative Tract Map No. 29661, for the subdivision of 158 Acres into 509 residential lots And 20 open Space Lots Within Planning Areas lA, 1 B, 2, 3, 4A, 4A, 5, 6, 7A, 7A, 7A, 8, and 9A of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, subject to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit B, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference together with any and apl other necessary conditions that may be deemed necessary, R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SPXnew\CCLResos and ord CC 1.doc 108 for the proper~y located near the future intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road, and further identified as Assessor Parcel Nos. 957-130-001 and 002, 957-340- 001,003, 007, 008. Section5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of ,2002. ATTEST: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that Resolution No. 2002- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the AYES: NOES: ABSENT: of COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: 2002, by the following vote: Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE City Clerk R:~S PXRoripaugh Ranch SP~ew\CC~Resos and ord CC l.doc 109 EXHIBIT A FOR ATTACHMENT 6 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29661 R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SPXnew\CC~Resos and ord CC l.doc 110 EXHIBIT B FOR ATTACHMENT 6 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0253 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29661 RAS P~Rofipaugh Ranch SP~new\CCXResos and ord CC 1.doc EXHIBIT B FOR ATrAHCMENT 6 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Planning Application No.: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0253- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29661, (LEVEL "B' MAP) Project Description: The subdivision of 158 Acres into 509 residential lots And 20 open Space Lots Within Planning Areas lA, lB, 2, 3, 4A, 4A, 5, 6, 7A, 7A, 7A, 8, and 9A of the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Assessor's Parcel Nos.: 957-130-001 and 002, 957-340-001,003, 007, 008 Approval Date: November 26, 2002 Expiration Date: November 26, 2004 PLANNING DIVISION General Requirements The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and to all the requirements of Temecula Subdivision Ordinance, unless modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date. The permittee/applicant shall indemnify, protect and hold harmless, the City and any agency or instrumentality thereof, and/or any of its officers, employees, and agents from any and all claims, actions, or proceedings against the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, and agents, to attack, set aside, void, annul, or seek monetary damages resulting from an approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the Planning Application which action is brought within the appropriate statute of limitations period and Public Resources Code, Division 13, Chapter 4 (Section 21000 et seq., including but not by the way of limitations Section 21152 and 21167). The City shall promptly notify the permittee/applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding brought forth within this time period. The City shall estimate the cost of the defense of the action and applicant shall deposit said amount with the City. City may require additional deposits to cover anticipated costs. City shall refund, without interest, any unused portions of the deposit once the litigation is finally concluded. Should the City fail to either promptly notify or cooperate fully, permittee/applicant shall not, thereafter be responsible to indemnify, defend, protect, or hold harmless the City, any agency or instrumentality thereof, or any of its officers, employees, or agents. Should the applicant fail to timely post the required deposit, the Director may terminate the land use approval without further notice to the applicant. R:~S PXRofipaugh Ranch SP~new\CC~esos and ord CC l.doc 112 This project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be consistent with Specific Plan No. 11, the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation measures identified within the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, and the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program thereof. The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall be subject to the Roripaugh Ranch Development Agreement (PA99-0299). Within thirty (30) days of the final approval of the project by the City Council, the tentative map shall be submitted to the Planning Department in final form for review and approval. The final form shall include all conditions of approval and all modifications made by the Planning Commission and City Council including curb separated sidewalks for all local streets. (Amended by the Planning Commission on 10-30-02) The approval granted by this Resolution shall become effective upon the Effective Date of the Development Agreement, as the term Effective Date is defined in the Development Agreement adopted concurrently with this Resolution. Enhanced landscaping shall be incorporated into the landscape plans for lot 520 in accordance with Figure 4-15 of the Specific Plan. The Nature Walk shall include enhanced landscaping adjacent to lots 103, 110, 206 through 209, 296 through 299, 313, 316, and 438 through 442 to screen the Nature Walk from the Nicolas Valley. (Amended by the Planning Commission on 10-30-02) 10. A minimum of one parking space shall be provided for the Staff gated Primary Entry. 11. AC pavement shall be provided at intersections and approaches at all existing roads. (Added by the Planning Commission on 10-30-02) Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 12. A copy of the grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Division. 13. Prior to the City approval of the grading plans or any other plans requiring MWD clearance that may impact their property and easement, the developer is responsible to provide the City with MWD's clearance for the said plans. 14. The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid. Prior to Recordation of the Final Map 15. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division: a. A copy of the Final Map. b. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes: R:XS P~Rofipaugh Ranch SPXnew~CC~Resos and ord CC l.doc 113 16. 17. 18. i. This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No. 655. ii. The Roripaugh Ranch Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for this project and is on file at the City of Temecula Community Development Department - Planning Division. iii. Lots 516 and 517 shall be designated as permanent open space. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) i. CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The CC&R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining open space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, exterior of all buildings and all landscaped and open areas including parkways. ii. No lot or dwelling unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation, association, property owner's group or similar entity has been formed with the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty to maintain, all of said mutually agreeable features of the development. Such entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services. Recorded CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the City for provisions required as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the city prior to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to the City for public purposes. iii. Every owner of a dwelling unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such dwelling unit or lot, either (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) a share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association owning the common areas and facilities. iv. The CC&Rs shall include lots 6, 9, 189, 245, 260, 362, 519, 520, 521, 522, 523, 524, 525, 526, 527, 528, 529, 530, 531, 532, 528, 531,532, 533, 534, 535, and lots as common areas to be maintained by the Homeowners Association. Prior to the recordation of the final map, the precise location of paseos shall be determined consistent with the Specific Plan requirements. Prior to the recordation of the final map, all Card Key Gated Entries shall include an approximately 10' wide landscaped planter at the intersection. Prior to the City approval of the improvement plans, the final map, or any other plans requiring MWD clearance that may impact their property and easement, the developer is responsible to provide the City with MWD's clearance for the said plans. R:~S PXRoripaugh Ranch SP~new\CC~Resos and ord CC l.doc 114 19. Prior to approval of the Final Map, the landscape plans for the parkways, medians, and slope and fuel modification areas directly adjacent to roadways shall be sumitted and approved. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits 20. The applicant shall conduct an acoustical study to ensure acceptable interior and exterior noise standards pursuant to the General Plan noise levels for residential and commercial structures. All recommend construction techniques, improvements and/or walls recommended in the acoustical report shall be incorporated into the construction of the structures and subdivision. 21. Prior to issuance of any residential building permits, the construction landscape and architectural plans for Paseos, Paseo gates Staff Gated Primary Entry, Card Key Entry, fuel modification zones, Private Recreation Facilities, and any other common area landscaping shall be submitted. The plans shall be consistent with the Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance. The cover page shall identify the total square footage of the landscaped area for the site. 22. As required, three (3) copies of construction landscape plans that include irrigation, hardscaping, the location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be submitted and be accompanied by the following items: a. Appropriate filing fee (per the City of Temecula Fee Schedule at time of submittal). b. One (1) copy of the approved grading plan. c. Water usage calculations per Chapter 17.32 of the Development Code (Water Efficient Ordinance). d. Complete screening of all ground-mounted equipment from the view of the public from streets and adjacent property. 23. Prior to issuance of any residential building permits all walls and fence plans other than the privacy fences for individual residential lots shall be submitted and approved. 24. Prior to issuance of any residential building permits typical front yard landscaping and construction landscape plans for Model Home Complexes for each phase of development shall be submitted and approved. 25. The applicant shall file and receive approval of a Development Plan for all the residential products. 26. All components of the project shall be completed as identified in the Specific Plan or the Conditions of Approval. 27. Performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Planning, to guarantee the maintenance of the plantings within private common areas for a period of one year, in accordance with the approved construction landscape and irrigation plan, shall be filed with the Community Development Department - Planning Division for one year from the completion of the landscaping. After that year, if the landscaping and irrigation system have been maintained in a condition satisfactory to the Director of Planning, the bond shall be released. RAS PXRofipaugh Ranch Sl~newXCCW. esos and ord CC 1.doc 115 28. Prior to the issuance of the building permit for the private recreational center (PA 5), the applicant shall file and receive approval of a Development Plan for the private recreational center. 29. Privacy Wall and Fence Plans for individual lots in each phase of development consistent with the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. 30. Precise Grading Plans consistent with the approved rough grading plans including all structural setback measurements shall be submitted and approved. 31. Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning Director approval. 32. Lots 89 through 115, 201 through 211,295 through 316, and 435 through 453 shall have a minimum rear yard setback of 25'. Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits 33. If deemed necessary by the Director of Planning, the applicant shall provide additional landscaping to effectively screen various components of the project. 34. All required landscape planting and irrigation shall be installed consistent with the approved construction plans and shall be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Planning. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 35. Front yard and slope landscaping within individual lots shall be completed for inspection prior to issuance of each occupancy permit (excluding model home complex structures). 36. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this project. Unless stated otherwise, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no cost to any Government Agency. General Requirements 37. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and proposed easements, traveled ways, paseos, pedestrian trails, improvement constraints, detention basins and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision. 38. A Grading Permit for mass, rough, and/or precise grading shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained road right-of-way. R:\S PXRoripaugh Ranch SPXnew\CCXResos and ord CC l.doc 116 39. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way. An Encroachment Permit may be issued for all roads designated as private streets. 40. The Developer shall participate in a Cooperative Agreement with the County allowing the City to act on their behalf, if at the time prior to issuance of a grading permit in the County area the annexation process has not been completed. 41. The Developer shall submit a Maintenance Agreement to maintain flood control facilities for Santa Gertrudis Creek, Long Valley Wash, detention basins, and flowby basins located within the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. It must be mutually agreeable to the City Director of Public Works, Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD), and the Home Owners Association (HOA). The Maintenance Agreement shall contain a funding mechanism whereby all residential dwelling units in the proposed project will be equally assessed for the Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash maintenance. The Maintenance Agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of the first building permit. 42. The Developer shall agree to the formation of a Community Facilities District for the construction of, but not limited to, road, bridge, drainage, traffic signal, intersection, landscape, and fire station improvements in accordance with the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. The form of the Agreement shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney and shall be executed prior to final map recordation. 43. Adequate primary and secondary access shall be provided for each phase of development as approved by the Department of Public Works. Vehicular access easements shall be secured across undeveloped areas to provide secondary access. 44. Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Murrieta Hot Springs Road on the final map with the exception of three openings at Street "A", Street "N", Street "R", and Metropolitan Water District (MWD) proposed driveways. Driveway access shall be provided to MWD fee property and easement on both the north and south sides of the street. 45. The Developer shall, as required by the City and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD), protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns including concentration or diversion of flow and increases in flow and/or velocity. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate channel improvements, drainage facilities, and by securing drainage easements as necessary. 46. All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Works. 47. The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of the Final Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to R:\S PXRodpaugh Ranch Sl~ncw\CC~Rcsos and ord CC I.doc 117 acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. 48. All utility systems such as electric, including those which provide direct service to the project site and/or currently exist along public rights-of-ways adjacent to the site (except electrical lines rated 33 kv or greater), gas, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be placed underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. 49. All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars. Prior to Approval of the Final Map, unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shall complete the following or have plans submitted and approved, subdivision improvement agreements executed and securities posted: 50. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid. 51. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: f. g. h. i. j. k. I. m, n, o. p. q. City of Temecula Department of Public Works City of Temecula Planning Department City of Temecula Building & Safety Department Temecula Community Services District City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau Eastern Municipal Water District Metropolitan Water District Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District Riverside County Health Department Cable TV Franchise Verizon Southern California Edison Company Southern California Gas Company San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board U.S. Fish & Wildlife Department of Fish & Game Army Corps of Engineers R:~S PXRoripaugh Ranch SP~new\CC~Resos and ord CC l.doc 118 52. An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Final Map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with the map. A copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The following information shall be on the ECS: The delineation of the area within the 100-year floodplain. Special Study Zones. Geotechnical hazards identified in the project's geotechnical report. Archeological resources found on the site. 53. The Developer shall demonstrate that water in adequate volume and of adequate quality is available to serve project start-up through completion and full occupancy in accordance with Senate Bills 221 and 610. 54. All public road right-of-way shall be offered for dedication to the public or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of Public Works. Private streets ~hall be retained by the Home Owners Association for maintenance. 55. All private streets, driveways, paseos, and drainage easements shall be retained and maintained by a Master Homeowners Association. 56. The Developer shall obtain road access easements for the extensions of Street "A" and Street "N", from the northern project boundary to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. 57. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated and noted on the final map. 58. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the final map if they are located within the land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions." 59. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to comply with Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan street cross sections, City of Temecula General Plan and City ordinances and standards, unless otherwise noted. Street Improvement, Storm Drain, Signing and Striping, Traffic Signal, and Traffic Control Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works. r. The public and private improvements required for each final map from the following list, shall be guaranteed with each final map: s. Onsite Private Streets Provide secondary access from Street "A", Street "N", or Street "R" to Murrieta Hot Springs Road prior to issuance of the 34th building permit. R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SPXnew\CC~Resos and ord CC 1.doc 119 Improve Private Street "N" (Specific Plan Private Street Standards - 60' R/E to 104.5' R/E) to include dedication of a public utility easement on one side of the street, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Street "N" shall include a Staffed Gated Primary Entry as shown in Figure 4-19 in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and by reference made a part hereof. The Staffed Gated Primary Entry shall be constructed by the 250th building permit. Improve Private Street "A" (Specific Plan Private Street Standards - 47' R/E to 60' R/E) to include dedication of a public utility easement on one side of the street, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Street "A" shall include a Card Key Gated Secondary Entry as shown in Figure 4-21 in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and by reference made a part hereof. The Card Key Gated Secondary Entry shall be constructed when 30 pement of building permits have been issued in TTM 29661-1 and/or TTM 29661-2. Improve Private Street "R" (Specific Plan Private Street Standards - 47' R/E to 60' R/E) to include dedication of a public utility easement on one side of the street, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Street "R" shall include a Card Key Gated Secondary Entry as shown in Figure 4-22A in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and by reference made a part hereof. The Card Key Gated Secondary Entry shall be constructed when 30 percent of building permits have been issued in ']-rM 29661-4 and/or TTM 29661. Improve Private Streets "A", "B", "C", "D", "E", "F", "G", "H", 'T', "J", "L", "O", "P", "Q", "R", "S", 'q~', "U", '¥', '~/V", "X", "DD", "HH" (Specific Plan Private Street Standards - 47' R/E with 4.5-foot wide public utility easements on both sides of street beyond road easement or as approved by the Director of Public Works) to include installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). "A" Street and "R" Street shall include a Card Key Gated Secondary Entry as shown in Figure 4-21 and Figure 4-22A, respectively, in the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and by reference made a part hereof. Improve Private Streets "K", "M" (Specific Plan Private Street Standards - 56' R/E with 4.5-foot wide public utility easements on both sides of street or as approved by the Director of Public Works beyond road easement) to include installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Private Driveways shall be constructed at a minimum width of 20 feet with no parking allowed to allow for fire service access. Private Driveways shall be allowed only at street knuckle locations or as approved by the Director of Public Works. RAS PSRoripaugh Ranch SPXnew\CCkResos and ord CC 1.doc 120 u. Prior to issuance of the 108th buildin.q permit, the followinq improvements shall be completed except "Y" Street and North Loop Road which shall be completed prior to issuance of the 400th buildin.q permit: v. Onsite Public Streets a. Improve Murrieta Hot Springs Road (Specific Plan Arterial Highway - 110' R/W) from existing improvements east of Pourroy Road to the Metropolitan Water District (MWD) fee right-of-way and easement to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer), and a 14-foot wide raised landscaped median. The raised landscaped median and lane widths shall be transitioned, as necessary and as approved by the City Traffic Engineer, to coordinate existing County improvements and proposed City improvements. b. Improve Murrieta Hot Springs Road (Specific Plan Modified Arterial Highway - 110' R/W) from the MWD fee right-of-way and easement to the eastern tract boundary to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of half- width street improvements including a 14-foot wide raised landscaped median and a 14-foot wide travel lane adjacent to the median on the unimproved half, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Driveway access shall be provided to Metropolitan Water District (MWD) fee property and easement. These MWD access driveways shall be constructed on both the north and south side of the street. c. Improve "Y" Street (Specific Plan Modified Collector Road - 66' R/W) along Lot 518 frontage to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). w. Offsite Public Streets Improve Murrieta Hot Springs Road (Specific Plan Modified Arterial Highway - 110' R/W) from the eastern tract boundary to Butterfield Stage Road to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements including a 14-foot wide raised landscaped median and a 14-foot wide travel lane adjacent to the median on the unimproved half, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Improve Butterfield Stage Road (Specific Plan Augmented Arterial Highway - 122' R/VV) from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Nicolas Road to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements including a 14-foot wide raised landscaped median and a 12-foot wide travel lane adjacent to the median on the unimproved half, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). Dedicate full-width right-of-way and bond for the grading and street improvements for Butterfield Stage Road (Specific Plan Arterial Highway - 110' R/W) from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to the northern project boundary. R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~ew\CCXResos and ord CC l.doc 121 d. Improve Butterfield Stage Road (Specific Plan Arterial Highway - 110' R/W) from Nicolas Road to the southern project boundary to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements including a 14- foot wide raised landscaped median and a 14-foot wide travel lane adjacent to the median on the unimproved half, full-width bridge improvements over Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). e. Improve Nicolas Road (Specific Plan Modified Secondary Highway - 110' R/W) from Butterfield Stage Road to the western project boundary to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of the northerly half-width plus 10 feet street improvements including paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, soft surface path, split rail fence, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). f. Improve Nicolas Road (Specific Plan Modified Secondary Road Standards - 110' RNV, Section K) from the western project boundary to 450 feet east of the existing Nicolas Road and Calle Girasol intersection to include installation of 40- foot width on center street improvements including, paving, asphalt concrete berm, a curb separated 6-foot wide asphalt concrete path placed 6 feet from asphalt concrete berm, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). g. Improve South Loop Road (Specific Plan Modified Principal Collector Road - 76' RNV) from Butter[ield Stage Road to the end of the fire station site frontage to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of the southerly half-width plus 6 feet street improvements including paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). h. Improve North Loop Road from Butterfield Stage Road to the east side of Santa Gertrudis Creek (Modified Principal Collector Road - 76' RNV) to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of full-width street improvements including a full-width bridge over Santa Gertrudis Creek, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). x. Secondary Access Alternatives y. The following street improvements from one of the three alternatives listed below shall be constructed to provide secondary access. a. Nicolas Road Alternative z. Improve Nicolas Road (Specific Plan Modified Secondary Road - 110' R/W, Section K) from the western project boundary to Leifer Road to include installation of 40-foot width on center street improvements including, paving, asphalt concrete berm, a curb separated 6-foot wide asphalt concrete path placed 6 feet from asphalt concrete berm on the north side, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). aa. In addition, these improvements shall include full-width bridge improvements over Santa Gertrudis Creek at the Nicolas Road and Calle Girasol intersection and the realignment of Calle Girasol to its ultimate RSS PXRoripaugh Ranch Sl~new\CCXRcsos and ord CC I.doc 122 dd. intersection with Nicolas Road including right-of-way acquisition. In addition, the Developer shall provide adequate bank protection, as approved by the City Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, to allow a bridge crossing at Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol along Santa Gertrudis Creek. b. Calle Chapos/Calle Girasol Alternative bb. Improve Calle Chapos (Specific Plan Modified Collector Road - 66' Fi/W, Section L) from Butterfield Stage Road to Calle Girasol to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way to accommodate horizontal curve realignments as approved by the Department of Public Works and the Fire Department, installation of 38-foot on-center street improvements including, paving, asphalt concrete berm, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer). c. Butterfield Stage Road Alternative cc. Improve Butterfield Stage Road (Specific Plan Arterial Highway Standards - 110' R/W) from the southern project boundary to Chemin Clinet to include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of half- width street improvements including a 14-foot wide raised landscaped median and a 14-foot travel lane adjacent to the median on the unimproved half, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer}. Bridges a. Bridges shall be designed and constructed full-width on Buttedield Stage Road and North Loop Road over Santa Gertrudis Creek including channel improvements in the vicinity of the bridge structure prior to issuance of the 108th building permit. Bonds shall be posted to secure bridge improvements prior to recordation of final maps. b. Bridge shall be designed and constructed full-width on Butterfield Stage Road over Long Valley Wash including channel improvements in the vicinity of the bridge structure prior to issuance of the 108th building permit. Bonds shall be posted to secure bridge improvements prior to recordation of final maps. c. Bridge structure type shall be approved by the City Public Works Department and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Proposed bridges shall provide acceptable crossing over waterways to accommodate all necessary vehicular, pedestrian, equestrian, dry and wet utilities, future utilities including but not limited to conduit for fiber optic cable or traffic signal interconnect if not placed within street pavement. The bridge design shall include, but not be limited to the following studies: foundation analysis, scour analysis, and protection measures. ee. Traffic Siqnals The developer must make a fair share contribution towards the improvement of the following intersections identified below. The improvements listed below are in addition to the existing improvements and lane configurations and shall supplement but not replace existing turning movements. Additional or supplemental traffic studies shall be conducted prior to approval of future tentative tract maps. If these studies confirm that these intersections are operating below LOS D or otherwise pose an unsafe condition, RAS P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new\CC~Resos and ord CC l.doc 123 then the developer shall be responsible for mitigating these conditions, in addition to the mitigation measures already identified in the EIR. a. 1-15 Freeway (Southbound Ramps) at Rancho California Road: southbound left- turn lane, southbound free right-turn lane, westbound free right-turn lane, and eastbound free right-turn lane. b. 1-215 Freeway (Southbound Ramps) at Murrieta Hot Springs Road: southbound left-turn lane, southbound right-turn lane, eastbound through lane, eastbound right-turn lane, westbound through lane, and westbound free right-turn lane. c. Ynez Road at Winchester Road: southbound right-turn overlap. d. Ynez Road at Rancho California Road: eastbound through lane. e. North General Kearney Road at Nicolas Road: traffic signal. f. Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road: traffic signal. g. Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Alta Murrieta: lane improvements as yet undetermined. The developer shall provide the City of Temecula with a letter from the City of Murrieta stating that a fair share contribution to identified improvements at this intersection has been made. h. Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Pourroy Road: construct traffic signal and related intersection improvements as warranted. Water Improvements (Prior to issuance of the 1st building permit) a. The Developers for the Rancho Bella Vista Specific Plan along with the Developer for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan shall install a water line from an existing reservoir located in the Rancho Bella Vista Specific Plan area, approximately 3,000 feet west of the future Butterfield Stage Road and 3,400 north of Murrieta Hot Springs Road. b. Install water mains per Eastern Municipal Water District requirements. c. The Developer shall install reclaimed water lines if throughout the course of development and until such time the project road infrastructure is complete by phase, reclaimed water lines become available within 300 feet of any project boundary. Sewer Improvements (Prior to issuance of the 1st building permit) a. Install sewer main in Murrieta Hot Springs Road west of Pourroy Road. (Prior to issuance of the 108th building permit) b. Install sewer main in Nicolas Road per Eastern Municipal Water District requirements. Drainaqe Improvements (Prior to issuance of the 1st production building permit, excluding model homes) Construct detention basin in TTM 29661-1 along the west project boundary and detention basin in TTM 29661-3 along the southern project boundary. RAS PXRoripaugh Raach SPXnew\CC~Resos and ord CC l.doc 124 b. Construct storm drains and related outlet facilities as requires by the hydrology/ hydraulics studies. (Prior to issuance of the 108th building permit) c. Install full width box culverts or equivalent drainage facilities where Santa Gertrudis Creek crosses North Loop Road and Butterfield Stage Road. The drainage facilities shall be designed to convey the tributary 100-year storm flows. d. Install full width box culverts or equivalent drainage facilities where Long Valley Wash crosses South Loop Road and Butter~ield Stage Road. The drainage facilities shall be designed to convey the tributary 100-year storm flows. e. If Nicolas Road is selected to provide secondary access, construct Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel from the box culvert or equivalent drainage facility crossing Butterfield Stage Road westerly to the confluence with the existing Santa Gertrudis Creek. The channel shall be designed to convey the tributary 100-year storm flow, have adequate bank hardening and/or other treatment to protect the adjacent properties from flooding. The channel shall be extended a sufficient distance and designed in a manner that flows will return to the existing conditions at the outlet point. Access roads shall be constructed as necessary to provide adequate channel maintenance. The channel, access roads and confluence structures shall be contained within drainage easements obtained by the developer. 60. All street sections shall correspond with the requirements of the Circulation Element of the City's General Plan, City Ordinances and Standards, or as approved with the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan. Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design of the street improvement plans: a. Street centerline grades shall be 0.5% minimum if concrete curb and gutters are provided. b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard Nos. 207, 207A and/or 208 except maximum residential driveway widths shall be 24 feet. a. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in accordance with City Standard No. 800, 801,802 and 803. d. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and 401. e. Design of street improvements shall extend a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project boundaries to ensure adequate continuity of design with adjoining properties. Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City Standard No. 113 or as approved by the Director of Public Works. All reverse curves shall include a 100-foot minimum tangent section. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees. All units shall be provided with zero clearance garage doors and garage door openers if the driveway is less than 18 feet in depth from back of sidewalk. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility. R:~S PXRoripaugh Ranch SP~ew\CC~Resos and ord CC 1.doc 125 There shall be adequate sight distance at each of the project entrances that meet City and Caltrans standards as approved by the City Engineer. If concentrated drainage directed towards the public/private street is conveyed through curb outlets, curb outlets shall be constructed per City Standard No. 301. Corner property line cut off for vehicular sight distance and installation of pedestrian facilities shall be provided at all street intersections in accordance with Riverside County Standard No. 805. Minimum flow line grade from high point at end of cul de sacs and within the beginning and end of curve shall be one pement. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where adequate right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. Ail utilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33ky or greater, shall be installed underground. All monuments shall be set as specified on the final map and in accordance with City Standard Nos. 700A and 701 with bonds posted prior to recordation of the final map to secure monumentation. 61. Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision, which is part of an existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section. Prior to City Council approval of the Final Map, the Developer shall make an application for reapportionment of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency. 62. The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of the Final Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal. 63. The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements. ff. Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits 64. As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: gg. a. hh. b. ii. c. jj. d. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Planning Department Department of Public Works R:~S PXRoripaugh Ranch SP~ew\CC~Resos and ord CC 1 .doc 126 kk. e. II. f. mm. g. nn. h. oo. i. Riverside County Health Department Community Services District Verizon Southern California Edison Company Southern California Gas Company 65. The developer shall ensure that a Cooperative Agreement between the City and County be executed authorizing the City to act on the County's behalf, for any improvements required in the County necessary to complete the grading of this tentative tract map in the event that the County area has not been annexed. Grading of roads in the County area is necessary prior to issuance of the 108th building permit in order to provide for secondary access. 66. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guarantee!ng the grading and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department of Public Works. 67. The Developer shall obtain letters giving permission to grade or easements for any off- site work performed on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the Department of Public Works. 68. The Developer shall obtain permission from adjacent affected property owners along Nicolas Road and Butterfleld Stage Road to allow for grading and any related driveway improvements necessary to continue to allow legal vehicular access through the use of some mechanism approved by the City's Public Works Department including but not limited to: permission to grade offsite letters, blanket or specific right of entry letters, and temporary construction easements. 69. A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works for all grading involving interim channel improvements, detention basins, road improvements, and as otherwise necessary to balance earthwork volumes. The grading shall conform to the elevations shown on the approved Master Tentative Tract Map. 70. An import/export route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of any grading permit. The plan shall include limitation to the duration of the grading operation and construction activities, a Traffic Control Plan, and a daily time schedule of operations. 71. All public streets shall be maintained and cleaned if necessary on a daily basis during grading operation and construction activities. Cash deposit, letter of credit or posting of bond to guarantee maintenance of all public rights-of-way affected by the grading operations and construction activities, shall be posted prior to issuance of grading permits. 72. A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections. R:~S PXRoripaugh Ranch SPMew\CC~Resos and ord CC I.doc 127 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering geologist and submitted to the Department of public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address special study zones and identify any geotechnical hazards for the site including location of faults and potential for liquefaction. The report shall include recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and liquefaction. If subsequent Geotechnical and Soils Reports determine that dewatering of the site is necessary during construction, necessary permits in compliance with the NPDES permit, shall be obtained from the appropriate agencies prior to approval of the grading plans. A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The study shall identify storm water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream of the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public or private, drainage facilities including detention basins intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property. The study shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of development of this project. The basis for analysis and design shall be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years. The Developer shall, as required by the City and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns including concentration or diversion of flow and increases in flow and/or velocity, Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate channel improvements, drainage facilities, and by securing drainage easements, as necessary. Drainage and flood control facilities shall be provided in accordance with the requirements of the City and/or Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD). All drainage facilities shall be designed to convey 100-year storm flows, subject to the approval of the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable. Drainage facilities within each phase shall be constructed immediately after the completion of the site grading and prior to or concurrently with the initial site development within that phase. The Developer shall provide adequate bank protection, as approved by the City Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, to allow a bridge crossing at Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol along Santa Gertrudis Creek. Nicolas Road will not be accepted into the City's maintained street system until all offsite channel improvements are complete and accepted by the City and RCFC&WCD. The Developer shall provide maintenance roads to all proposed detention basins to provide access for maintenance. Road specifications such as width and type shall be per Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District requirements or as approved by the Director of Public Works. R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new\CC~Resos and ord CC l.doc 128 81. Temporary drainage and sediment control devices shall be installed as directed by the Department of Public Works. 82. All lot drainage shall be directed to the driveway by side yard drainage swales independent of any other lot. 83. A Flood Plain Development Permit and Flood Study shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The flood study shall be in a format acceptable to the Department and include, but not be limited to, the following criteria: a. Drainage and flood protection facilities which will protect all structures by diverting site runoff to streets or approved storm drain facilities. b. Adequate provision shall be made for the acceptance and disposal of surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas. c. The impact to the site from any flood zone as shown on the FEMA flood hazard map and any necessary mitigation to protect the site. d. Identify and mitigate impacts of grading to any adjacent floodway or floodplain. e. The location of existing and post development 100-year floodplain and floodway. 84. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. 85. The Developer shall coordinate any construction that could impact Metropolitan Water District (MWD) facilities to assure that their facilities are not damaged by project construction, either onsite or offsite. 86. The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. 87. The Developer shall submit a Dust Control Plan (DCP) to SCAQMD that is consistent with Rule 403 guidelines for approval. The Developer shall submit written proof to the City that SCAQMD has reviewed and approved the DCP. The DCP shall be applicable for all onsite as well as offsite work and includes but is not limited to the following activities: twice daily soil watering, street sweeping, covering of trucks hauling soil away, chip sealing access roads, hydroseeding exposed soil surfaces, and adding chemical binders or surfactants to water used for watering. Also, the Developer shall provide the City with documentation that appropriate construction equipment that is anticipated to be used for more than 30 days has had tune-ups or equivalent work to assure Iow NOX emissions. In addition, all diesel equipment and vehicles must be equipped with particulate filters and use only Iow sulfur fuels. 88. The Individual Contractors shall submit a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) to the Public Works Department that includes but is not limited to: scheduling receipt of construction materials to off-peak travel periods, routing construction traffic through areas of least R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new\CC~Resos and ord CC l.doc 129 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. impact sensitivity, limiting lane closures and detours to off-peak travel periods, and staging areas away from existing residential uses. The Developer shall prepare and file a Noise Control Plan (NCP) with the Public Works Department. The NCP will be generally consistent with the mitigation monitoring program and the City's construction noise ordinance. Graded but undeveloped land shall be maintained weed-free and planted with interim landscaping, such as hydroseed, and temporary irrigation within ninety days of completion of grading, unless building permits are obtained. Paleontologists and Archeologists shall be present during grading, including excavated soil stockpiles, in accordance with the Environmental Impact Report mitigation measure. pp. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Final Map shall be approved and recorded. A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. In the event that the City is unable to construct the street and slopes, acquire the additional right of way and complete any related proceedings associated with that process, for the segment on Buttedield Stage Road from Chemin Clinet to Ranch California Road, by the 510th building permit, the Developer shall be responsible for completing this work by the 510th building permit. Prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase, the developer or the CFD must construct the improvements identified in the prior to recordation of final map section. The developer and/or CFD will be responsible for acquiring right-of-way where necessary for any required onsite and offsite improvements. The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06. qq. Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: rr. a. Eastern Municipal Water District ss. b. Department of Public Works All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works. All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~ncw\CC~Resos and ord CC 1.doc 130 100. The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works, COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT General Requirements: 101. All perimeter slope/landscape areas designated as Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) maintenance areas shall be identified and offered for dedication to the TCSD as a maintenance easement on the final map. Underlying ownership of the respective areas shall remain with the individual property owner or the Homeowner's Association. All other landscape areas, open space, trails, entry monumentation, signage, pedestrian portals, bus shelters, fences, walls and private gated areas shall be maintained by the Homeowner's Association (HCA), private maintenance association or property owner. 102. The design of the 5,1-acre neighborhood park (Lot 518) shall be in substantial conformance with the conceptual designs and guidelines identified within the Specific Plan. Prior to submittal of construction plans, the developer shall meet with the Director of Community Services to determine the location and specifications of the park amenities to be provided on site. Construction plans and specifications must be approved by the Director of Community Services. 103. The park and slope/landscape plans submitted for consideration for TCSD maintenance shall be in conformance with the City of Temecula Landscape and Irrigation Specifications and Installation Details and the Park Land and Landscape Dedication Process. 104. The design of the 5.1 acre neighborhood park (Lot 518) shall provide for pedestrian circulation and shall be in compliance with American with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. 105. The developer is entitled to receive a credit against the park and recreation component of the City's Development Impact Fee (DIF) pursuant to a Development Agreement or a DIF Credit Agreement between the applicant and the City prior to approval of the final map. 106. Construction of the 5.1 acre neighborhood park (Lot 518), landscaped medians and proposed TCSD slope/landscape maintenance areas shall commence pursuant to a pre- construction meeting with the developer and TCSD Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD review and inspection process may preclude acceptance of these areas into the TCSD maintenance programs. 107. The HCA slope area (Lot 532) shall be developed concurrently with the public park (Lot 518). The City will not accept the conveyance of the public park until all improvements have been completed within Lots 518 and 532 to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director. R:~ P~Rofipaugh Ranch SP~new\CCxResos and ord CC l.dec 131 108. The developer, the developer's successor or assignee, shall be responsible for all maintenance of the park site, slopes/landscape areas and landscaped medians until such time as those responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD or other responsible party. 109. The public park shall be improved and conveyed to the City free and clear of any liens, assessment fees, or easements that would preclude the City from utilizing the property for public purposes. A policy of title insurance for the value of the land and the cost of the improvements and a soils assessment report shall also be provided with the conveyance of the property. 110. The design of the private mini-park (Lot 6) and the private recreation center (Lot 523) shall be consistent with the conceptual designs and guidelines identified in the Roripaugh Specific Plan. 111. Class II bicycle lanes, as specified in the Roripaugh Specific Plan, shall be identified on the street improvements plans and constructed in concurrence with the completion of said street improvements. 112. All residential street lighting will be maintained by the Home Owner's Association (HOA). 113. The developer shall contact the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of the construction debris. Only the City's franchisee may haul construction debris. Prior to Approval of the Final Map: 114. All slope/landscape areas intended for dedication to the TCSD for maintenance shall be identified on each final map by numbered lots with the square footage of said lot numbers indexed as proposed TCSD maintenance areas. 115. Construction drawings for the public park, landscaped medians and proposed TCSD slope/landscape maintenance areas shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services. 116. The developer shall post security and enter into an agreement to improve the public park, landscaped medians and proposed TCSD slope/landscape maintenance areas. 117. The developer shall file a notice of intention with the Temecula Community Services District to initiate election proceedings for acceptance perimeter slope/landscape into the TCSD maintenance program. All costs associated with this process shall be borne by the developer. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits: 118. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall provide TCSD verification of arrangements made with the City's franchise solid waste hauler for disposal of construction debris. 119. The private mini-park (Lot 6) shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director prior to the issuance of the 100th residential building permit. R:~S PXRoripaugh Ranch SP~new\CC~Resos and ord CC 1.doc 132 120. The park portion of the private recreation center (Lot 523) shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director prior to the issuance of the 250th residential building permit. 121. The building and the pool portion of the private recreation center (Lot 523) shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director prior to the issuance of the 350th residential building permit. 122. The 5.1 acre neighborhood park (Lot 518) shall be improved, including the completion of the 90-day maintenance period, and the conveyance accepted by the City Council prior to the issuance of the 400th residential building permit for the overall Roripaugh Development. 123. The paseo (Lot 519) and the trail connecting Lot 519 and Lot 518 (Neighborhood Park) shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director prior to the issuance of the 400th residential building permit. 124. The "Nature Walk" and adjacent landscape areas (Lot 520) shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Services Director prior to the issuance of the 400th residential building permit. 125. Prior to the installation of arterial street lights or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, the developer shall file an application, submit approved Southern California Edison street light plans and pay the appropriate fees to the TCSD for the dedication of arterial street lights into the appropriate TCSD maintenance program. Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy: 126. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within each phase map, the developer shall submit the most current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to the final project. 127. It shall be the developer's responsibility to provide written disclosure of the existence of TCSD and its service level rates and charges to all prospective purchasers. FIRE DEPARTMENT 128. Any previous existing conditions for this project will remain in full force and effect unless superceded by more stringent requirements here. 129. Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are in force at the time of building plan submittal. 130. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for residential land division per CFC Appendix III.A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a 2-hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as RAS P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~CCXResos and ord CC l.doc 133 given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix 131. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix iii.B, Table A-III-B-1. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 500 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix 132. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for commercial land division per CFC Appendix Ill-A, Table A-III-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 4000 GPM at 20-PSI residual operating pressure with a 4 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix 133. The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix Ill-B, Table A-III-B-1. Super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart, at each intersection and shall be located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix 134, Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul-de-sac shall be thirty-seven (37) feet for residential and forty-five (45) feet for commercial. (CFC 902.2.2.3, CFC 902.2.2.4) 135. All traffic-calming devices that could impede or slow emergency vehicle access are prohibited, except those expressly approved by the fire prevention bureau individually on a case-by-case basis when they maintain the required travel widths and radii. 136. Cul-de-sacs and/or intersections with planters must maintain 24-foot clear unobstructed travel width around the planters, not including parking. Hardscape areas are permissible provided that they meet the 80,000 lb. load requirements and are at road level. 137. Private entry driveways with divider medians must be a minimum of 16 feet wide on each side unless the median is held back 30 feet from face of curb of perpendicular road. 138. If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2) This will include all internal roads, connecting roads between phases, and construction gates. All required access must be in and available prior to and during ALL construction. Phasing is approved on a separate map, and is ultimately subject to final approval in the field. R:~S P~Roiipaugh Ranch SPmew~CCSResos and ord CC 1.doc 134 139. Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for 80,000 lbs. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2) 140. Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 lbs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. (CFC sec 902) 141. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty (20) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1) 142. Prior to building construction, dead end roadways and streets in excess of one hundred and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902.2.2.4) 143. Prior to building construction, this development and any street within serving more than 35 homes or any commercial developments shall have two (2) points of access, via all- weather surface roads, as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. (CFC 902.2.1) 144. Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be: signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards. After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2 and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1) 145. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3) 146. All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (CFC 902.4) Special Conditions 147. Prior to issuance of building permits, fuel modification plans shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval for all open space areas adjacent to the wildland-vegetation interface. (FC Appendix II-A) 148. Prior to issuance of building permits, plans for structural protection from vegetation fires shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval. The measures shall include, but are not limited to, enclosing eaves, noncombustible barriers (cement or block walls), and fuel modification zones. (CFC Appendix II-A) RAS P~Rofipaugh Ranch SP~new\CCXResos and ord CC 1.doc 135 149. Prior to map recordation the applicant shall submit to the Fire Prevention Bureau a georectified (pursuant to Riverside County standards) digital version of the map including parcel and street centerline information. The electronic file will be provided in a ESRI Arclnfo/ArcView compatible format and projected in a State Plane NAD 83 (California Zone VI) coordinate system. The Bureau must accept the data as to completeness, accuracy and format prior to satisfaction of this condition. tt. OTHER AGENCIES 150. Flood protection shall be provided in accordance with the Riverside County Flood Control District's transmittal dated October 21,2002, a copy of which is attached. The fee is made payable to the Riverside County Flood Control Water District by either a cashier's check or money order, prior to the issuance of a grading permit (unless deferred to a later date by the District), based upon the prevailing area drainage plan fee. By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval. Applicant Signature R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~ew\CC~Resos and ord CC l.doc 136 DAVID P. ZAPPE General Manager-Chief Engineer OCT ~ RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT 1995 MARKET STREET RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 909.955.1200 909.788.9965 FAX · 51180.1 .;3,City of Temecula l:~-Pl~/nning Department- -I Post Office Box 9033 Temecula, California 92589-9033 Attention: ~/M~_..~ ~,[ 0, ~ Ladies and Gentlemen: Re: The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated cities. The District also does not plan check city land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters or other flood hazard reports for such cases. Distnct comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items of specific ~nterest to the District including District Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional flood control and drainage facilities which could be considered a logical componen[or extension of a master plan system and Dstrct Area ura nage Pan fees (deve opment mtgaton fees), n addton, nformat on of a general nature s provided. The District has not reviewed the proposed project in detail and the following checked comments do not in any way constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other such issue: This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of regional interest proposed· This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will accept ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check inspection and administrative fees will be requ red. ,/ This project proposes channels, storm drains 36 inches or larger in diameter, or other facilities that could be considered regional in nature and/or a logical extension of the adopted ~"~.O~.P~t'"'/~. Master Drainage Plan. The District would consider accepting ownership of such facilities on written request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to District standards, and District plan check and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and administrative fees will be required. ,¢'"' This project is located within the limits of the District's ~J~¢¢.~-.c_.ra~. ~.rr~"'~r~:r~.u~>~, V~ Area Drainage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted; applicab~ fees should be paid by cashier's check or money order only to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of building or grading permits whichever comes first. Fees to be paid should be at the rate n effect at the time of issuance of the actual permit. GENERAL INFORMATION This project may require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. Clearance for grading, recordation, or other final approva/should not be given until the City has determined that the project has been granted a permit or is shown to be exempt. If this project involves a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) mapped flood plain, then the City should require the applicant to provide all studies, calculations, plans and other ~nformation required to meet FEMA requirements and should further require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision (CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation or other find approva of the pro ect, and a Letter of Map Rev s on (LOMR) pr or to occupancy. If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is impacted by this project, the City should require the ap.p. licant to obtain a Section 1601/1603 Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game and a Clean water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, or written correspondence from these agencies indicating the project is exempt from these requirements. A Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certmcation may be required from the local California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance of the Corps 404 permit. STUART E. MCKIBBIN Senior Civil Engineer Date: ATTACHMENT 7 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATED OCTOBER 16, 2002 R:\S PXRoripaugh Ranch SP~new\CC~Staff Report 11-264)2 A.doc 17 STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION ORIGINAL October 16, 2002 Planning Application No. - 94-0073 - Annexation Planning Application No. 99-0298 - General Plan Amendment Planning Application No. 94-0075 - Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Planning Application No. - 94-0075 - Change of Zone Planning Application No. 94-0076 - Environmental Impact Report Planning Application No. -0t-0253 - Tentative Tract Map No. 29661 Planning Application No. 01-0230 - Tentative Tract Map No. 29353 Planning Application No. 99-0299 - Development Agreement Prepared By: Saied Naaseh, Project Planner RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 2002 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND RELATED ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED NEAR THE EVENTUAL INTERSECTION OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD, (PLANNING APPLICATION 94-0076) R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 1 2. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE FOLLOWING: 1) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99- 0298); 2) THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0075); 3) ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING STANDARDS (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0075); 4) ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A CHANGE OF ZONE TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY (PLANNING APPLICATION 94-0075); AND 5) ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE RORIPAUGH RANCH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-0299); ON PARCELS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 804.7 ACRES, LOCATED NEAR THE EVENTUAL INTERSECTION OF Bu3'rERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD AND FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 957-130-001 and 002, 957-340- 001,003, 007, 008, AND 958-260-001 AND 002. ADOPT a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0230 - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29353 (LEVEL "A"), PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01-0253 (LEVEL "B' MAPS) - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29661, FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF PHASE I OF THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED NEAR THE EVENTUAL INTERSECTION OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 957-130-001 and 002, 957-340-001,003, 007, 008, AND 958-260-001 and 002 R:\S P~o~ipaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 2 APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: Richard Ashby, Ashby USA, LLC REPRESENTATIVES: Kevin Everett, Pacific International Development Frank Coyle, The Keith Companies Kent Norton, The Keith Companies Patrick Hirsch, Hirsch and Associates PROPOSAL: The annexation of 634 acres to the City of Temecula; a General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element to incorporate the proposed land uses, and to include Planning Areas 33A and 33B to the Specific Plan Overlay Figure; a General Plan Amendment to the Cimulation Element to eliminate the connection between Nicolas Road and Calle Contento through the project and to change the designation of Butterfield Stage Road between Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Nicolas Road from 4 lanes Specific Plan Road; a Zone Change to pre-zone the annexation property to the SP zoning designation and to amend the Development Code Section 17.16.070 of the City of Temecula Development Code to adopt a Specific Plan for 804.7 acres to provide zoning and development standards for the development of 2,015 dwelling units within several gated communities, 110,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial retail space, a 12 acre elementary school site and a 20 acre middle school site, two public parks sites including a 19.7 acre Sports Park with lighted playing fields and a 4.8 acre neighborhood park with passive uses, three private recreation facilities, private and public trails and paseos, a fire station site, and 202.7 acres of natural open space to be preserved as permanent habitat, related flood control improvements to Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash; a tentative map to subdivide the project for conveyance purposes; a tentative map to create 509 residential lots within a gated community, a 4.8 acre private recreational facility, a .3 acre private mini park, private paseos and trails, a 5.1 acre public park site, and two open space lots (21.9 acres) to be preserved as permanent habitat; and a Development Agreement to grant the developer development rights for ten years and secure the construction of certain infrastructure improvements by the developer. LOCATION: Northeast of the City near the eventual intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Nicolas Road EXISTING ZONING: SP (Specific Plan) for the plateau portion and Very Low for the annexation portion SURROUNDING ZONING: North: Medium Residential and Conservation Habitat South: Rural Residential East: Rural Residential and Conservation Habitat West: Very Low and Low Medium Residential PROPOSED ZONING: SP (Specific Plan) R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~evAPC Staff Report 10-16-O2'~PC Staff Report 10-16-02,doc 3 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: HR (Hillside, 0-0.1 DU/Ac), LM (Low Medium Density, 3-6 DU/AC), OS (Open Space) with a maximum overall density of 3 dwelling units per gross acre. PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: L (Low Density Residential), LM (Low Medium Density Residential), M (Medium Density Residential), NC (Neighborhood Commercial), OS (Open Space) and P (Public Institutional) EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant SURROUNDING LAND USES: North: Residential/Vacant Land/Open Space South: Residential/Vacant Land East: Residential/Vacant Land West: Residential/Vacant Land BACKGROUND This project has been in the planning stage for over 10 years. Since that time, not only has the size and layout of the project changed, so has the applicant. The current applicant began work on this project in late 1999. The Planning Commission has held two public hearings on the current proposal on August 15, 2001 and October 17, 2001. There have been two Community Meetings and several Subcommittee Meetings in the past year. In this time frame, the Land Use Plan has changed several times with the number of dwelling units fluctuating between 1,721 and 2,058. The current proposal is for 2,015 units. Attachment 5 includes an errata sheet with all the changes that the applicant is required to make to the Specific Plan prior to forwarding the document to the City Council. Previous Planninq Commission Meetin.qs On August 15, 2001, the Planning Commission heard the Roripaugh Specific Plan and continued it to the October 17, 2001 meeting. The Planning Commission directed staff and the applicant to try to resolve remaining issues and bring forward a complete and comprehensive package for Planning Commission's review. Attachment 6 provides a summary of the Commission's concerns and comments from this meeting. Copies of the previous Planning Commission Staff Report and minutes are included in Attachments 7 and 8. Staff's focus was on generating a Land Use Plan that makes good planning sense and was acceptable to the Subcommittee and the surrounding residents. Several meetings were held between staff, the applicant, the Subcommittee, and the residents to arrive at the current Land Use Plan. On October 17, 2001, the Planning Commission held a Workshop and continued the project off- calendar directing staff and the applicant to resolve all the issues surrounding the project prior to scheduling the project for another hearing. Attachment 9 includes the October 17, 2001 Land Use Plan with 1986 units. In addition, Attachment 10 provides a summary of the Commission's concerns regarding the project, Attachments 11 and 12 include the October 17, 2001 Planning Commission Staff Report and minutes. The following includes the concerns raised by the Planning Commission that may need additional discussion. The rest of the Commission's concerns have been addressed. · Complete 4 lane improvements to Nicolas Road are probably needed. R:~S P\Roripaugh Ranch SP~ew~PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02,doc · The private recreation center concept is acceptable but additional units will not be granted. · The total number of units appropriate for the project is dependent on the amenities, improvements, and the benefits to the community. · The visual transition from large lots to small lots needs to be looked at carefully. Community Meetings On September 12, 2001 and September 25, 2002 staff held meetings with the surrounding residents to present them with the then current Land Use Plan. Their inputs from these meetings are summarized in Attachments 13 and 14. As a result of the input, staff has made refinements to the Land Use Plan and the project to address most of the residents concerns. However, the following concerns still remain: · The Density of the project is too great and better buffering needs to be provided. · The sports Park and the Private Recreation Centers will have noise impacts on the existing residences. · The size of Fuel Modification Zone and the amount of landscaping need to be increased. · The Nature Walk should be eliminated. · Complete horse trails should be provided for the area. Subcommittee Meetings The Land Use Plan included in Attachment 9 was subsequently presented to the Subcommittee on September 24, 2001. The Subcommittee's complete recommendations are included in Attachment 15. The following provides a list of recommendations from the Subcommittee that additional discussion: · Buffering along the southerly boundary of the Plateau Area. · The appropriate number of units for the project. Staff feels the current proposed Land Use Plan included in Attachment 16 with 2,015 units is a balanced compromised that addresses most of the concerns from the Planning Commission, the Subcommittee, and community; however, there are some members in the community that believe the proposed project is too dense for the generally rural area. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project includes the following components: Annexatioq The City Council adopted Resolution No. 2001-063 on June 26, 2001 for the initiation of the annexation proceedings for 634 acres to the City of Temecula. This area is being pre-zoned to Specific Plan to facilitate the annexation of the property. After the adoption of the Specific Plan and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report, staff will forward them along with the Plan of Services, the Fiscal Impact Report to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Staff expects that in approximately 60 to 90 days after the City Council approval of the project, LAFCO will hold a public hearing on the annexation. R:~S P~Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 5 General Plan Amendment The applicant is requesting to amend the City of Temecula General Plan Land Use and Cimulation Elements. These amendments are necessary to make the project consistent with these Elements of the General Plan. The Land Use Element amendment has three components: Amend the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 2-1of the General Plan) to incorporate the proposed land uses by the project. Amend the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 2-1of the General Plan) to incorporate the annexation area into the City Limits. Amend the General Plan Specific Plan Overlay Exhibit (Figure 2-5 of the General Plan) to include Planning Areas 33A and 33B. In addition, the General Plan Circulation Element includes the following components: Amend the General Plan Circulation Element map (Figure 3-1 of the General Plan) to eliminate the connection between Nicolas Road and Calle Contento through the project. Amend the General Plan Circulation Element map (Figure 3-1 of the General Plan) to change the designation of Butterfield Stage Road between Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Nicolas Road from 110' (Arterial Highway with 4 lanes) to Specific Plan Road, add North and South Loop' Roads as Specific Plan Road, and add streets A and B as Collector Road. Zone Change The applicant is also requesting to amend the City of Temecula Zoning Map and Development Code Section 17.16.070. These amendments are necessary to: · To pre-zone the annexation area with the Specific Plan Zoning Designation. · Incorporate the Specific Plan zoning development standards and design guidelines into Chapter 17.16 of the Development Code. Specific Plan The applicant is proposing a maximum of 2,015 single-family detached units including up to 167 zero lot Pine dwelling units in the M2 areas of the plan. The Specific Plan area is divided into two residential neighborhoods. The Plateau portion includes Planning Areas (PAs) lA, 1 B, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 5, 6, 10 11, 12. The Valley portion of the project includes PAs 14 through 31,33A, and 33B. The Plan also includes 110,000 square feet of neighborhood commercial retail space, a 12 acre elementary school site and a 20 acre middle school site, two public parks sites including a 19.7 acre Sports Park with lighted playing fields and a 4.8 acre neighborhood park with passive uses, three private recreation facilities, private and public trails and paseos, a fire station site, and 202.7 acres of natural open space to be preserved as permanent habitat. The Specific Plan includes a number of amenities that will be discussed in the Staff Report. The timing for the construction of these amenities is included in Exhibit "A' of the Specific Plan, which is included as Attachment 17. The following tables include a summary of the proposed residential and non-residential zoning categories: R:~S P~Rodpaugh Ranch SP',new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02'~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 6 Residential Zoning Categories Planning Number of -Area,~cres Minimum Lot Density Areas Detached Size, Single Family Square feet units Low Density Residential 10, 19, 20, 21, 117 107.6 Minimum 1.1 (L) 33 A, and 33B 20,000 with 1 acre lots on the perimeter of the PAs Low Medium Density (LM) lA, 2, 3, 4A, 654 126.2 5,000 5.2 4B, and 16 Low Medium 17 and 18 285 68.6 6,000 4.2 Density Medium Density 23 and 24 122 21.5 4,000 5.7 Standard (M1) Medium Density 12, 14, 15, 22, 837 with up to 88.9 3,000 9.4 Cluster (M2) and 31 167 zero lot line units permitted Total Residential NA 2,015 412.8 NA 4.9 (Gross Residential) Total NA 2,015 804.7 NA 2.5 (gross Total) Non-Residential Zoning Categories Plannln~ Area - Gross Acres Neighborhood Commercial 11 15.4 Neighborhood Park 6 5.1 Sports Park 27 19.7 Private Mini Park 1B 0.3 Mega Private Recreation Center 30 4.0 Primary Recreation Center 5 5.2 Elementary School 29 12.0 Middle School 28 20.0 Fire Station 32 2.0 Long Valley Wash 25 and 26 30.3 Santa Gertrudls Creek Portions of 14 and 27 5.0 Detention Basin 7B 2.0 Detention Basin 7C 1.8 Habitat 8, 9A, 9B, and 13 202.7 Manufactured Slope 7A and portion of 6 21.2 Public and Private Streets NA 45.2 Total NA 391.9 R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SPV~ew~PC Staff Repod 10-16-02~P0 Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 7 The following provides a discussion of the different components of the Specific Plan: Public Parks (Planning Areas 6 and 27) The project is anticipated to build out with a population of 5,743 residents based on the City's household factor of 2.85 persons per household. The City also has a Quimby Act parkland requirement of five (5) acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. Therefore, the project is required to provide 28.7 acres of parkland. These requirements are met by dedicating two developed public park sites (PA 6 and PA 27) for a total of 24.8 acres and receiving a credit for the 4.55 acres of private recreational areas. The developer will be required to dedicate two fully developed public park sites in PAs 6 and 27. The Neighborhood Park, located in PA6, is a passive park on approximately 5.1 acres and will be developed in accordance with the amenities included in Section 4.2.1 of the Specific Plan. Figure 4- 4 shows the conceptual design for the park. In addition, Figure 3-8 shows how the Neighborhood Park fits into its general vicinity. The Neighborhood Park will be completed prior to the issuance of the 400th building permit for the entire project. The Sports Park, located in PA27, is an active park with lighted sports fields on approximately 19.7 acres and will be developed in accordance with the amenities included in Section 4.2.1 of the Specific Plan. Figure 4-3 shows the conceptual design for the park. In addition, Figure 3-22 shows how the Sports Park fits into its general vicinity. The Sports Park will be completed prior to the issuance of the 700th building permit for the entire project. Private Park and Private Recreation Facilities (Planning Areas lB, 5, and 30) The project is proposing three private recreation facilities, which will be constructed by the developer, be privately owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association {HOA): Mini Park The 0.3-acre Mini Park is proposed in PA 1B with a tot lot and picnic tables. For a complete list of amenities, please refer to Section 4.22. of the Specific Plan. Figure 4-9 includes the conceptual design of the Mini Park. Figure 3-1 shows how the Mini Park fits into its general vicinity. The Mini Park will be completed prior to the issuance of the 100th building permit in PAs lA, 2, 3, 4A, and 4B. Primary Center The 4.8-acre Primary Recreational Facility is proposed in PA 5. Figure 3-5 of the Specific Plan shows how the center fits in with its general vicinity. The amenities will include a minimum 5,000 square foot clubhouse with exercise room, weight room, aerobic room, game room, kitchen, offices, and Bistro. In addition, 2,000 - 3,400 square feet lap pool, wading pool, spa, tennis courts, children's play structure, and grass volleyball court. A complete listing of the amenities is located in Section 4.2.2 of the Specific Plan. Figures 4-7 and 4-8 show the conceptual site plan and the conceptual elevation of the center. The park portion of the Primary Center will be completed prior to the issuance of the 250th building permit in PAs lA, 2, 3, 4A, and 4B and the pool and building th portion will be completed prior to the issuance of the 350 building permit in PAs lA, 2, 3, 4A, and 4B. R:~S P~Rorfpaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~,PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 8 Mega Center The Mega Recreational Facility is proposed within PA 30 with an area of 4.0 acres. Figure 3-25 of the Specific Plan shows how the center fits in with its general vicinity. The amenities include a minimum 8,000 square foot clubhouse with exemise room, weight room, aerobic room, game room, kitchen, offices, and Bistro. In addition, a free form pool between 4,000 and 5,000 square feet, a small recreational pool between 1,000 and 2,000 square feet, wading pool, five spas, and lighted tennis courts will be provided. A complete listing of the amenities is located in Section 4.2.2 of the Specific Plan. Figures 4-5 and 4-6 show the conceptual site plan and the conceptual elevation of the center. The park portion of the Mega Center will be completed prior to the issuance of the 800th building permit for the entire project and the pool and building portion will be completed prior to the issuance of the 1150th building permit for the entire project. Open Space Habitat (Planning Areas 8, 9A, 9B, 13) In January of 2001, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approved the final Sub-Regional Habitat Conservation Plan (SHCP) for the County's Assessment District 161 (AD161). This plan involves 3 public agencies and 9 individual property owners in the project area. The Roripaugh Ranch project is one of the properties participating in the SHCP, which is designed to protect 4 listed, and 17 unlisted but sensitive plant and animal species. As a part of the SHCP, the project is required to set aside 202.7 acres of open space within Planning Areas 8, 9A, 9B and 13 to be preserved in permanent Open Space. Figures 2-1 land 2-12 show how the Open Space Preserve areas within the project will fit into the regional open space reserve. The open space area will be owned by the County of Riverside and maintained by a maintenance agency specifically created for this purpose. Planning Areas 8, 9A, 9B and 13 will remain in their current natural condition with the exception of a fuel modification zone and hydro seeding of non-irrigated native plant species mix to provide erosion control in areas disturbed by construction. Fuel modification will occur at the perimeter of these areas adjacent to residential and commercial areas. (See Figure 4-34A, 4-34B and 4-34C). These landscaped areas will not be irrigated. School Facilities Middle School (Planning Area 28) A 20.0-acre Middle School is proposed in Planning Area 28 adjacent to the Community Sports Park (Planning Area 27). The school will include active recreational opportunities (i.e., sports fields, game courts and tennis courts) typical of this use. The conceptual site design and layout illustrated in Figure 4-10 was provided by Temecula Valley Unified School District. An earlier version of the Specific Plan showed the Elementary School Site in the Plateau area. Elementary School (Planning Area 29) A 12.0-acre Elementary School is proposed in Planning Area 29 adjacent to the Middle School (Planning Area 28). The school will include active recreational opportunities (i.e., sports fields and game courts) typical of this use. The conceptual site design and layout was provided by the Temecula Valley Unified School District. R:~S P'~loripaugh Ranch SP',new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02',PC Staff Report 10-16-02,doc 9 Trail System Paseos The project is proposing an extensive system of off-street trails and paseos in addition to the sidewalks and bike lanes within the public right-of-way to facilitate the non-vehicular movement within the project. Figures 4-12 and 4-13 show the location of these trails, paseos, and bike lanes. River Walk (See Figures 4-13 and 4-14) The River Walk is proposed along both sides of Long Valley Wash between Butterfield Stage Road and the east project boundary as illustrated in Figure 4-13 and includes a 4' black vinyl coated chain link fence separating the trial from the Long Valley Wash. The north and south side trails will be linked with a pedestrian bridge across the Long Valley Wash within Planning Area 26. The River Walk connects Planning Areas 20 through 24 to the Middle School, Elementary School, Mega Center and Multi-Use Public Trail. The Master Homeownem Association will maintain the River Walk and it will be completed prior to the issuance of any building permits in PAs 10 through 12, 14 through 24, 31, and 33A. Nature Walk (See Figures 2-11,4-12 and 4o15A) The Nature Walk will be located within the landscaped slope area of Planning Area 7A adjacent to Planning Areas lA through 4B. This walk will link each planning area to the Neighborhood Park in Planning Area 6. The walk will not be lighted and will be completed prior to the issuance of the 400th building permit for the entire project. Pedestrian Bridge (See Figure 4-13 and 4-14) A pedestrian bridge will be installed within Planning Area 26 that will connect residential Planning Areas 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 with the Community Sports Park, Planning Area 27; Middle School, Planning Area 28; Elementary School, Planning Area 29; Mega Center, Planning Area 30; and residential, Planning Area 31. The Pedestrian Bridge will be completed prior to the issuance of the 75t~ building permit in PAs 22, 23, and 24. Multi-Use Trail (See Figure 4-16) A 15' wide multi-use trail is planned along the southern and eastern boundaries of the project site adjacent to planning areas 19, 20, 21,25 and 32 as illustrated in Figure 4-16. The trail will be within the 30' Fuel Modification Zone and will be accessible to the residential properties directly adjacent to the trail as well as the general public. The Roripaugh Ranch Home Owners Association will maintain the fuel modification zone trail and split rail fencing. The City of Temecula (TCSD) will maintain the trail along Buttedield Stage Road adjacent to the fire station. The Multi Use Trail will be completed prior to the issuance of any building permits in PAs 19, 20, and 21. Drainage and Flood Control improvements The Drainage Plan provides the framework for drainage control within the Specific Plan area and serves to avoid potential hydrologic impacts to downstream areas, (refer to Figure 2-6 of the Specific Plan). The Drainage Plan fully mitigates ail project impacts of off-site flows. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the developer will provide a Drainage Management Plan (DMP) covering both Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash immediately downstream of the project site. The DMP will demonstrate that runoff leaving the project site will not increase velocity or flow. This will be accomplished by installing four (4) detention and/or flow-by basins to retain water during high flows but allow Iow flows to immediately exit the site. R:~S P',RoHpaugh Ranch SP~ev, APC Staff Report 10-16-02'~PC Staff Report 10-16-O2.doc 10 Residential Architectural Design Guidelines The Amhitectural Design Guidelines of the Specific Plan are proposed to create quality amhitecture with detail and variety. These guidelines have been written to be very strict with little reom for non- compliance with its standards. It should be noted that the Design Guidelines section in the Specific Plan did not include many of the changes staff had requested; therefore, an entirely new Architectural Design Guideline section is included in the Errata Sheet. The following provides a summary of the intent of these Guidelines: · Encourage diversity of architectural style between the adjacent residential Planning Areas by creating four groups of architectural styles. Each group includes three or four architectural styles. The merchant builder is required to select two architectural styles from one group. There are a total of 14 architectural styles. Refer to Section 4.10.3.1 for the Architectural Groups and Styles. · Require architectural forward concept in 100% of the homes sites with lots sizes exceeding 20,000 square feet. · Require 50% architectural forward concept of the remainder of the home sites. · Require using both single-story and two-story in Low and Low Medium Density designated Planning Areas. · Articulation shall be provided on all sides of the homes ('1our-sided architecture") including balconies, pop out staircases, modulated facades, window treatments, and second story projections. · Avoid canyon like effect between buildings by increasing building separation by stepping the second story mass away from the property line or other substantial articulation. · Create a single story plane at the rear by recessing the second story. · Special treatments at corner lots are required such as: o Either using single story units or two story units with a significant one-story mass located towards the exterior side yard. o Two story homes on corner lots need to be modified to create two front elevations. · Require incorporation of a variety of garage placements as described in Figures 4-62 to 4-68. · No three-car garage doors will face the street. · Using ornamental features including wrought iron and exterior light fixtures to create interest in the front of the house. · Extensive front elevation articulation including emphasizing the entrances, balconies and porches, ground floor windows, second floor overhangs and built in planters. · Require entry courtyards, covered entries, or covered porches at the entry. · Front yard hardscaping will include colored concrete with varying textures and score lines or various stones including the driveways. Refer to Figures 4-85 through 89. · Other specific standards regarding unit entries, doors, windows, garage doom, roof design, and mail boxes. R:~S P~Rofipaugh Ranch SP~new'~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~°C Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 11 Tentative Tract Map 29353 The applicant is proposing Tentative Tract Map No. 29353 to subdivide 804.7 acres into 39 lots and 8 lettered lots for streets. The lots created by this tentative map are consistent with the boundary of the Planning Areas of the Specific Plan. This map will be used for conveyance purposes and no construction with the exception of infrastructure improvements will result from it. The lots roughly conform to the proposed Planning Area boundaries Tentative Tract Map 29661 The applicant is proposing Tentative Tract Map No. 29661 to subdivide the approximately 158 acres into 509 residential lots and 22 open space lots. Minimum lot size for the residential lots is 5,000 square feet with an average lot size of 6,288 square feet. The proposed map includes Planning Areas lA, 1 B, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 5, 6, 7A, 7B, 7C, 8, and 9A which is generally referred to as the Plateau Neighborhood in the Specific plan. Figures 3-1 through 3-4 include the design details of the residential areas. The entire area, excluding the public park site (lot 518) and the open space habitat sites (lots 516 and 517) are proposed to be within a gated community with private streets, recreational facilities, and trails. Three vehicular gates will be maintained by the Homeowners Association (HOA). The gate on Street "N" will be a Staff Gated Primary Entry, the gates on Streets "A" and "R" are secondary card key gates. Figures 4-18A and 4-19 of the Specific Plan show the details of the Staff Gated Entry, Figures 4-21,4-22A show the details of the Card Key Gated Entries, and Figure 4-20C shows the details of the Auto and Pedestrian Gated Entries, which are located behind the Staff Gated and Card Key Entries. The Staff gated Primary Entry will be completed prior to the issuance of the 250t~ building permit in PAs lA, 2, 3, 4A, and 4B. The Card Key Entry between PA lA and 2 will be completed prior to the issuance of 30% of the building permits in PA lA and PA2. The Card Key Entry between PA 4A and 4B will be completed prior to the issuance of 30% of the building permits in PA 4A and PA 4B. Access The pdmary access to Valley neighborhood will be from Murdeta Hot Springs Road, which is already constructed just past Pourroy Road by the Rancho Beila Vista development to the north, which is currently under construction. The project is proposing to continue Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Butterfield Stage Road and provide a secondary access to the proposed lots via one of the following three options: · Butterfield Stage Road to Rancho California Road, · Butterfield Stage Road to Nicolas Road, or · Butterfield Stage Road to Calle Girasol. Trails and Paseos The proposed map includes the Nature Trail and several Paseos all of which are privately owned and maintained. The Nature Trail is located within lot 520, which is the manufactured slope area. Ten paseos are located within the tract and they connect the residential lots to the Nature Trail, the Private Recreation Center, the Mini Park, and the Neighborhood Park. They are designed to reduce the walking distance between the residential lots and the destinations within and outside this project. Figure 4-12 of the Specific Plan shows the overall location of the Nature Trial and the Paseos. R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC St~ff Report 10-16-O2.doc 12 Figure 4-15A shows the design detail of the Nature Walk, which includes a 10' wide trail, slope landscaping and a 4' high split rail fence. The design detail of the paseos is shown on Figure 4-38, which includes a 5' wide walkway, landscaping, and lighting. The Paseo connecting the Nature Trail to the Neighborhood includes a Paseo Entry Gate, which is shown on Exhibit 4-37. The Nature Walk will be developed prior to the issuance of the 400th building permit for the entire project. The paseos will be developed prior to the issuance of any building permits in the PA in which the Paseo is located. Pdvate Pdmary Recreational Facility and Mini Park The Primary Recreational Facility and the Mini Park will be constructed by the developer and will be privately owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association (HOA). The Primary Recreational Facility is proposed within lot 523 with an area of 4.7 acres. The amenities include a minimum 5,000 square foot clubhouse with exercise room, weight room, aerobic room, game room, kitchen, offices, and Bistro. In addition, a lap pool between 2,000 and 3,400 square feet lap pool, wading pool, spa, tennis courts, children's play structure, grass Volleyball court, picnic table, and minimum of 30 parking spaces. For a complete listing of the amenities, please refer to Section 4.2.2 of the Specific Plan. Figure 3-5 of the Specific Plan shows how the center fits in with its general vicinity. Figures 4- 7 and 4-8 show the conceptual site plan and the conceptual elevation of the center. The park portion of the Primary Center will be completed prior to the issuance of the 250th building permit in PAs lA, 2, 3, 4A, and 4B and the pool and building portion will be completed pdor to the issuance of the 350~ building permit in PAs lA, 2, 3, 4A, and 4B. The 0.3-acre Mini Park is proposed on lot 6 with a tot lot and picnic tables. For a complete list of amenities, please refer to Section 4.22. of the Specific Plan. Figure 4-9 includes the conceptual design of the Mini Park. Figure 3-1 shows how the Mini Park fits into its general vicinity. The Mini Park will be completed prior to the issuance of the 100th building permit in PAs lA, 2, 3, 4A, and 4B. Neighborhood Park The proposed public Neighborhood Park will be developed bythe developer and maintained bythe City of Temecula. This park will include passive recreational opportunities such as children's play area and tot lot, picnic areas, lighted basketball court, a small restroom facility, walkway lighting, and minimum of 37 parking spaces. For a complete listing of the park amenities, please refer to Section 4.2.1 of the Specific Plan while Figure 4-4 shows the general layout and the conceptual design for the park. In addition, Figure 3-6 shows how the Neighborhood Park fits into its general vicinity. The Neighborhood Park will be completed prior to the issuance of the 400th building permit for the entire project. It should be noted that the proposed tentative map is slightly deficient in meeting the park and Quimby requirements with the proposed Neighborhood Park and Private Primary Center and the Mini Park; however, when the Specific Plan is considered as a whole, the project exceeds these requirements. The MWD Property and RCWD Easement The Metropolitan Water District's (MWD) 70' wide property and 50' wide easement and the Rancho California Water District's (RCWD) 40' wide easement bisect the eastern portion of the site running on a north-south direction. The 70' wide MWD preperl, y and 50' wide MWD easement are not part of the Specific Plan area. However, the RCWD easement is part of lot 518 and 532 and the Specific Plan. The City' Trails Master Plan designates this area as a future regional trail. This trail will require MWD approval prior to its construction by the City. The City's Capital Improvement Program (ClP) does not currently include a budget for this future trail. R:',~ P'~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02'~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 13 Development A,qreement The Applicant has requested to enter into a Development Agreement with the City. The Development Agreement document has been included in Attachment 18. The Development Agreement was based on the following major Deal Points: The CFD for funding the major infrastructure shall be formed and funded prior to issuance of the 1st building permit for the project. Fees and Credits a. Development Impact Fees (DIF) i. 100% credit is provided for the Street Improvements, Traffic Signal, Parks and Recreation, and Fire components ii. Payment of 100% of the Library and Corporate Facility b. DA Fees i. Residential Component Fee of $1,500.00 per residential unit for a total fee of $3,022,500 (2,015 x $1,500) and Commercial Component Fee of $3.00 per square foot for a total fee of $330,000 (110,000 x $3.00) for a total of $3,352,500 is satisfied by: a. A payment of $2,000,000 for the construction of the Fire Station and purchase of a fire truck and; b. A partial credit of $1,352,500 toward construction of off-site road improvements. c. Open Space Fee, $150 per residential unit (total of $302,250) is satisfied by a 100% credit toward the dedication of 202.7 acres in Planning Areas 8, 9A, 9B, and 13. d. Public Art fee, $50.00 per residential unit (total of $100,750) is satisfied by a 100% credit toward the placement of public art on the project site. TUMF is anticipated to be adopted by the County of Riverside. Adopted TUMF shall be paid when it is adopted in accordance with the adopted guidelines. Any potential credits shall be negotiated between the developer and the agency responsible to administer the TUMF in accordance with the adopted guidelines. Construction of 50 park-n-ride spaces on-site to be provided prior to issuance of building permits in Phase 2. Contribute $300,000 to a Shuttle Service. 10 Year Term for the DA Traffic Impacts and Road Improvements At build-out, the Project will generate 28,165 vehicle trips. Since the project site is located in a largely undeveloped area, which will require the extension and construction of roads to the site, the following road improvements are required by the Mitigation Measures: R:~S P~odpaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02'tPC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 14 Mitigation Measures The project will be permitted to construct 107 units within PAs lA through 4B with the existing access from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Winchester Road. To construct more than 107 units will require the following additional improvements: 1. Full width for Murrieta Hot Springs Road (MHSR) from its current terminus at Pourroy Road to the MWD easement. 2. Half width MHSR from the MWD easement to Butterfield Stage Road (BSR). 3. Half width BSR from MHSR to southern project boundary at PA32. 4. Nicolas Road half width from BSR to western project boundary. 5. Nicolas Road 40' curb to curb from the western project boundary to 450' east of the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection. 6. The EIR Mitigation Measures (MM) require the developer to construct one secondary access from the following three options: a. Connection to the existing Nicolas Road at Joseph Road through Nicolas Road including the construction of a four lane bridge; b. Connection to the existing Nicolas Road at Joseph Road through BSR and Calle Chapos; or c. Connection to Rancho California Road through BSR. To construct more than 400 units, the following will need to be completed: 1 ) UA" and "B" Streets full width (two lanes). Regardless of the secondary option built by the developer, to construct more than 509 units, the rest of the read improvements need to be completed including: 1. BSR full width (four lanes) from MHSR to Rancho California Road. 2. Nicolas Road full width (4 lanes) from BSR to the project boundary at the MWD easement. 3. Nicolas Road off-site with a 40' curb to curb pavement which includes two travel lanes and a turning lane from the project boundary to the existing two lane Nicolas Road at Joseph Road including a four lane bridge at the crossing for Santa Gertrudis Creek. 4. MHSR full width (four lanes) from Pourroy to BSR. 5. Calle Chapos 38' on center from BSR to Walcott Lane/Calle Girasol. 6. North and South Loop Roads. The Project will construct the following intersection improvements selected by the City for early completion and in lieu of its fair share contributions to other intersections in the area: 1. North General Kearney Road at Nicolas Road to be constructed by the 1st building permit with the ultimate lane configurations of: a. Northbound N General Kearney Rd: 1 Through Lane, I Right Turn Lane. b. Southbound N General Kearney Rd: 1 Shared Left, Through, Right Turn Lane. R:\S P'~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 15 c. Eastbound Nicolas Rd: I Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes, I Right Tum Lane. d. Westbound Nicolas Rd: 1 Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes, 1 Right Turn Lane. 2. Pourroy Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road to be constructed by the 400~ building permit. 3. Winchester Road at Nicolas Road to be constructed by the 510th building permit with the ultimate lane configurations: a. Northbound Winchester: 2 Left Turn Lanes, 4 Through Lanes, 1 Free Right Turn Lane. b. Southbound Winchester: 2 Left Turn Lanes, 4 Through Lanes, 1 Right Turn Lane. c. Eastbound Nicolas Road: I Left Turn Lane, I Through Lane, I Right Turn Lane. d. Westbound Nicolas Road: 3 Left Turn Lanes, I Through Lane, 1 Right Turn Lane. 4. Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road by the 510th building permit. a. Northbound BSR: 1 Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes b. Southbound BSR: 1 Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes c. Eastbound RCR: 2 Left Turn Lanes, 2 Through Lanes d. Westbound RCR: 1 Left Turn Lane, 2 Through Lanes 5. Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Butterfield Stage Road to be constructed by the 510th building permit. 6. Nicolas Road at Butterfield Stage Road to be constructed by the 510th building permit. 7. Calle Chapos at Butterfield Stage Road to be constructed by the 510th building permit. 8. Traffic signals may be required, as warranted, at the two other project entrances from Murrieta Hot Springs Road located to the east and west of the Pourroy Road main project entrance. 9. The Developer shall contribute a fair share portion of the total construction costs for traffic signals at the following percentages: a. 5.8% for the traffic signal at 1-215 Freeway (Southbound Ramps) at Murrieta Hot Springs Road including southbound left turn lane, southbound right turn lane, eastbound through lane, eastbound right turn lane, westbound through lane, and westbound free right turn lane; b. Undetermined percentage for the lane improvements at Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Alta Murrieta in the City of Murrieta including improvements to be specified. c. 12.4% for the traffic signal at Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Margarita Road. d. 11.1% for the traffic signal at Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Winchester Road. The following intemections fair share contributions are deemed satisfied by the completion of the above intersection improvements in the section above. The City may elect to improvement these intersections at a later date as City CIP projects or require other developers to complete them, as the City deems appropriate. 1. 1-15 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Rancho California Road - southbound left turn lane, westbound free right-turn lane, eastbound free right turn lane, and southbound free right-turn lane. R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 16 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Ynez Road at Winchester Road - southbound right-turn overlap. Ynez Road at Rancho California Road - eastbound through lane. 1-15 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Winchester Road - southbound left-turn lane, southbound right-turn lane, westbound free right-turn lane, right-turn lane, westbound through lane, eastbound through lane, and eastbound free right-turn lane. Traffic signal and related intersection improvements, as warranted, at the intersection of La Serena and Meadows Parkway. 1-15 Freeway (northbound ramps) at Winchester Road - northbound left-turn lane, northbound free right-turn lane, westbound through lane, and westbound free right-turn lane. I- 15 Freeway (southbound ramps) at Rancho California Road - southbound left-turn lane, southbound, eastbound, and westbound free right-turn lanes. 1-15 Freeway (northbound ramps) at Rancho California Road - northbound left-turn and right-turn lanes. Ynez Road at Winchester Road - southbound left-turn lane, southbound right-turn overlap, and eastbound left-turn lane. Ynez Road at Rancho California Road - westbound left-turn lane, westbound right-turn lane, southbound through lane, southbound free fight turn lane, eastbound free right-turn lane, and eastbound through lane. Margarita Road at Rancho California Road - northbound and southbound through lanes, southbound right-turn lane, eastbound left-turn lane, eastbound right-turn overlap, westbound left-turn lane, northbound right-turn lane, and westbound right turn overlap. Calle Contento at Rancho California Road - eastbound left-turn lane, eastbound through lane, westbound left-turn lane, and westbound through lane. In addition, Butterfield Stage Road between Murrieta Hot Springs Road and the northern project boundary will not be constructed. Following table provides a summary of the project's required fair share contributions to these intersections: R:~S P~Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new~,PC Staff Repor~ 10-16-02'~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 17 Table 2-3 Project Fair Sham Contributions Project Percent of New Traffic Roadway (NS) Intersection (EW) AM PM 1-215 Freeway SB Murrieta Hot Springs 4.4 5.8 Ramps Road 1-215 Freeway NB Murrieta Hot Springs 7.3 6.8 Ramps Road 1-15 Freeway- SB Ramps Winchester Road 3.2 5.7 Rancho California Road 5.7 6.8 1-15 Freeway- NB Ramps Winchester Road 2.4 4.9 Rancho California Road 7.8 10.0 Ynez Road Winchester Road 4.5 5.6 Rancho California Road 6.2 5.9 Margarita Road Murrieta Hot Springs 11.4 12.4 Road 11.1 11.2 Winchester Road 6.6 7.4 La Serena Way 5.6 6.4 Rancho California Road Winchester Road Murrieta Hot Springs 11.1 9.3 Road 10.1 12.3 Nicolas Road N. General Kearny Road Nicolas Road 18.6 18.3 Meadows Parkway La Serena Way 30.5 22.1 Rancho California Road 28.6 23.6 Butterfield Stage Road Murrieta Hot Spdngs 23.3 24.2 Road 39.7 35.7 Nicolas Road 29.5 25.8 Calle Chapos 20.8 19.0 La Serena Way 21.3 19.1 Rancho California Road Calle Contento Rancho California Road 10.3 11.3 Alta Murrieta Murrieta Hot Springs TBD TBD Road Source: Table 6-1 from Urban Crossroads, November 2001 TBD = To Be Determined (by Temecula Engineer) EW = east-west NB = northbound NS = north-south SB = southbound R:~S P~or~paugh Ranch SP~ew~PC Staff Report 10-16-02',J:)C Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 18 LOS Standards Even after the implementation of all the mitigation measures, as the project builds out, it will cause the LOS at the following intersections to exceed City standards by 2007: 1-15 southbound ramps at Rancho California Road, and Winchester Road at Margarita Road. In addition, the following intersections will exceed City LOS standards with or without the project at buildout: 1-15 southbound ramps at Winchester Road, Ynez Road at Winchester Road, Ynez Road at Rancho California Road. ANALYSIS This section will provide a discussion of all the issues raised by the Subcommittee, Planning Commission, and the residents. Staff will provide a recommendation on all the issues based on facts, reasonable planning standards, and based upon previous direction from the Planning Commission and the Subcommittee. It will also include areas of discussion on the components of the project that staff believes needs the Planning Commission input. Four Lane Improvements to Nicolas Road The applicant's Traffic Engineer re-examined the number of trips on Nicolas Road and has concluded that the original recommendation of the Traffic Study for a two-lane connection is still valid. The City's Traffic Engineer agrees with this assessment. However, the study still requires a third turning lane to provide additional safety for turning movements. Staff believes the proposed improvements to Nicolas Road are adequate. Some residents have also expressed concerns that Nicolas Road should be four lanes because it starts at the project site with four lanes, then transitions to a 40' section with two travel lanes and a turning lane. It then turns into a two-lane read between Liefer Road and Joseph Road before transitioning back to four lanes. Staff has further channeled some fair share contributions by the developer to the intersections along Nicolas Road including a new traffic signal at Nicolas and North General Keamey prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the project. In addition, two additional left turn pockets from Nicolas Road to Winchester Road towards the mall and the freeway will be added prior to the issuance of the 520th building permit. Total of Units The total number of units of the project has always been the most debated topic among the residents who live nearby the project. The resid, ents believe the project's density will change their life style and the existing character of the area. The members of the Subcommittee were split on their recommendation for the total number of units. Council member Roberts and Commissioner Chiniaeff needed more information on the amenities (paseos, private recreational areas, trails, and other improvements), the mitigation measures, and the lotting study for the proposed project prior to consenting to the proposed number of units. Council member Comerchero and Commissioner Telesio supported the proposed Land Use Plan. The proposed Specific Plan provides the Planning Commission and the City Council the necessary information regarding the amenities of the project. R:~S P'~Roripaugh Ranch SP',new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02",PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 19 The Planning Commission was not convinced that the increase in the number of units was needed because of the added cost of the construction of the Mega Center. Similar to the Subcommittee, the Commission also wanted to see the project as a whole prior to making a recommendation on the total number of units. The number of units for the project increased from 1,721 to 1,986 between the August 15, 2001 and October 17, 2001 Planning Commission meetings. The reason for this increase, according to the applicant, was to pay for the private recreation amenities that staff had asked for and to pay for all the infrastructure improvements that the City was requesting. The General Plan permits the development of over 2,400 units on this site. The major benefit of the proposed project is the extension of the City's General Plan road network such as Butterfield Stage Road from Murrieta Hot Springs to Rancho California Road including two bridges over Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Valley Wash, the construction of Murrieta Hot Springs Road from its current terminus to Butterfield Stage Road, and construction of Nicolas Road from Butterfield Stage Road to the existing pavement at Liefer Road including a 4 lane bridge. In addition, staff believes that the proposed private recreation amenities provide a unique residential community concept that may appeal to many existing Temecula residents if they choose to move to the development. Further, the proposed Design Guidelines should result in quality development that includes a fire station, 2 public parks, 2 schools sites, and extensive on site and off site road improvements. Therefore, in staff's opinion, the benefits and amenities provided by the project justify the proposed number of units. Bufferin.q Valley Area Buffering has also been a well-debated issue for both the Valley Area and the Plateau Area. The residents would like to see larger lots (2.5-acre minimum) along the eastern and southern boundaries of the Valley area where 1-acre lots are currently proposed to provide additional buffering for them. Again, staff believes that the proposed buffering that has been provided is adequate. The buffering and the elevation difference between the project site and the existing residents provide a reasonable transition between the project and the larger lots in the vicinity of the project. Staff recognizes that the proposed buffering may not be ideal; however, it provides a reasonable compromise and is consistent with the Subcommittee and Planning Commission direction. Plateau Area The following measures were recommended by the Subcommittee to be incorporated into the project to reduce visibility of the Plateau Neighborhood from the Nicolas Valley. A Visual Impact Study was required to determine the visibility of these lots, which has been completed (refer to Figure 4-15 of the Specific Plan). The following mitigation measures were proposed by the Subcommittee to reduce the visual impacts: · An additional 40' to 50' of building setback or landscaped buffer for all lots with pad elevations higher than the top of the slope. The width of the natural or manufactured slope between the property line for the existing properties in the Nicolas Valley and the proposed lot along the south side of the Plateau has remained largely the same at 80' to 170'. A 25' building setback is also required for these houses which brings the total distance between them to 105' to 195'. In addition, enhanced landscaping is required in certain areas of the manufactured slope in accordance with the Visual Analysis included in Figure 4-15. Staff believes this combination provides adequate buffering between the existing lots and the R:\S P~Ro~ipaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02,doc 20 proposed lots consistent with the Subcommittee and the Planning Commission direction. · Additional landscaping at the bottom of the slope. The manufactured slope will be extensively landscaped. Use of single story units along the south edge. The applicant has not committed to single story homes along the south edge. The applicant believes that the Visual Analysis and the proposed additional landscaping have adequately addressed the visual buffering of the proposed homes from the Nicolas Valley. Visual Transition from Lar.qe to Small Lots Staff believes the south Loop Road provides the transition from large lots to smaller lots on the southern portion of the site (PAs 20 and 21 ). This transition is less defined on the eastern portion of the site (PA 19), as 6,000 square foot lots will most likely back up to the larger 20,000 square foot lots and will be divided by a project wall. If the Commission prefers to add a visual buffer between these areas, one way to accomplish it would be to require landscaping at the shared boundary of PAs 19 and 18. Staff has not added this requirement to the Specific Plan Guidelines. Noise and Li,qht Impacts The residents expressed concerns regarding light and noise from the parks and the private recreation centers. The City uses Musco lighting for lighting sports fields. These lights are designed with minimum spillage and should not be a nuisance to the residents. Moreover, the Sports Park (PA 27) is approximately 4,100 feet to the eastern property lines and 1,100' to the south property line. In addition, the Mega Center (PA 30) is approximately 1600' to the east property line and 1,900' to the south property line and its activities should not impact the residents outside the project area. Staff believes that the distance between these components and the type of lighting used for the Sports Parks should not greatly impact the surrounding residents. Increasin,q the Size and Amount of Landscapin.q for the Fuel Modification Zone Some residents expressed concerns regarding the non-irrigated thirty-foot wide fuel modification zone along the eastern and southern boundaries of the Valley area and requested it to be widened to 50' along with irrigated landscaping to provide additional buffering. The purpose of this area is primarily a fuel modification zone with non-irrigated native landscaping (hydro seed mix). The developer has agreed to open this area to the public in response to their demands for additional trails. It should be noted that the HOA would be maintaining this public trail. Staff believes the additional cost of providing landscaping and irrigation for the entire area could be an unnecessary financial burden on the HOA. Staff does not believe increasing the fuel modification width from 30' to 50' would greatly increase the buffering. If the commission would like to provide additional visual buffering for some existing residences along the eastern boundary of the project, staff would suggest adding additional landscaping to specific areas that are not substantially higher than the project site. Eliminatin.q the Nature Walk The residents in the Nicolas Valley have expressed concerns regarding invasion of their privacy by the people using the private Nature Walk located on the south side of the Plateau area within PA7A. Therefore, some residents have requested the elimination of the Nature Walk, which is located within 40' of the property line of the existing homes at the closest points at lots 103, 110, 313, and R:~S I:~Ro~ipaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~PC Staff Report 10-16-02,doc 21 316 of the "B" Map. Staff would like to keep the Nature Walk, as it is an important component of the projects overall design theme and provides a useful amenity for the future residents of the project. As illustrated on Figure 4-15A, landscaping will be provided to screen the trail from Nicolas Valley, as it is located within the manufactured slope area. In addition, the residents had concerns regarding the future residents and their pets trespassing on their property. The Nicolas Valley residents requested a fence at this location. Staff examined using a number of types of wall/fences such as a block wall or a split reil fence. The block wall seemed out of place with the rural character of the Nicolas Valley. The split rail fence did not provide the protection that the Nicolas valley residents desired. Therefore, staff is proposing the chain link fence, which compared to a block wall is barely visible from a distance. Horse Trails Horse trials have been a topic of discussion during the Community Meetings. The residents of the Nicolas Valley would like to be able to go from Nicolas Road to the UCR property on the northeastern edge of the project site. The properties around the project site are permitted to have horses and staff has done everything that is practical to facilitate the movement of horses in the area. It should be noted that currently there are no designated horse trails in the vicinity of the project. A soft surface path has been provided on Nicolas Road to Butterfield Stage Road. There is a gap between this path and the Multi Use Trail along PA 32 that leads into the UCR property. An off- street horse crossing at Butterfield Stage Road was considered by staff; however, we could not come up with a viable solution. It should be noted that the development cf a trial network throughout the City is long-term goal for the City. This project is providing its fair shara of trails that will be used by the public. The applicant is required to seek approval of a Habitat Management Plan (HMP) prior to the recordation of any Final Maps. This HMP requires the developer to address a number of issues including the pedestrian and equestrian access to the UCR and Johnson Ranch properties. Nei.qhborhood Commercial The applicant has agreed to include language in the Specific Plan to encourage eating establishments with outdoor seating areas to take advantage of the views to the east and southeast, refer to Page 3-35, Planning Area 11 Standards, Number 9 for the specific language that has been included in the Specific Plan. Staff has also added provisions to this Planning Area to anticipate the need for future telecommunication facilities in this area. The center is required to solicit the telecommunication companies prior to filing for a Development Plan to inquire about locating in this area. Regardless of the response from these companies, a tower element will be required in the design of the center that could be used for future telecommunication facilities. A park-n-ride facility with 50 designated spaces was required by the DEIR to reduce the traffic impacts of this project. These spaces will be provided in Planning Area 11 and have to be provided prior to the issuance of any building permits in Planning Areas 10, 12, 14 through 24, 31,33A, and 33B. Specific requirements of the park-n-ride are included in Section 3.11, Numbers 2 and 3 of the Specific Plan. R:~S FARo.,ipaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 22 Fences and Walls Chain Link Fences As indicated on Figures 2-14 through 2-17, the project includes a number of chain link fences at different locations. Staff has required these fences to be black vinyl coated with vertical and horizontal black-coated supports. These fences are required along the habitat area to keep the wild life and the domestic pets separated. They are also located along the southern property line.of the Plateau area on the perimeter of PA 7A. Comer Lot Privacy Fencing The applicant is proposing wood fencing with stucco pilasters in corner lot conditions (Figure 2-16); however, staff is recommending a stucco finish for these conditions. This will provide a more continuance appearance that will last a long time compared to wood fencing. Therefore, all fencing visible from the street will be stucco finish with the exception of the side yard gates. Sidewalks The issue of curb-separated sidewalks for both major and local streets has been debated between staff and the applicant for a long time. Flint, the applicant was reluctant to provide any curb separated sidewalks on major streets because of the topography of the site and, at the same time, the City's Public Works Department has sited long term maintenance issues and the difficulty of locating utilities when curb separated sidewalks are proposed. However, staff believes a reasonable compromise has been reached between the parties on major streets as illustrated on Figure 2~5D. However, staff has not been able to convince the applicants that curb separated sidewalks along local streets are also desirable. Curb separated sidewalks are proposed along the street frontage of both the Sports Park and the Neighborhood Park (PAs 27 and 6), at the perimeter of PA 11, and along the Butterfield Stage Road frontage of PAs 11 and 12 where a 12' combination Class I bike lane and sidewalk is proposed. This limited curb separated sidewalk path is designed to connect the entire valley neighborhood to the Neighborhood Park (PA 6), the commercial Center (PA 11 ), the Sports Park (PA27), the Elementary and Middle School site (PAs 29 and 28), and the Mega Center (PA30). It should be noted that even the residents in PA lA can reach the Sports Park and beyond to the east on the North Loop Road with using the Nature Walk and curb separated sidewalks. Staff believes this is an acceptable compromise given the topography of the site. Another sidewalk related issue is along Murrieta Hot Springs Road. Within the existing portion of the road within the County, curb adjacent and curb separated sidewalks are being constructed. However, the project proposes to transition into curb adjacent sidewalks because the road elevation is above the home pads, which will result in placing the walls for the residential units on the top of the slope. Since the wall will be only 12' away from the curb, separating the sidewalk from the curb with the parkway will cause the sidewalk to be immediately adjacent to the wall. Since this is not an acceptable design solution, staff is recommending curb adjacent sidewalks in this area and all other areas within the project with the same condition. The onlywayto have curb-separated sidewalks in this situation is to have at least 15' between the curb and the wall for the residential units. It is possible to achieve this design; however, it would require redesigning the project to reduce the build able area by 3', which the applicant has been unwilling to do. R:\S P",Roripaugh Ranch SP~ew~PC Staff Report 10-16-02'~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 23 Parkway Widths The project is proposing limited parkway widths, which are one of the few design shortcomings of this project. Other Specific Plans in the past have included 25' to 32' of Landscaped Development Zones beyond the curb. The applicant has been reluctant to provide wider parkways along the roadways stating that to do so will reduce the build able pad areas. If this is a concern to the Planning Commission, there are a number of ways to mitigate this issue by directing staff to add all or part of the following to the Specific Plan: Require dense and mature landscaping to be installed by the developer. Thirty six inch (36") box trees can achieve a more instantaneous and established landscaping for the parkways and medians along with forty eight inch (48") and/or 80' box trees at the intersections, Primary Project Monumentations, Staff Gated Primary Entries, and at the Card Key Gated Entdes. Requiring a "green wall" can soften the project walls since the width of the parkways is minimal. Approval Authority The development application approval authority table (Table 1-1 of the Specific Plan) is consistent with the Development Code version. However, the Planning Commission needs to be aware of two approval processes. The first one is for approval of the residential products, which is now proposed to be approved by the Planning Commission consistent with the Planning Commission's direction on other Specific Plans. However, staff believes with the detailed amhitectural guidelines, the Planning Commission may want to consider deferring this review to staff. The second item that the Planning Commission needs to be aware of is the approval of the Private Recreation Centers, which are currently proposed to be administratively approved by staff. Correspondence on the Proiect Staff has received one letter from the surrounding residents which is signed a several residents in the vicinity. The issues discussed in the letter include: increase buffering to the south and east of the Valley Neighborhood from 1 acre to 2.8 acres, Maintenance of the Fire Department "Knox Box" at Calle Contento, Security and privacy impacts of the Multi-use Trail, dust impacts of the grading operations. This letter is included in Attachment 4. GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY The Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan development concept is consistent with all applicable goals and programs contained within the General Plan and effectively implements the policies of the General Plan and the applicable zoning requirement. The issues and goals identified within each element of the General Plan have been evaluated, and a statement of compliance with the General Plan has been included in the Specific Plan. Staff has also compared the project with the Growth Management Program Action Plan (GMAP) The project supports the goals, policies, and other provisions contained in the GMAP relative to housing needs, alternative modes of transportation, employment opportunities, open space and recreational needs, etc. With the approval of the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element Amendments, the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan will be consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan. R:~S P~R0ripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 24 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Environmental Impact Report Because of the scope and impacts of the project, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared for this project. The DEIR analyzed the impacts of the project and proposed mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of the project to insignificant levels. However, despite incorporating changes and alterations into the Project, four environmental categories were found to have direct unavoidable and significant adverse environmental effects. The following direct environmental impacts were found to be significant in the EIR: 2. 3. 4. Loss of Agricultural Land; Transportation and Circulation; Air Quality; and Aesthetics. The potential impacts were concluded to be significant because the impacts could not be reduced below thresholds of significance by the proposed Project changes and mitigation measures. In addition, the EIR found that growth in the area would cumulatively have considerable impacts on traffic, noise, air quality, and water consumption. Therefore, Statements of Overriding Consideration ($OC) are proposed for these impacts. The SOC and the Findings for the EIR are included in Attachment I aspartoftheResolutionfortheCertificationoftheFEIR. The Mitigation Monitoring Program is included in Attachment 1. The DEIR was circulated for public review from April 3, 2002 to May 17, 2002. Response to Comments were prepared and distributed to the commenting agencies on October 1,2002 as part of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). Notices were sent to individuals who commented on the DEIR which notified them of the availability of the FEIR and the response to their comments. Staff received a letter from the California Indian Legal Services requesting the following language for Mitigation #2: "(2) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Developer shall enter into a Pro-Excavation Agreement with the local Native American (NA) Pechanga Band to fund up to 2 NA representatives to monitor all ground breaking activities and set for the treatment for Native American remains and cultural items found on the proiect site .................. " This letter is included in Attachment 4. The Planning Commission recommendation needs to incorporate this change to the City Council. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS This project has been in the Planning stage for over a decade. When the Planning Commission held a public hearing approximately one year ago, many of the issues surrounding this complex project were not addressed adequately. However, staff believes the project has evolved to provide reasonable buffering, include a vision for a quality development with many amenities for its future residents. It also provides the City with needed road improvements that may not happen without the development of this site. The following provides a summary of the project's benefits: R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 25 Roads The project will construct major General Plan level roads, which will enhance traffic movement throughout the City. These improvements include: · Full width construction of Murrieta Hot Springs Road from Pourroy to Butterfield Stage Road. · Full width construction of Butterfield Stage Road from Murrieta Hot Spdngs to Ranch California Road. · Full width improvement of Nicolas Road on-site and 40' curb-to-curb improvement of Nicolas · Road to Liefer Road. · Improvements to the Winchester Road and Nicolas Road intersection · Installation of six traffic signals at the following intersections as they are warranted. o North General Kearney Road at Nicolas Road o Pourroy Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road o Buttedield Stage Road at Rancho California Road o Murrieta Hot Springs Road at Butterfield Stage Road o Nicolas Road at Butterfield Stage Road o Calle Chapos at Butterfield Stage Road Other Benefits of the Project include; 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. A 19.7 acre sports park A 4.8 acre neighborhood park Over 200 acres of permanent open space A Fire Station site $1,200,000 to fund 50% of the construction cost for the fire station $800,000 to fund the purchase of fire apparatus to be used anywhere in the City A quality development with comprehensive private recreation programs and trails systems along with quality architecture. R:~S P\Rodpaugh Ranch SP~new~C Staff Report 10-16-02\PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 26 FINDINGS Planninq Application No. 94-0076 - Roripauqh Ranch Environmental Impact Report The Environmental Impact Report was prepared and cimulated in conformance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines. The Planning Commission reviewed the Draft and Final Reports prior to considering these · matters, and listened to all testimony prior to making their decision to recommend certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report to the City Council. Planninq Application No. 99-0298 - General Plan Amendment 1. The project as proposed and conditioned is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. The project has been reviewed by agencies and staff and determined to be in conformance with the City's General Plan, Development Code, Design Guidelines and Growth Management Program Action Plan. These documents set policies and standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. Access and circulation are adequate for emergency vehicles. 2, The applicant is requesting to amend the following section of the General Plan. These amendments are necessary to make the project consistent with these Elements of the General Plan, The Land Use Element amendment has three components: a. Amend the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 2-1 of the General Plan) to incorporate the proposed land uses by the project. b. Amend the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 2-1 of the General Plan) to incorporate the annexation area into the City Limits. c. Amend the General Plan Specific Plan Overlay Exhibit (Figure 2-5 of the General Plan) to include Planning Areas 33A and 33B. In addition, the General Plan Circulation Element includes the following components: d. Amend the General Plan Circulation Element map (Figure 3-1 of the General Plan) to eliminate the connection between Nicolas Road and Calle Contento through the project. e. Amend the General Plan Circulation Element map (Figure 3-1 of the General Plan) to change the designation of Butterfield Stage Road between Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Nicolas Road from 110' (Arterial Highway with 4 lanes) to Specific Plan Road, add North and South Loop Roads as Specific Plan Road, and add streets A and B as Collector, 3. The applicant is proposing a General Plan Amendment as proposed and conditioned is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. 4. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The project proposes similar residential neighborhoods adjacent to existing surrounding neighborhoods, with interface buffers and full roadway improvements. 5. The proposed project will not have an adverse effect on the community because it remains consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The project does not represent a significant change to the planned land uses for the site. The General Plan Amendment is a relocation and reallocation of the existing 3 dwelling units per gross acre designation. R:~S FARoripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 27 Plannin,q Application No. 94-0075 - Roripauqh Ranch Specific Plan No. 11 The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan, as it is proposed to be amended, and the Development Code. The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan and Development Code. The Specific Plan is a reallocation and redistribution of the majority of the existing land use designations and serves as an implementation tool for the General Plan. Therefore, as proposed, the Specific Plan is consistent with the General Plan, as it is proposed to be amended, and Development Code. The proposed Specific Plan would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the city. The project has been reviewed by agencies and staff, and is determined to be in conformance with the City's General Plan (as it is proposed to be amended), Development Code, Design Guidelines and Growth Management Program Action Plan. These documents set policies and standards that protect the health, safety and welfare of the community. In addition, the Specific Plan is a master planned community with specific design guidelines and standards that ensure compatibility and interface with the surrounding community in terms of density, design and circulation. Therefore, as proposed, conditioned and designed, the Specific Plan is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. The subject property is physically suitable for the requested land use designations and the anticipated land use developments. There are no physical constraints of the site which would preclude or prohibit the requested land use designations or anticipated developments. Moreover, the proposed Specific Plan land uses are consistent with the land uses of the General Plan and will serve as the tool to regulate and implement the goals and policies of the General Plan. The applicant has submitted applications for Tentative Tract Maps which illustrate that the site is physically suitable for the land uses and development proposed in the Specific Plan. The proposed project shall ensure development of desirable character which will be compatible with existing and proposed development in the surrounding neighborhood. The project proposes similar residential land uses adjacent to the existing surrounding neighborhoods, with extensive landscape buffers and interfaces. The Specific Plan took under consideration the existing developments and surrounding zoning classifications to ensure development that will be complementary and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Plenninq Application No. 99-0299 Development A.qreement An environmental review has been conducted and approved for this Agreement in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The City desires to obtain the binding agreement of the Developer and Owner for the development of the Property in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, The Developer desires to obtain the binding agreement of the City to permit the Developer to develop the Developer's Project on the Developer's Parcels in accordance with the "Applicable Rules" (as hereinafter defined) and this Agreement. The Owner desires to obtain the binding agreement of the City to permit the Owner to develop the Owner's Parcel in accordance with the "Applicable Rules" (as hereinafter defined) and this Agreement. R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~ew',PC Staff Report 10-16-02~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 28 o Developer and Owner have applied to the City in accordance with applicable procedures for approval of this mutually binding Agreement. The Planning Commission and City Council of the City have given notice of intention to consider the Agreement, have conducted public hearings thereon pursuant to the Government Code, and have found that the provisions of this Agreement are consistent with the Specific Plan and the City's General Plan. This Agreement is consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare needs of the residents of the City and the surrounding region. The City has specifically considered and approved the impact and benefits of the development of the Property in accordance with this Agreement upon the welfare of the region. This Agreement will bind the City to the terms and obligations specified in this Agreement and will limit, to the degree specified in the Agreement and under State law, the future exercise of the City's ability to delay, postpone, preclude or regulate development on the Property, except a provided for herein. In accordance with the Development Agreement Statutes, this Agreement eliminates uncertainty in the planning process and provides for the orderly development of the Property. Further, this Agreement eliminates uncertainty about the validity of exactions imposed by the City, allows installation of necessary improvements, provides for public services necessary for the region with incidental benefits for the Property, and generally serves the public interest within the City of Temecula and the surrounding region. Plannin,q Application Nos. 01-0230 and 01-0253--Tentative Tract Maps The proposed subdivision and the design or improvements of the subdivision is consistent with the General Plan, the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, Development Code, and other applicable regulations and requirements. The tentative maps do not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a Land Conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following division of the land will be too small to sustain their agricultural use. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development proposed by the tentative map. Access is proposed from five adjacent, existing streets within the Specific Plan. The site is adjacent to already developed and similar residential uses. Public utilities are available at or in close proximity to the site. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to those previously acquired by the public will be provided. The map has provided that all proposed and existing public utility easements over landscape areas shall be granted as shown on the map. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements. R:',S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC Staff Report 10-16-02'~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 29 Attachments: 1. PC Resolution for the EIR - Blue Page 31 Exhibit A - City Council Resolution for the FEIR Certification- Blue Page 32 2. PC Resolution for approving the Project - Blue Page 33 Exhibit A - City Council Resolution for the GPA and Specific Plan - Blue Page 34 Exhibit B- City Council Ordinance for the Development Code Amendment and Zoning Standards for the Roripaugh Specific Plan - Blue Page 35 Exhibit C -City Council Ordinance authorizing the Development Agreement- Blue Page 36 3. PC Resolution for Tentative Tract Map Nos. - Blue Page 37 Exhibit A -City Council Resolution for Tentative Tract Map 29353- Blue Page 38 Exhibit A-l- Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map 29353 Blue Page 39 Exhibit B - City Council Resolution for Tentative Tract Map 29661- Blue Page 40 Exhibit B-1 - Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract Map 29661- Blue Page 41 4. Correspondence Received - Blue Page 42 5. Specific Plan Errata Sheet - Blue Page 43 6. Planning Commission Meeting Summary, August 15, 2001 - Blue Page 51 7. Planning Commission Staff Report, August 15, 2001 - Blue Page 54 8. Planning Commission Minutes, August 15, 2001 - Blue Page 55 9. Planning Commission October 17, 2001, Proposed Land Use Plan - Blue Page 56 10. Planning Commission Meeting Summary, October 17, 2001 - Blue Page 57 11. Planning Commission Staff Report, October 17, 2001 - Blue Page 59 12. Planning Commission Minutes, October 17, 2001 - Blue Page 60 13. Community Meeting Summary, September 12, 2001 - Blue Page 61 14. Community Meeting Summary, September 25, 2002 - Blue Page 63 15. Subcommittee Meeting Summary, September 24, 2001 - Blue Page 65 16. Currently Proposed Land Use Plan - Blue Page 68 17. Exhibit A of the Specific Plan, Timing for Improvements - Blue Page 69 18. Development Agreement - Blue Page 73 R:~S P~Ror~paugh Ranch SP~new~C Staff Report 10-16-02~PC Staff Report 10-16-02.doc 3O A'I'rACHMENT 8 PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES DATED OCTOBER 16, 2002 R:XS P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new\CCXStaff Report 11-26-02 A.doc DRAFT EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 16, 2002 (AGENDA ITEM NO. 5) 5 Planninq Application No. PA94-0073, PA99-0298, PA94-0075, PA94-0076, PA01-0253, PA01-0230, and PA99-0299 - The annexation of 634 acres to the City of Temecula; a General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element to incorporate the proposed land uses, and to include Planninq Areas 33A and 33B to the Specific plan Overlay Fi,qure; a General Plan Amendment to the Circulation element to eliminate the connection between Nicolas Road and Calle Contento throuqh the proiect and to chanqe the desiqnation of Butterfield Sta.qe Road between Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Nicolas Road from 4 lanes Specific Plan Road; a Zone Chanqe to pre-zone the annexation properly to the SP zonin.q desiqnation and to amend the Development Code Section 17.16.070 of the City of Temecula Development Code to adopt a Specific Plan for 804.7 acres to provide zoning and development standards for the development of 2,015 dwellinq units within several .qated communities, 110,000 square feet of neiqhborhood commercial retail space, a 12 acre elementary school site and a 20 acre middle school site, two public parks sites includinq a 19.7 acre Sports Park with liqhted playinq fields and a 4.8 acre nei.qhborhood park with passive uses, three private recreation facilities, private and public trails and paseos, a fire station site, and 202.7 acres of natural open space to be preserved as permanent habitat, related flood control improvements to Santa Gertrudis Creek and Lonq Valley Wash; a tentative map to subdivide the proiect for conveyance purposes; a tentative map to create 509 residential lots within a qated community, a 4.8 acre private recreational facility, a .3 acre private mini park, private paseos and trails, a 5.1 acre public park site, and two open space lots (21.9 acres) to be preserved as permanent habitat; and a Development Agreement to qrant the developer development rights for ten years and secure the construction of certain infrastructure improvements by the developer located Northeast of the City near the eventual intersection of Buttedield Staqe Road and Nicolas Road - Saied Naaseh-Shahry, Proiect Planner V RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Adopt a Resolution entitled: R:P[anCornrn/dral~ excerpt/101602 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND RELATED ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED NEAR THE EVENTUAL INTERSECTION OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD, (PLANNING APPLICATION 94-0076). 5.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE FOLLOWING: 1) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-0298); 2) THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0075); 3) ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING STANDARDS (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94- 0075); 4) ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A CHANGE OF ZONE TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY (PLANNING APPLICATION 94-0075); AND 5) ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE RORIPAUGH RANCH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99- 0299); ON PARCELS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 804.7 ACRES, LOCATED NEAR THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD AND FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 957-130-001 and 002, 957-340-001, 003, 007, 008, AND 958-260-001 AND 002. 5.1 Adopt a Resolution entitled: R:PlanComnVdraft excerpb'lO1602 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01- 0230 - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29353 FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 804.7 ACRES INTO 39 LOTS AND 8 STREET LOTS, PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01- 0253- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 29661, FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF 158 ACRES INTO 509 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 20 OPEN SPACE LOTS WITHIN PLANNING AREAS lA, 1,B, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 5, 6, 7A, 7B, 7C, 8, and 9A OF THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED NEAR THE EVENTUAL INTERSECTION OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 957-130-001 and 002, 957-340-001, 003, 007, AND 008, 958-260-001 AND 002. Staff presented the project plan Project Planner Naaseh provided a detailed overview of the project plan (per agenda material), relaying the following: Reviewed staff's efforts regarding this project's process through the years; highlighted the Planning Commission hearings held in October of 2001, whereas the Commission provided staff direction; noted the input received from the Subcommittee members and the neighbors; and advised that various recommendations from these entities had been incorporated into the project; · Specified the changes in the project plan being proposed, noting the differences from last year's proposal; Referenced the memorandum from staff dated October 16, 2002 (per supplemental agenda material), which outlined amendments to the staff report and errata sheet, specifying various revisions included in this document, in particular deleting references to restricting construction traffic on Nicolas Road (denoted in Item No. 6), adding a requirement for the developer to install sound walls to mitigate noise impacts (denoted in Item No. 7), and an amendment to the mitigation measures to address archaeological mitigation (as denoted in Item No. 8); Relayed receipt of a letter from Lilan and Jean Wagner dated October 16, 2002 which outlined their concerns regarding the project and was provided to the Planning Commission via supplemental agenda material; · Via overheads, specified the location of the site, and the surrounding properties; · Noted the required read improvements associated with this project's development including mitigation from the impacts outside the City of Temecula; R:PlanComrn/draft excerpt/101602 3 Relayed the visual appearance of the project from outside the project, noting the applicant's reluctance to provide larger parkways (currently proposed at 6-feet) due to space constraints, advising that to mitigate this matter staff has offered alternate implementation options, i.e., larger trees placed in the parkways, a green wall on the major roads (e.g. Butterfield Stage Road, and Murrieta Hot Springs Road); Advised that while it was staff's desire that curb-separated sidewalks be provided on all streets, the applicant has proposed this element along portions of the major routes; Specified that 2,015 units were being proposed; Provided additional information regarding the buffering, noting that this proposal was consistent with the Subcommittee's recommendations, relaying that to the south and east of the valley, and the lots would be one acre, followed by 20,0000-square foot lots, that at the southern and eastern edge of the valley, a 30-foot landscape buffer zone would be provided; with respect to the Plateau Area (previously referred to as the Panhandle Area), noted that there would be a combination of natural slopes and/or a landscaped manufactured slope which would be between 80-170 feet wide with a 25-foot setback on top of the slope for all the houses backing up to Nicolas Valley which would increase the buffer to 105 feet and 195 feet; and relayed the addition of enhanced landscaping along the Plateau Area to further restrict the view of the future homes from Nicolas Valley; Noted the basic land uses proposed, relaying the following: o That in the Plateau Neighborhood, there would be a private recreation center surrounded by residential lots (with a minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet), a neighborhood park, a retail/commercial center, and a fire station; o That in the Valley Neighborhood, there would be a lighted sports park, an elementary and middle school, a recreation center, the remaining area being residential with the larger lots (1-acre lots) on the perimeter, and the smaller lots on the interior; o That the neighborhood areas were connected via a series of paseos and trails; and o That the community would be gated with the exception of the schools, the public parks, and the commercial center; Referencing the EIR, provided additional information regarding the environmental impacts resulting from this particular project and the associated mitigation; Summarized the primary benefits of the project, listed as follows: major road improvements, two park sites, i.e., a lighted sports park and a neighborhood park, over 200 acres of Open Space (which would be transferred to County ownership to be maintained by the Habitat Agency), the provision of a fire station site with $2 million towards the construction costs and the cost of purchasing a fire truck, and the inclusion of sidewalks separated with parkways; Staff noted concerns which have been expressed reqardinq the project Specified that there were various issues of concern (raised by the Commission, the neighbors, and/or the Subcommittee) regarding the project which should be further discussed, listed as follows: o The improvements to Nicolas Road; o The total number of units proposed (noting that the proposal was consistent with the General Plan); o The proposed buffering plan (which was consistent with the Subcommittee's direction); o The on-site transition from small lots to the larger lots; o The neighbors' concerns regarding light and noise impacts from the sports park and the private recreation facilities (noting that Musco lighting would be installed at the park); o The neighbors' recommendation for an increase in size for the fuel modification zone, as well as increased landscaping elements; o The elimination of the nature walk due to privacy issues; and o The valley residents' desire for the project to include a designated equestrian trail (noting the requirement for the applicant to investigate whether the agency maintaining the Open Space would allow the public to use this area), additionally relaying that an unimproved path on Nicolas Road could be utilized by horses; With respect to the approval authority, relayed that the private recreation centers, as proposed, would be approved by staff, additionally noting that while the products for residential units were proposed to be approved by the Planning Commission, that due to the strong Design Guidelines staff was requesting that the Planning Commission consider having this component approved by staff. Staff answers the questions of the Commission Addressing the queries of the Planning Commission, staff relayed the following: Noted that the residential pads will be lower than the street, that the wall would be placed at the top of the slope, that if curb-separated sidewalks were installed in this area, the sidewalk would be adjacent to the wall which was undesirable, that to gain additional room for an increase in landscaping the slope would have to be pushed back three or four feet which would reduce the buildabie pad area, and that while staff opined that it would be feasible to increase the landscaping, the applicant has not been agreeable. In response, Commissioner Olhasso queried whether it was necessary to install the wall. · Clarified that the green wall (a wall with vines growing on it) softened the visual impact of the wall; Provided additional information regarding the circulation improvements associated with this project, including improvements to Nicolas Road, Butterfield Stage Road, and improvements to intersections, specifying that the funds collected (as a fair share amount based on this project's impacts) for a percentage of many intersection improvements were being channeled together to improve off-site intersections which could be completed projects, advising that all of the circulation improvements for this project will be installed prior to receipt of the Issuance of the 510th Building Permit; Provided additional information regarding the Open Space and public art credits which were credited due to the City obtaining these elements with the proposal upfront; · Relayed that staff would investigate whether there was a specified percentage of single-family units required; Advised that a portion of the circulation improvements (approximately $30 million) would be funded via the CFD, and that the CFD would be required to be funded prior to the issuance of the first building permit, that the total costs for the required infrastructure were approximately $65 million, and that the developer would fund the differential between what the CFD funds and the costs of the improvements; · Confirmed that the 30-foot buffering along the southern and eastern boundary was in addition to the one-acre lots; · Provided additional information regarding the specificity of this project's Design Guidelines; Via overheads, presented the circulation improvements, advising that the traffic study required,that Butterfield Stage Road be six lanes between Nicolas Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road which would address traffic demands in this area at future build out, specifying the improvements required to be implemented prior to the issuance of the 108th building permit, and improvements required to be implemented prior to the issuance of the 510th building permit; and · Relayed that staff would provide the Planning Commission with the lotting study. The applicant provided an overview of the proiect Mr. Kevin Everett, representing the applicant, provided a brief synopsis of the project, relaying the following: · Noted the changes implemented into the project since this proposal was presented at the October 2001 hearing; Via overheads, specified the location of the 201 -acre Open Space Area, the Plateau Area which would encompass 509 units, the location of the nature walk, the buffer area, the trail system which provided connectivity to other portions of the project, the pedestrian bridge, the recreational facility, the detention basin, the main entry staffed gate, the two Opticom gates, the nine half-acre unit lots, the park site with a view, the area with 150 units of clustered development, the area with 14 unit lots with one-acre lots on the outside, followed by half-acre lots, the ridgelines, the loop road, the channels, the sports park, the schools, and the second recreation center; · Provided additional information regarding the circulation improvements to be implemented with the project, specifying the timing of such; R:PlanComrcJdraft except/101602 6 · Noted that the project would be completed in two phases; Confirmed that the circulation improvements would cost approximately $62-65 million, advising that the applicant was anticipating that the CFD would provide approximately $40 million towards these improvements; · Provided additional information regarding the project's intersection fees; and · Advised that this project, as revised, was more upscale than the previous proposal, and that the anticipated value of the homes in this area has increased. The public was invited to speak The following individuals spoke as proponents of the project: Mr. Brian K. McClung Ms. Karen Bales Mr. Mike Knowlton Mr. Stephen Jensen Ms. Baillargeat Reine 31147 Brussels Street 39340 Jessie Circle 39130 Pala Vista Drive 32100 Vista Del Monte Road 31220 Nicolas Road Winchester The above-mentioned individuals were in favor of the project, due to the following reasons: This particular project was well-planned; Opposed to the strong anti-growth comments recently reflected in the newspaper expressed by various citizens and/or citizen groups in which all development is opposed; Requested that there be consideration for the proximate neighbors to have the opportunity to be part of the Homeowner's Association (HOA), contributing towards the HOA fees and having access to the HOA facilities; Noted the benefits of processing this project in the City, rather than it being processed through the County; Specified the project's benefits to the community, e.g., circulation improvements, fire station, and schools; Recommended that Liefer Road be incorporated as part of the Assessment District and be paved as a two-lane road with culverts; Requested that the walking trail proposed along the canyon be removed; Queried whether Nicolas Valley residents would be assessed with higher fees, requesting that there be consideration to not further assess these residents for future improvements unless there was a subdivision or rezoning; Recommended that there be a buffer between the dirt roads which will connect into two-lane or four-lane roads; Relayed a desire for lower density; Recommended that the developer aid in providing access to property on Nicolas Road For Mr. Jensen, Chairman Chiniaeff and Commissioner Olhasso noted that alternate development projects have had the cost of circulation improvements equate to a fee of approximately $30,000 per house. R:PlanComm/draft excerpt/101602 7 The following individuals spoke in opposition of the project: ,~ Ms. Shirley Lassley 32850 ~ Mr. John Mize 32850 o Ms. Jeannie Morris 33007 ,~ Mr. Tom Stillings 35595 o Mr. Bill Vazzana 39605 o Mr. Mark Broderick 45501 o Mr. Hans Kernkamp 39055 ,~ Mr. AndrewZun [] Mr. Drake Haskins [] Mr. Tom Edwards Vista De Ora Vista Del Monte Road Vina Way Gtenoaks Road Avenida Lynell Clubhouse Drive Liefer Road 33105 Vista Del Monte Road 3200 Vista Del Monte Road 31250 Nicolas Road The above-mentioned individuals were opposed to the project, due to the following reasons: Opposed to the proposed density; Requested that Vista Del Monte Road not be completely closed-off where it intersects with Butter[ield Stage Road, recommending that a gate be installed for the residents' use; Noted the need for a greater buffer on the south and east sides of the project; Recommended that there be two-and-a-half- or two-acre lots on the east and south ends of the project, additionally recommending additional trees in these areas for fudher screening; Submitted a petition with the signatures of approximately 50 neighboring residents, relaying their desire for the project to be further conditioned; Concurred with the concerns outlined in the letter from Roger and Jeannie Morris which was submitted at tonight's hearing (October 16, 2002); Expressed concern regarding the negative impact this project would have on the water supply; Opposed to the placement of two schools adjacent to one another due to the traffic impacts and the associated safety risks for the children attending these schools; Traffic impacts, both cumulatively, and on the neighboring streets; Queried how long there would be construction traffic on Nicolas Road; and Environmental impacts during construction, i.e., dust and dirt in the air. For Commissioner Telesio, Ms. Morris relayed that the parcels outside the project on the south side were from two-and-a-half to twenty acres in size. For informational purposes, and for Ms. Reine, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks provided additional information regarding the circulation improvement projects, advising that there would be consideration with respect to all the connecting driveways and roadways; additionally provided information regarding the assessment district in this area, which was formed by the County to maintain the roads in the wine country area; It is noted that the following submittals regarding the project were received on October 16, 2002, the day of the hearing: 1) a petition with approximately 50 signatures, specifying four recommendations regarding the project, 2) a letter dated October 16, 2002, written by Roger and Jeannie Morris, outlining their concerns regarding the project, 3) a note from Ron and Rose Alvarado, noting their request to be able to review a rendering of the proposals adjacent to their property, 4) a letter dated October 16, 2002, written by Milan and Jean Wagner, outlining their concerns regarding the project, and 5) a letter dated October 16, 2002, written by Mike Knowlton, recommending that the project be further conditioned. The meeting recessed at 8:15 P.M., reconvening at 8:25 P.M. The applicant presented rebuttal Providing rebuttal to the previously expressed comments, Mr. Everett relayed the following: With respect to the desire for two-and-a-half acre lots on the east side of the project, and specifically the comments referencing a commitment by the developer to maintain the proposal for these larger lots, clarified that previously there were two- and-a-half acre lots proposed on one side, and half-acre lots on the Vista Del Monte side, specifying the location of the previously proposed clustered housing, commercial center, apartments, and elementary school; provided additional information regarding the compromise that was reached which would address the neighbors' concerns as a whole, relaying that the revisions incorporated with the efforts of the Subcommittee and staff would create a more proportionate distribution with the land use; With respect to concerns regarding the water supply, advised that the project's Water Quality Plan which was an extensive document has been approved by the Water Quality Control Board; With respect to gating Vista Del Monte Road, noted that it was his understanding that the residents in this area with the aid of an attorney could revert the street back to private use, and install a gate with the residents' monies; · Provided additional information regarding the alignment of Nicolas Road, the location of the bridge, and the road improvements in this area; For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Everett relayed that the previous proposal for the area with the proposed 12 one-acre lots (on the southern portion of the project) was five or six two-and-a-half acre tots; specified the stair step approach with the elevations of these lots which would provide each home with a view; for Chairman Chiniaeff, confirmed that he would provide the Planning Commission with the lotting layout; for Commissioner Olhasso, updated the Planning Commission regarding the schools within the project, noting the meetings held with staff, the applicant, and the School District, whereby the siting of the schools was discussed; and advised that the architectural plans have been approved by the State Architect's office. R:PlanComrn/draQ excerpL/101602 9 The Plannin.q Commission offered closinq comments Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that the Planning Commission needed additional information from the applicant regarding the issues raised at this meeting; advised that he would be reluctant to recommend revisions for buffering in the area where there was a substantial variation in the elevations of the lots; and noted that it would be his desire to know the timing of the road improvements on Nicolas Road, querying the adequacy of the two lanes proposed west of the project. In response to Chairman Chiniaeff, Project Planner Naaseh confirmed that staff did receive a letter from EMWD regarding this proposed project, indicating that there was an adequate water supply, advising that Rancho Water would also be providing service to approximately 15 units. Regarding the concern expressed with respect to the deletion of the two-and-a-half acre lots, Commissioner Mathewson concurred with Chairman Chiniaeff, that with a substantial grade elevation difference, the neighbors' view would not be directly down on these parcels; and relayed that he would desire additional information regarding these lots. Commissioner Telesio requested that staff outline the areas in the current proposal where staff and the applicant disagreed (i.e., the curb-separated sidewalk element on the local streets, the chain-linked fencing adjacent to the nature walk), specifically elements, which staff viewed as needing revision. In response, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that at this time staff was not requesting that the applicant revise the sidewalldstreet plans, advising that staff was satisfied with the compromise the applicant met, proposing the curb-separated sidewalks on the major roads; confirmed that on the routes to the commercial area, the park and the school, curb-separated sidewalks have been proposed; specified that the vinyl-coated chain-link fencing was proposed on the south side of the Plateau Area at the property line, on Butterfield Stage Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road, adjacent to the habitat area, clarifying that the uncoated chain-link fence was solely proposed as temporary fencing separating the residential area from Planning Area 13, the Open Space area; advised that the errata sheet document included revisions to the proposal that staff opined as necessary; and confirmed that staff would summarize the changes to this particular project in order to provide the Planning Commission with clarification. For Commissioner Telesio, Project Planner Naaseh confirmed that horses would be permitted on the one-acre lots, advising that at the rear of these lots there would be access to the multi-purpose trail; clarified that the developer would be required to enter into negotiations with the Habitat Agency, confirming that equestrian access to the UCR property and the Johnson Ranch property would be addressed by the Agency at that time. Mr. Everett speciifed environmental issues the Habitat Agency would be considering i.e., damage to the gnatcatchers habitat. Commenting on the future approval process for the Product Review for this project, Commissioner Olhasso relayed her desire for this review to take place at the Planning Commission level. R:PlanComrn/dra~ excerpt/101602 10 Regarding the tract maps, Chairman Chiniaeff recommended that there be further investigation regarding the proposed driveways close to Murrieta Hot Springs Road. For Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner Naaseh confirmed that there were no curb-separated sidewalks proposed on the internal neighborhood streets, including the streets proximate to the one-acre sites. Commissioner Mathewson relayed a desire for this issue to be revisited. With respect to the Development Agreement, Project Planner Naaseh advised that while staff and the applicant agreed with the major deal points, there would be some minor revisions, Assistant City Attorney Curley noting that staff has not had word back from the applicant regarding final agreement with the Development Agreement. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to continue this item to the October 30, 2002 Planninq Commission meetinq. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Mathewson and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. ATFACHMENT 9 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATED OCTOBER 30, 2002 R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SPXnew\CC~Staff Report 11-26-02 A.d~ 19 ClTY OFTEMECULA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM ORIGINAL TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Director October 30, 2002 Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and Related Projects On October 16, 2002, the Planning Commission took public testimony, provided direction to staff on a number of issues, and continued this item to the October 30, 2002 hearing. Staff has been working with the applicant to finalize the Conditions of Approval and the Development Agreement. The purpose of this meeting is to address issues raised by the Planning Commission at the last meeting. Because of the time constraints, instead of providing an analysis of the issues in the Staff Report, staff will include the analysis as part of the oral presentation to the Commission. Staff will also provide the Planning Commission with an updated list of Conditions of Approval and other components of the project. It should be noted that these materials should not be substantially new information but rather clarification of items. In addition, Attachments 1 and 4 include a number of letters submitted at the night of the Planning Commission and the Lotting Study and Cross Sections, respectively. Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. List of Issues - Blue Page 2 Community Correspondence on the Project - Blue Page 3 Errata Sheet dated October 16, 2002 - Blue Page 4 October 16, 2002 Staff Report - Blue Page 5 Lotting Study and Cross Sections (Attached as Exhibits) - Blue Page 6 R:\S I~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC staff Report 10-30-02.doc 1 A~I'ACHMENT NO. 1 LIST OF ISSUES R:\S P',Roripaugh Ranch SP~ew\PC staff Report 10-30-02.dcc 2 Summary of Community Concerns October 16, 2002 Planning Commission Hearing 1. The developer should pave Jessie Circle and Liefer Road. 2. The developer should arrange to make the private recreation centers available to the general public by charging a fee. 3. The pavement of Liefer Road with associated drainage improvements should be included in the CFD for the project. 4. The Nature walk should be eliminated. 5. Nicolas Valley property owners should not be included in a future assessment district for the improvement of Nicolas Road. 6. The developer should be responsible to improve Nicolas Road to 4 lanes. 7. The developer should pave Vista Del Monte and provide a gate to eliminate the passer by traffic, which exists today. The project will increase this traffic. 8. Some residents were opposed to the project because of the density of the project. 9. The total number of units should be 400 dwelling units not 2,015 units. 10. The buffering to the south and east should be 2.5-acre minimum lots. However, minimum 2-acre lots are an acceptable compromise, which will result in a total of 1,995 dwelling units. 11. The developer and Council member Roberts promised the residents minimum 2.5-acre lots along the east side. The residents would like these promises to be kept. 12. The developer should provide landscaping for the 30' fuel modification zone including trees to provide privacy for the residents since many people will be using the Multi Purpose Trail. 13. The project should address the requirements of SB 221 and SB 610. 14. The traffic flow on the interchanges will continue to get worse with the approval of additional projects. 15. The Traffic Study underestimates the number of trips on Nicolas Road. 16. The City should require the developer to improve 4 lanes for Nicolas and reduce the improvement to Butte~eld Stage Road from 6 lanes to 4 lanes. 17. How long will the construction traffic last? 18. Construction traffic on Nicolas Road should not be permitted. R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC StaffRepon 10-16-02~PC summary 10-16-02.doc l 19. 20. 21. If the dust generated from the unimproved portion of Nicolas Road causes health hazards, the City will be held liable for it, Access to all existing lots and residences should be kept. The two school sites should not be next to each other. Planning Commission Comments 1. Staff should re-examine the proposed varied width improvements to Nicolas Road and Buttedield Stage Road. 2. The shared access driveways in the "B" Map need further consideration. 3. Staff should provide additional analysis on curb-separated sidewalk on major and local streets. 4. Split Rail (PVC) fencing with wire mesh is an alternative to the chain link fencing along the southern property line of the Plateau. 5. Staff needs to provide input on the applicant's proposal to change the timing for the th th completion of improvements from 107 building permit to the 250 building permit. 6. Staff should provide the Planning Commission additional information regarding the elevation difference between the project and the existing residences in the perimeter. 7. The Design Guidelines lack graphics. 8. Which section of the Design Guidelines provides information regarding the requirement of single story and 2 story houses? R:~S P~q. oripaugh Ranch SP~new~PC StaffReport 10.16-02~PC summary 10-16-02.doc 2 ATFACHMENT 10 PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES DATED OCTOBER 30, 2002 R:~S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new\CCSStaff Report 11-26-02 A.doc 20 4 DRAFT EXCERPT FROM THE MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 30, 2002 (AGENDA ITEM NO. 4) Planninq Application No. PA94-0073, PA99-0298, PA94-0075, PA94-0076, PA01-0253, PA01-0230, and PA99-0299 - The annexation of 634 acres to the City of Temecula; a General Plan Amendment to the Land Use Element to incorporate the proposed land uses, and to include Planninq Areas 33A and 33B to the Specific plan Overlay Fi~lure; a General Plan Amendment to the Circulation element to eliminate the connection between Nicolas Road and Calle Contento throuqh the project and to chanqe the desiqnation of Butterfield Staqe Road between Murrieta Hot Sprinqs Road and Nicolas Road from 4 lanes Specific Plan Road; a Zone Chanqe to pre-zone the annexation property to the SP zonin.q desiqnation and to amend the Development Code Section 17.16.070 of the City of Temecula Development Code to adopt a Specific Plan for 804.7 acres to provide zoninq and development standards for the development of 2,015 dwellinq units within several .qated communities, 110,000 square feet of neiqhborhood commercial retail space, a 12 acre elementary school site and a 20 acre middle school site, two public parks sites includinq a 19.7 acre Sports Park with li¢:lhted playing fields and a 4.8 acre neiqhborhood park with passive uses, three private recreation facilities, private and public trails and paseos, a fire station site, and 202.7 acres of natural open space to be preserved as permanent habitat, related flood control improvements to Santa Gertrudis Creek and Lonq Valley Wash; a tentative map to subdivide the proiect for conveyance purposes; a tentative map to create 509 residential lots within a gated community, a 4.8 acre private recreational facility, a .3 acre private mini park, private paseos and trails, a 5.1 acre public park site, and two open space lots (21.9 acres) to be preserved as permanent habitat; and a Development Agreement to qrant the developer development ri.qhts for ten years and secure the construction of cedain infrastructure improvements by the developer located Northeast of the City near the eventual intersection of Butterfield Staqe Road and Nicolas Road - Saied Naaseh-Shahry, Proiect Planner V RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a Resolution entitled: R:PlanComm/dra[t exce~pt]103002 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-046 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND RELATED ACTIONS AND RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM IN CONNECTION THEREWITH FOR THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED NEAR THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD, (PLANNING APPLICATION 94-0076). 4.2 Adopt a Resolution entitled: PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-047 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE FOLLOWING: 1) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99-0298); 2) THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0075); 3) ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ZONING STANDARDS (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94- OO75); 4) ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING A CHANGE OF ZONE TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY (PLANNING APPLICATION 94-0075); AND 5) ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE RORIPAUGH RANCH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 99- 0299); ON PARCELS TOTALING APPROXIMATELY 804.7 ACRES, LOCATED NEAR THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD AND FURTHER IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 957-130-001 and 002, 957-340-001, 003, 007, 008, AND 958-260-001 AND 002. 4.3 Adopt a Resolution entitled: R:PtanComrrVdrafl excerpt]103002 2 PC RESOLUTION NO. 2002-048 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 01- 0230 - TENTATIVE Tract Map No. 29353 FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 804.7 ACRES INTO 39 LOTS AND 8 STREET LOTS, Planning Application No. 01-0253- TENTATIVE Tract Map No. 29661, FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF 158 ACRES INTO 509 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 20 OPEN SPACE LOTS WITHIN PLANNING AREAS lA, 1,B, 2, 3, 4A, 4B, 5, 6, 7A, 7B, 7C, 8, AND 9A OF THE RORIPAUGH RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED NEAR THE EVENTUAL INTERSECTION OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AND NICOLAS ROAD, AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR PARCEL NOS. 957-130-001 AND 002, 957-340-00'1,003, 007, AND 008, 958-260-001 AND 002. Staff provided an overview of the proiect plan Project Planner Naaseh presented the proposed project (of record), relaying the following information: Specified the data provided via supplemental agenda material, as follows: o The complete package of resolutions and ordinances necessary for approval of the project; o The refined Conditions of Approval included in the resolutions, o Information regarding the issues and concerns associated with the proposed number of units and the buffering plan, o A newerrata sheet, o The refined Design Guidelines, and o A letter dated October 16, 2002, written by Roger and Jeannie Morris, outlining their concerns regarding the project, · Noted special thanks to Development Services Administrator McCarthy and Associate Engineer Jimenez, commending their hard work on the project; Presented a detailed overview of the issues associated with the proposed number of units and the buffering plan (referencing the 10-page document entitled Total Number of Units and Buffering), and addressed the concerns regarding the density of the project, buffering, the placement of 2.5-acre lots to the south or east, increasing the width of the fuel modification zone, and plateau buffering, advising that staff was not recommending changes to the proposed density or the buffering plan; With respect to buffering, Chairman Chiniaeff interjected the following recommendations: Regarding the easterly property, specifically beginning at the lot designated as 47,114 square feet (a pie-shaped lot), recommended that those seven lots (from the pie-shaped lot and up through six additional lots) be reduced by three lots, advising R:PlanComm/draft excerpt/103002 3 that the remaining four lots would be approximately 1.8 acres apiece, noting that with the adjacent easement these lots would equate to the same buffering as lots slightly larger than two acres (clarifying, for Project Planner Naaseh, that he was not actually placing the easement within the lots, but referencing the buffering affect due to the lots sizes and the easement); Regarding the lots on the Vista Del Monte portion of the property, at the southeastern corner, recommended that the three lots at the end of the cul-de-sac be reduced to two lots; that at the southern portion in the area where there were five lots not at grade with the adjacent properties, recommended that two lots be removed from this area in order to enlarge the remaining three lots; that proximate to the alternate cul-de-sac where there were currently five lots, that these lots be reduced by one, increasing the size of the remaining lots; and advised that the remaining perimeter lots had a significant variation in the grade elevation and would be sufficient; and With respect to the area at the rear of the Plateau Area, recommended that there be investigation as to whether there should be additional buffering adjacent to the one residence located proximate to the property line, which appears to be located at grade. In response to Project Planner Naaseh's queries, the Planning Commission relayed that there was a consensus regarding the above-recommended revisions. For Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner Naaseh confirmed that the mapping was provided for informational purposes only, and that the lots called out as one-acre lots in the Specific Plan would be required to be a minimum of one acre. Mr. Pat Hirsch, representing the applicant, for Commissioner Telesio, specified the difference between natural and native landscaping, clarifying that the applicant would install landscaping consistent with the adjacent properties; and for Commissioner Guerriero, specified the process of hydro seeding, Project Planner Naaseh advising that the plant palette was included in the Specific Plan. Noting that at various locations the trail would be as close as 25 to 30 feet to the property boundary, Chairman Chiniaeff queried whether there would be additional landscaping in this area. In response to the applicant's representative specifying the landscape plan, Chairman Chiniaeff recommended additional landscaping, specifically in the area proximate to ~he lot designated on the map as Lot 441. For Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner Naaseh relayed that there would be landscaping on both sides of the trail. R:PlanComm/draft excerpt'103002 4 Continuing his presentation, referencing the document entitled Total Number of Units and Buffering, Project Planner Naaseh addressed additional concerns, which had been expressed by the Planning Commission and the residents at the previous hearing, as follows: · Addressed concerns regarding traffic and circulation; Chairman Chiniaeff, echoed by Commissioner Guerriero, opined that Nicolas Road should be four lanes (to the bridge), advising that this would be the most opportune time for this project to be completed, relaying that this particular road improvement would allow traffic to flow from east and west; and additionally opined that the Calle Contento connection should continue through this project site; · Specified the proposed improvements to Butterfield Stage Road; For Chairman Chiniaeff, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the traffic study revealed a need for Butterfield Stage Road to be six lanes between Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Nicolas Road at build out, advising that four lanes would continue from Nicolas to Rancho California Road; and provided additional information regarding the Nicolas Road alignment, advising that there was no nexus with the proposed project which would require this applicant to build out Nicolas Road; · Addressed construction traffic and dust control measures on Nicolas Road, advising that staff was not recommending any changes in the proposal; o For Commissioner Mathewson, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that dust control would be required during construction, advising that if dirt was spilled onto City streets, the hauler would be required to clean the streets, everyday, if necessary, with a street sweeper and/or a water truck (Project Planner Naaseh additionally advising that there were Specific Mitigation Measures in the EIR which address dust control); and for Chairman Chiniaeff, relayed that prior to the issuance of the 108th or 250th building permit, (to be determined at the discretion of the Fire Chief per the Development Agreement) the applicant would be required to tie in to a secondary access for the Fire department; · Addressed the residents' requests that the applicant be required to improve existing private unimproved roads; In response to previous comments, provided the public with information regarding the formation of an assessment district, advising that only the future property owners within the Roripaugh Project would pay into that particular Assessment District; and specified that Vista Del Monte was within the County's boundaries; For Chairman Chiniaeff, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that there would be transition improvements for the connection of Liefer Road to Nicolas Road as part of the improvement plans; R:PlanComm/drafl excerpt/lO3002 5 With respect to the concerns regarding the shared access driveways in the Plateau Area, relayed that staff was recommending conditioning the project for the redesign of two of these drive aisles, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks providing additional information regarding access to these particular drive aisles, and noting that staff was recommending that the project be conditioned to have these drive aisles redesigned prior to recordation of any final maps; Addressed the issue of curb-separated sidewalks and parkways, noting the applicant's reluctance to provide this element along the major roads due to the associated reduction in the buildable pad area; relayed the agreement the applicant and staff reached to provide curb-separated parkways and wider parkways on the nodh and south sides of Murrieta Hot Springs Road, advising that on the nodh side the sidewalk would be placed next to the chain-linked fence; confirmed that staff was recommending that the front and rear setbacks of the homes backing up to Murrieta Hot Springs Road be reduced by three feet; and relayed that the applicant has .been advised that the Planning Commission could opt to require curb-separated sidewalks on local streets; Commissioner Guerriero commented on the impodance of inclusion of this element (curb-separated sidewalks) in the project, advising that the previous major projects that came before the Planning Commission were required to implement this element; Battalion Chief McBride clarified the revision included in the DA, which provided the Fire Chief the discretion to authorize the requirement for the construction of the Fire Department in the range of prior to the 108th building permit to the issuance of the 250th building permit; Continuing his presentation, referencing the document entitled Total Number of Units and Buffering, Project Planner Naaseh addressed the following: Regarding the request that the nature walk be eliminated, advised that it was staff's opinion that the landscaping would be sufficient to provide privacy to the homeowners in the Nicolas Valley; · Specified the location of the chain-linked fencing proposed in the project; Commissioner Telesio relayed his displeasure with the chain-linked fencing being proposed located next to the natural trail, relaying a preference for pvc ranch fencing with wire mesh; For Commissioner Olhasso, clarified that chain-linked fencing was required by the Habitat Agency proximate to the habitat area; and noted that on the combination block wall/chain-linked fence, the block wall comprised about 18 inches of the six-foot high fencing; With respect to concerns regarding the project's impacts on the water supply, advised that the City Attorney has determined that the City has met the legislative requirements of SB 221 (Local Government Omnibus Act) and SB 610 (water supply planning); R:PlanComm/draff excerp[/103002 6 · Regarding the location of the school site, advised that the property sites were determined by the School District to be appropriate; and · Specified that the Design Guidelines requires both one- and two-story homes; Additional discussion ensued regarding measures that could be implemented to ensure that the applicant proposed an adequate number of one-story homes. City Attorney Thorson advised that the Planning Commission could required certain design requirements within the Design Guidelines, which could impact the implementation of one-story homes; and additionally noted that with the agreement of the applicant, additional specific requirements could be imposed via the DA, confirming, for Commissioner Mathewson, that if the applicant was in agreement, the DA could require a certain percentage of one-story homes. Commissioner Guerriero noted the importance of all the homes not being mirrors of each dwelling, that there be a variety of elevations, staggered to create visual interest. For Commissioner Mathewson, Project Planner Naaseh read the portion of the Design Guidelines, which addressed one- and two-story dwellings, and the requirement to create varying rooflines. In light of the applicant not being agreeable to a speciifed required percentage of one- story dwellings, Chairman Chiniaeff opined that the best avenue for addressing this issue would be to address the street scene when the product review was conducted; and confirmed, for Project Planner Naaseh, that it would be the Planning Commission's desire to have language added to the Design Guidelines and the Design Element of the Specific Plan, indicating that the Planning Commission would be seeking a reasonable mix of one- and two-story dwellings. At this time the public was invited to comment The following individuals spoke regarding the project, but did not denote whether they were in favor or opposed to the project: Ms. Linda Beaudoin Mr. Ed Picozzi 22380 Alameda Del Monte Wildomar (Property owner of two properties abutting this project) Nicolas Road The above-mentioned individuals relayed the following comments: · Noted opposition to the chain-linked fencing, preferring the recommendation that the pvc ranch-style fencing be installed; · That the neighbors to the east of the project would be obtaining many more benefits than the neighbors on the west, i.e., additional buffering; · That the landscaping plan along the adjacent properties was an important element; · Concurred with previous comments that Nicolas Road would be heavily traveled once Butterfield Stage Road goes through; · Relayed appreciation for the Chairman's common sense comments, including comments regarding traffic and the recommendation to have Nicolas Road be improved to four lanes; R:PlanComm/dra~ excerp[/103002 7 Expressed concern regarding the impacts of increased traffic on Nicolas Road while unpaved; and Noted that the applicant's representatives had consistently stated throughout the process that Nicolas Road would not be used as the construction road, but that Murrieta Hot Springs Road would. For Ms. Beaudoin, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that it would not be known how many one-story homes would be proposed in the Panhandle area until the product review took place. It is noted that at 7:53 P.M. the meeting recessed, reconvening at 8:03 P.M. The following individuals spoke in opposition to the project: Ms. Jeannie Morris Mr. Hans Kernkamp Mr. John Sorah 33007 Vino Way 39055 Liefer Road 32050 Vista Del Monte The above-mentioned individuals were opposed to the project, noting the following: · Expressed concern regarding the privacy of neighbors residing adjacent to the nature trail; · Questioned why the school would be relocated from the Panhandle area due to the proximity to the French Valley Airport when at the current site military planes and helicopters were consistently flying over the valley (the current proposed site for the schools), opining that this would be a more significant impact than the smaller planes flying in and out of the French Valley Airport; · Requested that the Planning Commission have the applicant further address buffering on the west side of the project; and · Relayed concern regarding the lack of irrigation on the manufactured slopes on the County side. For Ms. Morris, Mr. Peter Olah, representing the applicant, as well as Chairman Chiniaeff, provided clarification regarding the differentiation of approximately 33 feet in the elevations between her property and the multi-use trail. Addressing Mr. Kernkamp's comments, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks and Associate Engineer Jimenez relayed that Nicolas Road would be paved prior to the issuance of the 108th building permit, Project Planner Naaseh specifying the width of the roadway improvements. In response to Mr. Sorah, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks confirmed that in the manufactured slope areas within the County, the land would be addressed in a manner consistent with how the county addressed this type of properly, confirming that vegetation would be replanted without irrigation, advising that it would be required to be protected from erosion and would be maintained by the County. The applicant responded to the comments and concerns expressed by the Planninq Commission and the public Mr. Kevin Everett, representing the applicant, provided the following rebuttal: Regarding buffering on the east side, specifically in the area where the Planning Commission recommended that the number of lots be reduced by seven, advised that the applicant would be agreeable to reducing the number of lots in this area, as long as the lots could be added in alternate areas in order to maintain the total number of units, 2015; In order to recoup the loss of the seven lots that the Planning Commission has recommended for removal, proposed that in Planning Area 33A, in the cul-de-sac, where there were currently 14 one-acre and one-half acre lots that the applicant be allowed to change the one-acre lots on the south portion to half-acre lots; confirmed, for Chairman Chiniaeff, that it would be his desire to change lots 1-6 into half-acre lots. In response, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that he would not be opposed to the recommendation as long as the lots remained one-acre and one-halF acre in size. For informational purposes, Principal Planner Hogan relayed that the map (a preliminary lotting study) being referenced was not part of a submittal, advising that the number, sizes and layout would change, Chairman Chiniaeff advising that Mr. Everett was referencing the map in order to ascertain whether or not the Planning Commission would be agreeable, in general, to his proposal for modification. With respect to the applicant's provision for the Fire Department's secondary access, relayed the applicant's strong desire for this element not to be required until the 250th building permit. In response, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks advised that it was staff's desire that the Specific Plan and the Tentative Map require the secondary access prior to the 108~h building permit and that the DA be addressed separately; For informational purposes, relayed that the Planning Commission recommendations that he did not address were recommendations by which the applicant was in complete agreement, clarifying that he would solely be addressing the items in which the applicant had issues needing further discussion, i.e., the reduction of lots in one area to which the applicant had been agreeable if additional lots could be added in another area; Regarding the recommendation for the applicant to construct Nicolas Road as four lanes, advised that the applicant would be agreeable if the half-width section project (within the County limits) on Butterfield Stage Road was removed, and the applicant would only improve Butterfield Stage Road to two lanes. In response, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that staff would have to review this recommendation, advising that it was his hope that the applicant could complete both the Nicolas Road and Buttertield Stage Road projects; · Advised that the applicant was not agreeable to improving private properties or roads outside the project; R:PlanComrn~drsff exceq)[/103002 9 Regarding the two shared access driveways that staff was recommending to be redesigned, and which would reduce the number of lots, relayed a desire to recoup those lost lots in an alternate area. In response, Chairman Chiniaeff advised that there would be no guarantee that all the lost lots would be recoupable, particularly in light of the fact that these two shared access driveways were improperly designed. · With respect to curb-separated sidewalks, noted that the applicant was not in agreement with implementing this element on the private streets; and · Advised that the applicant would not be opposed to installing wire mesh on the property fence. Mr. Steve Albert, architect representing the applicant, referenced the Design Guidelines, advising that variety has been addressed in the language referring to elevations, street scenes, and the treatment of mass; and specified the added requirements for merchants. In response to Commissioner Mathewson's queries, Mr. Everett relayed that while the applicant would encourage placement of one-story units for visual interest, if needed, the applicant would not be willing to commit to a percentage of one-story homes on the southern portion of Planning Areas 1-4, but would prefer to have the builders come before the Planning Commission and present their proposed product. Clarifying his view, Commissioner Mathewson noted that when the products come forward to the Planning Commission, if the homes were all proposed to be two-story units, he would not support the proposal. Referencing the Design Guidelines, Project Planner Naaseh relayed the language addressing vertical and horizontal relief. The Planninq Commission relayed closinq comments (Note: the comments in bold printin.q reflectinq unanimous concurrence and subsequently becominq part of the Planninq Commission action) Relaying that this Commission has set the bar (regarding raising the level of design expectations) _on other specific plans that have come before the Planning Commission, Commissioner Guerriero recommended that curb-separated sidewalks be installed throughout this entire project for reasons of safety and aesthetics; and advised that this element was being implemented nationally, and that it encouraged pedestrian use. The Planning Commission unanimously concurred that curb-separated sidewalks should be implemented into the entire project, and that the project should be conditioned as such. With respect to the Planning Commission's specific recommendations whereas seven lots should be removed to increase the size of the surrounding lots (as specified in detail on page 3 of the minutes, in the 4th bullet, and on page 4 in the 1st and 2nd bullets), as well as the redesigning of two of the shared access driveways (as speciifed in detail in the errata sheet and in the minutes on page 6 in the 1st bullet, and on page 9 in the 2nd bullet) which would further reduce the number of lots, Chairman Chiniaeff relayed that he R:PlanComrr~draft exce~pL/103002 10 was not locked into maintaining the number of units at 2015, but that if some of the lots could be recouped in the half-acre, one-acre lot area (as recommended by Mr. Everett) he would not be opposed to revising the plan in an attempt to increase the lots by approximately six, subject to the approval of staff. With respect to the above-mentioned recommendation, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to condition the project as such. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to recommend that the DA include the requirements for the applicant to improve Nicolas Road to four lanes from Butterfield Stage Road to Calle Girasol, which was approximately 247 feet in length. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the product review be held at the Planning Commission level, emphasizing that if there was not an adequate mix of one- and two-story homes the approval of the proposal may be jeopardized. Commissioner Olhasso requested that when the City Council action regarding this project takes place, that the Planning Commission be copied regarding the final action. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the project would be conditioned to improve Nicolas Road from the project site to just before the creek crossing prior to the issuance of the 108th building permit (with the exception of the DA). MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to close the public hearing; and to approve staff's recommendation regarding Item 4.1, subject to the requirements outlined in the refined errata sheet, and the final EIR. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected approval unanimous approval. MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to approve staff's recommendation regarding Item 4.2, subject to the changes outlined in the previous Planning Commission discussions (as listed and in bold print in the minutes in the previous paragraphs), as well as the refined errata sheet for the Specific plan, the final EIR, and the recommendation to include in the DA the requirement to widen Nicolas Road to four lanes. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Guerriero and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Chairman Chiniaeff who voted no, clarifying that he was not opposed to the project as such, but strongly opposed to the proposal to not extend Calle Contento through the project. MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to approve staff's recommendation regarding Item 4.3, subject to the changes outlined by the Planning Commission during the previous Planning Commission discussion (as listed in bold print in the minutes in the previous paragraphs.) The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and voice vote reflected unanimous approval. In response to Project Planner Naaseh, Chairman Chiniaeff clarified that it was the Planning Commission's desire that the applicant implement the changes to the Specific Plan outlined in the refined errata sheet prior to City Council presentation. R:PlanComrr~draft excerpt/103002 11 ATTACHMENT 11 ISSUES DISCUSSED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION R:\S PXRofipaugh Ranch SP~ew\CCSStaff Report 11-26-02 A.doc ATTACHMENT 11 Issues discussed by the Planning Commission Total Number of Units and Buffering 1. Density of the project/Total number of units · The General Plan permits 3 dwelling units per gross acre for this site which could result in over 2,400 dwelling units on this site. · The proposed project is setting a side over 200 acres of permanent open space which connects this site to the regional Open Space around Lake Skinner and the Diamond Valley Lake. · In addition, to the 200 acres of on site open space, the project was required to pay approximately $2,600,000 for purchasing the Johnson Ranch property which will also be preserved as open space habitat. Without the contributions of this project and other similar project, the acquisition of these properties would be impossible. The Johnson Ranch property was once proposed as a 5,000 unit mixed use development. · One of the major benefits of the project is improving full width Butterfield Stage Road off-site. v' No changes are proposed. 2. Buffering, 2.5 acre lots to the South and East · A 30' fuel modification zone is proposed on this perimeter. · Minimum 1-acre lots are proposed on the perimeter. · The proposed buffering and the elevation difference between the project site and the existing residents provide a reasonable transition between the project and the larger lots in the vicinity. · Staff recognizes that the proposed buffering may not be ideal; however, it provides a reasonable compromise and is consistent with the Subcommittee and Planning Commission direction. ~' No changes are proposed. %% If the Planning Commission would like to provide additional buffering, staff would recommend a decrease of few units in the perimeter of the south and east side to provide an equal increase in the lot sizes. R:\S IARofipaugh Ranch SIAnew~CCAS~aff Report 11-26-02 A.doc 22 3. Increasing the width of the 30' fuel modification and providing landscaping to screen the future users · The 30' fuel modification zone will be at grade with the existing lots. · The purpose of this area is primarily a fuel modification zone with non-irrigated native landscaping (hydro seed mix). · The developer has agreed to permit public use of this HOA maintained area in response to the surrounding residents' demands for additional trails. · Staff does not believe increasing the fuel modification width from 30' to 50' would greatly increase the buffering, instead, staff is proposing to increase the primary building setback from 25' to 50'. · Staff believes the additional cost of providing landscaping and irrigation for the entire area could be an unnecessary financial burden on the HOA. However, landscaping will most likely be provided within the rear lots of the proposed lots. v' Staff has included the proposed changes in the Errata Sheet. 4. Plateau Buffering · The Plateau lots will be 80' to 170' from the property line. · An additional 25' of setback increases this distance to 105' to 195'. · Additional enhanced landscaping is proposed to further screen proposed houses from the Nicolas Valley. · Staff believes the combination of the proposed buffering and the elevation difference provides adequate buffering. This buffering is also consistent with Subcommittee's recommendations. v' No changes are proposed. Traffic and Circulation 5. Varying widths of Nicolas Road and Butterfield Stage Road · The some of the proposed improvements on these roads exceed the Traffic Study recommendations. · It is common for roads to have varying widths for different segments. Nicolas Road · The Traffic Study required Nicolas Road off-site and on-site to be 34' wide curb to curb while staff is requiring full improvements on site and 40' wide curb to curb to allow for two travel lanes and a turning lane. R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new\CC~Slaff Report 11-26-02 A.doc 23 · Staff has required the developer to provide a four-lane bridge instead of the required two lanes bridge which will prevent costly bridge widening improvements when it is needed. Originally, the developer was proposing an "Arizona Crossing" instead of the four-lane bridge. · The Traffic Study does not justify further improvements to Nicolas Road. Butterfield Stage Road · The Traffic Study requires Butterfield Stage Road off-site to be improved with 34' curb to curb and four lanes on site with the exception of the segment between Murrieta Hot Springs and Nicolas Road which is required to be six lanes. · Staff has required the developer to provide complete four lanes off site including sidewalks and medians. · The recommendations of the Traffic Study are based on the traffic generated from the proposed land uses. Staff believes the proposed improvements will be adequate to carry the traffic in an efficient manner. ,/ No changes are proposed. 6. Construction traffic and dust on Nicolas Road · Currently, the project is not proposing restrictions on construction related traffic routes. · The project has balanced earth on site and for Butterfield Stage Road off-site; therefore, no earth moving traffic will result from the project. · Nicolas Road will be only one of the construction routes to the project. · The Plateau area traffic will be mostly from Murrieta Hot Springs Road. · Staff believes restricting construction traffic from Nicolas Road, or any other road, could negatively impact traffic circulation on other roads. · Dust control measures will be utilized when Nicolas Road is used as a construction mute. Currently, no dust control measures are being implemented for unpaved roads within the City. Nicolas Road will be improved from the project site to just before the creek crossing prior to the issuance of the 108th building permit. It will be fully improved including a four-lane bridge prior to the issuance of the 510th building permit. No changes an proposed. 7. Improvements to existing unimproved roads (Jessie Circle, Liefer Road, and Vista Del Monte) Include the improvements to Liefer Road in the project CFD · The residents made a decision to buy their property on an unpaved road. R:kS PXRoripaugh Ranch Sl~new\CCAStaff Report 11-26-02 A.doc 24 · Establishment of Assessment Districts requires a majority (50% or more) approval of the properties included in the district. Roads Within the City Limits · If the residents wish to improve these roads, they need to approach the City to form an assessment district to pay for the improvements. · Only the future property owners within the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan will be paying into the Assessment District for this project. Roads within the County · Vista Del Monte is a privately maintained road open to the public in the County and the City does not have jurisdiction on this road (Instrument #421172, Recorded on November 3, 1994, Resolution NO. 94-325 of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors to accept Vista Del Monte as a public road). The property owners should contact the County to identify the avenues available to them to improve this road. ,/ No changes are proposed. 8. Shared access driveways on the Plateau map (Tract Map Design Issue) · Two shared access driveways provide access to two lots which is generally acceptable. · Two other shared access driveways provide access to 5 or 6 lots which may cause some issues with the future homes owners. · No parking signs will be required to be posted on these drive aisles · These drive aisles are legal but are not ideal. · Staff has requested the applicant to redesign these lots; however, the applicant has stated that redesign is not an option since the entire site has been engineered. · " Staff is recommending a Condition of Approval to require the redesign of the two drive aisles after the City Council approval. o:o The Planning Commission may choose to continue the map for a redesign or deny the map for further consideration by the City Council. Sidewalks and Parkways 9. Curb Separated Sidewalks and Parkway Widths for Major Roads o The project was proposing 6' parkway widths within a 12' Landscaped Development Zones beyond the curb as a result staff required 36' box trees and a green wall for these areas. o Other Specific Plans in the past have included 25' to 32' of Landscaped Development Zones beyond the curb resulting in 19' to 27' of parkway and curb separated sidewalks. R:XS PkRofipaugh Ranch SPXnew\CCXStaff Report 11-26-02 A.doc 25 · The applicant had been reluctant to provide wider parkways along the major roadways stating that to do so will reduce the build able pad areas. Staff and the applicant have reached an agreement to provide curb separated sidewalks and wider parkways for the south side of Murrieta Hot Springs Road. In addition, the applicant has also agreed to change the north side; however, this will result the sidewalk to be adjacent to the chain link fence. As a condition of proposing the wider parkways and curb-separated sidewalks, the applicant is requesting to remove the requirement for 36" box trees for all parkways and medians. Staff has removed this requirement from the parkways that are proposed to be wider. · In addition, in order to accomplish this staff is proposing to reduce the front and rear setback of homes backing up to Murrieta Hot Springs Road to be reduced by 3'. Staff is proposing changes, as stated above, which have been incorporated into the errata sheet and the Conditions of Approval. The Planning Commission may choose to require retaining walls and crib walls in order to preserve the build able area of the pads. 10. Curb separated sidewalks on local roads · All local roads for the proposed project will be private streets. · Staff has not been able to convince the applicant to propose curb-separated sidewalks along local streets. · Staff has also informed the applicant on numerous occasions that the Planning Commission may require curb-separated sidewalks for these streets. ,/ No changes are proposed. The Planning Commission could require the applicant to provide curb-separated sidewalks along all local streets. 11. Changing the completion of the Fire Department related improvements from 107 to 250 dwelling units The applicant has approached the Fire Chief to require the construction of the Fire station and secondary access prior to the issuance the 107th building permit. The Fire Chief, at his sole th discretion, may authorize the issuance of up to 250 building permit if the said improvements are under substantial construction. Staff supports this request, the FIER and the Specific Plan requirements will superseded by the Development Agreement. Trails 12. Eliminate the Nature Walk R:\S I:~Roripaugh Ranch SI~new\CCXStaff Report 11-26-02 A.doc 26 · This trial is an integral part of the trail system for this project. · The proposed landscaping will be sufficient to provide privacy to the existing homeowners in the Nicolas Valley. · Staff does not support this elimination. v' No changes are proposed. Fencing 13. Chain Link Fences · Proposed chain link fences include black vinyl coating with vertical and horizontal black-coated supports. · Chain link fencing is required along the habitat area to keep the wildlife and the domestic pets separated. · Chain link is also proposed along the southern property line of the Plateau area on the perimeter of PA 7A north of the Nicolas Valley to prevent trespassing. Staff considered other materials such as block wall and split rail. However, block wall was ruled out because it does not fit with the rural character of the Nicolas Valley. Split rail was also ruled out since it does not control the movement of pets and is not high enough at approximately 4' high. · Staff believes the proposed fencing is acceptable. v~ No changes are proposed. o:o If the Planning Commission has aesthetic concerns, it could require a 5' to 6' high "horse fence" with mesh wiring to restrict movement of small critters. Miscellaneous Items 14. SB 221 and 610 compliance · The City Attorney has determined that the City has met the requirements of SB 221 and 610. ,/ No changes are proposed. 15. Two school sites should not be adjacent to each other · City staff and the School District staff have met numerous times regarding the location and the design of the school sites. · The School District is satisfied with the proposed locations for both schools. The district has taken the necessary design measures to separate the schools as deem appropriate by the district staff. v' No changes are proposed. R:\S PXRoripaugh Ranch SP~new\CCSStaff Report 11-26-02 A.doc 27 16. Requirement of single story and two story houses · On Page 4-124, Section 4.10.3.4, 1st bullet of the Design Guidelines included in the Staff Report requires both one and two story buildings within the Low and Low Medium density Planning Areas. · Staff believes the proposed language requires a mixture of single story and 2 story homes. v~ No changes are proposed. · :o The Planning Commission may want to require a certain pementage of single story homes. Non-Discussion Items 17. On-site visual transition from smaller lots to larger lots · PAs 20 and 21 with 20,000 square foot minimum lot sizes are separated from the 3,000 and 4,000 square foot lots in PAs22, 23, and 24 by the Loop Road. · PA 19 with 20,000 square foot minimum lot sizes is separated from the 6,000 square foot lots in PA 18 by a block wall. · Staff believes the project as described above provides adequate visual separation. v~ No changes are proposed. 18. Worsening traffic flow on the interchanges · The City has spent millions of dollars on the interchanges in the past several years. · Additional improvements will be completed by the Harveston project shortly. · Further improvements to these regional improvements is planned to be funded by TUMF. · / No changes are proposed. 19. Traffic Study under estimates the future traffic volumes on Nicolas Road · The City's traffic Engineer has confirmed the traffic volumes on Nicolas Road. v' No changes are proposed. 20. How long will the construction traffic last · The build out of the site could last approximately 10 to 15 years depending on the absorption rates. ,~ No changes are proposed. R:\S INqoripaugh Ranch SP~ew\CC~Staff Report I 1-26q32 A.doc 28 21. All lots should receive access to all the newly constructed roads. · All lots that enjoy a legal access to a road will continue to have a reasonable access after the road improvements are completed. · This issue will be addressed in the design stage of the road improvements. Staff, as necessary, may set up meetings to discuss issues with the property owners. · Staff has addressed this issue in Community meetings. ,~ No changes are proposed. 22. Horse Trails · A soft surface path has been provided on Nicolas Road from Liefer Road to Butterfield Stage Road. · The Multi Use Trail is proposed along the along west side of PA 32 that leads into the UCR property along the southern an eastern edge of the Valley area. · An off-street horee crossing at Buttedield Stage Road was considered by staff; however, we could not come up with a viable solution. · The applicant is required to seek the possibility of obtaining public access (pedestrian and equestrian) to the UCR and Johnson Ranch properties. · It is staff's position that the development of a trial network throughout the City is long-term goal for the City. This project is providing its fair share of trails that will be used by the public. ,,' No changes are proposed. 23. Corner lot Privacy Fencing · The applicant is proposing wood fencing with stucco pilasters in corner lot conditions. · A stucco finish for these conditions will provide a more continuance appearance that will last a long time compared to wood fencing. Therefore, all fencing visible from the street will be stucco finish with the exception of the side yard gates. · Staff is recommending a stucco finish for these conditions which is already included in the Errata Sheet. v' No changes are proposed. 24. Make the Private Recreational facilities available to public · Staff has no control on this matter. ,/ No changes are proposed. R:\S l~Roripaugh Ranch SPXnew\CCXStaff Report 11-26-02 A.doc 29 25. Lotting Study The Planning Commission requested allotting study to determine the appropriateness of the buffering for the Valley Area. · / Staff has included the lotting study in the Commission's packet. 26. Noise and light impacts from parks and recreation centers · Sports Park (PA 27) is approximately 4,100' to the eastern property line and 1,100' to the southern property line. · Musco lighting will keep light spillage to a minimum. · The lights at the sports park will be turned-off at 10:00 PM. · Mega Center (PA30) is approximately 1,600' to the eastern property line and 1,900' to the southern property line. · Staff believes that the distance between these components and the type of lighting used for the Sports Parks should not greatly impact the surrounding residents. V No changes are proposed. R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new\CCSStaff Report I 1-26-02 A.doc 3O ATrACHMENT 12 COMMUNITY CORRESPONADENCE R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new\CC~Staff Report 11-26~)2 A.doc 31 Mike Knowlton 39130 Pala Vista Drive Temecula, CA 92591 (H) 909.694.6848 (W) 949.368.5260 Attn: Planning Commission Members City Of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92589 RE: Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan Proposal Comments and Proposed Conditions of Approval Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (Planning Application No. 94-0075) General Plan Amendment (Planning Application No. 99-0298) Change of Zone (Planning Application No. 94-0075) Development Agreement (Planning Application No. 99-0299) Tentative Tract Map 29353 (Planning Application No. 01-0230) Tentative Tract Map 29661 (Planning Application No. 01-0253) My thanks to the Planning Commision, Roripaugh Subcommitte members, Mr. Thornhill, Mr. Parks, MS. lJbnoske, Mr. Naeesh and all of the City Staff for their patience, persistence and significant effort to bring a quality project of this magnitude before the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council with the Proposed Conditions of Approval adopted. Provided direction to staff, as a condition of approval, tO add Liefer Road construction as a two lane asphalt road with drain culverts on both sides of its entirety into the assessment district being formed for the construction of Butterfield Stage Road, Muirieta Hot Springs Road, and Nicolas Road as this would be feasible and would benefit the City. Basis for condition: Road and bridge construction on Nicolas Road will place the entire burden on Liefer Road as the single access road for all residents. As well, Liefer Road will see an increased burden from traffic outside the area when Nicolas Road is opened from Butterfield Stage Road. Service Level R assessments and associated maintenance impacts would be unduly borne by Nicolas Valley Residents. Service Level R maintenance has negatively impacted the grade of Nicolas, Liefer and Paia Vista Drive Roads and the City needs to take some responsibility and support residents with this mitigation consideration. Provided direction to staff, as a condition of approval, to remove the 10' walking trail along the lower panhandle and that landscaping be completed in this area prior to the first foundation slab being poured in the project. Basis for condition: This, in conjunction with plans efforts to create a hardy, dense landscaped buffer, will complete the expected mitigation for this aspect of the project. Provided direction to staff to create, as a condition of approval, the necessary documents stiPUlating that Nicolas Valley Property holders of record, on the date of the formation of the assessment district to fund the road construction described in item (1) above, will not be assessed for furore improvements to Nicolas Road: This condition is applicable to properties zoned rural/residential. This condition is null and void for those properties that are approved for any aspect of property subdividing or change in zoning use from Rural/Residential to any form of business use expectation. Basis for condition: Rural/Residential property owners do not want to be assessed for the future Nicolas Road improvements/widening. Concems exist that the City will start assessing these owners for the Nicolas Road improvements at some future date do to unforeseen impacts. As such, something in writing from the City to guarantee this is requested to back up the report'from staff and engineering that they have adequately assessed this aspect of the application. I still have general concerns regarding the following issues, but have not formulated effective considerations or suggestions for resolution outside of the conditions for approval offered above as mitigation. · Housing numbers at 2015 dwelling units vice the 1721 of Aug 2001. · Circulation/access for the schools and parks · Parking adequacy for the parks · Street parking dedication to support schools and parks · Significant density imbalance between the entire project versus the panhandle · Traffic safety and circulation concerns on Nicolas Road · Drainage estimates, engineering, control and management and access structures along and across the Santa Gertmdis and Long Valley watersheds · Traffic control adequacy at Nicolas Road and Liefer, Calle Girasol and Butterfield Road We the undersigned, as property owners next to the Southern & Eastern boundaries ofthe Roripaugh Ranch project, collectively seek to have the following conditions or issues mitigated by the City of Temecula p!onning Commssion: 1) Re-establishment of the originally planned 2.5 acre peripheral buffer lots along the Southern & Eastern boundaries as was promised by then City Councilman Ron Roberts in the July, 2001 meeting and by Developer Ashby himself directly to Property Owner Bill Vazzana. This element of the project was unjustly reneged on. Tho currently p~anned 1 acre lots are not buffers but constitute a bl~t_~nt and abrupt development intrusion into already established rural properties, some of which are as large as 10-20 acres. The tentative Riverside County General Land Use Plan for the project area already establishes that all lots be minimum 2.5 acres. 2) Assurance that the emergency "crash gate", or authorized automatic gate with clicker, to remain permanently and be maintained by the city with the further stipulation that, the planned col-de-sac adjacent to the end of Calle Contento never connect and become an arteriai street. 3) Our security and privacy will be greatly impacted. There is no security or privacy buffer between our property lines and the "multi-use" trail which will be accessed by thousands of strangers. The Developer & pl~nnlng Commission needs to address how the lack of security and privacy for the neighboring properties can be restored. 4) Reduction of wind driven dirt and dust: South and East neighboring properties to the project will be subject to undue hardships during consm~ction. The combination of such large scale carving up and grading on the valley floor and the prevailing winds that persistently buffet the _windward slopes of the Eastern hills coutinuaily, makes for unwarranted prope~ damage and poses health hazards, not to mention dirt and debris onto the houses, decks, pools, etc. in the area. We request special hours and additional restraints to the gradinlg as wetting down the soil during this process will not be enough to solve this problem. Nnme (printed) & Address Si~mature We the undersigned, as property owners next to the Southern & F~ boundaries of the Rodpau~h Ranch project, collectively seek to have the following conditions or issues mitigated by the City of Temecula p!nnning Co~m, assion: l) Re-establishment of the or~y pl_~nned 2.5 ac~e per~heral buffer lots along the Southern & Eastern b~.,na~ies as was promised by then City Councilman Ron Roberts in the July, 2001 meetin~ ~na by Developer Ashby himself directly to Property Owner Bill Vazzan~ This element of the project was unjustly reneged on. The curr~ly planned 1 acre lots are not buffers but constitute a blatant ami abrupt development inimsion inIo already established rmal propel~ies, some of which are as large as I0-20 acres. The tentative Riverside County General Land Use Plan for the pfO~ ~ already e~t_ 8hlishes ~ all lots be minim~,m 2.5 alii'es. 2) Assurance that the emergency ~crash gate; or n,_ot~l automatic g~te with clicker, to ro~anin permanently ~nd be mnimsined by the city with the further stipulnfion that. 3) Our security and privacy will be greatly impacted. The~ is no security or l~ivacy buffer between our propeRy lines and the "multi-use" trail which will be accessed by tho.~ad~ of stran~oe~s. TIm Developer & planning Commission needs to address how the lack of security m~d privacy for the neighboring properties can be re~ored. 4) Reductionofwind drivendirt aed dust: South and East neighboring properties to the project will be subject to ~.due hardships during constructio~ The combination of such large scale carving up and gr~ing on the valley floor and the prevailing winds that persistently buffet the windward slopes of the Eastern hills cominually, makes flor unwnrrnmed property dmna~e and poses health b~nrds, not to mention dirt and debris o~o the bouses, decks, pools, etc. in the area. We request special hou~ and additional r~i~alnts to the grading, as weRing down the soil during this Process will not be enough to solve this p~oblem. We the undersigned, as property owners next to the Southern & Eastern boundaries of the Rofipaugh Ranch project, collectively seek to have the following conditions or issues mitigated by the City of Temecula Planning Commssion: 1) Re-establishment of the orJ~nally planned 2.5 acre peripheral buffer lots along the Southern & Eastern boundaries as was promised by then City Councilman Run Roberts in the July, 2001 meeting and by Developer Ashby himself directly to Property Owner Bill Vazzana. This element of the project was unjustly reneged on. The currently planned I acre lots are not buffers but constitute a blatant and abrupt development intrusion into already established rural properties, some of which are as large as 1020 acres. The tentative Riverside County C-encral Land Use Plan for the project area already establishes that all lots be minimum 2.5 acres. Assurance that the emergency "crash gate", or authorized automatic gate with clicker, to remain permanently and be maintained by the city with the further stipulation that. the planned c~l-de-sac adjacent to the end of Calle Contento never connect and become an arterial street. Our security and privacy will be greatly impacted. There is no security or privacy buffer between our pwpeny lines and the "multi-use" trail which will be accessed by thousands of strangers. The Developer & Planning Commission needs to address how the lack of security and privacy for the neighboring propecdes can be restored. Reduction of wind driven dirt and dust: South and East neighboring propenias to the project will be subject to undue hardships during construction. The combination of such large scale carving up and grading on the valley floor and the prevailing winds that persistently buffet the windward slopes of the Eastern hills continually, makes for unwarranted property damage and poses health haT~rds, not to mention dirt and debris onto the houses, decks, pools, etc. in the area. We request special hours and additional restraints to the grading, as wetting down the soil during this process will not be enough to solve this problem. Name (printed) & Address Si~ature We the undersigned, as property owners next to the Southern & Eastern boundaries of the Rodpaugh Ranch project, collectively seek to have the following conditions or issues mitigated by the City of Temecula Planning Commssion: 1) Re-establishment of the originally planned 2.5 acre peripheral buffer lots along the Southern & Eastern boundaries as was promised by then City Councilman Ron Roberts in the July, 2001 meeting and by Developer Ashby himself directly to Pwperty Owner Bill Vazzana. This element of the project was unjustly reneged on. The currently plonned 1 acre lots are not buffers but constitute a blatant and abrupt development intrusion into already established rural properties, some of which are as large as 10-20 acres. The tentative Riverside County General Land Use Plan for the project area already establishes that all lots be minimum 2.5 acres. 2) Assunmce that the emergency "crash gate", or authorized automatic gate with clicker, to remain permanently and be maintained by the city with the further stipulation that. the planned cul-de-sac adjacent to the end of Calle Contento never connect and become an arterial street. 3) Our security and privacy will be IFeatly impacted. There is no security or privacy buffer between our property lines and the "multi-use" trail which will be accessed by thousands o£ strangers. The Developer & plsnning Commission needs to address how the lack of security and privacy for the neighboring properties can be restored. 4) Reduction of wind driven dirt and dust: South and East neighboring properties to the project will be subject to undue hardships during construction. The combination of such large scale ca~,ing up and grading on the valley floor and the prevailing winds that persistently buffet the windward slopes of the Fastem hills continually, makes for unwarranted propen'y dama~ and poses health hazards, not to mention dirt and debris onto the houses, decks, pools, etc. in the area. We request special hours and additional restraints to the grading, as wetting down the soil during this process will not be enough to solve this problem. Name (printed) & Address Signature We the undersigned, as property owners next to the Southern & Eastern boundaries of the Roripaugh Ranch project, collectively seek to have the following conditions or issues mitigated by the City of Temecula Planning Commssion: 1) Re-establishment of the originally planned 2.5 acre peripheral buffer lots along the Southern & Eastern boundaries as was promised by then City Councilman Run Roberts in the July, 2001 meeting and by Developer Ashby himself directly to Property Owner Bill Vazznna. This element of the project was unjustly reneged on. The currently planned 1 acre lots are not buffers but constitute a blatant and abrupt development intrusion into already established rural properties, some of which are as large as 10-20 acres. The tentative Riverside County General Land Use Plan for tbe project area already establishes that all lots be minimum 2.5 acres. 2) Assurance that the emergency "crash gate", or m~thorized automatic gate with clicker, to remain permanently and be maintained by the city with the further stipulation that. the planned cul-de-sac adjacent to the end ofCalle Contento never connect and become an arterial street. 3) Our security and privacy will be greatly impacted. There is no security or privacy buffer between our property lines and the "multi-use" trail which will be accessed by thousands of strangers. The Developer & Planning Commission needs to address how the lack of security and privacy for the neighboring properties can be restored. 4) Reduction of wind driven dirt and dust: South and East neighboring properties to the project will be subject to undue hardships during construction. The combination of such large scale carving up and grading on the valley floor and the prevailing winds that persistently buffet the windward slopes of the Eastern hills continually, makes for unwarranted property damage and poses health hazards, not to mention dirt and debris onto the houses, decks, pools, etc. in the area. We request special hours and additional restraints to the grading, as wetting down the soil during this process will not be enough to solve this problem. Name (primed) & Add. ss Signature We the nndersigned, as propmy owners next to thc Southern & Eastern boundaries of the Rofipaugh Ranch project, collectively seek to have the following con_d~ons or issues mitigated by the City of Temecula Planning Commssion: 1) Re-e~a~ _ hlishmen~ oftbe ori~nolly planned 2.5 acre peripheral buffe~- lots along the So~n & Eastern bound~ies as was promised by then City Counailmau g~on ~ in the ~ly, 2001 meeting and by Developer Ashby himself direetly to Pmlmrty Own~ Bill Vszzan~ This element of the project was unjustly reneged on. The curumtly pl~,ned 1 acre lots are no~ buffers but constiU~ a bl~nt snd abrupt d~elopment intrusion into already established ~ properties, some of which are as large as 10-20 a~es. The ten~ive Riverside Cou~y General Land Use Plan for the project area already es~ab!ishes that all lots be minimum 2.5 acres. ~o remain permanently and be r~intained by the city with the further sfipuhstion that. the pl~mned cul-de-sac adjacent to the end ofCalle Contento nev~ connect ami 3) thousands of ~hm~ers~ The Developer & Planning Commission needs to address m.t~h large scale carving up m~l ~-ading on the valley floor and th~ pr~ai~ 'lin~ winds ~ persistently buffet the windward slopes o~the Eastern hills Couii,iually, makes for unwarranted property damage ami poses health Sa~rds, not to mention dirt and debris onto tbe houses, decks, pools, etc. in the area. We request special hours and not be e~ough to solve this problem. We the undersigned, as property owners next to the Southern & Eastern boundaries of the Roripaugh Ranch project, collectively seek to have the following conditions or issues mitigated by the City of Temecula ~PJ~nning Commssion: 1) Re-establishment of the originally planned 2.5 acre peripheral buffer lots along the Southern & Eastern boundaries as was promised by then City Councilman Ron Roberts in the luly, 2001 meeting and by Developer Ashby himself directly to Property Owner Bill Vs~ana. This element of the project was unjustly reneged on. The currently plsnned 1 acre lots are not buffers but constitute a blatant and abrupt development intrusion into already established rural properties, some of which are as large as 10-20 acres. The tentative Riverside County General Land Use Plan for the project area already establishes that all lots be minimum 2.5 acres. 2) Assurance that the emergency "crash gate", or authorized automatic gate with clicker, to remain permanently and be maintained by the city with the further stipulation that, the planned cul-de-sac adjacent to the end ofCalle Contento never connect and become an arterial street. 3) Our security and privacy will be greatly impacted. There is no security or privacy buffer between our property lines and the "multi-use" trail which will be accessed by thousands of strangers. The Developer & Planning Commission needs to address how the lack of security and privacy for the neighboring properties can be restored. 4) Reduction of wind driven dirt and dust: South and East neighboring properties to the project will be subject to undue hardships during construction. The combination of such large scale carving up and grading on the valley floor and the prevailing winds that persistently buffet the windward slopes of the Eastern hills continually, makes for unwarranted property damage and poses health hazards, not to mention dirt and debris onto the houses, decks, pools, etc. in the area. We request special hours and additional re~i~,,ints to the grading, as wetting down the soil during this process will not be enough to solve this problem. Name (printed) & Address ~ SJ~amre We the undersigned, as property owners next to the Southern & Eastern boundaries of the Roripaugh Ranch project, collectively seek to have the following conditions or issues mitigated by the City of Temecula Planning Commssion' 1) Re-establishment of the ofi~nally planned 2.5 acre peripheral buffer lots along the Southern & Eastern boundaries as was promised by then City Councilman Ron Roberts in the July, 2001 meeting and by Developer Ashby himself directly to Property Owner Bill Vazzana. This element of the project was unjustly reneged on. The currently planned 1 acre lots are not buffers but constitute a blatant and abrupt development intrusion into already established rural properties, some of which are as large as 10-20 acres. The tentative Riverside County General Land Use Plan for the project area already establishes that all lots be minimum 2.5 acres. 2) Assurance that the emergency "crash gate", or authorized automatic gate with clicker, to remain permanently and be maintained by the city with the further stipulation that, the planned cul-de-sac adjacent to the end of Calle Contento never connect and become an arterial street. 3) Our security and privacy will be greatly impacted. There is no security or privacy buffer between our property lines and the "multi-use" trail which will be accessed by thousands of stran4ers. The Developcr & P!anning Commission needs to address how the lack of security and privacy for the neighboring properties can be restored. 4) Reduction of wind driven dirt and dust: South and East neighboring properties to the project will be subject to undue hardships durin~ construction. The combination of such large scale carving up and IFading on the valley floor and the prevailing winds that persistently buffet the windward slopes of the Eastern hills continually, makes for unwan'anted propeW] damage and poses health hazards, not to mention dirt and debris onto the houses, decks, pools, etc. in the area. We request special hours and additional restraints to the ffradin~ as wettin~ down the soil during this process will not be enough to solve this pr0b!~em. We the undersigned, as property owners next to the Southern & Eastern boundaries of the Roripaugh Ranch project, collectively seek to have the following conditions or issues mitigated by the City of Temecula Planning Commssion: 1) Re-establishment of the orisinally planned 2.5 acre peripheral buffer lots along the Southern & Eastern boundaries as was promised by then City Councilman Run Roberts in the July, 2001 meetin~ and by Developer Ashby himself directly to Property Owner Bill Va=zana. This elemeni oftbe pwject was unjustly reneged on. The corrently planned 1 aere lots are not buffers but constitute a blstsnt and abrupt development intrusion into already established rural properties, some of which are as large as 10-20 acres. The tentative Riverside County General Land Use Plan for the project area already establishes that all lots be minimum 2.5 acres. Assurance that the emergency "crash gate", or authorized automatic gate with clicker, to reroain permanently and be maintained by the city with the further stipulation thaL the planned cul-de-sac adjacent to the end ofCalle Contento never connect and become an arterial street. a) Our security and privacy will be ~reatly impacted. There is no security or privacy buffer between our property lines and the "multi-use" trail which will be accessed by thousands of ~h m~gers. The Developer & Plannin~ Commission needs to address how the lack of security and privacy for the neighboring properties can be restored. 4) Reduction of wind driven dirt and dust: South and East neighboring properties to the project will be subject to undue hardships during construction. The combination of such large scale carving up and grading on the valley floor and the prevailing winds that persistently buffet the windward slopes of the Eastern hills continually, makes for unwarranted property damage and poses health h,7srds, not to mention dirt and debris onto the houses, decks, pools, etc. in the area. We request special hours and additional restraints to the grading, as wetting down the soil during this process will not be enough to solve this problem. Name (printed) & Address Signature Wo the unclenigned, as propem] owne~ next to the Southern & Eastern boundaries of the Roril~ugh R~nch project, colleetivdy seek to have the following conditions or issues mitisated by the City of Temecula Pl*nning Commssion: 1) Re-establishme. l of the originally p!~nned 2.5 acre peripheral buffer lots alon~ the SO~I1 & Easterll bo~mdaries as was promised by tholl City Co~meilm~,n ~ Roberts inthe ~dy, 2001 meeting andby Developer Ashby himself directly to Property Owner Bill Vs~n~ This element of the project was unjustly reneged on. The gulTently pl*nned I ac~ lots are not buffers bu~ constitute a blata~ ~.d abrupt development intrusion into altech] established rural properties, some of which are as large as 10~20 acres. The tentative Riverside County General Land Use Plan for the project area already e~tablishes tha~ all lots be minimum 2.5 al~res. 2) Assmance that the emergency "crash ga~e~, or authorized automatic g~e with cJicke~, to remain ~ and be llmintained by IbC c~ with ~ ~ SlipllllgiO~ lh~. the pl.nned ad-de-sac adjacent to the end of Calle Conte~o neve~ connect and 3) Our ._~_ ,~it~ .nd privacy will be greatly impacted. The~ is no securit~ or privacy buffer between our propcn'y lines and the "multi-use" uall which will be _aox~__sod by tl~,~ma.~ of ~g~s. TI~ Developer & Pla~in§ Commission needs to address how the lack of ._,eo~rity ~na privacy for the neighboring properties can bc restored. 4) such lar~ scale carving up and graalng on thc valley floor and the prevailing winds thst persiste~y buffet thc windward dopes of the Eastern hills continually, makes for tmwananted propen'y damage .nd poses health b-~srds, not m memion dirt .nd debris onto the houses, decks, pools, etc. in the area. We request spedal hours ami additionah-e~h ~ to the ~rading, as w~ down the soil during this pro~ess will not be e~ough to solve thi.~ problera_ Rofpaugh R~n~h proj~ ~ollecfivdy seek to have the following conditions or ismes mitigated by the CRy of Temecula Planning Commssio~ Re-establishment of the originnlly planned 2.5 acre periphernl buffer lots along tl~ Southern & Ea~e~n I~mdaries as was promised by tl~en City Counc~lnmn Ron Roberts in the ~uly, 2001 meeting and by Developer Ashby himseff dir~dy to Prop~'y Owner Bill Va~-~-~ This element ofthe project was unjustly reoeged on. The cun~nfly pl*nned I acre lots are not buffe~ but oom6b~e a blatant ~nd abrupt development intrusion into already established rural propeflies, some of which are iago as :~0-20 a~rez. The ten~ive Riversid~ Coumy C,-enend Land Use Plan for the prat area already e~lishes that sll lots be miniro,m 2.5 Assurance that the emergency "crash gate', or amhoriz~d automatic gate with dicker, to r~n~in peon~nently and be n~*int~ined by the city with the further stipulation that. the planned o~l-d~-sa~ adjac~t to the end of Calle Contento neve~ connect and beoome an arte6al ~'ee~ 3) Our ._~o_ miry .nd pfi~ will be grmfly impacted. There is no security or ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~fi~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ by ~ ~. ~ ~ & pl~ing ~mmi~on n~ to ~ ~ ~ of~ ~ ~ ~r ~e ~ ~ ~ ~ r~r~ 4) meh ~ scale ~r~ring up .na gr~a;ng on thc valley floor ,md the prev.;l;-~_ winds that pers~ahj buffet the windw~d slopes of the Eastern hills COntimmlly, m~kg$ for u~ranmnt~l ~ damage and poses health h~'~rds, not to m~tion dirt and deb~-~ onto the hoose~, decks, pools, etc. in the nrea. We request special hours nnd not be enough to solve this problem We the undersigned, as property owners nex~ to the Southern & Eastern boundaries of the Roripaugh Ranch project, collectively seek to have the following conditions or issues mitigated by the City of Temecula Planning Commssion: 1) Re-establishmem of the originally planned 2.5 acre peripheral buffer lots along the Southern & Eastern boundaries as was promised by then City Councilman Ron Roberts in the July, 2001 meeting and by Developer Ashby himself directly to Property Owner Bill Vazzmm. This element of the project was unjustly reneged on. The currently planned 1 acre lots are not buffers but constitute a blatant and abrupt development intrusion into already established rural properties, some of which are as large as 10-20 acres. The tentative Riverside County General Land Use Plan for the project area already establishes that all lots be minimum 2.5 acres. 2) Assurance that the emergency "crash gate", or authorized automatic gate with clicker, to remain permanently and be maintained by the city with the further stipulation that. the planned cul-de-sac adjacent to the end of Calle Contento never connect and become an arterial street. 3) Our security and privacy will be greatly impacted. There is no security or privacy buffer between our property lines and the "multi-use" trail which will be accessed by thousands of strangers. The Developer & Planning Commission needs to address how the lack of security and privacy for the neighboring properties can be restored. 4) Reduction of wind driven dirt and dust: South and East neighboring properties to the project will be subject to undue hardships during construction. The combination of such large scale carving up and grading on the valley floor and the prevailing winds that persistently buffet the windward slopes of the Eastern hills continually, makes for unwarranted propemj damage and poses health hazards, not to mention dirt and debris onto the houses, decks, pools, etc. in the area. We request special hours and additional restraints to the grading, as wetting down the soil during this process will not be enough to solve this problem. Name (printed) & Address V/no We tbe undersigned, as prope~ owners next to the Soutbem & Eastern b°undaries °fthe Rofil~h Ranch pro~ collectively seek m have ~ followin8 conditions or issues mitigated by the City of Temecula plonning Commssion~ !) Re~P, abli~hment of the originally planned 2.5 acre pefiph~ buffer lots along the Southern & ~ ~es as was promised bY then City~*n ROn Robm~ in tbe July, 2001 meeting and by Developer Ashby himself directly to Property Owner Bill Vazzamc This element of the project was unjusdy reneged o~ The ~y plnnned 1 acre lots are not buffers but consliit~ a bl~_~nt and abrupt developme~ intrusion into already established rural properties, some of which are as large as 10-20 acres. The t _e~,~ive Rivexside Coumy General Land Use Plnn for the project area ah-~ay establishes that all lots be ~nimum 2.5 ac~s. 2) Assurance thnt the emergency '=rash gate~, or ~_~ed a=tomatic 8ate with clicker, tO re~in ~ and be lnnirn'nined by the city with the further stipulation that, the planned od-de-sa~ edjacent to the e~d of Calle Contento never connect and Our secmity ~rul prNacy will be greatly impacted. There is no se°witY °r ~ 3) buffe~ be~w~n our pmpe~y lines and tbe .multi.use,, trall which will be accessed by thousands of ~i~a~gers. The Developer & pl_soning Commission needs to address how the 1-_~ of secority and privacy for the neishborins properties can be restor~L 4) Reduction ofwind driven dirt and dnsC South and East neighboring properties to tbe project will be subject to u~_~- hardships during constm~on- The combi~on of ...... t _ ---~1--' t~)Or nmi thc prove_ ;lin~ wind5 such huge scale carving up an~ gramng on u~ v~ ~ that persistently buffet the windward slopes of the Eastern hills continually, makes debris ~ tbe tmuses, decks, pools, etc. in the area~ We request special hours and additiollal ~ to the grad~ as wettin~ dowl~ tho soil dul~ th~s pro~e~ will not be ~ to solve this problem. We the undemigned, as property owners next to the Southern & East~n b°uadafies °fthe Rofipaugh Rash Im~ject, collectively ~ _~e_l: to have ~ following conflition~ or issues mitigated by the City of Temecula p}~nnin~ Commsslol~ 1) Ro-establishment of the originally planned 2.5 acre pe~pheral buffer lots along the Southern & Eastern bo~_mdaries as was promised by then City Councilman Ron ~ in the Iuly, 2001 meeting and by Developer Ashby himself directly to Property Owner Bill Vazzan~ This element of thc project was unjustly reneged on. The eux, e~ly plammd I acre lots are not brute, s but ~o~ a blatam and abrupt developme~ i~trusion into already established rural properties, some of which are as large as 10~20 ac~s. The tentative Riverside County Gene~ Land Usc Phm f°r the projoct area alr~_ dY establishes th~ all lots bo minimum 2.5 acres. ~ h ~ ' orambofized automs~ ~o~te with clicker, to remain permlulently and b~ mailltained by the city with th~ further s~pt~htion th~, tho planned ~sa~ adjacent to the end ofCalle Conte~ never connect and 3) Our security and privacy will be greatly impaeted- There is no security or pdvaeY buffe~ between our pmpm~ lines and the ~multi-use" trail which will be accessed by Ti~ Developer & Planning Commission needs to address thousands of strangers, privacy for the neighboring properties can bo restored. how the I~ of security and 4) Reduction of wind driven dirt and dust; South and East neighbo~n.-g properties to the project will be subject to undo.hardships during constructio~ The combination of such large scale carvin8 up ~nd gradin8 on the valleyfl°°r ~nd the prevaili~ winds that persistemly buffet the windward slopes of thc Eastern hills contim~!~y, makes dermis onto the houses, decks, pools, etc. in the are~ We request special hours and not be enough to solve this problem. lq~me (printed) & Address mitisated by tho City of Tomecula ph. nin~ Commssion' Southern & t~em bound~es as was promi~d by then City ~ R°n Robe,s in ~ho July, 2001 mee~_i~ ~snd by Developer Ashby him~If din~ PrOperty Ownm' Bill Vn~ana. This element of the proj~ was unjustly renel~d Thc oummfly phum~ 1 a~re lo~s are ~ot buffers but oonstituto ablaiant and abrupt development intrusion into already es[ablished rural properties, somo ofwhich a~ as large as 10-20 a~res. The tmtafiv~ Riverside Coumy~Gene~ Land Us° Plan f°r'th~ projoct area ~ estlibiish~ thlit idl lo~ be minlr~lum 2.5 Assurimce .l~s~ the emergen~ "o~dl 8ate~,°r authOrized a~Omati¢ 8ate with °lioker' tho planned eul.de.s~ adjacent to the end of Calle Cmx~nto nev~ connect and 3) 4) buffer betwem our property lines and the '~-~i-u~ trail whi~ will bo ac.~ss~ by thousands of sunngers. TI~ Devdope~ & H,.mln$Commission needs io-iddress such huEe scale ~-vin~ up aad ~i~ on the valley floor and th~ prevailin~ winds ' debris omo the h~mses, de, ts, pooh, etc. in the n~e~ We requm sic'hi-hours nnd not be emp,~oh to solv~ this pmblm October 16, 2002 Response to Notice of Public Heating-City of Temecula- Roripaugh Ranch Project Specific to the Butterfield Stage Road Respondents: Milan & Jean Wagner 40030 Walcott Lane Temecula, CA 92591 (909) 693 0949 Subject: Butterfield Stage Road Easement Conc~'iIs; #1. Because of the Butterfield Stage Road design, unrealistic elevations and encroaching slopes are causing concern for many of us whose property is adjacent to Butterfield Stage Road. #2. This easement does not define height limitations for the proposed roadway. #3. Exhaust from several thousands of vehicles passing by daily will flow down onto our property from the elevated roadway. As the property now exists there is a significant swale that allows air currents to flow from east to west and is particularly noticeable during the fall and winter months. Because of the radical elevation proposed on our easterly side, the interruption of normal airflow into the area surrounding our residence could result in a trap for vehicle pollution. Changing the flow of air currents is similar to changing the direction of water run-off from one property to another. 84. There is also a concern about the high level of noise we will be exposed to as thousands of cars and large tracks pass daily; this will increase dramatically as more people become aware of this passage way. #5. The possibility of a vehicle crashing down from an approximate 40' high elevated roadway onto our home and the damage it could inflict, or a life it could take are real concerns. The construction of an attractive block wall of sufficient stxength, length and height to help minimize these concerns is an absolute necessity. #6. Terrain changes could affect compaction and drainage and also cause flooding. #7. We are requesting the use and installation of Keystone Planter Units on all slopes to minimize encroachment; the cells of these units are to be planted with shrubbery and trees, and be irrigated and maintained by the city. A look of continuity is especially important so we do not have a different look at different levels. Page 1 of 2 pages #8. We request a rendering showing the Butterfield Stage Road, the use of Keystone planter units on the slopes, and treatment of our driveway along with the upper pad area as it relates to our property so we can visualize how the project will look when completed. We would like this rendering to show how this will tie into our neighbors property to the north and the south. #9. Our particular property offers views, a place of peace and tranquility with beautiful sloping terrain~ lots of trees, approximately 18,000 sq. fl. of lawn and a lovely cottage home. If all of this is going to be compromised we expect remuneration; we also expect to be paid for any of our land used outside oftbe easement. #10. Other concerns are the encroachment on our circular driveway; grading for the upper S/E pad which is adjacent to the B.F.R. easemem; relocation ora 12' X 13" tool shed including the electrical and water hook-ups; relocation of mature trees which would interfere with the toe of the slope; relocation of the propane tank gas line that supplies the residence. The mailer "Notice of .Public Hearing for the Roripaugh project" received Thursday P.M. Oct. 10, 2002 adwsing us of the upcoming Oct 16~ meeting did not allow for sufficient time to seek legal counsel. Should this be necessary in the future, we reserve ~s right. We want to thank the city planning commissioners for their efforts and dedication to the City of Temecula, a beautifully planned community. Sincerely, Milan Wagner Jean Wagner Page 2 of 2 pages October 16, 2002 TO: CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan (Planning Application No. 94-0075) General Plan Amendment (Planning Application No. 99-0298) Change of Zone (Planning Application No. 94-0075 Development Agreement (Planning Application No. 99-0299) Tentative Tract Map 29253 (Planning Application No. 01-0230) Tentative Tract Map 29661 (Planning Application No. 01-0253 We, Roger and Jeannie Morris, as property owners at 33007 Vino Way, request that the following questions and considerations pertaining to subject development be addressed and be made matters of the public record. We are not against development per se, but the planned Roripaugh Ranch project density creates several issues that need to be addressed: First, where in the current plan has there been tmn.~itional zoning considerations given for the benefit of already established rural properties to the south and east of the proposed boundaries of the project? Does sandwiching a multi-purpose trail between existing county property owners and new peripheral lot owners of the development consitute a fair transition between a rural neighborhood and island urbanization? Secondly, the proposed density creates additional concerns and impact on an already overloaded infrastructure that needs to be improved and just not added to it. How are the new roads (especially the Butterfield Stage Road extension) going to be con~is acted and 100% paid for completion? Can't the City of Temecula find a way to finance this part of the infrastructure without involving the Developer? Either City Bond issues or other financial sources are better than relying on a developer to recoup his cost through a higher than tolerated density in order to make the expenses payable and profitable for his development. Thirdly, what about the two new schools in the development? Where is the City going to get funding to build the schools? As the project gets built out and the schools are still not constructed, do the neighboring schools get crowded? What about the water resources for this project? Does anybody know how the water will get allocated in hght of recent dwindling water supplies? Even if the roads do get built, has anybody assessed the traffic impact that this project along with the Serena Hills development will bring to the already elevated service levels of the signals on Rancho California Road and Winchester Road? How is the additional traffic load at existing tributary area intersections going to improve the quality of life here? The above mentioned issues are all examples of the proverbial "cart before the horse" type planning. Also, in a time when the city of Temecula is critical of the county for development which impacts it's city residents, it seem.q only prudent that you review thi.q project with care and with the same regard to county residents that you would want the county to extend the city residents. In addition to the above mentioned concerns, we want to add the following concerns for the record: 1) Improperly defen~xl mitigation of subject development 2) Uncertain mitigation of subject development 3) Inadequate alternatives analysis of subject development 4) Findings are not supported by substantial evidence in the record of development 5) Inadequate project description of subject development 6) Environmental impact report does not analyze the indirect impacts of subject development 7) Inadequate analysis ofaccumnlative and growth induced factors of subject development 8) Not consistent with the water code and the general plan relative to subject development 9) Construction and long term noise impacts of subject development 10) Air quality impacts of subject property 11) Impacts and introduction of exotic foreign landscaping on native vegetation in subject development 12) Impact of domestic pets on the subject development environment 13) Impacts on foraging habits and native environment for raptors 14) Impacts on native environment for the Quino Checker-Spotted Butterfly ATFACHMENT 13 PLANNING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATIONS R:\S PhRoripaugh Ranch SP~new\CC~Staff Report 11-26-02 A.doc 32 ATTACHMENT 13 Planning Commission Recommendations 10-30-02 PC Recommendations: 1. The Specific Plan needs to be amended to include the following provisions: Only four lots, of approximately 1.8 acre each, shall be provided along the eastern property line within PA 19 adjacent to pamels with Assessor's Parcel numbers 943-160-018, 943- 160-017, 943-150-021, and 943-150-020. Only five lots, of approximately 1.3 acre each, shall be provided along the southern property line within PA 20 adjacent to parcels with Assessor's Parcel numbers 943-050-007, 943- 050-018, and approximately 300' easterly portion of 943-050-009. The southeast corner of PA 20 and easterly and southeasterly corner of PA 21 shall be redesigned to reduce number of lots by 2 and 1, respectively, as shown on the attached Figure A. d. Planning Ama 33A and B shall have minimum 1 acre lots along the western boundary and minimum 1/2 acre lots everywhere else. e. The Design Guidelines for all Planning Areas needs to include language that the street scene for all these areas to include a reasonable mix of single-story units. f. Add Section 5.4 to the Specific Plan consistent with The Albert Group proposal for submittal requirements. g. All local streets shall have curb-separated sidewalks. h. The property line fence along the south side of PA 7A shall be a 5' 6" to 6' high three-mil horse fence with wire mesh. 2. "A" Map a. A Condition of Approval will be added to provide AC pavement at intersections and approaches at all existing roads. b. The revised tentative map shall include: Updating the cross section for south side of Murrieta Hot Springs Road to have a 4' planter next to the curb, a 5' sidewalk followed by a 4' planter and placing the sidewalk away from the curb on the north side. 3. "B" Map: a. A Condition of Approval will be added to the "B" Map to provide enhanced landscaping for lots 208 through 211 and lots 438 to 442. R:\S P',Roripaugh Ranch SPXnew\CC~Staff Report I 1-26-02 A.doc 33 b. A Condition of Approval will be added to provide AC pavement at intersections and approaches at all existing roads, Condition of Approval No.3 will be eliminated when a revised tentative map is submitted for staff's review. This revised tentative map shall include the elimination of the two drive aisles adjacent to lots 214 and 378 and redesigning the area in order to provide a direct access from private streets. d. Condition of Approval No. 7 will be amended to read as follow when a revised tentative map is submitted for staff's review. '~Nithin thirty (30) days of the final approval of the project by the City Council, the tentative map shall be submitted to the Planning Department in final form for review and approval. The final form shall include all conditions of approval and all modifications made by the Planning Commission and City Council including curb separated sidewalks for all local streets." e. The revised tentative map shall include: Updating the cross section for south side of Murrieta Hot Springs Road to have a 4' planter next to the curb, a 5' sidewalk followed by a 4' planter and placing the sidewalk away from the curb on the north side. 4. The Development Agreement shall include language requiring the construction of Nicolas Road with 4 lanes from the MWD easement to Calle Girasol. 5. Other PC concerns a. Continuing the Calle Contento connection through the project site. b. The design of the habitat view fence along the south side of PA 13. R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SP~new\CCSStaff Report 11-26-02 A.doc 34 ATrACHMENT 14 BUFFERING RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION R:XS PXRoripaugh Ranch SPXnew\CCXStaff Report 11-26-02 A,doc 35 Detail A 1.8 Ac. 18,026 ATI'ACHMENT 15 AGENCY CORESPONDANCE R:\S PXRofipaugh Ranch SPXnew\CCXStaff Report I 1-264)2 A.doc 36 llhe Gas Company* A Sempra Energy' utility September 9, 2002 ......... , Southern California .... ~ ~ ['-Q Gas Company ., . ;'.. ,~ !p !' ~ .... / ~ ~ 1981 W. Lu~onia Avenue · i;I. I~ Redlands, CA 92374-9720 OCT 24Z00Z ? Mailing Address: i ~: i PO Box 3003 ! Redlands, CA 92373-0306 City of Temecula - Planning Department 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Attention: Saied Naaseh Re; Final Environmental Impact Report (FEI?.) for the Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan in Temecula Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the above-referenced project. Please note that Southern California Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be provided without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accordance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. You should be aware that this letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project, but only as an informational service. The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter, is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, The Southern California Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action, which affects gas supply, or the conditions under which service is available, gas service will be provided in accordance with revised conditions. Typical demand use for: Residential (System Area AverageAJse Per Meter) Yearly Single Family 799 thenns/year dwelling unit Multi-Family 4 or less units 482 therms/year dwelling unit Multi-Family 5 or more units 483 therms/year dwelling unit These averages are based on total gas consumption in residential units served by So,uthem California Gas Company, and it should not be implied that any particular home, apartment or tract ofhomas will use these amounts of energy. Page 2 October 7, 2002 b. Commercial Due to the fact that construction varies so widely (a glass building vs. a heavily insulated building) and there is such a wide variation in types of materials and, a typical demand figure is not available for this type of construction. Calculations would need to be made after the building has been designed. We have Demand Side Management programs available to commercial/industrial customers to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy of our energy conservation programs, please contact our Commercial/Industrial Support Center at 1-800-GAS- 2000. Steve Duuivin Technical Supervisor SD/v jr 10/15/2002 09:53 7607461015 CILS F_SC PAGE 82 CALIFORNIA INDIAN LEGAL SERVICES EUREKA ESCON~IDO Escondido Office 609 South EscoMido Boul~u'd, Escondido, CA 92025 + Phone 760/746-8941 4. Fax 760/746-1 gl$ www,callndlan.org '4' cilse$¢ondido~.alindian.org Deirdre Marie-Ihs, Staff Attorney OAKI.~ND 760/746-8941, Ext. 119 SANTA RO$A dina rlO-iha~calindian.o rg WA~]~INGTON, D.C, October 15, 2002 Mr. Saled Naaseh City of Temecula~ Planning Dept. 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, GA 92590 VIA FAX(909)694-6477 Re': Mitigation Measures for Roripaugh Ranch Project Final EIR Dear Mr, Naaseh: T~s office represents the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians ("Pechanga Band" or "Tribe") regarding the Roripaugh Ranch Project. I write to confirm our recem conversation on October 11s regarding the archa¢ologlca! mitigation measures for the Project. In our conversation you indicated that the mitigation measures have been amended as requested in our letter of October 8*h. As we discussed, one of the archaeological mitigation measures requires that the applicant enter into a pre-excavation agreement with the Pechanga Band. This naeasure has been amended to no~e that the agreement will address Native American monitoring, as well as the treatment and disposition of any Native American human remains or cukural items which may be found during Project activities. We truly appreciate the City's cooperation in amending the mitigation measures to address the Pechanga Band's eoneenas. Provided that the mitigation measures mirror those included in the Final EIR Mitigation Monitoring Plan Report, dated September 26, 2002, and have been amended as you indicated, we believe that the Tribe's concerns have been fully addressed. Accordingly, please accept this letter in lieu of testimony from the Pechanga Band at the Plann;ug Commission hearing scheduledl for tomorrow evening, October 16~. We ask that this letter be noted in the record for the Planning Commission proceeding. 18/15/2882 89:53 7667461815 CILS ESC PAGE 83 LettertoMr. SaiedN~seh Ke:Mi~g~onMeasuresforRoripaughRanchProjectFinalEIR Octob~rl~, 2002 Page 2 Thank you for your assistance in addressing the Tribe's concerns. If you have any questions, please feel free to call. Thank you. Sincerely, CALIFOKNIA INDIAN LEOAL SERVICES ey cc: Kent Norton, K¢ith Companies, Fax: (909) 653-5308 John Oomez, Peclmaga Band, Fax (909) 587-8162 11/18/2002 11:24 7G074G1815 CILS ESC PAGE 02 CALIFORNIA INDIAN LEGAL SERVICES Escondido Office 609 Somh Escondido Boulevard, Escondido, CA 92025 + Phone 760/74~-8941 4, Fax 760/746-1815 ww~.calindian, org + cilsescondido~calindian,org BISHOP Deirdre Ma~ie-lha, Staff Attorney OaJO~,l~ EUREKA 760/746-8941, Ext. 119 .SANTA 1~O$A dmarie-ih a~}calindlan.org ESCONDIDO .... WASBINGTON, D.C. Nov~mberl8,2002. Mr. Saied Naaseh VIA FAX (909) 694-6477 City of Temecula, Planning Dept. 43200 Business Park Drive Tcmecula, CA 92590 Re: Ranch Project Final EIR and. City Council Heanng,.-November 26~ Dear Mr. Naaseh: This office represents the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians'("Pechanga Band" or "Tribe") regarding the Roripaugh Ranch Project. I wrke to cohtirm our recent conversations and correspondence regarding the archaeological mitigation measures for the Project. Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to review the mitigation measures as they were approved by the planning commission, Your cooperation is much appreciated. Given that the language was amended as we requested, the Tribe's concerns have been fully addressed. Accordingly, please accept this letter in lieu of testimony from the Pechanga Band at the City Council heating scheduled for next Wednesday November 26m. We ask that this letter be noted in the record for the council hearing. Thank you once again.for your assistance in addressing:the.Tribe';i concerns. If you have any questions, of course, please feel See to eal.l. Thank you. cc: Sincerely, / l~mre Mane-ma ~/' · (.StkffA?omey . . · · . · Kent Norton, Keith Companies, Fax: (909) 653-5308 John Oomez, Pechnnga Band General Counsel's Office, Fax.(909) 587-8162 A'i'I'ACHMENT 16 SUMMARY OF PROJECT BENEFITS R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SPXnew\CCXStaff Report 11-26-02 A.doc 37 A'I-rACHMENT 16 Summary of Project Benefits Roads The project will construct major General Plan level roads, which will enhance traffic movement throughout the City. These improvements include: 1. Murrieta Hot Springs Road (MHSR) full width from its current terminus at Pourroy Road to Butterfield Stage Road (BSR). 2. BSR full width from MHSR to Rancho California Road. 3. Nicolas Road full width from BSR to western project boundary. 4. Nicolas Road 40' curb to curb from the western project boundary to the existing Nicolas Road/Calle Girasol intersection including a 4 lane bridge, 5. Construct on-site traffic signals 6. North General Kearney Road at Nicolas Road traffic signal with related lane improvements. 7. Winchester Road at Nicolas Road traffic signal to be constructed with related lane improvements. 8. Butterfield Stage Road at Rancho California Road traffic signal with related lane improvements. 9. The developer is required to pay fair share contributions to the City of Murrieta for four intersections Other Benefits of the Project include: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. A 19.7 acre sports park A 4.8 acre neighborhood park Over 200 acres of permanent open space A Fire Station site $1,200,000 to fund 50% of the construction cost for the fire station $800,000 to fund the purchase of fire apparatus to be used anywhere in the City. A quality development with comprehensive private recreation programs and trails systems along with quality architecture. R:\S P~Roripaugh Ranch SPXnew\CC~Staff Report 11-26-02 A.doc 38 ITEM 11 APPROVAL ~.,fh'r~ CITY ATTORNEY ~ DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER -~:~-~1 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council J ~[~/illiam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer November 26, 2002 Introduction of the Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program Ordinance PREPARED BY: Beryl Yasinosky, Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: 1. Introduce and read by title only an Ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 02- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM BACKGROUND: Western Riverside County is growing at a pace exceeding the financial resources to meet increasing demand for transpodation infrastructure. With the population of this region expected to double in the next 25 years, this challenge is especially critical for regional arterial roadways since traditional sources of transportation funding (such as the gasoline tax and local general funds) will not be sufficient to fund the needed improvements. While local development fee programs and county funding sources (i.e., Measure A funds) exist to mitigate the impacts of new development on the transportation system in specific areas, only a small portion of these revenues are for regional arterial roadway improvements. The Western Riverside Cities, as members of the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), have participated in the development of a plan to establish a new comprehensive funding source for regional transportation improvements known as the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). Based upon a Nexus Study, developed by Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. for WRCOG, the total cost of improving the TUMF system is estimated at $3.24 billion. Existing funding obligated for improvements to the TUMF system, including the improvements generated by existing development, represent approximately $435 million of the total cost. The balance of the unfunded TUMF system improvement needs (approximately $2.81 billion) is attributable to the mitigation of future development and will be captured through the TUMF program. R:~agdrpt\2002\112602\TUMF.flrstread 1 Based on the Nexus Study, the proposed TUMF Ordinance establishes a fee of $6,650 per Single Family Residential Unit and $4,607 per Multi-Family Residential Unit. For non-residential development, the TUMF provides two methods to apply the fee, per square foot of gross floor area or a fee per acre. To remain consistent with our existing mitigation fee programs for non- residential development, the City of Temecula proposes to establish a fee based on the square footage of gross floor area of the non-residential project, or $1.45 per square foot for Industrial Projects; $7.81 per square foot for Retail Commercial Projects; and $4.84 per square foot for Service Commercial Projects. The respective fees allocable to future new residential and non- residential development in the City of Temecula are summarized in the following table: TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA FEE PER RESIDENTIAL SECTOR DWELLING UNIT Single-Family Residential $6,650 Multi-Family Residential $4,607 FEE PER SQUARE NON-RESIDENTIAL SECTOR FOOT OF GROSS FLOOR AREA Industrial $1.45 Retail $7.81 Service $4.84 As proposed, all the Western Riverside Cities and the County of Riverside must adopt the uniform fees so that the regional transportation improvements identified in the Nexus Study can be financed and constructed. The Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved the first reading of the TUMF Ordinance on November 5, 2002 and formal adoption is expected following the public hearing on November 26, 2002. The Western Riverside Cities are expected to follow with their own ordinances. Cities that do not take the appropriate steps to implement the fee will lose their Measure A allocation as set forth in the new Measure A program. The TUMF program is intended to provide a new revenue source that ensures future development will contribute toward addressing the impacts of new growth on the regional transportation infrastructure. These funds will be used to construct transportation improvements such as arterial highway lanes, freeway interchanges, railroad grade separations and new regional express bus services that will be needed to accommodate future travel demand in Western Riverside County. The City is currently updating its Development Impact Fees (DIF) to avoid any duplication of fees associated with the City's DIF program and the proposed TUMF program. Staff has reviewed the proposed Ordinance for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed TUMF program improvements represent components of the adopted General Plan that have already received the appropriate review when the project was approved. Based upon this review, staff is recommending that the Council make a finding that R:\agdrpt~2002\l 12602\TUMF.flrstread 2 the project is exempt from further review pursuant to CEQA Guideline Sections 15162(a) and 15061(b)(3). Section 15162 states that when an EIR has been certified for a project, no additional environmental review is required. The Final EIR for the City General Plan was certified on November 9, 1993. FISCAL IMPACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance No. 02- R:\agdrpt~002\112602\TUMF.flrstread 3 ORDINANCE NO. 02- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Title This Ordinance shall be known as the "Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program Ordinance." Section 2: Findings A. The City Council has been informed and advised, and hereby finds, that future development within Western Riverside County and the cities therein will result in traffic volumes exceeding the capacity of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials (the "Regional System") as they presently exist. A map depicting the boundaries of Western Riverside County and the Regional System is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and made a part hereof. B. The City Council has been further informed and advised, and hereby finds, that if the capacity of the Regional System is not enlarged, the result will be substantial traffic congestion in all pads of Western Riverside County, with unacceptable Levels of Service throughout Western Riverside County by 2025. C. The City Council has been further advised, and so finds that funds will be inadequate to fund construction of the Regional System needed to avoid unacceptable levels of traffic congestion and related adverse impacts. Absent a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF), existing and known future funding sources will be inadequate to provide the necessary improvements to the Regional System, resulting in an unacceptably high level of traffic congestion with and around the City and within Western Riverside County. D. The City is a Member Agency of the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), a joint powers agency consisting of the City, the County of Riverside, and the thirteen other cities situated in Western Riverside County Acting in concert, the Member Agencies of WRCOG developed a plan whereby the shortfall in funds needed to enlarge the capacity of the Regional System could be made up in part by a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee on future residential, commercial and industrial development. As a Member Agency of WRCOG, the City participated in preparation of that certain '~/Vestern Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Nexus Study", dated October 18, 2002, and prepared pursuant to Government Code Section 66000 et. seq., the Mitigation Fee Act (the "Nexus Study"). E. The City Council has reviewed the Nexus Study, and hereby finds that future development within the County of Riverside and the cities will substantially adversely affect the Regional System, and that unless such development contributes to the cost of improving the Regional System, the System will operate at unacceptable Levels of Service. R:\agd rpt\2002\112602\TU MF.firstread 4 F. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the failure to mitigate growing traffic impacts on the Regional System within Western Riverside County will substantially impair the ability of public safety services (police and fire) to respond. The failure to mitigate impacts on the Regional System will adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare. G. The City Council further finds and determines that there is a reasonable and rational relationship between the use of the TUMF and the type of development projects on which the fees are imposed because the fees will be used to construct the transportation improvements that are necessary for the safety, health and welfare of the residential and non- residential users of the development projects on which the TUMF will be levied. H. The City Council finds and determines that there is a reasonable and rational relationship between the need for the improvements to the Regional System and the type of development projects on which the TUMF is imposed because it will be necessary for the residential and non-residential users of such projects to have access to the Regional System. Such development will benefit from the Regional System improvements and the burden of such development will be mitigated in part by the payment of the TUMF. I. The City Council further finds and determines that the cost estimates set forth in the Nexus Study are reasonable cost estimates for constructing the Regional System improvements, and that the amount of the TUMF expected to be generated by new development will not exceed the total fair share cost to such development. J. The City Council further finds that the cost estimates set forth in the Nexus Study are reasonable cost estimates for the facilities that comprise the Regional System; and that TUMF program revenues to be generated by new development will not exceed the total fair share of these costs. K. The fees collected pursuant to this Ordinance shall be used to help pay for the construction and acquisition of the Regional System improvements identified in the Nexus Study. The need for the improvements is related to new development because such development results in additional traffic, thus creating the demand for the improvements. L. By notice duly given and published, the City Council set the time and place for a public hearing on the Nexus Study and the fee proposed thereunder, and at least ten days prior to the hearing, the City made the Nexus Study available to the public. M. At the time and place set for the hearing, the City Council duly considered that data and information provided by the public relative to the cost of the services for which the fees are proposed and all other comments, whether written or oral, submitted prior to the conclusion of the hearing. N. The City Council finds that the Nexus Study proposes a fair and equitable method for distributing a portion of the unfunded costs of improvements to the Regional System. O. The City Council hereby adopts the Nexus Study, which Study is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporates it herein as though set forth in full. R:\agdrpt~2002\l 12602\TU MF.firstread 5 Section 3: Definitions For the purpose of this Ordinance, the following words, terms and phrases shall have the following meanings: A. "Development Project" or "Project" means any project undertaken for the purpose of development including the issuance of a permit for construction. B. "Gross Acreage" means the total property area as shown on a land division map of record, or described through a recorded legal description of the property. This area shall be bounded by road right-of-way and property lines. C. "Industrial Project" means any development project, at the time of issuance of any building permit, in where manufacturing, assembly, processing, packaging, or storage of products takes place and as further defined by the following zoning designations identified in the Light Industrial and Business Park Zones or within a similarly defined planning area within an adopted specific plan, as defined in Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code. D. "Low Income Residential Housing" means residential units in publicly subsidized projects constructed as housing for Iow-income households as such households are defined pursuant to Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. "Publicly subsidized projects," as the term is used herein, shall not include any project or project applicant receiving a tax credit provided by the State of California Franchise Tax Board. E. "Multi-Family Residential Unit" means a development project that has a density of greater than six (6) residential dwelling units per acre. F. "Non-Residential Unit" means each square foot of gross floor area (or fraction thereof) of retail, commercial and industrial development, which is designed primarily for non- dwelling use, but shall include hotels and motels. G. "Residential Dwelling Unit" means a building or portion thereof used by one (1) family and containing but one (1) kitchen, which are designed primarily for residential occupancy including single-family and multi-family dwellings. "Residential Dwelling Unit" shall not include hotels or motels. H. "Retail Commercial Project" means any development project in a commercial zone at the time of issuance of any building permit that is not defined as a Service Commercial project shall be subject to the Retail Commercial fee; and as further defined by the following zoning designations identified in the Neighborhood Commercial, Community Commercial, Highway Tourist Commercial, and Service Commercial Zones or within a similarly defined planning area within an adopted specific plan, as defined in Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code. I. "Service Commercial Project" means any development project that is predominately dedicated to business activities associated with professional or administrative services, and typically consist of corporate offices, financial institutions, legal and medical offices, and as further defined in the Professional Office Zone or within a similarly defined planning area within an adopted specific plan, as defined in Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code. R:\agdrpt~002\112602\TUMF.firstread 6 J. "Single-Family Residential Unit" means each residential dwelling unit in a development that has a density of six (6) units to the acre or less. Section 4: Establishment of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee A. Adoption. There is hereby adopted the following schedule of fees: $ 6,650 per Single-Family Residential Unit $ 4,607 per Multi-Family Residential Unit $1.45 per Square Foot of Gross Floor Area of an Industrial Project $ 7.81 per Square Foot of Gross Floor Area of a Retail Commercial Project $ 4.84 per Square Foot of Gross Floor Area of a Service Commercial Project B. Fee Adjustment. The fee schedule may be periodically reviewed and the amounts adjusted by the WRCOG Executive Committee. By amendment to this Ordinance, the fees may be increased or decreased to reflect changes in actual and estimated costs of the Regional System including, but not limited to, debt service, lease payments and construction costs. The adjustment of the fees may also reflect changes in the facilities required to be constructed, in estimated revenues received pursuant to this Ordinance, as well as the availability or lack thereof of other funds with which to construct the Regional System. C. Purpose. The purpose of the TUMF is to fund those certain improvements to the Regional System depicted on Exhibit A and identified in the Nexus Study, Exhibit B. D. Applicability. The TUMF shall apply to all new development within the existing and future City boundaries, located within the County of Riverside, as identified by Exhibit C, unless otherwise exempt hereunder. E. Exemptions. The following new development shall be exempt from the TUMF: i. Low-income residential housing. ii. Government/Public buildings, public schools and public facilities. iii. The rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of any structure as long as the same or fewer traffic trips are generated as a result thereof. iv. Development Projects, which are the subject of a Public Facilities Development Agreement entered into pursuant to Government Code, Section 65864 et. seq. prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, wherein the imposition of new fees are expressly prohibited provided that if the term of such a Development Agreement is extended after the effective date of this Ordinance; the TUMF shall be imposed. Municipal Code. Guest Houses as defined as defined in Chapter 17.06 of the Temecula vi. Additional single-family residential units located on the same parcel pursuant to the provisions of any agricultural zoning classifications as defined as defined in Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code. R:\agdrpt\2002\l 12602\TU MF.firstread 7 vii. Kennels and Catteries established in connection with an existing single family residential unit as defined in Title 17 of the Temecula Municipal Code. viii. Detached Second Units and Attached Second Units pursuant to Chapter 17.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code. F. Credits. Credits for the Regional System improvements shall be subject to the Public Contracts Code, prevailing wage provisions and otherwise provided as follows: Regional Tier i. Arterial Credits: If a developer constructs arterial improvements identified on the Regional System, the developer shall receive credit for the costs associated with the arterial component based on approved unit cost assumption for the Regional System. All excess construction credit must have prior approval from WRCOG. ii. Other Credits: In special circumstances, when a developer constructs off-site improvements such as an interchange, bridge, or railroad grade separation, credits shall be determined by WRCOG and the local jurisdiction in consultation with the developer. All excess construction credit must have prior approval from WRCOG. iii. The amount of the development fee credlt shall not exceed the maximum amount determined by the most current unit cost assumption for the Regional System or actual costs, whichever is less. Fee credits shall be applied against future fee and shall not be paid back in cash. Local Tier iv. The local jurisdictions shall compare facilities in local fee programs against the Regional System and eliminate any overlap in its local fee program except where there is a recognized benefit district established. v. If there is a recognized benefit district established, the local agency may credit that portion of the facility identified in both programs against the TUMF. Section 5: Reimbursements: A. Authority of the Building Department. The Director of Building & Safety, or his/her designee, is hereby authorized to levy and collect the TUMF. B. Payment of the fees shall be as follows: i. The fees shall be paid at the time a cedificate of occupancy is issued for the Development project or upon final inspection, whichever comes first. However, this section should not be construed to prevent payment of the Fees prior to issuance of an occupancy permit or final inspection. Fees may be paid at the time application is made for a building permit. R:\agdrpt~002\112602\TUMF.firstread 8 ii. The fees required to be paid shall be the fee amounts in effect at the time of payment, not the date the Ordinance is initially adopted. iii. If all or part of any development project is sold prior to payment of the fee, the property shall continue to be subject to the requirement for payment of the fee, accordingly, the fees shall run with the land. iv. Fee shall not be waived. C. Disposition of Fees, All fees collected hereunder shall be transmitted to the Executive Director of WRCOG within thirty (30) day for deposit, investment, accounting and expenditure in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance and the Mitigation Fee Act, D. Reports to WRCOG. The Director of Building & Safety, or his/her designee, shall prepare and deliver to the Executive Director of WRCOG, periodic reports as will be established under Section 6 of this Ordinance. Section 6: Appointment of TUMF Fund Administrator WRCOG is hereby appointed as the Administrator of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program. WRCOG is herby authorized to receive all fees generated from the TUMF within the County, and to invest, account for and expend such fees in accordance with the provision of this Ordinance and the Mitigation Fee Act. Detailed administrative procedures concerning the implementation of this Ordinance shall be set forth in a resolution adopted by WRCOG. WRCOG shall expend only that amount of the funds generated from the TUMF for staff support, audit, administrative expenses, and contract services that are necessary and reasonable to carry out its responsibilities and in no case shall the funds expended for salaries and benefits exceed one percent (1%) of the annual net amount of revenue raised by the TUMF. Section 7. Severability If any one or more of the terms, provisions or sections of this Ordinance shall to any extent be judged invalid, unenforceable and/or voidable for any reason whatsoever by a court of competent jurisdiction, then each and all of the remaining terms, provisions and sections of this Ordinance shall not be affected thereby and shall be valid and enforceable. Section 8. Environmental Review The potential improvements to be funded through the TUMF program represent components of the adopted General Plan that has already received the appropriate review when the General Plan was approved. Based upon this fact, the City Council hereby finds that the adoption this ordinance is exempt from further review pursuant to CEQA Guideline Sections 15162(a) and 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15162 states that when an EIR has been certified for a project, no additional environmental review is required unless there is substantial evidence that the project has changed. The Final EIR for the City General Plan was certified on November 9, 1993. R:~agdrpt\2002\112602\TUMF.firstread 9 Section 9. Judicial Review In accordance with State law, any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul this Ordinance shall be commenced with 90 days of the date of adoption of this Ordinance. Section 10. Effective Date This Ordinance shall take effect on the 61st day following its enactment. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula the 26~h day of November 2002. ATTEST: Ron Roberts, Mayor Susan W. Jones, CMC City Clerk [SEAL] STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss CITY OF TEMECULA ) I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do herby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 02- was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 26th day of November 2002' by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Susan W. Jones, CMC City C~erk R:~agdrpt~2002\l 12602\TUMF.flrstread 10 & J TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE NEXUS STUDY FINAL REPORT Prepared for The Western Riverside.Council of Governments In Cooperation with The City of Banning The City of Beaumont The City of Calimesa The City of Canyon Lake The City of Corona The City of Hemet The City of Lake Elsinore The City of Moreno Valley The City of Murrietta The City of Norco The City of Perris The City of Riverside The City of San Jacinto The City of Temecula The County of Riverside Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. Revised October 18, 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1,0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE NEXUS STUDY ............................................. 1 2.0 FUTURE GROWTH .......................................................................................................... 4 2,1 Recent Historical Trend ....................................................................................... 4 2,2 Available Demographic Data ............................................................................... 4 2.3 Future Growth Trends .......................................................................................... 5 2.4 Demographic Assumptions Used for the Nexus Study Analysis .......................... 6 3,0 NEED FOR THE TUMF .................................................................................................... 7 3.1 Future Highway Congestion Levels ..................................................................... 8 3.2 Future Transit Utilization Levels ........................................................................... 9 3.3 The TUMF Concept .......................................................................................... 10 4.0 THE TUMF SYSTEM ...................................................................................................... 12 4.1 Identification of TUMF Roadway Network .......................................................... 12 4.2 Backbone Network and Secondary Network ..................................................... 14 4.3 Future Transportation Needs ............................................................................. 17 4.4 Public Transportation Component of the TUMF System .................................... 20 4.5 Existing Obligated Funding ............................................................................... 21 4.6 Unfunded Existing Improvement Needs ............................................................ 21 5.0 NEXUS ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ 23 5.1 Future Development and the Need for Improvements ...................................... 23 5.2 Application of Fee to System Components ........................................................ 24 5.3 Application of Fee to Residential and Non-Residential Developments .............. 26 6.0 FAIR-SHARE FEE CALCULATION ................................................................................. 28 6.1 Residential Fees ................................................................................................ 28 6.2 Non-Residential Fees ........................................................................................ 29 7.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................ 31 APPENDICES Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G Appendix H Appendix I Appendix J List of TUMF Committees. Western Riverside County Population and Employment Growth, 2000 - 2025 (SCAG 2001 RTP, CETAP). Western Riverside County Traffic Growth 2000- 2025 (SCAG CTP Model). Western Riverside County Regional System of Highways and Arterials Western Riverside County "Backbone" and "Secondary" Network of Regional System of Highways and Arterials. Western Riverside Counb/Network Cost Assumptions. Western Riverside County Regional Trip Distribution. Western Riverside County Regional Trip Purpose. Residential Fee Calculation Non-Residential Fee Calculation and Land Use Density Conversion Factors WRCOG Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 Table 2.1 Table 2.2 Table 2.3 LIST OF TABLES WRCOG Regional Socioeconomic Data by Source ............................................. 5 Comparative Demographic Change from SCAG 2000 ........................................ 5 Population and Employment Estimates ................................................................ 6 Table 3,1 Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2000-2025) ..................... 8 Table 4.1 Unit Costs for Roadway Construction ................................................................ 18 Table 4.2 Unit Cost for Transit Capital Expenditures ......................................................... 21 Table 5.1 2025 Forecast - Vehicle Trip~ by WRCOG Zone ................................................ 25 Table 5.2 2025 Forecast - Percentage Vehicle Trips by WRCOG Zone ............................ 25 Table 5,3 Backbone-Secondary Network Share Calculation ............................................. 26 Table 5.4 Person Trip Production - Residential vs. Non-Residential .................................. 27 Table 6,1 Residential Fee Calculation ............................................................................... 29 Table 6.2 Non-Residential Fee Calculation ........................................................................ 30 Table 6.3 Non-Residential Fee Conversion ....................................................................... 30 Table 7.1 Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside Count/ ................ 32 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4.1 Regional System of Highways and Arterials ...................................................... 13 Figure 4.2 Backbone Network of Regional System of Highways and Arterials ................... 15 Figure 4.3 WRCOG Area Planning Districts ........................................................................ 16 WRCOG ii Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE NEXUS STUDY Western Riverside County has 14 incorporated cities and the unincorporated county covering an area of approximately 2,100 square miles. This portion of Riverside County is growing at a pace exceeding the capacity of existing financial resources to meet increasing demand for transportation infrastructure. The projected growth in Western Riverside County (doubling the population in 25 years) can be expected to significantly increase congestion and degrade mobility if substantial investments are not made in the transportation infrastructure. This challenge is especially critical for arterial roadways of regional significance, since traditional sources of transportation funding (such as the gasoline tax and local general funds) will not be nearly sufficient to fund the needed improvements, development exactions only provide improvements near the development site, and the broad-based county-level funding sources (i.e., Riverside County's half-cent sales tax known as Measure A) designate only a small portion of their revenues for arterial roadway improvements. In anticipation of the continued rapid future growth projected in Riverside County, several county wide planning processes were initiated in 1999. These planning processes include the Riverside County General Plan Update, the Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) and the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Related to these planning processes is the need to fund the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new development. Regional arterial highways in Western Riverside County are forecast to carry significant traffic volumes by 2025. While localized fee programs exist to mitigate the local impacts of new development on the transportation system in specific areas, and while these programs are effective locally, they are disparate for meeting the regional demand for transportation infrastructure. Riverside County Supervisor Buster recognized the need to establish a comprehensive funding source to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development on regional arterial highways. The need to establish a comprehensive funding source for arterial highway improvements has evolved into the development of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) for Western Riverside County In February 1999, the cities of Temecula, Murrieta and Lake Elsinore, the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the Building Industry Association (BIA) met to discuss the concept of a TUMF. The intent of this effort was to have the southwest area of Western Riverside County act as a demonstration for the development of policies and a process for a regional TUMF program before applying the concept county wide. From February 1999 to September 2000 the Southwest Area Transportation Infrastructure Funding Year 2020 (SATISFY 2020) Program progressed with policy development, the identification of transportation improvements, traffic modeling, cost estimates, fee scenarios and a draft Implementation Agreement. The SATISFY 2020 program was guided by three committees: a Policy Committee made up of elected officials and private industry representatives, a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) made up of public and private sector representatives, and a Legal Committee made up of the attorneys from the four jurisdictions and WRCOG. The Policy Committee met monthly to discuss the policy and procedural implication of the SATISFY 2020 program. Participation at the Policy Committee meeting included a wide variety of attendants including the press who reported on the meetings in the local section of the area WRCOG I Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 newspaper. The TAC that formed in June 1999 and initially met monthly and later met bi- monthly focused on the technical aspects of the SATISFY 2020 program including the identification of prospective projects and the development of cost estimates. Over 50 open meetings were held throughout the SATISFY 2020 process in addition to council workshops and meetings. In May 2000, Riverside County Supervisor Tavaglione initiated discussions in the northwest area of Western Riverside County to determine the level of interest in developing a TUMF for that area the county. Interest in the development of a northwest area fee program was high. In August 2000, the WRCOG Executive Committee took action to build upon the work completed in the southwest area for the SATISFY 2020 program and to develop a single consolidated mitigation fee program for all of Western Riverside County. This action was predicated on the desire to establish a single uniform mitigation fee program to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development on the regional arterial highway system, rather than multiple discrete fee programs with varying policies, fees and improvement projects. A TUMF Policy Committee comprising regional elected officials was formed to recommend and set policies for staff to develop the TUMF program and provide overall guidance to all other staff committees. A TUMF Technical Advisory Committee (TUMF TAC) consisting of the regional Public Works Directors, WRCOG, RCTC and other interested parties was established by the TUMF Policy Committee. The TUMF TAC has met on at least a bi-monthly basis for the past two years to consider the technical aspects of the TUMF program including the definition of a RegionaJ System of Highways and Arterials and the development of cost estimates for the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development. A City Managers Subcommittee began meeting in December of 2001 and has met at least monthly since this time. The City Managers Subcommittee meets to prepare, review and recommend policies to the TUMF Policy Committee, the WRCOG City Managers TAC and the WRCOG Executive Committee. A list of the representatives on all TUMF (and SATISFY 2020) Committees is included in Appendix A. Between May 2002 and July 2002 there have been 10 specific workshops with the BIA and the development community to discuss TUMF related issues. WRCOG has provided monthly staff reports on all the TUMF activities since 1999 to the WRCOG City Mangers TAC and the WRCOG Executive Committee. There have been over fifteen public meetings with city councils, regional agencies and boards, and civic groups regarding the TUMF process. Further, regional information briefs, weekly status reports and postings on the web site have served to communicate the progress of the TUMF program development. The TUMF program is intended to be implemented through the auspices of WRCOG. While the TUMF cannot fund all necessary transportation system improvements, it is intended to address a current transportation funding shortfall by establishing a new revenue source that ensures future development will contribute toward addressing the impacts of new growth on regional transportation infrastructure. Funding accumulated through the TUMF program will be used to construct transportation improvements such as new arterial highway lanes, reconfigured freeway interchanges, railroad grade separations and new regional express bus services that will be needed to accommodate future travel demand in Western Riverside County. By levying WRCOG 2 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 a fee on new developments in the region, local agencies will be establishing a mechanism by which developers and in turn new county residents and employees will effectively contribute their "fair share" toward sustaining the regional transportation system. This TUMF Nexus Study is intended to satisfy the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 5 Section 66000-66008 Fees for Development Projects (also known as California Assembly Bill 1600 (AB 1600) or the Mitigation Fee Act) which governs imposing development impact fees in California. The Mitigation Fee Act requires that all local agencies in California, including cities, counties, and special districts follow two basic rules when instituting impact fees. These rules are as follows: 1) Establish a nexus or reasonable relationship between the development impact fee's use and the type of project for which the fee is required. 2) The fee must not exceed the project's proportional "fair share" of the proposed improvement and cannot be used to correct current problems or to make improvements for existing development. The purpose of this study is therefore to establish the nexus or reasonable relationship between new land development projects in Western Riverside County and the proposed development impact fee that will be used to improve regional transportation facilities. It will also identify the proportional "fair share" of the improvement cost attributable to new development. WRCOG 3 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 10, 2002 2,0 FUTURE GROWTH 2,1 Recent Historical Trend Despite the recession of the 1990s, Western Riverside County has experienced robust growth in recent years. The results of Census 2000 indicate that in the year 2000, Western Riverside County had a population of 1.187 million representing a 30% increase (or 2.7% average annual increase) from the 1990 population of 912,000. Total employment in Western Riverside County in 2000 was estimated by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to be 371,000 representing a 42% increase (or 3.6% average annual increase) over the 1990 employment of 261,000. 2.2 Available Demographic Data A variety of alternate demographic information is available for Western Riverside County quantifying future population, household and employment growth. The primary source of consolidated demographic information for Southern California is SCAG. SCAG is the largest of nearly 700 Councils of Government (COG) in the United States and functions as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPC) for six counties in Southern California including Los Angeles, Orange, San Bemardino, Riverside, Ventura and Imperial. SCAG is mandated by the federal government to research and plan for issues of regional significance including transportation and growth management. As part of these responsibilities, SCAG maintains a comprehensive database of regional socioeconomic data and develops demographic projections and travel demand forecasts for Southern California. The most recently available SCAG demographic projections were developed in 2000 to support the preparation of the Regional Transportation Plan titled Community Link 21. Adopted by the SCAG Regional Council on April 12, 2001, Community Link 21 "presents an assessment of the overall growth and economic trends in the SCAG Region for the years 2001 - 2025.TM The adopted SCAG demographic projections are typically used by sub-regional agencies in Southern California as a basis for developing their own demographic forecasts. For the Western Riverside County sub-region, WRCOG has adopted growth forecasts based on SCAG data. Western Riverside County forecasts have also been developed for the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP) and the associated Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP). The CETAP 2025 and Buildout (Year 2037) forecasts were developed by the project consultants (Transcore) and are consistent with the adopted SCAG projections. Detailed results of Census 2000 for the State of California were released by the U.S. Census Bureau on August 27, 2002. This detailed information was not available during the preparation of the TUMF Nexus Study. ~ Southern California Association of Governments, RTP Communitv Link 21 - Executive Summarv, April 2001 WRCOG 4 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 Table 2.1 provides a summary of the available socioeconomic data for Western Riverside County, including existing conditions and future growth forecasts. A detailed breakdown of the available socioeconomic data is included in Appendix B. TABLE 2.1 WRCOG REGIONAL SOCIOECONOMIC DATA BY SOURCE ~ase Base Year 2020 2025 / 2037 Source (ear pop hhd emp pop hhd emp pop Hhd emp SCAG (1) 1997 1,090,133 349,078 303,805 2,232,983 721,427 801,806 SCAG (la) 2000 1,199,004 403,739 371,3t8 1,993,154 667,105 734,331 WRCOO (2, 2,024,250 656,103 757,277 Census2000 (3) 2000 1,187,346 notavail, notavail. ~CIP (4) Scenario 2 (4a) 1994 1,376,877 368,048 2,573,785 985,663 Scenario3 (4b) 1994 1,376,877 368,048 2,573,785 881,998 ~,ETAP buildout (6' __ 2,897,074 962,483 1,246,312 I. Base year and forecast data used in 2001 RIP (adopted by SCAG CEHD Commiilee) la. Year 2000 data are SCAG estimates; year 2000 hhds based on occupied units; 2020 data were used in developing 2001 RTP. Included in Appendix B. !. Data approved by WRCOG in June 2000. I. Households and employment not available. h Riverside. Co. pop. & employment data prepared by Stanley Hoffman & Assoc. for the RCIP (includes Coachella Valley) 4a. Population based on city input, employment based on SCAG projections 4b. Population based on city input, employment reflects historic trend analysis (2.91% annual growth rate) $. 2025 Data used for CETAP, provided by Transcore. Included in Appendix B. 6. 2037 Data used for CETAP Buildout, provided by Transcore. Included in Appendix B. 2.3 Future Growth Trends Despite the various demographic data sources that are available, all forecasts agree that the trend for population and employment growth in Western Riverside County is expected to continue at a high rate. The resulting annual (compounded) growth rates derived from the SCAG and CETAP forecasts are displayed in Table 2.2. TABLE 2.2 COMPARATIVE DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES FROM SCAG 2000 Source Forecast Year Total Change Annual Change pop hhd emp pop hhd emp SCAG 2020 66.2% 65,1% 97.8% 2.6% 2.5% 3.5% SCAG RTP 2025 86.2% 78.7% 115.9% 2.5% 2.3% 3.1% CETAP 2025 86.2% 78.7% 115.9% 2.5% 2.3% 3.1% CETAP Buildout t20371 141.6% 149.7% 235,6% 2,4% 2.5% 3,3% Based on the adopted regional growth forecasts (which have been used as the basis for the SCAG RTP and the CETAP study), the population of Western Riverside County is projected to increase by 86% in the period between 2000 and 2025, a compounded rate of approximately WRCOG 5 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 2.5% annually. During the same period, employment in Western Riverside Couniy is anticipated to grow by 116% or 3.1% annually. 2.4 Demographic Assumptions Used for the Nexus Study Analysis Having reviewed a variety of alternative demographic data for the purpose of quantifying population and household growth in Western Riverside County, it was determined that the data developed and adopted to support the SCAG 2001 RTP represented the most widely accepted data available. For this reason, the SCAG 2001 RTP demographic information was used as the basis for quantifying the Comparative Demographic Changes referenced in the Nexus Study analysis The SCAG 2001 RTP 2000 and 2020 da'a were factored to represent alternate years (2010, 2015 and 2025) at the city level (and for the unincorporated county) for Western Riverside County in support of CETAP evaluation effor[s. CETAP Buildout (2037) demographic data were also prepared. These data are previously provided for comparative reference in Table 2,1. SCAG 2001 RTP employment data for 2000 and 2020 was divided into ten employment sectors consistent with the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Major Groups including Agricultural, Mining, Construction, Manufacturing, Transport/Utility, Wholesale, Retail, Financial/Insurance/Real Estate, Service and Government. For the purposes of the Nexus Analysis, the employment by NAICS Major Groups was aggregated to Industrial (Agricultural, Mining,C onstruction, Transport/Utility,M anufacturing, Wholesale), Retail (Retail), Service (Financial/Insurance/Real Estate, Service) and Government/Public Sector (Government) that were used as the basis for calculating the fee for each aggregated sector type (as described in Section 6.2). A correspondence table detailing the various employment groupings and categories for each non-residential TUMF sector type is included in Appendix B. The demographic data used as the basis for completing the Nexus Study analysis is summarized in Table 2.3. TABLE 2.3 POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT ESTIMATES 2000 2020 Sector Share 2025 Change PopuIation 1,199,004 2,232,983 1,033,979 HousehoIds 403,739 721,427 317,688 Employees Industrial 135,545 214,144 29.2~ 233,821 98,276 Retail 66,822 145,054 19.8% 158,382 91,560 Service 124,323 294,675 40.1% 321,752 197,429 Government/Public Sector 44,628 80,458 11.0% 87,851 43,223 Totals 371,318 734~331 100.0% 801~806 430~488 Notes: - Population, Household and Employment data from the SCAG 2001 RTP/CETAP - 2025 Employees by Sector based on 2020 Employees by Sector WRCOG 6 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 3.0 NEED FOR THE TUMF All new development has some effect on the transportation infrastructure in a community, city or county due to an increase in travel demand. Increasing usage of the transportation facilities leads to more traffic, progressively increasing traffic congestion and decreasing the level of service (LOS)2. In order to meet the increased travel demand and keep traffic flowing, improvements to transportation facilities become necessary to sustain pre-development traffic conditions. The projected growth in Western Riverside County (doubling the population in 25 years) can be expected to significantly increase congestion and degrade mobility if substantial investments are not made in the transportation infrastructure. This challenge is especially critical for arterial highways and roadways that carry a significant number of the trips between cities, since traditional sources of transportation improvement funding (such as the gasoline tax and local general funds) will not be nearly sufficient to fund the improvements needed to serve new development, development exactions generally only provide a fraction of the improvements, and the broad-based county-level funding sources (i.e., Riverside County's half-cent sales tax known as Measure A) designate only a small portion of their revenues for arterial roadway improvements. This section documents the existing and future congestion levels that demonstrate the need for future improvements to the transportation system to specifically mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development. It then presents the TUMF concept that has been developed to fund future new developments fair share of needed improvements. The forecast of future congestion levels is derived from Year 2025 travel demand forecasts for Western Riverside County, developed for the CETAP study using the SCAG Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) travel demand forecasting model of the Inland Empire. Because of the model's area of coverage and level of detail in roadway network and traffic analysis zones, this model is the most appropriate tool for forecasting future traffic volumes on the arterial roadways in Western Riverside County. Furthermore, the SCAG CTP model is based on $CAG demographic forecasts that are consistent with the socioeconomic data described in Section 2,0 and used as a basis for calcula'dng the TUMF fee. The 2025 CETAP forecasts are the most current comprehensive forecasts available with this model. Use of the CETAP 2025 forecasts ensures a conservative estimate of future congestion, since a Year 2025 forecast will have less traffic than a buildout forecast, and since the CETAP 2025 scenario likely has less traffic on the regional arterials than a new SCAG 2025 regional growth scenario that forecasts more of the trips remaining within Western Riverside County. 2 The Hiqhwav Caeacitv Manual (Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp 2-2, 2-3) describes LOS as a "quality measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such service measures as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience." Letters are used to designate each of six LOS (A to F), with LQS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F representing the worst. According to the Highway Capacity Manual, LOS C or D is typically used in planning efforts to ensure an acceptable operating service for facility users. Therefore, LOS E represents the threshold for unacceptable LOS. WRCOG 7 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 3.1 Future Highway Congestion Levels To support the evaluation of the cumulative regional impacts of new development on the transportation system in Western Riverside County, existing (2000) and future (2025) traffic data were derived from the SCAG CTP Travel Demand Forecast Model networks developed by Transcore to support the ongoing Western Riverside County CETAP study. The CTP Model 2000 and 2025 CETAP trip tables and loaded base (No-Build) network files were obtained from Transcore for the purpose of evaluating future traffic growth (and trip distribution) in Western Riverside County. To quantify traffic growth impacts, various traffic measures of effectiveness were calculated for each of the two scenarios using the layer information link calculation capabilities of Citilabs Viper Software. The WRCOG TUMF study area was extracted from the greater regional CTP model network for the purpose of calculating measures for Western Riverside County only. Measures for the Western Riverside County TUMF study area included total vehicle daily miles of travel (VMT), total daily vehicle hours of travel (VHT), total combined vehicle hours of delay (VHD), and total VMT exceeding unacceptable level of service (LOS E) thresholds. These results were recorded from the Viper layer information results dialog box and were tabulated in Table 3,1. Plots of the Network Extents and screen shots of the respective results dialog boxes are attached in Appendix C. TABLE 3.1 REGIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM MEASURES OF PERFORMANCE (2000-2025)* WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Vleasure of Performance ~Dail¥~ 2000 2025 % Change % Annual /MT - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 23~962,100 61~630~700 157% 3.8% /MT - FREEWAYS 14,549,200 37,261,100 156% 3.8% FOTAL ARTERIAl. VMT 9,4t2,900 24,369,600 159% 3.9% /HT - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 528,798 1,943,400 268% 5.3% /HT - FREEWAYS 257,011 883,400 244% 5.1% FOTAL ARTERIAL VHT 27t~787 t;060~000 290% 5.6% /HD - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 31 ~733 666,900 2002% 13.9% /HD - FREEWAYS 17,268 270,600 1467% 11.6% FOTAL ARTERIAL VHD t4,465 3961300 2640% 14.2% /MTLOSE - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 8~524,100 47~119~600 453% 7.1% /MTLOSE - FRWY 6,840~100 34~573,900 405% 6,7% FOTAL ARTERIAL VMT w/LOS E or worse t~684~000 t2~545~700 645% 8.4% Based on SCAG Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) Model outputs for CETAP provided by Transcore. ~]OTES: /MT = vehicle miles of travel (the total combined distance that all vehicles travel on the system) /HT =vehicie hours of travel {the total combined time that all vehicles are traveling on the system) /HD = vehicle hours of delay (the total combined time that all vehicles have been delayed on the system based on the difference between forecast travel time and free-flow (ideal) travel time) _OS = level of service (based on forecast volume to capacity ratios1 Total VMT, VHT, VHD and LOS E Threshold VMT were calculated to exclude Assignment Groups 1, 5, and 6 being all freeways, carpool lanes and centroid connectors, respectively. Regional values for each threshold were also calculated excluding only the centroid connectors (Assignment Group 6). WRCOG 5 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 The following formulas were used to calculate the respective values. VMT = Link Distance * Total Daily Volume VHT = Average Loaded (Congested) Link Travel Time * Total Daily Volume VHD = VHT - (Freeflow (Uncongested) Link Travel Time * Total Daily Volume) VMTLOSE = VMT (on links where Daily V/C exceeded 0.82) LOS Thresholds for LOS E are based on the Transportation Research Board 2000 Edition of the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM 2000) LOS Maximum V/C Criteria for Multilane Highways with 45 mph Free Flow Speed (Exhibit 21-2, Chapter 21, Page 21-3). The calculated values were compared to assess the total change between 2000 and 2025, and the average annual change between 2000 and 2025. As can be seen from the SCAG CTP Model outputs summarized in Table 3,1, the additional traffic generated by new development in the region will cause congestion on the arterial highway system to increase almost exponentially in the absence of additional highway infrastructure investments. Many facilities will experience a significant deterioration in LOS to unacceptable levels as a result of new development and the associated growth in traffic. According to the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2000), LOS C or D are required to "ensure an acceptable operating service for facility users." LOS E is generally recognized to represent the threshold of unacceplable operating service and the onset of substantial systemic traffic congestion. The need for a mitigation fee on new development is shown by the adverse impact that new development will have on Western Riverside County's transportation infrastructure. As a result of the new development and associated growth in population and employment in Western Riverside County, additional pressure will be placed on the transportation infrastructure with the total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on the Western Riverside County system of arterial roadways estimated to increase by 159% or 3.9"/,, compounded annually.. As shown in Table 3.1, the VMT on facilities experiencing LOS of E or worse will increase by 645% er 8.4% compounded annually in Western Riverside County in the period between 2000 and 2025. By 2025, over 50% of the total VMT on the regional highway system is forecast to be traveling on facilities experiencing daily LOS E or worse, Without improvements to the arterial highway system, the total vehicle hours of delay (VHD) experienced by area motorists will increase over 14% per year as the combined influences of increased travel and worsened LOS manifest themselves in severe congestion and delay, highlighting the need to complete substantial highway improvements. The SCAG CTP Model outputs summarized in Table 3.1 clearly demonstrate that the travel demands generated by future new development in the region will lead to increasing levels of traffic congestion, especially on the arterial roadways. The need to improve these roadways and relieve future congestion is therefore directly linked to the future development which generates the travel demand, 3.2 Future Transit Utilization Levels In addition to the roadway network, public transportation will play a role in serving future travel demand in the region. Transit represents a critical component of the transportation system by providing an alternative mode choice for those not wanting to use an automobile, and WRCOG 9 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 particularly for those who do not have access to an automobile. As population and employment in Western Riverside County grows as a result of new development, demand for regional transit services in the region is also expected to grow. For the purpose of quantifying existing and future transit trips in Western Riverside County, the SCAG RTP Model3 trip table outputs for transit trips between each of the 6 Regional Statistical Areas (RSA) in Western Riverside County were summarized for 1997 and 2025. The aggregated transit person trips internal to Western Riverside County were increased proportionately to reflect the estimated transit trips in 2000, and were then compared with the 2025 forecast to assess the impact of new development on transit demand. The SCAG RTP Model trip table outputs indicate that regional transit services currently accommodate approximately 13,300 trips per day in Western Riverside County. By 2025, regional transit services are forecast to provide approximately 43,000 trips per day, an increase of 32,300 trips per day or 223%. SCAG RTP Model trip table outputs for transit person trips in the WRCOG region are summarized in .Appendix C. The significant future growth in demand for public transit services is reflective of the cumulative regional impacts of new development, and the associated increase in demand for all transportation infrastructure. The need to provide additional transit services to satisfy this future demand is therefore directly linked to the future development that generates the demand. 3.3 The TUMF Concept A sizable percentage of trip-making extends beyond the local community, and contributes to the need for transportation improvements in other communities of Western Riverside County. The idea behind a uniform mitigation fee is to have new development throughout the region contribute equally to paying the cost of improving the transportation facilities that serve longer- distance trips between communities. Thus, the fee should be used to improve transportation facilities that serve trips between communities within the region (primarily arterial roadways) as well as the infrastructure for public transportation. Some roadways serve trips between adjacent communities, while some also serve trips between more distant communities within the region. The differing roadway functions led to the concept of using a portion of the fee revenues for a backbone system of arterial roadways that serve the longer-distance trips (using TUMF revenues from the entire region), a second portion for a secondary system of arterials that serve inter-community trips (using TUMF revenues from the communities served by these roads - in effect, a return-to-source of that portion of the funds), and a final portion for improvements to the public transportation infrastructure (using TUMF revenues from the entire region). Much, but not all, of the new trip-making is generated by residential development - when people move into new homes, they add trips to the transportation system. Some of the new trips are generated by activities associated with businesses - other than commute trips, these travel demands are not attributable to residential development. The different sources of new 3 The SCAG CTP Model is a highway only model and does not account for transit trips. The SCAG RTP Model incorporates both highway and transit modes and was used as the basis for determining existing and future transit trips. The SCAG CTP Model is derived from the SCAG RTP Model. WRCOG 10 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October t8, 2002 travel demand led to the concept of assessing both residential and non-residential development for transportation impacts. In summary, the TUMF concept includes the following: · A uniform fee will be levied on new development throughout Western Riverside County. · A fee will be assessed on new residential and non-residential development. · A portion of the fee will be used to fund capacity improvements on a backbone system of arterial roadways that serve longer-distance trips within the region; a portion of the fee will be returned to the area in which it was generated to fund capacity improvements on a secondary system of arterial roadways that link the communities in that area; and a portion of the fee will be used to fund improvements to the public transportation infrastructure within the region. WRCOG 11 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 4,0 THE TUMF SYSTEM 4.1 Identification of the TUMF Roadway Network An integral element of the Nexus Study was the designation of the Western Riverside County Regional System of Highways and Arterials. This network of regionally significant highways represents those arterial and collector highway and roadway facilities that primarily support inter-community trips in Western Riverside County and supplement the regional freeway system, and represents the extents of the network of highways and roadways that would be eligible for TUMF funded improvements. The Regional System of Highways and Arterials does NOT include the freeways of Western Riverside County. The TUMF roadway network is the system of roadways that serve inter-community trips within Western Riverside County and that would be eligible for improvement funding with TUMF funds. The Regional System of Highways and Arterials for Western Riverside County (also referred to as the TUMF Network) was identified based on several transportation network and performance guidelines, specifically the following: 1. Arterial highway facilities proposed to have a minimum of four lanes at ultimate build- out (not including freeways). 2. Facilities that serve multiple jurisdictions and/or provide connectivity between communities both within and adjoining Western Riverside County. 3. Facilities with forecast traffic volumes in excess of 20,000 vehicles per day by 2025. 4. Facilities with forecast volume to capacity ratio of 0.82 (LOS E) or greater in 2025. 5. Facilities that accommodate regional fixed route transit services. 6. Facilities that provide direct access to major commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational or tourist activity centers, and multi-modal transportation facilities (such as airports, railway terminals and transit centers). Appendix D includes exhibits illustrating the various performance measures assessed during the definition of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials. Transportation facilities in Western Riverside County that satisfied the respective guidelines were identified, and a skeletal regional transportation framework evolved from facilities where multiple guidelines were observed. Representatives of all WRCOG constituent jurisdictions reviewed this framework in the context of current local transportation plans to define the TUMF Network, which was subsequently endorsed by the TUMF Technical Advisory Committee, TUMF Policy Committee and the WRCOG Executive Committee. The Regional System of Highways and Arterials is illustrated in Figure 4.1 and Appendix D. WRCOG 12 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 4,2 Backbone Network and Secondary Network The TUMF roadway network was further refined to distinguish between facilities of "Regional Significance" and facilities of "Zonal Significance". Facilities of Regional Significance were identified as those that typically are proposed to have a minimum of six lanes at ultimate build- out4, extend across and/or between multiple Area Planning Districts (APD - the five aggregations of communities used for regional planning functions within the WRCOG area) or zones, and are forecast to carry at least 25,000 vehicles per day in 2025. The Facilities of Regional Significance have been identified as the "backbone" highway network for Western Riverside County. A portion of the TUMF fee would be specifically designated for improvement projects on the backbone system. The Backbone Network is illustrated in Figure 4.2 and in Appendix E Facilities of Zonal Significance (the "secondary" network) represent the balance of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials for Western Riverside County. These facilities are typically within one zone and carry comparatively lesser traffic volumes than the backbone highway network, although they are significant for circulation within the respective zone. A portion of the TUMF fee would be specifically designated for improvements projects on the secondary network in the zone in which it is collected. The WRCOG zones are illustrated in Figure 4,3 and Appendix E. 4 Although facilities were identified based on the minimum number of lanes anticipated at ultimate buildout, in some cases it was determined that sufficient demand for all additional lanes facilities may not exist on some facilities until beyond the current timeframe of the TUMF program (2025). As a result, only a portion of the additional lanes on these facilities have currently been identified for funding with TUMF revenues, reflecting the cumulative impact of new development through the current duration of the TUMF program. WRCOG 14 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 4.3 Future Transportation Needs For the purpose of calculating a "fair share" fee for new development, it is necessary to estimate the cost of improvements on the TUMF system that will be needed to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of future transportation demands created by new development. Estimates of the cost to improve the Network to mitigate the cumulative impacts of new development were developed based on unit costs prepared for the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE)s, and the WRCOG Southwest District SATISFY 2020 Summary of Cost Estimates6 (TKC/WRCOG 2000). The RACE cost estimates were developed based on a summary of actual construction costs for projects constructed in Riverside County in 1998. Using the RACE cost estimates, initial unit cost estimates for the TUMF Network were developed and inflated to reflect an increase of 2.7%, which is the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost index for the year 2000. A copy of the RACE cost estimate methodology and the ENR Construction Cost Index are included in Appendix F. The initial unit cost estimates for the TUMF (based on inflated RACE cost estimates) were reviewed in the context of the SATISFY 2020 Draft Cost Estimates (included in Appendix F) and were consolidated to provide typical improvement costs for each eligible improvement type. The refinement of unit costs was completed to simplify the process of estimating the cost to improve the entire TUMF network. Based on RACE and SATISFY 2020, consolidated cost estimates included typical per mile or lump sum costs for each of the improvement types eligible under the TUMF program. A peer review workshop meeting was held to review the unit cost estimates. The workshop was held at the RCTC offices on June 19, 2002 with representatives of WRCOG, local jurisdictions and the BIA in attendance. The explicit purpose of this peer review workshop was the review of the unit cost estimates, leading to the evaluation of recently corrpleted or recently bid road projects in Western Riverside County and consideration of a unit cost sensitivity analysis completed by the Keith Companies. The resultant revised unit cost estimates were used as the basis for estimating the cost to complete the necessary improvements to the TUMF network to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development. A table detailing the initial unit cost estimates and the recommended revisions from the peer review workshop is included in Appendix F. Variations in the consolidated cost estimates for specific improvement types were provided to reflect differences in topography and land use across the region. Unit costs for roadway construction were varied to account for variations in construction cost (and in particular, roadway excavation and embankment cost) associated with construction on level (code 1) rolling (code 2) and mountainous (code 3) terrain, respectively. Right-of-way acquisition costs (which includes consideration for land acquisition, documentation and legal fees, relocation and demolition costs, condemnation compensation requirements, utility relocation, and environmental mitigation costs) were also varied to account for variations in right-of-way costs associated with urban (developed commercial/residential mixed uses - code 1), suburban (developed residential uses - code 2) and rural (undeveloped uses - code 3) land uses, 5 Parsons Brinckerhoff/Coachella Valley Association of Governments, 1999, Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE) 6 TKC/Western Riverside Council of Governments, 2000, SATISFY2020 Summary of Cost Estimates WRCOG 17 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 respectively. Similarly, interchange improvement costs were varied to account for differing levels of improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of new development at interchange locations on the TUMF network. Lump sum costs for interchange improvements were varied to account for variations in cost associated with new (or fully reconstructed - code 1), major (or partially reconstructed - code 2) or minor (individual ramp improvements - code 3) interchange improvements. Table 4,1 summarizes the cost estimate assumptions used to develop the TUMF network cost estimate. Cost estimates are provided in Year 2000 values. TABLE 4.1 UNIT COSTS FOR ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION Estimated Unit Improvement Types (Code) 3cst Description Construction Terrain - Level (1) [;550,000 Construction cost per lane mile - level terrain Construction Terrain - Rolling (2) [;850,000 Construction cost per lane mile - rolling terrain Construction Terrain - [;1,150,000 Construction cost per lane mile - mountainous Mountainous (3) [errain ROW LandUse - Urban (t) [;900,000 ROW cost factor per lane mile - urban areas ROW LandUse - Suburban (2) [;420,000 ROW cost factor per lane mile - suburban areas ROW LandUse - Undeveloped (3) [;240,000 ROW cost factor per lane mile - undeveloped areas Interchange - New (1) [;20,000,000 New Interchange/Interchange modification total cost Existing Interchange - Major (2) [;10,000,000 Interchange improvement total cost Existing Interchange - Minor (3) [;2,000,000 Minor interchange improvement cost Bridge (1) [;2,000 Bridge total cost per lane per linear foot Railroad Grade Separation - New (1) [;4,500,000 New Rail Grade Separation per lane Railroad Grade Separation - Existing (2) t;2,250,000 Existing Rail Grade Separation per lane Intersection (1) [;300,000 Upgrade existing network-to-network intersection Planning 10% Planning, preliminary engineering and environmental assessment costs Project study report, design, permitting and Engineering _;5% construction oversight costs Contingency 10% Contingency costs, including TUMF program administration To estimate the cost of improving the regional transportation system to provide for future traffic growth from new development, the transportation network characteristics and performance guidelines (outlined in Section 4."1) were initially used as a basis for determining the needed network improvements. The initial list of improvements needed to provide for the traffic generated by new development was then compared with local General Plan Circulation Elements to ensure that the TUMF network included planned arterial roadways of regional significance. The consolidated list of proposed improvements and the unit cost assumptions were then used to establish an initial estimate of the cost to improve the network to provide for future traffic growth associated with new development. WRCOG 18 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 The consolidated list of proposed improvements and associated initial cost estimates established the baseline of improvements for further development of the TUMF program. A comprehensive review process involving WRCOG, regional Public Works Directors, local developers, The Keith Companies and Urban Crossroads (retained by the BIA) was established to review the proposed network of improvements and unit costs assumptions used to estimate the cost of the system. This process was completed in nine workshops, including the unit cost assumption workshop described previously. An initial workshop was held on June 6, 2002 to discuss the proposed improvements. At this meeting it was agreed that a series of five peer review workshop meetings would be held to simplify the review of the consolidated list of improvements and associated costs. One peer review workshop meeting was held for each of the five zones in the WRCOG region, with meetings held at the Riverside County Assessors Office between June 27, 2002 and July 18, 2002. The peer review workshop meetings involved representatives from WRCOG, the respective zone jurisdictions, local developers and BIA consultants. Model plots identifying levels of service, volume to capacity ratios and total daily volumes for both 2025 and build-out, were used by the group to specifically review each segment of roadway identified within the zone and the associated improvements to mitigate the cumulative regional traffic impacts of new development. Any recommendation to change the proposed network required affirmation by consensus of the group. The series of five peer review workshop meetings culminated in the development of a revised list of proposed network improvements and associated cost more accurately reflecting the improvements necessary to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development. The revisions recommended through the five peer review workshops were confirmed at a follow-up workshop meeting held on July 18, 2002 and were forwarded to the TUMF TAC for endorsement. Some of the recommended changes applying to all workshops were: 1) those facilities that were either currently under construction or known to be under construction within six months, were reduced by the known improvement being made; 2) a third category for interchange improvements was applied; 3) a second category for at-grade rail crossing separations was applied; and 4) bridges were calculated by linear feet. A final workshop was held for all City and County representatives, local developers and BIA consultants in conjunction with the TUMF TAC to review and endorse the network and unit cost recommendations from the preceding workshops. The full TUMF TAC, which includes private sector representatives, subsequently endorsed the recommended changes at the workshop meeting held on August 8, 2002. The peer review process utilizing real world experience and perspectives from both the private and public sectors was critical in developing a realistic network of proposed improvements to mitigate the additional traffic resulting from future development in Western Riverside County. The BIA consultants have continued to participate in the process of developing the TUMF program as full members of the TUMF TAC. Eligible improvement types to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development on Network facilities include: 1. Construction of additional Network roadway lanes; 2. Construction of new Network roadway segments; 3. Expansion of existing Network bridge structures; WRCOG 19 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 4. Construction of new Network bridge structures; 5. Expansion of existing Network interchanges with freeways; 6. Construction of new Network interchanges with freeways; 7. Grade separation of existing Network at-grade railroad crossings; 8. Expansion of existing Network-to-Network intersections. All eligible improvement types provide additional capacity to Network facilities to accommodate future traffic growth generated by new development in Western Riverside County. The estimated total cost to mitigate the cumulative regional traffic impacts of new development on the TUMF network is approximately $3.07 billion with this cost including all planning, engineering, design, right-of-way acquisition and capital construction costs. The cost of improvements in each component of the TUMF Network is as follows: Backbone system: Secondary system: Intersection Improvements: $1.27 billion (39.1%) $1.73 billion (53.4%) $0.07 billion (2.1%) The detailed TUMF network cost calculations are provided in Appendix F, including each of the individual segments and cost components considered as part of the TUMF program, 4.4 Public Transportation Component of the TUMF System In addition to the roadway network, public transportation will play a role in serving future travel demand in the region. Public transportation serving inter-community trips is generally provided in the form of public transit bus services and in particular express bus services between strategically located community transit centers. Transit needs to serve future travel in Western Riverside County via public transit bus were provided by the Riverside County Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) based on the RTA Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Legislative Program and the RTA Connections Long Range Strategic Plan (Nelson/Nygaard Consulting, November 17, 1999). The identified public transit needs include transit centers, bus stop upgrades, and capital improvements to develop express bus service within the region. Metrolink commuter rail service improvements were not included in the TUMF program as they typically serve longer inter-regional commute trips equivalent to freeway trips on the inter-regional highway system. Cost estimates were developed for improving the infrastructure serving public transportation, including construction of transit centers, bus stop upgrades, and capital improvements needed to develop express bus service within the region. The transit unit cost data derived from the RTA Fiscal Year 2001-2002 Legislative Program, the SCAG Draft 2001 RTP Cost Estimation Methodology, the RTA Connections Long Range Strategic Plan (Nelson/Nygaard Consulting, November 17, 1999), and RTA Transit Capital Costs: Regional Benefits (September 2002) are shown in Table 4.2. The same percentage factors used for the TUMF network cost estimate were added for planning, engineering, and contingency costs associated with transit capital improvement projects. WRCOG 20 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 TABLE 4.2 UNIT COSTS FOR TRANSIT CAPITAL EXPENDITURES mprovementTypes Estimated Unit Cost ~escription l'ransit Center $6,000,000 Construct transit center. 3us stop upgrade $10,000 Jpgrade amenities at bus stops. Regional transit capital $540,000 Capital costs per mile for express bus service. ~xpenditure. --xpress bus vehicle $325,125 Cost per vehicle for regional express bus service vehicle ~cquisition ileet. The estimated total cost for future transit services to accommodate forecast transit demand is approximately $173 million with this cost including all planting, engineering, design and capital improvement costs. Detailed transit component cost estimates are included in Appendix F. 4.5 Existing Obligated Funding For some of the facilities identified in the TUMF network, existing obligated funding has previously been secured through traditional funding sources to complete necessary improvements. Since funding has been obligated to provide for the completion of needed improvements to the TUMF system, the cost of these improvements will not be recaptured from future developments through the TUMF program. As a result, the TUMF network cost was adjusted accordingly to reflect the availability of obligated funds. To determine the availability of obligated funds, each jurisdiction in Western Riverside County was asked to review their current multi-year capital improvement programs to identify transportation projects on the TUMF system. A detailed table identifying the obligated funds for segments of the TUMF network is included in Appendix F. A total of $108.8 million in obligated funding was identified for improvements to the TUMF system. The estimated TUMF network cost was subsequently reduced by this amount. 4.6 Unfunded Existing Improvement Needs A review of the existing traffic conditions on the TUMF network (as presented in Table 3.1) indicates that some segments of the roadways on the TUMF system currently experience congestion and operate at unacceptable levels of service, In addition, demand for inter- community transit service already exists and future utilization of proposed inter-community transit services will partially reflect this existing demand, The need to improve these portions of the system is generated by existing demand, rather than the cumulative regional impacts of future new development, so future new development cannot be assessed for the equivalent cost share of improvements providing for this existing need, The cost of unfunded existing improvement needs was estimated by identifying the roadway segments on the TUMF network that currently operate at unacceptable LOS (LOS E or F, with a volume/capacity ratio greater than 0.82) and do not have sufficient obligated funds available to complete necessary improvements. The cost to improve these roadway segments with existing unacceptable LOS was calculated using the same method applied to estimate the WRCOG 21 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 overall system improvement cost, estimating the share of the roadway segment that was experiencing unacceptable LOS, and adjusting the estimated cost to reflect the relative share and the availability of obligated funding, where appropriate. The unfunded cost of existing highway improvement needs totals $259.9 million. Appendix F includes a detailed breakdown of the existing highway improvement needs on the TUMF network, including the associated unfunded improvement cost estimate for each segment experiencing unacceptable LOS. For transit service improvements, the cost to provide for existing demand was determined by multiplying the total transit component cost by the share of future transit trips representing existing demand. The cost of existing transit service improvement needs is $66.3 million representing 38.3% of the TUMF transit component. &ppendix F includes tables reflecting the calculation of the existing transit need share and the e~4sting transit need cost. The total cost of the unfunded existing improvement needs is $326.2 million. Since these improvements are needed to provide for existing needs, their costs cannot be assigned to new development through the TUMF. WRCOG 22 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 5.0 NEXUS ANALYSIS The objective of this section is to evaluate and document the rational nexus (or reasonable relationship) between the proposed fee and the transportation system improvements it will be used to help fund. The analysis starts by documenting the correlation between future development and the need for improvements on the TUMF system, followed by analysis of the nexus evaluation of the key components of the TUMF concept. 5,1 Future Development and the Need for Improvements Previous sections of this report documented the projected growth in Western Riverside County, the expected increases in traffic congestion and travel delay, and the identificalJon of the transportation system that will serve these future inter-community travel demands. The following points bring together this information in a synopsis of how the future growth relates to the need for improvements to the TUMF system. Western Riverside County is exoected to continue growing. Development in Western Riverside County is expected to continue at a robust rate of growth into the foreseeable future. Under current plans, the population is projected to grow from a current level of 1.2 million to a future level of over 2.2 million in 2025, while employment is projected to grow from a current level of 371,000 to a future level of over 800,000. (as shown in Table 2.3) Continuinq qrowth will result in increasinq conqestion on arterial roadways. Traffic congestion and delay on arterial roadways are projected to increase dramatically in the future (as shown in Table 3.t). Without improvements to the transportation system, congestion levels will grow rapidly and travelers will experience unacceptable travel conditions with slow travel speeds and lengthy delays. The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to future development in Western Riverside County. Traffic using arterial roadways within Western Riverside County is virtually all generated within or attracted to Western Riverside County, since long-distance trips passing through the region typically use the freeway system, not arterial roadways. Therefore, the future recurring congestion problems on these roadways will be attributable to new trips that originate in, terminate in, or travel within Western Riverside County. Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to alleviate the future congestion caused bv new development. To maintain transportation service at or near its current levels of efficiency, capacity enhancements will need to be made to the arterial roadway system. These enhancements could include new or realigned roads, additional lanes on existing roads, new or expanded bridges, new or upgraded freeway interchanges, grade separation of at-grade rail crossings, or expansion of intersections where two network roads intersect. The specific needs and timing of implementation will depend on the location and rate of future development, so the specific improvements to be funded by the TUMF and their priority of implementation will be determined in the future as improvement needs unfold and as TUMF funds become available. WRCOG 23 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement throuqh this fee proqram. The criteria used to identify roads for the TUMF network (future number of lanes, future traffic volume, future congestion level, and roadway function linking communities and activity centers and serving public transportation) were selected to ensure that these are the roadways that will serve inter-community travel and will require future improvement to alleviate congestion. Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide adeauate mobility for transit-dependent travelers and to provide an option to autorrobile travel. Since a portion of the population does not own an automobile and depends on public transportation for mobility, the public transportation infrastructure will need to be enhanced and expanded to ensure continued mobility for this segment of the population. In addition, improvements to the public transportation system will be required to ensure that transit service can function as a viable option for future new Western Riverside County residents and employees who choose to avoid congestion by using public transportation. For the reasons cited above, it can be readily concluded that there is a rational nexus between the future need for transportation improvements on the TUMF system and the future development upon which the proposed TUMF would be levied. The following sections evaluate the rational nexus in relation to the system components and the types of uses upon which the fee is assessed. 5.2 Application of Fee to System Components As noted in Section 3.2, the TUMF concept includes splitting the fee revenues between the backbone system of arterials, the secondary system of arterials, and public transportation infrastructure. This section evaluates the travel demands to determine the rational nexus between the future travel demands and the use of the fee to fund improvements to the future system components. The split of fee revenues between the backbone and secondan/highway networks is related to the proportion of highway vehicle travel that is relatively local (between adjacent communities) and longer distance (between more distant communities but still within Western Riverside County). To estimate a rational fee split between the respective networks, the future travel forecast estimates were aggregated to a matrix of trips between zones, to show the percentage of trips that remain within each zone in relation to the volume that travels to the other zones. This analysis was completed using the forecast year 2025 trip tables from the SCAG CTP Model created for CETAP and provided by Transcore. The first step in the analysis was to create a correspondence table between the traffic analysis zones in the model and the cities located with in the WRCOG Region. The TAZs for each city were then compressed into six districts (the five WRCOG zones and one for the rest of the SCAG region). Table 5.1 shows the estimated vehicle trips within and between each of the zones. Table 5.2 shows the percentage of vehicle trips within and between the respective zones. Appendix G includes the detailed SCAG CTP model outputs used to develop the regional trip distribution profile. WRCOG 24 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 TABLE 5. t 2025 FORECAST .- VEHICLE TRIPS BY WRCOG ZONE TO DISTRICT FROM Hemet / San Outside Western fOTAL Northwest Central Pass Area Southwest DISTRICT Jacinto Riverside County Northwest ; ~1;;~;~;i~ i:~:~,~;,~48~'~ 407,206 2,058,578 Central i~?;;!~ 593;; 87,789 1,018,275 27,9926( 4,136 Southwest ? ~1.~.~0~ 111,325 1,109,952 TABLE 5.2 2025 FORECAST -- PERCENT VEHICLE TRIPS BY WRCOG ZONE TO DISTRICT FROM Nodhwest Central Pass Area Hemet/San Southwest Outside Western TOTAL DISTRICT Jacinto Riverside County ~orthwest ?~? ~!~!~; ~;i~;;;~7%:'' ~)i~?/~ i~r ~i ~ 19.8% 100.0% 3entral 1],~% ~, 6~:~%; 8.6% 100.0% , 29% .... 6 ~ ...... ~;, O,~ ............. 2,2~ ....... ~8.5% ........ 10.0% 100.0% Table 5.3 summarizes the calculation of the split between the Backbone and Secondary highway networks. Vehicle trips to and from areas outside Western Riverside County were subtracted from the calculation, on the presumption that most of their inter-regional travel would occur on the freeway system. Trips between zones (regional) were assigned to the backbone network, since these trips are primarily served by the arterial roadways that provide connections between the zones. Trips within zones (local) were split between the backbone network and the secondary network in proportion to their lane-miles, since roadways on both networks serve intra-zonal trips. The Backbone network includes approximately 41% of the lane-miles on the future TUMF system, and the Secondary network includes approximately 59% of the lane-miles. The Backbone network is therefore assigned all of the inter-zonal trips plus 41% of the intra- zonal trips. The Secondary network is assigned 59% of the intra-zonal trips and none of the WRCOG 25 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 inter-zonal trips. The overall result is that 49.9% of the regional travel is assigned to the Backbone network and 50.1% is assigned to the Secondary network. TABLE 5.3 BACKBONE-SECONDARY NETWORK SHARE CALCULATION INPUT BACKBONE BACKBONE SECONDARY SECONDARY ~'ALCULATION VALUE DESCRIPTION VALUES VALUE SHARE VALUE SHARE Total Western Riverside County /ehicle Trips 5,942,040 Total Vehicle Trips Internal to i~estern Riverside County 4,541,796 Districts (from Table 6) 666,184 /ehicle Trips Within Area Planning 3,875,612 xletwork Lane-Miles 3,612 1,492 41.3% 2,120 58.7% /ehicle Trips within APDs as share of intra-APD trips) 3,875,612 1,600,889 41.3% 2,274,723 58.7% /ehicle Trips between APDs 666,184 666,184 100.0% 0 0.0% Total Vehicle Trips Assigned 4,541,796 2,267,073 49.9% 2,274,723 50.1% 5.3 Application of Fee to Residential and Non-Residential Developments In order to establish the rough proportionality of the future traffic impacts associated with new residential development and new non-residential development, SCAG CTP model 2025 person trip productions were reported by trip purpose. The SCAG CTP model produces person trips (irrespective of mode choice) on the basis of five trip purposes including home-to- work (H-W), home-to-shop (H-S), home-to-other (H-O), other-to-work (O-W), and other-to-other (O-O). Person trip productions were aggregated into home-based person trips (combining the first three purposes) and non-home-based person trips (combining the last two purposes). The home-based person trips represent 69.8% of the total future person trips, and the non- home-based person trips represent 30.2% of the total future person trips as shown in Table 5,4. Appendix N includes the SCAG CTP model outputs used to develop the trip purpose summary in Table 5.4. WRCOG 26 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 TABLE 5.4 PERSON TRIP PRODUCTION: RESIDENTIAL VS, NON-RESIDENTIAL PERSON TRIP PERSON TRIP PERSON TRIP PURPOSE PRODUCTION VOLUME PRODUCTION SHARE Home-Work 901,457 13.9% Home-Shop 624,998 9.7% Home-Other 2,988,849 46.2% Other-Work 619,362 9.6% Other-Other 1,334,156 20.6% TOTAL 6,468,822 100.0% Home-Based Trips (Residential Uses) 4,515,304 69.8% Non-Home-Based Trips (Non-Residential Uses) 1,953,516 30.2% Based on SCAG Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP} Model outputs for CETAP provided by Transcore. WRCOG 27 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 6.0 FAIR-SHARE FEE CALCULATION The fee amounts, by type of development, that are justified to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development on transportation facilities in Western Riverside County are quantified in this section. The total cost of improving the TUMF system is $3.24 billion. Existing funding obligated for improvements to the TUMF system totals $108.8 million while unfunded improvement needs generated by existing development represent $326.2 million of the total cost. The balance of the unfunded TUMF system improvement needs ($2.81 billion) is attributable to the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new development in the WRCOG region, and will be captured through the TUMF program. By levying the uniform fee directly on future new developments (and indirectly on new residents and new employees to Western Riverside County), these transportation system users can be assigned their "fair share" of the costs to address the cumulative impacts of additional traffic they will generate on the regional transportation system. Of the $2.81 billion in unfunded future improvement needs, 69.8% ($1.96 billion) will be assigned to future new residential development and 30.2% ($848.1 million) will be assigned to future new non-residential development. 6.1 Residential Fees The portion of the unfunded future improvement cost allocable to new residential development through the TUMF is $1.96 billion. Since this future transportation system improvement need is generated by new residential development anticipated through the Year 2025, the fee must be spread between the residential developments projected to be constructed between now and 2025. The projected residential growth from year 2000 to 2025 is approximately 317,700 households (or dwelling units) as is indicated in Table 2.1. Clearly, different household types generate different numbers of trips. To reflect the difference in trip generation between single-family and multi-family dwelling units, the TUMF fee was weighted based on the respective trip generation rates of these different dwelling unit types. According to the SCAG 2020 Socioeconomic Data for Western Riverside County included in Appendix B, single family dwelling units (including mobile homes) are forecast to constitute 76.5% of the residential dwelling units in the region in 2020. This reflects a very slight increase in the single-family unit share from the SCAG 2000 Socioeconomic Data, also included in Appendix B, which indicates single-family dwelling units currently constitute 76.3% of all residential dwelling units in the region. Based on a continuation of the trend between the SCAG 2000 and 2020 Socioeconordc Data, it is estimated that single-family dwelling units will constitute 76.5% of the residential dwelling units in Western Riverside County in 2025. This means that by 2025 approximately 243,030 units of future new residential development in the region will be single-family dwelling units, and approximately 74,660 will be multi-family dwelling units. Data collected by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE Trip Generation Manual, Sixth Edition) show that, on average, single-family dwelling units generate 9.57 vehicle trips per WRCOG 28 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 dwelling unit per day, whereas apartments generate 6.63 vehicle trips per unit per day?. If the fees are to be weighted in proportion to the trip generation characteristics of the units, single- family residential units should be assigned a fee level that is 1.44 times the level of the fee assigned to each multi-family unit to levy the necessary $1.96 billion to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new residential development. Table 6.1 summarizes the calculation of the fee for single-family and multi-family dwelling units. Appendix I includes worksheets detailing the calculation of the residential (and non-residential) TUMF for Western Riverside County. TABLE 6.1 RESIDENTIAL FEE CALCULATION RESIDENTIAL 2000 2025 Dwelling Trip Percentage SECTOR Dwelling Dwelling Unit Generation Trip Change of Trip Fee/DU Units Units Chan,c, le Rate Chan~le ~ingle-Farnily 308,860 551,892 243,031 9.57 2,325,810 82.5% $6,650 vlulti-Family 94,879 169,535 74,657 6.63 494,974 17.5% $4,607 FOTAL 403,739 721,427 317,688 2,820,784 100.0% ~ousehold data based on SCAG 2001RTP and CETAP; Trip Generation based on ITE (1997). 6.2 Non-Residential Fees The portion of the unfunded future improvement cost allocable to new non-residential development through the TUMF is $848.1 million. Estimates of employment by sector were obtained from the SCAG 2000 and 2020 Socioeconomic Data included in Appendix B. The relative allocation between sectors in 2020 was then applied to the 2025 CETAP forecasts to estimate 2025 employment by sector. From the 2025 employment forecast, the amount of employee growth in each sector was calculated. The employment figures were then translated into square footage of new development using typical ratios of square feet per employee developed by SCAG in its Land Use Density Conversion Factors for the Lona Ranae Corridor Study San Bernardino and Riverside Counties (Cordoba Corporation/PBQD, August 20, 1990) and OCTA in its Oranoe County Subarea Modelina Guidelines Manual (June 2001). Worksheets showing the development of the TUMF employee conversion factors and the application of the conversion factors to calculate the square footage of future new non- residential development in Western Riverside County are included in .Appendix J. To account for the differences in trip generation between various types of non-residential uses, the new non-residential development was weighted by trip generation rate for each sector. Typical trip generalion rates per employee were obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Handbook and were assigned to the non-residential categories as follows: Industrial - 3.0 trips per employee, Retail - 13.0 trips per employee, Service - 5.5 trips per employee, and Public - 12.0 trips per employee. These rates were applied to the employment growth in each sector to determine the relative contribution of each sector to new trip-making, and the $848.1 million was then allocated among the non-residential categories on the basis of the percentage of new trips added. This proportionate non- residential fee share by sector was then divided by the estimated square footage of future new ? Based on the ITE Trio Generation Handbook other types of multi-family residential development have trip generation characteristics similar to apartments. 29 WRCOG Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 development to obtain the rate per square foot for each type of use. The calculation of the non-residential fee by sector is shown in Table 6,2. TABLE 6.2 NON-RESIDENTIAL FEE CALCULATION Change in Trip Percentage Square Feet NON-RESIDENTIALSECTOR Employment Generation Trip Change of Trip Fee/SF Change Rate per of Gross Employee Change Flcor Area Industrial 98,276 3.0 294,828 9.5% 55,867',287 $'1.45 Retail 91,560 13.0 1,190,286 38.5% 41,859,539 $7.81 Service 197,429 5.5 1,085,857 35.1% 61,559,537 $4.84 GovernmantJPublic Sector 43,223 12.0 518,676 16,8% 19,210,219 $7.41 TOTAL 430,488 3,089,647 100.0% 178,496,582 Employment Change dala based on SCAG 2001RTP and CETAP; Trip Generation based on ITE (1997); Change in Square Feet conversion factor based on Cordoba 119901 and OCTA (2001I. Although mitigation fees for non-residential uses are typically established on a per square foot basis, it is recognized that some participating jurisdictions currently impose mitigation fees on a per acre basis for non-residential uses. In order to provide jurisdictions with an alternative fee structure to ensure consistency with the collection of mitigation fees through pre-existing fee programs, the fee per square foot for each sector was converted to a fee per acre using floor area ratio (FAR) conversion factors derived from the Land Use Density Conversion Factors for the Lono Ranoe Corridor Study San Bernardino and Riverside Counties (Cordoba Corporation/PBQD, August 20, 1990). A worksheet showing the development of the FAR conversion factors for each non-residential use is included in Appendix J. Table 6,3 summarizes the conversion of the non-residential fee per square foot to a fee per acre for each use sector. TABLE 6.3 NON.RESIDENTIAL FEE CONVERSION Average Fee/SF Fee/Acre NON-RESIDENTIAL SECTOR Average FAR SF/Acre Industrial 0.23 9,840 $1.45 $1 4,255 Retail 0.33 14,506 $7.81 $113,227 Service 0.50 21,775 $4.84 $1 05,436 Government/Public Sector Wa n/a $7.41 $t t2,1 9t FAR conversion factor based on Cordoba (1990); Employment per acre conversion factors not available for Government/Public Sector category. The fee per acre for GovernmenYPublic Sector is based proportionately on the relational value of fee per acre and fee per square foot for Retail and Sec'ice categories, Appendix I includes worksheets detailing the calculation of the non-residential (and residential) TUMF for Western Riverside County. WRCOG 30 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 7.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of the Nexus Study evaluation, it can be seen that there is reasonable relationship between the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new land development projects in Western Riverside County and the need to mitigate these transportation impacts using funds levied through the proposed TUMF program. Factors that reflect this reasonable relationship include: Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing as a result of future new development. Continuing new growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways. The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future development in Western Riverside County. Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development. Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee program. Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide adequate mobility for transit-dependent travelers and to provide an op'don to automobile travel. The Nexus Study evaluation has established a proportional "fair share" of the improvement cost attributable to new development based on the impacts of existing development and the availability of obligated funding through traditional sources. Furthermore, the Nexus Study evaluation has divided the fair share of the cost to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of future new development in Western Riverside County in rough proportionality to the cumulative impacts of future residential and non-residential development in the region. The respective fee allocable to future new residential and non-residential development in Western Riverside County is summarized for differing use types in Table 7,1. WRCOG 31 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 TABLE 7.1 TRANSPORTION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE FOR WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY FUTURE CHANGE FEE PER SECTOR TOTAL RESIDENTIAL SECTOR (Dwelling Units) DWELLING UNIT (in millions) ~ingle-Family Residential 243,031 $6,650 $1,616.2 Vlulti-Family Residential 74,657 $4,607 $344.0 :IESIDENTIAL TOTAL 317,688 ~~ $1,960.2 FUTURE CHANGE FEE PER FEE PER NON-RESIDENTIAL SECTOR SECTOR TOTAL (Square Feet) SQUARE FOOT ACRE ndustdal 55,867,287 $1.45 $14,255 $80.9 ~etait 41,859,539 $7.81 $113,227 $326.7 Service 61,559,537 $4.84 $105,436 $298.1 .~overnmentJPublic Sector 19,210,219 $7.41 $112,191 $142.4 '4ON-RESIDENTIAL TOTAL 178,496,582 ~ $848.1 I'UMF TOTAL $2,808.3 WRCOG 32 Revised TUMF Nexus Study October 18, 2002 Western Riverside Council of Govemments Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Nexus Study Appendices The following Appendices incorporate the extent of materials used to support the development of the WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study. The respective Appendices also incorporate an explanation of the methodology and assumptions used to develop the various elements of the Nexus Study. These Appendices represent a compilation of materials derived from a variety of technical resources. Each of the following Appendices relate to the development of a specific element of the Nexus Study. These Appendices are as follows: Appendix A - Appendix B- Appendix C - Appendix D - Appendix E - Appendix F - Appendix G- Appendix H - Appendix I - Appendix J - List of TUMF Committees. Western Riverside County Population and Employment Growth, 2000 - 2025 (SCAG 2001 RTP, CETAP). Western Riverside County Traffic Growth 2000 - 2025 (SCAG CTP Model). Westem Riverside County Regional System of Highways and Arterials. Western Riverside County "Backbone" and "Secondary" Networks of Regional System of Highways and Arterials. Western Riverside County Network Cost Assumptions. Western Riverside County Regional Trip Distribution. Western Riverside County Regional Trip Purpose. Residential Fee Calculation Non-Residential Fee Calculation and Land Use Density Conversion Factors DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANC~ CiTY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Howard Windsor, City Fire Chief November 15, 2002 Monthly Departmental Report RECOMMENDATION: Attached for City Council's review and filing is the Fire Department's Monthly Activity Report for the month of September 2002. Month: September Year: 2002 0 0 2 10 g 20 Medic 3 + 10min 0 0 16 2 5 23 255 Number of Calls 3 0 0 0 10 13 81 Time Committed (hours) 0.29 0 0 0 2.21 2.5 15.34 SchoolPrograms 164 Fairs and Displays 32 Company Inspections 799 LE-38 Dooryard Inspections Burning Permits Issued 145 Pre Plans 40 Total 2 0 4 0 95 38 0 0 0 0 2 0 103 38 0 10 0 0 0 15 4O 0 0 1 0 3 40 29 1 13 0 4 10 158 0 40 1 2 0 12 222 1842 Month: September Year: 2002 Medical Aids 82 124 206 1824 Traffic Collisions 25 27 52 1670 Public Service Assists 0 2 2 384 Fire Menace Standby's 0 0 0 31 Structure Fires 1 3 4 7 Ringing Alarm 0 0 0 57 Vegetation Fire 0 0 0 48 Vehicle Fire 0 0 0 6 Refuse Fire 0 0 0 2 Hazmat 0 0 0 4 Total 10~ 156 264 4033 % Of Calls 5 min or less 87% 85% 86% N/A Number of calls over 5 min 0 24 24 N/A Longest Response Thne 10 min 14 rain N/A N/A Medic Sqnad Cancelled Prior to Patient Contact 23 22 45 580 Average Wait Time for AMR 4.41 4.01 4.21 5.92 Medic Squad on Scene prior to AMR- Medical Aids and Traffic Collisions 56 103 159 1138 Performed *ALS prior to AMR's Arrival 23 52 75 605 *ALS - Advanced Life Support Month: September Year: 2002 Building TI 34 285 NCOM Building 16 102 UG Water 1 158 Over/Under Ground Tanks 1 2 NCOM Sprinkler 30 122 Sprinkler TI 24 102 Hood Duct 0 16 Spray Booths I 6 Special Suppression Systems 1 8 Alarms 17 120 Planning Cases 11 127 Special Code Permits 2 3 Miscellaneous 11 142 Total 149 1193 Fire C of O 17 227 Shell Final 6 124 UG Hydro 7 78 Thrust Blocks 5 63 Over Head Hydro 20 169 Fire Flow 0 1 Flush 3 87 Sprinkler Final 25 113 Weld Inspection 5 33 ~Hood Duct Final 1 1 Alarm Pre-wire 16 64 Alarm Final 19 175 iSpray Booth Final 1 7 iFire Safety Inspection 5 65 State Man dated In spection 0 14 Special Events Inspection 0 16 Piping Hydro 0 2 Shear Valves 0 2 Dyer/under Tank Final 0 3 Special Suppression System 0 1 Special Project Investigation 0 7 Enlline Company Follow-up 0 3 Miscellaneous 1 33 total 151 12gg TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY MANAGER ~.~J CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Jim O'Grady, Assistant City Manager November 26, 2002 Economic Development Monthly Departmental Report Prepared by: Gloria Wolnick, Marketing Coordinator The following are the recent highlights for the Economic Development Department for the month of October 2002. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Leads & Inquiries In the month of October, the City received a lead on a Children's Musician Workshop with a retail component. Staff held a meeting with Rob Savage from the UK on October 23rd and provided him with potential sites, city information and zoning map. The City also received leads on a bowling alley and ice arena. In the month of September, the Southwest Riverside County Alliance responded to 8 leads. Three leads were referrals from the Winegrowers Association, one lead was a referral from IEEP, one lead was from the Wescon Trade Show, one lead was a referral from the City of Temecula and two leads were direct contacts to the Alliance. Attached is a copy of their activity report. Opening/Ribbon Cutting Ceremony/Business Showcase On October 9th, staff attended the Ribbon Cuffing Ceremony for Robert Half International Inc. Their new branch office includes the division, Accountemps, for accounting and finance staffing. A separate business unit, OfficeTeam, provides companies with highly skilled temporary administrative professionals at the same location. The City of Temecula exhibited at the Temecula Valley Chamber Business Showcase, which was held on October 16th at the Temecula Town Center. Staff distributed information and was on-hand to answer questions on the City's revised Development Review Process, which is in process, other planning or development items and general items. Tourism literature was also distributed. Councilmembers and staff attended the Grand Opening of the Iron Wok restaurant on October 15th. The festivities included entertainment and sampling of food items. Mayor Roberts and staff attended the Ribbon Cutting Ceremony for the Riverside County Treasurern'ax Collectors new office on October 31st. This permanent, full-time off'ice will CITYMGR\WOLNIC KG\OCT'02DEPT.RE PT.DOC provide a convenient location for residents to handle their property tax matters. It is located at 40935 County Center Drive, Suite C. Media/Outreach Materials Staff wrote the City article for the Chamber of Commerce Newsletter titled, "City of Temecula Implements On-Board Fire Response Mapping System." This system assists fire personnel in locating emergency destinations and enhancing response capabilities. It has been installed on mobile computer systems on all of its front line fire response units, utilizes the City's GIS (Geographic Information System) along with GPS (Global Positioning System) technology to map incident locations and shortest route paths. Staff provided articles and calendar of event listings to Neighbor's Magazine. The publication provides the City of Temecula with a page of editorial. During the month of October, staff provided information to Economist Dr. John Husing for the new Temecula Community Profile. The demographic profile is expected to be presented to Council in January. Meetings Staff attended Supervisor Venable's Annual Economic Development & Tourism Workshop on October 16th. Supervisor Venable encouraged everyone to attend the Third District Water Workshop scheduled for November 25th from 8:00 am - noon. Representatives from every water company in the District will speak on our current water situation and what needs to be done to get over our water problem. Four representatives of the Riverside County EDA's office reported on the following areas: Workforce Development - The Riverside Co. Workforce Development Center published the Riverside County Job Guide, which was included in The Press Enterprise cimulation. This is a very good resource. Staff requested copies of the Guide and their brochure to have on hand. Economic Development - Rob Moran gave a brief overview of their marketing efforts talking about the types of businesses they are now focusing on to attract to the area, i.e. high tech companies that bring higher paying jobs. Stevie Field provided an update on the Alliance activities, programs and materials to support this. Tourism - The County talked about their partnership with the Inland Empire Tourism Council (which we are an active member). Through the IETC, the County is able to market the County as a tourist destination and reach the national and intemational markets. The County is updating its golf rack brochure, which provides listings and a map of all golf courses in Riverside County. Temecula golf courses are well represented and staff includes this brochure in our press kits. Aviation - Rob Field talked about the importance of the French Valley & Hemet/Ryan Airports and how they play an important role in our economic development efforts. Staff requested copies of the French Valley Airport rack brochure, which will be included in the City's business kits. Pat Melvin, with the Valley EDC, spoke about their marketing efforts. The Valley EDC & Chico State University prepared an economic impact report showing the impact of 10 companies that the EDC assisted which were startups, attractions, expansions or retentions. She also reported on the 1-15 Interregional Partnership Jobs/Housing Survey. CITYMGR\WOLNICKG\OCT'02DEPT.REPT.DOC Diane Sessions talked about the EDC of Southwest Riverside County's retention program and their role in working with the Alliance. Staff attended the EDC of Southwest Riverside County Board of Director's Meeting on October17t~. Dennis Frank held discussion on Proposition 47, the vacant EDC Director's seat, and Temecula's Planning Process. Frank provided an update on the Regional Strategic Planning Session. Invitations have been sent out to Chris Binkley, Bob Larson, Joan Sparkman and Ron Bradley to facilitate this session. Staff reported on: · The status of grant funding for the Temecula library · TUMF will be discussed at the October 29th City Council meeting · The Tourism CD Rom is complete and ready for distribution · SBA letter · The City has added an inspector to respond to the storm water issue · Roripaugh project has been continued to the October 30th Planning Commission meeting · The Development Review Process is being revised and will allow for better communication, simpler forms, ongoing survey, and shorten the process to 5 weeks Staff met several times in October with Guidant representatives regarding their expansion plans and to discuss a housing program. On October 23rd, staff attended the Welcome Lunch for Dr. France Cordova, Chancellor of the University of California, Riverside. The lunch was held at the Pechanga Resort & Casino and co-sponsored by the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce, EDC of Southwest Riverside County, and the Southwest Riverside County Manufacturers' Council. Staff attended the Southwest Riverside County Economic Alliance Partner's Meeting on October 2nd. Updates included the following: Their GIS program will be operational by the November Alliance meeting. Consultants: The Alliance suggested that we consider hiring consultants on an as needed basis since Ron Nater is no longer with the Alliance. Consultants that were recommended included Chris Brinkley, currently working with EDC on their Strategic Plan; Bob Larsen, formerly of Guidant - has MDM expertise, and Jeffrey Gottileb - raises venture capital. The three consultants vary on their expertise but the Alliance can lean on their experience when trying to attract a certain business type or venture capital. Their qualifications will be reviewed by the partners and discussed at the next meeting. The consultants will be on a case-by-case basis and their fees would have to be negotiated. The draft Jobs/Housing Imbalance Survey was distributed. There was disappointment that the survey did not include information on the commuter's skills & job description and salary information. It was suggested that the Alliance look into getting this information through a company like Godbe. The Alliance recommended that we not attend Wescon Trade Show next year. The attendance was very Iow as well as exhibitor participation. Jerry Regier of Cuffing Edge Marketing revealed results of a survey that was filled cut by the partners. The results indicated the following: What Business Alliance is in. Business of providing a region for business location and relocation. CIT YMGR\WOLNIC KG\OCT'02 DEPT.REPT .DOC Product Land or space within region Cutting Edge will present ideas on a new branding name or slogan at the next meeting. The Alliance will launch its branding campaign in the California CEO report. This will be a 16-page report. Don McAuliff will write the editorial for the report. California CEO will also host a 2-hour roundtable meeting - ask questions about our region, business climate, challenges, strengths & interview different business leaders. Staff attended the EDC of Southwest Riverside County Business Relations Meeting on October 3rd. Discussion items included new committee assignments. Members will visit 1 - 2 companies that they know. Jim O'Grady met with a representative from Engen. The EDC distributed their 200t-02 Annual Report. Phone interviews were down for the second year in a row but their visits fell short by only 4. The goals will be kept the same for next fiscal year. In addition to site visits and phone interviews they would like to add e-mail contacts. Committee members will revise the form and discuss the purpose of these visits & what the cities want to get out of it. The summary indicated that the traffic issues were down which revealed that the cities have responded to this item of concern. The traffic issue concern shifted to business issues that relate to city services, permits, utilities and city programs. A power point presentation highlighting their accomplishments from 1995 - 2002 will be shown at their November meeting. Diane Sessions met with Kuebler, Prudhomme & Co. in Temecula. They had indicated that it was hard to attract skilled workforce (CPAs) and the company indicated that it is difficult to get permits in Temecula. The EDC shared with the company that Temecula is reviewing and making changes to its permitting process and there have been several meetings with the building industry & brokers addressing this matter and also that the City will be getting software where people would be able to view the status of their projects. Temecula staff also followed-up with Kuebler, Prudhomme & Co. regarding this concern. David Rosenthal invited everyone to attend the Manufacturer's Council's event on OCt. 10th at Callaway from 6 - 8:30. The organization has produced a new tri-fold brochure, which the City will include in its Business Kits. Temecula report: Staff distributed the new City newsletter. The committee enjoyed the article regarding the City working with its marketing partners, i.e. the EDC of SWRC. Staff reported that John Husing was updating Temecula's demographic report and that Mr. Husing would give a presentation to Council. Staff will notify the committee when the presentation will take place. Also, staff reported that the Tourism CD Rom would be ready for distribution next week and whom it was targeted to. Staff met intemally on October 15th to discuss ways to market the new Development Review Process. Staff will provide local media with a press release highlighting the program and new revisions. Information will be included on the City's website and will also be included with the Business License Renewal mailing. Councilmember Comerchero and staff attended an 1-15 Infarregional Partnership meeting on October 18th in Escondido. The recent survey of commuting patterns was discussed. On October 23rd, staff met with Kevin Walsh regarding a proposed hospital project that will be located on Highway 79 South. CITYMGR\WOLNIC KG\OCT'02 DEPT.RE PT.DOC TOURISM City Sponsored Events Mayor Pro Tem Jeff Stone and staff attended the Komen Race for the Cure Sponsor Dinner on October 17th at Monteleone Meadows. FAMILIARIZATION TOUR On October 1st, staff provided a tour of Temecula for Jenny Werth, a travel writer from Los Angeles. She wrote an article for the La Jolla Light publication on places to visit that are located between San Diego and Los Angeles. Staff made arrangements for her stay in Temecula and prepared an itinerary for her tour. Staff met with Voelker of European Caf~ on October 8th regarding the upcoming Orange County Concierges FAM Tour on November 19th. The FAM will include a lunch at European Caf~ and will follow with a walking tour of Old Town, museum tour and time for shopping before going to Wine Country. Medial Outreach Materials The Tourism CD Rom is completed and a press release mailing went out to the travel media announcing the product is available. A press release will also be sent to meeting planners and travel agents. In October, staff prepared and sent out the Quarterly Calendar of Events to the media. Meetings On October 3rd, staff attended the Inland Empire Tourism Council Luncheon that featured guest speaker Terry Selk from the State Division of Tourism. He provided a power point presentation on the State's marketing/advertising program and also gave an update on the current tourism industry. Staff met with Sandy Cain of Meetings West on October 16th to discuss future advertising opportunities in meeting planner publications for various target audiences. Misc. Staff provided Audrey Spangler of Tour West America of Yuma, AZ with several press kits, tourism cds, video and a suggested itinerary for a tour of Temecula. The tour company plans to bdng 30 - 35 senior winter visitors to visit Temecula on November 18th. ATTACHMENTS Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce Activities Report Economic Development Corporation of Southwest Riverside County Activities Report Southwest Riverside County Economic Alliance Activities Report September Temecula Valley Film Council Activities Report CITYMGR\WOLNICKG\OCT'02DEPT.REPT.DOC TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE November 12, 2002 Shawn Nelson, City Manager City of Temecula 43200 Business Park Drive Temecula, CA 92590 Dear Shawn, Attached please find the Monthly Activity Report as per our contract with the City of Temecula. Board of Directors Update: Members of the Education Committee joined efforts with members of the Murrieta Chamber of Commerce, Temecula and Lake Elsinore School District in an effort to work together for the passage of Yes on Prop. 47.The committee was chaired by First Vice President Chuck Washington. The committee held weekly meeting organizing timelines, printing materials, letter writing campaign, signage, etc. The Chamber is very ecstatic to say the Temecula Valley Unified School District" will benefit with passage of Prop. 47 Kindergarten-University Public Education State Facilities Bond Act of 2002. The Chamber will produced a newly designed "Business Resource Guide and Member Directory" scheduled for completion in January 2003. 10,000 copies will be published and distributed in the community. This is the month of October at a glance: Business Inquiry Highlights: In the month of October, 12 businesses requested information on starting or relocating their business to Temecula. They received a business packet, which includes a copy of the City of Temecula demographics, relocation, housing, rentals, maps, organizations, etc. Committee Highlights: Tourism & Visitors Council: The Tourism & Visitors Council recommendation to the TVCC Board was to develop into a Visitors & Convention Bureau in the newly designed Chamber building. The TVCC Board has approved the Visitors & Convention Bureau name and staff and volunteers will follow-up on the research of adding the name to the Chamber of Commerce. Committee members and staff attended the San Diego Visitors & Convention regional meeting last month. Pala Mesa Resort hosted the Tourism & Visitor Council meeting in the month of November. Thirty- five tourism related businesses where in attendance. · Education Committee: The Education Committee delivered the received donations to the TVUSD principals meeting for the Teacher Recognition program. The Chamber partnered with the SW Economic Development Corp., SW Manufacturer Council and the Murrieta - Temecula Group and hosted a Luncheon for UCR Riverside newly appointed Chancellor Dr. France Cordova. The event was held at Pechanga Resort & Casino on October 23, 2002 in the Eagle · . View banquet facility, over 100 business leaders attended to welcome Chancellor Df. France A. 27450 Ynez Road, Suite 124 · Temecula, CA 92591 Phone: (909) 676-5090 · Fax: (909) 694-0201 www.temeoula.org · e-rr~ail: info@temeoula,org COrdova. Ways & Means Committee: The 11th Annual Business Showcase on October 16th was a great success. The Committee is continuing with plans for the 37th Annual Installation and Awards Banquet which will take place Saturday, February 22, 2003 at the Pechanga Resort & Casino. Nominations are currently being accepted for Citizen of the Year, Non-Profit Organization of the Year and Gold, Sterling and Platinum Business of the Year. The deadline for nominations is Friday, November 8, 2002. The 2003 State of the City Committee has met with City Staff to begin planning upcoming event. Local Business Promotions Committee: The Local Business Promotion Committee is currently facilitating the November Shop Temecula First Campaign. The Businesses of the Month for November selected by the Membership Committee are Alternative Health Lifestyles and The Law Office of Robin Johnson. Cactus Grafix Graphic Designs was awarded the Chamber Spotlight, and Love Boat Sushi Bar is the Mystery Shopper winner for the month of November. Government Action Committee: The Government Action committee made recommendations to the Board to Support Measure A; Support Prop. 47: Education Facilities; Support Prop. 48 Court Consolidation; Support Prop. 50 Water Quality; and oppose Prop. 51 Transportation (Allocation of Sales and Use Taxes raised From Sale or Lease of Motor Vehicles Statue; and oppose Prop. 52 Election Day Voter Registration. The TVCC Board of Director accepted all of the GAC recommendations. Membership Committee: Office for the Treasurer-Tax Collector opened it's door on County Center Drive in Temecula. The committee is working on "Membership Appreciation Night" to be held at Wilson Creek Winery on Wednesday, December 18th' The Breakfast Business Spotlight for the month of October is John Paul Thomas/SDSI, Bert L. BaluyutJTrebulent and Peter J. Keller/Cadence Financial Group. Tourism Highlights (Bulk brochure distribution) Activity Report: · 75 Temecula Brochures and 75 Tourism Maps to Sigma Phi Epsiton for invitations to organization. · 50 Temecula Brochures and 30 Winery Brochures to Temeku Hills Banquets Department to distribute with relocation packets. · 200 Winery Brochure and 200 Temecula Brochures to Desert Hills Premium Outlets to distribute to customers. · 12 Old Town Maps, and 12 Winery Brochures to Fun Birds to distribute to visitors. · 50 Winery Brochures and 50 Temecula Maps to Cai Pacers to distribute to guests · 50 Temecula Brochures, 50 Winery Brochures and 50 Tourism Maps to Temecula Creek Inn to distribute to guests. · 25 Winery Brochures to Realty World to distribute to homebuyers. · 15 Winery Brochures to Traveling Wheels to distribute to group. Activity Report: · Tourism calls for the month of October- 1,900 - Phone calls for the month of October- 3,594 · Walk-ins for the month of October- 2,722 · Web Page User Sessions for the month of October - 4,109 · Website Tourism Survey- "How did you hear about Temecula" - 232 responses were received: · Article- 1% · Friend - 35% · Link - 7% · Magazine- 3% · Qther-39% · Radio - 3% · Search-8% · Also, attached are the meeting minutes for the Tourism and Visitors Council, Education, Local Business Promotions and Government Action committee. If ,you have any questions regarding this information, please call me at (909) 676-5090. Thank you. Sincerely, cc: Mayor Ron Roberls Mayor Pro Tern Jeff Stone Councilman Jeff Comerchero Councilman Mike Naggar Councilman Sam Pratt Shawn Nelson, City Manager Jim O'Grady, Assistant City Manager Gory Thomhill, Deputy City Manager Gtoria Wolnick, Marketing Coordinator TVCC Board of Directors Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce Monthly Activity Report October 2002 PHONE CALLS TOURISM Tourism Referrals Calendar of Events Special Events General Information TOTAL TOURISM CALLS Relocation Demographics Chamber Miscellaneous TOTAL PHONE CALLS WALK-INS Tourism Calendar of Events Special Events General Information Relocation Demographics Chamber Miscellaneous TOTAL WALK-INS MAILINGS Tourism Relocation Demographics TOTAL MAILINGS E-MAIL Tourism Relocation Miscellaneous TOTAL E-MAIL WEB PAGE USER SESSIONS GRAND TOTALS PHONE CALLS WALK-INS MAILINGS E-MAiL WEB PAGE USER SESSIONS Chamber Vis. Center Year-To-Date This Month This Month Total 23O 144 236 1,290 1,900 171 93 1,133 297 3,594 199 150 81 991 191 116 692 3O2 2,722 138 98 92 328 67 56 155 278 4,109 92 20 20 193 20 345 This Month 3,594 2,722 328 278 4,109 3,219 1,705 2,370 11,096 18,390 1,574 698 10,411 2,401 33,474 4,110 1,679 600 11,395 2,072 978 7,744 2,477 31,055 1,355 1,174 1,085 3,614 736 5O3 1,497 2,736 24,525 Year-To-Date 33,474 31,055 3,614 2,736 24,525 Annual Volume Comparisons Chamber October 2001 Chamber October 2002 Percentage Relocation 161 171 6% Demographics 69 93 35% Chamber 1,191 1,133 -5% Miscellaneous 261 297 14% TOTAL PHONE CALLS 3,570 3,594 1% WALK-INS Tourism 259 199 -23% Calendar of Events 173 150 -13% Special Events 74 81 9% General Information 1,094 991 -9% Relocation 185 191 3% Demographics 95 116 22% Chamber 850 692 -I 9% Miscellaneous 275 302 10% Visitor Center Watk-lns 258 345 34% TOTAL WALK-INS 3,263 3,067 -6% MAILINGS Tourism 69 92 33% Relocation 81 71 -12% Demographics 73 73 0% TOTAL MAILINGS 223 236 6% E-MAIL Tourism 21 67 219% Relocation 26 56 115% Miscellaneous 172 155 -10% TOTAL E-MAIL 219 278 27% WEBSITE USER SESSIONS 4,109 * Chamber referrals reflect faxes, walk-ins and phone calls PHONE CALLS TOURISM Tourism Referrals 354 230 -35% Calendar of Events 215 144 -33% Special Events 200 236 18% General information 1,119 1,290 15% TOTAL TOURISM CALLS 1,888 '1,900 1% EDC November 8, 2002 Jim O'Grady City of Temecula PO Box 9033 Temecula, CA 92589-9033 RE: Activity Summary - October 2002 Business Development Staffreceived six business development leads for the month of October: · Ongoing funding resources for Bruce Federici of The Tunnel VSI in Lake Elsinore. Staff provided Mr. Federici with six venture capital contacts and an announcement to a venture capital conference, which was idem[fled at a UCR CONNECT Links presentation. (10/8) · A request by Jim O'Grady to deliver a packet of available industrial sites for sale or lease to EnGEN Corporation in Temecula for a possible facility expansion. Staff hand- delivered a list of available properties to thc company CEO. (10/9) · An in-person visit from Laura Dewitt who was touring thc area from Orange County looking for a small office for her husband's executive recruitment business. Ms. Dewitt requested 250-500 square-feet of office space not to exceed $500 per month. Staff provided office locations and commercial broker contacts from the EDC website. (10/10) · A phone inquiry for Karen Kerr of Tcmccula who was seeking general information to start a new business. Staff mailed Ms. Kerr a resource packet and a Business Resource Guide. (10/16) · A phone inquiry from Jessica Rothweil of Temeeula who was seeking financing of $7 million for a bowling center project in Temecula. She was seeking private investor/venture capital oppommities. Staffprovided Ms. Rothwell with seven venture capital resource contacts and an EDC contact list of SBA lenders and agencies. (10/21) · A phone inquiry from Mr. Johan of Temecula who was seeking SBA funding opportunities to open a retail business, Good Feet. Staff provided various EDC contacts to SBA lenders and agencies. (10/29) Community Outreach Staffattended the following meetings/events to promote or assist economic development efforts: * SWRC Economic Alliance Partner Meeting (10/2) Jim O'Grady City of Temecula Activity Summary - October 2002 Page 2 of 3 · Professional Women's Roundtable Meeting (10/3) - Staffwas one of three guest speakers at the October PWR meeting at Temeku Clubhouse. Speaker topics included what types of business resources were available to business owners. · Energy Efficiency Expo Planning Meeting (10/4) - Staff is coordinating a November expo in partnership with Edison, Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce, City of Lake Elsinore, and Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce. · Temecula Education in Partnership Committee (10/7) - Staff represents the EDC at the monthly meetings. Staff coordinated a student's vocational education tour of the cosmetics depamnents at Macy's, Robinsons-May and JC Penny's for Temecula Valley High School Vocation Ed instructor, Diane Castro. · Ribbon-Cutting Ceremony for Robert Half International (10/9) · Lake EIsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce EDC Luncheon (10/10) - Guest speaker was Jennifer Jasper of California Travel and Tourism Commission, who provided a tourism update for the Inland Empire and State of California. · SWRC Manufacturers' Council Kickoff Event (10/10) - The Manufacturers' Council event was held at Callaway Winery to kick offthe new mission and regional focus. · Supervisor Venable's Third District Workshop (10/16) - Staff was one of a number of regional economic developers who spoke at the Third District Annual Economic Development and Tourism Workshop. · Riverside County Manufacturing Industry Council Board Meeting (10/21) - Staff is a hoard member representing the EDC and the SWRC Manufacturers' Council. · SWRC Economic Alliance Partner Meeting (10/21) · Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce Welcome Luncheon (10/23) - Hosted by thc Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce, the welcome lunch honored UCR Chancellor France A. Cordova. The EDC was a co-partner in the event along with the Murrieta-Temecula Group and SWRC Manufacturers' Council. · Riverside County Manufacturing Industry Council Quarterly Meeting (10/29) - "Models of Excellence" were presented by Mt. San Jacinto College, Riverside Community College-Center for Applied Competitive Technology (CACT), Corona Unified School District, and Access to the Future. · Southwest Community Bank Grand Opening in Murrieta. (10/30) · City of Murricta Quarterly Brokers' Meeting (10/31) - Topics included TUMF fees and updates f~om the City of Murrieta Planning, Building, and Public Works Departments. Business Retention · Business Relations Committee Meeting (10/3) - See attached meeting minutes for discussion topics. Administration/Organization · EDC Board of Directors Meeting (10/17) - See attached meeting minutes for discussion topics. Jim O'Grady City of Temecula Activity Summary - October 2002 Page 3 of 3 Administration - Staff managed the daily operations of the EDC office; responded to three requests for EDC membership information, helped coordinate the UCR Chancellor luncheon, coordinated the Strategic Plan for Regional Economic Development, coordinated the Energy Efficiency Expo, and emailed various EDC/community updates to members/businesses that included: Welcome Lunch for Dr. France A. Cordova, Chancellor, UC Riverside Vote Yes on Proposition 47 and Measure K (school funding ballot initiatives) TUMF fees meetings for the Cities of Lake Elsinore, Murrieta and Temecula Construction Stormwater Compliance Workshop City of Lake Elsinore - Mayor's State of the City Address & Breakfast Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce/EDC Connections Lunch Murrieta Chamber of Commerce 2002 Business Expo City of Murrieta - State of the City Address Small Business Assistance Conference Invitation to apply to serve on SANDAG's Regional Planning Stakeholder's Working Group This concludes the activity summary for October 2002. Should you have questions or need further detail, please call me at 600-6064. Respectfully, Diane Sessions Executive Director DRAFT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF SOUTHWEST RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOARD OF DIRECTORS GENERAL MEETING Thursday, October 17, 2002 - 9:00 a.m. Workforce Development Center 27447 Enterprise Circle West, Temecula, CA DRAFT BOARD MEMBERS Marlene Best, City of Lake Elsinore Scott Crane, Southwest Healthcare System Stevie Field, SWRC Economic Alliance Dennis Frank; UCR Extension Keith Johnson, Mission Oaks National Bank Susan Norton, Guidant Corporation Phil Oberhansley, Cannon Parks & Oberhansley Jim O'Grady, City of Temecula Rex Oliver, Murrieta Chamber of Commerce David Phares, D. L. Phares & Associates Paul Ram~ey, Keeton Construction Nancy Randolph, Eastern Municipal Water District Claude Reinke, The Californian Al Sabsevitz, Verizon Gary Youmans, Community National Bank Roger Zeimer, The Gas Company EDC STAFF Diane Sessions Liz Yuzer MEMBERS AND GUESTS Ken Carlisle, Guidant Corporation Maryann Edwards, Temecuia Valley Unified School District Ron Kfimper, Mt. San Jacinto Community College CALL TO ORDER · Board Presidem Dennis Frank called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m~ MINUTES The Board reviewed the minutes of the September 19, 2002 Board of Directors Meeting. Motion was made by A1 Sabsevitz, seconded by Roger Ziemer and caxried tmanimously to approve the minutes of the September 19, 2002 Board of Direetors Meeting as presented. FINANCIAL REPORT · The Board reviewed the September 30, 2002 Financial Report that showed total mommy revenues of $18,375, total expenses of$11,202 and total cash-in-bank of$76,511. Motion was made by Gary Youmans, seconded by Jim O'Grady and carried unanimously to approve the September 30, 2002 Financial Report. · The board reviewed the Quarterly Luncheon Reconciliation which showed total income of $1,780 and expenses of $1,910.55 for a net deficit of $130.55. Gary Youmans recommended that the charge for future quarterly luncheons be raised to cover increased expenses. NEW BUSINESS · Discussion on Proposition 47: Maryann Edwards reported that a positive vote on Proposition 47 would Economic Development Corporation of Southwest Riverside County Board of Directors Meeting - October 17, 2002 Minutes - Page 2 of 3 result in $350M for construction of new schools in the region~ Temecula Valley Unified School District had been approved for $117M for the construction of 5 school sites. Rex Oliver added that Murrieta Valley Unified School District would receive additional school funding through Measure K and that Menifee Unified School District would receive additional funding through Measure J. Dennis Frank reported th. at Proposition 47 included funding for Mt. San Jacinto Community College. Motion was made by Jim O'Grady, seconded by Gary Youmans and carried unanimously to support Proposition 47 and Measure K ballot initiatives. Vacant Director's Seat: Dennis Frank reported that a candidate had not yet been identified to fill the open Board seat. The Nominating Committee would continue its search. Temecula Planning Process: Dennis Frank thanked Jim O'Grady and the City of Temecuia for their work on expediting planning issues. CONTINUING BUSINESS · Regional Strategic Planning Session: Diane Sessions reported that the Regional Strategic Planning Session would be held November 15 at the Temecula Creek Inn, in partnership with the SWRC Economic Alliance. Facilitators would be Chris Binkley, Ron Bradley, Bob Larson and Joan Sparkman. All EDC board members were encouraged to participate. · Gas/Power/Water Issues: Nancy Randolph reported that an agreement had been reached for distribution of water from the Colorado River to California. She also reported that sewage treatment continued to be a challenging and expensive issue. Roger Ziemer reported that a training session would he held at Eagle Glen Golf Course on October 30 to educate members of the building industry on restrictions regarding storm drain mn-off. · SBA 7(a) Loan Limits Update: Gary Youmans reported that the $500,000 SBA loan limits were still in place. He indicated that the Senate supported increased loan limits but the House of Representatives blocked efforts to increase them. Mr. Youmans would continue to keep the Board informed on this issue. OPEN DISCUSSION · EDC Administrative Update: The Board reviewed the September 2002 Activity Summary submitted by Diane Sessions. Ms. Sessions reported that she was working with Bob Lopez of Southern California Edison on an energy efficiency project for small business owners in the region. Chambers of Commerce from Temecula, Murrieta and Lake Elsinore were asked to participate. · Economic Alliance Update: Stevie Field reported that several very good leads had resulted from their June event; California CEO Magazine would include a supplen~nt highlighting the area; and the GIS system would be launched soor~ · City, County and Chamber Updates: City of£ake Eisinore - Marlene Best reported that an 8,000-square foot office complex was approved for the City Center; a 6,500-square foot retail expansion was underway in the same center; a 24-unit apartment complex and several single-family units were approved for the downtown area; a TUMF Study Session would be held today at City Hall; the State of the City Address Economic Development Corporation of Southwest Riverside County Board of Directors Meeting - October 17, 2002 Minutes - Page 3 of 3 would be November 6 at Diamond Stadium; the November 14 EDC luncheon would be on international trade opportunities; and the McVicker Park Fire Station dedication would be November 15. She also distributed their new Economic Gardening brochure. City of Murrieta - Rex Oliver reported the Council reviewed plans for reworking of Washington Avenue; the City anticipated a decision on December 2 for funding of a new library; and the Council tabled discussion of the Wildomar annexation. City of Temecula - Jim O'Cn'ady reported that the City Council would discuss regional TUMF fees at their October 29 meeting; enforcement of storm water runoff regulations continued to be a big issue for cities; and funding for the Pauba Road library was still not determined. He distributed a new tourism CD-ROM. Mr. O'G-xady reported that the City was pleased with the development agreement with Guidant Corporation and hoped that Guidant would choose to expand in Temecula. Mr. O'Grady also reported that the new Development Review Process was approved on October 8 by the City Council. The new process would expedite most development projects from 13 weeks to 8 weeks using simplified forms. City staff would be available to make presentations to explain the new process. Lake Elsinore Valley Chamber of Commerce - No report available. Murrieta Chamber of Commerce - Rex Oliver reported that their Business Expo would be held November 7 at Lowe's from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.; the State of the City address would be November 21 at the Movie Experience; and the new, expanded Chamber directory would be ready in November. Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce -No report available. Education Update: Ron IC~r reported that the Mt. San Jacinto Community College spring schedule would be on-line November 25; Temecula-area classes had increased from 50 to 70, with anticipation of 100 classes by next fall; and Business Management and Business Administration degrees would be available on- line by fall 2003. Maryann Edwards reported that a joint meeting would be held by Temecula Valley Unified School District Board and Temecula City Council to discuss adding a swimming pool to the third high school; API scores for Temecula would not be released until December but they anticipated high rankings; and special education programs were required to provide what the IEP indicates and that at this time the cost for one special education student was $250,000. SWRC Manufacturers' Council: Dennis Frank reported that the Manufacturers' Council meeting at Callaway Winery was very successful with approximately 80 persons in attendance. Their next workshop would focus on manufacturing issues such as quality control. They hoped to partner with public schools and Mt. San Jacinto Comrmllxity College on a number of programs. ADJOURNMENT At 10:05 a.m., motion was made by Jim O'Grady, seconded by Rex Oliver and carried ananimously to adjourn the board meeting. Respectively submitted by: Elizabeth Yuzer Phil Oberhansley Recording Secretary Board Secretary ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF SOUTHWEST RIVERSIDE COUNTY BUSINESS RELATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING Thursday, October 3, 2002 - 9:00 a.m. Workforce Development Center, Executive Board Room 27447 Enterprise Circle West, Temecula, CA Committee Members Present: Dennis Frank, UCR Extension Robin Greer, D & D Commercial Construction Inc. Carmen Hill, TriStaff Group Keith Johnson, Mission Oaks National Bank Michael Lewin, Mirau, Edwards, Cannon, Harter & Lewin Rex Oliver, Murrieta Chamber of Commerce David Rosenthal, SWRC Manufacturers' Council Diane Sessions, Economic Development Corporation Gloria Wolnick, City of Temecula Gary Youmans, Community National Bank Guests:, Sandy Lund, Coldwell Banker Chris Masino, CDM Group, Inc Liz Yuzer, Economic Development Corporation Call To Order · Michael Lewin called the meeting to order at 9:00 mm. He welcomed guests to the meeting and led introductions. Follow-up Action Reports · Basics Etc., Inc. - Michael Lewin reported that Basics Etc. continued to explore their need to expand and that possible condemnation proceedings at that location to expand the offtamp at Cherry Street were still unresolved. Mr. Lewin indicated that he would continue to monitor the situation and provide support to Basics Etc. where appropriate. Company Contact Reports · Kuebler Prudhomme & Co. - Diane Sessions reported on her visit with Greg Prudhomme at Kuebler Prudhomme & Co. in Temecula. They provided accounting services including business valuations, litigation support, fiduciary support and campaign treasury functions. They had been in business in Temecula since 1988 and also had a second office in Hemet. The Temecula office had 11 employees and they planned m add two additional CPA's to their staff. Mr. Pmdhomme indicated that advantages to doing business in the area included the economic growth and quality of living. Disadvantages included difficulty in attracting a skilled workforce, especially CPA's. Mr. Prudhomme also indicated that 85% - 90% of their customers were from Southwest Riverside County. Their primary competitors were Larger local accounting firms. Sales in the past year were up, and Mr. Prudhomme attributed this to the growth in the community and their reputation. He also indicated that his clients expressed frustration with the permit process. Rex Oliver indicated that many times the problem is lack of information of how permitting works rather than a definite delay within the system. Gary Youmans reported that the City of Temecula is working on the issue and their new tracking software will help alleviate this problem for Temecula. * Endar Corporation - Carmen Hill reported on her phone interview with a representative of Endar Corporation in Temecula. Endar Corporation manufactured potpourri, scented candles, sachets and accessories. Their largest customer was Walmart. They employed 160 employees in two locations and hired additional employees for seasonal work. Ms. Hill indicated that they had moved a lot of their operations to Teeate, Mexico. Business Relations Committee Meeting Minutes - October 3, 2002 Page 2 of 3 Engen, Incorporated - Diane Sessions reported for Jim O'Grady on his conversation with Wayne Bainbridge, President of Engen, Inc. in Temecula. Engen Inc. had provided environmental and geotechnieal engineering services for 25 years and nearly all of their 18 employees lived in the area. Mr. Bainbridge indicated that 75% of their customers were fi.om the private sector and 25% were fi.om the public sector. Mr. Bainbridge also indicated that their sales were down since 9-11 but had recently shown some improvement. He also indicated that they needed more room to expand and wanted to move into their own building. He was very interested in city incentives to stay in the area. Mr. O'Grady indicated that Don Hagen fi.om the City Planning Department had provided information on the development process. Goal Pro~,ress Reoort · Michael Lewin reviewed the Annual Goal Progress Report for 2001-2002. He reported that traffic complaints were down fi.om previous years and that cormnents regarding services and permits had increased. He recommended that visitation goals for personal visits and phone interviews remain the same for 2002- 2003 as in previous years. There was discussion regarding the need to revise the survey to better respond to information needed by the cities. Dennis Frank recommended that any revision be delayed until after the regional strategic plannin4~ meeting on November 15. Michael Lewin presented certificates of appreciation to Rex Oliver for the highest number of visits, 9, and also for best attendance. Lori Moss received a certificate of appreeiation for the second highest number of visits which was 8. Michael Lewin announced that visits and phone interviews in the fourth month of the fiscal year were as follows: 27 visits ~ 3 points each + 33 phone interviews ~ 1 points each = 60 visits/calls G114 points YTD VISIT PHONE POINTS Goal 27 33 114 Actual 2 6 12 Variance -25 -27 - 102 New Committee Assignments · Michael Lewin reviewed the list of outstanding calls. Dennis Frank indicated that FFF Enterprises had not returned his calls and should be removed fi.om the list. Carmen Hill suggested that Maxim Medical be removed fi.om the list as well. Keith Johnson took Diagnostic Consumables and OJ Insulation Company Inc. EDC News and Other Information · EDC Board Update - Diane Sessions reported that she would update the Business Relations Progress Report originally created by Aaron Adams to include information fi.om 1999 through 2002. Ms. Sessions also reported that the regional strategic planning meeting would be held November 15 fi.om 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.. All board members would be invited to participate in this event as well as other key representatives of Southwest Riverside County. Ms. Sessions also reported that she was working with Bob Lopez of Southern California Edison on an energy efficiency project for small business owners in the region. The luncheon for Dr. France Cordova, Chancellor of UC Riverside would be held at Peehanga on October 23. Business Relations Committee Meeting Minutes - October 3, 2002 Page 3 of 3 · SWRC Manufacturers' Council - David Rosenthal reported that the Manufacturers' Council would have their new brochure available soon. He also reported that they looked forward to their October 10 event at Callaway Winery to explain their new mission and focus. · City, County & Chamber News - City of Lake Eisinore - No report available. City of Murrieta - Rex Oliver reported that the City had participated in the ICSC convention in Palm Springs; that development of the Village Walk was moving forward; the Industrial Park would be filled to bring it out of the flood plain; the Chamber would have a non-voting seat on the City's Steering Committee; and the issue of annexation of Wildomar had been tabled for six months. City of Temecula - Gloria Woiniek distributed a new tourism CD-ROM firom the City and the new City newsletter that highlighted the EDC as a partner. She also indicated that they would update the John Husing Demographic Report. Lake Eisinore Valley Chamber of Commerce -No report available. Murrieta Chamber of Commerce - Rex Oliver reported that the Business Expo would be held in the Lowe's parking lot and that Lowe's would publicize the event; the Community Resource Guide would be available by November 1 and was twice the size of last year's guide; and the Chamber was on record to support Proposition 47 which provided funding for school districts statewide, as well as Measure K that provided funding for Murrieta schools. Mr. Oliver explained the benefits of the Chairman's Circle which was for the Murrieta Chamber's largest financial supporters. An example of the benefits included a recent private presentation and discussion with John Husing. Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce - No report available. · Eeonomle Alliance Update - Diane Sessions reported that the new GIS would be available on-line very soon. She indicated that the Alliance would brand the area for marketing purposes. Stevie Field would make a presentation on this topic at the November board meeting. Adiournment - The meeting adjourned at 10:15 a.m~ ECQNOIMIIC ALLIANCE TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Marlene Best Jim O'Grady Assistant City Manager Assistant City Manager City of Lake EIsinore City of Temecula Stevie Field Manager, Business Development October 17, 2002 SOUTHWEST RIVERSIDE COUNTY MONTHLY MARKETING UPDATE Lori Moss Assistant City Manager City of Murrieta Dear Partners: Please consider this an update on the marketing activities for the Alliance as required in the Southwest Riverside County Marketing for Business Attraction Agreement. Leads A total of eight leads were generated in the month of A~. Three leads were referrals from the Wine Growers Association, one lead was a referral from IEEP, one lead was from the Wescon trade show, one lead was a referral from the City of Temecula and two leads were direct contacts to the Alliance. On Monday, October 14th, Bob Larson, formerly of Guidant, and I met with a start-up medical device manufacturer looking at SWRC. Bob's experience was a valuable part of this meeting. I look forward to providing a complete update at the next Alliance meeting. Unfortunately, Coca-Cola has pulled their contract for Westside Business Center and has decided to look in San Diego County. After a conversation with Art Bennet, Regional Manager, he stated that the logistics played a big role in their decision. Coca-Cola would incur an approximate $0.14 - $0.16 per case increase due to the location of the facility being so far from the production facility. Art was very appreciative of the assistance we provided and will keep in contact if these plans change in the future. Trade Shows On behalf of the Alliance, I have agreed to attend the following trade shows: Corenet, San Diego, CA Nov. 16-20, 2002 "Taste of Southwest Riverside County" event 2003 I have not yet heard from any of the Partners on preference for the new event date. It is important that we finalize our date so that we can get started on the location and other details associated with such an event. Please let me know at your earliest convenience which dates work with your schedule. April 4-6 April 11-13 May 2-4 Cutting Edge Marketing Cutting Edge Marketing attended our regular AIliance meeting on October 2"d. Discussed was the outcome of the questionnaire/worksheet that was passed out to each Partner in August. Jerry will present branding and marketing strategies at the next Alliance meeting in October. GIS I forwarded each Partner the information list request from GIS Planning. This will ensure that the Alliance GIS site has the same information for each Partner. Please provide the requested information to either GIS Planning or me at your earliest convenience. I spoke to Anatalio and Pablo regarding a few questions that came up on October 2nd and I will provide that information at our regular Partner meeting on October 21st. The draft version of the 1-15-1 survey results was provided to each Partner on October 2nd' On behalf of the Alliance, I will attend the next meeting on October 10th. I will provide an update of that meeting on October 21st California CEO It was agreed last year that the Alliance would do a regional report on Southwest Riverside County through California CEO magazine. As some questions arose regarding the stability of the publication and the month that the Alliance would be represented, I met with Scott Fivash, Publisher. He assured me that the magazine is going strong. He mentioned they hit a "few bumps" over the last year but is looking forward to a strong 2003. Scott will email me the schedule for 2003 so that the Alliance can decide on a month for its regional report. Scott asked if I knew of anyone who may be interested in writing the piece. I recommended Don McCauliffe, formally with the Press Enterprise, now with Cutting Edge Marketing. California CEO would pay Cutting Edge to have the piece written, and the Alliance would have piece of mind that someone that truly cares about and knows this region will write the piece. We will be given an extra 2500 copies to pass out at trades shows, in lead packages, etc. The Alliance will need to recommendation local advertisers for the issue we will be featured in. I will provide information to California CEO upon signing of contract. Speakinq Enqaqements On behalf of the Alliance, I spoke at Supervisor Venable's Third District Workshop on Oct. 16th. Other speakers included, Diane Sessions, Pat Melvin and John Husing. EDC Strateqic Planninq Committee The strategic planning workshop has been scheduled for November 15th, at which time the S.W.O.T. will be facilitated. The Planning Committee has identified various industries and key people to invite to this 5-hour event. The Alliance will be a co-sponsor as we have much to gain from the information. We will be able to incorporate pot[ions of this information in our new marketing campaign. Consultants It was discussed at our last Alliance meeting the idea of hiring three different consultants, each with different fields of expertise, on an as needed basis. The goal of this would be to assist the Alliance with targeted business assistance. For example, at a meeting scheduled for October 14thwith a medical device company, Bob Larson has been kind enough to assist us (pro bono) with that project or meeting. I think this adds to the value of services that the Alliance can provide in various components of relocation/expansion and start-up in our targeted industries. As requested, I have forwarded the resumes of the interested individuals to your offices. I will put this item on the agenda for the next Alliance meeting to discuss further. On an ongoing basis, I attend the following meetings: SWRC Manufacturer's Council Temecula/Murrieta Group Business Relations Committee SWRC EDC LE EDC 1-15-1 Partnership Meetings Economic Development meetings concerning the Southwest Riverside County region UCR Connect meetings If you need any additional information or have any questions, please contact me at (909) 600-6066. Sincerely, Stevie Field Manager, Business Development Copy: Brad Hudson Robin Zimpfer Belinda Graham Sarah Mundy Teresa Gallavan . lj-12-202 12:08PM FROM P. 2 TEMECU LA VALLEy COUNCIL Pat Martlneg Executive D/~ector TEMECULA VALLEY FILM COUNCIL ACTIVITIES REPORT OCTOBER 2002 Sunny Poulson Thymus Co:Prc~lc~ t Steve Phelps Co. Pr¢ Bideat Ellen watkhls Vice Pr¢~id*nt Patty Slaton Eve Craig Maggie Allen OFFICER/; & MEMBERS OF THE FILM COUNCIL: Pat Martiv~ F. xccutivc Director; $---y Thomas, CO-Prcsidmt; Steve Pl~elrps, CO-President; Ellen Watkivs, Vic~ ~ Patty Siatoll, So--fl'ir. astra; Eve Cl~i~, ludi THE BUSINESS OF THE ]HLM COUNCIL: Priority items for the Fihn Council will ~ontinue as follows: v Monthly mailin5 of thc fOBt O010r post Cal-d * NoHow up wRh interegted FiLmmakers who idlowed all intere*t iv filming in Temecula * The n~v Web Site is ~ being implemented and should be completed in thc nwnth of Nowmber * TI~ Production Guide is being developed .nd discussed by tl~ board and should be ' ready for m~r~etin~ by t]~ Jalk~q-~f 2003 * D/scus.~lg and explorin~ fund-r~i~ing possibilities for 2003 SUPPORT FOR THE TEMECULA VALLEY INTKRNATIONAL.FILM &MUSIC * The Film Couacfl prepanM lc~ers and Certificates of appreci_ '~!ion for the . mppo~ing sponsors Sponsorship solicitation are in process. A new marketing plan _~fld materials have been developed and arc ready for dism~oution FILM COUNCIL INQuHkl?.S: * (4) Film Inquires * (19) Phone calls E-mail tvfe@pe,net * www,tcme¢ula£ilm.org Old'Town Fro~t St,* Suite 201A · Temecula, CA 9g590 * t'honr 909-699-636T - Fgx 909 693 Z7~i8 APPROVAL /~//, ~ CitY ATTORNEY /,,'//u~..r3 DIRECTOR OF FINAN..qE-, ~-//'"--'-' CITY MANAGER ~ ~ / TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Ma n age r/Ci~(~t~il Debbie Ubnoske{-.Director of Planning November 26, 2002 Monthly Report The following are the recent highlights for the Planning Division of the Community Development Department in the month of October 2002. CURRENT PLANNING ACTIVITIES New Cases The Division received 5--8 new applications for administrative, other minor cases, and home occupations and 11 applications for public hearings during the month of October. The new public hearing cases are as follows: Development Plan Extension of Time Minor Conditional Use Permit Pamel Map Substantial Conformance 3 1 2 3 2 Status of Major Projects Recently Approved Projects Antenna Tower at Temecula Creek - is a Conditional Use Permit to construct and operate a 65 foot high cellular antenna, located at 44501 Rainbow Canyon Road (922-220-004); submitted by AT&t Wireless. The application was deemed incomplete on April 24, 2002. A DRC meeting was held on May 23, 2002. Applicant re-submitted plans on August 8, 2002. Staff reviewed the resubmittal and determined that the project is still incomplete. A letter was sent to the applicant on August 21, 2002, requesting items to make the application complete. Staff met with the th applicant on October 4 to discuss the application. The project was approved at the November 6, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. Cingular Wireless Antenna Facility - Minor Conditional Use Permit to construct, operate and establish an unmanned telecommunications facility consisting of installing (6) antennas in two 35' high metal poles, replacing the existing poles that are being utilized to hold up netting, which prevents golf balls from entering into the public street. The project proposed was located on the R:ffvlONTHLY. RP'n2002\October 2002 Report.doc 1 northeast corner of Rancho California Road and Margarita Road in the Temeku Hills Golf Course. The Hearing Officer, after hearing all the facts of the case made a decision to deny the project at the May 30th Director's Hearing meeting. An appeal was heard by the Planning Commission in which staff recommended denial of the appeal. A number of homeownem attended the Hearing, voicing opposition to the project. The Planning Commission decided to continue the item, requesting that the applicant provide a complete alternative Design Analysis and samples of the proposed steel poles. On October 2, 2002, the Planning Commission overturned the Planning Director's decision to deny PA01-0601. Cingular Wireless Telecommunications & Sign Structure at Chaparral High School - Conditional Use Permit to construct a 26 foot high, 14 foot x14 foot rectangular structure to house six wireless telecommunication antennas and equipment, and structure will include throe sides with signage to consist of an 84 square foot non-illuminated sign with green letters and blue background to read "Chaparral High School", a 42 square foot electronic message marquee, and a 56 square foot blue and beige colored "C" letter with a black and green puma mascot illustration. Staff is reviewing the most recently submitted materials for completeness. The project was approved at the August 7, 2002 Planning Commission. The Commission's decision was appealed to the City Council. The City Council subsequently denied the appeal at their November 12th meeting. Coltrain Residence - A Variance to reduce the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 10 feet and a request for a Minor Modification to the front yard setback of 2 feet located at the end of the cul- de-sac on Avenida de San Pasqual (945-110-019) submitted by Arthur Coltrain. The application was submitted on August 27, 2002 and departmental comments are due on September 17, 2002. The project was approved at the November 6, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. FFF Enterprises - A Development Plan application for the modification to a 77,500 square foot industrial building, located at the northeast corner of Ynez and County Center Drive, was approved by the Planning Commission on October 30, 2002. Highland II Office Building - a Development Plan to construct a 30,000 sq. ft. office building. The subject property is located on the east side of County Center Drive, 740 ft. north of Ynez Road. The extension of time was approved at the November 6~ Planning Commission meeting. Jefferson Avenue Inn (formerly the Hampton Inn Suites) - Development Plan application to design and construct a four story 70-room hotel building on a 1.35 acres parcel. The application was approved at the November 6th Planning Commission meeting. Vail Ranch Center Phase III retail pad buildings - Administrative Development Plan application to construct five (5) commercial buildings at the southwest corner of the Vail Ranch commercial center at the southwest corner of Red Hawk Parkway and Highway 79 South. Staff approved the project architecture, site and landscape plans the week of November 11 th and the applicant has submitted the project for construction plan check. Projects Under Review Commercial Caf~ Kerr- PA01-0587 - Administrative Development Plan to allow outdoor dining. New owner is proposing Tenant Improvements to open a Chinese Restaurant. The TI permit will include the fencing. R:~MONTHLY.RPT~2002\October 2002 Report.doc 2 Edge Nightclub - A Minor Conditional Use Permit to operate an entertainment facility to include a type 48 liquor license, live music, dancing, and other entertainment uses as outlined in the submitted statement of operations in a 4,860 square foot existing building, located at 28822 Old Town Front Street (APN 922-093-003); Submitted by Ronald Hannah. The application was submitted on July 5, 2002. An incomplete letter was mailed to the applicant on July 30, 2002. The application was closed on September 9, 2002, because the applicant did not pay the required fees. The applicant applied for a new Minor Conditional Use Permit on October 16, 2002. The project has been deemed incomplete. Overland Self Storage Facility - Conditional Use Permit to construct a 124,496 square foot, one story, self-storage mini warehousing facility with beige stucco and beige metal siding exterior walls and olive green color metal roofing on a two lot, 3.65-acres site, located south of Overland Drive and east of Commerce Center Drive. Future phase to include construction of a one-story 3,000 square foot office and caretaker's dwelling unit located at front of site. Staff held a Development Review Committee meeting on May 8, 2002. As a result, a number of issues have been identified and have been communicated to the owner and applicant. On November 2, 2002, staff met with the owner of the property and continued discussion of the project. Rancho Dental - A Development Plan to construct, operate and establish a 3,719 square foot dental office on .49 acres, located at 29746 Rancho California Road on the northwest corner of Rancho California Road and Lyndie Lane, submitted by Bratene Construction and Engineering. The project has been scheduled for Director's Hearing on November 14, 2002. Staff is recommending approval. Stop Quick Mini-Mart- A Minor Conditional Use Permit to request an upgrade from a Type 20 to a Type 21 Off-Sale Alcohol License. The project was submitted on May 2, 2002. On June 3, 2002, Staff requested that the applicant first apply to ABC in order to determine concentration levels in this census tract. This direction was determined after numerous conversations with ABC. The applicant instead applied in the San Diego office. The project was subsequently transferred to the Riverside ABC office. On September 11,2002, ABC confirmed that there was an over-concentration of Off-Sale licenses in the subject census tract and was advised to apply for a Finding of Public Convenience and Necessity. Planning Application 02-0223 has been scheduled for the November 20, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. Staff is recommending denial. Industrial BBK Performance - is a Development Plan request to build a 22,260 square foot two-story industrial/warehouse building on a 1.4-acre site. The subject property is located on the east side of Bostik Court, 170 feet south of Winchester Road. A DRC meeting was held with the applicant on October 3, 2002. The project has been scheduled for the November 20th Planning Commission meeting. KTM Motorcycles - A Fast Track Development Plan to construct a 43,000 square foot motorcycle research and development facility. The 10 acre site is located on the west side of Via Industria, north of Rio Nedo. A DRC meeting will be held on November 15, 2002. Planning Commission consideration will occur in early January. O'Hern Wall Industrial Building - A Development Plan to construct a 18,400 square foot industrial building on 1.28 acres, located at 42108 Roick Drive, submitted on October 8, 2002, by O'Hern Wall Associates. A DRC is scheduled for November 7, 2002. R:'~MONTHLY.RPT'~.002\October 2002 Repod.doc 3 Slater Industrial Buildings - is a Development Plan request to build two 11,213 sq. ft. concrete tilt-up, office warehouse buildings on a 1.97 acre lot within the on the west side of Bostik Court south of Winchester Road. Growth Management Company filed this application. A second DRC letter was sent October 28, 2002. The plans are now being revised. Talon Sports Industrial Building - A Development Plan to construct, operate and establish an 18,243 sq. ft. Industrial Building on .99 acres, located at 42044 Winchester Road, west of Diaz Road, submitted August 28, 2002, by McArdle & Associates Architects. A DRC Meeting was held on October 3, 2002, to discuss site and design issues. Staff is awaiting submittal of revised plans. Office Hope Lutheran Church modular office building - Administrative Development Plan to install a 3,600 square foot pre-fabricated modular office building on a vacant portion at the rear of the existing Hope Lutheran Church property on the south side of Rancho California Road on the east side of Pat & Oscar's restaurant. Staff is reviewing for site plan and architectural compliance and has scheduled the project for the November 21 DRC meeting. Jefferson Avenue Office Building - A Development Plan to construct a 21,870 square foot two story office building on 1.67 acres of land, located at 27708 Jefferson Avenue (APN 921-400- 037-2); Submitted by Diamond Central Investors, LLC. The application was submitted on June 21,2002. A DRC meeting was held on August 8, 2002 and staff is awaiting re-submittal. Kevin Brown Executive Office Building - A Development Plan to construct, operate and establish an 11,642 square foot executive office building on 0.95 acres, located at 27247 Madison Avenue, west of Madison Avenue, north of Sanborn Avenue, submitted on July 26, 2002, by Herron & Rumansoff Architects. The project was scheduled for DRC on September 5th, The project has been scheduled for the November 20th Planning Commission hearing. Staff is recommending re-design. Mixed Use Linfield Christian School Master Plan - Submitted by Linfield Christian School; a Conditional Use Permit proposal to expand the existing facility with 154,397 square feet of additional classroom and accessory structures and a proposed 37,500 square feet of housing for a superintendent, caretaker and facility. This project is located on the north side of Pauba Road west of Margarita Road (behind Temecula Valley High School). Staff met with the applicant March 1, 2002, to discuss the need to process a PDO in order to establish development standards and uses desired. Staff is awaiting submittal of material. A community meeting for the project was held April 11,2002. This project is on hold pending the preparation of a Planned Development Overlay application. The applicant anticipates submittal November 12, 2002. Roripaugh Ranch Annexation - Specific Plan, Environmental Impact Report and Development Agreement. On October 30th the Planning Commission recommended approval of this project. The project is scheduled for November 26, 2002, City Council hearing. Villages of Old Town - Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Report have been submitted. Staff has stopped reviewing the project. The properbjowner has retained a new representative. Staff met with the new representative to provide some background information. R:~IONTHLY.RPT'~.002\October 2002 Reporl.doc 4 Residential Naron Pacific - A proposal for zone change from L-1 to L-2 on 31.93 Acres and Tentative Tract Map to subdivide into 33 residential lots and 2 open space lots. Staff has met with the applicant's representative to address several concerns. Staff is waiting for submittal of a constraints map and submittal of a proposed PDO. Tentative Tract Map 30169 - Residential Tract Map application to subdivide a 4.57 acre parcel into seven 1/2 acre net lots, which includes a zone change request to amend the property zoning from L-1 to L-2. Staff is currently reviewing the revised map exhibits for completeness and preparing an environmental initial study for CEQA compliance. Vail Ranch home variance - A Variance to reduce the roar setback from 10' to 8'6" to accommodate a 327 square foot room addition to an existing residence. Staff transmitted the exhibits and is reviewing application for completeness. Miscellaneous AT&T Wireless - A Conditional Use Permit/Development Plan to construct, operate and establish an unmanned wireless communication facility consisting of a 60'-0" mono-pine and a 8'x12' equipment aroa, located at the Rancho California Water District Water Reservoir Complex, east of Meadow Parkway. The project was submitted on June 21,2002. Although the project was deemed complete on July 19, 2002, the applicant was advised that staff could not support the proposal. Additionally, since the project was submitted, staff has received numerous phone calls, letters and petitions in opposition to the project from the adjacent homeowners, however the applicant, Velocitel, Inc. resubmitted revised plans. The applicant's representative indicated verbally that AT&T intended on withdrawing the proposal. Grace Presbyterian Church - is a Conditional Use Permit to construct a church facility in two phases. The site is located at the southwest corner of Calle Medusa and Nicholas Road. A DRC meeting was conducted on August 29, 2002. Staff is awaiting revised plans. Harveston Welcome Home Center - A Development Plan to establish a 3,493 square foot housing sales facility. The site is located at the southwest corner of Landings Road and Village Road within the Harveston Specific Plan boundary. A DRC meeting was conducted on October 17, 2002. Staff is awaiting rovised plans. · Lanni Subdivision Revision - A revision to a previously approved subdivision to change a street from public to private. The application is in the process to making revisions required by staff. Meadowview Golf Course - Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan to design and construct a public golf course and driving range within the Meadowview Community. Staff has roviewed a third draft of Focused Environmental Impact Report. The developer is selecting a new environmental consultant to complete the draft EIR. Nextel Wireless Monopine - Conditional Use Permit to construct, operate, and establish an unmanned wireless communication mono-structure 70 feet high, and a small equipment shelter at the Rancho California Water District Norma Marsha Reservoir site on the east side of Margarita Road, south of Rancho California Road. Revised plans were submitted on October 8, 2002, that meets staff requirements. The application is scheduled for the November 20th Planning Commission meeting and staff is recommending approval. R:',J~4ONTHLY. RPT~.O02\October 2002 Report.doc 5 Rainbow Canyon Retail Center Design Guidelines - Application for approval of amhitectural, landscaping and signage design guidelines for the Rainbow Canyon Retail Center. The subject property is located at the southeast and southwest corners of State Hwy. 79 South and Pala Road. Staff provided a comment letter to the applicant on October 2, 2002, and is awaiting document revisions. Wireless Telecommunication - is a Minor Conditional Use Permit to co-locate throe sector antennas on an existing 57 foot high monopine and the installation of four equipment cabinets, located at 41520 Margarita Road (954-020-005); submitted by AT&T Wireless. The project was deemed incomplete on May 7, 2002. A DRC meeting was held on May 23, 2002, and staff is awaiting re-submittal by applicant. As of November 12, 2002, staff has not received any new plans from the applicant. Small Business Assistance Calico Coffee: Staff aided the owner of this Old Town Business in preparing her sign application for consideration by the Old Town Local Review Board. The project was brought to the Board in October and approved at that meeting. Lowe's: Staff is continuing to work with the Operations Manager of this business in order to help him develop a solution to the outside storage problems and obtain the release of an outstanding landscaping deposit for this location. · Mad Madeline's: Staff met with the owners of this Old Town restaurant to evaluate their building and how the City's Fa(;ade Improvement Program could help them with new paint and signs. The Barn (Formally Lighthouse Thrift): Staff met several times with the new owner of this existing building in Old Town and aided him with facade designs. The project was taken to and approved by the Old Town Local Review Board in October. The Hitching Post: Worked with applicant's contractor in preparing a sign program for this Old Town commercial complex. The project was presented to and approved by the Old Town Local Review Board at its October meeting. The Sagebrush Center: Staff had follow-up meetings with Freedom Signs regarding a new sign program at this Old Town building complex. Provided design guideline materials and Fa(~ade Improvement information to applicant in preparation for the November Old Town Local Review Board meeting. The Firehouse Building: Met with representatives of this historical Old Town building to discuss options for new signs and paint. A planning application for this project will be submitted to the Old Town Local Review Board at their November meeting. Special Event Permits Boys and Girls Club: Applicant is working with this organization and the Temecula Town Association (TTA) to obtain a temporary use permit to place a commercial coach for office uses on their Pujol Street property. RNVIONTHLY. RPT~2002\October 2002 Report.doc 6 Fall Rod Run: City staff met with organizers to help them with a variety of issues pertaining to this Old Town event which took place in October. Prepared a site plan for applicant and aided him with an insurance plan for his vendors. Race for the Cure: Held a series meeting with applicants and City staff in order to discuss traffic plans, security and other ancillary issues. A temporary use permit and special event permit (street closures) were issued for this event which took place in October at the Promenade Mall. · Summer Nights: Helped organizer Melody Brunsting finalize a temporary use permit for this City- sponsored event which ended in early October. · Temecula Chamber of Commerce Showcase: City staff aided the Chamber in obtaining approval for a temporary use permit and also hosted a booth at this event. The Great Tractor Race: City Staff met with the representatives of Southwest Events regarding their plan for the Great Tractor Race this event which took place at the Northwest Sports Complex in October. Provided a site plan for applicants and helped them obtain insurance for their vendors. Massa.qe Establishment Permits Dubois Salon & Spa: A massage establishment permit application has been submitted to the City for this business located at The Commons at The Promenade Mall. Staff is awaiting the results of background checks of the applicants from the State of California Department of Justice. J. C. Penney Salon: An application for a massage establishment permit was submitted to the City by this salon located in The Promenade Mall. Staff is awaiting the results of a background check of the applicant from the State of California Department of Justice. Massage Professionals & Skin Care: A massage establishment application for this Old Town business has been submitted to the City. Staff is awaiting the results of a background check of the applicant from the State of California Department of Justice. · Salon 29 Incorporated: A one-year massage establishment permit was issued on October 10, 2002 for this full-service salon located in the Temecula Town Center. · Trevi Partners Ih A one-year massage establishment permit was issued on October 8, 2002 for this new salon located at The Promenade Mall. Special Projects & Lonq Ranqe Planninq Activities The Division also commits work efforts toward larger scale and longer time frame projects for both private and public purposes. These activities can range from a relatively simple ordinance or environmental review to a new specific plan or a general plan amendment. Some of the major special projects and long range planning activities are as follows: Comprehensive General Plan Update - The CAC has completed its review of the draft goals and policies, and is currently considering alternative land uses. A joint Council-Planning Commission workshop on the big-picture land use issues finally occurred on October 29, 2002. Based upon the Council and Commission's input, the draft General Plan will be prepared. R:~vlONTHLY.RP'r'~2002\October 2002 Report.doc 7 Hillside Development Policy - The policies are being examined for integration into the draft- grading ordinance. This item is on hold pending additional staff resources. Large Family Day Care Home Facility Ordinance - The Planning Commission considered the revised ordinance on October 2, 2002, and recommended that the City Council adopt the ordinance. The Ordinance is scheduled for November 12, 2002. PA00-0421 and PA00-0422 Butterfield Stage LLC - General Plan Amendment and Zone Change at SEC of Butterfield Stage Road and Hwy 79 South to change 20.33 acres from Neighborhood Commercial to Community Commemial and Open Space. The applicant has new party interested in pumhasing the site. PA02-0260 Valley Christian Fellowship - Staff presented a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change from VL to PO at the SWC of Margarita and De Portola Roads. The Negative Declaration was challenged and the Planning Commission continued this item to the November 20th meeting. Procedures to Implement CEQA - Staff initiated project to develop local guidelines for processing CEQA documents, including the adoption of local exemptions. The process will also conform to the 2002 CEQA Guidelines, and will create new templates for standard CEQA forms. New procedural documents and forms are almost complete. Package will be sent to the City Attorney's office for review and comment. Southside Specific Plan - Staff is reviewing the work that was previously done to possibly develop design guidelines for this area. Staff is looking at the possibility of developing design guidelines and/or a sign program for this area. Surface Mining Ordinance - The staff and City Attorney had been making final changes based upon feedback from the State prior to submitting this item to the Council for their consideration. This item is on hold pending additional staff resoumes. Traditional Neighborhood Development Ordinance - Final changes are being made prior to scheduling this item for a Planning Commission workshop. This item is on hold pending additional staff resources. City - Project environmental reviews and permitting: Pechanga Parkway (formerly Pala Road) Widening & Sound Wall - Staff has received and is reviewing Jurisdictional Delineation Studies (wetlands and blue line stream) and other regulatory materials for USACE, CDFG and RWQCB. Staff is reviewing 90% design submittal and will meet with CalTrans in the field on November 15, 2002. o Overland Drive Extension - Staff has reviewed 2nd submittal of the draft initial study / Mitigated Negative Declaration and has provided comments to Public Works. o Rancho California Road Bridge Widening - Approved by City Council on September 24, 2002. Council member Pratt is challenging the Negative Declaration. Vail Ranch Middle School Basketball Court Lighting - Negative Declaration prepared, waiting for TCSD and TVUSD to reach an agreement regarding Use Before School to City Council. Project on hold until 2003 or 2004 when ClP funds become available. R:'~vlONTHLY. RPT~.002\October 2002 Report.doc 8 General Plan Amendments A request to reduce the size of Via Industrial (Western Bypass Corridor) north of Avenida Alvarado has been submitted and has been on hold pending the approval of a revised Circulation Element. Eli Lilly General Plan Amendment and Zone Change - The applicant's proposal would involve changing the land use designations to Community Commemial. Staff has accepted applications to change all designations to Community Commercial, with restricted uses at the southwest corner of Overland Drive and Margarita Road. This item is scheduled for Planning Commission on November 20, 2002. Margarita Village Specific Plan - A General Plan Amendment for Pamel Map 22513, amending the land use from Neighborhood Commemial to Community Commemial on 9.77 acres located at the southeast corner of Rancho California Road and Meadows Parkway (954-030-001); Submitted by Venture Point. In addition to the General Plan Amendment the applicant has also submitted a Specific Plan Amendment, Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan. The applications were submitted on May 23, 2002. A DRC meeting was held on August 8, 2002. The project has been scheduled for the December 4, 2002, Planning Commission meeting. Geographic Information System (GIS) Activities Staff has received and reviewed the complete set of Iow elevation digital ortho-photos (imagery) from the Project Design Consultant's contract. Staff anticipates delivery of the set of high elevation photographs and contours at 5-foot intervals for 150 square miles around the City within the month. These data sets will be compressed and viewing software will be purchased so that the imagery will be accessible for all city staff. · Staff continues to conduct system and database management for the City's fullyoperational GIS based Fire Response Program. · Staff continues to make weekly updates to the database and maps for the City's Megan's Law link on the web page. · Staff continues to work with Public Works staff to map storm drain locations with the City's CPS unit. This is an ongoing project, which will take several months to complete. · GIS staff updated the General Plan Land Use Map based on recent City Council actions. · Recent mapping products and data requests include: A series of maps identifying landscape median and slope facilities maintenance areas for Community Services A series of maps for the Fall Rod Run event An Old Town Local Review Board delivery route map for the Planning Department Various aerial vicinity maps for Planning and Redevelopment and Community Services A map defining proposed senior facilities for Redevelopment Mailing labels and site map for the Pechanga Parkway sound wall project for Public Works A map identifying all potential park and ride sites for the City Manager's Office R:'W1ONTHLY.RPT'~2002\October 2002 Report.doc 9 Analysis of vacant land uses in the City and sphere for the Planning Department Analysis of assessed structure values of City owned properties for the Building Department An exhibit highlighting proposed road improvements for the Roripaugh Ranch project for Planning Temeku Hills tracts map for Public Works A map identifying the status of all cell phone antennas A map identifying all properties in tax default for Public Works Updated the Electric Light Parade map for TCSD Maps identifying addresses and parcels for properties to be investigated for Code Enforcement Maps, analysis and mailing labels for the tract near Loma Linda Park for Public Works Maps and aerials for Permits Plus addressing pilot study for Fire, Building, Code Enforcement, Public Works and Planning Maps for potential businesses looking at locating within City for Economic Development Lot analysis and maps for lots around Roripaugh Ranch project for Planning Fault line maps for Building Vicinity, zoning and land use exhibits prepared for Planning Additionally Staff conducted updates to the street centerline data, provided updated data to IS and Fire staff for the Fire Response program and updated MapObjects data for Internet GIS Staff continues with ongoing data layer development and maintenance. R:'uMONTHLY.RPT'~2OO2\October 2002 Report.doc 10 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FIN~_~I~C~ CITY MANAGER ~/~ TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Jim Domenoe, Chief of Polic~)~J November 26, 2002 Monthly Departmental Report The following report reflects special teams, traffic enforcement and miscellaneous activity occurring during October of 2002. The Police Department responded to 34 "priority one" calls for service during the month of October, with an average response time of approximately 5.9 minutes. A total of 3,633 calls for police service were generated in the Cityof Temecula during the month. During October, the Temecula Police Department's Town Center Storefront served a total of 196 customers. Fifty-three sets of fingerprints were taken, 28 people filed police reports and six people had citations signed off. Crime Prevention Officer Lynn Fanene participated in a number of special events, neighborhood watch and community-oriented programs during the month. He also coordinated requests for patrol ride-alongs. Additionally, he continued to provide residential and business security surveys/visits and past crime follow-up. Officer Fanene also continued to process City Planning Department submissions of site plans/conditions. The POP Teams continued to work on the "Crime Free Multi-Housing" project during the month'of October, conducting three inspections of apartments complexes. The teams continued their Warrant Apprehension Program during the month, which resulted in two misdemeanor arrests. The POP Teams continued with their proactive patrol efforts and made a felony arrest and 13 misdemeanor arrests. They also issued 17 citations for various traffic violations. POP Teams also continued with the homeless persons program, with the goal of assisting homeless in finding services and aid to help them. Three homeless sweeps were conducted in October. The Old Town Storefront serves as an office for the POP teams and a location to assist the public with police services. This has greatly increased their accessibility and their ability to serve the Old Town area. During October, the Old Town Storefront served 272 customers. Sixteen sets of fingerprints were taken, 34 reports ~ere written, and 24 citations were signed off. The traffic team reported that during the month of October there were 387 citations issued for hazardous violations, 104 citations were issued for non-hazardous violations and 81 parking citations were issued. During the month there were 22 injury traffic collisions, 96 non-injury collisions were reported and 34 drivers were arrested for DUI. The Neighborhood Enforcement Monthly Departmental Report Page 2 Team (NET) program resulted in 58 citations being issued. This program addresses traffic concerns in residential neighborhoods with a dedicated motor officer. The SLAP program (Stop Light Abuse Program) resulted in 73 citations being issued, with 45 additional SLAP citations issued on overtime. The total number of SLAP citations issued during the month of October was 118. During the month of October, the POP officers assigned to the Promenade Mall handled a total of 67 calls for service. The majority of these calls were for shoplifting investigations. During the month, calls and on-sight activity resulted in the criminal arrest and filings on five misdemeanor cases and one felony case. Officers McEIvain and Rupe continued to provide training to security staff during the month. The mall officers continued to work on vehicle theft and burglary programs. No vehicle burglaries or vehicle thefts occurred during the month of October. This is impressive since other cities in the Inland Empire are currentlystruggting with a large increase in vehicle thefts. Our five school resource officers became very active again in October with the commencement of the school year. They conducted 14 school presentations. The topics of these presentations ranged from "Stranger Danger" to "Inhalants" to "Alcohol." The school resource officers also conducted many counseling sessions with students. A total of 66 investigations/reports were conducted/written by the school resource officers during October. The school resource officers also made 16 arrests for various misdemeanor and felony crimes during October. These crimes ranged from truancy, to possession of marijuana, to making felony terrorist threats. The JOLT program (Juvenile Offender Law Enforcement Program) continues to be a success in part through its Youth Court program. Officer Michelle Medeiros conducted the 98 Youth Court session. The JOLT officer assisted at other schools when needed and conducted follow-ups with parents of juveniles in the JOLT program. Officer Medeiros worked with "at risk" juveniles throughout the month and also conducted counseling sessions with their parents. She also assisted the Riverside County District Attorney's Office and Probation Department by providing training during home visits with incorrigible/at risk juveniles during the month of October. During the month of October, the Special Enforcement Team (SET Team) of Officers John Wade and Michelle Larson handled 11 cases. These cases resulted in 14 misdemeanor and six felony arrests, primarily for narcotics violations. This team continues to work street level narcotics and specialty patrol within the city on a proactive basis. During this month, the team recovered quantities of marijuana and methamphetamine. Volunteers from the community continue to be an integral part of the Temecula Police Department's staff. Under the guidance of volunteer coordinator Officer Bob Ridley and assistant coordinator Gayle Gerrish, the Police Department's volunteer staff contributed 458 hours of service in October. Volunteer assignments include computer data input, logistics support, special event assistance and telephone answering duties. CommunityAction Patrol (CAP) Program volunteers have begun their activities, patrolling the city for graffiti, conducting vacation residential checks and assisting patrol with special logistical needs and special events. Other duties these volunteers will attend to are business checks and abandoned vehicles and traffic control. The goal of the program is high visibility, which prevents crime from occurring. CAP Team members contributed 257 hours of service to the community during the month of October. The reserve officer program and mounted posse are additional valuable volunteer resources available to the police department. The police department utilizes reserve officers to assist with patrol, traffic enforcement, crime prevention, off road vehicle enforcement and a variety of special Monthly Departmental Report Page 3 functions. Reserve police officers worked a total of 182 hours specifically on patrol in Temecula during the month of October. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CITY MANAGER CITY OFTEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer November 26, 2002 Department of Public Works Monthly Activity Report RECOMMENDATION: Attached for City Council's review and filing is the Department of Public Works' Monthly Activity Reports for the month of October, 2002. MOACTRPT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS Monthly Activity Report October / November 2002 Prepared By: Amer Attar Submitted by: William G. Hughes Date: November 26, 2002 PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION 1. First Street Extension - Environmental Mitigation This project will create approximately 1.49 acres of wetlands along Murrieta Creek at First Street. It includes construction of landscaping and irrigation improvements, and maintenance of said improvements for a period of five (5) years in accordance with California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit requirements. ACOE and RCFC are requesting the relocation of the mitigation site to avoid conflict with Murrieta Creek Improvement Project. A letter was sent from the City to ACOE for possible alternate mitigation site. The City is waiting for a response from ACOE concerning the relocation. 2. Pavement Rehabilitation Program - FY 2001/2002 This project will rehabilitate and reconstruct portions of Rancho California Road between Hope Way and Cosmic Drive. R.J. Noble Company is the contractor. This project consists of the removal and replacement of failing portions of Rancho California Road between Hope Way and Cosmic Way. The contractor is R.J. Noble Company. The project was completed ahead of schedule and under budget. Presently, the final billing is being finalized. Notice of Completion for City Council approval is being finalized. 3. Community Theatre - Mercantile Seismic Retrofit This project will create a community theatre at the old Mercantile building in downtown Temecula. 2H Construction began construction on Monday, September 16, 2002. Construction of braced frame grade beam continues with structural steel column placement underway. 4. Citywide A.C. Repairs - FY2001-02 This project will repair various road sections throughout the City. All American Asphalt is the contractor. Construction was completed ahead of schedule. The final billing is being finalized 5. Children's Museum This project will construct a 7,500 square foot children's museum. The contract was awarded at the September 17, 2002, City Council meeting to R.E. Fleming Construction. The contractor has started the demolition work on the exterior of the building. The roofing subcontractor is proceeding with the replacement of the roof. Repair and retrofit of the foundation system on the east side of the building will be required. This will result in a delay of at least two months. R:\MomhlyActivityRepor tXCll~2002\October.doc 6. Rancho Vista Road Drainage Improvements This project will improve the maintenance of the storm drain system on Rancho Vista Road immediately adjacent to the MWD easement. The project was awarded at the September 24, 2002, City Council meeting to McLaughlin Engineering & Mining. The contractor has completed the work and the storm drain system is clear of obstructions. PROJECTS BEING ADVERTISED FOR BIDS None PROJECTS IN DESIGN 1. Pechanga Parkway (Formerly Pala Road) Improvements - Phase II (SR 79 South to Pechanga Road) This project will widen Pechanga Parkway (formerly Pala Road) to its ultimate width from the Pechanga Parkway Bridge to Pechanga road. The City is currently working with Caltrans' Local Assistance and City's Environmental Consultant to expedite the environmental approval process. The Preliminary Environmental Document Classification (NEPA) of the project has been determined to be an "Environmental Assessment". Required technical studies (involving Federal action) will be included in the EA. The consultant submitted 90% drainage design plans to RCFC & WCD for review. Comments from RCFC & WCD are expected the week of November 18, 2002. Work is proceeding with the remainder of the design. 2. Pechanga Parkway (Formerly Pala Road) Sound Wall Improvements Under this project, sound walls will be designed and constructed on the southwest side of Pechanga Parkway, from Rainbow Canyon Road to the Pechanga casino and on the northeast side along the residences just north of Loma Linda. The City sent plan check comments (90%) to the design consultant for their review and incorporation into the plans. The 90% design plans were sent to all utilities and affected HOA's for review. Environmental issues have been identified and documents were prepared. The construction contract will be awarded in December 2002 and actual construction will begin in January or February. Work is being coordinated with the Pechanga Parkway Improvements - Phase II Project. 3. Rancho California Road Bridge Widening Over Murrieta Creek This project will widen Rancho California Road Bridge over Murrieta Creek to provide four additional traffic lanes. The design consultant is currently making final revisions to the drawings and specifications. Processing for environmental requirements is scheduled for completion by late November 2002. The project is scheduled to be bid by early December 2002. 2 R:~Vl onthlyActivilyRepor t\C IP~2002\Ocmber.doc 4. Temecula Library A full service library, approximately 34,000 square feet in area, will be designed and built on Pauba Road, just west of Fire Station #84. This project will provide the community with library resources and services. A separate parcel has been created for the library for bond purposes. The application to the State was submitted on June 13, 2002. Utility services construction will be coordinated with Pauba Road, Phase II Street Improvements. 5. Pauba Road Improvements - Phase II (Margarita Road to Showalter Road) This project will widen Pauba Road from Showalter to just west of Margarita Road to its ultimate width. The City has reviewed the 100% Design Plans submitted bythe consultant. Specifications are under review. Plans were sent to all utilities and utility issues are being addressed. Environmental issues were identified by the City Planning Department and they are preparing the documents. Work is being coordinated with the library project. 6. John Warner Road Assessment District - Hydrology Study Under this project a drainage study will be done to compliment the improvement plans being done by the property owners. Eventually the City will be the oversight agency for a property owners sponsored assessment district. An agreement amendment was approved by City Council on October 8, 2002. ERSC submitted a revised hydrology study with storm drain alternatives on 10/30/02. The City will choose a preferred alternative this reporting period. The Storm Drain design on the preferred alternative and Engineer's Cost Estimate preparation will continue during the next reporting period. 7. Landscaping and Sidewalk On SR 79 South (Front Street to Pechanga Parkway) The project consists of the design and construction of new sidewalk, landscaping, and irrigation along State Route 79 South between Pechanga Parkway and Old Town Front Street. Review of 1st plan submittal is complete. However, the project scope was modified. The modifications were incorporated into 60% submittal, and the plans were re-submitted to Caltrans. Caltrans tentatively approved the plans, and final revisions are being made. An agreement between the City and the California Sunset HOA is being drafted. 8. Temecula Sports Complex A new 40+ Acres sports complex will be built at the corner of Pechanga Parkway and Deer Hollow Way. Conceptual Master Plan is scheduled to be presented to Community Services Commission on December 9, 2002, and to City Council on the first meeting in January for approval to begin the construction documents. Existing facility maps for Pechanga Parkway and Deer Hollow Way have been received from utility companies. 9. Bridge Barrier Rail Upgrade, Rainbow Canyon Road over Pechanga Creek/Del Rio Road over Empire Creek This project will replace the existing barrier rails of the Rainbow Canyon Bridge over Pechanga Creek and the Del Rio Road Bridge over Empire Creek. Simon Wong Engineering (SWE) delivered the 100% Plans and the Engineer's Cost Estimate in early October. Specifications are being finalized. The construction-funding request is being prepared and will be submitted to Caltrans as soon as possible. 3 R:~/ionthlyActivityReport~CIP~2002\October.dcc 10. Fire Station - Wolf Creek Site A fire station will be built at the Wolf Creek Site. Building & Safety has reviewed the second submittal and provided plan check comments. Plans were approved with the exception of the grading plans. Wolf Creek development plans have revised the roadway elevations. The precise grading plan must be revised accordingly. We are waiting for the final elevation from the Developer. 11. Pavement Management System Update The project will establish a pavement management program that will provide an on-going schedule of needed repairs and provide data that will be used to prepare budget estimates required to complete the scheduled work. GIS links, AutoCAD review, and updates to MicroPAVER are included in the total program. The consultant will submit the final draft pavement study to the City by the end of November 2002. The consultant has conducted three MicroPAVER training sessions for Public Works staff. 12. Vail Ranch Park (Near Pauba Valley School) - Add Amenities This project will add amenities, including play equipment to the recently annexed Vail Ranch Park. RHA Landscape Architects/Planners Inc. is the design firm. First submittal was made on May 3rd. The City reviewed these documents and returned them to the consultant for revisions. The City and RHA met on 7/31/02 to discuss these comments and revisions are being made. Soil samples were taken and results were provided to TCSD on 8/28/02. TCSD is having a grading plan prepared and it should be submitted in 12/02. Once the grading plan is received, the design documents can be finalized. 13. Murrieta Creek Multi Purpose Trail This project will build portions of the equestrian and bike trails along Murrieta Creek within City limits. The City has received a federal grant of $1,214,000. Caltrans has given the City the "Authorization to Proceed with Preliminary Engineering." A Request For Proposals (RFP) #111 was issued and ten proposals were received. The City is interviewing the top four consultants on Tuesday, November 19, 2002. 14. State Route 79 South Medians Under this project medians will be constructed on State Route 79 South within the City of Temecula limits. A Request For Proposal (RFP) was sent out to consultants during the week of November 4, 2002. Responses are due back on November 27, 2002. 15. Diaz Road Realignment Under this project, Diaz Road will be realigned to Vincent Moraga Road at Rancho California Road. Business Park Drive will be a T-intersection at Diaz. City staff is currently designing the project. Street and landscaping design completion is scheduled for November 2002. A signal for Rancho Way has been added and is currently under design. Right of Way and environmental processing are anticipated to be complete by November of 2002. 16. Rancho California Road Median Modifications at Town Center The project will include the closing of the two median openings on Rancho California Road in front of the Town Center, while lengthening the left turn lanes at Ynez Road, Town Center Drive, and Via Los Colinas to improve traffic circulation. The design is 100% complete. To avoid construction 4 R:~41onthlyActivityReport\CIP~2002\October.doc during the holiday period, bidding will not begin until November with construction starting in January 2003. This project will be combined with PWO0-20. 17. Rancho California Road Widening at Ynez Road (Add right turn lane to westbound lanes) This project will add a right turn lane on westbound Rancho California Road at Ynez Road. Right of way acquisition at the northeast corner of Rancho California and Ynez is in process with Claim Jumper Restaurant and Swedish American Corporation signing the acquisition agreements. In- house design is 90% complete. To avoid construction during the holiday period, bidding will not begin until November with construction starting in January 2003. This project will be combined with PW00-02. 18. Winchester Road Widening Between Enterprise Circle and Jefferson This project will widen Winchester mad between Enterprise Circle and Jefferson Avenue. It will also add a right turn lane from Eastbound Winchester to Southbound Jefferson, starting at Enterprise Cimle. Project layout was plotted and discussed with Traffic and the Director of Public Works. In- house design continues, with recent modifications to the design being implemented. 19. Rancho California Sports Park ADA Access and Shade Structure This project entails the design and construction of ADA compliant concrete walkways to the remaining ball fields, 3,4,5,7 & 8. It will also include the installation of two shade picnic/seating areas adjacent to the snack bar building. Design work is 80% complete. Currently the second plan submittal is being revised. Specifications are being finalized and will be submitted with next plan submittal and will be submitted for review by end of the week of November 18, 2002. PROJECTS IN THE PLANNING STAGE 1. 1-15/SR 79 South Interchange - Project Study Report (PSR) This project will modify the I-15/SR 79 South Intemhange to accommodate projected future traffic. The City received the final Value Engineering Analysis Report from Caltrans on May 8, 2002. All the proposed alignments presented bythe value analysis team were rejected. A meeting between the City and Caltrans staff occurred on 9/11/02 to discuss the project. The City's consultant provided an alignment modification with supporting traffic data to Caltrans on 10/02/02. Caltrans provided comments and the consultant is working to address those comments. 2. French Valley Parkway Overcrossing and Interchange, Project Report (PR), Plans Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E) Preparation This project will construct an interchange between Winchester Road Interchange and the 1-15/I-215 split. On October 3, 2002 five consultants were interview by a seven-member panel consisting of Caltrans, City of Murrieta, and City of Temecula personnel. The interview process included a presentation by each consultant and a questions/answers period. The panel has recommended the most qualified consultant. The consultant will be providing the City a Project Report (PR), and Environmental Documents (ED} for this first phase of the design process. Staff is currently in negotiations with the chosen consultant. Once the City completes negotiations with the consultant, 5 R:'aMonthlyActivityReport\ClPx2002\October.doc staff will bring a recommendation to the City Council. 3. Murrieta Creek Bridge - Overland Drive Extension to Diaz Road This project will entail alignment studies and the design of an extension of Overland Drive, westerly to Diaz Road, which includes a new bridge over Murrieta Creek. The project includes the widening of Overland Drive from Jefferson Avenue to Commeme Center Drive, and the extension of Overland Drive across Murrieta Creek to Diaz Road. PDC has completed the alignment study and staff has reviewed copies of the preliminary plans. Staff has reviewed design costs for next year's fiscal funding. No funding until FY03-04 4. Alignment Study for Murrieta Creek Bridge Between Winchester Road and Temecula City Limits and Diaz Road Extension This study will determine the alignment and location of the Murrieta Creek crossing between Winchester Road and the northern City Limits. In addition, the study will be combined with the Diaz Road Extension alignment study and design. Coordination with the City of Murrieta, Riverside County Flood Control and Army Corps of Engineers is necessary. The Consultant and Staff met with Riverside County Flood Control to discuss possible alignments. The consultant is currently awaiting data from Riverside County Flood Control in order to complete the work on the first draft of the alignment study. Staff was informed this data could take up to a year to receive (from May 2002). 5. Pedestrian Crossing- SR 79 North at Nicolas Road City met with Caltrans and sent a letter at their request to initiate this project. Caltrans responded in a letter that the bridge does not meet their warrents and that they will not support nor will they allow its construction. The final feasibility report was received from the consultant. The City Council did not approve the construction of this pedestrian crossing. PROJECTS THAT ARE SUSPENDED OR ON-HOLD 1. Santa Gertrudis Bridge Widening at 1-15 This is Phase II of the Southbound Auxiliary Lane project at the southbound exit ramp for Winchester Road. This project will widen the 1-15 southbound exit-ramp at the Santa Gertrudis Creek Bridge to provide an additional lane on the exit ramp just north of Winchester Road. Staff is revisiting the merits of this project in light of the Project Study Report for French Valley Parkway Interchange. The study shows that this bridge may have to be removed in the future to accommodate the new Interchange. This project is suspended indefinitely. 2. Margarita Road/Winchester Road Intersection Improvements Project is on hold. Under this project, an additional left turn from eastbound Winchester to northbound Margarita will be added in order to accommodate increasing traffic volumes. Design is 50% complete. A developer will be doing this project. 6 R:'~MonthlyActivityRepo~CIP~2002\October.doc 3. Pujol Street Sidewalk Improvements - Phase II Project is on hold. This project will complete the knuckle at the intersection of Sixth Street and Felix Valdez. The developer of a nearby property may be designing and constructing this project. 4. School Site ADA Improvements Project has been removed from this year's ClP. Design and construct ADA concrete walkways and hand railing to athletic facilities at Temecula Middle School, James L. Day Middle School and Margarita Middle School. TCSD re-allocated the funds. 5. City Hall Parking Lot Modifications Project is on-hold. Funding has been postponed until FY 2004/2005. Under this project, a security fence will be installed between the existing maintenance facility and the western side of City Hall to secure the parking lot west of the main building. The design of a security fence between the existing maintenance facility and the western side of City Hall will be performed in-house. A scoping meeting was held on November 12, 2001. Research on existing base maps for the proposed area and as-builts for the existing security fence near the maintenance facility is complete. Design and review of the proposed layout is complete. The project is currently on hold waiting for further direction 7 R:XMonthlyActivityRepo~t\CIPX2002\October.doc ,,g "'T- I,LI I-- Z W LU --I ..8 ,,g iii I-- Z iii iii 0 n --I o ,,g wT- U,I I-- Z LU ILl 0 13: .,J 0 LLI ,,8 I,U I-- Z LLI I,LI 0 --I 0 o~ mmm (/3 I-- Z mmm mmm 0 m I-- <~ 0 TO: FROM: DATE: MEMORANDUM Bill Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer (~7j~ Brad Buron, Maintenance Superintendent November 5, 2002 SUBJECT: Monthly Activity Report - October, 2002 The following activities were performed by Public Works Department, Street Maintenance Division in-house personnel for the month of October, 2002: I. SIGNS A. Total signs replaced 174 B. Total signs installed C. Total signs repaired 81 I1. TREES A. Total trees trimmed for sight distance and street sweeping concerns 4 2~826 63 408 100 84 7~036 II1. ASPHALT REPAIRS A. Total square feet of A. C. repairs B. Total Tons IV. CATCH BASINS A. Total catch basins cleaned RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED ABATEMENT A. Total square footage for right-of-way abatement Vi. GRAFFITI REMOVAL A. Total locations B. Total S.F. VII. STENCILING A. 617 New and repainted legends B. -0- L.F. of new and repainted red curb and stdping R:t~iAINTAIN~MOACTRFrI~J U LY 2002* JUNE 20031OCTOBER.02.DOC Also, City Maintenance staff responded to 41 service order requests ranging from weed abatement, tree trimming, sign repair, A.C. failures, litter removal, and catch basin cleanings. This is compared to 62 service order requests for the month of September, 2002. The Maintenance Crew has also put in 388 hours of overtime which includes standby time, special events and response to street emergencies. The total cost for Street Maintenance performed by Contractors for the month of October, 2002 was $38t125.00 compared to $15,054.00 for the month of September, 2002. Account No. 5402 $ 12,120.00 Account No. 5401 $ 26,005.00 Account No. 999-5402 $ - 0 - CC: Ron Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works Ali Moghadam, Senior Engineer (CIP/Traffic) Greg Butler, Senior Engineer (Capital Improvements) Amer Attar, Senior Engineer (Capital Improvements) Jerry Alegria, Senior Engineer (Land Development) R:\MAINTAINU~OACTRP'P,J U LY 2002- JUNE 20031OCTOBER.02.DOC ~Owo STREET MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS The following contractors have performed the following projects for the month of October, 2002 DATE DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST ACCOUNT STREET/CHANNEL/BRIDGE OF WORK SIZE CONTRACTOR: BECKER ENGINEERING Date: 10/15/02 PREECE AT YNEZ PLACE RIP-RAP AND SLURRY ON LA SIERRA ROAD CHANNEL SIDES # 5401 TOTAL COST $ 5,220.00 Date: 10/23/02 VALLE JO CHANNEL REINFORCE VOIDS IN CHANNEL WITH 5 SACK SLURRY 5401 TOTAL COST I $ 9,320.00 Date: 10/24/02 CALLE GIRASOL AT WALCOTT REINFORCE VOIDS IN CHANNEL WITH 5 CHANNELS SACK SLURRY # 5401 TOTAL COST $ 5,465.00 Date: 10/16/02 CITYWIDE SAW CUTTING OF A.C. FOR PUBLIC WORKS PATCH CREW # 5402 TOTAL COST $ 2,120.00 CONTRACTOR: MONTELEONE EXCAVATING Date: 10/11/02 JEDEDIAH SMITH AND REMOVE SILT AND DEBRIS FROM CALLE MEDUSA CHANNELS CHANNELS # 5401 TOTAL COST $ 6,000.00 CONTRACTOR: RENE'S COMMERCIAL MANAGEMENT Date: 10/02 ClTYWIDE R.O.W.'S REMOVE WEEDS, TRASH AND DEBRIS ~SPECIAL EVENTS" FROM CITY R.O.W.'S # 5402 TOTAL COST $ 2,'120.00 TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #5401 $ 26,005.00 TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #5402 $ '12,120.00 TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #99-5402 -0- R:t MAINTAIN\MOACTRPT~J U LY 2002- JUNE 2003\OCTOBER 02.DOC CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION ASPHALT (POTHOLES) REPAIRS MONTH OF OCTOBER, 2002 DATE LOCATION SCOPE OF WORK S.F. TOTAL TONS 10/01/01 MEADOWVIEW DOWN SPOUTS A.C. OVERLAY 156 1.5 10/02/02 40415 CALLE TORCIDA A.C. OVERLAY 584 4.5 10/03/02 AVENIDA DEL SOL A.C. R&R 168 3.5 10/07/02 AVENIDA DEL REPOSO A.C. R&R 144 5 10/08/02 30145 CORTE PLATA A.C. R&R 184 5 10/09/02 30145 CORTE PLATA A.C. R&R 198 5 10/10/02 MEADOWS PARKWAY AT CASERENA A.C. R&R 100 3.5 10/14/02 VIA PUESTA DEL SOL AT RAYO DEL SOL A.C. R&R 193 6.5 10/15/02 VIA PUESTA DEL SOL AT RAYO DEL SOL A.C. R&R 140 6.5 10/17/02 VIA PUESTA DEL SOL AT RAYO DEL SOL A.C. OVERLAY 122 3.5 10/23/02 30330 CHURCH HILL A.C. R&R 149 3.5 10/24/02 30330 CHURCH HILL A.C. R&R 216 6 10/28/02 30333 CHURCH HILL A.C. R&R 282 6.5 10/31/02 30333 CHURCH HILL A.C. CAP 290 2.5 TOTAL S.F. OF REPAIRS 2,826 TOTAL TONS 63 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION STENCILS / STRIPING MONTH OF OCTOBER, 2002 DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 10/01/02 LA SERENA AT MARGARITA REPA1NTED 40 LEGENDS 10/02/02 PAUBA EAST OF YNEZ REPA1NTED 40 LEGENDS 10/03/02 RANCHO VISTA EAST OF YNEZ REPAINTED 68 LEGENDS 10/07/02 OLD TOWN REPAINTED 87 LEGENDS 10/08/02 OLD TOWN REPAINTED 210 LEGENDS 10/10/02 AREA #1 REPAINTED 37 LEGENDS 10/16/02 AREA #1 REPAINTED 43 LEGENDS 10/17/02 AREA #1 REPAINTED 41 LEGENDS 10/23/02 AREA #I REPAINTED 23 LEGENDS 10/24/02 AREA #1 REPAINTED 28 LEGENDS TOTAL NEW & REPAINTED LEGENDS 617 NEW & REPAINTED RED CURB & STRIPING L.F. -0- CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION RIGHT-OF-WAY TREE TRIMMING MONTH OF OCTOBER, 2002 DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 10/07/02 VAIL RANCH AT SILKY PASS TRIMMED 2 R.O.W. TREES 10/10/02 28717 PUJOL TRIMMED 2 R.O.W. TKEES TOTAL R.O.W. TREES TRIMMED 4 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED ABATEMENT MONTH OF OCTOBER, 2002 DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 10/21/02 WINCHESTER AT 1-15 ABATED 100 S.F.R.O.W. WEEDS TOTAL S.F.R.O.W. WEEDS ABATED 100 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION CATCH BASIN MAINTENANCE MONTH OF OCTOBER, 2002 DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 10/01/02 AREA gl CLEANED & CHECKED 14 UNDER SIDEWALKS 10/03/02 AREA gl CLEANED & CHECKED 11 CATCH BASINS 10/07/02 CITYWIDE CLEANED & CHECKED 11 CATCH BASINS 10/07/02 AREA gl CLEANED & CHECKED 25 UNDER SIDEWALKS 10/08/02 AREA gl CLEANED & CHECKED 55 UNDER SIDEWALKS 10/14/02 AREA gl CLEANED & CHECKED 34 CATCH BASINS 10/15/02 AREA gl CLEANED & CHECKED 38 UNDER SIDEWALKS 10/16/02 AREA #2 CLEANED & CHECKED 24 UNDER SIDEWALKS 10/17/02 AREA #2 CLEANED & CHECKED 31 CATCH BASINS 10/22/02 CITYWIDE CLEANED & CHECKED 10 CATCH BASINS 10/23/02 AREA #2 CLEANED & CHECKED 23 UNDER SIDEWALKS 10/24/02 AREAS #2 & 3 CLEANED & CHECKED 18 CATCH BASINS 10/28/02 AREA #3 CLEANED & CHECKED 12 UNDER SIDEWALKS 10/29/03 AREA #3 CLEANED & CHECKED 33 UNDER SIDEWALKS 10/30/02 AREA gl CLEANED & CHECKED 25 CATCH BASINS 10/30/02 AREA #3 CLEANED & CHECKED 26 UNDER SIDEWALKS 10/31/02 AREA gl CLEANED & CHECKED 18 CATCH BASINS TOTAL CATCH BASINS CLEANED & CHECKED 408 CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION GRAFFITI REMOVAL MONTH OF OCTOBER, 2002 DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 10/01/02 BOCAW AT PIUTE REMOVED 4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/03/02 VAIL RANCH PARKWAY AT HARMONY REMOVED 4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/04/02 1-15 FWY BOX CULVERT REMOVED 4,679 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/07/02 JEFFERSON AT SANBORN REMOVED 8 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/09/02 26730 YNEZ COURT (3 LOCATIONS) REMOVED 98 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/0902 26770 YNEZ COURT (3 LOCATIONS) REMOVED 5 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/09/02 26720 YNEZ COURT (5 LOCATIONS) REMOVED 8 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/09/02 27360 YNEZ COURT (2 LOCATIONS) REMOVED 4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/09/02 SOLANA AT YNEZ REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/10/02 YNEZ COURT (5 LOCATIONS) REMOVED 468 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/10/02 30580 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD REMOVED 3 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/14/02 40406 CHAUNCEY WAY REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/14/02 26580 YNEZ ROAD REMOVED 4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/15/02 MORAGA AT MARGARITA REMOVED 4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/15/02 SUNNY MEADOWS AT JEREZ REMOVED 22 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/15/02 SUNNY MEADOWS AT CORBIE REMOVED 4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/15/02 HEREZ AT MODENA DRIVE REMOVED 25 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/16/02 42145 LYNDIE LANE (5 LOCATIONS) REMOVED 322 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/16/02 42130 LYNDIE LANE (5 LOCATIONS) REMOVED 112 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/17/02 YNEZ AT TOWN CENTER REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/17/02 27489 YNEZ REMOVED 3 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/17/02 30570 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD REMOVED 14 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/17/02 28816 PUJOL (6 LOCATIONS) REMOVED 42 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/21/02 27555 YNEZ ROAD REMOVED 105 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/23/02 28790 PUJOL REMOVED 48 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/23/02 27468 YNEZ REMOVED 8 S.F. OF GRAFFITI DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 10/24/02 41925 YNEZ REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/24/02 27520 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD (5 LOCATIONS) REMOVED 39 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/24/02 40520 WINCHESTER. REMOVED 34 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/24/02 VERDES LANE AT MARGARITA REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/24/02 OVERLAND AT MARGARITA REMOVED 1 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/24/02 SOLANA AT MARGARITA (2 LOCATIONS) REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/24/02 WOLF STORE AT MARGARITA REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/25/02 MARGARITA AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA R.OAD REMOVED 25 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/25/02 30530 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD REMOVED 210 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/25/02 30550 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD (2 LOCATIONS) REMOVED 236 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/25/02 30590 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD (2 LOCATIONS) REMOVED 4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/25/02 30570 RANCHO CALIFORNA ROAD (2 LOCATIONS) REMOVED 222 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/25/02 27471 YNEZ ROAD (2 LOCATIONS) REMOVED 156 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/28/02 27473 YNEZ REMOVED 4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/28/02 28100 JEFFERSON REMOVED 4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/29/02 MARGARITA AT YUKON REMOVED 4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/29/02 WINCHESTER AT PROMENADE MALL REMOVED 12 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/29/02 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT LYNDIE LANE REMOVED 20 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/29/02 29750 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD REMOVED 38 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/30/02 40575 WINCHESTER REMOVED 4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/30/02 AVENIDA ALVARADO REMOVED 12 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/31/02 MEADOWS PARKWAY AT ROYAL OAKS REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI 10/31/02 MEADOWS PARKWAY AT PARDUCCI REMOVED 2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI TOTAL S.F. GRAFFITI REMOVED 7~036 TOTAL LOCATIONS 84 0 Z CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION SIGNS MONTH OF OCTOBER, 2002 DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 10/01/02 MERCEDES AT 2Nr~ STREET REPLACED G-93, G-33 10/01/02 DIAZ AT REMINGTON REPLACED R-26 10/01/02 RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD. AT OLD TOWN FRONT STREET REPLACED W4 1 10/02/02 AREA #5 REPLACED 22 S.N.S. 10/02/02 REDHAWK AT OVERLAND REPLACED R-I, R-l-3 10/02/02 HAEIZ AT OVERLAND ~,EPLACED R-1 10/03/02 aREA #5 REPLACED 9 S.N.S. 10/03/02 PASEO PARK REPLACED R-1 10/03/02 VALENTINO WAY AT VAIL RANCH REPLACED R-1 10/07/02 JEFFERSON AT SANBORN REPLACED 2 TYPE "N" 10/07/02 VAIL RANCH PARKWAY REPAIRED 20 SIGNS 10/07/02 VAIL RANCH AT JOHNSON REPAIRED R7 10/07/02 VAIL RANCH AT CAMINO PIEDRA ROJO REPLACED TYPE K 10/07/02 AREA #5 REPLACED 6 S.N.S. 10/07/02 MANCERAT VERDES LANE REPLACED R-1 10/08/02 JEFFERSON AT WINCHESTER REPLACED R-7, R-7A, K MARKER 10/08/02 CAMPOS VERDES AT MANCIERA REPLACED S.N.S. 10/08/02 MERCEDES AT 6TM STREET REPLACED 2 R-1 10/08/02 PdDGEPORT AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD REPLACED R-1 10/08/02 WINCHESTER AT YNEZ REPLACED R-7 10/08/02 YNEZ ROAD SOUTH OF WINCHESTER REPAIRED 9 SIGNS 10/09/02 JEFFERSON NORTH OF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD REPAIRED 3 SIGNS DATEI LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 10/09/02 SOLANA WEST OF YNEZ REPLACED R-7 10/10/02 6TM STREET REPLACED R-100 10/10/02 ;w~ STREET AT MERCEDES REPLACED R-1 10/10/02 tSt STREET REPLACED 2 TYPE "N" 10/10/02 41435 COUR BEAU-NE REPLACED W-53 10/11/02 ViORENO AT FRONT REPLACED R-1 10/14/02 CALLE MEDUSA REPAIRED 12 SIGNS 10/14/02 CALLE MEDUSA REPLACED W-17, R-2-25 10/54/02 26845 YNEZ REPLACED K MARKER 10/15/02 AREA #5 REPLACED 8 S.N.S. 10/15/02 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD ~ HWY 79 SO. REPAIRED 5 SIGNS 10/15/02 EREZ AT MODENA DRIVE REPLACED R-7 10/16/02 ~ANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT MORAGA REPLACED W-41 10/16/02 29960 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD INSTALLED 4 CRIME FREE HOUSING 10/16/02 M~EA #5 REPLACED 8 S.N.S. 10/17/02 30000 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD REPLACED R-7 10/17/02 AREA #5 REPLACED 8 S.N.S., 2 R-I 10/18/02 WINCHESTER EAST OF YNEZ REPLACED R26-F 10/21/02 AVENIDA BARCA AT MARGARITA INSTALLED 4 R-28 10/22/02 AREA #5 REPLACED 9 S.N.S. 10/23/02 AKEA #5 REPLACED 22 S.N.S. 10/23/02 CAMINO OTILLA AT CAMINO RUBANO REPLACED R-1 10/24/02 AREA #5 REPLACED 11 S.N.S. 10/24/02 TEHACHAPI AT REGINA REPLACED R-1 10/24/02 VAIL RANCH AT OVERLAND DRIVE REPLACED R-7 10/28/02 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT VIA LAS COLINAS REPLACED R-7 10/28/02 AREA #5 REPLACED 8 S.N.S. DATE LOCATION WORK COMPLETED 10/28/02 RISING HILL AT WINCHESTER CREEK REPLACED R-1 10/28/02 CITYWIDE KEPAIRED 7 SIGNS 10/29/01 AREA #5 REPLACED 8 S.N.S., 2 R-1 10/29/02 YNEZ AT SOLANA REPLACED R-7 10/29/02 CITYWIDE REPAIRED 14 SIGNS 10/30/02 ROCK BLUFF AT LONG RIDGE REPLACED W53 10/30/02 YNEZ AT PALM PLAZA REPLACED R-7 10/30/02 YNEZ AT OVERLAND REPLACED 1{-7 10/30/02 6TM STREET AT MERCEDES INSTALLED 2 W-6, 2 W-32 10/30/02 PAUBA AT MARGARITA INSTALLED R-7 10/30/02 CITYW1DE REPAIRED 12 SIGNS 10/31/02 NORTH GENERAL KEARNY W/O CAMINO CAMPOS VERDES REPLACED R-63, W-11 TOTAL SIGNS REPLACED 174 TOTAL SIGNS INSTALLED 13 TOTAL SIGNS REPAIRED 81 R:kMAFNTAINV~KCMPLT D~S IGNS/02 -03\OCTOBER CITY OF TEMECULA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ROADS DIVISION SERVICE ORDER REQUEST LOG MONTH OF, 2002 DATE LOCATION REQUEST DATE WORK RECEIVED COMPLETED 10/01/02 31126 RUIDOSA STREET V-DITCH CLEANING 10/01/02 10/02/02 41735 CHABLIS COURT REPLACE S.N.S. 10/02/02 10/02/02 31585 CORTE SALINAS TREE TRIMMING 10/02/02 10/02/02 41735 CHABLIS COURT S.N.S. LOOSE 10/902/02 10/03/02 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT BUSINESS PARK DEBRIS CLEAN-UP 10/03/02 10/04/02 31265 HIAWATHA COURT TREE REPLACEMENT 10/04/02 10/04/02 27144 GREENSTONE STRIPING REPAINT 10/04/02 10/04/02 31660 PASEO GOLETA TREE TRIMMING 10/04/02 10/07/02 41660 BIG SAGE COURT STUMP CRINGING 10/07/02 10/07/02 30953 LOMALINDA ROAD P.C.C. REPAIR 10/07/02 10/08/02 29977 MARGARITA DEBRIS PICK-UP 10/08/02 10/08/02 31436 CORTE SONORA TREE TRIMMING 10/08/02 10/08/02 38760 SKY CANYON DRIVE ::)EBRIS PICK-UP 10/08/02 10/09/02 41475 COUR BEAUNE W-53 MISSING 10/09/02 10/10/02 41876 5TM STREET ROOT PRUNE 10/10/02 10/11/02 31787 KLARER LANE DEBRIS PICK-UP 10/11/02 10/11/02 30165 CORTE CARNIZO DEBRIS PICK-UP 10/11/02 10/11/02 31945 VINEYARD AVENUE DEBRIS IN GUTTER 10/09/02 10/14/02 30345 COLINA VERDE A,C, REPAIR 10/14/02 10/14/02 43922 SASARI DEBRIS PICK-UP 10/14/02 10/14/02 HWY 79 SO. AT MARGARITA SINKHOLE 10/14/02 10/14/02 YNEZ POTHOLES 10/14/02 10/15/02 SHOREWOOD AT NIGHTCREST DEBRIS PICK-UP 10/15/02 10/15/02 SANTIAGO ROAD AT CORTE ALMONTE DEBRIS PICK-UP 10/15/02 10/17/02 42031 HUMBER DRIVE SINKHOLE 10/17/02 DATE LOCATION REQUEST DATE WORK · ECEIVED COMPLETED 10/17/02 SOLANA AT MARGARITA DEBRIS PICK-UP 10/18/02 10119/02 30457 SIERRA MADRE SIGN REPAIR 10/19/02 10/21/02 41270 ViA AQUILA GRAVEL IN STREET 10/21/02 10/21/02 30380 DEL REY ROAD A.C. REPAIRS 10/21/02 10/24/02 28500 FRONT STREET MAILBOX REPAIRS 10124/02 10/24/02 27598 COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE TREE REMOVAL 10/24/02 10/25/02 30546 IRON BARK TREE TRIMMING 10/25/02 10/25/02 29619 STONEWOOD DEBRIS PICK-UP 10/25/02 10/28/02 32398 CORTESAN VINCENTE TREE TRIMMING 10/28/02 10/29/02 31780 CALLE REDONDELA MANHOLE COVER LOOSE 10/29/02 10/29/02 44501 RAINBOW CANYON ROAD SiGN DOWN 10/29/02 10/30/02 31605 CALLE GIRASOL A.C. REPAIRS 10/30/02 10/30/02 41672 BIG SAGE COURT TREE TRIMMING 10/30/02 10/30/02 33087 CORTE GANSO S.N.S. REPAIR 10/30/02 10/30/02 41777 CARLETON WAY R.P.M.'S MISSING 10/30/02 10/31/02 30980 CALLE FUENTE DRAINGAGE CONCERN 10/31/02 TOTAL SERVICE ORDER REQUESTS 41