HomeMy WebLinkAbout041205 CC Agenda
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will
enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104
ADA Title II]
AGENDA
TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
A REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
APRIL 12, 2005 - 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 10:00 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 10:00 P.M.
6:00 P.M. - Closed Session of the City Council pursuant to Government Code
Sections:
1. Conferen.ce with City Attorney and legal counsel pursuant to Government
Code Section 54957.6 with respect to labor negotiations. The negotiating
parties are the City of Temeculaand California Teamsters Local 911. City
negotiators lire Shawn Nelson, Jim O'Grady, and Grant Yates.
2. Conferenc.e with real property negotiator pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8 regarding real property negotiations located at the following
location: APN 922-024-012 and APN 922-024-013, located at the north side of
Fifth Street, west of Mercedes. The negotiating parties are the City of
TemeculaJRedevelopment Agency and Todd and Bill Dalton.. Under
negotiation are the price and terms of payment of real property interests. The
City/Agencynegotiators are Shawn Nelson, Jim O'Grady, and John Meyer.
3. Conference With City Attorney and legal counsel pursuant to Government
Code Section 54956.9(a) with respect to one mlltter of existing litigation
inv()lvillgtheCity. The following case will be discussed: 1. City of Temecula
v.. County of Riverside (RCIP litigation - Riverside County Superior Court
Cas.e No. (02766).
Public Information concerning existing litigation between the City and various
parties may be acquired by reviewing the public documents held by the City
Clerk.
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. 2005-05
Resolution: No. 2005-38
CALL TO ORDER:
Mayor Jeff Comerchero
Prelude Music:
R:\Agenda1032205
Joshua and Kevin Jurkosky
1
Invocation:
Pastor Lou Dawson, Rancho Baptist Church
Flag Salute:
Councilwoman Edwards
ROLL CALL:
Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington, Comerchero
PRESENT ATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
Child Abuse Prevention Month
PUBLIC COMMENTS
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 filed 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
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will
be enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless
Members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent
Calendar for separate action.
1 Standard Ordinance and Resolution Adootion Procedure
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the
agenda.
2 Resolution aoorovina List of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. OS-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
R:\Agenda1032205
2
3 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Approve the minutes of March 8, 2005;
3.2 Approve the minutes of March 22, 2005;
3.3 Approve the minutes of March 31,2005.
4 Citv Treasurer's Reoort
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of February 28, 2005.
5 Parcel Mao No. 31898. located south of Wolf Vallev Road and East of Pechanlla Parkway
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Approve Parcel Map No. 31898 in conformance with the Conditions of Approval.
6 Second Amendment to Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Annual Citywide Routine Maintenance
Contract
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Approve the Second Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Annual Citywide
Maintenance Contract with Monteleone Contractors, Inc. for an amount of
$50,000.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment.
7 Award the Construction Contract for the Temecula Public Library. Proiect No. PWOO-07
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Award a construction contract for the Temecula Public Library, Project No. PWOO-
07, to EDGE Development, Inc., in the amount of $11 ,757,812.30, and authorize the
Mayor to execute the contract.
7.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the
contingency amount of $1,175,781.20, which is equal to 10% of the contract
amount.
7.3 Approve the acceleration of appropriated budgeted funds in FY2005-2006 to
FY2004-2005 in the amount of $8,671,570.00.
7.4 Approve a transfer in the amount of $1,700,000.00 from the Maintenance
Facility/Field Operation Center to the Temecula Library Project.
R:\Agenda1032205
3
8 Reaccointment of Animal Shelter Liaison/JPA Recresentative
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Appoint Council member Maryann Edwards as the City's representative on the
Board of Directors of the Southwest Communities Financing Authority.
9 Resolution of succort for Providina Necessarv Infrastructure for Regional Goods
Movement Including Secarate Rail Crossings
(At the request of Councilman Naggar)
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. OS-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE EFFORTS OF THE CITY OF
RIVERSIDE AND THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SCAG) TO ADDRESS
THE CHALLENGES RELATED TO CREATING A REGIONAL
GOOD MOVEMENT SYSTEM THAT CONSTRUCTS GRADE
SEPARATED RAIL CROSSINGS; ESTABLISHES HIGHWAY
PROJECTS DEDICATED TO GOODS MOVEMENT; AND
IDENTIFIES PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FINANCING
ALTERNATIVES TO CONSTRUCT THE NEARLY $3.5 BILLION
IN RAIL AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS NECESSARY TO
SUPPORT THE SYSTEM AND PROTECT THE REGION'S
ECONOMIC VIABILITY
10 Resolution of Occosition to the Granite Quarrv Proiect
(At the request of Mayor Comerchero)
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. OS-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA OPPOSING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SURFACE
MINING OPERATION WITHIN THE HILLS SOUTH OF
TEMECULA
********************
RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF
THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT,
THE CITY OF TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AND
TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
R:\Agenda1032205
4
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. CSD 2005-01
Resolution: No. CSD 2005-11
CALL TO ORDER: President Chuck Washington
ROLL CALL:
DIRECTORS:
Edwards, Comerchero, Naggar, Roberts, Washington
PUBLIC COMMENTS
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" fOm1 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 vour name and address for the record.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of March 22, 2005.
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: Tuesday, April 26, 2005, 7:00 PM, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business
Park Drive, Temecula, California.
R:\Agenda1032205
5
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. RDA 2005-01
Resolution: No. RDA 2005-02
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Ron Roberts
ROLL CALL
AGENCY MEMBERS: Edwards, Comerchero, Naggar, Washington,
Roberts
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" fOm1 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 March 22, 2005.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: Tuesday, April 26, 2005, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive,
Temecula, California.
R:\Agenda1032205
6
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. TPFA 2005-02
Resolution: No. TPFA 2005-05
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Jeff Comerchero
ROLL CALL:
AGENCY MEMBERS:
Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington,
Comerchero
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Temecula
Public Financing Authority 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 January 25, 2005.
CONVENE A JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND TEMECULA PUBLIC
FINANCING AUTHORITY
2 Initial Actions Related to Issuance of Additional Bonds for Community Facilities District
No. 03-1 (Crowne Hill)
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
R:\Agenda1032205
7
RESOLUTION NO. OS-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING DEPOSIT/REIMBURSEMENT
AGREEMENT- CROWNE HILL
2.1 That the Temecula Public Financing Authority adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. TPFA OS-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF A DEPOSIT RELATIVE TO
THE ISSUANCE OF ADDITIONAL BONDS FOR THE CROWNE
HILL COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 03-1, AND
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING ACTIONS WITH RESPECT
THERETO
RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
BOARD MEMBERS' REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
R:\Agenda1032205
8
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.
11 Vacation of a Portion of an Unnamed Alley located between Second Street and Third
Street east of Old Town Front Street as shown on Block 18 of Town Site of Temecula (Old
Town
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 05-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA VACATING A PORTION OF AN UNNAMED ALLEY
LOCATED BETWEEN SECOND STREET AND THIRD STREET
AS SHOWN ON BLOCK 18 OF TOWN SITE OF TEMECULA IN
THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 Vacation of All Interior Streets and Certain Drainaae Easements within Tract No. 26941
(Crowne Hill- The Reserve)
RECOMMENDATION:
12.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. OS-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA VACATING LOT "A" (WOLFE STREET), LOT "B"
(SUSAN GRACE COURT) AND LOT "C" (MUSILEK PLACE)
AND CERTAIN DRAINAGE EASEMENTS OF TRACT NO. 26941
IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS
SHOWN ON ATTACHED EXHIBITS
R:\Agenda1032205
g
13 General Plan Ucdate
RECOMMENDATION:
13.1 Conduct the Public Hearing on the Draft Land Use, Open Space Conservation,
Growth Management/Public Facilities, Public Safety, Noise, Air quality, Community
Design, and Economic Development Elements of the General Plan and the Draft
Environmental Impact Report related to these Elements;
13.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 05-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF
THE GENERAL PLAN
13.3 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. OS-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING THE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF
THE GENERAL PLAN
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: City Council, Tuesday, April 26, 2005, at 7:00 P.M., City Council
Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
R:\Agenda1032205
10
PROCLAMA liONS
AND
PRESENTATIONS
..s
:::
~~
E~
~~
~
~~
o~
..... c
U~
~~
~
t.l "'"
] a
...... c.f.l ~
" ,,-
"'C u'S
t= .- =:i
" a 'S
S .. 1il S
~ .~ ] 8
o ~ u c.f.l
> '" 0 '"
.5"'0 kl" fI) aJ
....;> 00,5
is l<l" is gj
'" .""'" S ,r;:,
"'0 ~ s::: cd Q)
5.9 ~ "'C-:S
0..- 00 Q.)
Q.) cd t1) Cd u5'
"'0 [) ~ OJ s:::
00 l:: cd 1-0.9
s::: Q.)""" u.....
o OJ) C,) 00 cd
..... 0 tJ c...~
'E 1-0 '8 .- C
......;:::$;::; ..c cd
0"" 0 ~ b.O
"'tE;:: "....
eo 1-0 0 =: 0
.5 tS ~ ~ ""2
"'0 00 "'C 0.. 00
.El'la '0.2
"9~"'= Q.)~
.... "" ~'" 00 .";::::
~ -::: 'u := =
~ 0 "'''
>;..::! '" &l S
:E Q..:::: .rJ 8
.- "0 cd "'C 0
:-9 5 ~ Q.) 0
rJ) '''' 0 Q.)
l:: ~ tI) U ur
8. ~ .~ g .~
tI} 0 :-;:: en:::
~ ....- S "'''
o ~cZ3 ~ ~
.-...... e 1-0_ ";::
S 's :; g> 0;
S<S;:: ....S
S ,," P- "
0'"'"<.8 88
u :::l '-= c.8 ~
~ t.~ c::.... ,...,
::s .... ~
.~ s::: ~ ~ Q) _
;:: 0" ,,~ '"
.9 ~ ~ a..s ~"'
'E.~"'O lUvr ~
ll.) l:::= ~ s::: cd
~g-n -99 "
....8""'0 '.'0; >
~ ;::; ::9.N 1-0
~8E :E~ ~
::s 0 tU U 0.0 ~
~-5:O ~6 s:::
"'C 4-. e '';::: 00 ~
_ 0 Q.. c,):::s :9
:.a ~ (l) ~.8 .-
U.goS <t.e9"'C-5
........... ...- s:::::: .,
OOcdCl) rJJ.~cd(/J
< .~ < <" u <
[;;J ~[;;J [;;J.; ~ [;;J
foiI....foiI foiI,.8"foiI
=0= =&lP-=
~]~]~oo~~
Q.) 0: .2 ~
0.. ;::l gbJ)
o 0 Q.) Q.)
g, 5h gp.,s
..
S
,g
~
-
"
'u
o
'"
....
"
o
""'
o
~
"
,r;:,
S
"
S
"
.::
-
t.l
"
"'"
:::
P-
"
S
o
'-'
"
,r;:,
o
-
" 1:::" u
::: ~ .s 'S;
00'" ~ 00 '0
-; 8 "'C
;:: " a ~
o ,r;:, '" ~
'0; "'" = S
~ a .~ E
e ~ '5 ~
P.. 'S 00 5b
"'0 :::s .~ ~
a"", S "'" 0
.: _ S = '"
'.n _ cd =
[) cd 0 ... Q.)
~Oi~ ..::!s
ro 1-0 ..c ~ t
SB- :;::,.
>>tE;:: "P-
" ii "
"'" ...... :B .... "'Cl
:.atE f-_
0.. ~.~ ~-;
00"' (J) s:::: U)
1-0 U 0 ..c Q.)
Q.) u..... ._ b.O,,~
.... :::s"'" 1-0 ""'"
-Ecna3 U;:::su
Oil _" > " "'" a
P-..c: ~....;:: a t:
.c'~ 0.. 5 0 ... Q)
'S .rJ ~ E oS $
:::s cd .- s::: 'u s::: 0
S .... "'" 0 ;:: 0 '"
S <8 a.~ g ::s .';::
8 " 1il = u ;:: .5
" P- " " >>.9 >>
000,...,0.0....-_
..... ..c ~ c .- = "'0
="'" 'C U " "
"="'" " " >t
~ro:-;::t:..c~~
o..>.-5::f=~]
oo....c 4-. s:: 0 (l) ~
;.... ;::::$ 0 "4-. 00 0
(l) U (l) ~ - ;::::$..c
~~~~]:<~
"""' ~ "']"'" "
<5 0 clj = ;,:: ~
> (l) (l)'- =..c 0..
""'0 ~ s :;; o~ U 'u
" ,,~ 0 ",'-
~ 00 ;::::;..a ;.... ~ "E
;.... _ (l)""" (l) '"
o w S.-..c: '" P-
~~o~~OB
"'0"= U 1- ~ ~ r"'~
"..::: ~'ijj" :<:
;::::$ .- ........c o......~ ~
;::..c:"", - U'C "
.- U _ OJ 0.. N
-;:: ;.... ;::::$ 00 l-!- ......... '-a
~ "0 -............-
S 0 ..c 'e ~ 4-. ~
" OJ) '" 0 "0"
..... .- "" .......
..c jooO s:: +-' .....c 0
--'S: (l) 00 [;;J <= "'"
..c.- N"E 0 s::
OJ) OJ)..;:::" ,,'"
" ".- .... 0 "
o OJ Q clj ~ OJ vf
1:: ~ ::::= 0.. [;;J ..c: P-
--.c clj 01) ......;::::$
.... clj .... = ~ 0
VJ VJ .- foil " 5h
< ;:g < "g = 3 .~
[;;J-n[;;J8:':e.g
~~~~~o........
====0>>'"
~ '" ~ :; z ~ P-
.5 (l) (l) c;
"iil 2: ..c: E
_ 0 ell Il)
...... > (l) ~
.~ .= .g <.l::
....
"
"E
o
.5
-
;::
"
S
;::
:::
.;;
=
"
"
~
OJ)
2
"'"
"'"
a
"'"
a
-
-
-=
.....
=
Q
~
=
Q
.-
.....
=
~
.,
~
..
~
~
lI.l
=
.c
-<
"Cl
-
.-
-=
u
-
-
>>0
a,;;;
"S~
'" '-'
o "
i:i a
~~
u t: .
..c:: ~ on
OJ .:::,...0
~u~
,...l::; OJ......"
-,...l::; 'J::
"- 0-
""'-~
0"::,-
fo;1 '" 0
=:" >..
fo;1enos
=]-0
:> __ i:
",-oN
,,-
en '" '"
r.I'J :::s.-
~~..s
z'-'-o
~""'''
..... = ><
-~~
:::-0'-
" os
Z OS"
_..c::.o
...
o
~
~
~
"2
"
a
o
u
i::::
"
-.
~
"
o
C;-
O
cJ
::s
u
00
Q)
;::
o
....,
~
=
'"
'"
"
en
ITEM 1
ITEM 2
RESOLUTION NO. 05-_
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 $4,205,524.27.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 12'h day of April, 2005.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
R:/Resos 2005/Resos 05-
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. 05-_ was duly adopted at a meeting of the City Council of the City of
Temecula on the 12th day of April, 2005 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
R:/Resos 2005/Resos 05-
2
I
CITY OF TEMECULA
LIST OF DEMANDS
03/17/05 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
$
711,126.30
03/24/05 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
1,849,314.10
03/31/05 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
1,283,582.79
03/24/05 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN:
361,501.08
TOTAl LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 04112/05 COUNCIL MEETING:
$
4,205,524.27
DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND:
CHECKS:
001 GENERAL FUND $ 1,811,064.17
165 ADA DEV.LOWIMOD SET ASIDE 32,735.64
190 TEMECULA COMMUNrry SERVICES DISTRICT 204,407.28
192 TCBO SERVICE lEVEL "6" STREET LIGHTS 43,010.21
193 TCSO SERVICE LEVEL .C' LANDSCAPE/SLOPE 10,244.64
194 TCSO SERVICE LEVEL "0' REFUSE/RECYCLING 1,150.67
195 TeSD SERVICE LEVEL R 2,700.00
210 CAPITAL IMPROV PROJECT FUND 1,359,718.59
271 HARVESTON CFD 01-2 IMPROVEMENT FUND 1,585.00
280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. CI? PROJECT 125,732.87
300 INSURANCE FUND 16,916.36
320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 68,911.90
330 SUPPORT SERVICES 16,654.25
340 FACILrrlES 12,363.30
390 TCSD COP DEBT SERVICE-TEMEUCLA 01 129,175.00
460 CFD 88-12 DEBT SERVICE RESERVE FUND 1.313.00
I 470 HARVESTON CFD 01-2 DEBT SERVICE FUND 412.94
473 CROWNE HilL CFD 03-1 DEBT SERVICE FUND 5,925.37
$ 3,844,023,19
001 GENERAL FUND 251,962.01
165 RDA DEV.LOWIMOD SET ASIDE 5,465.18
190 TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT 62.642.54
192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "B" STREET LIGHTS 114.37
193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL 'C' LANDSCAPE/SLOPE 4,913.17
194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "0" REFUSE/RECYCLING 828.59
280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP PROJECT 2.511.15
300 INSURANCE FUND 1,137.22
320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 21,858.74
330 SUPPORT SERVICES 3.085.63
340 FACILrTlES 6,982.48
361,501.08
TOTAL BY FUND: $ 4,205,524.27
PREPARED BY RETA WESTON, ACCOUNTING SPECIALIST
,HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOW ING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
I
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1
03117/2005 3:08:29PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
474 03/14/2005 005460 U S BANK HrvslnlCrwn Hill 04/05 SPY Tax Pmt 6,338.31 6,338.31
475 03/16/2005 005460 U S BANK TCSD COPs Oebt Svc Pmt 129,175.00 129,175.00
98285 03117/2005 001523 A M BEST COMPANY, INC. 1 yr Subscription renewal:Risk Mgmt 150.80 150.80
98286 03/17/2005 004973 ABACHERLI, L1NDI TCSD instructor earnings 600.00 600.00
98287 03/17/2005 004765 ACTIVE NElWORK INC, THE Safari Recreation software mnte agrmt 4,414.10 4,414.10
98288 03/17/2005 005735 AEROSURF INC Apr/May/Jun wireless internet 5VCS 299.70
Credit: Cancel svcs: Jeff Stone -149.85 149.85
98289 03/17/2005 000747 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCI Membership:Debbie Ubnoske 068647 280.00 280.00
98290 03/17/2005 002187 ANIMAL FRIENDS OF THE VALL Feb 05 Animal control services 8,750.00 8,750.00
98291 03/17/2005 000101 APPLE ONE INC Temp Help PPE 2/19 & 2/26 Buchana 1,080.00
Temp help PPE 2/26 Gardner 118.13 1,198.13
98292 03/17/2005 008314 AQUATIC DESIGN GROUP Mechanical renovation:Tem Elem Pool 118.89 118.89
98293 03/1712005 005590 ARMSTRONG & BROOKS LOS deposit agreement w/city 1,600.00 1,600.00
98294 03/17/2005 008062 ARROW STAFF RESOURCES, I Temp help PPE 2/20 Grove/Heer 2,801.98
Temp help PPE 2/27 Grove/Heer 2,401.40
Temp help PPE 3/6 Grove/Heer 1,555.72 6,759.10
98295 03/1712005 002541 BECKER CONSTRUCTION SRV Heavy rains repairs: J.Smith Rd 3,040.87
Heavy rains repairs: Mercedes/Front 2,001.90
Heavy rains repairs: J.Wamer Rd 1.955.10
Heavy rains repairs: J.Warner Rd 1,825.20
Heavy rains repairs: Mercedes StlFro 1,490.20
Heavy rains repairs: Vallejo/Santiago 1,459.90
Heavy rains repairs: Hwy 79S/La Paz 1,427.42
Heavy rains repairs: Walcot Rd 894.50
Heavy rains repairs: J.Warner Rd 715.60 14,810.69
98296 03/17/2005 008646 BERLlNE, BYRON Performers: Bluegrass Festival 3/19.20 3,500.00 3,500.00
98297 03/17/2005 004778 BERRYMAN & HENIGAR INC Feb 05 temp B&S inspector help 11,400.00 11,400.00
Page:l
apChkLsl Final Check List Page; 2
03117/2005 3:08:29PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
98298 03/17/2005 004040 BIG FOOT GRAPHICS TCSD instructor earnings 504.00 504.00
98299 03/17/2005 008643 BREA, CITY OF Public Arts Proposal Packet 10.00 10.00
98300 03/17/2005 008623 BURKE, CATHY Refund: Parenting Workshop @ CRG 80.00 80.00
98301 03/17/2005 003138 CAL MAT PW patch truck materials 233.62
PW patch truck materials 232.20
PW patch truck materials 231.49 697.31
98302 03117/2005 004248 CALIF DEPT OF JUSTICE-ACCT Dee 04 Blood Alcohol Analysis 2,450.00
June 04 blood alcohol analysis 35.00
Credit: June 04 blood alcohol analysis -35.00
Credit: Dee 04 blood alcohol analysis -35.00 2,415.00
98303 03/17/2005 004556 CALIF PLANNING & DEVEL REP Subscrip renewal Acet 2070:Planning 249.00 249.00
98304 03117/2005 008026 CASTRO, GLADYS Refund: Citation 15735 voided 250.00 250.00
98305 03/1712005 002534 CATERERS CAFE Refshmnts:Council Mb Mtg w/Fire&PD 32.33 32.33
98306 03117/2005 000137 CHEVRON USA INC City vehicles fuel expense:Police 355.77
City vehicles fuel expense:PD/CM 241.47 597.24
98307 03117/2005 001193 COMP USA INC Misc. Computer Supplies: IS 234.23 234.23
98308 03117/2005 000442 COMPUTER ALERT SYSTEMS Aiann Monitoring City's Fae/City Hall 1,659.00 1,659.00
98309 03117/2005 002945 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRiCAL 480v Contaclors Repair @ TMS 1,551.60 1,551.60
98310 03/17/2005 008634 COOK, KIMBERLY Refund: Prenatal Yoga Plus 45.00 45.00
98311 03/17/2005 003739 COTTON BRIDGES ASSOCIATE Jan/Feb svcs:Update general plan 2,179.41 2,179.41
98312 03117/2005 008639 CULLlNGWORTH, DEBRA Refund: 80% of Building permit 462.09 462.09
98313 03117/2005 002990 DAVID TURCH & ASSOCIATES Feb/Mar 05 Federal lobbyist svcs 6,000.00 6,000.00
98314 03117/2005 005859 DELUNA, WILLIAM Reimb:Air:Sister City Exchg prgm 1,423.54 1,423.54
Page2
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3
03117/2005 3:08:29PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
98315 03/17/2005 005235 DEVENCENZI, KELlSSA Refund: Parenting Wrkshp @ CRG 80.00 80.00
98316 03117/2005 002701 DIVERSIFIED RISK Jan/Feb 05 special events premiums 5,253.25 5.253.25
98317 03/17/2005 008635 OOERING, CHRISTINE Refund: Preschool Music ElIalGianna 160.00 160.00
98318 03/17/2005 008629 E D M PUBLISHERS Subscrip:Legal Briefings for Fire Chiefs 99.00 99.00
98319 03/17/2005 005115 ENTERPRISE RENT A CAR INC Getty elr family excursion van rental 275.44 275.44
98320 03117/2005 005251 EQUIPMENT REPAIR SERVICE PW Bucket/plate backhoe repairs 882.00 882.00
98321 03/17/2005 001056 EXCEL LANOSCAPE Jan ldscp impr:CTElComm Facilities 321.48 321.48
98322 03117/2005 004464 EXXON MOBIL CARD SERVICES Fuel expense for City vehicles:PD 29.18 29.18
98323 03117/2005 000478 FAST SIGNS New R. Reagan Spts Prk Signs 650.72
Bldg & Safety vehicle decals 303.66
Egg Hunt signs for Parks 107.63
Dedication sign for Sports Park 65.58 1,127.59
98324 03/17/2005 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC Express mail services 281.87 281.87
98325 03117/2005 008637 FITZGERALD, TOM Refund: Parenting workshop @ CRG 80.00 80.00
98326 03/17/2005 000170 FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY I PW/Eng '05 Day Planner Calendars 225.95 225.95
98327 03/17/2005 007866 G C S SUPPLIES INC Computer Printer Toner Supplies 536.61
Computer Printer Toner Supplies 171.25 707.86
98328 03117/2005 005768 GLOBAL ELECTRIC MOTOR CA GEM vehicle Charger:Police 558.98 558.98
98329 03/17/2005 005947 GOLDEN STATE OVERNIGHT Express Mail SelVice;Fire Prevo 73.56 73.56
98330 03/17/2005 008361 GRAPE STOMPERS SQ DANCE TCSD instructor earnings 164.50 164.50
98331 03/17/2005 008638 GREENE, ROBERT Refund: Picnic shelter security depst 60.00 60.00
Page3
apChkLst
03/17/2005
3:0B:29PM
(Continued)
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
Check # Dale
Vendor
98332 03/17/2005 006916 GREYSTONE HOMES
98333 03117/2005 006916 GREYSTONE HOMES
98334 03117/2005 007736 GRIFFITH COMPANY
98335 03/17/2005 008636 HANKINS, SHANE
98336 03/17/2005 002372 HARMON, JUDY
98337 03/17/2005 008642 HERMAN, L.D.
98338 03/17/2005 004217 HYDRO TEK COMPANY
98339 03117/2005 000193 I C M A
98340 03117/2005 003857 IDEA ART INC
Final Check List
CITY OF TEMECULA
Page: 4
Description
Amount Paid
Check Total
Refund:Ovrtime Inspection depst
5,258.00
5,258.00
Refund:Nottingham ovrtime inspection
Refund:Astoria ovrtime inspection dep
3,000.00
2,460.00
5,460.00
Jan Prgss:Jefferson Ave Rehab
121,382.09
121,382.09
Refund: Ovrtime inspections deposit
180.00
180.00
TCSD instructor earnings
73.85
73.85
Refund: Lifeguard Training @ CRC pool
130.00
130.00
Pressure Washer repairs: PW
131.60
131.60
RegistEmerging Wireless Tech 3/30
99.00
99.00
Misc. Paper for Volunteer Recognition
215.80
215.80
98341 03117/2005 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPLY I Pool sanitizing chemicals
127.15
127.15
98342 03117/2005 000820 K R W & ASSOCIATES
98343 03117/2005 006750 KB HOME COASTAL. INC.
Jan/Feb Eng Plan Check SVCS
6,895.00
6,895.00
Refund:temp use pennit TR25004
1,628.00
1,628.00
98344 03117/2005 001091 KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIAT Feb Affordable Housing consulting svcs
9,352.50
9,352.50
98345 03117/2005 006302 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER, INC
98346 03117/2005 007321 KOPP, JON R. (RANDY)
leso instructor earnings
leSO instructor earnings
leSO instructor earnings
leSO instructor earnings
leSO instructor earnings
leSO instructor earnings
leSO instructor earnings
TCSO instructor earnings
TCSO instructor earnings
TCSO instructor earnings
TCSO instructor earnings
616.00
504.00
343.00
308.00
280.00
280.00
252.00
224.00
140.00
140.00
112.00
3,199.00
Old Town PA sound sys svcs
600.00
600.00
Page:4
apChkLst
03117/2005
3:08:29PM
Final Check List
CITY OF TEMECULA
Page: 5
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
(Continued)
Vendor
Description
Amount Paid
Check Total
Check # Date
98347 03/17/2005 008632 M G M PLASTICS INC
display cases for T. Museum exhibits
284.46
284.46
98348 03117/2005 008640 MACADAM, BILL
Reimb: Fire House World Conf:212-4/05
90.74
90.74
98349 03117/2005 004068 MANALlLI, AILEEN
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
Credit: TCSD Instructor Earnings
414.75
362.25
182.00
180.25
169.75
63.00
-56.00
1,316.00
98350 03117/2005 001924 MAXIMUS INC
Fee Study on Btdg Fees
750.00
750.00
98351 03117/2005 008631 MCBRIDE, COLIN
Refund: admin cite# 1057
150.00
150.00
98352 03/17/2005 007669 MILES, KATRINA
TCSD Instructor Earnings
455.00
455.00
98353 03117/2005 008627 MILLER, KIMBERLY
Refund: Sec. Deposit MPSC
400.00
400.00
98354 03/17/2005 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS
Qty 17,000 window envelopes: Finance
business cards: LaReau/Jenkins
888.38
86.74
975.12
98355 03117/2005 000883 MONTELEONE EXCAVATING
heavy rains/emerg work:Via Lobo
heavy rains/emerg work:Santiago
Heavy rains/emerg work: Vallejo Rd C
Service Level "W Area's grading svcs
35,152.00
10,540.00
7,872.00
2,700.00
56,264.00
98356 03117/2005 004490 MUSCO SPORTS LIGHTING INC repair/maint of equip: var. park s~es
152.88
152.88
98357 03117/2005 001986 MUZAK -SOUTHERN CALlFORN Mar Music BroadcastOld Town
69.11
69.11
98358 03117/2005 000845 NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES 03/01/05-02/28/06 City Membership
4,008.00
4,008.00
98359 0311712005 008630 NEGRETE, MARIA Refund: Picnic Sheiter
60.00
60.00
98360 03117/2005 002037 NEXUS INTEGRATION SERVICE Telephone System Yea~y Maintenance
7,884.00
7,884.00
98361 03117/2005 001171 ORIENTAL TRADING COMPANY 2005 Volunteer Recogn Supplies
51.60
51.60
PageS
apChkLst
03117/2005
3:08:29PM
Final Check List
CITY OF TEMECULA
Page: 6
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
(Continued)
Check # Date
Vendor
Description
Amount Paid
Check Total
98362 03/17/2005 006939 PAINT CONNECTION, THE
Res Imp Pgrm: Johnson, Teddy
1,350.00
1,350.00
98363 03/17/2005 004074 PARTY CITY OF TEMECULA IN High Hopes Prgm Supplies
88.25
88.25
98364 03/17/2005 000249 PETTY CASH Petty Cash Reimbursement
Spring Egg Hunt '05 Awards
548.41
200.00
748.41
98365 03117/2005 005939 POMMER, APRIL I. TCSD Instructor Eamings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
70.00
64.40
134.40
98366 03117/2005 002185 POSTMASTER - TEMECULA Postage for Community Newsletters
4,179.24
4,179.24
98367 03/17/2005 006613 PROJECT MANAGEMENT INST 5/1/05-4/30/06 membership: A. Attar
119.00
119.00
98368 03117/2005 004529 QUAID TEMECULA HARLEY-DA '05 H-O Motorcycle: Tem. Police
10,010.54
10,010.54
98369 03117/2005 002012 ROO EQUIPMENT COMPANY repair/maint of PW back hoe
548.21
548.21
98370 03117/2005 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST Various Water Meters
Mar 01-08-02006-2 Via Cordoba
Mar 01-08-06008-1 Via Rio Temecula
Various Water Meters
Mar 01-08-02000-1 Via Cordoba
Various Water Meters
Mar 01-06-68000-4 Main Street
3,130.93
357.90
143.67
126.25
123.47
64.79
40.40
3,987.41
98371 03117/2005 008624 REIDARSON, POLLYANNA
Refund: Time Machine
95.00
95.00
98372 03117/2005 003591 RENES COMMERCIAL MANAGE Citywide debris clean-up for spec.events
5,000.00
5,000.00
98373 03117/2005 002110 RENTAL SERVICE CORPORATI rental equip for PW Maint Div
141.35
141.35
98374 03/17/2005 008621 RICHARO, DEBBIE
release claims agrmnt pmt
376.55
376.55
98375 03117/2005 000353 RIVERSIDE CO AUDITOR
Jan '05 parking cite assessments
3,068.25
3,068.25
98376 03117/2005 001365 RIVERSIDE COUNTY OF
Renew PermitCRC Pool/Spa
518.00
518.00
98377 03117/2005 001624 ROBERTS, GENIE
reimb: CSMFO Conf 2/23-25/05
11.88
11.88
Pagefi
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 7
03117/2005 3:08:29PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
98378 03/17/2005 008312 ROSE PAD INC Paramedics backboard pads 436.39 436.39
98379 03/17/2005 006622 ROSS. JESSICA Reimb: Eden Conf 2/14-17/05 100.13 100.13
98360 03117/2006 002226 RUSSO, MARY ANNE TCSD Instructor Earnings 822.50 822.50
98381 03117/2005 000277 S & S ARTS & CRAFTS INC TCSD special events supplies 236.22 236.22
98382 03117/2005 008349 SHEA HOMES Refund:Orr Inspections: Trovato 1,148.54 1,148.54
98383 03117/2005 008625 SHELBURN,THERESE Refund: Mommy and Baby Yoga 11.25 11.25
98384 03117/2005 000537 SO CALIF EDISON Mar 2-01-202-7330 various mtrs 39,448.26
Feb 2-00-397-5059 various mtrs 6,814.78
Mar 2-02-351-5281 CRC 5.068.85
Feb 2-05-791-8807 various mtrs 4,990.96
Mar 2-00-987 -ons various mtrs 4,658.58
Mar 2-06-105-0654 various mtrs 2.641.30
Mar 2-10-331-1353 Fire Stn 84 843.64 64,466.37
98385 03117/2005 005786 SPRINT 01/15-02/14/05 City cellular chrgs 5,629.25
12/15-01/14/05 City cellular chrgs 5,164.23
Phones For S. Nelsonll.8. Dept 840.43 11,633.91
98386 03117/2005 007159 STEVE JULIUS CONSTRUCTIO Refund:overtime inspections 802-3241 180.00 180.00
98387 03117/2005 003449 THE SOILS COMPANY INC site assessments:apn xx-019/xx-021 1,650.00 1,650.00
98388 03117/2005 006914 TEMECULA COPIERS INC. Jan Copier Usage Chrgs:City Fae 3.199.48 3,199.48
98389 03117/2005 000515 TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER State/City Addr:3/31 PfT Safety Comm. 120.00 120.00
98390 03117/2005 008518 TEMECULA VALLEY FOUNDAT CSF T.V. Student of the Month prgm 2,000.00 2,000.00
98391 03/17/2005 004274 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY Locksmith svcs for MPSC 187.75 187.75
98392 03/17/2005 007250 TETRA TECH INC Jan Dsgn Svcs: Rnbw Cyn Guardrail 3,666.10 3,666.10
98393 03117/2005 008626 TREVINO. ELIZABETH Refund: Mommy and Baby Yoga 11.25 11.25
Page:7
apChkLsI
03117/2005
3:08:29PM
Final Check List
CITY OF TEMECULA
Page: 8
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
(Continued)
Check # Date
Vendor
Description
Amount Paid
Check Total
98394 03/17/2005 008641 TRUSCOTT, DOREEN
Reimb Airiare:Police Sister City Exchg
711.77
711.77
98395 03/17/2005 008542 TYSON. BARBARA
Refund:Belly Dance - Beginning
35.00
35.00
98396 03117/2005 002702 US POSTAL SERVICE
Postage meter deposit
4,354.66
4,354.66
98397 03117/2005 002706 US POSTAL SERVICE
Del. Stat. Retrieval Software: Cty Mgr
75.00
75.00
98398 03/17/2005 007766 UNDERGROUNO SERVICE ALE Mar udrgrnd svcs alert tickets:PW
88.20
88.20
98399 03/17/2005 004981 UNISOURCE SCREENING & 02/16-28/05 bckgrnd screening svc
571.50
571.50
98400 03/17/2005 003665 V ARTEC SOLUTIONS INC Feb long distance phone svcs
2.59
2.59
98401 03/17/2005 004261 VERIZON Mar xxx-5072 general usage
Mar xxx-1941 PTA CD TTACSD
Mar xxx-48gB M. Edwards
Mar xxx-3851 general usage
4.581.84
118.08
29.23
-18.80
4,710.35
98402 03/17/2005 004789 VERIZON ONLINE Internet svcslEOC backup @ stn 84
72.83
72.83
98403 03117/2005 000621 WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNC February '05 TUMF Fees
117,192.40
117,192.40
98404 03/17/2005 008402 WESTERN RIVERSIOE COUNT Feb '05 MSHCP payment
16.193.00
16,193.00
98405 03/17/2005 008418 WOODSIDE WOLF CREEK 1211 Refund:overpaymenVB04-3037
8.06
8.06
98406 03/17/2005 008628 WRIGHT. TINA
Refund: Kidz Love Soccer
75.00
75.00
98407 03/17/2005 003776 ZOLL MEDiCAL CORPORATION 1 yr AED's prev mainl Citywide
1,131.38
1,131.38
Grand lotal for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA:
71 1,126.30
Page:8
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1
03/24/2005 1 :26:34PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
476 03/24/2005 000444 I NST A T AX (EOD) State Disability Ins Payment 16.602.66 16,602.66
477 03/24/2005 000283 I NSTATAX (IRS) Federal Income Taxes Payment 64.916.50 64.916.50
478 03/24/2005 001065 NATIONWIOE RETIREMENT Nationwide Retirement Payment 17.490.08 17.490.08
479 03/24/2005 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' PERS ER Paid Member Contr Payment 92,643.49 92,643.49
---.--. --..-
480 03/24/2005 000389 U S C M WEST (OBRA). OBRA . Project Retirement Payment 2.387.92 2.387.92
...~.- ..----------._---
98408 03/24/2005 008239 4 PAWS TRAINING TCSD instructor earnings 980.00 980.00
98409 03/24/2005 001916 ALBERT A WEBB ASSOCIATES Ann'J admin:Harveston II CFD 03-06 5.500.00
Ann'j admin:weed abatement svcs 5,000.00 10,500.00
98410 03/24/2005 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES DUI Drug & Alcohol Screening 172.25
OUI Drug & Alcohol Screening 130.00 302.25
98411 03/24/2005 000747 AMERICAN PLANNING Membership:Matt Peters 113479 329.00
---- ~ -
Membership:Don Hazen 092146 255.00 S84.00
98412 03124/2005 001587 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS Membership:William Hughes 612062 152.50 152.50
98413 03124/2005 000101 APPLE ONE INC Temp help PPE 315 Kasparian 672.30
Temp help PPE 3112 Gardner 492.75
Temp help PPE 3/5 Gardner 378.00
Temp help PPE 3/5 Wheeler 297.00 1.840.05
98414 03/24/2005 005590 ARMSTRONG & BROOKS LDS deposit agreement w/city 4,750.00 4,750.00
98415 03124/2005 008062 ARROW STAFF RESOURCES. INC Temp help PPE 3113 Grove/Heer 2,801.9S 2.801.98
98416 03124/2005 006300 ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN Membership:J.DeGange 90003309 159.00 159.00
98417 03/24/2005 008656 ATKINS. RAYMONO Refund: Sports-Softball-Coed 500.00 500.00
98418 03/24/2005 008661 AVILA. ERIN Refund: Picnic Shelter @ RR Prk 75.00 75.00
98419 03/24/2005 002713 BALLOONS GALORE Balloons for Paublo Prk, 3/8/05 193.95
Balloons for Prk renaming event 145.46 339.41
Page:1
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2
03124/2005 1 :26:34PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
98420 03/24/2005 002541 BECKER CONSTRUCTION SRVS Repair Rnbw Cnyn guardrail 4.245.00 4,245.00
98421 03/24/2005 008649 BIRNEY. DARRYL Reimb: MagUght Batteries 62.82 62.82
98422 03/24/2005 008605 BONTERRA CONSULTING Biological Monitoring:Via Montezuma 2.545.00 2,545.00
98423 03/24/2005 005055 BROWN. STEVE Reimb:Refrshmnt for Interview Panel 52.01 52.01
98424 03/24/2005 003138 CAL MAT PW patch truck materials 107.40
PW patch truck materials 107.40
PW patch truck materials 106.69 321.49
98425 03124/2005 008613 CALIF BANK & TRUST Rei Retention Esrw 2160075819 Wolf Crk 24,119.10 24.119.10
98426 03124/2005 000837 CALIF DEPT OF FRANCHISE TAX Support Payment case #573767112 103.47 103.47
98427 03124/2005 000398 CALIF MUNI TREASURERS ASSN Mbshp:G.Roberts/K.Grance 120.00 120.00
98428 03124/2005 008331 CAPEL. SANORA Refund: Instant Piano Seminar 25.00 25.00
98429 03124/2005 008659 CATHCART, DIXIE Refund: Notary Public Seminar 70.00 70.00
98430 03/24/2005 003151 COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTATION Class "A" Comm Drivertm: F. Norman 2,117.00 2,117.00
98431 03/24/2005 008594 COMMUNITY BANK ReI/Escrow 280000256: Win.Widening 11.215.00 11,215.00
98432 03/24/2005 004405 COMMUNITY HEALTH CHARITIES Community Health Charities Payment 147.00 147.00
98433 03/24/2005 001193 COMP USA INC Fire Stn 84 wireless access point 103.81 103.81
98434 03/24/2005 000442 COMPUTER ALERT SYSTEMS Re-hang alann bell @ T .Museum 75.00 75.00
98435 03/24/2005 008446 COMPUTER DIRECTIONS LLC Paramedics tmg tracker software 599.00 599.00
98436 03/24/2005 008663 CONGREGATION HAVURIM Refund: Security Depst MPSC 100.00 100.00
98437 03/24/2005 002631 COUNTS UNLlMITEO INC Citywide Trffc Count Data Collection 2,250.00 2.250.00
Page2
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3
03124/2005 1 :26:34PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
98438 03124/2005 008655 OE FARIA. OIANA Refund: Security Depst TCC 400.00 400.00
98439 03124/2005 003317 DOMENOE, CHERYL Reimb:Tech Track Conf:311S-17/0S 37.n 37.77
98440 03124/2005 008230 OOUGLAS E BARNHART INC Feb Prgss:Wotf Crk Sprts Cmplx 217.072.00 217.072.00
98441 03/24/2005 008403 EAGLE ONE PROOUCTS plastic lumber for picnic tables:Hicks 1,484.50 1,484.50
98442 03/24/2005 002390 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER 95366-02 Diego Dr Ldscp 15.18 15.18
98443 03/24/2005 007530 EASTMAN, WENDY M. Lifeguard Training Instructor 1,125.00 1,125.00
98444 03124/2005 003223 EDAW INC Feb monitoring:Pala Bridge 194.00 194.00
98445 03124/2005 008658 ELKINS. JERA Refund: Ballroom Dancing-E.Coast Swing 43.00 43.00
98446 03124/2005 002438 ENGEN CORPORATION Feb compaction testWinchester 2,802.50 2,802.50
98447 03124/2005 002939 ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS Arcinfo & Areview Mnte Sves 5,984.17
---- - ---
Bldg Geodatabases tmg: Beal:5I9.11 1,275.00
Bldg Geodatabases tm:DeGange:S/9-11 1,275.00 8,534.17
98448 03124/2005 005251 EQUIPMENT REPAIR SERVICE Backhoe repair svcs:PW mnte 641.00 641.00
98449 03124/2005 000164 ESGIL CORPORATION Feb plan check svcs: Bldg & Safety 13.296.54 13,296.54
98450 03/24/2005 006487 EUROPEAN CAFE & VINEYARD Refrshmnts:'OS Volunteer Recognition 2.378.04 2.378.04
Page:3
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 4
03124/2005 1 :26:34PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
98451 03/24/2005 003347 FIRST BANKCARO CENTER
HOLIDAY INN TT Htl:Eden Conf:Ross:2114-17/05 392.21
TONY ROMAS SJ Refrshmnts:Council Closed Session 198.24
HEWLETT PACKARO TT Troubleshoot laptop computer 124.50
WES FLOWERS SN Flowers from Council to A.Sullivan 106.96
AMERICAN REGISTRY FOR TT Mntc fee for ASN assignment 100.00
- --- ---
GODADDY.COM INC. TT Domain:TemeculaPresents.com 36.80
HUNGRY HUNTER JM Refrshmnts:lnterview Panel 36.00
AMAZON.COM. INC TT 2 - MS '03 Outlook manuals 32.98
STADIUM PIZZA JM Refrshmnts:Civic Ctr Design Mtg 31.00
VONS SJ Refrshmnts:Council Closed Session 27.39
VOLKER LUTZ ENTERPRISES. JM Refrshmnts:Rancho Crk Mtg 22.57
MARIE CALLENOER MN Refshmnts:Mtg w/Jeff Stone 22.33
EARTHLlNK INC TT Council members internet svcs 21.95 1.152.93
98452 03/24/2005 008664 FLOGERZI, LEIGH Refund: Security Depst CRC 100.00 100.00
98453 03/24/2005 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Support Payment case #452379267 75.00 75.00
98454 03124/2005 007078 GIRL SCOUTS OF SAN Refund: Princess Day Event 27.00 27.00
98455 03124/2005 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PROOUCTS Misc. Office Supplies:City ClrkfTCSD 987.36
Misc. Office Supplies:CouncillCMlEcon 652.98
Misc. Office Supplies:Planning Oept 586.32
Misc. Office Supplies: Fire Prey 298.19
Misc. Office Supplies:Bldg & Safety 267.30
Misc. Office Supplies: CIP 259.59
Misc. Office Supplies: Central Svcs 178.03
Misc. Office Supplies: MPSC 159.85
Misc. Office Supplies:Records Mgmt 119.47
Misc. Office Supplies:lnfo SyslGIS 95.99
Misc. Office Supplies: Human Resource 66.73 3.671.81
98456 03124/2005 008361 GRAPE STOMPERS sa OANCE TCSO instructor earnings 252.00 252.00
98457 03/24/2005 008667 GUCCIONE, MELISSA Refund: Instant Piano Seminar 25.00 25.00
Page:4
apChkLsI Final Check List Page: 5
03124/2005 1 :26:34PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
98458 03/24/2005 008666 GUERRIERO, SUSAN Refund: Instant Piano Sem/Susan G. 25.00
Refund: Instant Piano Sem/Lalli G. 25.00 50.00
98459 03124/2005 004053 HABITAT WEST INC Lg Cnyn Detention Basin Mnte 450.00 450.00
98460 03124/2005 008660 HAMBY. CHRISTINE Refund: Instant Piano SemNicki Hill 25.00
Refund: Instant Piano Sem/Christine H. 25.00 50.00
98461 03124/2005 008657 HARMON EXCAVATING Refund:Withdrew Bldg Prmt 39318 Kimberly 156.80 156.80
98462 03/24/2005 005748 HODSON. CHERYL A. Support Payment 17.54 17.54
98463 03/24/2005 001517 HORIZON HEALTH Mar '05 EE Assistance Program 715.14
Feb '05 EE Assistance Program 715.14 1.430.28
98464 03/24/2005 003624 HOWELL. ANN MARIE Tourism Rack Brochure photo design 2.489.00
Redesign Tourism Rack Brochure layout 2.489.00
Design new Temecula CD Jacket 603.40 5,581.40
98465 03/24/2005 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT-PLAN I C M A Retirement Trust 457 Payment 8,783.74 8,783.74
98466 03/24/2005 008665 IGLESIAS, ANDREA Refund: Security Depst CRG 100.00 100.00
98467 03124/2005 004406 IGOE & COMPANY INC Mar '05 flex benefit plan pmt 280.85 280.85
98468 03124/2005 002166 INGRAM ELECTRIC Repair TMS ball field lights 2,781.47 2,781.47
98469 03/24/2005 008662 INLAND VALLEY VICTORY Refund: Security Depst MPSC 150.00 150.00
98470 03124/2005 004862 INTL PAVEMENT SOLUTIONS INC Feb prgss:Old Twn S.Gateway Ldscp 102,913.42 102.913.42
98471 03124/2005 003266 IRON MOUNTAIN OFFSITE Records Mgmt Microfilm Storage Unit 230.00 230.00
98472 03124/2005 001186 IRWIN. JOHN TCSD instructor earnings 84.00 84.00
98473 03/24/2005 007535 JACKSON, ADINA Refund:Art to Cake Decorating Tmfr 23.00 23.00
98474 03/24/2005 004831 JOHN R BYERLY INC LDS deposit agreement w/city 2,100.00 2,100.00
98475 03124/2005 007400 KASPEROWICZ. JOHN C.Museum exhibit reimb expenses 423.17 423.17
PageS
apChkLst
03/24/2005
1:26:34PM
Final Check List
CITY OF TEMECULA
Page: 6
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
(Continued)
Vendor
Description
Amount Paid
Check Total
Check # Date
98476 03/24/2005 001282 KNORR SYSTEMS INC Aquatic - o-ring & strainer cover
143.74
143.74
98477 03/24/2005 004051 LOR GEOTECHNICAL GROUP Geotech testing:Pechanga PkVoJy
Geotech testing:Pechanga PkVoJy
1.382.50
780.00
2.162.50
98478 03/24/2005 003605 LAKE ELSINORE STORM 6/3 Baseball game ticket depst
52.00
52.00
98479 03124/2005 004412 LEANDER, KERRY D. TCSD instructor earnings
TCSD instructor earnings
TCSD instructor earnings
TCSD instructor earnings
185.50
169.75
63.88
42.00
461.13
98480 03124/2005 003286 LIBRARY SYSTEMS & SERVICES Feb svcs-ribrary system agnnnt
Feb svcs-library system agrmnt
9.791.97
1,211.39
11.003.36
98481 03/24/2005 004905 LIEBERT, CASSIDY & WHITMORE Feb HR legal svcs for TE060-#Ql
2.160.00
2.160.00
98482 03124/2005 008383 L1M & NASCIMENTO
Margarita Rd undercrossing en9. design
1,965.00
1.965.00
98483 03/24/2005 003782 MAIN STREET SIGNS
hardware/supplies for signs: PW
248.90
248.90
98484 03124/2005 004141 MAINTEX INC
custodial supplies: various parks
custodial supplies: children's museum
custodial supplies: TV museum
custodial supplies: maint. facility
356.44
346.28
206.16
146.27
1.055.15
98485 03/24/2005 001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY
temp help w/e 03106 HooflDankworth
temp help w/e 02127 HooflDankworth
1.162.40
798.24
1,960.64
98486 03124/2005 002664 MAR CO INDUSTRIES INC
CRC prev maint on custodial equip
equip preventative maint: CRC
665.43
521.70
1,187.13
98487 03124/2005 008670 MCALLISTER. LAUREN
release claims agreement pmt
2,345.96
2,345.96
98488 03124/2005 006571 MELODY'S AD WORKS
reimb exp:permit for Bluegrass Festival
220.00
220.00
98489 03/24/2005 001905 MEYERS, DAVID WILLIAM
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
525.00
455.00
980.00
98490 03/24/2005 007210 MIDORI GAROENS
Feb Idscp maint: neighborhood parks
credit: no svc provided @ HalVeston Prk
34.300.00
-3.400.00
30,900.00
98491 03124/2005 008091 MILLMORE'S WA:X CREW
vehicle maintldetail for PW CIP Div
75.00
75.00
PageS
apChkLst
03/24/2005
1:26:34PM
Final Check List
CITY OF TEMECULA
Page: 7
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
(Continued)
Check # Date Vendor
Description
Amount Paid
Check Total
98492 03/24/2005 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS
business cards: M. Betz
business cards: T Goss & L Salazar
business cards: B. Riggs
115.55
86.74
43.37
245.66
98493 03/24/2005 001868 MIYAMOTO-JURKOSKY, SUSAN TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
157.50
157.50
141.75
456.75
98494 03/24/2005 001892 MOBILE MODULAR 2/18-3119 modular bldg rental: Stn 92
832.40
832.40
98495 03/24/2005 007011 MORRIS MEYERS MAINTENANCE Feb maint svcs:park r.r./picnic shelters
4.900.00
4,900.00
98496 03/24/2005 008454 MURRIETA VALLEY RV SRVC INC hot water heater:Fire Prey event trailer
106.18
106.18
98497 03/24/2005 000233 NELSON, SHAWN Reimb:Congressional City Cf 3/11-15/05
63.20
63.20
98498 03/24/2005 008673 NEUGART, TIFFANI Refund: Picnic Shelterrremeku Hills Park
48.00
48.00
98499 03/24/2005 002037 NEXUS INTEGRATION SERVICES 01/12-13/05 cabling/network malnt svcs
2/25 cabling/network maint svcs
2/28 cabling/network maint svcs
108.00
96.00
96.00
300.00
98500 03/24/2005 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES Feb recruitment ads for H.R. Dept.
Credit: overcharged Empl of Choice ad
973.60
-35.00
938.60
98501 03/24/2005 006721 OFFICEMAX. - A BOISE COMPANY Misc office supplies: Finance
Misc office supplies: Finance
Misc office supplies: Finance
111.20
74.67
16.32
202.19
98502 03/24/2005 002105 OLO TOWN TIRE & SERVICE
City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs
City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs
City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs
City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs
City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs
City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs
City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs
City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs
City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs
City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs
City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs
City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs
City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs
894.30
248.01
140.06
121.83
80.91
77.58
69.82
69.82
64.52
52.87
31.34
23.50
22.42
1.896.98
98503 03/24/2005 002668 OMEGA LAKE SERVICES
Feb Duck Pond water maint. svcs
466.50
466.50
Page:7
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 8
03124/2005 1 :26:34PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
98504 03124/2005 001619 ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER INC Mar recruitment ads for H.R. Dept. 725.10 725.10
98505 03124/2005 001171 ORIENTAL TRAOING COMPANY Volunteer Recognition Supplies 183.70
Volunteer Recognition Supplies 35.70 219.40
98506 03124/2005 003955 PANE CONSULTING SERVICE Volunteer Recognition Awards 1,196.01 1,196.01
98507 03124/2005 004074 PARTY CITY OF TEMECULA INC MPSC Recreation Supplies 61.34 61.34
98508 03124/2005 003218 PELA Feb Idscp Inspection:Pechanga Pkwy 990.00
Feb Pin Ckllnspection:O.T.Gateway Ldsc 585.00 1.575.00
98509 03124/2005 000246 PERS (EMPLOYEES' CalPERS actuarial studies 200.00 200.00
------------
98510 03124/2005 001958 PERS LONG TERM CARE PERS Long Term Care Payment 288.55 288.55
98511 03124/2005 000249 PETTY CASH Petty Cash Reimbursement 589.44 589.44
98512 03/24/2005 000253 POSTMASTER Express Mail & Postal Svcs 55.75 55.75
98513 03124/2005 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPANY Feb recruitment ads for H. R. Dept. 2,863.72 2.863.72
98514 03124/2005 003697 PROJECT OESIGN 01/10-02106105 Svcs: SR79S Medians 4,312.50
01/10-02106105 Dsgn:Murr.Crk Bridge 828.44 5,140.94
98515 03124/2005 005075 PRUOENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY uniformslflr maVtowel rentals: City 891.60
Credit: .prep chrg. not part of contract -1.00 890.60
98516 03124/2005 004627 PUBLIC SAFETY TECHNOLOGIES Repair & Maint: Police Radios 893.52 893.52
98517 03/24/2005 004529 QUAIO TEMECULA HARLEY- Police motorcycles repair/maint svcs 651.07 651.07
98518 03124/2005 004453 R C ENTERPRISES Self inking stamp:Finance 37.52 37.52
98519 03124/2005 001364 R C P BLOCK & BRICK INC graffiti remover supplies: var. parks 607.71 607.71
98520 03/24/2005 002012 ROO EQUIPMENT COMPANY repair/maint of PW back hoe 438.87 438.87
98521 03/24/2005 006664 R R M DESIGN GROUP Consulting Svcs:Citywide Design 266.50 266.50
PageS
apChkLst
03124/2005
1 :26:34PM
Final Check List
CITY OF TEMECULA
Page: 9
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
(Continued)
Check # Date
Vendor
Description
Amount Paid
Check Total
98522 03124/2005 002612 RAOIO SHACK INC
Computer Supplies: I.S. Dept
Computer Supplies: I.S. Dept
71.72
13.34
85.06
98523 03/24/2005 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DISTRICT Various Water Meters
Mar 01-02-98010-0 Fire Stn 84
Mar 01-04-10033-2 Marg Rd
Mar 01-02-98000-0 Fire Stn 84
3,125.94
47.52
46.97
11.93
3,232.36
98524 03124/2005 000947 RANCHO REPROGRAPHICS
Dup. Blueprints: Pauba Ad Imprvmnts
Dup. Blueprints: Rainbow Cnyn
Dup. Blueprints: Paiba Rd Imprvmnts
Dup. Blueprints: Soundwall Ldscp Imprv
50.43
46.55
21.43
18.95
137.37
98525 03/24/2005 005972 RAU, ANOY J.
Bluegrass Festival entertafnment:3I19-20
800.00
800.00
98526 03124/2005 004584 REGENCY LIGHTING
TV museum electrical supplies
C. Museum electrical supplies
Credit: C. Museum electrical supplies
187.49
28.27
-1.77
213.99
98527 03124/2005 004498 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC
2/18 On-Call Traffic Signal Maint Svc
2/07 On-Call Traffic Signal Maint Svc
3,820.00
1,478.25
5.298.25
98528 03124/2005 007402 RICHARO BRADY & ASSOCIATES 01/30-02126/05 DS9n. Field Op Center
30,673.63
30.673.63
98529 03124/2005 002412 RICHAROS WATSON & GERSHON Feb 2005 legal services
Jan 2005 legal services
Credit: Invoice overchrg 11086-0616
96,189.02
86,975.58
.57.50
183,107.10
98530 03124/2005 002412 RICHARDS WATSON & GERSHON legal services: 11086-0114
3.610.17
3,610.17
98531 03124/2005 006483 RICHAROS. TYREASHA I.
TCSD Instructor Eamings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Eamings
378.00
49.00
24.50
451.50
98532 03/24/2005 000411 RIVERSIDE CO FLOOD CONTROL NPDES Cost Share: Santa Margarita Rvr
65.086.50
65,086.50
98533 03124/2005 002181 RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION
Prgs pmt #3:Winchester Widening/00-27
100,935.00
100.935.00
98534 03124/2005 007830 ROAO BUILDERS INC
Prgs pmt #8: Wolf Vly Crk Chn1/99-11CH
88,858.45
88.858.45
98535 03124/2005 000873 ROBERTS. RONALD H.
Reimb:Congressional City Cf 3/11-14/05
760.21
760.21
98536 03/24/2005 001942 S C SIGNS
Jan posting public notices: Planning
Feb posting public notices: Planning
Jan posting public notices: City Clerk
Feb posting public notices: City Clerk
1,190.00
1,105.00
935.00
340.00
3,570.00
PageS
apChkLsI Final Check List Page: 10
03/24/2005 1 :26:34PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
98537 03124/2005 005227 SAN DIEGO COUNTY OF Support Payment case #DF099118 25.00 25.00
98538 03124/2005 000278 SAN OIEGO UNION TRIBUNE Feb recruitment ads for H.R. Dept. 895.23 895.23
98539 03124/2005 006815 SAN DIEGO, COUNTY OF Support Payment case #581095025 12.50 12.50
98540 03124/2005 008676 SCHIFFER. LONNIE Refund-Picnic MeadolNS Park 72.00 72.00
98541 03124/2005 007342 SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER Feb legal selVices pmt 117.60 117.60
98542 03/24/2005 005940 SKY CANYON STUOIOS Dance Photos: High Hopes 858.00
additional sales tax owed 4.00 862.00
98543 03124/2005 000645 SMART & FINAL INC Employee Recognition Supplies 252.50
employee recognition supplies 219.19
Budget kick-off mtg supplies: Finance 130.72
Family Fun Nights Supplies 51.54
High Hopes Prgm Supplies 46.86 700.81
98544 03124/2005 000537 SO CALIF EOISON Mar 2-01-202-7603 arterial street lights 14,202.26
Feb 2-19-999-9442 various mtrs 1,428.16
Mar 2-25-393-4681 T.E.S. Pool 637.81
Feb 2-24-151-6582 various mtrs 120.99
Mar 2-24-628-8963 Btrtld Stage 27.41 16.416.63
98545 03124/2005 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL Pest control SIVCS: K. Hintergardt Pk 126.00 126.00
98546 03124/2005 007851 SOUTHCOAST HEATING & AIR City Hall HV AC repair svcs 2,630.00
City Hall HVAC repair svcs 250.39
City Hall HV AC repair svcs 122.50 3,002.89
98547 03124/2005 002366 STEAM SUPERIOR CARPET Feb floor maint svcs @ MPSC 800.00
Jan floor maint svcs @ MPSC 800.00
MPSC carpet cleaning 350.00
janitorial svcs @ Childrens' Museum 80.00
janitorial svcs @ CRC 80.00 2,110.00
98548 03124/2005 000305 TARGET STORE TCSD Special Events Supplies 130.40 130.40
98549 03124/2005 006914 TEMECULA COPIERS INC. Feb copier usage chrgs:City Facilities 3,896.49 3.896.49
98550 03124/2005 0086n TEMECULA SWIM CLUB Refund: Security Deposit 150.00 150.00
Page:10
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 11
03124/2005 1 :26:34PM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
98551 03/24/2005 000307 TEMECULA TROPHY COMPANY namebadge/plates: Edwards/Jacobs 25.59 25.59
98552 03/24/2005 000515 TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER State of City: J & J Laskin/C Gamboa 90.00 90.00
98553 03124/2005 008678 TEMECULA VALLEY Refund: Security Deposit CRC 3/24/05 100.00 100.00
---- -----
98554 03124/2005 007340 TEMECULA VALLEY FIRE EQUIP. fire extinguisher maint svclequipment 42.06 42.06
98555 03124/2005 000306 TEMECULA VALLEY PIPE & various parks irrigation supplies 514.16 514.16
98556 03/24/2005 004274 TEMECULA VALLEY SECURITY Locksmith svcs for Harveston Park 65.00
dupl keys for Fire Prey 11.21 76.21
98557 03124/2005 003140 TEMECULA VALLEY TCSD Instructor Earnings 110.25
-.-.-..-..- -
TCSD Instructor Earnings 42.00 152.25
98558 03124/2005 008675 TENGONCIANG, LORENA Refund: Sec.DeposiVRoom Rental 391.00 391.00
98559 03124/2005 003715 TMT PATHWAY LLC paint for PW Maint stencil truck 6,983.03 6,983.03
98560 03124/2005 005937 TOMCZAK, MARIA T. TCSD Instructor Earnings 70.00 70.00
98561 03124/2005 002452 TOP LINE INDUSTRIAL PW small equipment parts 30.02 30.02
98562 03124/2005 008125 TOTTEN, MICHELLE, M. TCSD Instructor Earnings 196.00
TCSD Instructor Earnings 168.00
TCSD Instructor Earnings 112.00 476.00
98563 03/24/2005 007433 TOVEY SHULTZ CONSTRUCTION Prg pmt #12: Comm Theater/PW02.23 267,724.67 267.724.67
98564 03/24/2005 003031 TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICE INC 28" Cones w/CoJlars for PW Maint Div 2,206.18
Sealant for PW Maint Div 107.70 2,313.88
98565 03/24/2005 008674 TRICK SHOP. THE Refund:Sec. DeposiVMPSC-Craft Room 150.00 150.00
98566 03/24/2005 008671 TRIPPLET, DALENA Refund: Just 4 Kidz 70.00 70.00
98567 03/24/2005 006192 TRISTAFF GROUP temp help w/e 03106 LongfTidwell 1,033.18
temp help w/e 02127 Tidwell 286.00
temp help w/e 02120 Tidwell 171.93 1,491.11
Page:11
apChkLst
03124/2005
1 :26:34PM
Final Check List
CITY OF TEMECULA
Page: 12
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CAUFORNIA
(Continued)
Check # Date
Vendor
Description
Amount Paid
Check Total
98568 03124/2005 008672 TUCKER, LINDA Refund: Tennis. Beginning Jr.
45.00
45.00
98569 03124/2005 000459 TUMBLE JUNGLE FITNESS GYM TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
542.26
392.00
380.27
371.00
242.66
242.08
148.40
130.66
2.449.33
98570 03/24/2005 004895 TUMBLES. J.W. TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
403.20
348.60
290.50
268.80
134.40
134.40
67.20
1,647.10
98571 03/24/2005 007118 US TELPAC1FIC CORPORATION Mar Internet IP Addresses Block
539.75
539.75
98572 03124/2005 002065 UNISOURCE
Central Services paper supplies
2.072.63
2.072.63
98573 03/24/2005 004981 UNISOURCE SCREENING &
311-15/05 bckgrnd screening svcs
247.50
247.50
98574 03124/2005 000325 UNITED WAY
United Way Charities Payment
59.50
59.50
98575 03124/2005 004368 VAll COOPER & ASSOCIATES
Feb temp inspection svcs: A Aguilar
6,606.00
6.606.00
98576 03124/2005 006807 VANIR CONSTRUCTION
09/01-01/31/05 svcs:Roripaugh Fire Stn
Jan Constr Mgmt Svcs:Comm Theater
24,743.53
20,798.04
45,541.57
98577 03124/2005 004261 VERIZON
Mar xxx-0073 general usage
Mar xxx-1473 P.O. O.T. Stn
Mar xxx-8573 general usage
Mar xxx-5473 Moraga Rd
234.92
77.40
30.73
28.27
371.32
98578 03/24/2005 004789 VERIZON ONLINE
Internet svcs: P.O. O.T. Stn
203.57
203.57
98579 03/24/2005 004848 VERIZON SELECT SERVICES INC Mar long distance phone svcs
1.439.99
1.439.99
98580 03124/2005 003730 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC
02116-28/05 Citywide tree maint svcs
Emergency tree removal:1/9/0S RRSP
Emergency tree removal:1n/05 S8 vlgs
7,650.00
800.00
400.00
8,850.00
Page:12
apChkLst
03124/2005
1 :26:34PM
Final Check List
CITY OF TEMECULA
Page: 13
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
(Continued)
Amount Paid
Check Total
Check # Date Vendor Description
98581 03/24/2005 005706 WESTERN PACIFIC SIGNAL LLC Equip for Citywide traf sgnl
6,606.42
6.606.42
96562 03/24/2005 004829 WILSON GROUP LLC. THE
Mar State lobbyist svcs for City issues
3.500.00
3.500.00
98583 03124/2005 001544 YEAGER SKANSKA INC
Prg pmt #11 :Wolf Vly Creek Channel
244,790.64
244,790.64
Grand total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA:
1,849,314.10
Page:13
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 1
03131/2005 11 :30:32AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
98584 03129/2005 006832 RIVERSIDE CO CLERK OF THE Revised RedhawklVail Ranch Annex. 64.00 64.00
98585 03130/2005 003310 RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY Redhawk Annexations fees 12,000.00 12,000.00
98586 03/31/2005 001985 A E P (ASSOC OF ENVIRO PROF) RegistAEP Cf:5121-23:Brown/Hogan 590.00 590.00
98587 03131/2005 002038 ACTION POOL & SPA SUPPLY Pool sanitizing chemicals 32.02 32.02
98588 03/31/2005 000106 ALFAX WHOLESALE FURNITURE T.Museum folding chairs 1.125.59 1,125.59
98589 03131/2005 008526 ALL STAR PROMOTIONS Tffc Safety Commissioners recognition 53.87 53.87
98590 03/31/2005 008686 ALMAZAN, SONORA Refund: Amazing Chefs 5.00 5.00
98591 03/31/2005 004240 AMERICAN FORENSIC NURSES Feb DUI Drug & Alcohol Screening 97.50 97.50
98592 03/31/2005 008595 AMERICAN INTL GROUP INC Mar '05 workers' camp premium 51,818.00 51.818.00
98593 03/31/2005 000747 AMERICAN PLANNING Membership:Stuart Fisk 127716 303.00 303.00
ASSOCIATION
98594 03/31/2005 007996 AMERICAN WEST LANDSCAPE Prgss PmtPechanga Pkwy Ldscp 81.501.38 81,501.38
INC
98595 03/31/2005 000101 APPLE ONE INC Temp Help PPE 3/5 & 3/12 Buchanan 756.00
Temp help PPE 3/12 Kasparian 696.60
Temp help PPE 3/23 Kasparian 672.30
Temp help PPE 3/19 Cole 475.20 2,600.10
98596 03/31/2005 001561 ARCH WIRELESS Mar-Jun paging/rental svcs 484.54 484.54
98597 03/31/2005 008062 ARROW STAFF RESOURCES, INC Temp help PPE 3/20 Grove/Heer 3,195.87 3,195.87
98598 03/31/2005 002648 AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN Membership: Eric Rodecker 52094984 45.00
Membership: Randy West 41878414 45.00
Membership: Rodney Tidwell 63295026 45.00 135.00
98599 03/31/2005 002713 BALLOONS GALORE Balloons for egg hunt 3/26/05 457.93 457.93
Page:1
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 2
03131/2005 11 :30:32AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Oate Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
98600 03/31/2005 002541 BECKER CONSTRUCTION SRVS Heavy rains repairs:Mercedes St. 3.500.08
Heavy rains repairs:J.Smith Rd 1,631.20
Heavy rains repairs:J.Smith Rd 1,461.98 6,593.26
98601 03/31/2005 008690 BEST IN SHOW OOG WASH LLC Refund: Building pennit ovrpmt 1,650.80 1.650.80
98602 03/31/2005 004262 BIO-TOX LABORATORIES Feb DUI Drug & Alcohol Screening 437.90
Jan-Feb DUI Drug & Alcohol Screening 349.65 787.55
98603 03/31/2005 008685 CABRAL. MANUAL Reimb: Fac Impr Prgm- Bloodies Boutique 135.00 135.00
98604 03131/2005 003138 CAL MAT PW patch truck materials 213.72
PW patch truck materials 180.64
PW patch truck materials 144.73
PW patch truck materials 108.46
PW patch truck materials 73.97
PW patch truck materials 71.84 793.36
98605 03131/2005 005384 CALIF BAGEL BAKERY & DELI Refreshments:Citizen Corps Mtg 4/16 242.44
Refreshments:Citizen Corps Mtg 4/17 196.64 439.08
98606 03131/2005 004248 CALIF OEPT OF JUSTICE- Fingerprinting 10 svcs:Police/HR 3.293.00 3,293.00
98607 03/31/2005 004971 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES, Apr Lease Pmt For City Copiers 6,930.78
Apr lease pml for CRC/Sln 73 Copiers 328.63
Apr lease pml for Stn 12 Copier 69.96 7,329.37
98608 03/31/2005 008684 CARPENTER. THERESA L Reimb: Fac Impr Prgm- My Favorite Things 135.00 135.00
98609 03/31/2005 005417 CINTAS FIRST AIO & SAFETY First aid supplies:City Hall 69.05
First aid supplies:PW Mntc 58.60 127.65
98610 03/31/2005 001193 COMP USA INC Computer supplies:Ethernet Adptr. IS 85.90 85.90
98611 03/31/2005 000442 COMPUTER ALERT SYSTEMS Unstrapped panel: Mntc Fac 95.00 95.00
98612 03/31/2005 002945 CONSOLiOATED ELECTRICAL Elect supplies: Old Town 97.68
Elect. supplies; Old Town 34.48 132.16
98613 03/31/2005 001923 CONVERSE CONSULTANTS Jan Material T esting:Jefferson Rd 766.00 766.00
98614 03/31/2005 003739 COTTON BRIOGES ASSOCIATES Feb '05 General plan update svcs 1.425.95 1.425.95
98615 03131/2005 003986 COZAD & FOX INC Feb Survey: Winchester Widening 3,636.00 3,636.00
Page2
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 3
03/31/2005 11 :30:32AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
9S616 03/31/2005 006954 CRAFTSMEN PLUMBING & HVAC CRC plumbing repairs 455.00 455.00
96617 03/31/2005 001009 D B X INC Trffc Signal:MeadowslLa Serena 72,700.20 72,700.20
98618 03/31/2005 004123 D L PHARES & ASSOCIATES Apr Lease & Cam Chrgs:Police 2.141.58 2,141.58
98619 03131/2005 003945 OIAMONO ENVIRONMENTAL Portable restrooms:Bluegrass Festival 5n.75
Portable restrooms:C.Museum 116.07
Creditnon-contract item:fuel surchg .2.52 691.30
98620 03/31/2005 000684 DIEHL EVANS & COMPANY LLP Audit srvcs:State Transp Impr P~t 1.000.00 1,000.00
98621 03/31/2005 007866 DIETERICH INTERNATIONAL Pw Mntc Vehicle Repairs 375.83 375.83
98622 03131/2005 004192 OOWNS COMMERCIAL FUELING Fuel for city vehicles: PW Mntc 1,157.74
Fuel for city vehicles:TCSD 1.122.28
Fuel for city vehicles: LandlCIP 524.40 2,804.42
98623 03/31/2005 002528 EAGLE GRAPHIC CREATIONS EE engraved coffee mugs 100.21 100.21
98624 03131/2005 000161 EDEN SYSTEMS INC Payroll standard report form update 250.00 250.00
98625 03/31/2005 002438 ENGEN CORPORATION Feb material testing:Winchester Rd 866.25 666.25
98626 03131/2005 002939 ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS ARC IMS consulting svcs 19,588.92 19,588.92
--~- ~~
98627 03/31/2005 005251 EQUIPMENT REPAIR SERVICE Patch Truck Repair Svcs:PW mntc 427.00
Dump Truck Repair Svcs:PW mntc 300.00 727.00
98628 03131/2005 006487 EUROPEAN CAFE & VINEYARD Refrshmnts:Council closed session 34.26 34.26
98629 03/31/2005 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE Dee Idscp mntc:Harveston Prk 3,900.00
Oct-Dee Idscp impr:Harveston Medians 3,170.00
Feb Idscp impr:Sports Parks 1.600.00
Feb ldscp impr:Campos Verded 997.15
Feb Idscp impr:Sports Park 640.00 10,307.15
98630 03131/2005 000478 FAST SIGNS C.Museum clear acrylic boxes 339.41 339.41
98631 03/31/2005 000165 FEOERAL EXPRESS INC Express mail services 340.65 340.65
Page:3
apChkLsl Final Check List Page: 4
03131/2005 11 :30:32AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
98632 03/31/2005 004000 FENCING BY ACREY INC Res Imp Prgm: Lehman, L & A 3.995.00 3,995.00
98633 03/31/2005 000166 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE Lot Book Reprt: Walters 75.00
Lot Book Reprt: Wiggins 75.00
Lot Book Reprt: Jackson 75.00 225.00
98634 03/31/200S 003347 FIRST BANKCARO CENTER
001500 SAN DIEGO REGIONAL TRAIN DU RegistWriting Resutts:CD/SF: 3/9-10 490.00
007227 MEXICO CHIOUITO DU Refreshments:PJanning Comm Mtg 36.36 526.36
98635 03/31/2005 008687 FOLEY, HOLLY Refund: Amazing Chefs 5.00 5.00
98636 03/31/2005 007866 G C S SUPPLIES INC Printer Toner Supplies:Citywide 1,292.19
Printer Toner Supplies:Citywide 63.25 1,355.44
98637 03/31/2005 000173 GENERAL BINDING Binding/lamination Supplies:Ctrl Svcs 29.65 29.65
- - -- - - -.-
98638 03/31/2005 005405 GILLlLANO. ROBIN Reimb: '05 CPRS COnf:3/9-13/05 96.41 96.41
98639 03/31/2005 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCTS Office Supplies:Citizen Corps 91.53 91.53
98640 03/31/2005 005947 GOLOEN STATE OVERNIGHT Express Mail Service:Fire Prevo 54.75 54.75
98641 03/31/2005 008647 GOODING. EOWIN Bluegrass Festival entertainment 600.00 600.00
98642 03/31/2005 004188 HARRIS & ASSOCIATES Consultant:Harveston Acquisition Audit 1,585.00 1.585.00
98643 03/31/2005 008689 HAWKINS, DENISE Refund: Pablito's Spanish Academy 195.00 195.00
98644 03/31/2005 001135 HEAL THPOINTE MEOICAL New EE physicals & drug screenings 170.00 170.00
GROUP INC
98645 03/31/2005 002906 HEMET FENCE COMPANY Res Imp Pgrm: Chiarelli, Iris 3,795.00 3,795.00
98646 03/31/2005 007620 HEWETT. JACYLN Refund: Sr Excursions-Whale Watching 25.00 25.00
98647 03/31/2005 007414 HOHMAN. AMBER Refund: Kidz Love Soccer 75.00 75.00
98648 03/31/2005 003938 IAN DAVIDSON LANOSCAPE- Revise First/Front St Idscp design 1.305.00
IDLA Revise First/Front St Idscp design
296.00 1,601.00
Page:4
apChkLst Final Check List Page: 5
03131/2005 11:30:32AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid Check Total
98649 03131/2005 004833 IMPERIAL PAVING COMPANY INC Heavy Rains Repairs:J.Wamer Rd. 29,334.00 29,334.00
98650 03131/2005 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPLY Pool sanitizing chemicals 391.35
Pool sanitizing chemicals 190.72
Pool sanitizing chemicals 146.22 728.29
98651 03/31/2005 004884 J & W REDWOOO LUMBER CO Old Town maintenance supplies 65.95 65.95
98652 03/31/2005 004265 JEWELL FENCE COMPANY Res Imp Prgm: Osmond, Lisa 2.200.00 2,200.00
98653 03131/2005 007671 JONES. MARILYN TCSD instructor eamings 490.00 490.00
98654 03131/2005 003046 K FROG 95.1 FM RAOIO Radio broadcasting:Bluegrass Festival 798.00 798.00
98655 03131/2005 005988 KEEFER, BRIAN P. Reimb: Fac Impr Prgm- Rachel's Place 135.00
Reimb: Fac Impr prgm. Tern. Psychic 135.00 270.00
98656 03/31/2005 000206 KINKOS INC Stationery paper/mise supplies 5.38 5.38
98657 03131/2005 001719 L P A INC Feb:Library Donor Related Issues 1,135.00 1,135.00
98658 03/31/2005 003726 liFE ASSIST INC Supplies for Paramedic squad 2.856.66 2,856.66
98659 03131/2005 008688 LLOYO, SHANTE Y. PERKINS Refund: Amazing Chefs 5.00 5.00
98660 03131/2005 006897 LORY, SUSAN, J. TCSD instructor earnings 425.60
TCSD instructor earnings 418.95
TCSD instructor earnings 418.95
TCSD instructor earnings 372.40
TCSD instructor earnings 359.10
TCSD instructor earnings 305.90
TCSD instructor earnings 295.93
TCSD instructor earnings 269.33
TCSD instructor earnings 239.40 3,105.56
98661 03/31/2005 001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY temp help w/e 03/13 HooflDankworth 1,162.40 1.162.40
98662 03/31/2005 000220 MAURICE PRINTERS INC Printing Svcs: March Newsletter 5,722.60
printing svcs: mayor city postcards 1,144.31
printing svcs: postcard envelopes 268.30 7.135.21
98663 03131/2005 007669 MILES. KATRINA TCSD Instructor Earnings 210.00 210.00
PageS
apChkLst
03/3112005
11 :30:32AM
(Continued)
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
Check # Date
Vendor
96664 03/31/2005 001364 MINUTEMAN PRESS
96665 03/31/2005 006663 MOCHIZUKI, SHERRY
96666 03/31/2005 000663 MONTELEONE EXCAVATING
Final Check List
CITY OF TEMECULA
Page: 6
Description
Amount Paid
Check Total
Business Cards: Art Pina
business cards: Debbie Brown
business cards: Officer D Truscott
43.37
43.37
43.37
130.11
Refund: Amazing Chefs 1003.103
5.00
5.00
Heavy rains repairs:Duck Pond
Heavy rains repairs:J.Smith/Hwy79
1,312.00
1,312.00
2.624.00
98667 03/31/2005 008528 NICHOLS, MELBURG & ROSETTO Feb consulting: civic center complex
2,437.50
2.437.50
98668 03131/2005 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES Feb public notice ads: C.C. & Planning
927.96
927.96
96669 03/31/2005 006140 NORTH JEFFERSON BUSINESS
96670 03/31/2005 002100 OBJECT RAOIANCE INC
Bus.Prk Assn Dues:F.V.l115 XX20
Bus.Prk Assn Dues:F.V.l115 Xx17
447.00
329.00
776.00
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
315.00
225.75
70.67
47.25
656.67
98671 03131/2005 006721 OFFJCEMAX - A BOISE COMPANY City Hall space plan rnodifications
City Hall Space Plan Modifications
Misc office supplies: Code Enforcement
City Hall space plan modifications
Misc office supplies: Finance
City Hall space plan modifications
City Hall space plan modifications
96672 03/31/2005 002105 OLO TOWN TIRE & SERVICE
96673 03/31/2005 002256 P & 0 CONSULTANTS INC
96674 03/31/2005 002734 P V P COMMUNICATIONS INC
96675 03/31/2005 006939 PAINT CONNECTION, THE
96676 0313112005 006692 PISCOPO, JOHN
1,470.66
1,051.02
119.10
106.01
79.13
-162.53
-753.16
1.690.23
City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs
City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs
City Vehicle Repair/Maint Svcs
499.69
131.34
63.24
694.47
Feb temp help-bldg inspector. Henderson
10.145.52
10,145.52
Helmets/Communication Kits: Police
703.65
703.65
Res Imp prgm: Fredrickson, Linda
2.613.00
2,613.00
Refund: Skate Park admission fee
5.00
5.00
98677 03/31/2005 003493 PRO-CRAFT OVERHEAD DOORS Debit: add'l work amendment completed
167.06
167.06
98678 03131/2005 001416 QUICK CRETE PRODUCTS INC 30 gallon plastic liners: various parks
376.05
376.05
Pagefi
apChkLst
0313112005
11 :30:32AM
Final Check List
CITY OF TEMECULA
Page: 7
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CAUFORNIA
(Continued)
Check # Date
Vendor
Description
Amount Paid
Check Total
98679 03/31/2005 002012 ROOEQUIPMENTCOMPANY
repair/maint of PW back hoe
repair/maint of PW back hoe
116.37
62.18
178.55
98680 03131/2005 004029 R J M DESIGN GROUP INC
Jan Dsgn Svcs: Sports Complex
8.431.61
8.431.61
98681 03/31/2005 000728 RAMSEY BACKFLOW &
Backflow Testing: Various Slopes
Backflow Testing: Various Parks
Backflow Testing: Various Slopes
Backflow Testing: Various Slopes
Backflow Testing: Various Parks
1,005.00
660.00
300.00
240.00
160.00
2.365.00
98682 03131/2005 002072 RANCHO CALIF WATER OIST-
install water meter:Pechanga Pkwy
1,457.59
1.457.59
98683 03131/2005 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DISTRICT MarOl-08-81117-2 Calle Banuelos
Mar 01-08-87002-4 Welton Wy
Mar 01-15-00101-2 Winchester Crk Ave
Mar 01.15-01500 Margarita Rd
Mar 01-08-83500-3 Tulley Ranch Rd
Mar 01-08-38009-0 Fire Stn 92
Mar 01-08-81000-2 Nighthawk Pass
Mar 01-08-00037-1 Cupeno Ln Lscp
Mar 01-04-87360-1 Rancho
Mar 01-08-82000-2 Johnston Dr
Mar 01-04.47069.1 Margarita Rd
177.60
63.92
59.51
50.66
48.48
47_37
36.53
34.02
29.14
19.44
11.54
578.21
98684 03/31/2005 000947 RANCHO REPROGRAPHICS dup. blueprints: Temecula Library
Dup. Blueprints: Wolf Creek Sports Pk
Dup. Blueprints: Multi.Trail System
193.95
135.33
6.98
336.26
98685 03131/2005 004584 REGENCY LIGHTING C.Museum electrical supplies
458.41
458.41
98686 03131/2005 004498 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC Feb On-Call Traffic Signal Maint Svc
2/24 On.Call Traffic Signal Maint Svc
1,926.50
186.00
2,112.50
98687 03131/2005 000955 RIVERSIOE CO SHERIFF SW STN Rod Run Patrol: 2/25-27/05
23,889.70
23,889.70
98688 03/31/2005 000406 RIVERSIOE CO SHERIFFS OEPT 1/6/05 - 2/2/05 :Iaw enforcement
804.863.40
804,863.40
98689 03/31/2005 003587 RIZZO CONSTRUCTION INC Repair: CRC Water Slide
1,750.00
1,750.00
98690 03/31/2005 001048 ROSAS CANTINA RESTAURANT Refreshments: PW qtrly Staff Mtg
329.70
329.70
98691 03/31/2005 002226 RUSSO, MARY ANNE
TCSD Instructor Eamings
855.40
855.40
Page:7
apChkLst
03131/2005
11 :30:32AM
Final Check list
CITY OF TEMECULA
Page: 8
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
(Continued)
Check # Date
Vendor
Description
Amount Paid
Check Total
98692 03/31/2005 007113 RYLE, SHEILA H. TCSD Instructor Earnings
TCSD Instructor Earnings
1.528.80
993.72
2,522.52
98693 03/31/2005 004609 SHREDFORCE INC Mar doc shredding svcs: Records Mgrnt
Mar doc shredding svcs: P.O. O.T. Stn
Mar doc shredding svcs: Records Mgmt
110.00
24.00
22.50
156.50
98694 03/31/2005 004460 SILVERADO BLUEGRASS BAND entertainment: bluegrass festival
2,000.00
2.000.00
98695 03/31/2005 000645 SMART & FINAL INC
TCSD Special Events Supplies
Just 4 Kidz Prgm Supplies
2.291.80
156.74
2,448.54
98696 03/31/2005 000537 SO CALIF EOISON
Mar 2.02.351-4946 MPSC
Mar 2-18-937-3152 T. Museum
Mar 2-22-891-0550 various mtrs
Mar 2-23-365-5992 Fire Stn 92
Mar 2-11-007-0455 6th Street
Mar 2-20-817-9929 P.O. O.T. S1n
Mar 2-21-911-7892 O.T. Prk Lot
Mar 2-21-981-4720 Hwy 79
Mar 2-19-171-8568 Wedding Chpl
Mar 2-14-204-1615 Front St Radio
806.69
595.67
322.16
312.60
270.76
195.93
134.70
63.29
59.48
22.83
2,784.11
98697 03/31/2005 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY
Mar 091-024-9300-5 CRC Pool
Mar 021-725-0775-4 Sr Ctr
Mar 095-167-7907-2 Fire Stn 84
Mar 133-040-7373-0 West Wing
Mar 101~52-0950~0 TCC
Mar 196-025-0344-3 C. Museum
Mar 181-383-8881-6 Museum
3.196.39
272.42
256.38
113.66
78.64
57.32
47.35
4.022.16
98698 03/31/2005 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTROL Pest control svcs: Code Enforcement
Pest control srvcs: Temeku Hills Pk Bees
Pest control srvcs: TCC
Pest control SIVCS: children's museum
Pest control SIVCS: Wedding Chapel
Pest control SIVCS: Senior Center
84.00
84.00
36.00
36.00
32.00
29.00
301.00
98699 03/31/2005 007851 SOUTHCOAST HEATING & AIR
West Wing HVAC repair svcs
312.84
312.84
98700 03/31/2005 000293 STAOIUM PIZZA
refreshments:Team Pace 3/16/05
73.34
73.34
98701 03/31/2005 002366 STEAM SUPERIOR CARPET
MPSC janitorial services
280.00
280.00
98702 03131/2005 004247 STERICYCLE INC
Feb Paramedic med waste disposal svc
111.14
111.14
Page:B
apChkLst Final Check List
03/31/2005 11:30:32AM CITY OF TEMECULA
Bank: union UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA (Continued)
Check # Date Vendor Description Amount Paid
98703 03/31/2005 003840 STRONGS PAINTING Meadows Par1<way Park Gazebo 600.00
98704 03131/2005 000305 TARGET STORE TeSO Special Events Supplies 57.84
MPSC Special Events Supplies 37.38
9S705 03131/2005 006465 TEMECULA AUTO REPAIR Medic Squad vehicle repair/maint 2,679.47
98706 03131/2005 004190 TEMECULA VALLEY FILM Add'l FY 04/05 Film/Music Spnrshp 30,000.00
98707 03/31/2005 003862 THYSSENKRUPP elevator maint/inspection:Maint Fac 132.68
--- ~ --. -
Maint. Fac; Overbilled monthly charge -7.68
98708 03131/2005 005873 TRI AO ACTUARIES INC Mar Administration Fees 365.50
Credit 41 participants for March -17.00
98709 03/31/2005 006192 TRISTAFF GROUP temp help w/e 03113 Tidwell/Long 1.103.38
98710 03/31/2005 008681 TRUAX. PAMELA Refund: Amazing Chefs 1003.103 5.00
98711 03131/2005 004001 U C REGENTS Synchro/Sim Traffic: A.Pina 05105 150.00
98712 03131/2005 002065 UNISOURCE Paper Supplies for City Hall 108.20
98713 03/31/2005 008682 VENTIMIGLIA. KATHERINE Refund: Amazing Chefs 1003.103 5.00
98714 03131/2005 004261 VERIZON Mar xxx-0074 general usage 253.30
Mar xxx.2016 general usage 109.16
Mar xxx-9897 general usage 90.30
Mar xxx.3526 general usage 84.82
Mar xxx-3564 general usage 56.54
Mar xxx-5275 general usage 29.23
Mar xxx-2676 general usage 28.27
98715 03/31/2005 004789 VERIZON ONLINE Internet svcs: xx0544 72.83
Internet svcs/EOC backup @ sin 84 72.83
Internet svcs; P.O. O.T. Stn 42.83
98716 03131/2005 001890 VORTEX DOORS repair/maintgrg doors@ Fire Sin 84 992.36
98717 03/31/2005 008316 WESTSIDE SELF STORAGE Off Site Records Storage unit A 1000 1.000.00
Page: 9
Check Total
600.00
95.22
2.679.47
30,000.00
125.00
348.50
1,103.38
5.00
150.00
108.20
5.00
651.62
188.49
992.36
1.000.00
Grand total for UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA:
1,283,582.79
PageS
ITEM 3
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF
THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
MARCH 8, 2005
The City Council convened in Closed Session at 6:00 P.M., on Tuesday, March 8, 2005, in the
City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
California. The Open Session convened at 7:00 P.M.
Present:
5
Council members:
Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington, and
Comerchero
Absent:
o
Councilmembers:
None
Welcoming her to the meeting, Mayor Comerchero acknowledged the attendance of former
Mayor Birdsall.
PRELUDE MUSIC
The prelude music was provided by Eve Craig and the National Anthem was sung by Caylie
Gregorio.
INVOCATION
The invocation was given by Pastor John Ruhlman of Life Church.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The pledge of allegiance was presented by Councilman Naggar.
PRESENT ATIONS/PROCLAMA TIONS
Certificate of Achievement to Charles Somers. Troop No. 337. for attaining his Eaale Scout rank
Mayor Comerchero presented the City's Community Pride Eagle Scout pin along with a
certificate to Charles Somers who briefly described his Eagle Scout project to the City Council
and public.
Certificate of Appreciation to the Assistance Leaaue
Congratulating this organization on its 15th anniversary and commending the Assistance League
on its continual support and service to those in need, Mayor Comerchero presented a Certificate
of Appreciation to the representatives of the League. Appreciating the Council's support of the
organization, Ms. Marilyn Hewlett thanked the City Council for the recognition.
Proclamation for the Rotarv Club's 100th Anniversarv
Not only celebrating the 30th anniversary of the City's local Rotary Club but also the 100th
anniversary of Rotary International, Mayor Comerchero commemorated this occasion with
presenting a proclamation to Rotary President Elect Brown.
R:\Minutes\030B05
Presentation to the Maraarita Middle School Students for Sponsorship to Nakavama. Japan
Mayor Comerchero advised that, this month, a delegation of nine students from Margarita
Middle School will be traveling to the City's Sister City -- Nakayama, Japan. In an effort to
assist with offsetting the cost with such a trip, a $200 check was presented to each of the nine
students. The nine students traveling to Nakayama, Japan, will be as follows:
Amanda Malley
Sara Matley
Venus Mez-Duke Duong
Laura Woodland
Alice Brown
Sheldon Reynolds
Susanna Yang
Brenton Haerr
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A. Due to a recent personal experience, Mrs. Pat Birdsall, Temecula, apprised the City
Council of the City's need for a hospital. To assure the quality of life for the residents in this
City, Mrs. Birdsall encouraged the City Council to expedite the completion of a hospital.
With regard to the construction of a hospital in the City, Mayor Comerchero advised that
the City, on its level, has been proceeding as quickly as possible but noted that needed State
approval has created some delays.
Councilman Naggar advised that the construction of a hospital will be discussed at the
April 6, 2005, Planning Commission meeting.
B. Ms. Lanae Turley-Trejo, Temecula, representing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-
Day Saints, invited the Councilmembers and the public to a community event, benefiting the
tsunami victims, on Saturday, March 19, 2005, 9:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M., at Great Oak High
School.
C. Mr. Don Jones, Temecula, representing Chaparral High School Education Foundation,
invited the City Councilmembers and the public to the Annual Community Swap Meet and Craft
Faire at Chaparral High School on Saturday, March 19, 2005, 7:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M.
D. Mr. Carl Burke and Mr. James Morgan, representing the YMCA, thanked the City
Council for the gift of the land for the future site of a YMCA facility and its continuing support
and advised that in the past year, over $2 million have been raised, exceeding YMCA's
commitment to raise $1.7 million by 2008. It was noted that drawings have been completed;
that a general contractor has been identified; and that efforts are ongoing to seek in-kind
donations.
R:\MinutesI030805
2
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Referencing Consent Calendar Item No. 13 (On-Call Traffic Signal Maintenance
Services), Mayor Pro Tem Roberts stated that, in his opinion, the City's traffic signals are not
working as well as they were at incorporation and suggested the completion of a survey and
consideration of upgrading/replacing certain traffic signal controls/sensors in the upcoming
budget process.
B. With regard to the City's request to the State Senate/Assembly to address the widening
of Winchester Road Off-ramp over Santa Gertrudis Creek and to explore the possibility of an
additional off-ramp onto Jefferson Road, Councilman Naggar informed the public that Senator
Hollingsworth has secured matching funds in the amount of $1.5 million - City would be
reimbursed for $750,000. During the upcoming budget process, Mr. Naggar requested that staff
explore the procurement of those $750,000, recommending that the matter be addressed with
the City of Murrieta.
C. Concurring with Mayor Pro Tem Roberts' comment regarding timing of traffic signals,
Councilman Washington noted that efforts need to be devoted to improving traffic flow,
commenting on Ynez and Rancho California Roads.
Congratulating Community Services Director Parker and his staff, Mr. Washington
commented on the rededication of a refurbished park - Pablo Apis Park - in Vail Ranch.
Having attend yesterday's meeting of Western Riverside Council of Governments
meeting, Councilman Washington commented on the discussion to delay implementation of
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees related to development of commercial space (Class A
office space); advised that although the vote was not unanimous, he had supported the delay in
an effort to continue growth and economic development; noted that he would report to the
Council on progress made; and advised that the cost of this delay will be approximately 1 % of
the overall TUMF collection within the two-year period.
D. With six weeks having passed since she was appointed to the City Council,
Councilwoman Edwards apprised the residents of the City's high-functioning staff and very
functioning City Council and thanked staff for making her transition a very smooth process.
E. Commenting on a meeting he had attended organized by Councilwoman Edwards,
Mayor Comerchero advised that efforts are underway to explore the possibility of upgrading and
expanding a local Hemet television station in an effort to establish a local television station.
Advising that the Soboba Indian Tribe will be the owner of 120 acres of property near the
intersection of Domenigoni Parkway and Winchester Road on which it may build a casino and
hotel, Mayor Comerchero advised that in an effort to establish a similar relationship with the
Soboba Tribe as enjoyed with the Pechanga Tribe in the event the Tribe chooses to proceed
with that project, the City has met with the Tribe.
R:\Minutesl030805
3
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 included in the
agenda.
2 Minutes recommendation:
2.1 Approve the minutes of February 8, 2005;
2.2 Approve the minutes of February 22, 2005.
3 Resolution approving List of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 05-24
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
4 Citv Treasurer's Report recommendation:
4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of January 31, 2005.
5 Temecula On Staae Event Sponsorship Reauest
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Approve the event sponsorship agreement for actual City-support costs in the
amount up to $5,425 for Temecula On Stage and authorize the Mayor to execute
the agreement.
(Councilman Washington abstained with regard to this item.)
R\Minutes\030805
4
6 Authorize the Temporarv Street Closure of Third Street between Old Town Front Street
and Murrieta Creek for the Annual Old Town Bluearass Festival Event scheduled for
March 19 and 20. 2005. and deleaate authoritv to issue a Special Events/Street Closures
Permit to the Director of Public Works/Citv Enaineer
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 05-25
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AUTHORIZING TEMPORARY STREET CLOSURE
OF THIRD STREET BETWEEN OLD TOWN FRONT STREET
AND MURRIETA CREEK FOR THE ANNUAL OLD TOWN
BLUEGRASS FESTIVAL EVENT SCHEDULED FOR MARCH 19
AND 20, 2005, AND AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF
PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER TO ISSUE A SPECIAL
EVENTS PERMIT INCLUDING STREET CLOSURES
7 Approve the First-Source Hirina Memorandum of Understandina between the Workforce
Development Centers of Riverside County and City of Temecula
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Approve the First-Source Hiring Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between
the Workforce Development Centers of Riverside County and City of Temecula.
8 Resolution reauestina that Conoress enact a Fiscal Year 2006 Budoet and Appropriations
Package that funds CDBG Formula Grants at no less than current Fiscal Year 2005
Allocations
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 05-26
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA REQUESTING THAT CONGRESS ENACT A
FISCAL YEAR 2006 BUDGET AND APPROPRIATIONS
PACKAGE THAT FUNDS CDBG FORMULA GRANTS AT NO
LESS THAN $4.355 BILLION, WHICH IS LEVEL WITH FISCAL
YEAR 2005 ALLOCATIONS
R:lMinutesl03080S
5
9 Retention Policv and Schedule Revisions
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 05-27
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN
CITY RECORDS AS PROVIDED BY SECTION 34090 OF THE
GOVERNMENT CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ESTABLISHING A RECORDS RETENTION PROCEDURE AND
REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 04-14
10 Acceptance of certain public streets into the City-maintained Street System within Tract
MaD No. 28510 of the Campos Verdes Subdivision (located at the northeast corner of
Maraarita Road and North General Kearny Road)
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 05-28
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS INTO
THE CITY-MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM (WITHIN CAMPOS
VERDES SUBDIVISION TRACT MAP NO. 28510)
11 Tract Map No. 32170 (located at the southwest corner of Date Street and Lakeview Road)
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1 Approve Tract Map No. 32170 in conformance with the conditions of approval;
11.2 Approve the Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Monument Bond as
security for the agreement.
12 Tract Map No. 32169 (located at the southwest corner of Harveston Wav and Marqarita
Road)
RECOMMENDATION:
12.1 Approve Tract Map No. 32169 in conformance with the conditions of approval;
12.2 Approve the Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Monument Bond as
security for the agreement.
R:\Minutes\030805
6
13 First Amendment to Contract Aareement for On-Call Traffic Signal Maintenance Services
RECOMMENDATION:
13.1 Approve the First Amendment to the Contract Agreement with Republic Electric to
perform additional On-Call Traffic Signal Maintenance Services for an amount not to
exceed $50,000 and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement.
14 Bridae Barrier Rail Replacement Proiect Proiect No. PW01-09 Approval of the Plans
and Specifications and solicitation of Construction Bids
RECOMMENDATION:
14.1 Approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of
Public Works to solicit construction bids for Project No. PW01-09 - Bridge Barrier
Rail Replacement Project.
15 Transportation Uniform Mitiaation Fee (TUMF) Reimbursement Aareement
RECOMMENDATION:
15.1 Approve the model agreement for the funding of TUMF Regional Arterial
Improvements between the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC)
and the City of Temecula for the Interstate 15/State Route 79 Ultimate Interchange
project in substantially the same format as attached and authorize the City Manager
to execute the final agreement.
MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-15. The
motion was seconded by Councilwoman Edwards and voice vote reflected approval with the
exception of Councilman Washington who abstained with regard to Item NO.5.
At 7:41 P.M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District and the
Temecula Redevelopment Agency. At 8:01 P.M., the City Council resumed with regular
business.
PUBLIC HEARING
16 Wolf Creek Development Aqreement Amendment PA05-0027
RECOMMENDATION:
16.1 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 05-04
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE WOLF CREEK
PROJECT (PLANNING APPLICATION PA05-0027)
R\Minulesl030805
7
Development Services Administrator McCarthy presented the staff report (as per agenda
material), advising that the proposed amendment would change the threshold for the completion
of two park sites: the completion of the north half of the linear park would be deferred from the
4001h to the 6001h building permit and the six-acre neighborhood park would be deferred from the
6001h to the 7001h building permit and that any design and construction cost in excess of the
Development Impact Fee credit will be the sole responsibility of the developer.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Mike White, representing Wolf Creek Development, LLC, thanked staff for its associated
efforts and requested City Council approval.
There being no other speakers, the public hearing was closed.
Viewing the proposed amendments as a benefit for the community, Councilman Washington
thanked Mr. White and Development Services Administrator McCarthy for their efforts.
Thanking the developer for the level of services provided, Mayor Comerchero as well
commended staff on a job well done.
At this time, City Attorney Thorson read the Ordinance No. 05-04 by title only.
MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to approve staff recommendation. The motion was
seconded by Councilwoman Edwards and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval.
COUNCIL BUSINESS
17 Consideration of additional Sponsorship Fundina for the 2005 Temecula Valley
International Film and Music Festival
RECOMMENDATION:
17.1 Consider additional sponsorship funding for the 2005 Temecula Valley International
Film and Music Festival.
Assistant City Manager O'Grady reviewed the staff report (of record), advising the Council that
any funding in addition to what has previously been funded will require an additional
appropriation.
Thanking the City Council and staff for its continued support of this Festival, Ms. Jo Moulton,
Director of the Temecula Valley International Film and Music Festival, by way of a PowerPoint
presentation, commented on the growth this Festival has experienced; shared with the Council
benefits as well as recognition this City has received from past and present Presidents and
Governors as a result of this Festival; acknowledged local residents and businesses for their
continued support; and requested that the City Council approve an additional $30,000
sponsorship for this year's event in order to take this Festival to a higher level.
R:\MinutesI030805
8
Commenting on the national and international notoriety of this event, Mr. Timmy D. Daniels,
Temecula, viewed this Festival as a viable vehicle to promote tourism for the City and
commented on how this Festival has evolved.
Having worked in the film festival and economic development industry for 15 years, Mr. Steve
Montal, La Jolla, commended the City on its accomplishments over the past 10 years with the
Film and Music Festival but stated that this event is extremely under funded; encouraged the
City Council to fund additional monies for this Festival; and noted that the additional funds will
take this event to a higher level.
Addressing the positive impact the Film and Music Festival has had on the City whether as a
result of the film industry or as a consumer, Mr. Edward Stencel, Los Angeles, encouraged the
City Council to fund the requested additional monies.
Advising of the budget necessary for this gala event, Mr. Monty Seward, Murrieta, encouraged
the City Council to increase its current funding and thanked the Council for its continued
support.
Describing the many different aspects associated with the operation of a film and music festival,
Ms. Jennifer Byron, Temecula, addressed the financing needed to ensure updated technology
and marketing and promotion demands of such an event and requested that the City Council
approve the additional funding.
Speaking in support of the Festival, Mr. Drake Frye, Menifee, encouraged the City Council to
approve the additionally requested funds.
Supporting the Festival, Mr. David Asmussen, Murrieta, representing the Garrett Group, advised
that the Garrett Group has offered the Festival discounted lease space. Mr. Asmussen
commended Ms. Moulton on her commitment to this event and requested that the City Council
support the additional funds necessary for this event.
Having worked with Ms. Moulton since the inception of this Festival, Ms. Beth Hoffman, Laguna
Niguel, expressed her support of this Festival and shared, by way of a DVD, Mr. Darryl
McDonald (Executive Director of the Palm Springs International Film and Music Festival)
support of the request for increased funding.
Thanking the City Council for its continued support, Ms. Annette Rosen, Temecula, commented
on the volunteer efforts associated with this event, shared her experiences with the Film and
Music Festival, and encouraged the City Council to support the additionally needed funds.
Ms. Sunny Thomas, Temecula, thanked the City for its support but expressed the need to
expand this event and the funds needed to accomplish this task.
Having watched this event grow over the past 10 years, Mr. Bruce Singer, Murrieta,
commended Ms. Moulton on the success of this event and encouraged the City Council to
approve the additionally requested funds.
Thanking Ms. Moulton for her vision, dedication, and passion for the Temecula Valley
International Film and Music Festival, Councilman Washington commented on the benefits this
event has provided to the City with regard to culture, economic development, and tourism and
expressed his support of the request.
R:\Minutesl030805
9
Relaying his support of the request for the additional $30,000 sponsorship, Mayor Pro Tem
Roberts referenced the positive impacts this Festival has on businesses throughout the City
and, therefore, recommended that the Festival's current sponsors as well increase its
sponsorships.
Having been a volunteer at the first Festival, Councilwoman Edwards echoed comments that it
would be time for the City to take this event to the next level.
Extending appreciation to Ms. Moulton, the Board, and the volunteers on an excellent job,
Councilman Naggar relayed his support of the additional appropriation but encouraged the
Festival to decentralize itself from Ms. Moulton, encouraging the Board of Directors to be
engaged to ensure the future of this Festival. Echoing Mr. Roberts, Councilman Naggar
encouraged increased sponsorships from the private industry, commenting on the economic
development.
Concurring with his colleagues' comments, Mayor Comerchero expressed his support of the
additionally requested funds. Although supporting the request, Mr. Comerchero explained his
reservation with supporting the additional funding but commented on the intangible economic
benefit that is not measurable and suggested that the City fund an audit for this event.
MOTION: Councilman Washington moved to approve an additional sponsorship of $30,000 for
the 2005 Temecula Valley International Film and Music Festival and to fund an audit at the
conclusion of the event. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Roberts and voice vote
reflected unanimous approval.
18 Status and Discussion of Roripauah Ranch Community Facilities District Formation and
Development Aoreement
(At the request of Councilman Naggar)
RECOMMENDATION:
18.1 Receive and file.
City Attorney Thorson reviewed the staff report, noting the following:
. That the Roripaugh Ranch Development Agreement was approved in December of 2002
and that staff has been working since that time to implement the project and to provide
for public improvements and to complete the Community Facilities District Bonds;
. That the Development Agreement (DA) is a contract between the City and the
developer; that it vests the developer's rights to develop the project in accordance with
the terms of the Development Agreement and the entitlements;
. That this particular DA has required traffic improvements necessary to serve the project
to be in place prior to the issuance of significant number of building permits; that this DA
as well required the City to use its best efforts to provide for a means to finance these
public improvements as well as the park and recreational amenities; that the DA
provides that no residential building permit shall be issued until that Community Facilities
District has been formed and funded;
R\Minutesl030805
10
. That this development philosophy of the City, which has been applied in this DA, is
consistent with the Wolf Creek DA , Harveston DA, and the Domenigoni DA and in
challenging the Riverside County Integrated Plan;
. That the Roripaugh Ranch DA provides a schedule for the issuance of building permits
based on when certain improvements are completed; that the bulk of these
improvements are to be completed prior to the 510th building permit;
. That the City has entered into a number of other agreements with the developer in order
to implement this -- such as the Deferral Agreement (approved September 2003); the
First Operating Memorandum (approved September 2004); a License Agreement; and
an agreement for the maintenance of the trails;
. That the process of forming a Community Facilities District (CFD) and issuance of bonds
has been ongoing since January 2003; that the CFD Bonds are essentially a loan with
tax-exempt interest; that this loan is repaid by a special property tax on the lots within
the development and paid for by the home buyers; and that the property secures the
bonds;
. That the amount available in a bond issue such as this is dependent on three significant
factors:
o Appraised value of the property
o Absorption rate
o Credit risk of the project
. That as part of the development of the bond issue, the Financing Authority (Joint Powers
of both the City and the Redevelopment Agency) must enter into certain agreements
with other entities that will own the public improvements - known as a Joint Community
Facilities Agreements; one with the City for the roads and park and recreational facilities;
one with the Water District; one with Riverside County for roads; and one with Riverside
County Flood Control for storm drain facilities;
. That the 150-page Preliminary Official Statement clarifies to the Bond holders why this
project will be viable; why their investment will be secure; and all of the potential risks
and benefits of the project are included;
. That at this point in time, the public improvements are not complete and most of the
priority improvements - the road improvements and the traffic improvements - are not
estimated to be completed until the end of 2005; that the problem the City has
experienced with this project is that a significant number of lots have been sold to
merchant builders; that approximately 515 lots of the available lots on the panhandle
have been sold or are in escrow to be sold; that the merchant builders are ready to start
construction but because the public improvements have not been completed, the
merchant builders are unable to attain the building permits to actually start the process;
that the graduated schedule of building permits is at follows: bulk of the improvements
have to be completed to release 108 building permits; another cut-off point is 250th; and
the significant cut-off point is the 515th building permit; that each of the five merchant
builders are desirous of at least 100 permits to start and complete the projects;
R\Minutesl030805
11
. That one of the merchant builders has filed a lawsuit against the developer, claiming
breach of contract on their Purchase Agreement; that the lawsuit does not name the City
but with this lawsuit pending, the Financial Advisors and the potential Bond buyers will
not proceed with the bond issue because this lawsuit could affect the absorption rate,
how many permits will be issued, and the impact on the project;
. That if the lawsuit were resolved and the merchant builders are willing to proceed with
the graduated schedule, the bonds could be issued in July 2005;
. That staff has had discussions with the developer and has negotiated a Development
Agreement Amendment which would have altered the schedule for the issuance of
building permits, requiring all public improvements to be completed by the 250th building
permit; that the merchant builders were not supportive of that schedule because they are
in need of 100 building permits to make a viable development;
. That the City's primary concern with amending the schedule of the building permits
would be how to ensure the public improvements will be completed on a workable
schedule.
Clarifying the recommended action to be taken at this meeting, City Attorney Thorson, for
Councilman Washington, noted that the intent of this item was to provide an update to the
Council; suggested that the Council hear input from the merchant builders and developer and
dependent on that input, recommended that Council direct staff to explore/readdress specific
items and forward those options for consideration to a future City Council meeting.
In response to Councilman Naggar, City Attorney Thorson advised of the following:
. That the Development Agreement will run for 10 years;
. That the merchant builders who bought the property are owners of the property
encompassed by the Development Agreement but, to the City's understanding, the
developer has not assigned to them the obligation to build the public improvements;
. That the filed lawsuit raises an unknown with regard to the sale of the bonds; that the
Financing Team/Underwriters, based on their experience, have stated that under these
circumstances with the number of unknowns, it would be unlikely for buyers to buy these
bonds;
. That the City is obligated to use its best efforts to take the bond sale forward.
Mr. Jim Fabian (the City's Financial Advisor), City Attorney Thorson, and Public Works Director
Hughes addressed questions by the Council as follows:
. That the improvements that are required under the Development Agreement are the
obligation of the developer; that the CFD Bond proceeds are used to acquire the
infrastructure from the developer; that if there were not sufficient CFD Bond proceeds to
acquire the infrastructure, then the developer would not be reimbursed for all the public
improvements required to be built for the development; that the issuance of bonds under
the CFD is related to the value of the property; that the value of the property is related to
how many units could be built and the absorption of those units under the scenario of the
thresholds in the Development Agreement; that the development of the Roripaugh
R:\MinutesI030805
12
Ranch currently has uncertainties; that the documentation required to put the bonds into
the market would not to be in a concise manner to the bond market in order to identify
the associated risk with the purchase of the bonds; that if the bonds were to be sold, it
may require higher interest rates and more disclosure;
. that even though the developer will plan to build the infrastructure and then be
reimbursed through the CFD proceeds, the developer as well is expecting to have those
improvements acquired from him in increments; that the developer has had the ability to
complete the improvements for a couple of years; that the most amount of work
completed to date has been with regard to grading, portions of Murrieta Hot Springs
Road have been built, and some utilities for Murrieta Hot Springs Road have been
installed; but most of the other public infrastructure improvements, priority to the City and
the Development Agreement, have not been completed, needed right of way has not
been secured, and plans have not been signed by the various agencies approving those
plans;
. That the developer has several bank loans that are being utilized for these
improvements and that it is common for these large developments to have equity of a
developer and to have bank loans secured by the equity and that the land is the ultimate
security and that the City's policy grants a 3: 1 value to lien ratio;
. That the Consultant Team's role is to function as the City's Financial Advisor - an
extension of staff and to assist them in the expertise of land secured financings; that
Bond Counsel provides the legal opinion necessary to issue tax-exempt bonds and
required legal documentation; that Disclosure Counsel documents the Roripaugh Ranch
for the bond holders to understand the development, associated risk, and description of
the development; that the Team as well includes the Underwriter of the bonds and the
Appraiser for the property. It was noted that market absorption work to evaluate the
price points of the development to evaluate the absorption of the units within the
development based upon assumptions under the Development Agreement and that
because some of these assumptions have changed, it will require an updated market
absorption report and the appraisal because it could have an impact on the value of the
property;
. That at this time because the infrastructure has not moved forward and, therefore, the
building permit issuance has changed, the market absorption analysis must be
reassessed as well as the value of the property and the information must then be
documented in a concise manner in order to present to the City Council a Preliminary
Official Statement/Offering Statement;
. That other than improvements on Murrieta Hot Springs Road, only grading has been
completed on Butterfield Stage Road and that the City would not be in a position to
acquire any of those works of improvements;
. That bonds could be issued and the money could be placed in escrow but not all monies
would go to the developer because these discreet portions of the project have not been
completed;
. That a Special Tax would be levied against each property within the CFD and that this
Special Tax would be levied against property within the boundaries of the CFD;
R:\Minutes\030805
13
. That, as per Proposition No. 218, a vote reflected two-thirds in favor of the Special Tax;
that the merchant builders had not submitted a ballot for that vote; therefore, the
merchant builders' property would be bound by the Special Tax;
. That when bonds are sold, a certain amount of capitalized interest would be specified;
that once that amount has been relinquished, one must levy against the Special Tax
against properties within the CFD;
. That although possible, it would be very impractical for a developer with a 10-year
Development Agreement to get bonds issued and to not proceed with the
development/improvements until the ninth year of the Development Agreement because
that CFD Tax will be levied and if properties are not turned and income were not
generated, a default would occur or the property owners would be paying more cash
than what was originally paid for the properties;
. That in the Preliminary Official Statement, the developer would have made
representations of a public improvements schedule and to allow the issuance of the
building permits.
MOTION: Councilman Washington moved to extend this meeting to 10:20 P.M. The motion
was seconded by Councilwoman Edwards and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
Contrary to Council's belief, Mr. Peter Olah, representing Ashby USA, advised, by an
entitlement schedule of each facility (copies submitted to the Council), that infrastructure
improvements have started, noting the following:
. That the CFD facilities are mainly Butterfield Stage Road, Murrieta Hot Springs Road,
the two roads within the Village Core area, part of the north and south loop road, the 20-
acre sports park, the 5-acre neighborhood park, improvements to Nicolas Road/Calle
Chapos, off-site improvements on Winchester Road and Nicolas Road, and
improvements to Nicolas Road and Calle Girasol, and two major flood zone
improvements;
. That more than 12 million yards of earth have been moved; that the developer is
currently under contract to grade Butterfield Stage Road; that Murrieta Hot Springs is
completely to grade; that with regard to the two roads within the Village Core, the
developer is under contract to provide those improvements with subcontractors - have
gone to public bid and have awarded the contract; that the recent rains have impacted
the start of that work; that Butterfield Stage Road, within the Tract boundary, is
approximately 60% up to grade - that rains have delayed this process as well; that the
developer has as well gone out to bid and awarded a contract to complete the sewer and
water throughout the CFD - again because of the recent rains, work has been delayed;
. That within three weeks, with no rain, Butterfield Stage Road could be completely
graded; that a bid package has been submitted to the Public Works Department for
approval for the grading of the southern portion of Butterfield Stage Road to Rancho
California Road; that with the exception of two property owners, agreements have been
reached for needed easements to build the roadway; that negotiations are continuing in
an effort to obtain these last two easements on Butterfield Stage Road easterly side
north of Rancho California Road;
R:\MinutesI030805
14
. that it would be the developer's intent to have all the above-mentioned facilities under
contract as soon as possible; that over $70 million has been spent to date on this
project; that approximately $20 million has been expended on CFD facilities;
. that on Murrieta Hot Springs Road, the storm drain system has been installed and that
the Rancho California Water District facility has been installed.
Providing an overview of the developer's efforts to assist the builders, Mr. Kevin Everett,
representing Ashby USA, noted the following:
. that by the 108th building permit, the bridges on Butterfield Stage Road should be
completed; that approximately a week ago, received approval for the entitlements to
build these bridges;
. that four of the five builders have agreed to accept 515 unimpeded permits; that this has
not been negotiated with staff; that CFD funding requirements would be achieved and
builder litigation would be removed.
Introducing the other builders in attendance, Mr. Phillip Broderick, representing Griffin
Communities, stated the following:
. that the builders purchased the land; that Final Maps were approved; that Improvement
Plans were approved; that most builders have installed all off-site improvements; that the
house plan approval through the City was exhaustive;
. that the builders are not willing to pay the cost of the CFD every year while awaiting the
opportunity to build homes;
. that Griffin Communities filed the lawsuit; that there is a desire to resolve this matter but
the CFD must fund and the improvements must be completed;
. that due the rain, erosion has created the need to fix the lots which has resulted in an
additional expense;
. that builders have existing loans; that because of the delays, these loans are now due.
Considering the Development Agreement that was in place when the builder purchased the
property from the developer and considering the building permit issuance schedule was
workable at that time, Mayor Comerchero questioned why the building permit issuance schedule
is not workable at this time. In response to Mayor Comerchero, Mr. Broderick advised that the
property was in escrow prior to the execution of the Development Agreement and that it was
anticipated by the builders that these improvements would be completed.
In light of City Attorney Thorson's thorough explanation, Councilman Washington suggested
that a more productive process be established to resolve this matter and that the existing
subcommittee meet with staff and those involved
MOTION: Councilman Washington moved to extend this meeting to 10:45 P.M. The motion
was seconded by Councilwoman Edwards and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
R:\MinutesI030805
15
Mayor Comerchero noted that the subcommittee (comprised of Mayor Comerchero and Mayor
Pro Tem Roberts) has discussed this matter. Councilman Naggar advised that he had
requested this matter to be placed on the agenda because he was receiving conflicting
information and that he wanted for himself as well as the Council to obtain accurate information.
Summarizing the information received this evening, Councilman Naggar noted that the Master
Development Team needs to give a written commitment as to when all improvements that are
the developer's obligation will be completed; that once the commitment has been given, the
developer should be held accountable; and that the merchant builder should remove the lawsuit.
In response to Mayor Comerchero's requested clarification, the Council confirmed that there
shall be no compromise on the building permit schedule.
Noting that there would be no room for compromise on a previously agreed to Development
Agreement and the premise of the agreement, Councilman Washington expressed his support
of that Agreement but relayed frustration with having to readdress this matter.
Appreciating the strong message sent by the City Council, City Manager Nelson reiterated the
message sent by the City Council with regard to the existing Development Agreement and that
the existing performance requirements must be completed with respect to the infrastructure
improvements.
MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to receive and file this item. The motion was seconded
by Mayor Pro Tem Roberts and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
19 Jefferson Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation Phase II PW02-26 Construction Contract
RECOMMENDATION:
19.1 Provide direction to staff regarding the continuation of Jefferson Avenue Pavement
Rehabilitation - Phase II - Project No. PW02-26.
Public Works Director Hughes provided the staff report (as per agenda material), highlighting
the revised recommendation to cancel the existing contract for convenience and to settle
outstanding contract issues in the amount of $300,000, advising that a new contract will be
forwarded to the City Council.
MOTION: Councilman Washington moved to cancel the existing contract for convenience and
to settle outstanding contract issues in the amount of $300,000. The motion was seconded by
Mayor Pro Tem Roberts and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
No additional comment.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
City Attorney Thorson advised that there were no reportable items from Closed Session, noting
that Item No. 19 was discussed in Closed Session and was dealt with in Open Session.
R\Minulesl030805
18
ADJOURNMENT
At 10:34 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to a regular meeting on
Tuesday, March 22, 2005, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park
Drive, Temecula, California.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
R\Minutesl030805
17
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF
THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
MARCH 22, 2005
The City Council convened in Closed Session at 6:00 P.M., on Tuesday, March 22, 2005, in the
City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
California. The Open Session convened at 7:00 P.M.
Present:
5
Councilmembers:
Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington, and
Comerchero
Absent:
o
Councilmembers:
None
PRELUDE MUSIC
The prelude music was provided by the Chaparral Chamber Choir.
INVOCATION
The invocation was given by Father Sean Cox of St. Thomas Episcopal Church.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The pledge of allegiance was presented by Mayor Pro Tem Roberts.
PRESENT A TIONS/PROCLAMA TIONS
Certificate of Appreciation to Mr. David Micheal
Recognizing Mr. Micheal for his efforts with coordinating the promotion and installation of
engraved granite pavers at the newly dedicated Veterans' Memorial, Mayor Comerchero
commended Mr. Micheal and presented to him a Certificate of Appreciation.
Acknowledging the attendance of his family and thanking the City Council and staff for this
honor, Mr. Micheal recognized the support of several other individuals which made this
endeavor possible.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A. Appreciating the City's continued support, Mr. Jimmy Moore, Temecula, on behalf of the
Arts Council of Temecula Valley, presented the City Council with an award for its continued
support.
B. Thanking the City Council for its support of the retention of the March Air Reserve Base,
Mr. Kenneth Dickson, Murrieta, representing Friends of the March Field, expressed his support
of this action and advised that he was in attendance to answer questions if necessary.
R\Minutes\032205
C. Ms. Christi Gordon, representing Bank of America and its Foundation, announced an
exciting charitable-giving program (Neighborhood Excellence), benefiting non-profit
organizations and volunteers throughout the entire Inland Empire.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Councilwoman Edwards suggested that the City Council entertain placing a permanent
recognition to Mr. Micheal for his contribution to the Veterans' Memorial at the Memorial.
B. In order to first select a contractor and builder and to have those individuals in
attendance of the groundbreaking, Mayor Pro Tem Roberts advised that the Library
Groundbreaking Ceremony has been postponed from March 31, 2005 to late April 2005.
With tonight's discussion of North General Kearny Road, Mayor Pro Tem Roberts
advised that because he is a resident of Meadowview, he will not be participating in the
discussion.
C. Councilman Naggar relayed his concurrence with Mrs. Edwards' recommendation to
entertain placing a permanent recognition at the Veterans' Memorial for Mr. David Micheal.
D. Having attended the National League of Cities Annual Congressional Conference with
Mayor Pro Tem Roberts and Councilwoman Edwards, Mayor Comerchero commented on the
overall support to not cut the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and
advised that the CDBG Program will be fully funded and retained at HUD.
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 included in the
agenda.
2 Resolution approving List of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 05-29
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
R:\MinutesI032205
2
3 Records Destruction
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Approve the scheduled destruction of certain City records in accordance with the
City of Temecula approved Records Retention Policy.
4 Purchase of New Voicemail Svstem
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Authorize the purchase of the Cisco Unity Messaging System from Nexus
Integration Services for the total amount of $63,135.97, including applicable sales
tax;
4.2 Appropriate $63,135.97 from Information Systems Internal Service Fund reserves to
fund the purchase.
5 Police Department Homeland Security Grant Funds Transfer
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 05-30
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DONATING A PORTION OF THE FISCAL YEAR
2005/06 HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT FUNDS TO THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
6 Resolution chanaina the time of Plannina Commission Meetinas
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 05-31
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ESTABLISHING AN AMENDED MEETING TIME
FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
RIMinutesl032205
3
7 Resolution in Support of retaining March Air Reserve Base (MARS), support continuation
of Air Attack Resources at Hemet-Rvan Airport. and approval of $5,000 to assist in
retention efforts
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 05-32
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE RETENTION EFFORT TO
PRESERVE MARCH AIR RESERVE BASE (MARB)
7.2 Approve the Agreement for Contribution to March Air Reserve Base Retention
Efforts with March Joint Powers Authority and approve $5,000 to assist the March
Air Reserve Base retention efforts.
8 Second Amendment to an aqreement for Contract Inspection Services for P&D
Consultants
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Approve a Second Amendment for consulting services with P&D in an amount not to
exceed $15,000 for a total contract amount of $125,800 and to extend the term of
the agreement to June 30, 2005.
9 Intention to vacate all Interior Streets and certain Drainaqe Easements within Tract Map
No. 26941 (Crowne Hill The Reserve)
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 05-33
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA OF NOTICE OF INTENTION TO VACATE LOT A
(WOLFE STREET), LOT B (SUSAN GRACE COURT), AND LOT
C (MUSILEK PLACE), AND CERTAIN DRAINAGE EASEMENTS
OF TRACT MAP NO. 26941 IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS
SHOWN ON ATTACHED EXHIBITS AND SETTING A PUBLIC
HEARING ON THE VACATION
R:\Minutes\03220S
4
10 Intention to vacate a portion of an unnamed alley (located between Second Street and
Third Street. east of Old Town Front Street as shown on Block 18 of the Town Site of
Temecula - Old Town)
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 05-34
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA OF NOTICE OF INTENTION TO VACATE A
PORTION OF AN UNNAMED ALLEY LOCATED BETWEEN
SECOND STREET AND THIRD STREET, EAST OF OLD TOWN
FRONT STREET IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF
RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON
ATTACHED EXHIBITS AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING ON
THE VACATION
11 Tract Map No. 29305 (located south of Wolf Valley Road and east of Pechanaa Parkway)
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1 Approve Tract Map No. 29305 in conformance with the conditions of approval.
12 Completion and Acceptance of Construction Contract - John Warner Road Assessment
District Improvement - Proiect No. PW02-07
RECOMMENDATION:
12.1 Accept the project - John Warner Road Assessment District Improvements -
Project No. PW02-07 - as complete;
12.2 File a Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one-year
Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract amount;
12.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven months after filing of the Notice of
Completion if no liens have been filed.
13 Approval of the Plans and Specifications and authorization to solicit Construction Bids for
the Rainbow Canyon Road Guardrail Installation and Replacement Proiect - Proiect No.
PW02-18
RECOMMENDATION:
13.1 Approve the plans and specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works
to solicit construction bids for the Rainbow Canyon Road Guardrail Installation and
Replacement Project - Project No. PW02-18.
R:lMinutesl032205
5
14 Award a Construction Contract for Traffic Sianallnstallation at the Pechanaa Parkway and
Muirfield Drive Intersection - Proiect No. PW99-11TS
RECOMMENDATION:
14.1 Award a construction contract for Traffic Signal Installations at the Pechanga
Parkway and Muirfield Drive Intersection - Project No. PW99-11TS - to DBX, Inc. in
the amount of $117,205 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract;
14.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the
contingency amount of $11,720.50 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount.
15 Jefferson Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation - Phase II - Proiect No. PW02-26 - Award of a
Construction Contract
REVISED RECOMMENDATION (as distributed at the City Council)
15.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 05-35
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT FOR THE
COMPLETION OF JEFFERSON AVENUE PAVEMENT
REHABILITATION - PHASE II PROJECT
15.2 Award a construction contract for the Jefferson Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation -
Phase II Project - Project No. PW02-26 - to R.J. Noble Company in the amount of
$1,717,860 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract;
15.3 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed a contingency
of 10% of the contract amount in the amount of $171,786;
15.4 Authorize a transfer of $250,000 of Measure A funds from Pavement Rehabilitation
Program - Citywide.
16 Cable Franchise Aareement Extension of Time
RECOMMENDATION:
16.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
R:\Minutesl032205
6
RESOLUTION NO. 05-36
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA EXTENDING THE TERM OF THE CABLE
TELEVISION FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH ADELPHIA
CABLE COMMUNICATIONS TO DECEMBER 31, 2005, TO
FACILITATE THE CITY'S NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE CABLE
OPERATOR REGARDING RENEWAL OF THAT FRANCHISE
AGREEMENT
17 Acceptance of Grant Deed - Harveston Lake Park
RECOMMENDATION:
17.1 Authorize acceptance of the Grant Deed for Harveston Lake Park, located in the
Harveston development and direct staff to proceed with the necessary actions to
cause the deed to be recorded.
18 Second Readina of Ordinance No. 05-04 (Wolf Creek Project)
RECOMMENDATION:
18.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 05-04
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE WOLF CREEK
PROJECT (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA05-0027)
MOTION: Councilman Washington moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-18. The
motion was seconded by Councilwoman Edwards and electronic vote reflected unanimous
approval.
At 7:25 P.M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District and the
Temecula Redevelopment Agency. At 7:31 P.M., the City Council resumed with regular
business.
PUBLIC HEARING
19 General Plan Update - Circulation Element
RECOMMENDATION:
19.1 Conduct the Public Hearing on the Draft Circulation Element of the General Plan
and the Draft Environmental Impact Report related to the Circulation Element;
19.2 Continue the Public Hearing on the other Elements of the General Plan and the
Draft Envjronmentallmpact Report on the other Elements to April 12, 2005;
R:lMinutesl032205 7
19.3 Close the Public Hearing on the Draft Circulation Element and Draft
Environmental Impact Report relating to the Draft Circulation Element;
19.4 Discuss the Draft Circulation Element and the Draft Environmental Impact Report
relating to the Draft Circulation Element and provide comments to staff for
inclusion in to the Final Circulation Element and Final Environmental Impact
Report.
Mayor Comerchero read a statement (of record) prepared by the City Attorney with regard to the
proceedings of this item.
Thanking those individuals involved in this lengthy General Plan process, Planning Director
Ubnoske briefly highlighted the item and introduced Mr. Jeff Henderson of Cotton Bridges
Associates who, in turn, presented, by way of a PowerPoint presentation, the staff report, noting
the following:
. That the comment period for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) associated with the
Plan concluded on March 12, 2005; that responses to comments received from
approximately 16 agencies will be distributed to those agencies 10 days prior to the
April 12, 2005, public hearing; that the responses were sent out March 22, 2005;
. That the Airport Land Use Commission of Riverside County is as well in the process of
making a finding of consistency of the proposed General Plan and the Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan for French Valley Airport and will be considering this matter at its April
14,2005, meeting;
. That the California Geological Survey has provided comments as to the Safety Element
of the General Plan and recommended changes to that element as identified in the staff
report (of record);
. That the Planning Commission held public hearings on both the Circulation Element and
the remainder of the General Plan on February 16, 2005 and March 16, 2005; that
tonight's public hearing will address the Circulation Element and the public hearing
regarding the remaining elements of the General Plan will be continued to April 12,
2005;
. That the Land Use Element will address future land uses within the Planning Area and
that the Circulation Element will address recommended roadway plans, trail plans,
transit plans, and other Circulation Element components;
. That the City's Housing Element was updated in 2002 and will not be a part of the
current General Plan Update; that the Housing Element will be renewed in 2006/2007;
. That the Open Space Conservation Element will address the City's Open Space
Resources and the Conservation of Natural Resources within the Planning Area;
. That the Growth Management and Public Facilities Element will address utilities and
public facilities required for future development in the Planning Area;
. That the Public Safety Element will address natural and man-made hazards within the
Planning Area;
. That the Noise Element will address community noise generated both by traffic sources
as well as point-source oriented noise;
R:\MinutesI032205
8
. That the General Plan will as well include an Air Quality Element that will address smog
and other components of air quality within the community;
. That the Community Design Element will address the design components of the
community;
. That the Economic Development Element will outline the priorities for economic
development for the next 20 years;
. That overall the proposed General Plan will represent the same, basic policy direction as
established in the City's previous General Plan; that most of the proposed changes will
fit within the framework established by that Plan; that the proposed changes will primarily
affect the Land Use Element and the Circulation Element of the Plan;
. That the proposed changes are generally technical in nature;
. That the Implementation Programs for each Element have been updated;
. That in order to ensure consistency with the 2002 Housing Element, a number of
changes are being proposed in the Land Use Element to the General Plan, concerning
Mixed-Use Development;
. That a few new key policy directions are being proposed:
o Encouraging Mixed-Use Development at key locations near Interstate 15
o Preserving established rural area
o Managing future growth
o Prioritizing/monitoring/correcting traffic congestion hotspots
o Incorporating transit and multi-use trails into the circulation system
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Mr. Henderson noted that the primary changes to policy direction in the Circulation Element are
as follows:
. provisions to allow for additional street dedication (beyond the standardized rights-of-
way) around higher volume key intersections and consideration of reopening closed
connecting streets to improve Citywide circulation;
Roadwav Cross-Sections to better serve less urban portions of the City; that both of the
new cross sections are based upon the standard 88' secondary arterial right-of-way;
o Modified Secondary Arterial (De Portola and Ynez Road through Los Ranchitos)
would provide 2 divided lanes in each direction with no curb, gutter, or sidewalk
and location of left-turn lanes would be determined as the roadways are
individually designed; that separated trails would be incorporated to the right of
the cross section into the design where additional right-of-way beyond 88' is
available
o Limited Secondary Arterial (portions of Nicolas and Santiago Roads and the
North General Kearny extension if added to the Plan) will feature one lane in
each direction with a left-turn lane and a separated trail within the right-of-way
o Rural Highway (rural preservation areas - Anza, De Portola, and portions of
Rancho California Roads) will feature one lane in each direction with left-turn
pockets where needed and two lanes may be needed in some sections of those
roadways; that the intent of the Rural Highway is to protect future right-of-way for
larger roadway types in the future without compromising the short-term functions
of these roadways and the rural character of the surrounding areas; that the
Rural Highway will be consistent with County standards for these roadways on
R:lMinutesl032205
9
the portions that occur within the unincorporated portions of the Temecula
Planning Area;
Circulation Map/Roadwav Plan that the only new General Plan roadway being proposed
within the City is the Loma Linda/ Avenida de Missiones (between Pechanga Parkway and
Highway 79S;
Two new roadwavs identified on the Circulation Map
. Eastern Bypass (Southern Bypass) will consist of portions of Anza Road, Deer Hollow
Way, and a new interchange at Interstate 15 to the south of the City;
. Sky Canyon Road/Briggs Road will be a parallel route to Winchester Road in the French
Valley Airport area to assist with relieving projected congestion along Winchester Road;
Proposed key roadwav improvements
. Winchester Road from Jefferson Road to Hunter Road - currently a six-lane urban
arterial proposed to an eight-lane urban arterial
. Rancho California Road from Old Town Front Street to Ynez Road - currently a six-lane
urban arterial proposed to an eight-lane urban arterial
. Rancho California Road from Ynez Road to Margarita Road - currently a four-lane
arterial proposed to a six-lane urban arterial
. Ynez Road from Rancho California Road to Rancho Vista Road - currently a four-lane
arterial proposed to a six-lane urban arterial
. Jefferson Avenue from Winchester Road to the City limits - currently a four-lane arterial
proposed to a six-lane urban arterial
. Western Bypass Road - currently designated as a secondary arterial proposed to a
major arterial.
Resident Concerns
. Rainbow Canyon Road - to downgrade the roadway - currently a 66' right-of-way - both
current and proposed General Plan call for a Secondary Arterial at 88' right-of-way;
. North General Kearny - Community Advisory Committee (CAC) recommendation to
connect North General Kearny between Nicolas and Margarita Roads as a limited
Secondary Arterial to provide a route to Day Middle School and for local residents to
bypass congestion along Winchester Road;
o That the Planning Commission supported the CAC's recommendation to add
North General Kearny as a Limited Secondary Arterial and identifying it on
the Circulation Map and, thereby, identifying the requirement of a traffic
study;
o That the proposed Roadway Plan does not include a North General
Extension; that in order to include that extension within the Circulation Plan,
this particular segment must be added;
o That the Planning Commission also agreed with the recommendation by the
County of Riverside that Winchester Road, between Hunter and Keller
Roads, will require 184' right-of-way per an existing agreement between
Caltrans and the County of Riverside;
R:\MinulesI03220S
10
Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIRI
. That it has been circulated for public review and comment
. That the City has received 16 comment letters from public agencies
. That responses to the EIR have been provided to the Council and will present in the final
EIR for the April 12, 2005, public hearing
. That the General Plan, as per the EIR, will have three significant, unavoidable impacts
o Two with regard to air quality - short-term construction impacts and long-term
emissions
o Three intersections and six freeway ramps would be projected to operate below
established level of service standards as per the Draft EIR
. That all other impacts in the EIR were found to be less than significant
. That because of the significant, unavoidable impacts, the Council will be required to
make findings and adopt a statement of overriding considerations approving the General
Plan; that both the findings and the statement of overriding considerations will be
forwarded to the Council prior to the April 12, 2005, meeting.
At this time, the public hearing was opened; it was noted by Mayor Comerchero that the first
item of discussion will be the Environmental Impact Report and Circulation Element related to
North General Kearny and other roads in the Meadowview area. Mayor Pro Tem Roberts and
Councilman Washington excused themselves from the dais and the Chamber.
Regarding his conflict of interest, Councilman Washington expressed his support of the Fair
Political Practices Commission's determination for him to have to abstain with regard to this
item.
Mayor Comerchero briefly reviewed the rules of the public hearing process.
Council Discussion
For Councilman Naggar, Planning Director Ubnoske advised that because the Environmental
Impact Report is still under review, she would not be able to answer whether there would be a
nexus between North General Kearny and the possible construction of a golf course in the
Meadowviewarea.
Councilwoman Edwards clarified that the Circulation Element for the General Plan with regard
to North General Kearny and the potential of including its designation on a Map but not to build
or to fund a road.
Deputy City Clerk Ballreich informed the City Council of communications received (of record)
with regard to the General Plan.
The following individuals spoke in support of the extension of North General Kearny:
. Suzanne Zychowics
. Jodie Christopher
. Diana Broderick
. Kendra Herrera
Jessica Christopher
Mike Kuhn
Evelyn Bucannen
David Lander
R:\Minutesl032205
11
The above-mentioned individuals noted the following with regard to the extension of North
General Kearny and the opening of Kahwea Road for the following reasons:
. That this matter has been politicized
. That many individuals in support of the extension are not in attendance because of
conflicts of interest with friendships, colleagues, business associates, etc.
. That it takes an excessive amount of time to travel to the mall from the residential area
. That emergency response time during rush hour traffic is not adequate
. That increasing traffic in a rural area will create dangers - mixing traffic with equestrians
and with pedestrians; however, some of these dangers have already been realized on
Winchester Road between Margarita and Murrieta Hot Springs Roads; that these
dangers could be mitigated by changing the traffic flow; that the extension of North
General Kearny would permit parents to drop their children at the James L. Day Middle
School on the school side versus the children having to cross the street which will
alleviate some congestion; that the roads that are being proposed for opening were
originally intended to be thoroughfares as per the original Plan;
. That opening this road will increase City-wide circulation; that these are public streets for
public travel;
. That it would grant parents to access to Day and Chaparral Schools without being forced
to travel on Margarita and Winchester Roads and would decrease use on Calle Medusa
and Calle Pina Colada; that Meadowview streets are supported by City taxes;
. That change is an evitable step in the City's growth; that all must share in the
responsibility of the City's streets;
. That the traffic on Winchester Road must be addressed and that the extension will
improve the situation along Winchester Road.
The following individuals spoke in opposition to the extension of North General Kearny:
. Kim Churchwood Richard Moriki
. Jeff Perrin Paula Peterson
. Lori Nelson Maria Hetzner
. Norman Clark Steve Gossett
. Lisa Weinmann James Neeley
. Audrey Gomez Karen Paciotti
. Keven Porter Rosemary Priefe
. T eri Biancardi John Austin
. Ellen Ellish Diana Lovett-Webb
. Bob Johnston Brad Inman
. Bert Bjorklund John Harkey
. Kathleen Roe Frank Boarese
. Rolfe Wittman Dan Maidment
. Edward Kostjal Rikki Bauer
. William Herrmann Bill Brown
. Mary Lanier Nancy Ray
. Christine Estoch David Payne (provided written
communication)
The above-mentioned individuals, by way of pictures and video, relayed the following with
regard to the extension of North General Kearny for the following reasons:
R:\MinutesI032205
12
. That for the past 10 years, Meadowview residents have appeared before the
Council/Commissions with regard to North General Kearny and Kahwea Road;
. That North General Kearny and Kahwea Road be permanently removed from the
General Plan;
In response to Councilman Naggar, City Attorney Thorson advised that under California Law,
each Council would have the opportunity to amend or modify the General Plan.
. That the existing traffic problems surrounding James L. Day Middle School and
Chaparral High School will be exacerbated by the extension of North General Kearny;
that James L. Day Middle School currently does not provide traffic-controlled
supervision;
. That the Meadowview trails are maintained and repaired through Meadowview
Association dues; that these trails are utilized by bikers, riders, walkers/joggers on a
daily basis;
. That the loss of these trails would be a loss of history never replaceable;
. That one General Plan goal is to preserve the quality and value of single-family
neighborhoods - opening Kahwea Road and North General Kearny would not preserve
the zoning or quality and value of this single-family neighborhood;
. That even with the posted horse crossing signs at every trail head, opening Kahwea
Road and North General Kearny would be incompatible to safe crossings; that drivers
ignore the law to stop within sighting distance of a horse; that the opening would put
citizens in grave danger;
. That the City's traffic circulation problems should not necessitate imposing other
people's view points on Meadowview residents' property;
. That some horseback riders have to ride the paved streets to access the trails; that
Kahwea Road is used as a trail because of the easement behind Kahwea Road homes
is too steep for many riders; that opening Kahwea Road will increase traffic on
Meadowview streets which will prevent the use of the trails in a safe manner; that these
streets are substandard, rural streets;
In response to Councilman Naggar, Mayor Comerchero advised that the City Council, this
evening, is discussing the extension of North General Kearny and other roads in the
Meadowview area. Deputy City Manager Thornhill advised that only the extension of North
General Kearny is being considered and that there was a recommendation to study the
remainder of the Meadowview roads and that no decision will be made this evening with regard
to Kahwea Road. Mayor Comerchero further clarified that the Council will not be voting on this
issue this evening but that it will be making a recommendation to staff as to what to include or
not to include in the General Plan. City Attorney Thorson noted that the City Council may not
take action on the General Plan until the approval of the Environmental Impact Report.
. That extending North General Kearny will not address traffic congestion; that road
crossings at the intersections of Calle Madero/Nada Lane/North General Kearny/Calle
Pina Collada are currently not safe; that these hazardous situations will increase and
that any traffic benefit would not justify putting local residents at risk;
· That because horses are unpredictable, it would not be safe to have a horse trail next to
a street that may carry as many as 10,000 plus cars a day;
. That opening Kahwea Road would have a significant safety impact due to the increased
number of cars;
R:\MinutesI032205
13
. That all Meadowview streets are front loaded with houses;
. That drivers generally exceed the 35 mph speed limit; that with vehicles parked on both
sides of the street, there is not sufficient room for moving vehicles to pass each other;
. That Kahwea Road was closed in 1998 by constructing a wrought-iron fence with a
gate; that opening Kahwea Road would impact Meadowview by way of non-resident
traffic;
. That considering the City is aware that the Meadowview streets are substandard would
that hold the City liable if an accident were to occur;
. That these curvy, hilly, narrow streets that lack sidewalks and streetlights are over 20
years old;
. That the pathway to Rancho Elementary School is less than two-tenths of a mile from
Kahwea Road off Del Rey Road; that approximately 100 of Meadowview's children use
this walkway twice a day to get to Rancho Elementary School located on La Serena;
that currently there are no signs indicating the location of school access; that additional
non-resident traffic will further exacerbate an already unsafe situation;
. That extending North General Kearny will have minimal impact on resolving the City's
traffic congestion, viewing such an extension as a band aid;
. That drivers currently ignore the existing stop signs;
. That because Meadowview has no sewers and all surface water travels along natural,
open, sandy pathways, leading into the main Blue Line River (under the jurisdiction of
the Army Corps of Engineers), extending North General Kearny would cover several of
these natural waterways;
. That the extension of North General Kearny would place homes within close proximity
of this road;
. That an existing, varied echo system would be impacted and that once destroyed, it
could never be returned to its natural state;
. That the interior noise level would be impacted;
At 9:16 P.M., a short recess was called and the meeting was reconvened at 9:30 P.M.
. That because of Meadowview CC&R requirements, properties in Meadowview are to be
open, visible, and, therefore, vulnerable to crime with the extension of North General
Kearny;
. That emergency services (5-minute response time) are adequately met with the City's
Fire Stations, including the one at French Valley Airport; that a new Fire Station will be
built as a result of the Roripaugh Ranch Development; that the Riverside County
General reflects two new Fire Stations between French Valley Airport Station and
Enterprise Circle Station;
· That the Meadowview area is currently used as a short cut for non-residential traffic;
that thousands of cars travel per day along Pina COllada, Del Rey, Avenida Barca,
Solana, and Via Norte; that all these streets are front loaded with homes; that as per the
Public Works Director, such streets should be kept under a traffic volume of 3,000 cars
per day; that the front loaded streets have no buffer zone from the driveway to the
street and sit below street level, creating a safety concern (line of sight) with exiting
properties;
. That the extension would have a 10ng-tem1 impact on this area;
. That the General Plan's goals will not be met if the extension of North General Kearny
and opening of Kahwea Road were approved;
R:\MinutesI032205
14
. That the extension of North General Kearny would eliminate the rural area of
Meadowview; that Meadowview is in desperate need of pavement rehabilitation; that
the anticipated traffic volume will be around 20,000 cars per day;
. That Meadowview residents view the area as a rural area and, therefore, function as
such which could create safety hazards with the additional non-resident traffic;
. That the quality of life of the Meadowview residents would be impacted by including
North General Kearny and Kahwea Roads in the General Plan
MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to extend the meeting to 11 :00 P.M. The motion was
seconded by Councilwoman Edwards and voice vote reflected unanimous approval with the
exception of Mayor Pro Tem Roberts and Councilman Washington who abstained.
In response to Councilman Naggar, Mr. Harkey advised that the Meadowview Homeowners
Association will be pursuing a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change for the construction
of a golf course; that, within several days, the Environmental Impact Report will be submitted to
the City; that a golf course would be an appropriate use for Open Space; that it will create light
traffic for the area (maximum 400 cars per day); and that not all but the majority of the
Meadowview residents are in favor of the golf course.
. That because of minimal traffic associated with a golf course, a golf course could be
supported;
In response to a comment made by a Meadowview resident, City Attorney Thorson advised
that City would have no authority to condemn land for housing.
. That the balance of a marginal relief of congestion with permanent disruption of the
quality of life for the Meadowview residents would be viewed as a band aid and would
provide no actual relief; that the interaction between cars and pedestrians would be a
concern;
. That the Equestrian Center is directly across the street from James L. Day Middle
School; that the increased traffic volume to this area would create increased
horse/pedestrian accidents;
· That many other City infrastructure improvements have occurred but did not occur in
residents' backyards; that additional traffic mitigations would be expected with the
City's recent control of Winchester Road and SR 79 South;
· That in 1978, the City had three freeway access points; that in 2005, the City has three
freeway access points with a population of 100,000 residents;
· That an extension of North General Kearny Road would detrimentally impact the
property values; that all development within the City should be stopped until adequate
circulation can be provided and that the proposed Circulation Element be rejected; that
major thoroughfares not be located in fully developed rural areas;
. That the City should build reasonably;
· That today 10,000 cars per day traveling on North General Kearny will not be 10,000
cars in the future;
. That the residents are willing to accept slower emergency services;
· That many Meadowview residents walk or horseback riders ride along Del Rey Road
and at times, are narrowly missed by passing vehicles; that currently when heavy trucks
travel along Del Rey Road, her house vibrates in her bedroom;
. That although not living in Meadowview but, living in Santiago Ranchos, expressed
opposition to the extension of North General Kearny;
R\Minutesl032205
15
. That there will be impacts on home values, equestrian/pedestrian safety concerns, and
incompatible development;
At this time, the public hearing was closed. Mayor Comerchero thanked those that spoke and
provided input.
Council Discussion
Although it would be obvious that all roads open would be better with regard to circulation,
Councilman Naggar stated that the benefit to the community must be weighed with regard to
the opening of roads; that, in his opinion, the benefit of opening of North General Kearny will
outweigh the impact to the community; that the benefit to Winchester Road would be minimal;
and that the impact to North General Kearny Road and the Meadowview area would be great.
Commenting on the City's control of Winchester Road and SR 79 South, Mr. Naggar advised of
improvements that have recently been completed as well as ones that will be forthcoming -
widening portions of Winchester, additional lane to a freeway off-ramp, Eastern Bypass,
widening of Rancho California Road, etc. Mr. Naggar also addressed the City's efforts of
pursuing Federal funding to address freeway issues. With regard to the Meadowview
Homeowners Association's pursuit of a golf course, Mr. Naggar noted that if a General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change were requested, the completion of a traffic study would be
necessary in order to determine accessibility to the golf course and to study whether or not the
opening of those roads were necessary.
MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to direct staff to not include North General Kearny Road
on the Circulation Element of the General Plan Update. Councilwoman Edwards seconded the
motion. (Additional discussion ensued prior to the vote; see below.)
Commenting on the many infrastructure projects that have been completed or ones that are in
the plans in an effort to mitigate traffic circulation, Councilwoman Edwards expressed her
opposition to opening a road through a rural area and to destroying this rural neighborhood,
noting the cost will outweigh the benefits.
MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to extend this meeting to 12:00 midnight. The motion
was seconded by Councilwoman Edwards and voice vote reflected approval with the
exception of Mayor Pro Tem Roberts and Councilman Washington who abstained.
As well commenting on major infrastructure improvements that will further enhance traffic
circulation, Mayor Comerchero expressed concurrence with his colleagues' opposition to
extending North General Kearny.
At this time, voice vote on the previously made motion reflected approval with the
exception of Mayor Pro Tem Roberts and Councilman Washington who abstained.
At this time, Mayor Pro Tem Roberts and Councilman Washington returned to the dais
and Mayor Comerchero and Councilman Naggar removed themselves from the dais and
the Council Chamber.
R:\Minutesl032205
16
Environmental Impact Report/Circulation Element relatin~ to the Eastern Bvpass
(Southern Bvpassl
For the benefit of those Council members now in attendance, Mr. Jeff Henderson of Cotton
Bridges Associates provided a brief overview of the staff report (of record), pertaining to the
Eastern Bypass.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Roberts, Principal Planner Hogan addressed the City's effort to
match the County's roadway plan in the area of the proposed Eastern Bypass with the
exception of increasing the size of the segment between Rainbow Canyon Road and the
freeway to allow for additional capacity.
For the benefit of all, Councilman Washington clarified the Eastern Bypass route, noting that
portions of this Bypass will be outside the City limit and on reservation property and questioned
the desired action with regard to this Bypass.
For Councilman Washington, Principal Planner noted that it would be staff's desire for the
Council to approve a recommendation which would be incorporated into the City's General
Plan and one that would mirror a vision of the freeway interchange or what the County has
incorporated in its General Plan.
Confirming Councilwoman Edwards' comment, Mr. Hogan stated that by including portions of
the Eastern Bypass that are within the City's sphere of influence in the Circulation Element, the
City will be assuring its ability to comment and provide input as the County proceeds with its
projects.
At this time, the public hearing was opened. There being no public input, the public hearing
was closed.
MOTION: Councilman Washington moved to direct staff to present the Eastern Bypass in its
final form at the April 12, 2005, City Council meeting. Councilwoman Edwards seconded the
motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Mayor Comerchero and
Councilman Naggar who abstained.
At this time, Mayor Comerchero returned to the dais. Councilman Naggar as well
abstained with regard to this item.
Environmental Impact Report/Circulation Element relatina to Rainbow Canvon Road and
Aaenda de Missions Connection
For Councilman Washington, Mr. Henderson clarified that the previously noted negative
impacts at intersections and freeway ramps and below standard level of service at certain
freeway ramps would refer to build out and after improvements (including the Planning Area,
the sphere area, and the areas beyond the sphere within the Planning Area).
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Henderson advised, for Mayor Pro Tem Roberts, that currently Rainbow Canyon Road has
been designated in the General Plan as a four-lane road; that it currently functions as a two-
lane collector; and that the proposed General Plan would concur with the existing General Plan
to upgrade it to a four-lane road, noting that no change would retain it as a four-lane road.
R:\MinutesI03220S
17
There being no public testimony with regard to this item, the public hearing was closed.
Public Works Director Hughes clarified that staff would support retaining Rainbow Canyon
Road as currently designated; with regard to the Loma Linda/Avenida de Missiones
connection, Mr. Hughes advised that the Community Advisory Committee had recommended
upgrading this to a four-lane road but that staff, because of traffic volumes, could support a
two-lane road.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Roberts moved to direct staff to retain Rainbow Canyon Road at its
current designation and to include Avenida de Missiones Connection (two-lane road) in the
Circulation Element of the General Plan. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman
Edwards and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Councilman Naggar who
abstained.
At this time, Councilman Naggar returned to the dais.
Environmental Impact Report/Circulation Element relating to all other items other than
North General Kearnv. Meadowview. and Southern Bvpass
All Councilmembers participated in this discussion.
At this time, Principal Planner Hogan clarified, by way of overheads, that other items would
include the street cross-sections, the roadway classifications, the various policy statements,
and the remainder of the Circulation Element. Providing clarification with regard to the policy
statements in the General Plan, Mr. Hogan noted that they are basically the same as those
existing with the addition of three policy statements as a result of concerns raised with the
closing of streets (3.6, 3.7, and 3.8).
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Viewing Ynez Road as a collector-designation level road, Mr. Raymond Bennett, Los Ranchitos
community, advised that Ynez Road in the General Plan has a maximum capacity of 14,000
cars per day; that in the current General Plan, Ynez Road has been designated as Modified
Secondary Arterial (four lane), which is an upgrade (20,000 cars per day); and that a Modified
Secondary Arterial designation would not permit driveway access. Mr. Sennett recommended
to redesignate Ynez Road as a Limited Secondary Arterial (16,000 cars per day); to retain the
88' road width; and to keep it as a three-lane road.
Considering the road designations of neighboring streets (Margarita Road, De Portola Road,
Ynez Road, Santiago Road), Public Works Director Hughes indicated that a four-lane road
would be necessary to handle the needed capacity and would not support downgrading the
classification of this roadway. For Mayor Comerchero, Mr. Hughes advised that the placement
of a horse trail along' Ynez Road (through Los Ranchitos area) would require right-of-way
acquisition for the trail system.
In an effort to preserve the rural communityllifestyle, Mr. Larry Markham, representing Los
Ranchitos Homeowners Association, requested that De Portola Road and Ynez Road be
classified as Limited Secondary Arterial which will permit for a horse trail within the right of way
and will reduce it from a four-lane road to a three-lane road.
R\Minutesl032205
18
Expressing concern with horseback riders having to cross a four-lane road, Ms. Kathleen
Stowe, member of the Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association, requested that Ynez Road, De
Portola Road, La Paz Road, and Jedediah Smith Road be designated as Limited Secondary
Arterials (three lanes).
For Ms. Stowe, Councilwoman Edwards advised that Jedediah Smith Road is not being
proposed to be widened; in fact, it is being proposed to be reduced in the Circulation Element
from four lanes to two lanes.
At this time, the public hearing was closed.
Concurring with comments made by Mr. Markham, Mayor Pro Tem Roberts supported the
Limited Secondary Arterial designation (three-lane road).
Although it is currently designated as a four-lane road, Councilman Naggar expressed his
support of the horse trails and recommended the retention of the 88' right of way; that the
Modified Secondary Arterial designation be retained in order for the imposition of a condition to
require a parallel horse trail running the length of De PortolalYnez Road (through Los
Ranchitos) within the right of way; that if at a future time the three-lane road were widened to a
four-lane road, the necessary right of way would have to be acquired in order to preserve a
horse trail; that the horse trail be adequately buffered; and that adequate lighting standards be
installed to accommodate horse riders. With the added condition, Mr. Naggar expressed his
concurrence with staff's recommendation for a Modified Secondary Arterial.
For Councilman Washington, staff advised that the proposed General Plan does reflect the
changes proposed by the City of Murrieta with regard to Ynez Road.
Mayor Comerchero further clarified Councilman Naggar's recommendation.
MOTION: Councilman Washington moved to extend the meeting to 12:15 A.M. The motion
was seconded by Councilwoman Edwards and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
Both Councilwoman Edwards and Councilman Washington spoke in support of Councilman
Naggar's recommendation.
MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to direct staff to designate De PortolalYnez Road
through Los Ranchitos as a Modified Secondary Arterial with the goal to preserve the
equestrian uses and to impose a condition requiring the installation of light standards to
accommodate horseback riders, to install horse crossing signs along that corridor, and to
require a parallel horse trail running the length of De PortolalYnez Road (through Los
Ranchitos) within the 88' right of way and that if at a future time the three-lane road were
widened to a four-lane road, the necessary right of way would have to be acquired in order to
preserve a horse trail. The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Edwards and voice vote
reflected approval with the exception of Mayor Pro Tem Roberts who voted !!.Q.
R:\MinutesI032205
19
Roadway Cross-SectionslDownaradina of Jedediah Smith Road to two lanes/and the
balance of the Circulation Element as provided
MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to direct staff to reflect in the General Plan Circulation
Element the proposed Roadway Cross-Sections, the downgrading of Jedediah Smith Road to
two lanes, and the balance of the Circulation Element as provided. The motion was seconded
by Mayor Pro Tem Roberts and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
City Attorney Thorson advised that those Council members living in Meadowview may partake
in the discussion regarding the policy statements because these policies will affect all City
streets.
Living on a closed street, Councilman Washington indicated that he would be abstaining with
regard to these policies.
Policy 3.6
Discourage closing local streets to maintain the functionality of the arterial road network,
achieve public safety goals, and improve the response time for police, fire, and ambulance
services.
Mayor Comerchero recommended the addition of the following language to Policy 3.6: unless it
seriously impacts quality of life issues in rural communities.
MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to direct staff to include Policy 3.6 in the General Plan
with the amendment as recommended by Mayor Comerchero (as noted above). The motion
was seconded by Councilwoman Edwards and voice vote reflected approval with the
exception of Councilman Washington who abstained.
Policv 3.7
Consider opening previously closed or blocked local streets to enhance the local road network,
achieve public safety goals, and improve the response time for police, fire, and ambulance
services while minimizing outside through traffic on local residential streets.
After a brief discussion and with the clarification from City Attorney Thorson, noting that no
language would be required in the General Plan for a future City Council to consider any item
in the General Plan, the following motions were offered:
MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to direct staff to delete Policy 3.7 from the General Plan.
The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Roberts and voice vote reflected approval with
the exception of Councilman Washington who abstained.
Policy 3.8
Complete the construction of local connecting streets to enhance area circulation for local
residents and improve the response time for police, fire, and ambulance services while
minimizing through traffic on local residential streets.
~l
R\Minutesl032205
20
MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to direct staff to delete Policy 3.8 from the General Plan.
The motion was seconded by Councilwoman Edwards and voice vote reflected approval with
the exception of Councilman Washington who abstained.
MOTION: Councilwoman Edwards moved to continue the public hearing on the Environmental
Impact Report for the General Plan Update and the General Plan Update itself except for the
Circulation Element to the City Council meeting of April 12, 2005. The motion was seconded
by Councilman Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
No additional comments.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
No additional comment.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
City Attorney Thorson advised that there were no reportable items from Closed Session.
ADJOURNMENT
At 12:11 A.M., on Wednesday, March 23, 2005, the City Council meeting was formally
adjourned to a regular meeting on Tuesday, April 12, 2005, at 7:00 P.M., in the City Council
Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
R:lMinutesl032205
21
MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING
OF
THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
MARCH 31, 2005
The City Council convened in Open Session at 11 :04 A.M., on Thursday, March 31, 2005, in the
City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
California.
Present:
5
Councilmembers:
Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington, and
Comerchero
Absent:
o
Councilmembers:
None
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None presented.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
None presented.
COUNCIL BUSINESS
1 Redhawk Annexation - Initiation of Proceedinas to Detach and Re-annex for the Purpose of
Changina the Effective Date of the Redhawk Annexation from July 1. 2005 to June 30. 2005
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 05-37
A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA REQUESTING THE LOCAL
AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO TAKE
PROCEEDINGS FOR THE REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE
CONCURRENT DETACHMENTS FROM THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AND THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES
DISTRICT AND CONCURRENT ANNEXATIONS TO THE CITY
OF TEMECULA AND THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY
SERVICES DISTRICT (REDHAWK AREA)
1.2 Authorize the City manager to take all other actions necessary and to execute such
other documents as may be necessary to effectuate the requested reorganization
through LAFCO.
City Manager Shawn Nelson presented the staff report (of record.)
Councilman Naggar asked which staff member was responsible for bringing forward this
needed action. Answering his inquiry, City Manager Nelson explained Finance Director Genie
Reports discovered a potential problem, followed up with the City Attorney, and with the
combined assistance of the City Manager and City Attorney, positioned the City in the best
possible manner to receive the funds necessary to provide services to the Redhawk area.
Councilman Washington asked whether June 30, 2005 was the best day to change the date
of annexation. City Attorney Thorson clarified that June 30, 2005 was chosen because it
solved this particular issue, without causing other tax-related issues.
Thanking Joe Rank of County Counsel's Office, and George Spiliotis of LAFCO, City Attorney
Thorson explained that this would not have been possible without their cooperation and
efforts. Mayor Comerchero also thanked Supervisor Jeff Stone for his efforts for T emecula
while serving as a Riverside County Supervisor.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Roberts moved to approve staff recommendations 1.1 and 1.2. The
motion was seconded by Councilwoman Edwards and electronic vote reflected unanimous
approval.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
None given.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
None given.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was fOm1ally adjourned at 11:13 A.M. The next regular meeting: City Council,
Tuesday, April 12, 2005, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive,
Temecula, California.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
ITEM 4
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
City Manager/City Council
Genie Roberts, Director of Finance ~
April 26, 2005
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Treasurer's Report as of February 28, 2005
PREPARED BY:
Karin Grance, Revenue Manager'"
Shannon Domenigoni, Accounta"@;
That the City Council receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of
RECOMMENDATION:
February 28, 2005.
DISCUSSION: Government Code Sections 53646 and 41004 require reports to the
City Council regarding the City's investment portfolio, receipts, and disbursements respectively.
Attached is the City Treasurer's Report that provides this information.
The City's investment portfolio is in compliance with Government Code Sections 53601 and 53635
as of February 28, 2005.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
Attachments:
City Treasurer's Report as of February 28, 2005
City of Temecula
City Treasurer's Report
As of February 28, 2005
Cash Activity for the Month of February:
Cash and Investments as of February 1, 2005 $ 125,757,564
Cash Receipts !l.093.513
Cash Disbursements (5.844.202)
Cash and Investments as of February 28, 2005 $ 131.006.875
Cash and Investments Portfolio: Maturity!
Purchase Tennination Market Par/Book
Type of Investment Institution Yield Date Date Value Balance @ 02/28!05
General C1lecking Union Bank wa 428.671 (1)
Flex. Benefit Demand Deposits Union Bank wa 6.272 (1)
C1lecking Account - Parking Citations Union Bank wa 5,301
Local Agency Investment Fund State Treasurer-LAlP 2.368 % 62,195.533 (2)
Petty Cash City Hall wa $ 1.500
Federal Agency- Callable Federal Home Loan Bank: 1.885 % 6/26/2003 1/23/2006 986.880 987.500
Federal Agency- Callable Federal Home Loan Bank: 2.500 % 7/16/2003 8/14/2006 1.968,760 1.975.620
Federal Agency- Callable Federal Home Loan Bank: - BDS 3.000 % 4n/2004 In /2008 2.856.600 2.852.894
Federal Agency- Callable Federal Home Loan Bank - BDS 3.000 % 4/22/2004 1/22/2008 1.949.380 1.951.260
Federal Agency- Callable Federal Home Loan Bank 3.000 % 3/29/2004 12/28/2007 3.902.520 3.907.520
Federal Agency- Callable Federal Home Loan Bank - BDS 3.070 % 4/15/2004 1/15/2008 1,953,120 1,956,880
Federal Agency- Callable Federal Home Loan Bank - BDS 3.100 % 4/8/2004 1/8/2008 2.982.321 2.988.054
Federal Agency- Callable Federal Home Loan Bank - BDS 3.125 % 4/16/2004 1/16/2008 978,130 980.000
Federal Agency- Callable Federal Home Loan Bank - BDS 3.150 % 4/14/2004 1/14/2008 979.060 980,940
Federal Agency. Callable Federal Home Loan Bank. BDS 3.300 % 2/28/2005 2/28/2006 998.440 1,000,000
Federal Agency- Callable Federal Home Loan Bank - BDS 3.520 % 4130/2004 1130/2008 1.975.620 1.983.760
Federal Agency- Callable Federal Home Loan Bank 2.250 % 6/26/2003 7/24/2006 981.880 983.750
Federal Agency- Callable Federal Home Loan Mortgage Co 2.000 % 6/6/2003 6130/2006 979.880 979.800
Bond Fund - em 88-12 U.S. Bank: (First Am Treasury) 1.900 % 379.017
(Money Market Account)
Delinquency Maintenance Account. em 88-12 CDCnXIS Funding Corp 5.430 % 911/2017 500.000
(Investment Agreement)
Delinquency :Maintenance Account - em 88-12 U.S. Bank: (First Am Treasury) 1.900 % 537.468
(Money Market Account)
ResenreFund-CFD 88-12 CDCIIXIS Funding Corp 5.430 % 9/1/2017 1,531,469
(Investment Agreement)
ResenreFund - CPO 88-12 U.S. Bank (FIrst Am. Treasury) 1.860 % 9
(Money :Market Account)
Special Tax Fund - em 01-2 U.S. Bank (FIrst Am. Treasury) 1.900 % 612.654
(Money Market Account)
Admin Expense Fund ~ em 01.2 U.S. Bank: (F.trst Am Treasury) 1.900 % 750.971
(Money Market Account)
Variable Bond Fund - em 01-2 U.S. Bank (First Am Treasury) 1.900 % 7.596
(Money Market Account)
Interest Differential Fund - em 01-2 U.S. Bank (First Am Treasury) 1.900 % 132,197
(Money Market Account)
Improvement Fund - CPO 01-2 U.S. Bank (FIrst Am Treasury) 1.900 % 3.563.450
(Money Market Account)
Special Tax Fund - CFD 03-1 U.S. Bank (F11'St Am Treasury) 1.900 % 412.075
(Money Market Account)
Capital Interest Fund - CFD 03-1 U.S. Bank (FIrst Am. Treasury) 1.890 % 32
(Money Market Account)
Reserve Fund - CPO 03-1 Aig Match Fed Corp Ref 4.830 % 863.900
(Investment Agreement)
City Improvement Fund. CFD 03.1 U.S. Bank (FIrst Am. Treasury) 1.900 % 171,221
(Money Market Account)
City Improvement Fund - CFD 03-1 State Treasurer-LAIF 2.368 % 1.242.008
(Local Agency Investment Fund)
Cal Trans Improvement Fund - CFl) 03.1 U.S. Bank: (FIrst Am Treasury) 1.900 % 509.255
(Money Market Account)
CaI Trans Improvement Fund - CFD 03-1 State Treasurer-LAIF 2.368 % 5.972
(Local Agency Investment Fund)
Acquisition Account Fund - CFD 03-1 U.S. Bank (First Am Treasury) 1.900 % 1.337
Page 1
(Money Market Account)
Acquisition Account Fund - Cf1) 03-1
(Local Agency Investment Fund)
Special Tax Fund - CFD 03-03
(Money Madet Account)
Bond Fund - CFD 03-3
(Money Market Account)
Capital Interest Fund - CFD 03.3
(Money Market Account)
Capital Interest Fund - CFD 03-3
(Local Agency Investment Fund)
Reserve Fund - CFD 03-3
(Investment Agreement)
Reserve Fund - CFD 03-3
(Money Madet Account)
City Improvement Fund - CFD 03-3
(Money Market Account)
City Improvement Fund - CFD 03-3
(Local Agency Investment Fund)
EMWD Improvement Fund - CFD 03-3
(Money Market Account)
EMWD Improvement Fund - CFD 03-3
(Local Agency Investment Fund)
Acquisition Account Fund - CFD 03-3
(Money Market Account)
Acquisition Account Fund - CFD 03.3
(Local Agency Investment Fund)
Capital Interest Fund - CFD 03-06
(Money Madet Account)
Reserve Fund - CFD 03.06
(Money Market Account)
City Improvement Fund - CFD 03-06
(Money Market Account)
Redemption Fund - AD 03-04
(Money Market Account)
Admin Expense Fund - AD 03-4
(Money Madet Account)
Reserve Fund - AD 03-04
(Money Market Account)
Interest Account - RDA TABs
(Money Madet Account)
Reserve Account. RDA TABs
(Surety Bond)
Project Account - RDA TABs
(Money Madet Account)
Project Account-RDA TABs
(Local Agency Investment Fund)
Installment Payment Fund - TCSD COPs
(Money Market Account)
Project Fund - TCSD COPs
(Money Market Account)
Project Fund - TCSD COPs
(Local Agency Investment Fund)
City of Temecula
City Treasurer's Report
As of February 28, 2005
State Treasurer-LAIF 2.368 %
U.S. Bank (First Am. Treasury) 1.900 %
U.S. B,nk (First Am Treasury) 1.900 %
U.S. B,nk (First Am Treasury) 1.900 %
State Treasurer-LAIF 2.368 %
eDCmaS Funding Corp 3.000 %
U.S. Bank (First Am. Treasury) 1.890 %
U.S. Bank (First Am. Treasury) 1.900 %
State Treasurer-LAIF 2.368 %
U.S. B,nk (First Am Treasury) 1.900 %
State Treasurer-LAIF 2.368 %
U.S. B,nk (First Am Treasury) 1.900 %
State Treasurer-LAIF 2.368 %
U.S. Bank (First Am. Treasury) 1.900 %
US. B,nk (First Am Treasury) 1.900 %
U.S. Bank (First Am. Treasury) 1.900 %
U.S. Bank (First Am. Treasury) 1.900 %
U.S. Bank (First Am. Treasury) 1.900 %
U.S. Bank (First Am Treasury) 1.900 %
U.S. Bank (FlI'St Am. Treasury) 1.890 %
MBIA Surety Bond n/,
U.S. Bank (First Am. Treasury) 1.900 %
State Treasurer-LAIF 2.368 %
U.S. Bank (FIrst Am Treasury) 1.900 %
U.S. Bank (First Am Treasury) 1.900 %
State Treasurer-LAIF 2.368 %
8/3112034
(1 )-TItis amount is net of outstanding checks.
(2)-At February 28, 2005 total market value (including accrued interest) for the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAlF) was $54,142,480,776.
The City's proportianate share of that value is $62,068,065.
All investments are liquid and currently available.
The City of Temecula's portfolio is in compliance with the investment policy.
Adequate funds will be available to meet budgeted and actual expenditures of the City for the next six months.
Page 2
1.299.699
1,439,205
11.620
6.952
12
2.171.120
9
339
7.270.630
2.970
3.675.866
10.010
10.043.101
246.263
339.604
3.845.032
49,801
15.289
100,508
34
883
1.099,452
265
877
1.991,447
$ 131.006.875
001
100
101
120
150
160
165
170
190
192
193
194
195
196
210
261
271
273
274
275
276
280
300
310
320
330
340
380
390
460
470
473
474
475
476
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASH AND INVESTMENT REPORT
FEBRUARY 2005
GENERAL FUND
STATE GAS TAX FUND
STATE TRANSPORTATION FUND
DEVELOPMENT~PACTFUND
AB 2766 FUND
AB 3229 COPS
RDA DEV LOW/MOD 20% SET ASIDE
MEASURE A FUND
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "B" STREET LIGHTS
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL"C" LANDSCAPE/SLOPE
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "D" REFUSElRECYCLING
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "R" STREETIROAD MAINT
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL "L" LAKE PARK MAINT.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FUND
CFD 88-12 ADMIN EXPENSE FUND
CFD 01-2 HARVESTON ~PROVEMENT FUND
CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL ~PROVEMENT FUND
AD 03-4 JOHN WARNER ~PROVEMENT FUND
CFD 03-3 WOLF CREEK ~PROVEMENT FUND
CFD 03-6 HARVESTON 2 ~PROVEMENT FUND
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP PROJECT
INSURANCE FUND
VEHICLES FUND
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
SUPPORT SERVICES
FACILITIES
RDA 2002 TABS DEBT SERVICE
TCSD 2001 COP'S DEBT SERVICE
CFD 88-12 DEBT SERVICE FUND
CFD 01-2 HARVESTON DEBT SERVICE FUND
CFD 03-1 CROWNE HILL DEBT SERVICE FUND
AD 03-4 JOHN WARNER ROAD DEBT SERVICE
CFD 03-3 WOLF CREEK DEBT SERVICE FUND
CFD 03-6 HARVESTON 2 DEBT SERVICE FUND
GRAND TOTAL
Fund Total
21,900,117.88
129,345.01
1,389.02
13,854,221.81
188,610.60
320.44
9,002,585.69
5,607,483.32
938,094.46
101,472.41
297,091.01
57,455.60
30,218.82
206,329.97
26,861,207.15
8,025.12
3,579,520.04
3,229,492.06
85,109.36
21,002,916.11
3,845,031.88
3,730,311.27
1,502,880.10
125,151.39
662,908.98
201,141.73
96,835.98
2,188,995.07
132,916.27
3,476,275.50
2,060,655.39
1,362,245.10
179,944.70
3,732,980.35
627 ,595.72
131,006,875.31
ITEM 5
APPROVAL l2t , . ..--
CITY ATTORNEY IF 'v .
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE fJ.t2...
CITY MANAGER rJiJ/
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
FROM:
City Manager/City Council
ty\J\k,illiam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
TO:
DATE:
April 12,2005
SUBJECT:
Parcel Map No. 31898, Located South of Wolf Valley Road and East of
Pechanga Parkway
PREPARED BY: f.;Ronald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works
Chris White, Assistant Engineer - Land Development
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council approve:
1. Parcel Map No. 31898 in confom1ance with the Conditions of Approval.
BACKGROUND: Parcel Map No. 31898 is a one hundred twenty-eight lot (128)
lot subdivision and twenty-two (22) lettered lots, located within Tract 29305-1 lot 12; North
of Wolf Valley Road, West of Wolf Creek Drive S. and East of Pechanga Parkway. The
survey monurnents are required to be set.
On September 15, 2004, the Temecula City Council approved Tentative Tract Map 31898,
with the appropriate Conditions of Approval.
The approval of a final subdivision map, which substantially complies with the previously approved
tentative map is a mandatory ministerial act under State law. It should be noted the Development
Impact Fees (DIF) will be due and payable at the time of issuance of the Building Permits.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Development Fee Checklist
2. Fees & Securities Report
3. Project Vicinity Map
4. Parcel Map No. 31898
r:\agdrpt\2003\ 1216\tm29305-1.map
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
CASE NO. TM 31898
Staff reviewed the following fees relative to their applicability to this project.
FEE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
N/A
Flood Control (ADP)
Development Impact Fee
Not Paid
2
r:\agdrpt\2003\ 1216\tm29305-1.map
CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
FEES AND SECURITIES REPORT
TRACT MAP 31898 DATE: April 12, 2005
IMPROVEMENTS FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE MATERIAL & LABOR
SECURITY SECURITY
Street and Drainage $ 503,000.00 $ 251,500.00
Water $ 177,500.00 $ 88,750.00
Sewer $ 133,000.00 $ 66,500.00
TOTAL $ 813,500.00 $ 406,750.00
Monumentation $ -
DEVELOPMENT FEES
City Traffic Signing and Striping Costs $ 0.00
RCFCD (AElP) Fee $ N/A
Development Impact Fee $ Not Paid
SERVICE FEES
Planning Fee $ 561.00
Fire Fee $ 205.00
Plan Check Fee $ 8,698.00
Monument Inspection Fee $ 2223.60
TCSD Fee $ 975.00
Fees Paid to Date $ 12,662.60
Balance of Fees Due $ 0
3
r:\agdrpt\2003\1216\tm29305- 1 .map
s
~
0..
<(
~co
OJ
co
>-~
'-f--
-u
z<(
- 0:::
Of--
-
>
W
I-
-
CI)
I-
<-)
W
J
o
0:
a..
)...
~
~
if.
~
~
f;J
Cl::
)
<:
Q
~ ti
Q: Cl::
Q )...
~ ~
il:! ~
l.l
"-
'"
~
)...
~
~
if.
~
:;:
f;J
Cl::
00
\'..
~
!'c~
~
Q
c,'"
~
G0
Q\;
cWAY
FR[~
VALL[Y T[ 15
[RSTA
/NT
Q
~
)...
~ "\,
~/--...
if. ~ ~
~~
U ----...
~\.J
ii5~
~
~
)
TOTA1.GROSSAREA:14.06ACRES
NUMBER OF LOTS: 128
NUM8ER OF LITTERED Lars.' 22
TRACT NO.
IN THEaTYOF JDiit'UL.4. COIINTYOFRNERSIJE. S1Jol1EOFCAIJFORNIA
31898
~<:rATPIIt:NT
nrDlHIS_~rlT_.~
AT .M./NIKJOI( or_AT
f\A&ES_.AT-;;;C--MWCSTorTHE'
Cf1YClLR/(WTHCCf1YW~
~-
=-
..-yWWAJ/D
CtJIJNTYASSESSt)It-ctO/K-RCtXJI/DCR
1m .CEPVTr
--
TfiST~mu~
SHEET I OF 4 SH.
8DNG A SI/BDMSION OF LOT /2 OF TRACT MAP NO. 29J05-/. RECORDED IN lJI)()K JSO. PAGES 65 IHROUGH 78
INCLUSM. OF M4Ps, RECORDS OF R~OE COUNTY, STATE or CAl./F0IIMA-
N'RII.2fJ04
~ 'l:'TA7AdNT
Of"IER€StSTAIF/HAT~NlCIHC_(JFTHClANDJNCJ.IJDH)_1Hf:SI./IJtlIIIISI(_H01ffJN:
/HATIlf"NIC THC_YP(RS()NS WIIOSCCONSENT6~7I)JII.!SA CU'N/ mu 7I)SW/NiD: /HAT
IIf"Cf!HSOff!OIHC_NlJRECOf/D//jCWlHIS~lIAI'A$__TllEIJISIN:IM
~~
Of"_~",,-.cOffE1lWDEDlCAlION 71) THCctrYWll>/€CLt.\ FlJl/I'IJ/!UCIKW!SAM!
PIII1UC/flIJTY~LOTS"A"1I/RO/J(;H"VM'lIlSM:
Of"AUOHE1/nYllfl:lOIrrrof'VlJl.lC~f;lSDlENTSFORNt1LJCV7lUTY1'(JIIPQ.1tS1rJ<<THO/IttrHTIC
_orlNCl1aS_~FOR(JIlRCOICYAHDSEIMCC~CIG'/~I3'""'_Y;
#IQ.~A$___
IKAtSl1HERCWIlfl:lOIIFAN~(NF1fLOTSI~7ANOIO#FORPIII1UC""""'IS.wDJICCESS
~
IK AtSl1 HE11CBI' DE1JICAlr THE' "-00 Tf)DT...... PrJBu:: IJ1IUTY EUEWNTS FOR PUIII.J(: unnr P<II/POSES AS
-~
1If"1CI/aY1ICWN/~I3'"A"1/If/fJUQ/ or. ~ UlCO/IIIAS"_IFSTWCCI3'"AS_HO/C()N
FIJI/_IFIISCFlJl/TllEsotC/JOIU/T(JF~oa.OUf~~_LOr_
_lHIS71tACT_.
1If"AtSl1NDH1/YR€T_'~TS"r "*'OUCH "V. """-lISM; /NOIC"'WA$'_Il"~A$_HOIEDN
FOR_IFI.ISCFlJl/TllEsotClENUIT(JFOURSn~O(.I'iSllCCC5'SDffS,AS:SIC/lfi3"_'OTOfmO/S
_1IIISI1MCT_.
...-ALSOHO/OfrI1€T_THC.........Il"_rASCJJf}(I"..._HERCONFIJI/-.olIl"Il$EFORlIIC
SQ/fiJQiU1TUOl.l'ISlJ.lC;OURst=OIIS;~AM!LorOMEl/S_lHISmoCT_.
...-ALSO/iCJ/ClIYRCT_LOTIU'/ICCRO,l/ON..w;<'.wD/OTSIZ7AN(}IUo"PE1IESIRWIACCCSS".AS
___FORCDIiSI1IUC/IONAND~PtIiPOSES,ALOIot:__Il"Il$EFORlIIC!iaE
MI6TTOFO(.OO.$filC;<XJR~ASSII':JNaSANOLOTO/INOi$_1IIISTllACT_.
IK_DEDlCAJ"l;~11ICH7S0FACaSS"ALONG~CRffI<(JFIMN.7I)TllEPUIIUC,THC~
WtOTS I.Z."~7d77.Iza.IZI.Izz.In. IU.wDSTIICETLOT'8". A8IJTT1NG waFC/IfD(I:l'lM"N. MU. Il''C
NO~(JFACCCSSDICCPTlIICGOIDIAI.CMDIOflOFI>M>fl.","C1fANGCOFAl.ICHK1fl(>'f""IHTHAr
RC$LlTSINTHCl6OCAlION1HERErJF5HO/.L~Il"IHl$_w.occc;sI1lCNTS,oS7I)THE'_T
~=
...-__roEASrERNWII1C#'M.II4Il7/OISfR/CT('OlS/1I1tr)AI'CI1f'CTU</.CMDICKTIWD_OF
I14r7l)ca<sTRIICT._00\lEMAIICE.II<<ONST1IIICT.~_~<l..tXm:INSI.ECr.~
_NoORCl.OCAIl"SfIIf'RN4't>O'''''Il7/TM:VTJCS,.4U.,oSSHOWN0N1H6__INCSViJDMSJOH
NIOOCSJCNA/III....Il7/.......:v<:wSElfO/CASEUEM"-...m>IIOWNID6ahEI1_THC_TWNXCiS7I)
ANDF1KJIISWE.4SEJIENTFlJl/IHCP(R'I)$F;OFEJ<D/CJSN(; THCI1ICH7SGIW(IU)JNSO(I["A$("JIDfl.
__I/CTAINS THC_7I) USE TlCwnENTARf)I1'ROWJCD /HATCIWflIJItSl<ll.L NOrCOHS7IWCTaI
UlCCT~_MtLS;U<SGI'IOTFrNfXSANtJ~1NCRsTRIJt:RllCSOR~alPUHTOI/
CIfOWIRCES(>'f9lllU8S,ORCHANCCTHC~CRAlJEOIfINSW..L_lIZr..-.;MWW1'fPCt.JNO;1t#IHO<R
THC_~CON$OffOFDISTR1Cr.
....-,_NOMESINC.
A~Cl:2II1'lW<_
~At_ T1Tl.C...:rPfIESIDEHT
NAMC,'waJJD<<;NxJT1Tl.CASS:STANTSCCIICWIT
--
GUAlW(TYIIAJ<<(1t>OIOIt.r_,oSGUAlW(TYI'ItI!7W./WoI( T.5.IJ.).A FWOI4l.~__
OIIGWZEDMllDlIS//N(JUYlIfRlHCtAW5lr1nEl.H/IIISWnBCNCnCINIT_DCEDOFIIftJST
~~I'IZ<XU04SNSTIMIDff.oo.f!4-JZ17'7.~~RMM1OCCOIJNTY
-
~
IIIIL:
Nf]TA_A~~
STAIF(JF~I
IS-$
COIAfTYw_1
ON BUOREIIE ANOTARYP/.IfIlJr:INMIIFDIISNDSTAI'l:
PCRSDNALLrNY'€NICD AND ~r_7I)1K
(O/IfWOIC171)IICONTlC5lSlSW~1lSTACItWl'~1I>MTHCPO/$ON(S)OHOSC-W
~A/lf"SUBSCJ//8IE1)7I)1HC_~TANDACJ(N()tftfJ)(;7I)1IC/HArHC/SHl:/lHCTDlCCU/III
nE_JNHS/IO/1HCR..wTHOI//ZCDoWlOcrntn). IWI THATfTT~_TUl/E(S} ONTNC
NSIRI.OIDffTHEI'OISON(S).OIfTHCCNITITUPONSEHAUWIiHCHTHCPCRSON(S)ACTm,ExCCU/III1HE
-
~lH_'
IiOTNrI'PrJBu::/NIWIFlJl/SWSTAIF
--
III'-....PlACEWIlUS/liCS'S61N~oou;TY.
lh"cr;lJJlJ/S$lt)N01'f1KS~
NOTAI1Y ~nr'.unn
STAIl"OF~1
I U
CCUNTYW_I
ON tIETORClK ANOTMI"f'U1UCJNMllFORSO(ISTil7(
FCRSt!NAI./.rN'PCN/ED AND I'ERSOtW.J.rKHOl1N7I)/IC
(ORPROIfl>ro/ICONlIC.......oFSAI1STAaORrElADCNCE)IIlSEIHEPOlSIJN(S)IIOoOSl'~
.<V__SUl/$Q//t/Ef)roTIC_INSI1UKJI1'.wD~7I)1IE/HAT~=
THENIWC/N~~~NlDTHATlIr~_~CHTIIE
INSTll<MDiTIHEPERSON(S).ORTllComrrUPCHSEHAUWlINDllllCPCRstIN(S}ACrm.=THC
~~
JflNCSSlh"_'
NOTNl'YP/J8UCINMllFlJl/SWSNl~
--
lh"~PLoCEWlIt.IS1NESSISJN_COUNTY.
lh"CCMMI:SS1ONCXI'//ICi_
~..NA71JfW'''''~
_roso:TXJNIliU.J6UTHESUiDIoISl<WIW'ACr.THC_/loIi$WTHEFlUQjII'i(OOHI\VIS
IYfA$DIOITSNIOOROIHE1/IN7C1IESTSHl'CtEENOWIIDJ:
NlEASDoO<lrol'lF'Ol.ELI'e~"STJIUW!;NTftf;COfIDfII"'9OOI<8J4.P_162.OH
V2/41'NfNo'Oll.Of'c:..sOft....D.ECllllCPOIOEllCOWPN/Y. (UIU'lOTTAlU}
NltA$t\oOfIfOftf'Ol!LH:!If'{JIINS11\\JloIDfTft[aJftO[Ctl9OOl<11Jll.PAO;(IlI0H
'f.l3/"'NF.o.YCflOf'CIU"OftHlO.D.ECl1lIC~COWPIINY.{UIV'\.OTTIlUl
THE KEITH ~ /NC.
<:t~<:r"f1:JRNT
1HIS_WASPfIDW/l1)lIYI1ICOR_JUDIMC_ANtJIS~UPONAfIC11)St.fi\fl"JN
CONroRlWarNIH1Hf1/LQlJlREJlCN"TWTHE~_M:TN<D/IlG4L~ATINC
R(QUC;TW_'~"''''''~'''''CH_U2tXU. IH01C9TSTA7f:".,TA/.J.IKJNlJMCNTSNlCW
_OW/ACID/AM!0CCI.PY1IIEPOS/1}()H~ImORTHAT!I.V'IIlUSEsET/NSUCHI'OSIT/ONSJN
~W/lH7IIE/f1IU$DflTHCIIIOtUICNTAGRHJtIfNT;ANtJTH<rSW__N/CS!flJCOH
7I)INA8UTllESI.fi'oO"roSCI/CT//ACfilIH01C9TSTA7f:THAT1HIS!WI(_Sl/tJliTANTWUrCOHroRllS
roTHCCIJNtJ/T/OfoWJ.r~TViTArM_.
~w
-
~L~L-"!i.U6
DlPlllCSIZ-JI-Q$
CRY ENGINEER'S STAT9IENr
I_STAIFTHAr1H6_CONSISTMOFFO/iR(4}5>fEETSHAStEENCX<fIINCDfTTI1IC0I/IAIDO/lH
SU'ClMSlONANtJ_ 7I)lJCJlllJaTANTw.l.rTHCS<iE04StT~ONTHEIDffA7M_WI1MCT
NOJI'H,oST1tED,~ANDAIY'I/OOUJ6T1HCCf1YW~ONAUCl/STI"ZIXH. rw
Dt1'/RAT/ON~Il"i1E1NG,JJJQJ$fI" 200t/ANtJ/HAT.4U.I'RtMSIONS(JFAPf'UCAStESTAll"tAWMIICf1Y
~m'lSIl''CtEENC06ftXD_MII/HATIAMSATlSF/EDTH<T1HIS_6~rCtlo'tl!fl:T.
~= ,It.J05
'1IONOllJ.J.I'WiI<<S;!lCCNO.19744
~1ll'lAC1WCCf1Y0ICMCII.
=~~
(J/PR4lEW~ml>>-JO-05
CRY ctERK'S STATEJIENT
THCctrYClltMXUlHEctrYWmout.<<STAIF(JFOIU'D'IMo\srnsctrYClDIK.SII>lN'W.J/'JN(S,
c...:;_AI'I'I'il:lI6THE'T/IIICTMAPSN<DAct:EPTSTHE'OI1U1SWDEDlCAlEWOFTHCDSDENTSFDII
NeVCUIIlIIICSro<<rIOt"""TIIE_WINGMSSAHDHI1ItSSFOR~NDSD!'WCC1f1IICttS
0lV1 LOTS ~. THROL/GH ....lIlCltMoE
OICOONOTACCD'TlICOffUISOFDEDlCATIONSF'DIiI'l.8JCIitlAOPlII1I'OSCSOOt:IltOI3'OAO/loRWCHV
~
OICAI.5C>HOIOJTlICCO'TlIConrJ/WDEDlCAl/ONOFAlIVT/VlSRHlHTSUNXCiSAtOlot:WOVC1lUX
(JIIMN..
OICAI.5C>/IOE/WACCEPT&PrHIUC_rNIDIlaESSOSUIENTOOt:IlLOIJ; l07ND I(JIIM
~=
OICAI.5C>/IOE/WIliXEPrIlC$.OOFt)()TIl1IKPU8lJCI./TVTYCII$EWNTS"'_=
~=
-
Sll$ANW./CHES.CMC
crTYCU1II(.cnrOF~
TAYfY)JU:"f'!~~Tt:'
I/1OIC6fCO/lr"THAT~roIHCRCCOI/OSOFTHlSOff/CC,A,S0F1HIS~Il:THC1/CNlfNO
U€NSACAINSTIHE1'ImI'VITY_ONTHE__FlJl/~AJOSNl1ECOUNTr.~0R/0C<I.
rAXnOR5RD4(ASSES'SMCI(T$~ASr~DICE1'r/"MESOR5RD4(ASSESSI>IO{/Sca.uc1(D
AS 00"fi; NOW A IJENf!lRNOT lUA<lfI8U; __NlCal>>l/lIl7l)sct
~w
-
I'l<IX JIdXiNNFU. ct!IJN/TWf
--
I1Y: .rJU'UTY
TAY Rt'JNIj 1YTRInI'..I1T
IHEREm'COIJPY/HATA~JNTIC_(JFt .HASscm=CI//IIIND~IttrHTHE
_(JF!ilIKIMSOIISOFTHCCtJljNTYW~CAtItWM4,Ct:JNDtT/ONED_IHEA<lOIE>ITUAU
r;;uastll'l: CI:lIJNIY,"'-" ORLOC<oLNDAUS>'fQIl(~C1OUE/III,oSoon JfIIICH
Ar me 11IE(JF _FlU'(; WMSlMP fIIlH THCcrJINTY>lUXYl<!CRNlCA loUi_TSWFS;lPOlTY
BllTNOTIU"'lII<<CAHD$OII_HASSEDlDu.Y_fTTSO(I_OF~
~1lI1'_.=.
-~
ctDIKrolHC_(JF~
~~-
--
ct!IJN/TWfCfJU.U;rOR
~
~
CF11T1F1CA1F('JIf'~NtY"
1HIS1S7I)CDfITTTH<TTHE'CASnJOiT$CRANTU)ON1H6_rolHCt:ASTCII/IM/JN/CJ/>Ai"1llI0<SII<II:T
N/CH(R(11YM:cEPImNDTHCfiIWflrECONSENTSroIHfRlC/)/l()A__fTTITSDu.r
-~.
(SICNAT1.Rf(JFr4TRICTI)F11C(1I)
_v.HDwF11.
5rn'ElMTWIHE&lS1U/N...-.
"'IllIOOIlf1l;TANDTHElIONIDU
--~
~
NnTAR"l' "~n'Jr.UQIT
stllFOFGIU'nII\OO I
I U
COUNTYU_I
ON tIET"O/IEMC ANOTMrI'lllVCIN.wDftl'!SWSTAII:
PDtSQ'OIU.r"IY'fNIUJ ND POrSl:WOlU.r/fNOrNrol1lC
(DflPl'!OKD7I)1KONTHCSAS1SW-SAI1STACrORT~7I)lICTHE'POlSIJN(S)~IOWC(S)
IVNlCliI.Jt1SC1/IlKDrolHC_JNSTIU/CNTANOA~rolE/HAT~D<l"CU/III
IHCNAMCJNNIS,/IIDf/lHOOIWIHOIIlZQ)G<o'l<CI'~ANOTHATlIY~""""~ONrw
INSTTIUIDIrTHE~.lORIICENITITUPCH//CIl<lFOFWWCHTHC~AC/"EII,lXCCIITCf)IHE
-,
~~-
NOTMrPLaJCJNANOFDIISWstlll"
--
_1'RICI'A(~WI1USJNESSISJN~COUNTY
_CDIMISS1OHDtPI/G~
PRO.JECTE1}.5'lC. 20. T.6$.. R.2W,
6
"
"
~~
~
"
"
~
w
>-
1i.i
>-
<.:>
w
C3 ~
a:
a.
~~~~
~~~~$1~~ t,
~ ~
1lX)! I
~O)~ ~
~lX)~ ~
~ ....... ~
~ ~ i~
I . <~
~ '.
~ "V ~~
p::: ~~
i ....... gl
~ ~ ~.
~ ~~
: ~ ii
~ !" ~
ih
: i ~ ~~ ~~! ~ ~~ ~ ~i i ~ i ~; ~ ~I~ ~I~ ~~
3~~€!~~~~~===========::===
: ~ ~ ~~ ~ i~,~~ i ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~I~ i ~ ~~
,......cc,..... ....1.1....,
~."""--~~ -----~-~--I-I..-.-
:1IIIII1~i!illl!l!111llil!llll€11
O-~-.~."...-H_ " __.C___9n
~"__n"________~_~___",.,."",.
~;ii~i~~~~;~~~~i~~~ii;;i~;
. I
:l ~:::~::::;;;;::::';;:;!;:: :!:~.:\:!; ~:;: ;;; ';:; ~~:;:
~iij!'il"';2;2222;';""22'i2
~"_.~_SSI_.__._ss_sE.l..8_.
---- -------------~--"---
!...+.+.'o""""'o",,
e.p';!IIIlOItlljd\~M\liO''''\t\... '~M ,.,,".-. "'I "d '''''''' <...,<Ut ......'"
.~, I
> I! i H! !~II
! j II !lll' ;id I!E
~ l HI !! i I li!t :!q
,I" _,I,!I! '" I .E I: (ii,
· ", i ILi. =i:1 !Id
:! lUll !:: Illl tI ~~I'
II. I' I IllII ! ~l; I ~I' 1,1 ~l' I
~I hi! ! " , ; I ! ":1 "'I I
! L I!m III II ill!il:1 I
Ii i 2: ... d ,lib M I
~ .
'ill
~p
'1'1
Ids
hll
~ l! l!
~ I'll
1,1 '.
Ii n
uu
I'!
III
,',
i~1
'!l
'!.
h
ll!~'
!l,i
,1.<
i !'
li;1
':I!
,
II
.
I
,-
il
!,
,:
Ii
.
I'!
II'
.1
"
-----
~
"
,
1]
~
~
.I'i
~ ~
~ ~
~&
~Ii
;:; ::]
~ , ~ ~ , >;
" ~ e ~
" 0 ~ 0 i!l
;;;
> ~ ill ~
"l ;
~ l< ~
~ 0 ;>
I
I.
I' !
r 1 ~ ~
~ I ~~ ,," ~ ~ ; Ii)
~ p , ~ -;;;
~ ~ I ~ !<) I
'" I 4 "~~ ~ :'J ~ i2 ~ f6 ~ ~ ii; ;,;~-
~ tti "I r
b~...l ~ .:~ I "-:.11 (.61 IlC.cHQ1 I 'e",- II::' I
~ '<) ",!! ~ "'i!ll " r I ""I I I I I I~~ I ~I:!'<l ~ '
~ "i,,/ ! fl~IJ I .... I ~ \ ~ \ ~ \ =i \ ~:::II :; I lil I l!; I ~ lia:::: I~a" I ~~ I
'" ~()I I i>"<P~ I I I I I I <:;:)11 I I I '" '~_.... I
~ 'LUl!'~~_.L.-_l._-L_--1-_--1-_--'--~_.....l..._....L_-L._~--' '\.~
2 I -f ____________BL=i9/o5rsw-------------- ):
\.. L-86L6Z .ON 1:J'I(;11. __/ '-l
frl"" --
I
I
~
~
,
~
u
~
U I
iii
~ .
~
~
<
i~
~j
.
i
,
,
~
~
~~
,
~:'ri
~~
, ~~
l ~'"
, ~>
i ~
"
~
SEE SURVEYORS, EASEMENT,
B4S1S OF BEARINGS AND
E/lMRONMENTAL CONSTR),INT
NOTES ON SHEa 2
SEe IMP BOUNDARY ON SHEET 2
SEE SHEET -# FOR UNE AND
CURVE OA TA TABLES
IN 1HC CITY OF 1'DlEtU.o\ COUNTY OF ~ STATF OF ~
SHEET :5 or .. SHEETS
TRACT NO.
31898
BEINC A SU8()(lIISf{)N OF LOT 12 OF TRACT UAP NO. 29J05-1, RrCOlWED IN BOOK .JSa PACES 65 THROUGH 78
INCLUSNE, OF UlPS, RCCORDS OF RlVCRSIDE COUNTY. STATe or CAJffORNI"..
APRIL. ~ THE KEITH CCWPIWIES, we.
,r---f.... - GRAPHIC SCALE
~~t@D._Gl9&lr~ --_
." '" ._~;:rJ--fiii.'!t~ ~. '''''' - - ... -< c--J · T
gi~ V ...~..... - ~-i~.::~ --__ ~ I ,
~:~,l """"'t ~"..'::''( k,~'" ...., v.i.~ - _ _ .:.::-:: " ~
It- " -~''''''t.tJ:!; <$': L~ -_
1'.1 LJ..:n" \ 1t7ii!J~'\ ~~7t" ",<)tt4 -" - ........ ---
. ~t""$'7'!;;:. ;t, ;1)"$)~t(;\~ ;;'. ~ ~ -
~ I..>U"'~ ....... 17ll 'AV IJI ~-~AI:J - -__ ~
3Sf! Ii{ 16 f<.e "'i\o:..F'" ~?'r< l/:i ---- ~
~ 9' ;~~'~~I'T -_'J>, -.~ ~..-- ,
,,~?t;'..JS .,., ~g~!f!iN L~~ ~~ 4D -l!r~~~~------
~ ~', ---,;;- l:'..\ ''''-o!'' S~si ~I-;~ .'" ~~.. -
~ ~ ~i; l!:! ~ ll,i~ - ~ ~ $:I ~'" - (>to.
~ l~ ~It... " I "I" ;:c ~ r::) '" - '''-''<11- ....;>~-
37 ~ NW''''~W n.... it. :..06 -I. l!! ,.....lI' J;ii' I.~ """
~ ,to- ~ - ~ ~ 1 ;../ _'J:J
NfG'-"'S'W ~',5" i! LOr-(j' ~ I ,,."J ~ 1.' I~~ j/--
~~~ hit .r-::NfG7:: 12,~.'" 11- -5'P.UE ~ ~ ' , ~ ,1' &k~f~;It$~ i,/~8.....,~ 41.(&
" l' l' h' 1'1 l"~ ,/~:~'" N':;~" !J'?/ ""'""-I ~ r.,.~/
g tJ., I$.'} ~~i f'. !;'I 1- HM';~!i'W~~_~!:, M~ ~"'6'lL;':'JIS'w ;~~ E .~f~ ~"'.;>p. T7--r-
i ~ 1~ '\t-~,;;N 1 q ~ ~~.~! ,;" ~ ~i ~ m:.:, .~:?,~ 31 ~~'~ ~l j p~. i"'!;" i
IN"'J.',,"w '60' ~I ~ ,~.,~ t t ", '" ~ ", li ~ ~ r o"fT ~ \
; Nn' ~ ~~ '~I .,-~. . , ','k." ". ','
I> ~ ~ .p 115 ~ ~ ~~ ~':" ..JeW:!:. JQ.9Q:.. ;;rS
~ ~ ~ 21 mxy ~ ~,I ~ "/~ "..,,,,,." J4.M' ~ tl ~ 'NOt.
4 NfG'J"!i'W U.17 ~ ~8:"'J1~W --: ~ .~I~ i:~ I'M'''.'S'W t';:l( mtEI1) -, ~ ~ LOT ~r 1HIrIJ.tn _Ol~
I..~ 61 f~ t;'~ 6' ~ i =--l... _~M!:__~~otr ":!.""~- -~"--
'.' " 51;~ .. 8."" ~ """".---,,':::!lS; I NfG,J.,!i'W 'u41$:--c::::r AlCMXJC/NO COURT b
-. a i _'-"'~W n_ ;~ :l)... ....,4'1'. ..
. -,,,,, ':.., LOT "Jr' j W /~ ,., ~.~ I-"~
'J~ ~ It ~Il"~ lL_~rG' ~~ a i;\i ~ ~ I.. t: . a ~ ~
_ i ~ ~l {:. ";"1 t I~oo~ 1> l~~.,. i ;"",,,'1 ", ~ ~ ", _~.;~ ,\" ;,d'",.,' ,d' S .; ,.'
32 \ h#r a Iti ~ ~. t: ; ~i, ~ -..'~" ~ l I..~ ~ ~!l
... .... ~ 1.J..,.'J',rw 44.01 i I ~~ l!l~ i-it ~~ ~ I ~ 5~ ~ !::t:ol...
_/J'/~W >>'11 I ~ NfGI".,"-W 12066' Ie ~ 1:1 #01,.". JlI.I7' l- S( 1J8."" J8."".:t ::::~
.. ~. ; ., ' I.' wr'l1' _. ., ~. "" UN ~ ,w. "" _~ .u" t_
yo ~ ~ v B ~ N(M'o6lIl"~:;:' __'J"~" ~ ~ I -NfrU'I~ ,oz.J.I -! ~
~ NfW'J'I!i'W 44.01 ~ ~ 116.50'...,~ a 5487'
55 It >>' .>2.". I 0;; -..' -.... ..""-"". a 50.""'./ ::! ~" a _,,1',,,,,, 8.ura ~
/10 /f-InJ:' ". 15.J.1J&: LI I~ L ., ~ IJ '" ~ "fJ a HM,,,.t!i'w 1iI '00."'" - '_ ~ "" t: ,01 III ::t
~ J .m ".N. ~ ~ .' ~, \, _, ", ",~ . " ~ ~ ,d' ~ -
"i ,\ .a !; ... ; 'I' l ,l ,"'. I ,!~" " '"
V" ~ I!: ~ ;I ~ .11 $4.01' N!f1).... _,~ ~ ' ,~ t> :;; b b
i31 ~1lI .. -- - it 41.11"''1:::: 44.''''' ""," it NfG'J.WWIS,87'it
~ Nf"14'I~'" "'.~. ~ ,. W ~II ~ NfGtJ.'; 82-4"~ NfG'J.'''W5467'~,;;E,,.,,, u.~~~;~:,~,,!. 1~:;:J'!VJ4/ '451J'~
t ( ~ II .' ',. it 11 1~ a # l: ~ ~ ~a 1:1 ,;> il:~ 9~ . '" g
30 ~ .p II 'G ~ ~ fi, I, _tJ'I5"w 12~1' till" t:i ,1"-: ~~tj III i:\~ li! l r/J ~ ,...
~ ~.,; ,\l:: __'J'/~'" /1.86' ~ ,.p,l.l~ ~_ i, ~ ~ /"NfGI~'~'" IlM~o:.".,.,.-....~t6' ~::! ,rP ~
_ ~ N<<t.,.. ~ ~ ~k~ ~ II #o~I" '-50''\= ~ /2.'" ; ,<"n' ~ 4-J.lr~ ~ M..M' ~; :;f"",; ~
- B '" (_,J', If' 12.66' . IN",J', "' 9' tU JIU:r 2"
_. 1,;" I.. .. 42.48'!:l..! . __;J.,rw $$.';'~'. "".JI.18' ~8 1'... ~
S ~ f/I t a et.l~ ., ~il: I stil~ i1:"1t! ~ oJ ~. . ~ ~ B !;: ~t:o ~ ~\ry~ ~ '"
. i',...,i' !' ..,' '3" ~",~""
29 \ ~ 3; t/J ..!. '" A ~"'''' t/J .' '" {l:..f.:t "",~t1; a q'O
~ 1H4'1J'lS"W 12.66' l:: ~ ~ V' g '" 1.i ~ ",'" ~ i 111:
-:8l"''';W r I ., .~ 1"'/;;'" \~! I I ~. I r<;~ !' I t .\
""'.u' \ >>,H' r ~ al NNT'J.'~W UJ.M' Il.
/<<).01. ,4.00--<: ~'~_____---L:::i.S1!RMRSCOU!T~_____--=----
--,,::! ~ f ---;;;;:;Y;riim.8J. ~"'" lit WT ~(f" IN"/.J'I~W5ZZ.65. l! -
~i'3.tJr;'t.. ~l(Yt1fEV}
27 '" .~. 4.J.M)' 1171 4'."'" 4J./7' tl7l LI.""'.. 4.S.,r <.}.'7' fl."'" " JllZ'.
'IlI~~ ~ ~ .. ~ ~ ~ l,; ~ t; f;;
~ ~~ r:i r:i ~ 8~ ~ r:i l:! ~ ~ 'a ~ r:i
iF <1' '~t ,II> 'I ,1 II> l''i tI> ~ ~ tI' "" 1> t 1>,r; '" ~ ~
~ ~~, I ! "n ,If>', · I<H I ~ :.U
",1,::\" :l"'l:!~ ~ I:"t:o~" 3tH4'IJI~wl,u.Jl5 __t"'l:!t
"; I" 4l1.St5' ~ I "'7' J.9.17' ~"" a I ~"" ..,,. >>.17' 15::._" SI
266\l'~ ~~,rw J :':'....J [.JO,U'..I JJ.f6. JJ.f6 ,::1 JO.~ ""ol!.J<lU JJ.f6 JJ.W ~ --. [
- ,j - eM' !L.. ~'J.'rw ;UJ4 ~:I ~.J8 ..... -tI I.. .fl ~J8'
,~ 1 '- ~~...,.". ~ I:':'../'~ ~ ~ t '-::"O:;ww ~,oo.":,~./ t! ~ -.. -:-"':;':;5"W
"'"it:~I\.'" :! a"~ ~"'iI II ;0.' "'~ ~ ~
25n~'~~~' 'Y ~i1 IJ' t fj} ~~ ~ ~ ~ , .'J. E -'*"'-~; 9 t 4}
o ':l I' i . . i __ i ~. ! I "\'. '
CjJ.87' _-;-... 5><0,. t "',()t~"""" ~ ':1-17' "'"I" i _~ it.M..... ~ ,~ 02.'"' ~ ,,"-,ll' ~ 54,OJ'
(IHs>>..rw) (>>2.J7'1 ~r".w .v.I,,1
lOT 16 T1?29J05-1118 MO/65_78 wotFCRffI(DRAlNAGC CHANNEl
~~.
~i ~
,'l l~, ~
~ lt001
=
i
j
l
)0 ~
!
M.5r
--:tH4'tJ'IS'W
\',.
1~: /~
. ~
.
,
t
~ 'f(J.ZJ'
, "
,
1
SHEET40F4SHEETS
SEE SURVEYORS, EASEMENT.
BASIS OF BEARINGS ANO
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINT
NOrcS ON SHEET 2
SEE U4P BOUNDARY ON SHEET 2
IN THCClTYOF~ COI..INTYor~ STA1FOFCAJ.JFrJRNJA
31898
TRACT NO.
BDNG A SUBOMSION OF WT 12 OF TRACT WP NO. 29305-1. ReCORDED IN BOOK 350, PAGES 65 THROUGH 78
INCLUSNr. OF iJN'S, RECORDS OF RMRSIOE COUNTY. STAlE: Of' CAi.fR)RNIA.
THE: KEITH COIIIfW(ES, JNC.
UCllOTA lJNCllOTA
~ ~ ~
II N15""~W n~2'
U N-WIS-IS-W JI.(XY
U mJU'4S"E ~."'"
,~N-WIJ'IS-W 2HXY
~ N-W'J'IS-W 2UXY
'~mJ'S'~E '~,51'
"mJ'S'~E '2,5(}'
'6 NWIJ'IS-W :14-00'
,9 ,,""IJ'IS-W 2',00'
liD Na"'.s-C ~OO'
lI1 NWU'IS-W 29.S"
," Na'S'.s-C "00'
L'J II'CI2~'W 2alV'
LI~ Na.,."rc ...00'
lI5 Nn.S'.s-c 12.W
LI6 lI'C,ns-w 24.00'
"7 II'C/J'IS-W HOO'
"6 Nn,s'.s-r 12~S-
<19 NC,.'J'IS-W 2~_
U(J NWIJ'IS'W .1.54'
1.11 mJ.s'KC 2.00'
= II'C'J'IS'W ~OO'
uJ II'C'J'IS'W 1.1.52'
1.14 !;ff'S'.S-C 2.!.J'
uS /H6"J'IS''' .1(J.W
1.19 _,ns-w 1I.JI'
1.17 !;ff"'C"C 19.7.'
LH _,J' ..00'
U9 /HJ'U' 14.00'
l.JO /H6'IJ' U,'
UI......" 24'7'
l.U N-WIJ' '.00'
UJ ......U. 21167'
U. '.00'
i.J5 1,JI'
U6 ;J4,1XF
ul N.IXF
LJf 7.JI'
~ 211'"
uD '.00'
u, 24'1'
L'" 4-00'
uJ '9M'
L... ~.OO'
,.., 7.JI'
,., HOO'
,~7 H.OO'
"" nJ,.
ld ".15'
~ U~
~, 21HF
W n~
~ IO-J"
~. UOO'
1M /l.JI'
1M 7.JI'
," 24.00'
W nn
~ 22.'"
l<<J .J.J.]'
,., 14-J,.
,U UOO'
l6.J '.JI'
,.. I'-Dr
1M "00'
1M '.00'
's7 J;JI'
L.., 24.00'
LIlJ I..J,.
U" .J.!.J'
LJ/ J.aF
Ln 24-00'
tJJ II.J"
L14 7,.'
Ln XJ.6S'
UII JI,DI'
tJ, ~..J.F
L~ '-00'
UP ~OO'
~ no,'
u, '.M'
lU 24-IlJ'
I.IJ IMTU'4rC ".J.F
LM __IJ'IS-W HI"
~ !;ff.....s-C 24""
U6 II'CIJ'IS-W 4-00'
167 !;ff"''4S"E ".011"
LM II'CIJ'I W '.00'
""" !;ff........C 24'7'
UJ(I _InS'" ..00'
UI NU....44"C '4-011"
i.U N-WIJ',S"W ItlJl'
UJ ..........s-C ~J.].
U' __'J'IS''' IU,.
-. 2004
GRAPHIC SCALE
~ ~ --
"' ......~6'.s-C 1.00'
"' IH-J'~s'.s-c 14.00'
'" _IS-IS-", '00'
"' ......W....C 2.00'
"' _,J'IS"" 11,64'
"00 II'CIJ'Is-.. 9.JI'
LID' N4tr1J'IS-", 21,~'
"U lH-J'~s'45'"C ,>>'
,,~ N-WIS-IS-", '00'
"U NotJ~6YI1'E 21.00'
,,~ N4trlS-IS-" .00'
"U !;ff#'45"C ".<<r
"07 NotJW45"C ',00'
"U N-WIS-I . 1.00'
"U N4GlnS-", ~n'
,ltO mJ.6'C"C .~'
"It N4G'S-IS-'" 12.00'
,lt2 .......6'45"C 'U'
,ltJ NotJ#'45"C m
",. _,S-I!>" UU'
,It, II'C,S-IS-" '00'
,Its /HJ'~"C"C W
"" N4G'J'IS-" '"
"", N4GIJ'IS-", Joo'
ilI9 N4GIJ'IS-", J'.oo'
"U ,......s.45'"c .~
"21 _,S-IS-", ,J,I7'
"22 _,J'IS-", 'U'
t/2J N4GIJ'IS-", ,~
"n __,J',S-", ,J,'7'
U25 IH-J'U'45'"C .~
u2I _'S-I'" .lI.OO'
(/2} IH-J'U'45'"( ".'1'
UU N4GIJ'IS-" .~
"n N4G1S-'S-" 'U'
,,~ NWlns-", 11,1.}'
t1JI ,.....~s'4S"C .U'
,,>> IH-J'U'45"C 'U'
,,>> N4Glns-" w
"u lHJ~s' , '''-00'
,,>> N4GI...'.r" '.00'
lIJS N4GIJ'Ir", ,.w
IIJ7 _In,." JUO'
"u 1H-J'~6'4S'C .>>'
,,>> __'S-Ir" It,50'
"n __'S-IS'''' '.00'
"41 1HJ46'4$"C 21.95'
"n """Is-Ir,,, '"'
"n NIlfUS'~rc '''-;]9'
"" NtKIWlII" 2"-1Q'
"n NotJ'6'45'"C 24-00'
,," __Ins-", tJI'
1I47 IHJU'4S'W 1141'
,,>> fIq'6'45"'" nu'
"" _,n,-" 6.JI'
"H fIq",~( ~.~
,,~ __,rl$'''' .U'
,,~ NotJU'C"C 2/161'
,,~ ~lrlS-'" 26.01'
"U N'~4-I'''''''' na'
lI" NOnrl . 14.;]9'
"H NtKIWlI'.C 24.""
"H IHJ....C"C 11).00'
"00 N4..J".lI'Od"C 11).00'
lilt !H.J'4S'45"C 11).00'
"U !;ff"'45"C 11).00'
"U N4..J",S'45'"C JIJ,n'
U6. NotJ~"4S'E 24,00'
"U 1HJ4I'45"C 24-00'
uG, lH-J"S'45"C 24,00'
UU lHJ~s'45'"C 2MXI'
"U ~n , 24.00'
,," ~In"" 2~00'
"" IHJ......,.( 2~OO'
U7I ~IJ'I"'" 14,00'
"n ~IS-I'-. 2~.00'
LIlJ lHJ~s' , 1400'
lI7. 1H-J'~"45"C 1400'
"n IH-J'H'45"C 1400'
LIlG ~IJ".r" 2~00'
Ll77 _Irl"" 2<.00'
". ......~s. , 2<.00'
". fIq"'44"C 1400'
,,~ ~IJ'I"" 2<1.00'
Ll91 NU.6'WC uoo.
L191 ~n , 2<.00'
"U mJH'WC ~~
,,~ "",,rls-.. 2<1.00'
"u NotJU'4rE 24-00'
"U ..........45"C 2<1.00'
t/" ""6'IJ".r'" 2<1.00'
"U ""6"J'I'-'" .U'
"U NU'(}""" '"'
~~
(Ill' JUT)
Ilncll._4lI n.
~,
.
'i
CUl'l'f"DolrA
~
"'
n
-
2J.OO'
1~46.1XF
~.
00_
WI'....
~.
-""'J'
7.It'
~ -----
/;''--~I>-:---- ---___
"r" ....~~~AQ- --~I - --
"'''''''',.'''' ....,.,.~ f ---
~4.~ ~ r:-......
~,-lal ~n. "..JJiq-~ ~N:
", 4,fj /.f --~--
/ ~.,
ft./ ....).
~,uq..J8' NjR
-,...,..... #. :!):::i
l'
I~~
. t:::Jff,j
,
", I \ ~
I I
(-.If.,,,,
,j) ,
.Jtoo
71~
','
'.
IMD" b
LOT 'E"~ ;:;;:;;/;:m, ~ g
- N4rl.l',r" 264.01' I
~f--~u
~ =:.~~. ~ ~
.
~ ;~
.. ; . ~
~ ,tJJ "~ ,fi
~ : ~
s
II'C'J'I.r",
~~
,
/H//'IJ"" 7.'"
",T'F'
~ r-rt:DfIIMJ
INirIJ'I"'" 72,61'
,
,
~JlJ.OO'
!~
II
'i
Ii
,~
II"
!l
~ _,n,-,,)6.00'
,
I
II
,
H
-
__,S-''''''
"
"
,
lIl~
~ ::O"',5D' __'.l'IS-~
1iI._'J"'-"_ .
, ,
~ ~ ,!)J
I
,
,
\'
.
.,
, ,
g ::072-....
~oo.
:~
I
/28
n,.
60.00'
.'
,
.
,
"
I'
,dl
NU'IJ'I"'U.OO'
g s
~ HW':"''-''I ~
: S .
.. \
_ :;( ~ ,0
. .
/Hr,n,-'"
-p;;,r'"
1~!JO'
, I~
,
/Hrln.rll' 72,""
LOT 'G'
-'-
__IrIS-II' 11.IlI!'
, ,1
i
NU'.JJ~:r'"
,
!
NU'In,-", 11.""
,- I
I ,
_'S-IS-II' ,
",01' U>
., ,
,
- ,
/H6'I2....W12,..,.
LOT 'Ii'
-.-
_,nrII'
9
N-Wln,-"
~
'"
,
\ ,0>
I
88,'
:t ~
,
,
"
,;
z
~
"
"
"
~
" ,1
~
I
/H".,S-,"" 5~gg
:"_IJ',rll' !i&.OO'
~ S
~ ~ ,~
8 ~ (/III'WIIIF
',$"W ~;j r:7'-
, N4GIJ'lr", u
, " ,
I '" , ..
\
I I
'"
I'
_11
_,J'I'-"tJ.:lOO'
,
... /H//'IJ', W4XlW ..:
< , .
_ _ ~~STRUr) ~I__""
- \ilKIJ'IS-","U5' I
~ LOT 'C' 'i' SIX RMFiS COURT~I
__,J'I"'" '71.19' I
.l',H'
~I
I
!
!
,
~
N4GIJ','-"MW'
,
,
",p,
'!
,
"
,
"
I .p
I
....5
. .
,
\ ~ \
I I
~"'
\ 'II
I
"
~ ilKIJ'Is-.. ll'9
, \
~ ~ "r"J
"
1
i.
,
5'.H'
.,
"""'""""""'''
~""
D1STRlCTSEWO?
EASEIIEN!
OEDICATFD HEREON
"'T r
-.-
1H6"1J".rr
"'''''J',.rW5.5.99
"
~.
!
!
,
!
,
~1
;
,
u'
~"
~7'I~<I.J.".)
LOTI6TR29JO,-1
liB JSO/65-18
It'OlFCRW< ()IWN.I,t;E c;w;NEL
ITEM 6
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOROF FINANCE
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: ~_1/.william G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE: April 12, 2005
SUBJECT: Second Amendment to Fiscal Year 2004.2005 Annual Citywide Routine
Maintenance Contract
PREPARED BY: /jq!Bradley A. Buron, Maintenance Superintendent
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
Approve the Second Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Annual Citywide Routine
Maintenance Contract with Monteleone Contractors, Inc. for an amount of $50,000.00 and authorize
the Mayor to execute the amendment.
BACKGROUND: On June 22, 2004 the City Council approved the Fiscal Year 2004-2005
Annual Citywide Routine Maintenance Contract with Monteleone Contractors, Inc. in the amount of
$100,000.00 to provide citywide routine maintenance and construction work throughout the City.
The First Amendment was approved by City Council on January 25, 2005 for an additional amount
of $150,000.00. This additional work generally ranges in costs from over $1 ,000 to under $25,000
and involves miscellaneous repairs to drainage areas, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and storm drains to
include excavation and emergency response during the rainy season.
This Second Amendment to this contract is necessary due to an increase of necessary emergency
repair projects that was caused due to the heavy rainfall the City has experienced in the last few
months. This increase to the original contract will allow staff to respond to additional repairs due to
the rains and any emergency work in an expeditious manner during adverse weather conditions
without jeopardizing administrative requirements. It is important to understand that the not to
exceed amount of $50,000.00 does not necessarily mean it will be spent but rather is a ceiling to
operate on an as needed basis.
Although we also have other contractors available under contract, some of the type of service
provided by others are limited and Monteleone Contractors, Inc. has been the most consistently
available and responsive. The additional contractors on contract are specialized in different area's
of construction and do not perform the same job tasks or emergency response excavation and
repairs as Monteleone Contractors, Inc. This has resulted in Monteleone Contractors, Inc. contract
being exhausted sooner.
R:\Agenda Reports\2005\041205\Maintenance Contracts Amend 2
The Second Amendment in the amount of $50,000.00 being requested, plus First Amendment
amount of $150,000.00 and the original contract amount of $1 00,000.00 for a total contract amount
of $300,000.00.
FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds have been budgeted in the FY2004-05 Budgetforthe Public
Works Maintenance Division, Routine Street Maintenance and Drainage Facility Maintenance for
Monteloene Contractors, Inc. original contract amount of $100,000.00 plus the First Amendment
amount of $150,000.00 and the Second Amendment amount of $50,000.00 for a total contract
amount of $300,000.00.
ATTACHMENT:
1. Amendment NO.1
2. Agenda Report June 24, 2003
2
R:\Agenda Reports\2005\041205\Maintenance Contracts Amend 2
SECOND AMENDMENT
FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005
ANNUAL CITYWIDE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT
BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND
MONTELEONE CONTRACTORS INC.
THIS SECOND AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of April 12, 2005, by and
between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and Monteleone Contractors, Inc.
("Contractor"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties
agree as follows:
1. This Amendment is made with respect to the following facts and purposes:
A. On June 22, 2004, the City and Contractor entered into that certain Contract
entitled "City of Temecula Contract for Construction" in the amount of One Hundred Thousand
Dollars and No Cents ($100,000.00) for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Citywide Routine Maintenance"
("Contract").
B. The Contract was amended on January 25, 2005 in the amount of One
Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($150,000.00) for additional Citywide Routine
Maintenance and Emergency Repairs. The Contract as amended shall be referred to as the
"Contract."
C. The parties now desire to amend the Contract as set forth in this Amendment
for an amount not to exceed Fifty Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($50,000.00) for additional
Citywide Routine Maintenance and Emergency Repairs.
2. Section 3 of the Contract is hereby amended to read as follows:
a. Contractor shall be compensated for actual work performed on the basis of
the labor and equipment rates set forth in Exhibit "B", Labor and Equipment Rates, attached hereto
and incorporated herein as though set forth in full, the cost of materials approved by the Director
pursuant to the procedures set forth in Exhibit "A". The Second Amendment amount shall not
exceed Fifty Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($50,000.00) for additional Fiscal Year 2004-2005
Citywide Maintenance and Emergency Repairs. The First Amendment amount of One Hundred
Fifty Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($150,000.00) and the Second Amendment amount of Fifty
Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($50,000.00) shall not exceed the total contract amount ofThree
Hundred Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($300,000.00) unless a higher amount is approved by
the City Council by amendment to this Agreement.
3. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of
the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
1
R:\MAlNIAIN\ WKORDERS1CONfRACf MASTERS12004-2005lMONTELEONE 04-05 AMEND 2.DOC
'-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed the
day and year first above written.
CITY OF TEMECULA
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
Approved As to Form:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
CONTRACTOR
MONTELEONE CONTRACTORS, Inc.
35245 Briggs Rd.
Murrieta, CA 92563
(951) 538-6537
Ryan Monteleone
2
R:\MAfNFAIN\ WKORDERS1CONTRACJ MASTERS\2004-2005\MONTELEONE 04..()5 AMEND 2.DOC
EXHIBIT B
LABOR AND EQUIPMENT RATES
10
R:\maintain\workorders\Monteleone 03-04 Agrmt\master const agrmt
Monteleone Excavating
39059 Camino Hermosa
Murrieta, CA 92563
pilon: (909) 538-6537
Fas: (909) 695-2525
--------.-------------------------~---------------------------------------------------------------------
Time and equipment rate for 2004-2005
Equipment Rate per hr Saturday/+ 8hrs
regular rate *per hour overtime
450 dozer 5105.00
D6LGP 5150.00
D6H 5115.00
824 dozer 5160.00
D8k dozer 5155.00
D8N dozer 5155.00
D8R dozer 5150.00
D9L dozer 5225.00
650 komatsu 5280.00
400 excavator 5183.00
300 excavator 5150.00
220 excavator 5125.00
446 backhoe 51010
30 Mfskip/mower 577.50
450 C loader 5145.00
950 loader 5130.00
977 loader 5130.00
973 track loader 5140.00
963 track loader 5130.00
12 G motor grader 5115.00
623 scraper 5150.00
860 scraper 5140.00
657 push pull 5240.00
637 E push pull 5200.00
10 wheel dump/pup 580.00
HI-side semi 585.00
4,000 gal w/truck 575.00
Lowbed truck 590.00
Foreman 566.00
Pick-up 530.00
Grade checker 554.00
Laborer $46.00
5120.50
5165.50
5130.50
5175.50
5170.50
5170.50
5165.50
5240.50
5295.50
5198.50
5165.50
5140.50
5116.50
593.00
5160.50
5145.50
5145.50
5155.50
5145.50
5130.50
5165.50
5155.50
5255.50
5215.50
595.50
5100.50
590.50
5105.50
581.50
545.50
569.50
561.50
Holiday/Sunday
overtime rate
5137.00
5181.00
5146.00
5181.00
5186.00
5186.00
5181.00
5256.00
5311.00
5214.00
5181.00
5156.00
5132.00
5108.50
5176.00
5161.00
5161.00
5171.00
5161.00
5146.00
5181.00
5171.00
5271.00
5231.00
5111.00
5116.00
5106.00
5121.00
597.00
561.00
585.00
577.00
---------------l
RECE!VED
MAY 2 6 2004
^Il-" C'F '~'-i~t. i:r-r-./ (' .< I
v I " : C:.!H.:::\_.l}LJ~ I
ENGIN'i--~~r'~tlr ')r:~DAi"~r',.Jrr 10-' ,
. _..~~2...;,,~;J~~,';;..::J_.~- '=;...r.n ;)~/~,,~:,,~]
*Note- Overtime wages begin after 3:00P.M. with a 6:30 A.M. starting time.
Rate used beyond 8 hours on weekdays and all hours on Saturday.
*Note- Any City work will be under 2003 Prevailing Wage Rates.
Ryan Monteleone Office/ Cell (909) 538-6537 Fax: (909) 926-1998
MINUTE ACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECUlA, CALIFORNIA
DATE:
TO:
MEETING OF:
AGENDA
ITEM NUMBER:
January 27, 2005
Bill Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
January 25, 2005
Item No. 14
SUBJECT:
First Amendments to Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Annual Citywide Routine
Maintenance Contracts
The motion was made by Councilmember Naggar, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Roberts, to
approve staff recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION:
14.1 Approve the First Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Annual Citywide
Routine Maintenance Contract with Walter k. Becker (dba. Becker Engineering) for
an amount of $150,000 and authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment;
14.2 Approve First Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Annual Citywide Routine
Maintenance Contract with Monteleone Contractors. Inc. for an amount of
$150.000 and authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment.
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Edwards. Naggar. Roberts, Washington,
Comerchero
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
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, under penalty of pe~ury, the foregoing to be the official action taken by the City
Council at the above meeting.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 27th day of January, 2005.
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOROF FINANC
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Manager/City Council
~~ William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
January 25, 2005
First Amendments to Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Annual Citywide Routine
Melntenance Contract
PREPARED BY:
Bradley A. Buron, Maintenance Superintendent
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
1. Approve the First Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Annual Citywide Routine
Maintenance Contract with Walter K. Becker (dba, Becker Engineering) for an amount of
$150,000.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment
2. Approve First Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Annual Citywide Routine
Maintenance Contract with Monteleone Contractors, Inc. for an amount of $150,000.00 and
authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment
BACKGROUND: On June 22, 2004 the City Council approved the Fiscal Year 2004-2005
Annual Citywide Routine Maintenance Contract with Walter K. Becker (Becker Engineering) in the
amount of $200,000.00 and Monteleone Contractors, Inc. in the amount of $100,000.00 to provide
citywide routine maintenance and constnJctlon work throughout the City. This work generally ranges
In costs from over $1,000 to under $25,000 and Involves miscellaneous repairs to drainage areas,
sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and stonn drains to include excavation and emergency response during
the rainy season.
This First Amendment to these contracts Is necessary due to en Increase in the number of large
maintenance repair projects. and the heavy rainfall the City has experienced In the last few months.
This increase to the original contracts will allow staff to respond to emergency work in an
expeditious manner during adverse weather condlUons without jeopardizing administrative
requlraments. It is important to understand that the not to exceed amounts of $150,000.00 does not
necessarily mean it will be spent but rather is a ceiling to operate on an as needed basis.
Although we also have other contractors available under contract, some of the types of services
provided by others are limited and Becker Engineering and Monteleone Contractors, Inc. have been
the most consistently available and responsive. The additional contractors on contract are
specialized in different area's of construction and do not perfonn the same job tasks or emergency
response excavation and repairs as Becker Engineering or Monteleone Contractors, Inc. This has
resulted in Becker Engineering and Monteleone Contractors, Inc. contracts being exhausted sooner.
R:\Agend8 Reports\2005\0126\Malntflnance Comracts Amend 1
The First Amendment In the amount of $150,000.00 requested for Becker Engineering and the
original contract for a total contract amount of $350,000.00.
The First Amendment In the amount of $150,000.00 to Monteleone Contractors Inc. and the original
contract for a total contract amount of $250,000.00.
FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds have been budgeted in the FY2oo4-05 Budget for the Public
Wortul Maintenance Division. Routine Street Maintenance and Drainage Faclllty Maintenance for
Becker engineering original contract amount of $200.000.00 pius the First Amendment amount of
$150,000.00 for a total contract amount of $350,000.00 and for Montaloene Contractors, Inc.
original contract amount of $1 00.000.00 plus the First Amendment amount of$l50.ooo.oo fora tolal
contract amount of $250.000.00.
ATTACHMENT:
1. Amendment No.1
2. Agenda Report June 24, 2003
2
~:\Agenda Reports\2005\0126\Matntenance tontrllCb Amend 1
ct1' I~,'l
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
FISCAL YEAR 2004.2005
ANNUAL CITYWIDE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT
BETWEEN CITY OF TEMECULA AND
MONTELEONE CONTRACTORS, INC.
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT is made and entered into as of January 25, 2005 by and
between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and MONTELEONE
CONTRACTORS, INC. ("Contractor"). In consideration ofthe mutual covenants and conditions set
forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. This Amendment is made with respect to the following facts and purposes:
A. On June 22, 2004 the City and Contractor entered into that certain agreement
entiUed "City of Temecula Agreement in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars and No
Cents ($100,000.00) for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Citywide Routine Maintenance" ("Contract").
B. The parties now desire to amend the Agreement as set forth in this First
Amendment for an amount not to exceed One Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars and No Cents
($150,000.00) for additional Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Citywide Routine Maintenance.
2. Section 3 of the Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows:
a. Contractor shall be compensated for actual work performed on the basis of
the labor and equipment rates set forth in Exhibit "B", Labor and Equipment Rates,
attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. the cost of
materials approved by the Director pursuant to the procedures set forth in Exhibit "A".
The First Amendment amount shall not exceed One Hundred Fifty Thousand
Dollars and No Cents ($150,000.00) for additional Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Citywide
Maintenance. The maximum amount of payment under this Agreement shall not
exceed the total contract amount of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars and No
Cents ($250,000.00) unless a higher amount is approved by the City Council by
amendment to this Agreement.
3. Except for the changes specifically set forth herein, all other terms and conditions of
the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
1
R..IMAlNTAIMWKORDERSICONTRAcr MASTERS\20Q4-2IJ05\MONTELEONE 04-05 AMEND I.DOC
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the
day and year first above written.
. CITY OF TEMECULA
/A~EST:
~
, Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
CONTRACTOR
MONTELEONE CONTRACTORS, INC.
35245 Briggs Rd.
Murrieta. CA 92563
(951) 538-6537
A~
Ryan Monteleone
"'5."
2
R.-IMAINTAINl WKORDERSICONTRACT MASTERSI21J04.2005IMONTELEONE lJ4.()5 AMEND I.DOC
DATE:
TO:
MEETING OF:
AGENDA
ITEM NUMBER:
SUBJECT:
MINUTE ACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
June 23, 2004
Bill Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
June 22, 2004
Item No. 24
Public Works Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Annual Maintenance Aareements
The motion was made by Council member Comerchero, seconded by Councilmember Stone, to
approve staff recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION:
24.1 Approve the Annual Maintenance contracts for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 with:
1. Murrieta Development Co. for an amount not to exceed
$ 50,000.00
2. NPG, Inc. (Nelson Paving & Sealing) for an amount not to exceed $ 50,000.00
3. Monteleone Contractors, Inc. for an amount not to exceed
$100,000.00
4. Toran Development & Construction for an amount not to exceed $100,000.00
5. Road Works, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $100,000.00
6. Strong's Painting for an amount not to exceed $100,000.00
7. Becker Engineering for an amount not to exceed $200,000.00
8. Imperial Paving Company, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $200,000.00
9. Rene's Commercial Management for an amount not to exceed $200,000.00
The motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
4
o
COUNCILMEMBERS: Comerchero, Roberts, Stone, Naggar
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
1
COUNCILMEMBERS: Washington
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
o
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, under penalty of pe~ury, the foregoing to be the official action taken by the City
Council at the above meeting.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 23rd day of June, 2004.
)
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City ManagerlClty Council
~lIIlam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works
June 22, 2004
Public Works Fiscal Year 2004.2005 Annual Maintenance Agreements
PREPARED BY:
Bradley A. Buron, Maintenance Superintendent
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Annual Maintenance contracts for
Fiscal Year 2004-2005 with:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Murrieta Development Co., for an amount not to exceed
NPG, Inc. (aka Nelson Paving & Sealing) for an amount not to exceed
Monteleone Contractors, Inc., for an amount not to exceed
Toran Development & Construction for an amount not to exceed
Road Works, Inc. for an amount not to exceed
Strong's Painting for an amount not to exceed
Becker Engineering for an amount not to exceed
Imperial Paving Company, Inc., for an amount not to exceed
Rene's Commercial Management, for an amount not to exceed
$ 50,000.00
$ 50,000.00
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
$200,000.00
$200,000.00
$200,000.00
BACKGROUND: Each year the City enters into numerous citywide routine street and stonn
drain maintenance agreements with various contractors that perfonn minor (small job) maintenance
work throughout the City. These jobs usually range in cost from over $1,000 to under $25,000 and
Involve miscellaneous repairs to roadways, drainage areas, sidewalks, curbs, cutlers, stonn drains,
including excavation and emergency call-out. Nevertheless, each job requires an agreement between
the City and the contractor. In an effort to streamline these contractual requirements, staff has taken
measures to place under agreement nine (9) contractors that are very capable of perfonnlng routine
jobs and emergency repairs with little notice. Essentially, these agreements will give staff administrative
tools needed to efficiently execute minor routine maintenance and emergency work by having executed
agreements which satisfy insurance, prevailing wage requirements, tenns and conditions as well as a
general scope of work. This contracting technique is widely used by cities to employ a higher more
responsive maintenance capability. Also, in the event of harsh weather that can impinge the safety of
the City roadways, and other City maintained areas, these agreements can facilitate an expedient
reaction and resolution to adverse conditions without jeopardizing administrative requirements. It is
important to understand that the not to exceed $50,000.00 to $200,000.00 amounts does not
necessarily mean it will be spent but rather is a ceiling to operate on an as needed basis.
1
Although some jobs may be better accomplished by one contractor because of equipment availability,
timing Issues and job location, every effort will be made by staff to distribute the work load evenly
between these contractors. The contractor will be responsible for providing a work proposal for each(
job, which must be approved by staff before any work is started.
Staff mailed letters to thirteen (13) contractors In the local area that could meet the described minor
routine maintenance work required. The letters requested time and material pricing for both labor and
equipment rates. It also Included holiday and ovemlght rates. Nine (9) out of the thirteen (13)
contractors responded and provided competitive labor and equipment rates as seen In Exhibit "B" of
each agreement. Review of these rates has determined they are consistent with current prevailing
wages and current hourly equipment rates previously paid by the City. The contractors listed below
responded to the request for time and material rates and are recommended for a not to exceed
$50,000.00 to $200,000.00 agreements for a one (1) year term.
ComDsnv
Amount not to Exceed
Term
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Mumeta Development Co.
NPG, Inc. (aka Nelson Paving & Sealing)
Monteleone Contractors, Inc.
Toran Development & Construction
Road Works, Inc.
Strong's Painting
Becker Engineering
Imperial Paving Company, Inc.
Rene's Commercial Management
$ 50,000.00
$ 50,000.00
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
$100,000.00
$200,000.00
$200,000.00
$200,000.00
1 Year
1 Year
1 Year
1 Year
1 Year
1 Year
1 Year
1 Year
1 Year
FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds have been budgeted in the Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Public Work's,
Maintenance Division Operating Budgetfor; Drainage Facility Maintenance Account No. 001-164-601-
5401; Routine Street Maintenance Account No. 001-164-601-5402; Old Town Repair & Maintenance
Account No. 001-164-603-5212; and Other Outside Services Account No. 001-164-603-5250.
ATTACHMENT:
1. Contractor Mailing List
2. Contracts
2
r.\agdrpt\2004\0622\Annual 04-05 MalnlAgreements.AGNlajp
Contractor Mailing List
FISCAL YEAR 2004.2005
1. N P G Corporation (Nelson Paving)
P.O. Box 1515
Perris, CA 92575
2. Del Rio Enterprise
42181 Avenida Alvarado
Temecula, CA 92590
3. Walter K. Becker (DBA Becker Engineering)
P.O. Box 890365
Temecula, CA 92589-0365
4. Rene's Commercial Management
1002 Luna Way
San Jacinto, CA 92583
5. Monteleone Contractors, Inc.
39054 Camino Hermosa
Murrieta, CA 92563
6. Toran Development & Construction (Gary Clapp)
37110 Mesa Rd
Temecula, CA 92592-8633
7. Murrieta Development
42540 Rio Nedo
Temecula, CA 92590-3727
8. Cajer Equipment Rental (Bruce Feaver)1
P.O. Box 585
Temecula, CA 92593
(909) 841-8803
9. Imperial Paving Co., Inc.
Fritz Coy
13555 E. Imperial Highway
Whittier, CA 90605
10. Pacific West Construction
Arthur R. Coltrain Jr.
637 N. Emerald Dr.
Vista, CA 92803
(760) 639-1729/ FAX (760) 639-1904
11. David & Dixie Minnesang
DBA: Minnesang Pest Specialists
27636 Ynez Rd., L-7, #101
Temecula, CA 92591
(909) 699-2661/ FAX (909) 699-6008
3
ITEM 7
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINAN
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
FROM:
City Manager/City Council
~~illiam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
TO:
DATE:
April 12, 2005
SUBJECT:
Temecula Library, Project No. PWOO-07
ward of a Construction Contract
PREPARED BY:
Amer Attar, Principal Engineer
Bill McAteer, Construction Manager
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
1. Award a construction contract for the Temecula Public Library, Project No. PWOO.07, to
EDGE Development, Inc., in the amount of $11,757,812.30, and authorize the Mayor to
execute the contract.
2. Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency
amount of $1,175,781.20, which is equal t010% of the contract amount.
3. Approve the acceleration of appropriated budgeted funds in FY2005-2006 to FY2004-
2005 in the amount of $8,671 ,570.00.
4. Approve a transfer in the amount of $1,700,000.00 from the Maintenance Facility/ Field
Operation Center to the Temecula Library Project.
BACKGROUND: On December 14, 1999, the City Council awarded a professional
services contract to LPA, Incorporated of Irvine, California, to provide architectural design
services for the Temecula Public Library project. Subsequently, the City along with the
consultant, the County of Riverside, and the Temecula Valley Unified School District worked
together to modify the design and programming elements in order to obtain grant funding for the
project from the State of California. California State Library's Office of Library Construction
awarded the City a grant in the amount of $8,552,414.00 for Cycle Two funding of the Library
Bond Act of 2000 program enabling the project to proceed.
The project consists of the construction of a 34,000 square foot steel frame building with a
clerestory central hallway on a four acre unimproved site along Pauba Road. The foundation
will partially sit on cast-in-drilled-hole (CIDH) concrete piles due to the projects hillside location.
The public area of the library will consist of a community room, a children's room with a story
time room, a reference library, book stacks, a heritage room, five study rooms, a technology
homework room, a kitchen, and public restroom facilities. There will also be office space, a
lounge, and restrooms for the support staff. The site work consists of the construction of all wet
and dry utilities, site drainage systems, erosion control, and retaining walls on CIDH piles, site
walkways, furnishings, and landscaping. There is also a parking lot with 133 parking spaces that
includes an arbor covered walkway, a front courtyard, and an inspiration garden.
The Pauba Road Improvements, Project No. PWOO-09 will have to be completed in conjunction
with this project in order to provide the water line necessary to serve the Library site, as well as
provide other street improvements to enhance access to the Library. Plans and Specifications
for this project are nearly complete. And the project is scheduled to be advertised for bids in
May. We anticipate that construction will be completed prior to the Library project.
Because of the size and complexity of the project, the City pre-qualified contractors that have
recent proven experience in the construction of facilities of this type for this project. The Public
Works Department invited contractors to submit their qualifications in response to a formal
Request for Qualifications (RFQ) in October 2004. Twenty-one contractors responded to the
RFQ from which eighteen were pre-qualified.
On January 25, 2005, The City Council approved the plans and specifications for the project
and authorized the Public Works Department to solicit construction bids. The Architect's cost
estimate for the project was $ 9,800,000.
Five (5) bids for the project were publicly opened on April 7, 2005. The are as follows:
1. Edge Development, Inc. $11,757,812.30
2. C. E. Wylie Construction $12,152,120.00
3. Solteck Pacific (dba) Solpac Inc. $12,788,000.00
4. Tovey Schultz Construction $13,100,000.00
5. Wood cliff Corporation $14,702,901.00
A copy of the bid summary is available for review in the City Engineer's office.
Staff has reviewed the bid proposals and found that Edge Development, Inc. of Temecula,
California, to be the lowest responsible bidder for this project. Edge Development Inc. has
satisfactorily performed similar type of work for other agencies.
The specifications allow Three Hundred and Twenty (320) working days for completion of the
project. Work is expected to begin in May 2005 and be completed by the August 2006.
FISCAL IMPACT: The Temecula Public Library, Project No. PWOO-07, is funded through
Development Impact Fees, reimbursements from Riverside County and the Friends of the
Library, State Library Grant Funds, and Capital Project Reserves. The acceleration of the
budgeted FY2005-2006 and the transfer of funds from the Maintenance Facility/ Field Operation
Center is necessary to cover the administration and construction costs for this project The total
construction cost is $12,933,593.50, which includes the contract amount of $11,757,812.30,
plus the 10% contingency amount of $1,175,781.20.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Library Rendering
2. Project Location
3. Project Description
4. Contract
..
, ..
~ ,....
0
~ I
0
0
~
m
- n.
...J ~
<( CI)
.c
...J E
:J ::s
U Z
W -
CJ
~ CI)
.-
W 0
~
l- n.
CITY OF TEMECULA,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONTRACT
FOR
PROJECT NO. PWOO-07
TEMECULA PUBLIC LIBRARY
THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into the 12th day of April, 2005, by and between the City
of Temecula, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and Edge Development,
Inc., hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR."
WITNESSETH:
That CITY and CONTRACTOR, for the consideration hereinafter named, mutually agree
as follows:
1.a. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The complete Contract includes all of the Contract
Documents, to wit: Notice Inviting Bids, Instructions to Bidders, Proposal, Performance
Bond, Labor and Materials Bond, Plans and Specifications entitled PROJECT NO. PWOO-
07, TEMECULA PUBLIC LIBRARY, Insurance Forms, this Contract, and all modifications
and amendments thereto, the State of California Standard Plans and Specifications for
Construction of Local Streets and Roads, (latest edition), issued by the California
Department 0 f Transportation where specifically referenced i n the Plans a nd Technical
Specifications, and the latest version of the Standard Specifications for Public Works
Construction, including all supplements as written and promulgated by Public Works
Standards, Inc (hereinafter, "Standard Specifications") as amended by the General
Conditions, Special Provisions, and Technical Specifications for PROJECT NO. PWOO-07,
TEMECULA PUBLIC LIBRARY. Copies of these Standard Specifications are available
from the publisher:
BNi Building News
Division of BNi Publications, Inc.
1612 South Clementine SI.
Anaheim, California 92802
(714) 517-0970
The Standard Specifications will control the general provisions, construction materials,
and construction methods for this Contract except as amended by the General Conditions,
Special Provision, and Technical Specifications for PROJECT NO. PWOO-07,
TEMECULA PUBLIC LIBRARY.
In case of conflict between the Standard Specifications and the other Contract
Documents, the other Contract Documents shall take precedence over, and be used in
lieu of, such conflicting portions.
CONTRACT
CA-l
R:lcipIProjectsIPWOO.07\AgreementsIContract Edge Devel
Where the Contract Documents describe portions of the work in general terms, but not in
complete detail, it is understood that the item is to be furnished and installed completed
and in place and that only the best general practice is to be used. Unless otherwise
specified, the CONTRACTOR shall furnish all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and
incidentals, and do all the work involved in executing the Contract.
The Contract Documents are complementary, and what is called for by anyone shall be as
binding as if called for by all. Any conflict between this Contract and any other Contract
Document shall be resolved in favor of this Contract.
2. SCOPE OF WORK. CONTRACTOR shall perform everything required to be performed,
shall provide and furnish all the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable equipment,
and all utility and transportation services required for the following:
PROJECT NO. PWOO-07, TEMECULA PUBLIC LIBRARY
All of said work to be performed and materials to be furnished shall be in strict accordance
with the Drawings and Specifications and the provisions of the Contract Documents
hereinabove enumerated and adopted by CITY.
3. CITY APPROVAL. All labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall be furnished
and work performed and completed under the direction and supervision, and subject to
the approval of CITY or its authorized representatives.
4. CONTRACT AMOUNT AND SCHEDULE. The CITY agrees to pay, and CONTRACTOR
agrees to accept, in full payment for, the work agreed to be done, the sum of: ELEVEN
MILLION SEVEN HUNDRED FIFTY SEVEN THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED TWENTY
THREE DOLLARS and NO CENTS ($11,757,823.00), the total amount of the base bid.
CONTRACTOR agrees to complete the work in a period not to exceed Three Hundred
Twenty (320) working days, commencing with delivery of a Notice to Proceed by CITY.
Construction shall not commence until bonds and insurance are approved by CITY.
5. CHANGE ORDERS. All change orders shall be approved by the City Council, except that
the City Manager is hereby authorized by the City Council to make, by written order,
changes or additions to the work in an amount not to exceed the contingency as
established by the City Council.
6. PAYMENTS
LUMP SUM BID SCEHDULE:
A.
Within ten (10) working days of the contract award, the CONTRACTOR shall
submit to the City Engineer a schedule of values allocated to the various portions
of the work, prepared in such form and supported by such data to substantiate its
accuracy as the City Engineer may require. This schedule, as approved by the
City Engineer, shall also be used as the basis for reviewing the CONTRACTOR's
payment requests.
CONTRACT
CA- 2
R:\cip\Projects\PWOO-07\Agreements\Contract Edge Devel
UNIT PRICE BID SCHEDULE:
B. Pursuant to Section 20104.50 of the Public Contract Code, within thirty (30) days
after submission of a payment request to the CITY, the CONTRACTOR shall be
paid a sum equal to ninety percent (90%) of the value of the work completed
according to the bid schedule. Payment request forms shall be submitted on or
about the thirtieth (30th) day of each successive month as the work progresses.
The final payment, if unencumbered, or any part thereof unencumbered, shall be
made sixty (60) days after acceptance of final payment and the CONTRACTOR
filing a one-year Warranty and an Affidavit of Final Release with the CITY on forms
provided by the CITY.
C. Payments shall be made on demands drawn in the manner required by law,
accompanied by a certificate signed by the General Manager, stating that the work
for which payment is demanded has been performed in accordance with the terms
of the Contract, and that the amount stated in the certificate is due under the terms
of the Contract. Partial payments on the Contract price shall not be considered as
an acceptance of any part of the work.
D. Interest shall be paid on all undisputed payment requests not paid within thirty (30)
days pursuant to Public Contracts Code Section 20104.50. Public Contract Code
Section 7107 is hereby incorporated by reference.
E. In accordance with Section 9-3.2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works
Construction and Section 9203 of the Public Contract Code, a reduction in the
retention may be req uested by the Contractor for review and approval by the
Engineer if the progress of the construction has been satisfactory, and the project
is more than 50% complete. The City hereby delegates its authority to reduce the
retention to the Engineer.
7. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES - EXTENSION OF TIME. In accordance with Government
Code Section 53069.85, CONTRACTOR agrees to forfeit and pay to CITY the sum of one
thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per day for each calendar day completion is delayed beyond
the time allowed pursuant to Paragraph 4 of this Contract. Such sum shall be deducted
from any payments due to or to become due to CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR will be
granted an extension of time and will not be assessed liquidated damages for
unforeseeable delays beyond the control of, and without the fault or negligence of, the
CONTRACTOR including delays caused by CITY. CONTRACTOR is required to promptly
notify CITY of any such delay.
8. WAIVER OF CLAIMS. On or before making each request for payment under Paragraph 6
above, CONTRACTOR shall submit to CITY, in writing, all claims for compensation as to
work related to the payment. Unless the CONTRACTOR has disputed the amount of the
payment, the acceptance by CONTRACTOR of each payment shall constitute a release of
all claims against the CITY related to the payment. CONTRACTOR shall be required to
execute an affidavit, release, and indemnity agreement with each claim for payment.
CONTRACT
CA-3
R:\cip\Projects\PWDO-07\Agreements\Contract Edge Devel
9. PREVAILING WAGES. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of
the State of California, the City Council has obtained the general prevailing rate of per
diem wages and the general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each
craft, classification, or type of workman needed to execute this Contract, from the Director
of the Department of Industrial Relations. These rates are available from the California
Department of Industrial Relations' Internet Web Site at http://www.dir.ca.gov.
CONTRACTOR shall post a copy of such wage rates at the job site and shall pay the
adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum. CONTRACTOR shall comply with the
provisions of Section 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code.
Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code, CONTRACTOR shall forfeit to the
CITY, as a penalty, the sum of $25.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for each
laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates for
any work done under this Contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation
of the provisions of the Contract.
10. TIME OF THE ESSENCE. Time is of the essence in this contract.
11. INDEMNIFICATION. All work covered by this Contract done at the site of construction or
in preparing or delivering materials to the site shall be at the risk of CONTRACTOR alone.
CONTRACTOR agrees to save, indemnify, hold harmless and defend CITY, its officers,
employees, and agents, against any and all liability, injuries, or death of persons
(CONTRACTOR's employees included) and damage to property, arising directly or
indirectly out of the obligations herein undertaken or out of the operations conducted by
CONTRACTOR, save and except claims or litigations arising through the sole active
negligence or sole willful misconduct of the CITY.
The CONTRACTOR shall indemnify and be responsible for reimbursing the CITY for any
and all costs incurred by the CITY as a result of Stop Notices filed against the project.
The CITY shall deduct such costs from Progress Payments or final payments due to the
CITY.
12. GRATUITIES. CONTRACTOR warrants that neither it nor any of its employees, agents, or
representatives has offered or given any gratuities or promises to CITY's employees,
agents, or representatives with a view toward securing this Contract or securing favorable
treatment with respect thereto.
13. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. CONTRACTOR warrants that he has no blood or marriage
relationship, and that he is not in any way associated with any City officer or employee, or
any architect, engineer, or other preparers of the Drawings and Specifications for this
project. CONTRACTOR further warrants that no person in its employ has been employed
by the CITY within one year of the date of the Notice Inviting Bids.
14. CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT. After the completion of the work contemplated by this
Contract, CONTRACTOR shall file with the General Manager, its affidavit stating that all
workmen and persons employed, all firms supplying materials, and all subcontractors
upon the Project have been paid in full, and that there are no claims outstanding against
the Project for either labor or materials, except certain items, if any, to be set forth in an
affidavit covering disputed claims 0 r items in connection with a Stop Notice which has
been filed under the provisions of the laws of the State of California.
CONTRACT
CA-4
R\cip\Projects\PWOO-07\Agreements\Contract Edge Oevel
15. NOTICE TO CITY OF LABOR DISPUTES. Whenever CONTRACTOR has knowledge
that any actual or potential labor dispute is delaying or threatens to delay the timely
performance of the Contract, CONTRACTOR shall immediately give notice thereof,
including all relevant information with respect thereto, to CITY.
16. BOOKS AND RECORDS. CONTRACTOR's books, records, and plans or such part
thereof as may be engaged in the performance of this Contract, shall at all reasonable
times be subject to inspection and audit by any authorized representative of the CITY.
17. INSPECTION. The work shall be subject to inspection and testing by CITY and its
authorized representatives during manufacture and construction and all other times and
places, including without limitation, the plans of CONTRACTOR and any of its suppliers.
CONTRACTOR shall provide all reasonable facilities and assistance for the safety and
convenience of inspectors. All inspections and tests shall be performed in such manner
as to not unduly delay the work. The work shall be subject to final inspection and
acceptance notwithstanding any payments or other prior inspections. Such final
inspection shall be made within a reasonable time after completion of the work.
18. DISCRIMINATION. CONTRACTOR represents that it has not, and agrees that it will not,
discriminate in its employment practices on the basis of race, creed, religion, national
origin, color, sex age, or handicap.
19. GOVERNING LAW. The City and Contractor understand and agree that the laws of the
State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to
this Contract and also govern the interpretation of this Contract. Any litigation concerning
this Contract shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with
geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event of litigation between the
parties concerning this Contract, the prevailing party as determined by the Court, shall be
entitled to actual and reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs incurred in the litigation.
20. PROHIBITED INTEREST. No member, officer, or employee of the City of Temecula or of
a local public body shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in the contract of the
proceeds thereof during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter.
Furthermore, the contractor/consultant covenants and agrees to their knowledge that no
board member, office or employee of the City of Temecula has any interest, whether
contractual, non-contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, or in the business
of the contracting party other than t he City of T emecula, and that if any such interest
comes to the knowledge of either party at any time, a full and complete disclosure of all
such information will be made, in writing, to the other party or parties, even if such interest
would not be considered a conflict of interest under Article 4 (commencing with Section
1090) or Article 4.6 (commencing with Section 1220) of Division 4 of Title I of the
Government Code of the State of California.
21. ADA REQUIREMENTS. By signing this contract, Contractor certifies that the Contractor
is in total compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Public Law 101-
336, as amended.
CONTRACT
CA-S
R:lcipIProjectsIPWQQ.Q7lAgreementsIContract Edge Devel
22. WRITTEN NOTICE. Any written notice required to be given in any part of the Contract
Documents shall be performed by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid,
directed to the address of the CONTRACTOR as set forth in the Contract Documents,
and to the CITY addressed as follows:
Mailing Address:
William G. Hughes
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Street Address:
William G. Hughes
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CONTRACT
CA-6
R:\cip\Projects\PWOOM07\Agreements\Contract Edge Devel
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed on the
date first above written.
DATED:
CONTRACTOR
Edge Development, Inc.
27368 Via Industria, Suite 101
Temecula, CA 92590
(951) 296-0776
Kenneth Dayne Wagoner, Principal/CEO
Signature
Print or type Title
(Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations)
DATED:
CITY OF TEMECULA
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
CONTRACT
CA-7
R:\cip\Projects\PWOO-07\Agreements\Contract Edge Devel
Ii
I Ii
~
l
~
l;
I
~ !m.~
~ 8
~ JA
!:::
U IotAAl.t)tr.tAOfl
~
""l .. z~
tl ;:l
E=<
~ 11
':;'
~ ,!:;
'"
~
i
."..,
r-
'"
-
""'"
....
i
s
~
~
l::
~
u
~
i::l
b
~
~
.,;
"
.~
'"
.."
lii
~
e9
..l
....
~
"
" 0
ll~
" lii
~ 5i,
.g .;;;
.Eo
..
-
....
E:::
tl
"
....
o
...
~
..
Q
(/)
U
t-
O
,
o
o
~
p..
1
:.:::
'"
"
"
g
'"
"
....
j
"
.~
:g
p.
....
o
<8
"
~
'"
o
o
o
.,f
'"
"
...
'" 0
N "
~ 0
~ 'B
- ;:>
d./:l
- '"
N g
."
0.."
~ lii
S 5i,
8 'fii
~.g
I "
"'.;:;
" "
.~" .."
E!
"
(/) .S
.~ ~
Il
8~
.g
'S:
[
o
....
j
;:l
"
.~
~
"
'3
"
"
~
f-<
"
.;:;
tl
"
.. .c;'
-= ...
~~
'" :g"
" "
~c}l
.,;
"
"
'E
"
'"
@
B
'"
'"
"
"
;J
.;:;
.~
'1
o
"
.s
"
.."
'S:
o
~~
.... -
"",
" -
o 00
a::~
'"
....
"
"
'0'
.;; ...
..:1>-
"';j
1:1 ....
" "
=....
" ~
.... "
t;~
" "
Uu
OOOV'lOOV'l
<o::tM\O\OOOOO
NMf-_OO-.:t
00'" 0"1" r-" N" 00" 0'" ..,,'"
t--M\O('I')00 v)lI"l
v V'l v r---... -.::to' N 0'\
0\" ............ -" <<::to.
-
" '"
.... ...
" "
:~
~
..
"
u
EAEft(flEftEftEft&<:t
0-
C
,
00
c
c
...
00
c
,
r-
c
c
...
r-
~
'0
C
C
...
c C
\0 g &:;
:x 0'"
C C M
C N t-
... vi
'" '"
oooV)
ln~~~~
9> oOl,f)"r---"N'
~r---O\OM
QNOOVr-..
~ M ......
Eft Eft EA Eft
o
.. '"
"':l ~ t""-"
.. .. '"
.a ~ M
<s
o
00
00
o
M
00
'"
'"
000
o 0 r-
o 0 on
00 0"'-:-
00 on r-
"=t... ~ \0"
_ _ 00
'" '" '"
2l
~ .~
.g" ~ f
~.1l !~!J
'J " " " " '13
i" .ft.~ ~ .2 ]0
<uQ8~8....
~
1
OIl
.g
..
'>1
"
"
,g
on
-
'"
'"
00
'"
'"
'"
1;;
~oV)ooooV)
~~...:...~~...~~...~
~~~g..~~~oo
_ -.::J""...... 00 ...... Vi"
o -
MEftEAEftEAWEftEft
]
~
'"
'Z
~
~
"
1;;
~
~ g '" ~
a '~.8 t:!
]gJ,;;l>--9~~"
.., " t;";'" "
~~~ 6-5
~aa~'Ol
orEr9 U)~
e ~ ~ .~ .~ e;.
~!!r>!Jl:~~
a~~I:lI:l:l""
<~~<5<5s~
!!~1l1~
o",,!la-
g 8 8 ~ OJ g
gg.g.~~:~
::... i ~ .S .8 g-
o OJ 4) 0 1-0
'" 0 0 ~ ~ '"
00
'"
-
o
:!
'"
'"
00
'0 bil
.~ ~
p.. ~
"3 ~
.~ j'J
g. 0
U ....
'"
~
c (,j
U ...
~ l3
oll ~
o '0
" "
.. "
.e ...
" "
r.. <Jl
ITEM 8
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Grant Yates, Assistant to the City Manager
DATE: April 12, 2005
SUBJECT: Reappointment of Animal Shelter Liaison/JPA Representative
PREPARED BY:
Sue Steffen, Executive Assistant
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council appoint Councilmember Maryann Edwards as
the City's representative on the Board of Directors of the Southwest Communities Financing
Authority.
BACKGROUND: The Southwest Communities Financing Authority (JPA) was created
among the cities of Temecula, Murrieta, Lake Elsinore, Canyon Lake, and Riverside County for
the purpose of financing the construction of a new animal shelter. The JPA's Board of Directors
includes one elected official from each city. The Board will consider the details of the new
shelter, associated funding, and operating rules.
On February 8, 2005 Councilmember Mike Naggar was appointed as the City's representative
on the JPA Board. However, due to unforeseen commitments, Councilmember Mike Naggar
has indicated that he is unable to attend these meetings. Council member Maryann Edwards
has volunteered to serve as the City's liaison on this Board in Councilmember Naggar's place.
Since Councilmember Edwards has already volunteered to attend meetings and has a working
knowledge of issues relating to the shelter, it is recommended that she be appointed as the
City's liaison and be delegated the authority to vote on the City's behalf.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
r:yatesglagendalrep0rt/2005fanimal shelter jpa rep 4-12-05
ITEM 9
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager/City Council
.~
FROM: Shawn Nelson, City Manager
DATE: April 12, 2005
SUBJECT: Resolution of support for Providing Necessary Infrastructure for
Regional Goods Movement Including Separated Rail Crossings
(At the request of Councilmember Naggar)
PREPARED BY: Aaron Adams, Sr. Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 05-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE EFFORTS OF THE CITY OF
RIVERSIDE AND THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SCAG) TO ADDRESS
THE CHALLENGES RELATED TO CREATING A REGIONAL
GOODS MOVEMENT SYSTEM THAT CONSTRUCTS GRADE
SEPARATED RAIL CROSSINGS; ESTABLISHES HIGHWAY
PROJECTS DEDICATED TO GOODS MOVEMENT; AND
IDENTIFIES PUBLIC AND PRIVATE FINANCING
ALTERNATIVES TO CONSTRUCT THE NEARLY $3.5
BILLION IN RAIL AND HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENTS
NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THIS SYSTEM AND PROTECT
THE REGION'S ECONOMC VIABILITY
BACKGROUND: Southem California is the primary access point for national goods
movement. Separately, the Los Angeles and Long Beach ports are the two busiest ,ports in
North America. Together, these two ports from the third busiest port in the world (behind only
Hong Kong and Singapore). These ports are expected to experience an increase of 81% by
2010 and another increase of 220% by 2025.
Within this region, the City of Riverside continues to be greatly impacted by the goods
movement. More than 75% of the containers coming through the ports of Los Angeles and Long
Beach travel through the City of Riverside to destinations within every state affecting 2,020,500
jobs and a trade value of $196 billion.
Current peak railroad traffic in the City of Riverside results in 92 freight and 11 passenger trains
per day for a total of 103 trains. By 2010, it is estimated to total 120 tains and 174 by 2025.
Presently, the average rail crossing gate in Riverside can be down as long as 4 hours per day.
By 2020, this will grow to 7 plus hours per day resulting in more than 659,555 hours of vehicle
R:\ADAMSA lCOUNClLlResolutio...nilroad ,rade crossing. staff repon.doc
delay annually, generating 45 tons of additional pollutants, cutting of crucial first responders
services and posing a possible homeland security threat.
Without additional tracks and other improvements (grade separations), the forecasted freight
and passenger train levels will result in a total breakdown of the rail network out of the ports of
Los Angeles and Long Beach through Riverside by 2010.
The City of T emecula supports both the City of Riverside and the Southem California
Association of Governments (SCAG) in their efforts to address the challenges related to creating
a regional goods movement system that constructs grade separated rail crossings; establishes
highway projects dedicated to goods mowment; and identifies public and private financing
altematives to construct the nearly $3.5 billion in rail and highway improvements necessary to
support this system and protect the region's economic viability.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None at this time
Attachments:
Resolution 05-_
R,\ADAMSAlCOUNOLlResolution-railroad,rade crossill3S staff ,"""n.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 05-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE EFFORTS OF THE
CITY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SCAG) TO
ADDRESS THE CHALLENGES RELATED TO CREATING
A REGIONAL GOODS MOVEMENT SYSTEM THAT
CONSTRUCTS GRADE SEPARATED RAIL CROSSINGS;
ESTABLISHES HIGHWAY PROJECTS DEDICATED TO
GOODS MOVEMENT; AND IDENTIFIES PUBLIC AND
PRIVATE FINANCING ALTERNATIVES TO CONSTRUCT
THE NEARLY $3.5 BILLION IN RAIL AND HIGHWAY
IMPROVEMENTS NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THIS
SYSTEM AND PROTECT THE REGION'S ECONOMIC
VIABILITY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND
REQUEST AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, Southern California is the primary access point for national goods movement;
and
WHEREAS, Los Angeles and Long Beach ports are the two busiest ports in North America;
and
WHEREAS, Together these two ports from the third busiest port in the INOrld (behind only
Hong Kong and Singapore) handling more than 15.5 million TEU's (twenty-foot equivalent units)
annually; and
WHEREAS, By 201 0, this TEU statistic is expected to increase 81% and another 220% by
2025; and
WHEREAS, Within this region, there is no city more greatly impacted by the goods
movement issue than the City of Riverside; and
WHEREAS, More than 75% of the containers coming through the ports of Los Angeles and
Long Beach travel through Riverside to destinations within every state affecting 2,020,500 jobs with
a trade value of $196 billion; and
WHEREAS, Current peak railroad traffic in the City of Riverside results in 92 freight and 11
passenger trains per day for a total of 103 trains; and
WHEREAS, Without additional tracks and other improvements (grade separations), the
forecasted freight and passenger train levels will result in a total breakdown of the rail network out of
the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach through Riverside by 201 0; and
WHEREAS, The City of Riverside has 27 at-grade crossings that require mitigation with an
estimated cost in excess of $500 million; and
WHEREAS, Innovative financing should be explored including public and private financing
alternatives to construct the nearly $3.5 billion in rail and highway improvements necessary to
support this system and protect the region's economic viability; and
Resos\99-40
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, The CityofTemecula City Council supports the efforts of
the City of Riverside and the Southem California Association of Governments (SCAG) to address
the challenges related to creating a regional goods movement system that constructs grade
separated rail crossings;
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a
regular meeting held on the 12th day of April, 2005.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City ofTemecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution
No. 00- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular
meeting thereof held on the 12th day of April, 2005, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
o
o
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
o
Resos\99-4Q
2
Resos\99.40
3
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
ITEM 1 0
APPROVAL
CITY A HORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FI~E
CITY MANAGER ..J.
C/
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: Shawn Nelson, City Manager
DATE: April 12, 2005
SUBJECT: Resolution of opposition to the Granite Quarry Project
(At the request of Mayor Comerchero)
PREPARED BY: Aaron Adams, Sr. Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 05-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA OPPOSING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
SURFACE MINING OPERATION WITHIN THE HILLS SOUTH
OF TEMECULA
BACKGROUND: It is anticipated that an application Vlill soon be submitted to RiI.erside
County for a Surface Mining Permit (SMP) for the 311-acre Liberty Quarry site located in
southwestern Riverside County. This site (see attached map) is located in the Santa Ana
Mountains three miles south of Temecula and to the west of Interstate 15. The site is accessed
via the Rainbow Valley Blvd intersection with 1-15, which is also used to access the adjacent
California Highway Patrol (CHP) weigh station on the southbound side ofl-15.
The proposed applicant, Granite Construction Company (Granite), proposes to develop and
reclaim a new hard rock granite quarry. The quarry is proposed to be excavated in three phases
to form a basin or bowl within the hills. The excavation plan will utilize the surrounding ridge lines
within the project boundary to block views of the site. The quarry footprint will ultimately total
approximately 155 acres and the access road will require 6-8 acres for construction. Aggregate,
asphalt, concrete batch, and recycle plants will be constructed within the overall quarry.
Approximately 70+/- acres will remain undisturbed on the Westside of the site as well as 80+/-
acres remaining undisturbed to the northeast and southeast. Fifty-foot setbacks will be
established along properties adjacent to the actual quarry.
Associated with the quarry will be an aggregate processing facility consisting of a series of
crushers, screens, conveyors, wash equipment, a hot-mix asphalt batch plant, a ready mix
concrete plant, a concrete and asphalt recycling facility, an administration building, an employee
facility building, a maintenance facility with diesel fuel; propane, and water tanks, natural gas
fueled engines or micro turbines, an electric substation, water and gas lines, a reservoir, settling
ponds, truck scales, and truck and equipment parking areas. The project will also include
construction of an asphalt paved entrance road of approximately 6,000 to 7,500 feet in length.
The entrance road will be a 36-foot wide paved asphalt roadway with two 12-foot lanes, 6-foot
C:\DocumentsandSenill~"\Susan.J"..es\Local Setti"lslTemporary Illlemcl
FilesIOU$2\ResoluUon-,nnitequanystaffrcpon.doc
shoulders, and tumouts for passing and emergency stops. As part of the project, Granite
proposes to construct an additional lane to the el<isting southbound off-ramp for the Rainbow
Valley overpass. This lane would be a right hand tum lane to handle all traffic entering the site
from the north.
This proposal is based on the availability, consumption, and demand for aggregate and
construction material resources in California but primarily westem Riverside County.
In conversations with Riverside County Planning staff they indicated that under their current
General Plan the project may be compatible in a rural mountain designation. They also
indicated that it is very likely that once the application is submitted they will be requiring an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which could take approximately a year and a half to
complete. County staff anticipates that there will be a scoping session scheduled in the next 60
days on this project.
Attached is a resolution of opposition to the development of a surface mining operation within the
hills south of Temecula primarily due to: the unmitigated cumulative traffic impact to Interstate 15
corridor; cumulative traffic impacts to existing roadways; volume of traffic associated with the
production facility; the adverse impacts to the regional air quality and human health risk associated
with diesel truck emissions; the permanent scarring of existing hillsides; the potential contamination
of surrounding watersheds; the irreversible significant impact to surrounding wildlife and habitat; and
the unanticipated impacts associated v.ith a 75-year land use permit.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None at this time
Attachments:
Project Site Map
Resolution 05-_
C:\Do<.:UfllCIIlSIlld Smiogs\SlISI.IlJOlICSILocaIScllillJ""Tcmponry lllltJ'llCt
Fileo\0LK52\Re.oluliOl.-granitequarrymff~n.doc
CO OF RIVERSIDE TRANS Fax:909-955-3157
r.
Proiect Site
Apr 7 2005 15:09
P. 04
.
2000
I
;,
., . .....-.
I.,IBERTY.
QUARRY..
.;......~....
. .. Figure'l
LILBURN
cORP'O'"....'fIOH
Gmnit9 Construction Compony
',' ~vB,;'$id9 .Co'unfY;"c'cilnomi.CI. .
RESOLUTION NO. 05-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA OPPOSING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A
SURFACE MINING OPERATION WITHIN THE HILLS
SOUTH OF TEMECULA
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND
REQUEST AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that an application will soon be submitted to Riverside County
for a Surface Mining Permit (SMP); and
WHEREAS, the location of this project is on a 311-acre Liberty Quarry site located just south
of Temecula, west of Interstate 15 in the hills; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project footprint will ultimately total approximately 155 acres and
the access road will require 6-8 acres for construction; and
WHEREAS, the proposed components of the project will include aggregate, asphalt,
concrete batch, and recycle plants will be constructed within the overall quarry; and
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula is opposed to this development due to the unmitigated
cumulative traffic impacts to the Interstate 15 corridor, cumulative traffic impacts to existing
roadways, volume of traffic associated with the production facility, the adverse impacts to the
regional air quality and human health risk associated with diesel truck emissions, the permanent
scarring of existing hillsides, the potential contamination of surrounding watersheds, the irreversible
significant impact to surrounding wildlife and habitat, and the unanticipated impacts associated with
a 75-year land use permit; and
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, The City of Temecula City Council opposes the
development of a surface mining operation within the hills south of the City of Temecula;
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a
regular meeting held on the 12th day of April, 2005.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
Resos\99-40
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City ofTemecula, Califomia, do hereby certify that Resolution
No. 00- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular
meeting thereof held on the 12th day of April, 2005, by the following vote:
AYES:
o
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
o
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
o
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
Resos\99-40
2
TEMECULA COMMUNITY
SERVICES DISTRICT
ITEM 1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
MARCH 22, 2005
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Community Services District was called to order at
7:25 P.M., at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
5
DIRECTORS:
Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar, Roberts,
and Washington
ABSENT:
o
DIRECTORS:
None
Also present were General Manager Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and Deputy City Clerk Ballreich.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of March 8, 2005.
2 Ratification of Election Results - Wolf Creek Specific Plan No. 12
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. CSD 05-10
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
RECITING THE FACT OF THE SPECIAL TEMECULA
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MAIL-IN BALLOT
ELECTION HELD ON MARCH 14, 2005, DECLARING THE
RESULTS AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY
LAW
3 Pool Equipment Room Renovation at the Temecula Elementarv
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Award a contract to Horizon Mechanical Contractors of California for $60,914 for
the installation of pool equipment at the Temecula Elementary School (T.E.S.);
R\Minutes.csd\032205
3.2 Approve a 10% contingency in the amount of $6,091.40;
3.3 Authorize the purchase of equipment from Knorr Systems, Inc. for $43,888.00.
MOTION: Director Comerchero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-3. The
motion was seconded by Director Roberts and electronic vote reflected unanimous approval.
DEPARTMENTAL REPORT
No additional comments.
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT
Community Services Director Parker invited the community to the Spring Egg Hunt on Saturday,
March 26, 2005, held at Ronald Reagan Sports Park, Paloma Del Sol Park, Temeku Hills Park,
and Harveston Community Park, starting at 10:00 A.M. and also invited to the community to the
City's new FIT Program (Fitness in Temecula), starting on Monday, April 11, 2005, for all ages;
that a staff member will be at Ronald Reagan Sports Park, Harveston Community Park, Pala
Community Park, and Temeku Hills Park every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday between 6:30
- 8:00 P.M. to note progress; that this program is to encourage people to exercise, eat healthy,
and live a healthy lifestyle; and thanked the City's sponsors - Temecula Valley Unified School
District, Guidant Corporation, and the Soup Plantation - for their support of tis program.
Thanking the Mayor for his input with regard to this program and complimenting Community
Services Director Parker on his efforts with regard to this program, President Washington as
well advised of the many upcoming Spring/Summer programs.
In response to Director Comerchero, Community Services Director Parker advised that the FIT
Program will be advertised through paid advertisements in the local paper, fliers to the School
District, and networking with the School District. In closing, Mr. Comerchero as well thanked
Mr. Parker and his staff for their efforts associated with this program.
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
General Manager Nelson as well commended Community Services Director Parker and staff on
the coordination of the FIT Program.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS
No additional comments.
R:\Minutes.csd\032205
2
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:30 P.M., the Temecula Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to
Tuesday, April 12, 2005, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive,
Temecula, California.
Chuck Washington, President
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk/District Secretary
[SEAL]
R:\Minutes.csdI032205
3
REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
ITEM 1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
MARCH 22, 2005
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 7:30
P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: 5
AGENCY MEMBERS
Comerchero, Edwards, Naggar,
Washington, and Roberts
ABSENT: 0
AGENCY MEMBERS:
None
Also present were Executive Director Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and Deputy City Clerk
Ballreich.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No input.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of March 8, 2005.
2 Status Update of the Temecula Education Center
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Receive and file.
MOTION: Agency Member Comerchero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-2.
The motion was seconded by Agency Member Edwards and voice vote reflected unanimous
approval.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
No additional comment.
AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS
In response to Chairman Roberts, Director of Housing and Redevelopment Meyer clarified a
recent quote of his with regard to a project in Old Town.
R:\Minutes.rda\032205
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:31 P.M., the Temecula Redevelopment Agency meeting was formally adjourned to
Tuesday, April 12, 2005 in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
California.
Ron Roberts, Chairman
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk/Agency Secretary
[SEAL]
R:\Minutes.rda\032205
2
TEMECULA PUBLIC
FINANCING AUTHORITY
ITEM 1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
JANUARY 25,2005
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Public Financing Authority was called to order at 7:52
P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
5
AUTHORITY MEMBERS: Edwards, Naggar, Roberts, Washington,
and Comerchero
ABSENT:
o
AUTHORITY MEMBER: None
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 January 11, 2005.
2 Second Readina of Ordinance No. TPFA 05-01 (Lewing Special Taxes)
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. TPFA 05-01
AN ORDINANCE OF THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING
AUTHORITY LEVYING SPECIAL TAXES WITHIN TEMECULA
PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY COMMUNITY FACILITIES
DISTRICT NO . 03-02 (RORIPAUGH RANCH)
MOTION: Authority Member Roberts moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 -2. The
motion was seconded by Authority Member Edwards and electronic vote reflected approval.
R:lMinutes.lpfaI012505
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
No additional comments.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS
No comments.
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:53 P.M., the Temecula Public Financing Authority meeting was formally adjourned.
Jeff Comerchero, Chairman
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk/Agency Secretary
[SEAL]
R:\Minutes.tpfa\012505
2
ITEM 2
APPRO V AL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIR.OF FINANCE ~
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AND
TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Councilrremecula Public Financing Authority
FROM: City Manager/Executive Director
DATE: April 12. 2005
SUBJECT: Initial Actions Related to Issuance of Additional Bonds for Community Facilities
District No. 03-1 (Crowne Hill)
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That the City Council adopt the resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 05-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING DEPOSIT/REIMBURSEMENT
AGREEMENT - CROWNE HILL
2. That the Authority adopt the resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. TPFA OS-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF A DEPOSIT RELATIVE TO
THE ISSUANCE OF ADDITIONAL BONDS FOR THE CROWNE
HILL COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 03-1, AND
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING ACTIONS WITH RESPECT
THERETO
BACKGROUND: On June 24, 2003, the Board of Directors of the Authority formed the
Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 03-1 (Crowne Hill) (the
"CFD") under the provisions of the California Government Code. On August 7, 2003 the
Authority, for and on behalf of the CFD, issued $12,155,000 principal amount of CFD Special
Tax Bonds, Series 2003-A pursuant to a Fiscal Agent Agreement between the Authority and
U.S. Bank National Association, as fiscal agent, to finance various infrastructure and other
improvements necessitated by the Crowne Hill development in the City. Section 2.14 of the
Fiscal Agent Agreement allows for the issuance of Parity Bonds, as defined therein, to be
secured on a parity with the bonds issued in 2003, the proceeds of which would be used to
finance additional infrastructure costs. Lennar Homes of California, Inc. (the "Developer"), the
master developer of the Crowne Hill development, has requested that the Authority now
consider the issuance of Parity Bonds under the Fiscal Agent Agreement.
The Developer has agreed to pay all City and Authority costs related to the proposed new CFD
bond issue, and a Deposit/Reimbursement Agreement has been prepared by the Authority's
Bond Counsel with respect thereto. The Parity Bonds would be payable solely from special
taxes levied on land in the CFD and collected by the Authority.
SPECIFIC ACTIONS: In order to begin the process to consider the issuance of the Parity
Bonds for the CFD, the City Council will consider adoption of a resolution approving a
Deposit/Reimbursement Agreement, and the Authority will then consider adoption of a
resolution accepting the Developer's deposit, approving the Deposit/Reimbursement
Agreement with the City and the Developer and engaging professionals to assist the City and
the Authority in issuing the Parity Bonds.
FISCAL IMPACT: The Developer has agreed to pay all out of pocket expenses incurred
relative to the proposed issuance of Parity Bonds for the CFD. Costs of issuance of the
proposed bond issue will be paid from the proceeds of the bonds to be issued by the Authority.
All annual costs of administering the bond issue will be paid by special taxes levied on the
properties in the CFD.
Any CFD bonds will not be obligations of the City, but will be limited obligations of the Authority,
payable solely from special taxes levied on land in the CFD.
Attachments:
Resolutions (2)
Deposit/Reimbursement Agreement
RESOLUTION NO. 05-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING DEPOSIT/REIMBURSEMENT
AGREEMENT - CROWNE HILL
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority
(the "Authority") has formed the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community
Facilities District No. 03-1 (Crowne Hill) (the "CFD") under the provisions of the
California Government Code, and on August 7,2003, the Authority, for and on behalf of
the CFD, issued $12,155,000 principal amount of Temecula Public Financing Authority
Community Facilities District No. 03-1 (Crowne Hill) Special Tax Bonds, Series 2003-A
(the "2003 Bonds") pursuant to a Fiscal Agent Agreement, dated as of July 1, 2003 (the
"Fiscal Agent Agreement"), between the Authority and U.S. Bank National Association,
as fiscal agent; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.14 of the Fiscal Agent Agreement allows for the issuance
of Parity Bonds, as defined therein, to be secured on a parity with the 2003 Bonds
under the Fiscal Agent Agreement; and
WHEREAS, Lennar Homes of California, Inc. (the "Developer") has requested
that the Authority consider the issuance of Parity Bonds under the Fiscal Agent
Agreement, and has advanced funds to pay costs of the City and the Authority related
thereto; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to enter into a Deposit/Reimbursement Agreement
with the Authority and the Developer (the "Deposit Agreement"), regarding the
disposition of funds advanced by the Developer.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Temecula as follows:
Section 1. Deposit Aqreement. The City Council hereby approves and
authorizes the City Manager to execute and deliver the Deposit Agreement, in the form
on file with the City Clerk together with any changes therein deemed advisable by the
City Attorney, the approval of such changes to be conclusively evidenced by the
execution and delivery by the City of the Deposit Agreement.
Section 2. Official Actions. The Mayor, City Manager, Director of Finance, City
Clerk and all other officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to take all
actions and do all things necessary or desirable hereunder with respect to the
implementation of the Deposit Agreement, including but not limited to the execution and
delivery of any and all agreements, certificates, instruments and other documents,
which they, or any of them, may deem necessary or desirable and not inconsistent with
the purposes of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of
Temecula, at a regular meeting held on the 12th day of April, 2005.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, HEREBY DO CERTIFY that
the foregoing Resolution No. 05-_ was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Temecula on the 12th day of April, 2005, by the following roll call
vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NAYS: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
.2.
RESOLUTION NO. TPFA 05-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF
THE TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF A DEPOSIT RELATIVE
TO THE ISSUANCE OF ADDITIONAL BONDS FOR THE
CROWNE HILL COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.
03-1, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING ACTIONS
WITH RESPECT THERETO
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority
(the "Authority") has formed the Temecula Public Financing Authority Community
Facilities District No. 03-1 (Crowne Hill) (the "CFD") under the provisions of the
California Government Code, and on August 7, 2003, the Authority, for and on behalf of
the CFD, issued $12,155,000 principal amount of Temecula Public Financing Authority
Community Facilities District No. 03-1 (Crowne Hill) Special Tax Bonds, Series 2003-A
(the "2003 Bonds") pursuant to a Fiscal Agent Agreement, dated as of July 1, 2003 (the
"Fiscal Agent Agreement"), between the Authority and U.S. Bank National Association,
as fiscal agent; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.14 of the Fiscal Agent Agreement allows for the issuance
of Parity Bonds, as defined therein, to be secured on a parity with the 2003 Bonds
under the Fiscal Agent Agreement; and
WHEREAS, Lennar Homes of California, Inc. (the "Developer") has submitted to
the Director of Finance of the City of Temecula (the "City") monies (the "Deposit") to be
used by the City to pay costs of the City and the Authority in connection with
proceedings under the Fiscal Agent Agreement relative to the issuance of Parity Bonds
for the CFD; and
WHEREAS, there has also been submitted a Deposit/Reimbursement
Agreement (the "Agreement"), among the Developer, the City and the Authority, and
this Board of Directors now desires to accept the money advanced by the Developer, to
authorize the execution and delivery by the Authority of the Agreement, to employ
certain consultants necessary for the issuance and sale of Parity Bonds of the Authority
for the CFD, and authorize and direct Authority staff to take actions necessary to
present to this Board of Directors for approval the documents necessary to issue the
Parity Bonds.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the
Temecula Public Financing Authority as follows:
Section 1. The Director of Finance of the City is hereby authorized and directed
to accept the Deposit, and to use the Deposit in the manner contemplated by the
Agreement. The Executive Director of the Authority is hereby authorized and directed
to execute the Agreement for and on behalf of the Authority, and to take all actions
necessary, in his discretion, to implement the Agreement.
Section 2. City staff, acting for and on behalf of the Authority, are hereby
authorized and directed to take all actions necessary or advisable to present to this
Board of Directors for its review and approval all proceedings necessary to issue the
Parity Bonds.
Section 3. The firm of Stone & Youngberg LLC is hereby designated as
underwriter to the Authority for the Parity Bonds.
Section 4. The firm of Albert A. Webb Associates is hereby designated as
Special Tax Consultant to the Authority for the CFD and the Parity Bonds, the firm of
Fieldman Rolapp & Associates is hereby designated as financial advisor to the
Authority for the Parity Bonds, the firm of McFarlin & Anderson is hereby designated as
disclosure counsel to the Authority for the Parity Bonds, and the firm of Quint &
Thimmig LLP is hereby designated as Bond Counsel to the Authority for the Parity
Bonds. The Executive Director is hereby authorized and directed to execute
agreements with said firms for their services in connection with the Parity Bonds, in
form and substance acceptable to the Executive Director. The fees and expenses of
such consultants shall be payable solely from the Deposit and/or the proceeds of the
Parity Bonds when and if they are issued by the Authority for the CFD.
Section 5. The Executive Director is hereby authorized, if determined
appropriate in his discretion, to engage an appraiser to appraise the property subject to
the special taxes to be levied within the CFD, and/or a market absorption consultant to
analyze the proposed development in the CFD, on such terms as are acceptable to the
Executive Director. The fees and expenses of any such consultants shall be payable
solely from the Deposit and/or the proceeds of the Parity Bonds when and if they are
issued by the Authority for the CFD.
Section 6. The Executive Director, Treasurer, Secretary, legal counsel to the
Authority and all other officers and agents of the Authority are hereby authorized and
directed to take all actions necessary or advisable to give effect to the transactions
contemplated by this Resolution.
.2.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, by the Board of Directors of the
Temecula Public Financing Authority at a meeting held on the 1 ih day of April, 2005.
Jeff Comerchero, Chairperson
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk/Authority Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan Jones, Secretary of the Temecula Public Financing Authority, HEREBY
DO CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. TPFA 05-_ was duly adopted at a
special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Temecula Public Financing Authority on
the 12th day of April, 2005, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
BOARDMEMBERS:
BOARDMEMBERS:
BOARDMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk/Authority Secretary
.3.
" .
Quint & Thimmig LLP
3/14/05
3/29/05
DEPOSIT/REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT
TemecuIa Public Financing Authority
Community Facilities District No. 03-1
(Crowne Hill)
Special Tax Bonds, Series 2005-A
THIS DEPOSIT/REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is by and
among the City of Temecula (the "City"), the Temecula Public Financing Authority (the
"Authority") for itself and on behalf of the Temecula Public Financing Authority
Community Facilities District No. 03-1 (Crowne Hill) (the "CFD"), and Lennar Homes of
California, Inc. (the "Developer").
RECITALS:
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Authority has formed the CFD under the
provisions of Section 53311 et seq. of the California Government Code (the "Act"), and on
August 7, 2003, the Authority, for and on behalf of the CFD, issued $12,155,000 principal
amount of Temecula Public Financing Authority Community Facilities District No. 03-1
(Crowne Hill) Special Tax Bonds, Series 2003-A (the "2003 Bonds") pursuant to a Fiscal
Agent Agreement, dated as of July 1, 2003 (the "Fiscal Agent Agreement"), between the
Authority and U.S. Bank National Association, as fiscal agent; and
WHEREAS, Section 2.14 of the Fiscal Agent Agreement allows for the issuance of
Parity Bonds, as defined therein, to be secured on a parity with the 2003 Bonds under the
Fiscal Agent Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Developer has requested that the Authority consider the issuance of
Parity Bonds under the Fiscal Agent Agreement (the "2005 Bonds"); and
WHEREAS, the Developer is willing to deposit funds with the City to ensure
payment of the costs of the Authority and the City in connection with the issuance of the
2005 Bonds and the proposed expenditure of the proceeds thereof, provided that such
funds so advanced are reimbursed to the Developer from the proceeds of the 2005 Bonds
issued by the Authority for the CFD to the extent provided herein; and
WHEREAS, the Authority and the Developer now desire to specify the terms of said
deposit and reimbursement.
AGREEMENT:
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and the mutual covenants set
forth herein, and for other consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:
Section 1. The Deposit: Additional Advances. The Developer is, concurrently with
its execution of this Agreement, delivering to the City's Finance Director $50,000.00 (the
"Deposit"), to be used by the City to pay the costs in conducting proceedings for the
issuance of the 2005 Bonds (as more fully described in Section 2(a) below, the "Initial
20009.07IB032
Costs"), said amount being in the form of a check made payable to the "City of Temecula."
The City, by its execution hereof, acknowledges receipt by the City of the Deposit. The
check representing the Deposit will be cashed by the City, and the Deposit may be
commingled with other funds of the City for purposes of investment and safekeeping, but
the City shall at all times maintain records as to the expenditure of the Deposit.
The Developer hereby agrees to advance any additional amounts necessary to pay
any Initial Costs incurred by the City or the Authority, in excess of the amount of the
Deposit, promptly upon written demand therefore by the Finance Director of the City;
provided that the amount of the Deposit, plus any such additional amounts (the
"Additional Deposits" and, collectively with the Deposit, the "Deposits"), shall not exceed
$100,000 without the prior written consent of the Developer. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the City Manager may direct City and Authority staff and consultants to cease all
work related to the issuance of the 2005 Bonds until any additional amounts so demanded
have been received by the City.
Section 2. Use of Funds. The Deposits shall be administered as follows:
(a) The Finance Director of the City may draw upon the Deposits from time to time
to pay the Initial Costs, including but not limited to: (i) the fees and expenses of any
consultants to the City or the Authority employed in connection with the issuance of the
2005 Bonds and the proposed expenditure of the proceeds thereof (such as engineering,
legal counsel, including the City Attorney, Bond Counsel and financing and special tax
consultants); (ii) the costs of appraisals, market absorption and feasibility studies and other
reports necessary or deemed advisable by City staff or consultants in connection with the
2005 Bonds; (iii) a reasonable charge for City staff time, as determined by the City Finance
Director in her sole discretion, in analyzing the 2005 Bonds and the expenditure of the
proceeds thereof, including a reasonable allocation of City overhead expense related
thereto; and (iv) any and all other actual costs and expenses incurred by the City or the
Authority with respect to the 2005 Bonds after the date of execution of this Agreement. The
Developer hereby acknowledges that, at a minimum, the following amounts will or may be
charged against the Deposits, whether or not the CFD is formed and the Bonds are issued:
(i) up to $10,000.00 to Albert A. Webb Associates, special tax consultant, (ii) up to $20,000.00
to an appraiser, (iii) up to $10,000.00 for a market absorption analysis related to the 2005
Bonds, and (iv) up to $10,000.00 to the City for City Staff time in analyzing the 2005 Bonds
and the expenditure of the proceeds thereof, including a reasonable allocation of City
overhead expense related thereto, including all other actual costs and expenses incurred by
the City.
(h) If the 2005 Bonds are issued under the Fiscal Agent Agreement by the Authority,
the Authority shall provide for reimbursement to the Developer, without interest, of all
amounts charged against the Deposits, said reimbursement to be made solely from the
proceeds of the 2005 Bonds and only to the extent otherwise permitted under the Act. On or
within ten (10) business days after the date of issuance and delivery of the 2005 Bonds, the
Finance Director of the City shall return the then unexpended Deposits to the Developer,
without interest, less an amount equal to any costs incurred by the City or the Authority or
that the City or the Authority is otherwise committed to pay, which costs would be subject
to payment under Section 2(a) above, but have not yet been so paid.
(c) If the 2005 Bonds are not issued, the Finance Director of the City shall, within ten
(10) business days after adoption of the resolution stating the intent of the Authority to
terminate proceedings under the Act with respect to the issuance of the 2005 Bonds (or
other action indicating the intent by the Authority not to issue the 2005 Bonds, such as the
delivery of a certificate of the Executive Director of the Authority to that effect), return the
-2-
then unexpended Deposits to the Developer, without interest, less an amount equal to any
costs incurred by the City or the Authority or that the City or the Authority is otherwise
committed to pay, which costs would be subject to payment under Section 2(a) above but
have not yet been so paid.
Section 3. Reimbursement of Other Developer Costs. Nothing contained herein
shall prohibit reimbursement of other costs and expenses of the Developer or any successor
in interest thereto with respect to the land in the CFD incurred in connection with the 2005
Bonds from the proceeds of the 2005 Bonds, including, but not limited to fees and expenses
of legal counsel to the Developer and/or its successor in interest and special consultant
expenses. Any such reimbursement shall be made solely from the proceeds of the 2005
Bonds and only to the extent otherwise permitted under the Act and otherwise provided
for, at the reasonable discretion of the Authority, in the proceedings for the issuance of the
2005 Bonds.
Section 4. Agreement Not Debt or Liability of City or Authority. It is hereby
acknowledged and agreed that this Agreement is not a debt or liability of the City or the
Authority, as provided in Section 53314.9(b) of the Act. Neither the City nor the Authority
shall in any event be liable hereunder other than to return the unexpended and
uncommitted portions of the Deposits as provided in Section 2 above and provide an
accounting under Section 7 below. Neither the City nor the Authority shall be obligated to
advance any of their own funds with respect to the CFD, the 2005 Bonds or for any of the
other purposes listed in Section 2(a) hereof. No member of the City Council, the Board of
Directors of the Authority or officer, employee or agent of the City or the Authority shall to
any extent be personally liable hereunder.
Section 5. No Obligation to Issue 2005 Bonds. The provisions of this Agreement
shall in no way obligate the City or the Authority to issue the 2005 Bonds, or to expend any
of their own funds in connection with the CFD or the proposed issuance of the 2005 Bonds.
Section 6. Severability. If any part of this Agreement is held to be illegal or
unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of this Agreement shall
be given effect to the fullest extent reasonably possible.
Section 7. Accounting. The City Finance Director shall provide the Developer with
a written accounting of moneys expended under this Agreement, within ten (10) business
days of receipt by the Finance Director of the City of a written request therefor submitted
by an authorized officer of the Developer. No more than one accounting will be provided
in any calendar month and the cost of providing the accounting shall be charged to the
Deposits.
Section 8. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure
to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties hereto.
-3-
Section 9. CounteI:Parts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed an original.
.. .. .. .. .. II- .. ..
IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the
day and year written alongside their signature line below.
Executed on:
April2Q, 2005
DEVELOPER:
LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
BY:\C-- ~
5=:c
,
Its: \he.6 '?\Z.~''i::lEN-r
Executed on:
April ~ 2005
CITY:
CITY OF TEMECULA
By:
City Manager
Executed on:
April ~ 2005
AUTHORITY:
TEMECULA PUBLIC FINANCING
AUTHORITY, for itself and on behalf of the
proposed Temecula Public Financing Authority
Community Facilities District 03-1 (Crowne Hill)
By:
Executive Director
20009.07:J8032
-4-
ITEM 11
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
Fity Manager/City Council
t\J1ANilliam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE:
April 12, 2005
SUBJECT:
Vacation of a Portion of an Unnamed Alley Located between Second Street
and Third Street east of Old Town Front Street as shown on Block 18 of
Town Site of Temecula (Old Town)
PREPARED BY: f{tRonald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works
~teve Charette, Associate Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 05-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA VACATING A PORTION OF AN UNNAMED
ALLEY LOCATED BETWEEN SECOND STREET AND THIRD
STREET AS SHOWN ON BLOCK 18 OF TOWN SITE OF
TEMECULA IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
BACKGROUND: On March 2, 2005 the City of Temecula Planning Commission
approved Planning Application PA04-023, a Development Plan to redevelop the Butterfield
Square commercial site. The proposed redevelopment includes a commercial shopping center
consisting of seven buildings totaling approximately 9,400 square feet. The site is located at the
southeast corner of Old Town Front Street and Third Street, known as Assessor Parcel Nos.
922.043-005, 922-043-006, and 922-043-007. Condition of Approval No. 22 of said Planning
Application PA 04-023 requires that the public alley located along the southern project boundary
shall be vacated prior to issuance of a building permit. Staff has received property owner
authorization to vacate said portion of unnamed alley as depicted on Exhibits "A" and "B".
Pursuant to the requirements of the Streets and Highways Code, the City may vacate its
interests in identified public right of way if the City finds that such a vacation conforms to the
General Plan; that the streets in question are no longer necessary for present or prospective
public use due to having minimal affect on the circulation element, and not denying access to
any parcels. The Planning Commission has considered the General Plan and finds that the
vacation of the alley is consistent with the General Plan in that the existing grid street pattern
surrounding the site provides adequate circulation without the alley. The unnamed alley to be
vacated is described and depicted on Exhibits "A" and "B" which are attached to this report.
1
R:\AGENDA REPORTS\2005\041205\Butterfield Square.Alley Vacation.doc
On March 22, 2005, the Council adopted Resolution No. 05-34 initiating a proceeding to vacate
said portion of unnamed alley. The Resolution indicated that a public hearing would be held on
April 12, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall to consider the alley vacation and that the public could
address the issue of the proposed vacation at that hearing. Notices of the April 12, 2005 were
posted conspicuously at the alley location beginning March 28, 2005. In addition, the notice
was published in a newspaper of general circulation on March 28 and April 4, 2005.
Necessary access to public utility, service, and drainage facilities for the purposes of
constructing, placing, operating, inspecting, maintaining, repairing, replacing, and removing
such underground facilities will be provided by reserving easements for these purposes as
provided under Section 8340 of the Streets and Highways Code.
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 05-_, finding that the proposed
vacation of said alley is no longer necessary for present or prospective public use, or bicycle or
pedestrian use. The General Plan designates sufficient other streets and right-of-way in the
area for such uses.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. 05-_ with Exhibits "A" and "B"
2
R:\AGENDA REPORTS\2005\041205\Butterfield Square.Alley Vacation.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 05-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA VACATING A PORTION OF AN UNNAMED
ALLEY LOCATED BETWEEN SECOND STREET AND THIRD
STREET AS SHOWN ON BLOCK 18 OF TOWN SITE OF
TEMECULA IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, pursuant to Street and Highway Code Section 8321, a petition has been
filed with the City Council of the City of Temecula, State of California, requesting the general
vacation of a portion of an unnamed alley located between Second Street and Third Street east
of Old Town Front Street as a requirement of Planning Application PA04-023 for the
redevelopment of the Butterfield Square commercial site. Said portion of unnamed alley to be
vacated is more particularly described and depicted on Exhibits "A" and "B", attached hereto
and made a part hereof by this reference; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the General Plan of Temecula and finds
that the vacation of said alley is consistent with the General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, on March 22, 2005, the City Council of the City of Temecula duly and
regularly adopted Resolution No. 05-34, giving notice of intention to vacate said alley; and,
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 05-34, has been duly published, posted and mailed
pursuant to the provisions of the Streets and Highways Code; and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing has been conducted and the City Council of the City of
Temecula has heard all the evidence offered by all persons interested in the matter; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Temecula has determined that the alley
portion described herein is excess right-of-way and unnecessary for public purposes, and
present or prospective public use; now therefore,
BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED by the City Council of the
City of Temecula, State of California, in regular session on April 12, 2005, that pursuant to
Section 8334(a) of the Streets and Highways Code the City of Temecula hereby vacates said
unnamed alley more particularly described and depicted on Exhibits "A" and "B", and attached
hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full.
EXCEPTING AND RESERVING FROM SAID VACATION an easement for any existing
public utilities and public service facilities, together with the right to maintain, operate, replace,
remove, or renew such facilities, pursuant to Section 8340 of the Streets and Highways Code.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED that the City Clerk shall
cause a certified copy of this resolution to be recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Riverside
County, California. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a
certified copy of the Resolution to be recorded pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section
8336.
3
R:IAGENOA REPORTS\2005\041205\Butterfield Square.Alley Vacation.doc
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at
a regular meeting held on the 12th day of April, 2005.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE, City Clerk
(SEAL)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify
that Resolution No. 05-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 12th day of April 2005, by the following vote:
AYES:
o
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
o
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
o
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
4
R:\AGENDA REPORTS\2005\041205\Butterfield Square.Alley Vacation.doc
EXHIBIT "A"
VACATION
BEING A STRIP OF LAND IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 8 SOUTH, RANGE 3 WEST, AS
SHOWN ON BLOCK 18, OF THE TOWN SITE OF TEMECULA MAP, IN THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, MAP RECORDED IN BOOK
15, PAGE 726, OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS;
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 16 AS SHOWN ON SAID BLOCK
18, SAID POINT ALSO BEING ON THE SOUTHWESTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF
MERCEDES STREET AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP;
THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT OF WAY LINE, SOUTH 44028'19" WEST, A DISTANCE OF
250.28 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE
NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 6 OF SAID MAP;
THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 44028'19" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 160.00 FEET TO A LINE
PARALLEL WITH AND 30.00 FEET NORTHEASTERLY OF THE CENTERLINE OF FRONT
STREET AS IT NOW EXISTS;
THENCE ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE NORTH 45029'25" WEST, A DISTANCE OF 20.00
FEET TO A POINT ON SAID LINE OF FRONT STREET;
THENCE LEAVING SAID LINE, NORTH 44028'19" EAST, A DISTANCE OF 160.18 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 45031'46" EAST A DISTANCE OF 20.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF
BEGINNING
THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PORTION OF LAND CONTAINS 0.19 ACRES, MORE OR LESS
AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO MADE A PART HERE OF.
IOFl
EXHIBIT "B"
SITE
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
'<f:
~~
~\) '\'~
~~
:0
,,~
~.?>
.p~
<t>.?>
"
GRAPHIC SCALE
0 40 80
I I I
( IN FEET ) ,
1 inch = 60 ft.
D' I ., DENNIS JANDA, INC. 2 27 04
! ftrIl MAPPING/SURVEYING SERVICES DATE - -
41934 MAIN STREET, #206 PH: (951) 676.7720
TEMECULA, CA 92690 FAX: (961) 699-5912 DRAWN 6Y RK
EMAlL: dennlsJanda@verizon.net
SHEET 1 OF 1
W.O. #
SM-03-074
VACATION EXHIBIT
ITEM 12
ITEM 13
/'
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANC
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
City Manager/City Council
rv1~i1liam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE:
April 12, 2005
SUBJECT:
Vacation of All Interior Streets and Certain Drainage Easements within
Tract No. 26941 (Crowne Hill- The Reserve)
PREPARED BY: WRonald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works
wteve Charette, Associate Engineer
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 05-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA VACATING LOT "A" (WOLFE STREET), LOT "B"
(SUSAN GRACE COURT) AND LOT "C" (MUSILEK PLACE)
AND CERTAIN DRAINAGE EASEMENTS OF TRACT NO. 26941
IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS
SHOWN ON ATTACHED EXHIBITS
BACKGROUND: The City Council approved Tract Map No. 26941 on June 24, 2003,
including acceptance of offers of dedication for street purposes, said offers including Wolfe
Street, Susan Grace Court, and Musilek Place along with certain drainage easements within
said tract. On August 6, 2003 Tract Map No. 26941 was recorded by the County of Riverside
Recorder's Office.
Subsequent to recordation of the map, the developer submitted a formal request to the City to
vacate all interior streets within the tract in order to develop a gated subdivision with private
streets. Two gated entryways will be installed, one each at the east and west ends of Wolfe
Street in relative proximity to the intersections of Old Kent Road and Crowne Hill Drive,
respectively. Certain public drainage easements within the Tract that collect local street
drainage will also be vacated. Three drainage easements will be reserved for City use for the
purpose of accessing storm drain pipe outlets originating offsite. Grading for the Tract has been
completed and the street, drainage and utility improvements have been installed per City Public
Street Standards. The developer has recorded CC&R's which state that the maintenance of
the interior streets and drainage facilities will become the responsibility of the Homeowner's
Association once the streets are vacated.
R:IAGENDA REPORTS\2005\041205\TM26941. Vacation. doc
Pursuant to the requirements of the Streets and Highways Code, the City may vacate its
interests in identified streets if the City finds that such a vacation conforms to the General Plan;
that the streets in question are no longer necessary for present or prospective public use; and
that the streets in question would not be useful for bicycle or pedestrian use. The Planning
Commission has considered the General Plan and finds that the vacation of the interior streets
for the Tract is consistent with The General Plan. The General Plan designates sufficient other
streets and right-of-way in the area for public use including bicycle and pedestrian use. In
addition, no property would be "landlocked" by this proposal.
On March 22, 2005, the Council adopted Resolution No. 05-33 initiating a proceeding to vacate
Wolfe Street, Susan Grace Court, and Musilek Place along with certain drainage easements
within said tract. The Resolution indicated that a public hearing would be held on April 12, 2005
at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall to consider the street and easement vacations and that the public could
address the issue of the street and easement vacations at that hearing. Notices of the April 12,
2005 were posted conspicuously along the three streets and easements proposed to be
vacated beginning March 28, 2005. The notices were posted no more than 300 feet apart and
at least three notices were posted. In addition, the notice was published in a newspaper of
general circulation on March 28 and April 4, 2005.
The streets and easements within Tract No. 26941 to be vacated are described and depicted on
Exhibits "A" through "D", inclusive, which are attached to this report.
Necessary access to public utility, service, and drainage facilities for the purposes of
constructing, placing, operating, inspecting, maintaining, repairing, replacing, and removing
such underground facilities will be provided by reserving easements for these purposes as
provided under Section 8340 of the Streets and Highways Code.
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 05-_, finding that the proposed
vacation of the streets and drainage easements in question are no longer necessary for present
or prospective public use, or bicycle or pedestrian use. The General Plan designates sufficient
other streets and right-of-way in the area for such uses.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. 05-_ with Exhibits "A" through "D", inclusive
2. Vicinity Map
2
R:\AGENDA REPORTS\2005\041205\TM26941. Vacation.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 05-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA VACATING LOT "A" (WOLFE STREET), LOT "B"
(SUSAN GRACE COURT) AND LOT "C" (MUSILEK PLACE)
AND CERTAIN DRAINAGE EASEMENTS OF TRACT NO. 26941
IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS
SHOWN ON ATTACHED EXHIBITS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, pursuant to Street and Highway Code Section 8321, a petition has been
filed with the City Council of the City of Temecula, State of California, requesting the general
vacation of the interior streets and drainage easements within Tract Map No. 26941 for the
purpose of establishing a gated community with privately maintained streets and drainage
facilities; and,
WHEREAS, The streets and drainage easements to be vacated are Lot "A" (Wolfe
Street), Lot "8" (Susan Grace Court) and Lot "C" (Musilek Place) and certain drainage
easements within Tract No. 26941 more particularly described and depicted on Exhibits "A"
through "0", inclusive, attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the General Plan of Temecula and finds
that the vacation of said streets is consistent with the General Plan; and,
WHEREAS, a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) has
been recorded which state that the Homeowners Association will be responsible for the
maintenance of said streets and drainage improvements; and,
WHEREAS, on March 22, 2005, the City Council of the City of Temecula duly and
regularly adopted Resolution No. 05-33, giving notice of intention to vacate said streets and
drainage easements; and,
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 05-33, has been duly published, posted and mailed
pursuant to the provisions of the Streets and Highways Code; and,
WHEREAS, a public hearing has been conducted and the City Council of the City of
Temecula has heard all the evidence offered by all persons interested in the matter; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Temecula has determined that the streets
described herein is excess right-of-way and unnecessary for public purposes, and present or
prospective public use; now therefore,
BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED by the City Council of the
City of Temecula, State of California, in regular session on April 12, 2005, that pursuant to
Section 8334(a) of the Streets and Highways Code the City of Temecula hereby vacates Lot "A"
(Wolfe Street), Lot "8" (Susan Grace Court) and Lot "C" (Musilek Place) and certain drainage
easements within Tract No. 26941 more particularly described and depicted on Exhibits "A"
through "0", inclusive, and attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full.
3
R:\AGENOA REPORTS\2005\041205\ TM26941. Vacation. doc
EXCEPTING AND RESERVING FROM SAID VACATION an easement for any existing
public utilities and public service facilities, together with the right to maintain, operate, replace,
remove, or renew such facilities, pursuant to Section 8340 of the Streets and Highways Code.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, DETERMINED AND ORDERED that the City Clerk shall
cause a certified copy of this resolution to be recorded in the Office of the Recorder of Riverside
County, California. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a
certified copy of the Resolution to be recorded pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section
8336.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at
a regular meeting held on the 12th day of April, 2005.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE, City Clerk
(SEAL)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify
that Resolution No. 05-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 12th day of April 2005, by the following vote:
AYES:
o
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
o
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
o
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
4
R:IAGENOA REPORTS\2005\041205\TM26941. Vacation. doc
EXHIBIT "A"
Lots A, B, and C of Tract No. 26941 as shown by map on file in Book 340 of Maps, Pages 1
through 11, inclusive thereof, Records of Riverside, County, State of California. Said Lots also
being in the City of Ternecula, County of Riverside, California.
Exhibit "B" attached hereto and by this reference made apart thereof.
/-:-.;:::';;:;---/\ Nn-<:~~-""
;'''.' '0 c." .. ,J! '\.
l-;/fJ:"~~{iM7i11~:'1I;:\\
II .<:' -:-:> /0' -~~~\ ~
If -__J ) _ </\ :)_11
II ( Ii" 76A.l ! )1
t3 ~\U\ hp,I?'N4 '-{Ii
'" u~,\./," ;J
Jeffr y M. Barnes, PLS 7663, Exp. 12-31-04 Date~:t Or rl\\~\\S:/
'~""::--.. ' ~"'-"
-- --
IW Consulting Engineers, Inc.
3544 University Ave. - Riverside, CA 92501 - Ph: (909) 687-2929 - Fax: (909) 687.2999 . www.iwcei.com
~
;:
l!>
..,
i
~^ ^~^^^^^
I ~~;:~i~ii~~~~;;;i~~~:~~~~~~~:~;~~~~~::~~~~:~~~~~
i.iii.,. i. ;;R;;;;;;;;;;;
R~8i8R~i ~~ Ri~U8BBRARB~~~08
sa~~.!i. DD 6i~."i8i.8ii~g!i
! ~g~ IIIII1I 1111111~ l~ I ~gllll I t IIIII11II 1111 I IIII II 11111 II r II t I II II II I r II t IIII ~ r
fill 'n .9
. .
i : ~'!~~k~'~~'~~"~~R~8~:'G~~,~tG~t~'~'6'~~"~"~~~kkk'k~'~~~rt'~k~ht'~~t~~~~s~~~
i M~a~i:M~~"R~iM"~~M~=~ni~~R~";~"~&ft~~~A~SSft~!~~8~~8A8~~a~~~8i8R~~~it';'8~ft~8~"
I !~Ri~iiie~~~e,iii~i~iRiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiviiiw~~~iiiiii~iiiiiit~i~~iii~i~~iis!
..
I ~ I~I~
B ~ .1,-
Q) ,al:
l!> c..o B1 i
~ II.
l;; N a!d
fla
~ .1;lf
: 0 ~~lii 1k:1.~
IdW~ II!; ~
~ z i=U~!
.. . ad:~
11 . I~:g
~ I- hil
l!> U<( :IJ.:
~ e~i~~
u n:: 51~~g
~ I- ..!~2a
z IB'.~
- 1Il~&bt:i
~
a'
~ I ~
oW
I~ I
~~ ~
~~ ~
~Q
ci
z
~ !i~
t-
I ~ ~
I 0 L
m I 1') N
- - -It-
;:, ~ :
---~
;~&!~ ~
-- ili
::l
a;
~ T ~
"-
a;
N
a!
"0
"
is
n: Ul
~;~
fi:
;~; ill
'-
f- :;:
:I:
c
<.<
',.:.:..
;::
..,
...
;:j ::i
:.. t..
~~~ i~~
i~!
lil
,..
.,
~~i
,;:
i:;
.:.
~~;
t-_
I
ai
t :Ii
~
~
.
Q
W
~
(.)
~
w
m
o
l-
I/)
I-
W
w
D::
l-
I/)
'"
'"
=
~
~
~
"""
=
~
r.oil
Ii
~I
~~
:1
"!
i.
~~
Il~
~h
" -
iii.
~n
EXHIBIT "C"
Access and drainage easements designated as "A" and located within Lots 1,3,6,8, 12, 14,
15,18, 19,21,24,25 and 27 of Tract No. 26941 in the City of Temecula, all as shown by map on
file in Book 340 of Maps pages 1 through 11, inclusive, thereof, Records of Riverside, County,
State of California.
Excepting those portions of Lots 24 and 25 of Tract 26941 more particularly described as
follows and as shown on Exhibit D attached;
PARCEL 1
A strip ofland 20.00 feet in width, lying 10.00 feet on each side of the following described
centerline:
Commencing at the southeasterly comer of said Lot 24, said point also being the
northeasterly comer of said Lot 25 and on the right of way of Susan Grace Court as shown on said
Map. Said point also being in a curve, concave to the northeast, having a radius of 48.00 feet, from
which the radius point bears North 88049'46" East;
Thence northwesterly along said right of way and said curve, to the right, through a central
angle of 19050'57", an arc distance of 16.63 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING;
Thence North 83003'03" West, a distance of 36.03 feet to the beginning ofa non.tangent
curve, concave to the southeast, having a radius of 170.00 feet and from which the radius point
bears South 0025'34" East;
Thence Southwesterly along said curve, to the left, through a central angle of28019'14", an
arc distance of 84.03 feet;
Thence South 61015'12" West, a distance of 79.77 feet to the beginning ofa non-tangent
curve, concave to the southeast, having a radius of290.00 feet, from which the radius point bears
South 44053'50" East;
Thence Southwesterly along said curve, to the left, through a central angle of 12002'33", an
arc distance of 60.95 feet;
Thence South 33003'37" West, a distance ofl8.25 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent
curve, concave to the southeast, having a radius of 675.36 feet, from which the radius point bears
South 43047'09" East;
Thence Southwesterly along said curve, to the left, through a central angle of 1015'04", an
arc distance of 14.75 feet to the beginning of a non-tangent curve, concave to the southeast, having
a radius of 1 02.50 feet, from which the radius point bears South 32058'10" East;
Thence Southwesterly along said curve, to the left, through a central angle of 19037'33", an
arc length of35.11 feet to the beginning ofa reverse curve having a radius of73.50 feet;
Thence Southwesterly along said curve, to the right, through a central angle of24056'1O",
an arc distance of 31.99 feet to the beginning of a reverse curve having a radius of 126.50 feet;
Thence Southwesterly along said curve, to the left, through a central angel of31 043'46", an
arc distance of 70.05 feet;
lW Consulting Engineers, Inc.
3544 University Ave. - Riverside, CA 92501 - Ph: (909) 687-2929 - Fax: (909) 687-2999 - www.iwcei.com
Thence South 30036'41" West, a distance of 10.77 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as
Point "A" and the end thereof.
At the beginning of said centerline description, the side lines of said strip of land shall be
extended or shortened to intersect the right of way of Susan Grace Court.
PARCEL 2
A strip ofland 46.00 feet in width, lying 23.00 feet on each side ofthe following described
centerline:
Beginning at Point "A" hereinabove referred to;
Thence South 30036'41" West, a distance of21.00 feet to a point hereinafter referred to as
Point "B" and the end thereof.
PARCEL 3
Beginning at Point "B" hereinabove referred to;
Thence North 59023'19" West, a distance of24.00 feet;
Thence South 30018'30" West, a distance of83.90 feet; to a point on the south line of said
Lot 25;
Thence South 62001'40" East along said south line, a distance of22.73 feet; to an angle
point therein;
Thence South 60022'10" East continuing along said south line, a distance of 7.29 feet;
Thence North 30027'01" East, a distance of 82.73 feet;
Thence North 59023'19" West, a distance of 6.21 feet to the point of beginning.
Exhibit "D" attached hereto and by this reference made apart thereof.
<~;~~:c-=-.,--=--~
/?" \ 'I\ITI ~
j:-''''0 _li,!Lr \'I':~
/ (\, _______.."r:(p
l''''./' '0> ", R ;.,' I~
f ,~J (,,'-. . "-9"~;.:c ,
II '__'{i!.-.'i f'^ (::::- \\
'( , , ,j' ", \
I -, I 7" I
~Io, , hb3 ,\
~ 1:, \\ hI" 11.1'-04 ) 1\ /1
~,,j"" - .,1/
.".- " ./ .);:-.
Y//'~---<'f}"/
.;, iJf [,\\ \.. /;C"'
~~"'':c:,-,::__ _.~_~~__~;O";;-~/
Jeffre M. Barnes, PLS 7663, Exp. 12-31-0
IW Consulting Engineers, Inc.
3544 University Ave. - Riverside, CA 92501 - Ph: (909) 687-2929 - Fax: (909) 687-2999 - www.iwcei.com
LOT J 9
N 83"OJ'03" W
36.03'
LOT 23
P/L
N 6175'12" E
79.77'
LOT 24
~
N 33"OJ'3?" E
, , ffi$
),~
........ I
Y
'k":oZ~OARY
/ 25 I....
Y / 25..../
I Jj' / 24
I-;;C.i IVO / 23 22 I
./1>7.8 I ", .23 J
. 313 .43-.."::>' ~ ~ I
"/"'7 ~ . ~
1-"80 I ~~ '~'I
!:>N ~~
~C\J t;;)"
'"
~
R=73.50'
L=31.99'
6=24"56'10"
T=16.25'
LOT 25
N 30"36'41" E
10.77'
26
I
I
......
......
"7 N 59"23'19" W
6.21'
N 30"27'01" E
82.73'
-
20 I
I
I
- ~I--I
19 I 18 I 17 I 15 I
I I I I
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCAlI
. I W Consulting Engineers, Inc.
I. Civil Engineering
. Surveying
. land Planning
3544 University Avenue Tel: 951.687.2929
Riverside, CA 92501 Fox: 951.687.2999
Drawing: G: \ 170.004 \Final\Exhibils \CLIENT\RfCORD\PLA T\ Il0004-[XH_fSMTS.dwg
w.a 170.004
BY: F.,.
TRACT NO, 26941 - LOT 24 & 25 DATE: 3/23/04
DRAINAGE ACCESS EASEMENT PLA T SCALE: I" = 100'
IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PACE: 2 OF 2
EXHIBIT
"n"
Last Saved: Fri Aug 06, 2004 - 1:58pm
Last Plotfed: rrj Aug 06, 2004 - 1:59pm
W
I-
.......
(f)
I-
U
W
J
o
0::::
0....
3El\flS
2
~
6-
'0
~
-
::;;
<
a::
<
-
>
<
m
=>
<
a..
P-t
0 <tl
~ ~ w
... -.J
'i, ~ <>:
'" u
(/l E-t Vl
"""" 0
ROAD 0 Z I-
(!)
w """" I-
- U 0
0 z
z !>
<
V1
0
>-
.' -:,---'
ITEM NO. 13
(Previously distributed on 4-6-05)
APPROVAL,~
CITY ATTORNEY 10f'~
DIRECTOR OF FINANC
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
FROM:
City Manager/c;p9iuncil
Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning
TO:
DATE:
April 12, 2005
SUBJECT:
General Plan Update
PREPARED BY:
David Hogan, Principal Planner
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
1. Conduct the Public Hearing on the Draft Land Use, Open Space Conservation, Growth
ManagemenVPublic Facilities, Public Safety, Noise, Air Quality, Community Design, and
Economic Development Elements of the General Plan and the Draft Environmental
Impact Report related to these Elements;
2. Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 05-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF
THE GENERAL PLAN
3. Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 05-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING THE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF
THE GENERAL PLAN
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdalelStaff Report CC2.doc
1
BACKGROUND: The City hired Cotton/Bridges Associates to assist in updating the
General Plan. Since this process began, the Council appointed the Community Advisory
Committee (CAC) to work with the staff and the consultant. The CAC completed its work efforts
in mid-2004. Their recommended Plan was then presented to the City Council and Planning
Commission at a joint workshop on August 10, 2004, where additional direction was provided.
This public review draft of the updated General Plan incorporates the supplemental direction
provided by the Commission and Council at the August 10'h Workshop. The draft updated
General Plan was also presented to the Community Services and Traffic Safety Commissions
for their review and comment. The public review draft of the updated General Plan incorporates
all previous comments on the earlier versions of the document.
Copies of the public hearing draft of the updated General Plan and the Draft Environmental
Impact Report were provided to the Planning Commission in early January, 2005. A copy of the
Final EIR document was provided to the City Council the beginning of this month.
The original City General Plan was adopted in November, 1993. This updated General Plan
continues the overall policy direction identified in the City's original 1993 General Plan. Most of
the changes in the updated Plan represent shifts in format as well as minor text clean-ups. The
most common clean-up items include: the incorporation of changed facts and circumstances, a
more careful delineation of goal and policy statements and implementation measures, and
updating the implementation program for each element. New policy areas include: identification
of rural preservation areas, expansion of the planning area into wine country, and identification
of future mixed use development in some of the City's older commercial and industrial areas.
The updated Plan also incorporates new arterial roadways identified in the recently approved
Riverside County Integrated Plan.
Recent changes to State Planning and Zoning Law that went into effect March 1, 2005 require
local governments to consult with local designated Indian tribes when updates to the General
Plan are considered. To meet this requirement in advance of the Legislatures deadline,
representatives from the City Attorney's Office and the Planning Department meet with
representatives of the Pechanga Band in January of 2005. The result of this meeting is a
recommendation to include two additional policy statements and one new implementation
measure in the Open Space/Conservation Element.
The Planning Commission considered the Circulation Element of the General Plan on February
2, 2005. The other Elements of the General Plan were considered by the Planning Commission
on March 16, 2005.
The Council previously considered the Circulation Element and the circulation-related parts of
the Environmental Impact Report at its March 22, 2005 meeting. The remaining Elements of the
General Plan and the remainder of the Environmental Impact Report will be discussed at this
meeting. A copy of the Planning Commission Resolution recommending that the City Council
approve the General Plan is contained in Attachment No.3. The minutes from the Planning
Commission meetings are contained in Attachment NO.4.
The recommendations presented to the City Council at the March 22 and April 12, 2005
meetings represent the direction provided by the Planning Commission. Some of the
Commission's recommended changes include minor factual updates and corrections. The
changes to each Element will be highlighted in the staff report. The list of recommended
changes to the Public Review Draft of the General Plan are contained in Attachment NO.5.
These include the City Council's modifications to the Circulation Element and the Planning
Commission's recommended changes to the other Elements of the General Plan. Letter
relating to non.circulation issues are contained in Attachment NO.1 0
R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report CC2.doc
2
Land Use Element
The primary changes in the Land Use Element are the inclusion of discussions for Mixed Use
Development, Rural Preservation Areas, and several new land use designations. The Mixed
Use provisions are expected to provide additional opportunities to revitalize some older areas of
the City and to help meet the City's Housing Element goals. Goal 2, Encouraging Mixed Use,
provides the framework for future mixed use projects.
The Rural Preservation discussion is intended to identify areas that need to stay rural to protect
the character and quality of life in the area. Goal 3, Preserving Rural Areas, discusses how
these areas should be protected. The direction provided by the remaining Goals and Policies
remains the same. Much of the southern and eastern Planning Areas are included within Rural
Preservation Areas.
The General Plan Update proposes several new Land Use Designations to respond to changes
in the City and the Planning Area. The new Land Use Designations are as follows:
. The Rural Residential Designation would establish a 5 acre minimum lot size. This new
designation is intended primarily to help maintain lower density development in more rural
areas in and around the City. Much of the eastern Rural Preservation Area is proposed to
receive this designation.
. The Vineyards/Agriculture Designation is intended to identify areas used for agriculture in
the Planning Area. The General Plan currently has no way of designating areas for long
term agricultural use. This new designation is proposed for many areas in the Eastern
and Southern Rural Preservation Area.
. The Tribal Trust Lands Designation is proposed for properties that have been designated
as lands held in trust for the Pechanga Band by the Federal Government. These areas
have important economic and environmental impacts on the City. By identifying them as
Tribal Trust Lands, it is the City's goal to recognize tribal sovereignty while indicating the
City's interest in cooperating with the Pechanga Band in these areas. At this time, all
tribally owned properties are located in the southern portion of the City and Planning Area.
. A Recreation Commercial Overlay for golf courses, resorts, as well as, RV resorts and
campground facilities. This would be used as an overlay on areas designated Open
Space to indicate that non-open space accessory commercial uses are envisioned to
occur in these areas. This change is being suggested because the current Open Space
Designation does not adequately address resort types of open space uses. A good
example of a recreational commercial project is the Temecula Creek Inn. While there are
resort uses within the project, most of the site is used for open space purposes.
Land Use Map
The most significant change to the Land Use Map is the expansion of the Planning Area east
toward Anza Road. This was undertaken in an effort to begin protecting this area from the
encroachment of urban land uses. In conjunction with this, the General Plan identifies several
Rural Preservation Areas. The Eastern and Southern Rural Preservation Areas are located
within this expanded Planning Area. Most of these areas are proposed to be designated as
Vineyard/Agriculture and Rural Residential. An exception to this is along part of Calle Contento
where the existing 2Y2 acre lots would be designated as Very Low Density Residential.
R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Slaff Report CC2.doc
3
Another major change to the Land Use Map is in the French Valley area. Since the initial
adoption of the City General Plan. the County made many land use changes without notifying
the City. As a result. the City General Plan bore little resemblance to the land use pattern being
developed in this area. In modifying the Land Use Map in the French Valley, a great deal of
effort was spent trying to work within the context of the granted entitlements to ensure the
creation of a desirable and livable urban area.
In addition to the proposed Land Use Map and the additional change requests that the City has
received, there is one more possible change to the Land Use Map that could occur later this
year. In 2003, the Corona Family filed a lawsuit against the City over changes that were made
to the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan. At this time, it appears that the City will prevail in this legal
challenge. As a result, when these legal proceedings have concluded, the previously approved
changes to the Land Use Map will be restored to the General Plan Land Use Map. These
changes are not in conflict with the current General Plan proposal. The previously approved
changes are located at the southwest corner of Butterfield Stage and Pauba Roads and off of
Via Campanula near Paloma Del Sol Park.
Land Use Map Chanqe Requests
To date, 18 land use requests have been submitted by various property owners. Fourteen of
these requests were considered by the Community Advisory Committee (CAC). The other four
requests were submitted ailer the CAC completed its recommendation on the updated General
Plan. For the most part, both the Community Advisory Committee and Planning Commission
agreed on the majority of the requests. Both groups recommended approval of four of the
requests and recommended that eight of the requests not be included in the Plan. Among the
non-supported requests are those in the Nicolas Valley area and near the proposed Temecula
Education Project. It was felt that the requests in these areas were premature and should not
be included in the General Plan. In addition, one request was withdrawn and another was
approved by the City Council in January of 2005. A summary of the recommended actions is
shown in the following table. Descriptions and recommendations for each request begin on the
following page.
LAND USE REQUEST - RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY
LAND USE REQUEST RECOMMENDATION
REQUEST NUMBERS
Include on the Land Use Map
Not include on the Land Use Map
Nicolas Valley Deferral
Temecula Education Project Deferral
1.2,3,7,10.17
~ 11, 1~ 1~ 1~ 18
4,5
8,9
Requests in the Nicolas Valley area are being recommended for deferral because of the
uncertainty over the final resolution of the unpaved access issue and the timing of the
Roripaugh Ranch infrastructure improvements. This situation is complicated by a lack of any
community consensus about what this area should be like in the future. As a result, it is felt that
no changes should be made in this area until ailer these other issues are resolved so that the
local residents can better understand what is going on around them.
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report CC2.doc
4
Requests near the Temecula Education Project are also being recommended for deferral
because of the uncertainty over the timing and ultimate outcome of the Education Project. If the
Education Project is highly successful, locating additional non.industrial land uses may be
appropriate. However, until the project is in operation, it will be difficult to accurately evaluate
the appropriateness of these requests. As a result, they have not been incorporated into the
updated General Plan.
Following is a brief discussion of the remaining requests. Location maps for the various
requests are contained in Attachment NO.7.
Request No. 1 is for a five acre sliver of property on the east side of Margarita Road. The
parcel is left over from the construction of the Santa Gertrudis Creek Channel improvements. A
small part of the site is potentially developable. The request to change from Public Institutional
to Professional Office is being recommended by both the CAC and Planning Commission.
Request NO.2 is for 72 acres at the corner of Nicolas Road and Via Lobo. The initial request to
change from Very Low Density to Low Density was not supported by the CAC. However, the
Planning Commission is recommending a split designation with Low Density on the northern
half and Open Space on the southern portion of the site with a requirement for a planned
development overlay.
Request NO.3 is for nine acres at the corner of Margarita Road and Solana Way. The request
to change from Medium Density to a combination of Professional Office and Open Space is
being recommended by both the CAC and Planning Commission. Development on the site is
partially constrained by the stream channel that crosses the site.
Request NO.4 is for a 22 acre site between Butterfield Stage Road and Walcott Lane. The site
is located in the Nicolas Valley area. The request to change from Very Low Density to Low
Density (half.acre lots) was not supported.
Request No.5 is for an 18 acre site on the south side of Nicolas Road between Calle Medusa
and Calle Girasol. The site is located in the Nicolas Valley area. The request to change from
Very Low Density to Low Medium Density was not supported.
Request No.6 is for a narrow seven acre site south of Temecula Creek Village. The request is
to change from Open Space to something developable. The request was not supported by the
CAC and Planning Commission. However, the Commission supported the concept of
incorporating the property into the Temecula Creek Village project for an appropriate open
space use.
Request No. 7 is for a 45 acre site on the north side of Loma Linda Road. The request is to
change from Professional Office to a combination of Low Medium Density and Medium Density.
The Low Medium Density designation would be on the eastern portion of the site adjacent to the
existing single family homes. A project has been submitted to the City consistent with this
concept. The project incorporates 20% affordable units for moderate incomes on the part of the
site designated for Medium Density. The request was supported by the Community Advisory
Committee. However the Planning Commission is recommending only Low Medium Density.
Request NO.8 is for a 52 acre site west of the Temecula Education Project. The request is to
change from Industrial Park to a combination of Community Commercial, Medium Density and
High Density. This request near the Education Project is recommended for deferral and is not
supported by the CAC and the Planning Commission.
R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Updale\Staff Report CC2.doc
5
Request No.9 is for a 32 acre site southwest of the Temecula Education Project. The request
is to change from Industrial Park to either Medium Density or High Density. This request near
the Education Project is recommended for deferral and is not supported by the CAC and the
Pianning Commission.
Request No.1 0 is for an 18 acre site on the west side of Butterfield Stage Road. The request is
to change from Very Low Density to a combination of Low Density and Low Medium Density.
The site is located within the Margarita Village Specific Plan. The density identified in the
Specific Plan for this area is actually Low Density Residential. The request is supported by both
the CAC and Planning Commission.
Request No. 11 is for three acres at the northwest corner of Margarita and Dartolo Roads. The
request to change from Professional Office to Community Commercial was not supported by the
CAC and Planning Commission.
Request No. 12 was supported by the Community Advisory Committee and the Planning
Commission and approved by the City Council in 2004.
Request No. 13 is for the 305 acre Temecula Creek Inn property. The current designation on
the site is Open Space with a Recreational Commercial Overlay. The request was to add Low
Medium Density Residential and to specify a future specific plan overly containing single.family
residential units. Neither the Community Advisory Committee nor the Planning Commission
supported the request for some Low Medium Density Residential on some of their property.
However, the Planning Commission did approve a small part of their request by including the
area of Temecula Creek Inn as a future specific plan overlay area for any non resort-related
uses. The Commission also recommended that an additional General Plan Amendment not be
required for these non-resort uses.
Request No. 14 is for a two acre site at the north east corner of Highway 79 South and Jedediah
Smith Road. The request to change from Very Low Density to Professional Office was not
supported by the CAC and Planning Commission.
The following requests were submitted after the CAC provided its recommendation to the
Planning Commission and City Council.
Request No. 15 was withdrawn by the applicant from consideration.
Request No. 16 is a request to change a six-acre site on the east side of Winchester Road at
Rustic Glen from Neighborhood Commercial to Professional Office. According to the owner's
representative, the purpose of this request is to develop a senior housing project. While the
Commission supported the concept of a senior housing project, they were unwilling to
recommend approval of the request without a specific project to consider.
Request No. 17 is for a 3 acre site located at the southeast corner of Ynez Road and Tierra
Vista. The request is to change the Land Use Designation from Professional Office to High
Density Residential. However, the Planning Commission is recommending Medium Density.
Request No. 18 is for a two acre site on Pauba Road west of the two Neighborhood Commercial
properties. The request is to change from Very Low Density to Neighborhood Commercial and
remove the property from the Chaparral Area. The Planning Commission did not support this
request.
R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report CC2.doc
6
The draft General Plan Land Use Map Incorporates Request Nos. 1, 3, 7, and 10. The
additional list of changes to the General Plan based upon the Planning Commission's
deliberations includes Request Nos. 2 and 17, as well as the modifications to Request Nos. 7
and 10. An action summary for each request is contained in Attachment No.6. Copies of all
the land use request correspondence is included in Attachment NO.8.
Other Recommended Chanqes
In addition to the previously discussed changes to the Land Use Designations and the Land Use
Map, the following additional changes are also proposed to the Land Use Element.
. Adjusting the allowable development potential in the Vineyard/Agriculture Designation to
0.0 to 0.2 dwelling units/acre and deleting a sentence from the Designation description.
. Modify the description of Recreational Commercial to include time share (fractional
ownership) units.
. Incorporating the Airport Compatibility Plan for French Valley Airport into the Element.
. Remove the area between Temecula Creek and Highway 79-South from Rural
Preservation Area NO.3.
. Remove the property for Land Use Request No. 2 from the Nicolas Valley Rural
Preservation Area.
. Identify Bureau of Land Management (BLM) ownership areas.
Open Space and Conservation Element
No major policy changes are proposed within the Open Space and Conservation Element. In
addition to the previously discussed changes on the historic sites and buildings, the following
additional changes are also being proposed:
. Two additional policy statements and an additional implementation measure addressing
the concerns of the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians.
. Providing updated information on Williamson Act agricultural preserves in the Planning
Area and MTBE contamination from an existing service station.
Growth Management/Public Facilities Element
The only policy change is the addition of a statement discouraging street closures that may limit
or delay access to emergency services. In addition to the previously discussed changes on the
historic sites and buildings, the following additional minor changes are also being proposed:
. Updating information on the water services provided by Rancho California Water District.
. Updating information from the Temecula Valley Unified School District on school
enrollment and the timing and location of new schools.
R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report CC2.doc
7
Public Safety Element
No major policy changes are proposed within the Public Safety Element. However, there are
some minor changes being proposed to the Element.
. Updating information on State geologic hazard programs.
. Incorporating additional information on the Temecula Citizen's Corps.
. Adding a policy statement discouraging the closure of streets when emergency response
and public safety is adversely affected.
Noise Element
The Noise Element updates noise contours and sources in the General Plan. There are no
major policy changes are proposed within the Element and no additional corrections are being
proposed.
Air Quality Element
The Air Quality Element updates information on air quality programs and issues in the General
Plan. There are no major policy changes proposed within the Element and no additional
corrections being proposed.
Community Design Element
The Community Design Element adds no major policy changes. The Element incorporates the
Mixed Use Design Concept, public spaces, public art and the interim Chaparral Area policies
that were adopted by the City Council in 2004.
Economic Development Element
The Economic Development Element updates information on local programs in the General
Plan. There are no major policy changes proposed within the Element and no additional
corrections being proposed.
Housing Element
The Housing Element is not being updated as part of this program. The current schedule for the
next update of the Housing Element is expected to begin in 2006 or 2007. The current
approved Housing Element will be incorporated into the final General Plan after it is adopted by
the City Council.
Airport Land Use Commission
Since the March 22, 2005 City Council hearing on the General Plan, staff has received
preliminary comments from the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) about the proposed
General Plan. City staff has worked with the ALUC staff and have identified the need to
incorporate additional implementation-related information to address the ALUC's concerns.
These additional changes address the requirements of the Airport Compatibility Plan and are
contained in Attachment No.9. The changes are consistent with the other policy statements
and implementation measures in the General Plan.
R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report CC2.doc
8
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: As part of the process of updating the General
Plan, an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared. The Notice of Preparation was
prepared and distributed on June 6, 2003 and a public scoping meeting was held on June 25,
2003. Responses on the scope of the EIR were received from the South Coast Air Quality
Management District, Riverside County Transportation Department, Riverside Transit Agency,
Airport Land Use Commission, Caltrans - Aviation Division, Department of Fish and Game,
Metropolitan Water District, Rancho California Water District, the City of Murrieta, and the
Southern California Association of Governments. A public scoping meeting was also held on
June 25, 2003.
Based upon this feedback a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared for the
project which evaluated the following subjects: aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality,
biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials,
hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public
services, recreational resources, transportation, and utilities and public services.
The analysis in the DEIR indicated that adoption and implementation of the General Plan
update will result in unavoidable significant impacts with regard to air quality and transportation.
As a result, the Certification of the Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan will require
the adoption of a Statement of Over-Riding Considerations (SOC) by the City Council. A SOC
was also adopted when the EIR for the original General Plan was certified in 1993.
The implementation of mitigation measures specified in the DEIR are expected to reduce the
potentially significant impacts to aesthetics, agricultural resources, biological resources, cultural
resources, geology/soils, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, public
services and recreation, and utilities and service systems to a less than significant level. The
mitigation measures are included in the Implementation Measures identified within the General
Plan. In all other areas of environmental concern, the project was found to result in either no
impact or a less than significant impact.
The DEIR was made available for public review and comment between December 17, 2004 and
March 12, 2005. Comments were received from the State Clearinghouse, Caltrans - Aviation
Division, Rancho California Water District, the Southern California Association Governments,
Riverside Transit Agency, San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, Eastern Municipal
Water District, Metropolitan Water District, Bureau of Land Management, Riverside County
Flood Control District, Riverside County Planning Department, Riverside County Transportation
Department, the Native American Heritage Commission, State Clearinghouse, Temecula Valley
Unified School District, and the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians. Copies of these letters and
the City's response to their comments were included in the packet for the March 22, 2005
meeting and are also included in Attachment No. 11.
The Responses to Comments are also included in the Final Environmental Impact Report for
the General Plan. A copy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report was provided to the City
Council under separate cover in January, 2005 and a copy of the Final Environmental Impact
Report was provided under separate cover on April 1 , 2005.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The adoption of the General Plan will have no fiscal impacts.
R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report CC2.doc
9
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution Certifying the EIR
2. Resolution approving the General Plan
3. PC Resolution No. 2005-014
4. Planning Commission Minutes
5. Change Addendum for General Plan Document
6. Action Summary of Land Use Map Requests
7. Location Maps for Land Use Map Requests
8. Land Use Request Letters
9. Additional Airport-Related Changes
10. Non-Circulation General Pian Comment Letters
11. Response to Comments
R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report CC2.doc
10
ATTACHMENT NO.1
RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report CC2.doc
11
ATTACHMENT NO.1
RESOLUTION NO. 01 -_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE
TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND RELATED
ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE 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 TEMECULA GENERAL
PLAN UPDATE
Statement of Findings of Fact
Pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15091
for the Temecula General Plan Update
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula General Plan Update and related actions ("General
Plan Update") have been initiated and prepared on behalf of the City of Temecula. The project
proposes the adoption and implementation of the City of Temecula General Plan Update. The
General Plan Update addresses the seven State mandated general plan elements (land use,
housing, circulation, safety, open space, conservation, and noise), as well as other issues that
are important to the community, including growth management, economic development, air
quality, and community design. The Housing Element was recently updated in 2002 and thus
has not been updated as part of the project. The updated General Plan establishes an overall
development capacity for the City and surrounding areas, and serves as a policy guide for
determining the appropriate physical development and character of the City for the nex1 20
years. The Land Use Element establishes land use designations to identify the types and
nature of future development permitted throughout the Planning Area. The Circulation Element
describes how Temecula residents and employees get around using automobiles, public transit,
bicycles, airplanes, sidewalks and trails, and railways. In addition, it presents the City's plan for
future roadways that provide adequate capacity to accommodate travel needs resulting from
development pursuant to the Land Use Element. All of the elements combined establish a
vision for the City, emphasizing a family-focused lifestyle and a strong local business community
that includes agricultural, technological, and manufacturing industries, with the overarching goal
of maintaining Temecula as a vibrant, attractive, and enjoyable place.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the City is
the lead agency for the General Plan as the public agency with both general governmental
powers and the principle responsibility for implementing the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
("Draft EIR or Draft PEIR") was issued on June 6, 2003, and a public scoping meeting was held
on June 25, 2003, inviting comments from responsible agencies, other regulatory agencies,
organizations, and individuals pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15082; and
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update April 4. 2005
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 PEIR; and
WHEREAS, a Draft PEIR was prepared by the City pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines
section 15168 to analyze potential adverse environmental impacts of General Plan
implementation pursuant to CEQA; and
WHEREAS, upon completion of the Draft PEIR dated December 17, 2004, the City
initiated a 45-day public comment period between December 17, 2004 and January 31,2005 by
filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research in December 17,
2004; and
WHEREAS, the City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft PEIR in a
newspaper of general circulation. Copies of the Draft PEIR were sent to public agencies,
organizations, and individuals. In addition, the City placed copies of the Draft PEIR 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 seventeen written comments, all of which were responded to by the City. Those
comments and the responses are included as part of the Final Program Environmental Impact
Report/Response to Comments document ("Final Program EIR, Final PEIR, or PEIR"); and
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Committee held meetings on January 7, 2002,
January 28, 2002, February 25, 2002, April 01, 2002, May 6, 2002, May 15, 2002, May 30,
2002, April 29, 2003, May 20, 2003, June 11, 2003, March 1, 2004, April 26, 2004, May 3, 2004,
and July 6, 2004 to consider the current General Plan and to recommend appropriate changes
to the Planning Commission and City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council and Planning Commission held a joint workshop to
consider the recommendation of the Community Advisory Committee on August 10, 2004 and
provided a number of comments and suggestions on the recommended General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Community Services Commission met to consider and provide
comments on the proposed General Plan on September 13, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Traffic Safety Commission met to consider and provide comments on
the proposed General Plan on September 28,2004 and January 27,2005; and
WHEREAS, the City held community meetings on December 26, 2001, January 12,
2002, April 4, 2002, and November 4, 2004 to solicit input, comments, and concerns from
members of the community; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, on March 22, 2005,
the City provided its responses to all persons, organizations, and agencies who commented on
the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines prevents the City from
approving or carrying out a project for which an PEIR has been completed that identifies any
significant environmental effects unless the City makes one or more of the following written
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
2
finding(s) for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the
rationale for each finding:
(1) 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
(2) 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
(3) 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 General
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 PEIR which the Planning
Commission finds are less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in
Section 2 hereof; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final PEIR as potentially significant,
but which the Planning Commission finds can be mitigated to a less than significant level
through the imposition of mitigation measures and/or conditions identified in the Final PEIR and
General Plan and set forth herein are described in Section 3 hereof; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final PEIR as potentially significant
but which the Planning Commission finds cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant
level despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures described in Section 4 hereof;
and
WHEREAS, alternatives to the General Plan that might eliminate or reduce significant
environmental impacts are described in Section 5 hereof; and
WHEREAS, a discussion of General 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 6 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 Planning Commission has heard, been presented
with, reviewed, and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, and
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
3
all oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings. The Final PEIR
reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission and is deemed adequate for
purposes of making decisions on the merits of the General Plan and related 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 PEIR under
CEQA, nor do the minor modifications to the Final PEIR require additional public review
because no new significant environmental impacts were identified, no substantial increase in the
severity of any environmental impacts would occur.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby determines the
following:
Section 1. Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula determined that based
on all of the evidence presented, including the Final EIR, written and oral testimony given at
meetings and hearings, and submission of testimony from the public, organizations, and
regulatory agencies, the environmental impacts associated with the adoption and long-term
implementation of the Temecula General Plan Update will have a less than significant impact
with regard to the following, as evidenced through the analysis presented in the Initial Study
contained in Appendix A of the Final EIR:
A. Aesthetics - Scenic resources and vistas; visual character
To preserve public views of significant natural resources, all new public and private
development projects will be reviewed to ensure that they will not obstruct public views
of scenic resources, such as the hillsides, scenic roads, or significant open space areas.
During the review of individual projects, the Community Development Department may
require site redesign or place height limits on projects that have the potential to block
views. New projects will also be reviewed to ensure that the proposed landscaping and
tree planting will not obstruct views of significant natural resources. Implementation of
the identified policies through this review process will ensure that impact will be less than
significant on a project-by-project basis (Initial Study, p. 10).
B. Agricultural Resources - Williamson Act contracts
No Williamson Act contracts are in effect within the Planning Area (Initial Study, p. 11).
C. Air Quality - Compliance with regional plans; odors
The Air Quality Element of the General Plan addresses compliance with the current Air
Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin. The Air Quality Element is
designed to ensure City land use decisions work to implement and comply with federal,
State, and local regulations pertaining to air quality. No conflict with the regional air
quality plan will result, and no adverse impact will occur (Initial Study, p. 12).
Development anticipated to occur pursuant to the General Plan will be predominantly
residential and commercial uses consisting of retail stores, offices, and business parks.
Each new development will be required to comply with the South Coast Air Quality
Management District's guidelines regarding odor control. Compliance with these
existing regulations will ensure that impact will be less than significant (Initial Study, p.
12).
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
4
D. Biological Resources - Conflict with policies, ordinances, or plans
All new development will comply with City policies and ordinances protecting biological
resources, including tree preservation policies. The updated General Plan provides
policies and implementation programs that fully support adopted habitat conservation
plans. No impact will result (Initial Study, p. 13).
E. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Businesses and operations involving the use, transport, or disposal of hazardous
materials will only proceed in strict compliance with federal, State, and local hazardous
materials regulations. The General Plan maintains the goal of protecting '1he public and
environmental resources from hazards related to hazard materials and waste, and
nuclear power production" (Goal 2, Public Safety Element). Four policies are included to
carry out this goal. Implementation of these policies, together with compliance with
existing regulations, will result in a less than significant impact.
No sites in Temecula are included on the Department of Toxic Substances Control
Hazardous Waste and Substance List, known as the Cortese List (Initial Study, p.17).
Temecula has adopted a Multi-Hazard Functional Plan to ensure the effective
management of City personnel and resources in responding to emergency situations
stemming from natural disasters, technological incidents, and nuclear defense
emergencies. Implementation of the Public Safety Element policies, along with the
continued implementation of the City's Multi-Hazard Functional Plan, will ensure a less
than significant impact with regard to emergency preparedness (Initial Study, p.18).
F. Hydrology and Water Quality - Water quality; 1 OO-year flood hazard
All new development will be required to comply with existing water quality standards and
waste discharge regulations set forth by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San
Diego region. Impact will be less than significant.
Each new development will be required to comply with stormwater regulations set forth
by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego region, including NPDES
regulations. Compliance with existing regulations on a project-by-project basis will
reduce potential impact to a less than significant level (Initial Study, p. 19).
The City participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which makes
flood insurance available to affected property owners within a 100-year floodplain. The
City also reviews development plans for projects within floodplains to ensure compliance
with City and FEMA floodplain development requirements. No development of any kind
will be allowed in the floodway portion of a 100-year floodplain. Implementation of these
measures, which represent standard City practice, will reduce the risk from flooding to a
less than significant level.
The Planning Area is not subject to tsunamis due to its inland location. Seiches have
not historically occurred within the Planning Area (Initial Study, p. 20).
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
5
G. Land Use and Planning - Divide community; conflict with habitat conservation
plans
The majority of undeveloped land within the Planning Area is located north of the
Temecula corporate city limits, in the sphere of influence. No physical division would
result from development pursuant to the General Plan (Initial Study, p. 21).
Temecula is located within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (MSHCP) planning area. In response to the provisions of the
MSHCP, the General Plan Open Space/Conservation Element includes the goal of
"conservation of important biological habitats and protection of plant and animal species
of concern, wildlife movement corridors, and general biodiversity' (Goal 3, Open
Space/Conservation Element). This goal is supported by the policy to "coordinate with
the County of Riverside and other relevant agencies in the implementation of the
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan" (Policy 3.3,
Open Space/Conservation Element). The General Plan supports applicable habitat
conservation plans, and no impact will result (Initial Study, p.21).
H. Mineral Resources
According to the California Geological Survey, no known mineral resources exist in
Temecula. Development pursuant to the General Plan will not result in the loss of a
known mineral resource (Initial Study, p. 22).
I. Population and Housing - Displacement of people or housing
The General Plan will allow the development of a variety of uses on currently
undeveloped land. However, this new development will not displace substantial
numbers of housing units or people. No impact will result (Initial Study, p. 24).
J. Transportation - Air traffic patterns; hazardous design features; emergency
access; parking; plans for alternative modes of transportation
The French Valley Airport is located within Temecula's sphere of influence. Growth
pursuant to the General Plan is not anticipated to change air traffic patterns. The County
is planning to update the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for French Valley Airport in
response to additional region-wide demand for airport services; as part of this process,
the impacts of potential increased airport use will be subsequently analyzed. Impact will
be less than significant.
The Circulation Element addresses the importance of compatibility between design
issues and land use compatibility. However, new development is expected to result in
additional roadways. All new roadways will be built in accordance with all requisite City
and County design requirements. No significant impact will result.
The City has a Multi-Hazard Functional Plan in place. In addition, the Public Safety
Element calls for regular reviews by the City to assess response times and incorporate
newly developed areas to ensure adequate fire and police protection. Impact will be less
than significant.
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
6
All new development pursuant to the General Plan will provide parking in compliance
with City standards for the particular use. No significant impact will result.
One of the key components of the Circulation Element is to promote the use of
alternative transportation modes, including bicycling and walking. Public bus service is
provided by the Riverside Transit Agency. The City is committed to ensuring that public
transportation becomes a viable alternative to the automobile for residents. The
Circulation Element also emphasizes the network of Multi-Use Trails planned for in the
City's Multi-Use Trails Master Plan. Impact will be less than significant (Initial Study,
p.27).
K. Utilities and Service Systems - Wastewater treatment requirements; solid waste
The General Plan will not result in development of any use that could exceed
established treatment standards. All new development will be required to comply with
existing wastewater treatment requirements set forth by the Regional Water Quality
Control Board, San Diego region. Impact will be less than significant.
Each development approved pursuant to General Plan policy will be required to comply
with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to the disposal of solid
waste. No adverse impact will result (Initial Study, p. 28).
Section 2. Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula determined that based
on all of the evidence presented, including the Final EIR, written and oral testimony given at
meetings and hearings, and submission of testimony from the public, organizations, and
regulatory agencies, the environmental impacts associated with the adoption and
implementation of the Temecula General Plan Update will result in a less than significant impact
with regard to the following issues, as identified through the analysis presented in the PEIR;
therefore, no mitigation measure is required:
A. Air Quality - Carbon monoxide hotspots
The CALlNE-4 analysis shows that while all study intersections will experience some
level of carbon monoxide (CO) concentration, ranging from 0.1 parts per million (ppm) to
1.5 ppm during the 1-hour period, no intersections are anticipated to exceed South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds for the 1-hour standard.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed General Plan will not result in a significant
impact with regard to CO hot spots (pEIR, p. 5.3-11).
B. Geology and Soils - Seismic groundshaking
The City requires geological and geotechnical investigations on properties where new
development is proposed and seismic and geologic hazards are of concern.
Liquefaction assessment studies are also required in areas identified as susceptible to
liquefaction. Compliance with General Plan Safety Element goals and policies and
implementation of existing regulations will ensure that impacts can be avoided. Impact
will be less than significant through the application of these policies and continued
standard permit review and building practices (pEIR, p. 5.6-6).
Statement of Findings of Fact
T emecula General Plan Update
7
C. Hazards and Hazardous Materials - Hazardous materials; flood hazards; airport
proximity; wildland fire hazards
In accordance with City, State, and federal requirements, any new development that
involves contaminated property will necessitate the clean up and/or remediation of the
property in accordance with all applicable federal, State, and local requirements and
regulations. No construction will be permitted to occur at potentially contaminated sites
until a "no further action" or similar determination has been issued by the City's Fire
Department, State Department of Toxic Substances Control, State Regional Water
Quality Control Board, and/or other responsible agency. Compliance with existing
regulations will ensure a level of safety to current standards, and impact will be less than
significant (pEIR, p. 5.7-6).
The City will continue to enforce disclosure laws that require all users, producers, and
transporters of hazardous materials and wastes to clearly identify the materials that they
store, use, or transport, and to notify the appropriate City, county, State, and federal
agencies in the event of a vioiation. Compliance with existing regulations will ensure a
less than significant impact (pEIR, p. 5.7-6).
Currently, the City participates in the National Flood Insurance Program, enforces
Development Code (Title 17 of the Municipal Code) regulations regarding development
in the floodplain and floodway, and maintains a dam inundation evacuation plan.
Compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations and plans, including the
City's Multi-Hazard Functional Plan, will result in a less than significant impact (pEIR, p.
5.7-7).
All land use development entitlements within the area of influence must be approved by
the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission; must be consistent with the French
Valley Airport ALUCP to protect the public health, safety, and welfare; must ensure
continued orderly use of the airport; and must prevent the creation of new noise and
safety problems. Compliance with the ALUCP, which is supported by numerous policies
within the proposed General Plan, will ensure a less than significant impact (pEIR, p.
5.7-7).
The General Plan Public Safety Element includes policies and implementation programs
that direct the City to reduce the potential for dangerous fires by concentrating
development in previously developed areas where the risk of wildland fire is lower; to
protect hillside areas from expansion of the urban-wildland interface; to encourage
residents to plant and maintain drought-resistant, fire-retardant landscape species on
slopes to reduce the risk of brush fire and soil erosion; and to work with the Fire
Department to control hazardous vegetation. Stringent application of these policies will
reduce impact to a less than significant level (pEIR, p. 5.7-7 and 5.7-8).
D. Hydrology and Water Quality - Groundwater
Per the 1940 Stipulated Judgment in Santa Margarita v. Vail, the water master
determines the safe annual yield based on annual audits of the groundwater basin,
including how much water was withdrawn from and recharged to the aquifer. Water
service providers must purchase imported water or utilize recycled water supplies based
on the water master's yearly determination. Compliance with these existing agreements
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
8
will ensure a less than significant impact on groundwater resources (pEIR, p. 5.8-4 and
5.8-5).
E. Land Use and Planning
The Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) prepared by the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG) contains policies applicable to the
General Plan. In particular, the General Plan was compared to the SCAG growth
management, Regional Transportation Plan, Air Quality Chapter Core Actions, and the
Open Space Chapter Ancillary Policies described in the RCPG. The General Plan is
consistent with the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide administered by SCAG.
Impact is less than significant (pEIR, p. 5.9-23).
In compliance with California Water Code Sections 10910-10915, all future development
projects pursuant to the proposed General Plan that meet criteria specified in the law are
required to determine whether projected water supplies available during normal, single-
dry, and multiple-dry water years will be sufficient to satisfy demands of the proposed
project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. No major development project
will be permitted to proceed unless required determinations can be made. Compliance
with existing regulations will minimize the potential for impact (pEIR, p. 5.9-23).
F. Noise
The General Plan Noise Element includes goals and policies that direct the City to
comply with the French Valley ALUCP. Ongoing compliance with the ALUCP and
implementation of General Plan policy will ensure a less than significant impact (pEIR, p.
5.10-14).
G. Population and Housing
Given historical growth patterns and growth management policies contained within the
General Plan, implementation of the General Plan will not substantially increase
population beyond that already projected to occur within the Planning Area.
Furthermore, as described in Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning of the EIR, the
General Plan is consistent with SCAG's growth management policies. Impact will be
less than significant (pEIR, p. 5.11-3).
H. Public Services - Schools
Payment of alternative school fees will be used to offset the cost to the Temecula Valley
Unified School District (TVUSD) of providing education facilities to future students. The
environmental effects of expansion, construction, and operation of additional school
facilities will be evaluated by TVUSD in its efforts to plan for construction of new schools
or expansion of existing facilities. SB 50 states that for CEQA purposes, payment of
fees to the affected school district reduces school facility impacts to a less than
significant level (pEIR, p. 5.12-8).
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
9
I. Transportation/Traffic - Specified Intersections
The intersection of Old Town Front Street and Rancho California Road currently
operates at a deficient LOS E condition. This intersection will continue to operate at
LOS E in 2025, although implementation of the General Plan is anticipated to improve
the operation of the intersection from 0.96 ICU in 2002 to 0.91 ICU by year 2025. The
project does not create a new LOS E condition at this intersection nor worsen its
operation to LOS F. Impact to Old Town Front Street at Rancho California Road is
therefore less than significant.
The SR-79 northbound on-ramp, Winchester Road southbound off-ramp, and Rancho
California Road southbound off-ramp all currently operate at a deficient LOS F condition.
These ramps will continue to operate at LOS F in 2025. Long-range implementation of
the General Plan does not create a new LOS F condition at these ramps. Impact to
these ramps is therefore less than significant.
J. Utilities and Service Systems - Wastewater and Stormwater Drainage
Proposed General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs address the
impact on City storm drain facilities. Implementation Program GM-9 directs the City to
maintain an effective, safe, and environmentally compatible flood control system.
Compliance with existing regulations and General Plan Implementation Program GM-9
will ensure a less than significant impact (pEIR, p. 5.14-7).
K. Cumulative Impacts - Wildland Fire, Hydrology, and Noise
Regional jurisdictions that rely upon the Riverside County Fire Department for service
will be subject to similar wildland fire hazards requirements as the City of Temecula.
Compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations and plans regarding
hazardous materials, flooding, and wildland fire will result in a less than significant
cumulative impact (pEIR, p. 7-6).
Water service providers must purchase imported water or utilize recycled water supplies
based on the water master's yearly determination. Compliance with these existing
agreements will ensure a less than significant impact on water supply.
Increased development throughout region, especially on currently undeveloped lots, will
increase the amount of impervious surfaces, thereby increasing the amount and speed
of runoff, which may impact water quality. Developers of new projects are required to
provide on-site drainage and pay area drainage fees. Compliance with existing
regulations, including NPDES regulations applicable to construction activities and larger
developments, will ensure a less than significant cumulative water quality impact (pEIR,
p. 7-6 and 7-7).
Implementation of City and County noise ordinances, construction of buildings according
to State acoustical standards, and implementation of the Land Use Plan that has been
designed to avoid land/use noise compatibility conflicts will ensure cumulative noise
impacts will be less than significant (pEIR, p. 7-7).
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
10
Proposed General Plan Land Use Element policies and programs are designed to
accommodate City and regional population growth forecast to occur within the Planning
Area through the year 2025. Given historical growth patterns and the growth
management policies contained in the proposed General Plan, implementation of the
Plan will not substantially increase population beyond that already projected to occur
within the Planning Area. The proposed General Plan will not contribute to significant
cumulative population and housing impacts (pEIR, p. 7-7).
New development throughout the region must comply with the Rancho California Water
District's and/or Eastern Municipal Water District's water and sewer service master
plans. Fees will be paid as required to fund infrastructure and thus avoid cumulative
impact.
All jurisdictions within the region will be required to continue to reduce waste generation
and divert materials from regional landfills. Compliance with existing local, county, and
State regulations will ensure a less than significant cumulative impact (pEIR, p. 7-8).
Section 3. The City Council hereby finds that mitigation measures contained in the
PEIR have been incorporated into the Temecula General Plan Update, and that such measures
avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts identified
in the General Plan Update PEIR to a less than significant level. The potentially significant
project impacts and the mitigation measures that have been adopted to mitigate the impacts to
a less than significant level are as follows:
A. Aesthetics / Light and Glare
1. Potential Significant Impact
Light levels within the Planning Area will increase as new housing units and commercial,
industrial, and institutional projects are developed pursuant to the General Plan. New
structures could create glare effects if they incorporate reflective building materials.
Depending upon the location and scope of individual development projects, the impact
on surrounding uses could be significant (pEIR 5.1-3).
The General Plan acknowledges the importance of the Palomar Observatory through
policies that continue the City's participation in Palomar Observatory's dark sky
conservation requirements. If future development pursuant to the General Plan
increases the amount of nighttime lighting within the Planning Area, effectiveness of
Palomar Observatory may be reduced. A potential exists for a significant aesthetic
impact if the project results in substantial light and glare (PEIR 5.1-3).
2. Findings
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 PEIR. Implementation of the following mitigation measure will reduce potential
aesthetic impacts to a less than significant level:
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
11
a. The City will ensure that new development projects comply with
the City Light Pollution Control Ordinance when building plans are submitted for permits
and when projects are field-inspected (General Plan Implementation Program OS-31
and PEIR 5.1-4).
3. Supporting Explanation
General Plan policies state that the City will work with the County of Riverside and
California Institute of Technology to ensure preservation procedures for dark skies are
implemented within the City's development review process (pEIR, p. 5.1-3). Future
development pursuant to the General Plan shall comply with all applicable codes and
standards, including the California Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, etc. Compliance
with the City's standards shall assure safe utilization of the facilities at night by the
public.
With implementation of the above mitigation measure, no significant impact related to
aesthetics and light and glare are anticipated (pEIR, p. 5.1-4).
B. Agricultural Resources
1. Potential Significant Impact
Future development within the Planning Area pursuant to the land use policies of the
updated General Plan may result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, and Farmland of State and Local Importance to non-agricultural use. Of the
areas currently identified as Vineyard/Agriculture, approximately four acres may be
converted to Rural Residential uses as a result of adoption and implementation of the
General Plan. This represents approximately 0.01 percent (one one-hundredth of one
percent) of the land currently in agricultural use (pEIR, p. 5.2-5).
2. Findings
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 PEIR. Implementation of the following mitigation measure will reduce potential
agricultural resources impacts to a less than significant level:
a. The City will preserve agricultural lands by:
. Developing effective zoning regulations or other land use
mechanisms that control the expansion of intensive non-
agricultural development onto productive or potentially productive
agricultural lands.
. Recognizing existing agriculture preserve contracts and promoting
additional preservation contracts for prime agriculture land.
(General Plan Implementation Program OS-28, PEIR, p. 5.2-5)
Statement of Findings of Fact 12
Temecula General Plan Update
3. Supporting Explanation
The proposed project may result in the conversion of four acres of land designated as
Vineyard/Agriculture to Rural Residential uses. This represents approximately 0.01
percent (one one-hundredth of one percent) of the land currently in agricultural use
within the Planning Area. With regard to areas designated for agricultural use, parallel
zoning designations will protect such uses. The City recognizes the importance of
agriculture and viticulture in particular to the local economy and tourism base.
C. Biological Resources
1. Potential Significant Impacts
Impacts to Reqional Sensitive Habitats
Development pursuant to implementation and adoption of the General Plan will result in
adverse significant impacts if such development results in the modification or removal of
regional sensitive habitats within the Planning Area, including:
. Coastal Sage Scrub/Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub
. Vernal Pools/Riparian Scrub, Woodland, and Forest/Open Water,
Reservoir, Pond
. Coast Live Oak Woodland
. Raptor Foraging/Wintering Habitat
Impacts to non-native grassland and agricultural land will be significant if the habitat is
determined to provide high wildlife value for raptor wintering and foraging, or to support
federally or State listed, endangered, or threatened species (pEIR, p. 5.4-16).
Impacts to Desiqnated Critical Habitat
The Temecula Planning Area encompasses designated critical habitat for the California
gnatcatcher and Quino checkerspot butterfly, as determined by United States Fish and
Wildlife Service. Critical habitat is primarily located in the northern portion of the
Planning Area in French Valley designated for low-medium residential development
(pEIR, p. 5.4-16).
Impacts to MSHCP Conservation Area/Core Linkaqes
The Planning Area encompasses four MSHCP conservation areas and core linkages.
Portions of MSHCP conservation areas within French Valley (subunit 5), Pauba Valley
(subunit 2), and Temecula Valley (subunits 1 and 6) will incur permanent, indirect
impacts from development-associated increases in the amount of fragmented habitat,
artificial nighttime illumination, and human intrusion into natural habitats. In addition,
impacts to chaparral will be significant if the habitat is located within a MSHCP
conservation, core, or linkage area (e.g., Pauba Valley or Temecula Valley). The
General Plan provides for development in these areas; at a Plan level, impact may be
significant (pEIR, p. 5.4-17).
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
13
Rare. Threatened. Endanqered and Sensitive Species
Development associated with implementation of the General Plan will result in
permanent indirect impacts to sensitive flora and fauna species present within the
Planning Area where development encroaches into habitat or directly affects the
following species:
. Munz's onion . Quino checkerspot butterfly
. San Diego ambrosia . Arroyo toad
. Nevin's barberry . Southwester willow flycatcher
. Vail Lake ceanothus . American peregrine falcon
. Slender-horned spineflower . Bald eagle
. San Diego button-celery . Coastal California gnatchatcher
. Spreading navarretia . Least bell's vireo
. California orcutt grass . Stephen's kangaroo rat
. San Miguel savory
Impacts to federally and State-listed, rare, endangered, and threatened species will be
significant and adverse. Mitigation measures are required to reduce adverse impacts to
a less than significant level.
Impacts to lower-sensitivity species will be significant if it is determined that proposed
future development will substantially reduce the species' population stability or conflict
with the MSCHP conditions of coverage. Mitigation measures are required to provide
further environmental review of individual future development projects (Draft EIR, p. 5.4-
17).
2. Findings
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 PEIR. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential
biological resources impact to a less than significant level:
a. The City shall require development proposals in all areas inside or
adjacent to sensitive habitat areas, designated critical habitat, and MSCHP
conservation areas and core linkages as defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the California Department of Fish and Game and the Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan, to provide detailed biological assessments to
determine the potentially significant impacts of the project and mitigate significant
impacts to a level below significance (General Plan Implementation Program OS-
9, PEIR, p. 5.4-17).
b. The City shall require the establishment of open space areas that
contain significant water courses, wildlife corridors, and habitats for rare or
endangered plant and animal species, with first priority given to the core linkage
areas identified in the MSHCP (General Plan Implementation Program OS-10,
PEIR, p. 5.4-17).
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
14
c. The City shall require appropriate resource protection measures to
be prepared in conjunction with specific plans and subsequent development
proposals. Such requirements may include the preparation of a Vegetation
Management Program that addresses landscape maintenance, fuel modification
zones, management of passive open space areas, provision of corridor
connections for wildlife movement, conservation of water courses, rehabilitation
of biological resources displaced in the planning process, and use of project
design, engineering, and construction practices that minimize impacts to
sensitive species, MSHCP conservation areas, and designated critical habitats
(General Plan Implementation Program OS-11, PEIR, p. 5.4-18).
d. The City will evaluate and pursue the acquisition of areas with
high biological resource significance. Such acquisition mechanisms may include
acquiring land by development agreement or gift; dedication of conservation,
open space, and scenic easements; joint acquisition with other local agencies;
transfer of development rights; lease purchase agreements; State and federal
grants; and impact fees/mitigation banking (General Plan Implementation
Program OS-12, PEIR, p. 5.4-18).
e. The City shall use the resources of national, regional, and local
conservation organizations, corporations, associations, and benevolent entities to
identify and acquire environmentally sensitive lands, and to protect water courses
and wildlife corridors (General Plan Implementation Program OS-13, PEIR, p.
5.4-18).
f. The City shall continue to participate in multi-species habitat
conservation planning, watershed management planning, and water resource
management planning efforts (General Plan Implementation Program OS-14,
PEIR, p. 5.4-18).
g. The City shall require project developers to retain coast live oak
woodland, including oaks within new development areas, and shall require
surveys of all coast live oak trees prior to construction to determine if any raptor
nests are present and active. If active nests are observed, postponement of
construction activities until the end of the fledgling season is required. The City
shall apply the following guidelines adapted from the Riverside County Oak Tree
Management Guidelines:
. Construction and development activities will be avoided within the root zone
(e.g., encompassing an area one-third larger than the drip line of an oak tree
. Landscaping, trenching, or irrigation systems will be avoided within the root
zone
. Land uses that will cause excessive soil compaction within the root zone will
be avoided
. Manufactured slopes will not be located within the root zone
Redirection of surface moisture which alters the soil moisture within the root
zone for an ex1ended period of time will be avoided
. Filling around the bases of oak trees will be avoided through sedimentation
and siltation control
. Dying oak trees will be retained in place unless determined to pose a health
or safety hazard
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
15
. Relocation of trees will not constitute mitigation
. Oak protection will be oriented toward protection of the life cycle of oak trees
and woodland (General Plan Implementation Program OS-32, PEIR, p. 5.4-
18).
h. The City will require project proponents to minimize impacts to Coastal
sage scrub, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, chaparral, and non-native grassland
consistent with the MSCHP. Such mitigation measures will include, but are not
limited to: on-site preservation, off-site acquisition of mitigation land located within
the City and inside MSHCP conservation areas, and habitat restoration of degraded
sage scrub vegetation that increases habitat quality and the biological function of the
site (General Plan Implementation Program OS-33, PEIR, p. 5.4-19).
i. The City shall require project proponents to avoid adverse impacts to
Riparian Scrub, Woodland, and Forest and Water vegetations communities to the
maximum extent possible. Mitigation consistent with the MSHCP, and future
mitigation ratios established by the City will be required, including, but not limited to:
wetland creation in upland areas, wetland restoration that re-establishes the habitat
functions of a former wetland, and wetland enhancement that improves the self-
sustaining habitat functions of an existing wetland. Mitigation measures will be
required to achieve "no net loss" of wetland functions and values (General Plan
Implementation Program OS-34, PEIR, p. 5.4-19).
j. The City shall review development-associated impacts to MSHCP
conservation areas for consistency with the MSHCP reserve and buffer development
requirements, and shall require compliance with the following MSHCP Urban/Wildlife
Interface Guidelines:
. Drainage: Proposed developments in proximity to MSHCP conservation
areas shall incorporate measures, including measures required through the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, to
ensure that the quantity and quality of runoff discharged to the MSHCP
conservation areas is not altered in an adverse way when compared to
existing conditions. Measures shall be put in place to avoid discharge of
untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into the MSHCP
conservation areas. Stormwater systems shall be designed to prevent the
release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials, or
other elements that might degrade or harm biological resources or ecosystem
processes within the MSHCP conservation areas. This can be accomplished
using a variety of methods including natural detention basins, grass swales,
or mechanical trapping devices. Regular maintenance shall occur to ensure
effective operations of runoff control systems.
. Taxies: Land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP conservation area
that use chemicals or generate byproducts (such as manure) that are
potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, habitat, or water
quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such
chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP conservation area.
Measures such as those employed to address drainage issues shall be
implemented.
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
16
.
Lighting: Night lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP conservation
area to protect species within the MSHCP conservation area from direct night
lighting. Shielding shall be incorporated in project designs to ensure ambient
light levels within the MSHCP conservation area do not increase.
.
Noise: Proposed noise generating land uses affecting the MSHCP
conservation area shall incorporate setbacks, berms, or walls to minimize the
effects of noise on MSHCP conservation area resources pursuant to
applicable rules, regulations, and guidelines related to land use noise
standards. For planning purposes, wildlife within the MSHCP conservation
area should not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise
standards.
.
Invasives: When approving landscape plans for proposed development
adjacent to the MSHCP conservation area, the City shall require revisions to
landscape plans to avoid the use of invasive species defined within the
MSHCP for the portions of development adjacent to the conservation area.
.
Barriers: Proposed land uses adjacent to the MSHCP conservation area
shall incorporate barriers, where appropriate in individual project designs to
minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal
trespass, or dumping in the conservation area. Such barriers may include
native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls, signage and/or other
appropriate mechanisms.
.
Grading/Land Development Manufactured slopes associated with proposed
site development shall not extend into the MSHCP conservation area
(General Plan Implementation Program OS-35, PEIR, p. 5.4-19).
k. The City shall require work corridor surveys to identify active nests for
projects with the potential to adversely impact nesting migratory birds, as defined
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Development projects shall avoid
active nests and, if necessary, require seasonal timing constraints for riparian habitat
clearing and an MBTA Special Purpose permit prior to the removal of active nests of
MBTA covered species (General Plan Implementation Program OS-36, PEIR, p. 5.4-
20).
3. Supporting Explanation
Implementation of the mitigation measures will reduce the adverse impacts to biological
resources associated with adoption and implementation of the proposed General Plan to
a less than significant level (Draft EIR, p.5.4-20).
D. Cultural Resources
1. Potential Significant Impacts
Impacts to Historic Resources
Small urban infill development or redevelopment projects that are not subject to
discretionary review by the City may occur that could involve the removal or alteration of
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
17
existing structures of historical value or significance. Thus, mitigation is required to
minimize potential impacts to historic resources associated with the adoption and
implementation of the General Plan (pEIR, p. 5.5-7).
Impacts to Archaeoloqical and Paleontoloqical Resources
Unknown archaeological sites, structures, and fossils may be unearthed during
excavation and grading activities for specific projects. If previously undiscovered
artifacts or remains are uncovered during excavation or construction, impact will be
significant. Mitigation measures are required to reduce the impact to archaeological and
paleontological resources to a less than significant level (pEIR, p. 5.5-7).
2. Findings
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 PEIR. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential
cultural resources impact to a less than significant level:
a. The City shall use the development and environmental review
process to:
. Ensure that appropriate archaeological and paleontological surveying and
documentation of findings is provided prior to project approval.
. Require effective mitigation where development may affect archaeological or
paleontological resources.
. Require that an archaeologist or paleontologist be retained to observe
grading activities in areas where the probable presence of archaeological or
paleontological resources is identified.
. Enforce CEQA provisions regarding preservation or salvage of significant
archaeological and paleontological sites discovered during construction
activities.
. Require monitoring of new developments and reporting to the City on
completion of mitigation and resource protection measures (General Plan
Implementation Program OS-26, PEIR, p. 5.5-7).
b. The City shall enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the
Eastern Information Center of the University of California, Riverside to establish
procedures for reviewing the archaeological sensitivity of sites proposed for
development (General Plan Implementation Program OS-37, PEIR, p. 5.5-8).
c. The City shall continue to implement a historic preservation
ordinance in the Old Town area to protect historically significant buildings, sites,
roads/trails, and other landscape elements, and to encourage their re-use where
appropriate. Preservation of other historic resources will also be considered
(General Plan Implementation Program OS-27, PEIR, p. 5.5-8).
d. The City will encourage owners of local sites to apply for
recognition in the State Historic Resources Inventory, as Riverside County
Landmarks, as State Points of Historic Interest, as State Landmarks, and as sites
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
18
on the National Register of Historic Places, as deemed necessary (General Plan
Implementation Program OS-27, PEIR, p. 5.5-8).
3. Supporting Explanation
At the time individual development projects proceed, if such excavation or grading
uncovers archaeological resources, developers will be required to comply with CEQA
Section 21083.2 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 regarding the discovery
sensitive archaeological resources. Generally, excavation/grading activity will have to
be temporarily suspended to allow for an assessment of the resource and appropriate
mitigation. Compliance with these existing regulations for individual development
projects will result in less than significant impact (pEIR, p. 5.5-8).
E. Geology and Soils
1. Potential Significant Impacts
Temecula is located in a seismically active area, as is all of Southern California.
Projects developed pursuant to General Plan land use policies will expose additional
people and structures to groundshaking hazards associated with earthquakes (pEIR, p.
5.6-5).
Seismic activity along regional faults creates the potential for groundshaking impacts
within the Planning Area. Portions of the Planning Area are underlain with weak, semi-
consolidated bedrock and loose, unconsolidated and often saturated alluvial sediments.
These soil types have the potential to liquefy or collapse in the event of a major
groundshaking event. The fine-grained components of the bedrock units are potentially
expansive. The weak soil, combined with steep slopes and saturated drainage
channels, make areas of Temecula susceptible to landslides and mudflows (pEIR, p.
5.6-6).
2. Findings
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 PEIR. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential
geology and soils impact to a less than significant level:
a. The City shall work with the County of Riverside and California
Geological Survey to monitor and compile information on faults located within the
Planning Area (General Plan Implementation Program PS-4, PEIR, p. 5.6-6).
b. The City shall develop a Land Use Suitability Matrix for Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones and County Fault Hazards Zones. The matrix will
categorize land uses according to risk and develop restrictions for these uses
within the Zones (General Plan Implementation Program PS-4, PEIR, p. 5.6-7).
c. The City shall: 1) prepare and adopt hillside development
standards for site development and drainage that work to control runoff for
erosion control and water quality purposes; 2) implement a Hillside Grading
Ordinance; 3) require the use of proper soil management techniques to reduce
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
19
erosion, sedimentation, and other soil-related problems; and 4) implement a
grading ordinance to ensure that grading associated with new development
projects is conducted in accordance with appropriate geotechnical engineering
standards (General Plan Implementation Programs OS-21 , PS-5 and PS-16,
PEIR, p. 5.6-7).
3. Supporting Explanation
The General Plan Public Safety Element includes goals, policies, and programs that
direct the City to identify and mitigate adverse impacts of ground surface rupture at the
project level and potential adverse impacts of liquefaction and landslides at the project
level; to apply and enforce seismic design standards and building construction codes for
new development; to work with property owners to remediate hazardous buildings; and
to establish development management techniques to lessen the potential for erosion and
landslides and to monitor the potential for seismic events. Impact will be less than
significant with implementation of these policies and the implementation programs listed
above.
The City requires geological and geotechnical investigations on properties where new
development is proposed and seismic and geologic hazards are of concern.
Liquefaction assessment studies are also required in areas identified as susceptible to
liquefaction. Compliance with General Plan Safety Element goals and policies and
implementation of existing regulations will ensure that impacts can be avoided. Impact
will be less than significant through the application of these policies and continued
standard permit review and building practices (pEIR, p.5.6-6).
F. Hydrology and Water Quality
1. Potential Significant Impacts
New development pursuant to the General Plan will result in approximately 15,800 acre-
feet per year (af/yr) of additional water demand, based on the gallons per day per capita
average factors reported by EMWD and RCWD (pEIR, p. 5.8-4).
New development will result in greater areas of impervious surface such as streets,
roofs, sidewalks, and parking lots. The absorption rate for impervious surfaces is less
than the fate for natural lands. Instead of being absorbed into the ground, stormwater
on impervious surfaces is conveyed into local surface streams and improved channels.
Increased runoff volumes and speeds may create nuisance flooding in areas lacking
adequate drainage facilities (pEIR, P.5.8-5).
2. Findings
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 PEIR. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential
hydrology and water quality impact to a less than significant level:
a. The City will work with the water districts to promote water
conservation and ultimately reduce the demand for peak-hour water supply
wastewater capacity, review the adopted Uniform Building Code, and require
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
20
water conservation measures to reduce water consumption. Such measures
may include, but are not limited to, the use of plumbing fixtures that reduce water
use, low-flow toilets, drip irrigation systems, and xeriscape landscaping that
maximizes the use of drought-tolerant plant species (General Plan
Implementation Program OS-4, PEIR, p. 5.8-6).
b. The City shall review individual development projects to ensure
that adequate stormwater detention facilities are provided to accommodate
surface water runoff generated by the project, and where needed, incorporate
detention of stormwater runoff at the point of origin (General Plan Implementation
Program OS-6, PEIR, p. 5.8-6).
c. The City will require drought-tolerant landscaping in new
development and where feasible, will require incorporation of reclaimed water
systems within landscape irrigation plans (General Plan Implementation Program
OS-7, PEIR, p. 5.8-6).
d. The City will implement, where appropriate, Water Resource
Management Guidelines drafted by the subcommittee comprised of Eastern
Municipal Water District and local jurisdictions (General Plan Implementation
Program OS-8, PEIR, p. 5.8-6).
e. The City shall prohibit the use of underground storage tanks and
conventional septic tanks/subsurface disposal systems in any area designated
within Zone A of a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency wellhead protection
area (General Plan Implementation Program GM-13, PEIR, p. 5.8-6).
f. The City shall require all proposed development projects using
septic tanks and subsurface disposal systems for the disposal of wastewater to
provide detailed geotechnical analysis of the project site and siting
recommendations in accordance with the EPA's Design Manual for On-site
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems that will ensure no impact to
potable water production wells in any area designated within Zone A of a U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency wellhead protection area (General Plan
Implementation Program GM-13, PEIR, p. 5.8-6).
g. Proposed developments shall incorporate measures, including
measures required by the City pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, to ensure that the quantity and quality of
runoff discharge does not cause or contribute to the violation of water quality
standards. Measures shall be required to avoid discharge of untreated surface
runoff from developed and paved areas. Stormwater systems shall be designed
to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant
materials, or other elements. This can be accomplished using a variety of
methods including natural detention basins, grass swales, or mechanical trapping
or treatment devices. Regular maintenance shall occur to ensure effective
operations of runoff control systems (General Plan Implementation Program OS-
5, PEIR, p. 5.8-7).
Statement of Findings of Fact
T emecula General Plan Update
21
3. Supporting Explanation
To further ensure that groundwater supplies will not be impacted by future development
pursuant to implementation of the General Plan, mitigation measures, although not
required, are recommended to guarantee that the City work with RCWD and EMWD to
investigate additional measures to maintain supply and prevent groundwater depletion
(pEIR, p. 5.8-5).
Since the General Plan allows for new development within a wellhead protection area
designated as a Zone A using criteria of the Environmental Protection Agency, impact
could be significant. Mitigation measures have been included that require all proposed
development projects using septic tanks and subsurface disposal systems for the
disposal of wastewater to provide detailed geotechnical analysis of the project site and
siting recommendations that will ensure no impact to potable water production wells (
(pEIR, p. 5.8-5).
Temecula participates in the Storm Water Clean Water Protection Program and
therefore requires all development project applicants to prepare a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to mitigate construction-related water quality impacts
associated with storm events. In addition, all development proposals must include a
Water Quality Management Plan that includes Best Management Practices (BMPs) and
outlines how water quality impacts will be minimized during project operation.
Compliance with these existing regulations will ensure a less than significant impact on
the water quality in surface water bodies. Mitigation measures, although not required,
are recommended to maintain adequate stormwater drainage (pEIR, p. 5.8-6).
G. Land Use and Pianning
1. Potential Significant Impacts
Riverside County's Southwest Area Plan (SWAP), as presented in the Riverside County
Integrated Plan, envisions substantial amounts of new development surrounding
Temecula. The City's General Plan Land Use Policy Map incorporates SWAP-
recommended uses for unincorporated areas, and thus no direct conflict between the
two plans results. However, development in unincorporated areas pursuant to the
SWAP, particularly within the French Valley area, will result in significant impacts with
respect to traffic, air quality, and resources that are beyond the City's ability to control.
The City has developed a land use plan for the French Valley Area (shown on the
proposed Land Use Policy Map) and has designated this area as a Future Growth Area.
This part of the land use plan is substantially similar to the County General Plan in this
area. The intent of these steps is to ensure that future annexations are beneficial
additions to the City, and to minimize impacts of future development in the area on City
roads and infrastructure (pEIR, p. 5.9-9).
Proposed General Plan land use policy may conflict with provisions of the current City
Development Code and the Riverside County Zoning Ordinance, particularly with regard
to land use designation/zoning consistency. For example, areas designated on the Land
Use Policy Map as Rural Residential or Vineyards/Agricultural conflict with current
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
22
zoning, as these are new designations that do not have corresponding zoning districts
within the City's Development Code (pEIR, p. 5.9-9).
The General Plan includes three Mixed-Use Overlay Areas, identified within the Land
Use Element of the proposed General Plan, that apply within the Temecula
Redevelopment Project Area. In some cases, the Overlay Areas provide for the addition
of residential units within existing shopping centers. On other properties, new mixed-use
projects could be constructed. In both scenarios, residential units will likely be
introduced within the Redevelopment Project Area, and development intensity may
increase (pEIR, p. 5.9-10).
Implementation of General Plan policies and programs will ensure that development
pursuant to the General Plan within the French Valley Airport area of influence does not
conflict with the current County ALUCP for French Valley Airport. Implementation
Program LU-24 is required as a mitigation measure to ensure consistency between the
General Plan and ALUCP (pEIR, p. 5.9-14).
Development pursuant to the General Plan Land Use Element could be inconsistent with
some of the development standards outlined in currently adopted specific plans,
particularly those under the jurisdiction of the County of Riverside within the City's
sphere of influence (pEIR, p. 5.9-23).
2. Findings
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 PEIR. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential
land use and planning impacts to a less than significant level:
a. The City shall require preparation of an annexation plan and fiscal
analysis prior to annexation of new areas to the City. Within the annexation plan,
applicants must show how adequate levels of public services and facilities will be
provided to serve the new development without reducing service levels for
currently urbanized areas. The fiscal analysis shall determine the impact that
additional development will have on current Temecula neighborhoods and on the
community as a whole, including any impact fees necessary to offset public costs
caused by the proposed project, and shall include an examination of fiscal and
service impacts of the proposed project on roads, water, sewer, storm water
runoff, fire, police, schools, libraries and other community facilities (General Plan
Implementation Program LU-15, PEIR, p. 5.9-24).
b. The City shall review implementation of the General Plan and
Land Use Policy Map to ensure consistency is maintained between the General
Plan and the Development Code (General Plan I mplementation Program LU-1,
PEIR, p.5.9-24).
c. The City shall review and update the Development Code to
ensure consistency with the General Plan (General Plan Implementation
Program LU-3, PEIR, p. 5.9-24).
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
23
d. The City shall implement and update as necessary the
Redevelopment Plan to establish consistency with the General Plan and
amended Development Code (General Plan Implementation Program LU-11,
PEIR, p. 5.9-24).
e. The City shall ensure consistency with the County Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for French Valley Airport through the following
measures:
. The City shall review development projects within the French Valley
Airport area of influence, and participate in any future updates to the
ALUCP and Master Plan for the Airport, in conjunction with the
Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission.
. The City shall require project proponents to obtain avigation
easements as required by the ALUCP to ensure that landowners
acknowledge potential impacts associated with aircraft.
(General Plan Implementation Program LU-24, PEIR, p. 5.9-24)
f. The City shall review and update the Five-Year Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) on an annual basis to achieve consistency with
improvements identified within the General Plan, and to meet changing needs,
priorities, and financial conditions (General Plan Implementation Program LU-17,
PEIR, p. 5.9-24).
g. The City shall cooperate with Riverside County LAFCO and the
County of Riverside to direct growth outside the City limits to the French Valley
Future Growth Area, on lands that are served or are planned to be served with a
full range of urban services, such as public water and sewer, local and regional
road networks demonstrating adequate capacity, safety and emergency
response services, parks, trails and open spaces (General Plan Implementation
Program LU-16, PEIR, p. 5.9-24).
h. The City shall continue to implement the procedures,
requirements and contents of specific plans contained in the Development Code.
Properties under single ownership or multiple ownership which are generally over
100 acres will utilize the specific plan or village center plan as an implementation
tool. Private landowners or the City may undertake the preparation or
amendment of a specific plan, in accordance with Government Code Section
65450. Specific plans shall include the location of land uses; standards to
regulate height, bulk and setback limits; standards for constructing proposed
streets; standards for population density and building intensity; standards for
conservation and management of natural resources; and implementation
provisions to carry out the Open Space/Conservation Element (General Plan
Implementation Program LU-5,PEIR, p. 5.9-25).
3. Supporting Explanation
Mitigation measures have been included that: 1) describe annexation requirements for
surrounding areas, and 2) require the City to cooperate with Riverside County LAFCO
and the County of Riverside to direct growth outside the City limits to the French Valley
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
24
Future Growth Area, on lands that are served or are planned to be served with a full
range of urban services, such as public water and sewer, local and regional road
networks demonstrating adequate capacity, safety and emergency response services,
parks, trails and open spaces. Impact will be less than significant with implementation of
these measures (pEIR, p. 5.9-23).
To avoid conflict, mitigation measures are included that: 1) describe annexation
requirements for surrounding areas; 2) require the City to periodically review and update
the General Plan Land Use Policy Map, and to review and update the Development
Code and Specific Plans to be consistent with the updated General Plan; and 3) require
the City to continue to implement the procedures, requirements, and contents of specific
plans contained in the Development Code. Impact will be less than significant with
implementation of these measures (pEIR, p. 5.9-23).
H. Noise
1. Potential Significant Impacts
Noise Standards
Future noise levels along major streets in the City are projected to range from
approximately 60 dB(A) to 75 dB(A) CNEL. In some portions of the community, the 60
dB noise contour could expand by as much as 395 feet. Although some roadway
segments could experience a decrease, wide-ranging variability exists across the
roadway network. As a result, new development pursuant to the proposed General Plan
could conflict with adopted noise standards. This is considered a significant impact, and
mitigation is required (pEIR, p. 5.10-9).
Groundborne Vibration or Noise
Long-term implementation of the General Plan could expose persons to excessive
groundborne vibration and/or noise. Problems could arise in cases where noise-
producing uses are located immediately adjacent to sensitive uses, such as business
park areas near residences or schools. Mixed-use projects, such as those encouraged
within four Mixed Use Overlay Areas identified in the General Plan Land Use Element,
also present unique concerns, such as when restaurants with nighttime entertainment
are located close to residential units. In addition, construction-related activities will be
short-term sources of groundborne noise that could affect occupants of neighboring
uses. These are potentially significant impacts at the project level, and mitigation is
required (pEIR, p. 5.10-12).
Ambient Noise Levels
Transportation-related noise is the strongest contributor to ambient noise levels within
the Temecula Planning Area. Future noise levels along major streets within the City are
projected to increase due to additional trips on the roadway. New noise levels
associated with new transportation facilities shown on the City's Roadway Plan will
increase the permanent ambient noise level in the City. These increases in permanent
ambient noise levels are considered a significant impact, and mitigation is required.
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
25
Long-term implementation of the General Plan creates capacity for additional
development within the Planning Area, which could result in substantial temporary or
periodic increases in ambient noise levels due to construction activities. Construction
equipment generates high levels of intermittent noise ranging from 70 dB(A) to 105
dB(A), and thus will result in a significant impact where noise-sensitive land uses adjoin
construction sites. Although construction-related noise will be short term for each
specific construction project and will cease upon completion of construction, the
cumulative impact over time could be significant at specific locations (pEIR, p. 5.10-12).
2. Findings
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 PEIR. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential
noise impact to a less than significant level:
a. The City will review residential and other noise-sensitive
development proposals to ensure that noise standards and compatibility criteria
are met, and will require incorporation of noise-mitigating features identified in
acoustical studies prepared for development projects including, but not limited to,
the following measures identified in the Noise Element (General Plan
Implementation Programs N-1, N-3, N-5 and N-7).
. Use of building setbacks to increase distance between noise sources and
receivers
. Placing noise tolerant land uses such as parking lots, maintenance facilities,
and utility areas between noise sources and receptors.
. Orienting or clustering buildings to shield outdoor spaces from noise sources.
. Placing bedrooms on the side of a house, facing away from major roadways.
. Placement of noise tolerant rooms (e.g. garages, bathrooms and kitchens) to
shield noise-sensitive portions of homes.
. Use of additional insulation and double-pane windows when bedrooms
cannot be located on the side of a house away from a major roadway.
. Avoid placement of balconies facing major travel routes.
(pEIR, p. 5.10-14)
b. Where architectural design treatments described in mitigation measure a
above fail to adequately reduce adverse noise levels or will significantly increase
the costs of land development, the City will require the combined use of noise
barriers and landscaped berms (General Plan Implementation Program N-7,
PEIR, p. 5.10-14).
c. The City will require all non-emergency construction activity to
comply with the limits (maximum noise levels, hours and days of activity)
established in State and City noise regulations (Title 24 California Code of
Regulations, Temecula Development Code and Chapter 8.32 of the Municipal
Code), and will require proposed industrial or commercial projects located near
residential areas to demonstrate that the project, when constructed, will meet
City noise reduction requirements (General Plan Implementation Program N-2,
PEIR, p. 5.10-16).
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
26
d. During review of development applications, the City will consider
the noise and vibration impacts of the proposed land use on current or planned
adjacent uses (General Plan Implementation Program N-4, PEIR, p. 5.10-16).
e. The City will: 1) incorporate noise control measures, such as
sound walls and berms, into roadway improvement projects to mitigate impacts
to adjacent development; 2) provide noise control for City streets within the
Planning Area experiencing unique noise problems; 3) use the ultimate roadway
capacity at LOS C and the posted speed limit to estimate maximum future noise
impacts; and 4) coordinate with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department and
the California Highway Patrol to enforce the California Vehicle Code noise
standards for cars, trucks, and motorcycles (General Plan Implementation
Program N-8, PEIR, p. 5.10-16).
3. Supporting Explanation
With implementation of mitigation measures list above, land/use noise compatibility
impacts can be addressed at the project level to avoid impact. Impacts resulting from
groundborne vibrations or noise will be reduced to a less than significant level (pEIR, p.
5.10-16).
I. Public Services/Recreation
1. Potential Significant Impacts
Fire and Police Protection
Development projects anticipated to occur pursuant to General Plan policy will result in
increased demand for fire and police protection services and facilities, as well as
increased demand for water resources for fire protection and other emergencies. This
represents a significant impact.
The Fire Department conducts final construction plan check reviews and issues
certificates of occupancy for all new development projects. Projects within the City limits
are also required to pay Development Impact Fees (DIF) to fund the expansion of fire
protection and emergency services. Nonetheless, mitigation measures are required to
reduce impact to a level below significance (pEIR, p. 5.12-4).
Libraries
The new Temecula Public Library will have 34,000 square feet of library space and
80,000 volumes. Additional volumes are available through the Library District's branch
library system and interlibrary loan agreements. Nevertheless, residential development
projects anticipated to occur pursuant to General Plan policy will result in demand for
library resources beyond those provided by the new Temecula Public Library. Even with
the opening of the new library, new development associated with long-term
implementation of the General Plan will require the construction of new or expanded
library facilities. Impact will be significant, and mitigation measures have been added to
the project (pEIR, p. 5.12-10).
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
27
Parks and Recreation
Residential development projects anticipated to occur pursuant to General Plan policy
will require the City to provide 204 net new acres of parkland to meet parkland per capita
goals. This net new acreage is in addition to the acreage needed to meet an existing
164-acre deficit. Sufficient parkland to meet the needs of existing residents is
anticipated to be provided by the year 2013 through the acquisition and dedication of
parks and school facilities within identified specific plan areas. However, new
development projects pursuant to the General Plan will result in increased use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks, other recreational facilities, and trails, and this
increased use may cause or accelerate substantial physical deterioration of these
facilities. Impact will be significant, and mitigation measures are required (pEIR, p. 5.12-
14).
2. Findings
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 PEIR. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential
public services/recreation impact to a less than significant level:
Fire and Police
a. The City will periodically evaluate levels of sheriff, fire, and
emergency medical services, based on changes in population and development,
and will: 1) provide a minimum of one full-time officer per 1,000 residents for
police protection services; 2) maintain facilities, staffing, and equipment
necessary to maintain a five-minute response time for 90 percent of all
emergencies; and 3) implement new programs to meet the changing needs of
residents (General Plan Implementation Program GM-4, PEIR, p. 5.12-4).
b. As part of the development review process, the City will require
new development projects to address fire and police protection proactively,
through all-weather access street design, orientation of entryways, siting of
structures, landscaping, lighting, and other security features; and will require
illuminated addresses on new construction (General Plan Implementation
Program GM-5, PEIR, p. 5.12-4).
Libraries
c. The City will identify and solicit funding from additional sources to
supplement library facilities and services. Such funding sources may include
State and federal grants and loans, public and private donations, sponsorships
by local and national corporations, and other private individuals and groups
(General Plan Implementation Program GM-7, PEIR, p. 5.12-10).
d. The City will coordinate with the County to determine location,
facilities, and services of new branch libraries needed to serve the community
(General Plan Implementation Program GM-7, PEIR, p. 5.12-10).
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
28
Parks
e. The City will identify potential sites for additional park land,
monitor demand for park land and facilities concurrent with development
approvals, and prioritize potential parkland acquisitions, expansions, and
improvements within the five year Capital Improvement Program, consistent with
the adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan (General Plan Implementation
Program OS-1, PEIR, p. 5.12-14).
f. The City shall continue to implement a local code that
incorporates standards for parkland dedication and development. Specifically
the City shall: 1) require the dedication of parkland or the payment of in-lieu fees
and the development of recreation facilities for all new development; and 2)
require developers of residential projects greater than 200 units to dedicate land
based on the park acre standard of five acres of usable parkland to 1,000
residents (General Plan Implementation Program OS-2, PEIR, p. 5.12-14).
g. The City shall: 1) implement policies and standards of the Parks
and Recreation and Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plans, including trail
classifications, design standards, implementation mechanisms, and capital
improvement programming; and 2) ensure that bike routes are provided or
reserved concurrent with new development (General Plan Implementation
Program OS-29, PEIR, p. 5.12-14).
3. Supporting Explanation
The City will continue to collect Development Impact Fees to offset impacts on fire and
police protection services, and to require that design features be incorporated into
projects to minimize threats to public safety. Adequate mitigation is included and
adopted as General Plan implementation programs to expand library services and
facilities as demand dictates, and to provide park lands and other recreation facilities for
existing and future residents. The implementation/mitigation cited above will reduce
impact to less than significant levels (pEIR, pp. 5.12-4, 5.12-10, 5.12-14).
J. Utilities and Service Systems
1. Potential Significant Impacts
Water Supplv
Buildout pursuant to General Plan land use policy will not result in demand for water
service that exceeds RCWD's planned future supply in 2020. Impact on the RCWD's
ability to provide water will be less than significant. However, increased demand by
agriculture and other water users within RCWD's service area could lead to an impact on
future water supply (pEIR, p. 5.14-3).
Buildout pursuant to General Plan land use policy will not result in demand for water
service that exceeds EMWD's planned future supply. Impact on EMWD's ability to
provide water will be less than significant. However, increased demand by other water
users in the district's service area could lead to an impact on future water supply (pEIR,
p.5.14-3).
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
29
Wastewater
Estimated future wastewater treatment demand required to support the project is one
million gallon per day (mgd) greater than the projected capacity of water treatment
facilities currently serving Temecula. Given that future demand is based upon a very long-
term buildout horizon, the one mgd difference is not considered significant, although
additional mitigation is included in the PEIR to provide for continued monitoring and
potentially an update of EMWD's master plan to reflect Temecula's projections (pEIR, p.
5.14-5).
Enerqv
The demand for electricity is anticipated to increase by about 102.1 megawatt hours
(mwh) per month. Southern California Edison will construct additional electricity facilities
as necessary to meet increased demand. The future energy supply for the Temecula
and California is considered a major task for long-range planning. SCE will need to
consider the future generation of electricity with careful consideration of the anticipated
peak usage within its service areas (pEIR, p. 5.14-9).
The demand for natural gas is anticipated to increase by approximately 104.49 million
cubic feet (mcf) per month. The Gas Company will work with the City as new
developments are proposed to construct additional natural gas infrastructure as
necessary to meet demand. The Gas Company will consider the future gas supply for
its service areas with attentive consideration since the majority of gas consumed in
California is transported from out-of-state sources (pEIR, p. 5.14-10).
Solid Waste
Solid waste generation is anticipated to increase by 425,271 pounds per day, for a total
of about 876,443 pounds per day at General Plan buildout. The City currently manages
a residential recycling program that diverts nearly 50 percent of the solid waste
generated. Furthermore, the Riverside County Waste Management Department expects
to expand the capacity of both EI Sobrante and Badlands Sanitary Landfills. The City
will continue to implement solid waste reduction programs in compliance with Section
40050 et seq. of the California Public Resources Code. Thus, although implementation
of the General Plan will result in new development and redevelopment within the
Planning Area and related increases in solid waste generation, impact will be less than
significant with mitigation (pEIR, p. 5.14-12).
2. Findings
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 PEIR. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential
utilities and service systems impact to a less than significant level:
Water Supplv
a. The City shall assist the Rancho California and Eastern Municipal Water
Districts in the process of updating their urban water management plans to be
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
30
responsive to the population and housing unit capacities established by the General
Plan (General Plan Implementation Program GM-8, PEIR, p. 5.14-4).
b. The City shall review the adopted Uniform Building Code and require new
development projects to include water conservation features to reduce consumption,
including, but not limited to: use of reduced-flow plumbing fix1ures, low-flow toilets, drip
irrigation systems and xeriscape landscaping (General Plan Implementation Program
OS-4, PEIR, p. 5.14-4).
c. The City shall ensure that discretionary projects implementing the
General Plan (Specific Plans, land divisions, development plans and conditional use
permits) comply with California Water Code Section 10910, requiring the preparation of
a water supply assessment indicating that a long-term water supply for a 20-year time
frame is available. Written acknowledgement that water will be provided by a community
or public water system with an adopted urban water management plan that includes
consideration of the project's water consumption and supply shall constitute compliance
with this requirement (General Plan Implementation Program OS-38, PEIR, p. 5.14-4).
d. The City shall: 1) continue to require drought-tolerant landscaping in new
development projects; 2) where feasible, incorporate reclaimed water systems into
landscape irrigation plans; 3) continue to implement a recycled water ordinance in
accordance with the requirements of Senate Bill 2095, Water Recycling in Landscaping
Act; and 4) convert existing City of Temecula non-domestic water uses to recycled water
use in accordance with Sections 13550-13556 of the State Water Code when feasible
(General Plan Implementation Program OS-7, PEIR, p. 5.14-4).
Wastewater
e. The City shall assist the Eastern Municipal Water District in the process of
updating its water master plan for projecting wastewater service to be responsive to the
population and housing unit capacities established by the General Plan (General Plan
Implementation Program GM-8, PEIR, p. 5.14-6).
Enerqv
f. The City shall coordinate with Southern California Edison, the Southern
California Gas Company, and other responsible companies to provide for the continued
maintenance, development, and expansion of electricity and natural gas systems
(General Plan Implementation Program GM-11, PEIR, p. 5.14-9).
g. The City shall participate in the formation of regional siting plans and
policies for energy facilities (General Plan Implementation Program OS-15, PEIR, p.
5.14-10).
h. The City shall implement land use and building controls that require new
development to comply with the California State Energy Regulation requirements
(General Plan Implementation Program OS-17, PEIR, p. 5.14-10).
i. The City shall 1) enforce all current residential and commercial California
Energy Commission energy conservation standards, 2) encourage public institutions to
use high-efficiency heating and cooling systems, advanced lighting systems, and
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
31
passive solar systems to reduce energy use; and 3) adopt project-related energy
conservation guidelines that are incorporated within the development approval process
to promote and require conservation strategies as development occurs (General Plan
Implementation Program OS-18, PEIR, p. 5.14-10).
Solid Waste
j. The City will 1) assist the Riverside County Solid Waste Management
Department to implement the County's Solid Waste Management Plan, and when
feasible and appropriate, assist the County in locating cost effective and
environmentally acceptable solid waste sites and facilities; and 2) promote awareness
of recycling options for businesses (General Plan Implementation Program GM-10,
PEIR, p. 5.14-12).
k. The City will require incorporation of recycling as a condition of approval
for all multi-family residential, commercial and office projects, and will work with the
private sector contractor providing solid waste services to ensure that appropriate
recycling containers, procedures, and education are readily available (General Plan
Implementation Program GM-14, PEIR, p. 5.14-12).
J. The City shall continue to compost green waste collected from landscape
and park maintenance (General Plan Implementation Program GM-15, PEIR, p. 5.14-
12).
3. Supporting Explanation
The proposed project will create increased demand for utilities and service systems at
both the local and regional levels. After mitigation, potential project impacts are reduced
to a less than significant level.
Section 4. The City Council hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of mitigation
measures outlined in the PEIR, the following impacts cannot be fully mitigated to a less than
significant level, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore included herein:
A. Air Quality - Short-term Construction Related, Long-term, and Cumulative
1. Potential Significant Impact
The proposed project will have a short-term impact on air quality from construction
activities. While individual development projects will be required to employ construction
approaches that minimize pollutant emissions (e.g., watering for dust control, tuning of
equipment and limiting truck traffic to non-peak hours), on a cumulative basis over the
nex1 20 years, pollutant emissions associated with construction activity will be significant,
and mitigation is required (pEIR, p. 5.3-9).
The proposed project will add emissions to a non-attainment air basin. Levels of PMlO
have exceeded State standards regularly in the past and are expected to continue
exceeding these standards in the future. Therefore, long-term air quality impacts
resulting from adoption and implementation of the proposed General Plan will be
significant, and mitigation measures are required (pEIR, p. 5.3-10).
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
32
2. Findings
Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce short-term, long-term,
and cumulative air quality impacts to the extent feasible:
a. The City will support regional transit initiatives and promote development
of high-speed rail service connecting Temecula to San Diego and Los Angeles; actively
participate in efforts to protect and improve air quality in the region; and attend meetings
with the County of Riverside, WRCOG, SCAQMD, SCAG, and other agencies as
required to support these objectives and fulfill Temecula's requirements and obligations
under the AQMP and Sub-Regional Air Quality Implementation Program (General Plan
Implementation Program AQ-1, PEIR, p. 5.3-11).
b. The City will continue to involve the general public, environmental groups,
the business community, and special interest groups in the formulation and
implementation of air quality programs; conduct periodic public outreach efforts; and
continue to promote public education as a method of employer compliance with the City
Trip Reduction Ordinance (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-2, PEIR, p. 5.3-
11 ).
c. The City will adhere to policies and programs of the Land Use Element,
including development of mixed-use projects where designated and feasible (General
Plan Implementation Program AQ-3, PEIR, p. 5.3-12).
d. The City will encourage development and expansion of businesses, and
promote development of housing affordable to all segments of the community near job
opportunity sites, and within Mixed Use Overlay Areas (General Plan Implementation
Program AQ-4, PEIR, p. 5.3-12).
e. The City will continue to implement a site development permit process
and use the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in the review of proposed
development projects. The City shall require individual development projects to comply
with the following measures to minimize short-term, construction-related PM,o and NOx
emissions, and to minimize off-site impacts:
. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
. Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
. Pave or apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas.
. Sweep or wash any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt
deposition on any public roadway.
. Cover or water twice daily anyon-site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty
material.
. Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 mph.
. Hydroseed or otherwise stabilize any cleared area which is to remain in active for
more than 96 hours after clearing is completed.
. Ensure that all cut and fill slopes are permanently protected from erosion.
. Require the construction contractor to ensure that all construction equipment is
maintained in peak working order.
. Limit allowable idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment.
. Encourage car pooling for construction workers.
. Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods.
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
33
.
Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways.
Wet down or cover dirt hauled off-site.
Wash or sweep away access points daily.
Encourage receipt of materials during non-peak traffic hours.
Sandbag construction sites for erosion control.
.
.
.
.
Approve development that could significantly impact air quality, either individually or
cumulatively, only if it is conditioned with all reasonable mitigation measures to
avoid, minimize, or offset the impact. (General Plan Implementation Programs LU-4
and AQ-5, PEIR, p. 5.3-12).
f. The City will ensure location of new sensitive receptors away from major
air pollution sources, and require buffering of sensitive receptors from air pollution
sources through the use of landscaping, open space, and other separation techniques
(General Plan Implementation Program AQ-6, Draft EIR, p. 5.3-12).
g. The City will incorporate strategies into City-wide design guidelines and
development standards that promote a pedestrian-scale environment, encourage use of
mass transit, and reduce dependence on the automobile (General Plan Implementation
Program AQ-7, PEIR, p. 5.3-13).
h. The City will promote the use of alternative work weeks, flex1ime,
telecommuting, and work-at-home programs among employers in Temecula, and
continue to enforce provisions of the City Trip Reduction Ordinance, including
requirements for preparation of Trip Reduction Plans (TRPs) for qualifying development
projects and employers (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-8, PEIR, p. 5.3-13).
i. The City will require employee rideshare and transit incentives for large
employers, consistent with the requirements of the City's Trip Reduction Ordinance, and
continue to encourage voluntary compliance with the Ordinance for smaller employers
(General Plan Implementation Program AQ-9, Draft EIR, p. 5.3-13).
j. The City will require operators of large scale outdoor events to submit a
Trip Reduction Plan (TRP) applicable to both patrons and employees during the course
of the event, and encourage special event operators to advertise and offer discount
parking incentives to carpooling patrons, with two or more persons per vehicle, for on-
site parking facilities (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-10, PEIR, p. 5.3-13).
k. The City will work to achieve local performance goals for vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) reduction, consistent with SCAG's Growth Management Plan
recommended standards for the Western Riverside County sub-region, and enforce
requirements and options within the Trip Reduction Ordinance (General Plan
Implementation Program AQ-11, PEIR, p. 5.3-13).
I. The City will promote and encourage the use of alternative fuel vehicles
and consider the adoption of an ordinance requiring provision of alternative fueling
stations at or near major employment locations, shopping centers, public facilities, and
mixed-use developments (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-12, PEIR, p. 5.3-
13).
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
34
m. The City will encourage pedestrian and bicycle trips as an alternative to
single-occupancy vehicle trips by constructing and maintaining trails and bikeways
specified in the Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, and will periodically update
the Master Plan as needed to meet resident needs and City objectives (General Plan
Implementation Program AQ-13, PEIR, p. 5.3-13).
n. The City will work with Caltrans and RTA to identify potential sites for
Park and Ride facilities adjacent to key commuting routes within the City, and to
prioritize development of such facilities in corridors served by more than one mode of
planned transportation (automobile, transit, and/or high-speed rail) (General Plan
Implementation Program AQ-14, PEIR, p. 5.3-13).
o. The City will require incorporation of energy efficient design elements in
residential, commercial, light industrial and mixed-use development projects. Examples
may include (but are not limited to) the following.
. Site orientation strategies that use shade and windbreak trees to reduce fossil
fuel consumption for heating and cooling.
. Building designs that maximize use of natural lighting, provide for task lighting,
and specific high-efficiency electric lighting (General Plan Implementation
Program AQ-15, PEIR, p. 5.3-13).
p. The City will improve roadway capacity by restricting on-street parking,
improving signal timing, widening intersections, adding through and turn lanes, and other
transportation systems management measures (General Plan Implementation Program
C-3, PEIR, p. 5.3-14).
q. The City will develop and promote park and ride and Transit Oasis
facilities, and encourage preferred parking for ride-sharing and low emission vehicles
(General Plan Implementation Program C-18, PEIR, p. 5.3-14).
r. The City will continue to work with trucking industry representatives to
orient trucks to truck routes, and to divert commercial truck traffic to off-peak periods to
reduce congestion and diesel emissions (General Plan Implementation Program C-19,
PEIR, p. 5.3-14).
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including the
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the
imposition of additional mitigation measures.
3. Supporting Explanation
The proposed project is anticipated to exceed SCAQMD's daily threshold emission
levels of PMlO for construction activities. Further, the addition of emissions to an air
basin designated as non-attainment is considered under CEQA to be a significant
impact. Mitigation measures are proposed and will be included as General Plan
implementation programs to reduce this impact.
The General Plan will facilitate construction of new development throughout the Planning
Area over an approximate ten-year period, which will result in air quality impact due to
construction activities. The addition of emissions to an air basin designated as non-
Statement of Findings of Fact
T emecula General Plan Update
35
attainment is considered under CEQA to be a significant impact. The project's
incremental contribution to this impact will be reduced by mitigation measures a through
r above. The project's incremental impact, after mitigation, remains significant.
With implementation of goals and policies in the General Plan and incorporation of the
mitigation measures into the General Plan as implementation programs, air quality
impacts will be substantially lessened. However, the degree to which these measures
will reduce particulate matter emissions and construction-related emissions cannot be
quantified at this time. Air pollutant levels will still continue to exceed the SCAQMD
threshold criteria for significance. Impact will be significant and unavoidable (pEIR, p.
5.3-14).
Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, a Statement of Overriding Considerations
would need to be adopted for the air quality impacts, which remain significant and
unavoidable after mitigation (pEIR, p. 5.3-14).
B. Transportation
1. Potential Significant Impacts
Long-range implementation of General Plan land use policy will create new operating
deficiencies at the following three intersection locations:
. Ynez Road and Winchester Road - LOS E at P.M. peak hour
. Ynez Road and Solana Way - LOS E at P.M. peak hour
. Ynez Road and Rancho California Road - LOS E at P.M. peak hour
Impact will be significant at these intersections. Mitigation measures are required to
reduce the level of impact (pEIR, p. 5.13-15).
Long-range implementation of General Plan land use policy will create new operating
deficiencies at the following six freeway ramps:
. Winchester Road Direct northbound on-ramp - LOS F at P.M. peak hour
. Winchester Road Loop northbound on-ramp - LOS F P.M. peak hour
. Southern Bypass/Anza Road southbound on-ramp - LOS F at A.M. peak hour
. Winchester Road northbound off-ramp - LOS F at P.M. peak hour
. French Valley Parkway southbound off-ramp - LOS F at A.M. peak hour
. Winchester Road southbound off-ramp - LOS F at A.M. and P.M. peak hours
Impact will be significant at these freeway ramps. Mitigation measures are required to
reduce the level of impact (pEIR, p. 5.13-18).
2. Findings
Implementing the following mitigation measures will reduce transportation impacts to the
extent feasible:
a. The City will: 1) prioritize, secure funding, design, and build new
roadways and complete roadway improvements using the established Capital
Improvement Plan process to implement the circulation system shown on the proposed
Roadway Plan concurrent with land development; and 2) require that new roadways
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
36
meet roadway classification design specifications and performance criteria established in
the proposed Circulation Element. Table 1 summarizes new roadways and arterial
widening projects required to implement the proposed Roadway Plan 1 (General Plan
Implementation Program C-1, PEIR, p. 5.13-18).
b. The City will monitor the performance of Principal Intersections on an
ongoing basis and ensure that Principal Intersections approaching Level of Service D
are prioritized for improvement within the City's Five-Year Capital Improvement Program
(General Plan Implementation Program C-3, PEIR, p. 5.13-19).
c. The City will: 1) continue to update the Capital Improvement Plan on an
annual basis to plan for and fund future improvements to the roadway, pedestrian, and
bicycle systems; 2) identify available funding sources and establish a financing plan to
guide construction and funding of transportation system improvements, and 3) require
new development projects to construct and/or fund in whole or in part necessary traffic
improvements associated with the proposed project, through the assessment and
collection of traffic impact fees. Such improvements should address both automotive, as
well as alternative means of transportation (General Plan Implementation Program C-5,
PEIR, p. 5.13-19).
d. The City will require additional dedication of right-of-way on all
approaches to Principal Intersections. Such right-of-way shall be preserved for future
intersection improvements that may be required at these intersections, such as full width
auxiliary turn lanes and/or dual-left turn lanes (General Plan Implementation Program C-
4, PEIR, p. 5.13-19).
e. The City will implement the following procedures and requirements to minimize
impacts of proposed development projects on the City's circulation system, and to
encourage increased use of alternative transportation:
. Evaluate development proposals for potential impacts to the transportation and
infrastructure system.
. Require mitigation in the form of physical improvements and/or impact fees for
significant impacts prior to or concurrent with project development.
. Require dedication of adequate right-of-way along new roadways to permit
pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
. Require new development to incorporate design features that facilitate transit service
and encourage transit ridership, such as bus pullout areas, covered bus stop
facilities, efficient trail systems through projects to transit stops, installation of bike
lanes, bikeways, and bicycle parking, and incorporation of pedestrian walkways that
pass through subdivision boundary walls, as appropriate.
. Require new specific plans and other projects to provide an internal system of
pathways and trails. Trails should link schools, shopping centers, transit, and other
public facilities in residential areas.
. Require transportation demand management plans to be submitted for preliminary
review at the Specific Plan or Development Plan stage of site development and
1 The improvements described in Table 1 respond to the likely future operating conditions of the roadway network.
Details regarding the configuration of proposed improvements represent the best options available based on current
information. Actual improvements, particularly those at intersections, will be established through engineering design.
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
37
submitted for final approval prior to issuance of building permits (General Plan
Implementation Program C-6, PEIR, p. 5.13-19).
f. The City will: 1) identify local streets that are currently closed that may
benefit citywide circulation if the street was re-opened or construction of the street was
completed; 2) assess the feasibility of opening previously closed streets or completing
construction of local connecting streets that benefit citywide circulation on a case-by-
case basis, providing ample opportunity for both neighborhood residents and the
community at-large to comment on such proposals, and 3) establish a review process for
the future closing of any local street that requires City Council determination that the
closure does not have an adverse affect on citywide circulation (General Plan
Implementation Program C-7, PEIR, p. 5.13-22).
g. The City will: 1) continue to work with WRCOG, SCAG and others to
advocate future commuter or high speed rail service connecting Temecula to Los
Angeles, Riverside and San Diego; 2) ensure that any future commuter rail corridor
serving Temecula is located on the west side of 1-15 to reduce noise impacts on
residential areas; and 3) require new commercial, industrial, or mixed use development
in areas surrounding proposed stations to include transit-oriented design amenities
(General Plan Implementation Program C-12, PEIR, p. 5.13-22).
h. The City will promote the use of alternative work weeks, flex1ime,
telecommuting, and work-at-home programs among employers in Temecula, and
continue to enforce provisions of the City's Trip Reduction Program Ordinance, including
requirements for preparation of Trip Reduction Plans (TRPs) for qualifying development
projects and employers (General Plan Implementation Program C-13, PEIR, p. 5.13-22).
i. The City will implement the adopted Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways
Master Plan to complete design and construction of a comprehensive alternative
transportation network, promote safe use of the trail system, and ensure accessibility of
pedestrian facilities to the disabled (General Plan Implementation Program C-15, PEIR,
p.5.13-22).
j. The City will continue to improve transit service and encourage ridership
through the following actions:
. Require transit facilities in major new development and rehabilitation projects.
. Coordinate with providers to get more frequent service and broader transit coverage
serving employment, shopping, educational, recreational, and residential areas.
. Work with providers to identify and receive additional funding sources for additional
transit services.
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
38
III
..
(J
I'll
Co
.5
E
...
CIl
I-
,
Cl
C
o
..J
CIl
..
I'll
Cl
E
:iE
......s
~"C
,QCIl
ca.:
1-::1
tr
CIl
a:
III
..
C
CIl
E
CIl
>
o
...
Co
.5
>-
I'll
;=
"C
I'll
o
a:
c:
o
..,
CO
"
:;::
'iij
on
CO
<3
-
c:
CI)
E
CI)
>
o
IQ
.5
~.",
CO
:;
"
CI)
E
CI)
I-
-
o
z
-Q
c: on
C1)-
~ .~
CI) 1:
1Ile(
~
0; I il ~
~ I ~ Qi ~I~
o a: cO Q.l -I::':
C CD a...:: -0 Q.l
'0 :g I!!?'" I~- lijrn3:'iij
c cO 00 I~~ rn-~ Wea>
o 0 ._c ~- 0 ~
I~ a:~ .~ ~~ Bm~~~Sg
~ rom ~> mWro Q.lN~~C~Q)~~
o~~~~Sg_E~~i~.!w~~~~8~
~~cO~omi~~I~~=O~o~gga:a:
o c~a:~ooo~mo ~oo_~~~~c
~Bm<mwa:cOEm-cOm~ ~-~Q.l2g
.S w N~ a.. '~cONOQ.lOcOO=~cc
roC Oc~Q.lcOcO~-C_--o cOQ.l~Q.l
a:eo-<(CI) ->'-~~,,<Q.lc~a:E>~Im
~-- =<<:1> ""'== >Q)ctl .......
oC~Q)o~-oo~Q)S'coo~o~goo
-ro_c-mw_-oE-O a:Q)~o._--
~U~~~ ~ ~-Q)ro Q) ccO~~~u
u300~g-~cOc~oocO~cO~~ cOro
ooowcm-.~~ooo'~ Q)~~>oooo
m~m'E-~St>a:~._.-gE~"'><(- a: a:
a.. ~ -uQ)oo Q.la:~ooE c .<:.<:
_.S ' WI';; <<i = Q) ~::: co: U ::: ... .c "0 t:: t:: ::g ::g
~ma:.cI~~~...._Q).__momo>oo~~
>a:rnuz>~UO~>WUU::;;~<(ZZe(<(
'0
'"
o
a:
~ ~
~ ~
.. 0
c: 3:
~ - I~
CIl "'C 2 '**' I~
t: co ()"C '-
.l!l >" 0 c $ '" I~
~ c"O"O m(~c a:.2 ~ a:o I~"'C
... co ctl c 5: 5: 0 CIl Cf) 19 m
It", ,2 0 0 0 'u) 151 c C .......... t: 0 ~ I... :::
Q CIla:a:'~ ~~c cow _ ~ -~ _ , I~~
II) c (I) W C ~ cO (I) (l)1'~ 'Ci) x (/l _ (/'J C\J c:: !!!::: s: s: ~ ~
~ ;I~~; ~1~~~lmcw'Ol~ m.~~ I!~'O'O~ m_~~ ~
~ wSS(/'Jw ~I~WO W~cOa~ ~~~S ~~~~~~~.~'~~~~~O
b~~~OOOO~ -==~=~i.c~~OO~~~,~oo ~>~~~~~~~~~cO~C
g~~~~~~~j~~~~~~Ooci~~~'~~ii~~SSS(/'J~~~~~~~~
~~~~._._(.)~E~~~c_co ~E~~~~._OONW'C'C'C~I~CCCC ~
cO~~ii(l)o~oom~~~~~~mN==bi~~m~cO~~~I~~~~~!!1
~NNN~~=~OCCEe~WCC~C(I)~~~~NN~002,~~'cO~(I)(I)OO~~
~ C C C ~ ~ m w_ ~ ~ 0 o~ > m m 0 C C m cO Q ~.~.~ cO m cO cO cO W 0 > > W W cO cO W
_<(<(<(~~Uow~~~::;;~oocrnrn~r~~~~OO~~::;;::;;::;;::;;::;;OO~~~~~
I ~
~~ ~>-~~ ~~~ ~ ~~
~cO_~cOO~BcO~cOcO~cOcOo~o~mO
l.g._ml.g~U~u~;.~~~Q~~woU.g~U
'mg~'mgg'm~gggg~ggOO'mg'mg~
~'C~~oo~oo'coo~oo~~o~oo
~ ~O O~~~~ ~~~ (.) ~O
'6
o
::;;
~ ~ I~ ~ ;::
>""> > -&-&1 1:
~ i i ~ I~ m m"O 2:
~oo~ ee~"E
(I) ~~~~ ~ (I)(I)~ (I)
~ cOccca m CCC C
,mm, - ..!2..!2m ..!2
~ v"C\J ~ ~~, ~
(/'J (/'JC\Jv(/'J (/'J v (/'J
cO cO en (/'J cO cO ~ ~ (/'J cO
c: cmmc c a:l c
~~.Q~.~gg~~~.Q~~.~.~g~~.Q~~
'C'C en.c c'-'- ~'c'c ~'C:'c en (/'J'- 'C'C (/'J.c'c
(I) (I) ~ W (I) ~ ~ w (I) W W W W ~ C ~ (I) W ~ W W
~~x~xWWx~~x~~~~W~~x~~
caa:l a:lWXXWcOa:lwa:la:l....xxcaco cOa:l
wwww"Oww"Oww~WWWWW(I)(I)w(I)(I)
cC"Ec:~"O"O~cc~cc:~"O"OcC"EC:c
ctl ctl m cO ctl ~ ~ cO ctl ctl ctl ctl a:l ~ ~ ~ ctl ca cO cO ctl
"5:'5:cac05:"5:,'>>a:l"5:"
V~~V~5:5:~v~~VVZZS:vC\J~vC\J
5:s:~s:~ww~5:S:~5:s:IDIDw5:5:~5:S:
~~~~~~~~~~S~~~~~~~~~~
~
...:
I-
~
'"
~~~~~~0;~~1~~~~0;~~~
o 0.g'O'O.g.9.g 0'0'0'0 0.9'0 C1)'O
'm'a:l'ctlgg~g'ctl'cOggg~ggoog
~~~oO~'C~~ooo~'co 0
(l)W ~ (l)WW ~w-g(l)
0000 000000 CfJ_C/J
'E
.:J
en (/'J (/'J (/'J (/'J en en (/'J (/'J en (/'J (/'J (/'J (/'J (/'J (/'J (/'J
(I) W (I) W (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) (I) W (I) W (I) (I)
c c: c: c c: c c c c c c: c c c c: c c
..!2~..!2..!2~..!2..!2..!2..!2..!2~..!2..!2~~..!2~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
c C c: c c c c c c c c c c: c c: c c
W W W W W (I) W W W W W W W W W W W
"O~"O"O~~"O~~"O~~"O"O~"O~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
l~
"
~
a;
~
'"
'2
g
0;
u Cii"fi
o cO C c
~ .- W a:l (/'J
~ 0 EO~ ~s:
~ ~ W 0 cOgw~(/'J Eo
>w~ c C/J~~~e>~ ~~
~~B~3 ~-0~5uEwo~o ~I
"O~ '-'~ ~ - 0 - t:: U
c ~~o~ctlr.nro~E~~w :$
cOot~o~Emooo5:'-D (/)0
~>o ~E.-I'-- C:Ua:lU= cO
o~Z~~r.nO~~~o€~~a:lWB
-omc: ~~C/JO _w~a:l"Oo~
.~_I'-->Bctl~oc:Bw~o5c;a:l
c-~o'O'6 _"''O~~rno'''~''
5~C/J-cOwo"O~ctl~ctlO-Owro~
~5: ~O"OI~ctlOO>o-~ -a:l
~~~~~~a:lo-~<~oS~OO~
Qctl~Oa:lo~~~cOccO~o>~~
o~woo~- OW~O~DCfJO~5:
.<:1~.<:ml~"'!~~~~I~~m-"t'"
g~g~I~~ctl~r.n~wle-~~~€
~w5~~~~~cOcOictl~~c~W
oco>rn::;;~rn~~::;;~::;;>rn>~OC
m
'"
$
- '"
"'0
"'e.
~~
oc
</l,!!l
"'~
c_
:a~
.1: w
~c
_CI)
O(!l
"E~
m ~
E "
m m
-E
2l m
rnl-
l/)
..
o
III
Co
E
E
...
~
Cl
c:
o
...J
Gl
..
III
Cl
E
:!:
....B
.!"tl
.eGl
ca .:
1-;,
'(j
Gl
II:
l/)
..
c:
Gl
E
Gl
>
o
...
Co
.5
>-
III
s:
"tl
III
o
II:
2'
c ~
,81; - 1; 1; 2' -c:g
co: co .... .... S! c co c ctl c Ctl ....1 ~ <tl U ....
CJ "C 0 .g .!:::! ctl "C <tI "0 <<I "0 ol.!::-"O Q) 0
;: E'CIJ to g -e g -e 6 -e 6 'Cd g 6 rJ) 'm
';; u~:::2:'c~ U=:l U=:l U~'C 0-0::2:
fJ~ (l. ~ ~ ~ a.~~
o ~
o
::;:
-
c
"
E
"
>
I~
~
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q)
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c C
<tI <tI co <tI ctl co <tl co <tI <tl <<l co <tl <<l co
:;f;d;:;;:~d;:;;:~:;;:d;:;;;::;;;:~:;;;::;;;::;;;:
.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.8.9.8.8.9.9
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q)
-0'0-0 "0 "0 "0 "C "0-0-0-0 "0 "0"0 "'0
3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:3:_
..
"
~ ((
co ~ ~
en ~ 'c
_"'_ '0 '0 C
~ I~ CIJ co:
.~"t: '., 0 a::
-;;:-'.l!l (j5a:.~ ~ ~~
_ _ ._ -0 "Y
._m:J "O.c E ctl~-
O.:::lD -em (/l 0-000..0
- en 0 <<I 1:: E -0 := <<l a: IY'
c ~ +-' 0 .... ctl ctl 0 ctl (/)1_
"sc~ a:.l!lI~O 'Ooua:~~'"
6~e~~N~~.8~~a:og~-o~
~o~~<tI~ ~-oa:2~<tI~m~
l/)~~"IE~B,,~a:N~cE~::;:~
2:0a..<tIo?;a..':::(j)ca<<l<'t:lm..:: <C
~o",::;:-~~~OOci5a.a:oooB .
.::J:.-=: -,,> - 00 -"'0=
......::.:00 .:::.::cc:::lO--O"O(tl
<tI....-o-~....rooI-<tIctI-Ctlo
Q..ttlroN_<tIJ::.... c__"CO
a.. Q) <oC/)n.. ulL..8 o.fQ.~ ctla:CI:
~CI):2;;:ccg~cc~>>~o~
c(/)o >~ ~ 0 0 0 I~.-
CIJ Q) '0 '0 .... 0 0 0 (I) a.. J:: J:: rol a:; m
J:.~ _ +-' LL.. "0 _ I- Q5 Q) () u.c:;::;1 r;
() fJl (I) (I) -0 m LO "'0 == = C C :::l cl ~
~~~~6~~o~c3~~~iYJ:2
1-
.<:.<:
1::1::
o 0 Ctl Ctl Ctl Ctl Ctl
zZooooo
"0 CDCDt:t:t:t:t:
CtlCtlctSctSCtl 1"--1"--00000
g.c.c.c.c 0 "a..a..a..a..a..
~................a: "Oa:a:/l)/l)/l)/l)/l)
ai ~ ~ ~ ~ .s -E ~ ~I~ Q Q Q Q Q
() ctS ctS Ctl Ctl.!!!::la: 03 03"0"0"0"0"0
()()OO>Oo__ctSCtlCOCOCtl
3:00000OO~838300000
0~~~~~CT>~~~cr:a:cr:a:a:
'@"""""I"--:;::,,"NNNNN
.co ai ~ ai ai ~ d: ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
a:a:a:a:a:a:oooo~>~~~~~
_ ~ L _ ~I fa ~
~ -g -g .g .g -g -g -g -g
::l 0 0 co Ctl 0 0 0 0
cr:"":2:2",,,,"
/l) /l) Q) Q) Q) /l)
C/)oo OOC/J(f)(f)
c
o
:g
"
c
c
o
,,--------
Ctl <tI Ctl Ctl co Ctl Ctl <tI
Q) .~.~.~.~.~.~.~.~
C /l) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q)
<tIt:t:t:t:t:t:t:t:
~ <tI Ctl Ctl <tI Ctl Ctl <tI Ctl
- Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q)
~ c c c c C c c c
Ctl~~~$$$.s!$
~...t...t...t...t...t...t...t..t
1:: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;: ;:
o Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q)
zzzzzzzzz
'0 Cii
~ ~
"00 (;5
~a:
01 ~"O g
a:1 c Ctl ~ 'E
5:;;2t'5 g
~ l:: C/JI~Z ~
o 5 -I c: CD "0 Ctl
a: a. ~I''= .... ~ ~
1 ~ I.'" a: 0
OOCtlC/J(f) 0:0
t::'::Cii-:::;'Ciic';
:J~.~O""Q)O~
"0 0 t: .... I Q) ....1 ~ t:
co a.. 0 ~ <tI 1i) 001 ~ 0
~oz Cii~cEZ
-CT>O.~"OOCD
13 ~l";-; :;.~-Fl";-
~'''a:~::;:>c a:
aJOC/J 0 >:c..9(f)
o c::O:..9..9 rJ"O-=
I~ !2 " C '0 '0 > ~ "
ImE1i)OctlCtl;>~1i)
>"",~ooo "
>()~IEa:o:-ctS~
o~go3232gmg
.s: ::t. .- J: ::l ::l Q).c .-
>oo~""<<-'<~
~ -
a:I .... ....IS! .... ....
"00 Ol.!:::! 0 0
g.Ctl.CIj g.a:I.Ctl
0::;:::;: .,,::;:::;:
c1l a.
00 00 00 UJ 00 00
Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q)
c c c c c c
.s!.s!.s!.s!.s!.!2
...t..t...ttO..t...t
.E..9.E..9S!.E
c c c c c c
Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q)
"0"0"0"0"0"0
3:3:3:3:3:3:
'0
~
~~
16 cCen
o '0190 c:
0: ctIl~ <tI 0
15- 2t1ijg~
t::Q) c()1i)Q)
::l e - 012::.: en
ooo-""Q).lI:::,~i
Q. ......J C/J....._
ogooooo,,:
1:2 E c ~ ~ ~ :::
t: .~ .g t: t: t:
O~c'OOO
Z tlj._ZZZ
CD>~CDCDCD
l"-->ctIl"--l"--l"--
ci:B~ci:ci:ci:
00 -g B ~I~~
~~-g~22
001::::: 0 00 00 00
~~a:~~~
" .... c " " "
.~ag.~.~.~
~a.-,~~~
i5
~
II)
c:
.0 __
Cij ;....;:
c o-g
.s CI) 0
.:l l!! a:
'0 " 5!1
a Ctl ;: ,r:: l::
~ 2t -gCii ~ .~
~ ~ "0"00(1) b ~
~ co Ctl<tla:="O~ "0"0_
~"O"OO"OOO W<tI ctIct1UO
~CtlCtl~Ctla:o:g"Oo~-g-g~~<tII
~~~2~15~Q~~;~~cc~~
~tlj~cct::l::ECtl:.:~,,"O"O..9..9~.~
~N....CtlO:J::lOCQ) __cc........
~coQ)Q)oo~c.c~:J:JQ)Q)o~
...<X:aJ-:l..JQ.Q.l-::::)<(....<(<(lDalaJ..::
>-'-
" ~
c c
~ ~
.<:.<:
e e
" "
~~
;: ;:
Q) "
c c
titi
2 2
1i)Ci)
c c
00
~~
o
.,.
l-
~
c
~
.<:
'"
"
c
I'~ !!
~ ~
;: ~
-l:.<:
~ '"
a."
I~ :5
='0
~ ~
>0
.<:a:
o ~
c N
~ C
LL<
.l!l
- ~
0'0
"e.
LL::J
oc
",,!!l
0>0.
.5 ta
'O~
.5 Q)
LLC
-"
oC)
c.s!
" ~
EO
" "
- E
~"
00....
The City will also collaborate with providers to identify needs and provide special transit
services beyond fixed-route buses. Potential services include, but are not limited to:
. Subscription or dial-a-ride service for lower density residential areas
. Offering limited transit service between outlying residential areas and the City's
commercial/employment core
. Shuttle or trolley service between Old Town and other destinations along the 1-15
commercial corridor, and expanded service to other areas, including the wineries
along Rancho California Road, as opportunities arise
. Providing bicycle carrying racks on buses.
(General Plan Implementation Program C-16, PEIR, p. 5.13-22)
k. The City will encourage carpooling and use of public transportation in
Temecula through the following measures:
. Develop and promote park and ride and Transit Oasis facilities within the City.
. Encourage preferred parking for ride sharing and low emission vehicles (General
Plan Implementation Program C-18, PEIR, p. 5.13-23).
Additional changes or alterations to the regional circulation system are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City of Temecula.
Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted
by such other agency. Also, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers, make infeasible additional mitigation measures.
3. Supporting Explanation
Even with implementation of mitigation measures, significantly impacted intersections
and freeway ramps cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. These facilities
include:
. Ynez Road and Winchester Road (P.M. peak hour)
. Ynez Road and Solana Way (P.M. peak hour)
. Ynez Road and Rancho California Road (P.M. peak hour)
. Winchester Road Direct northbound on-ramp (P.M. peak hour)
. Winchester Road Loop northbound on-ramp (P.M. peak hour)
. Southern Bypass/Anza Road southbound on-ramp (A.M. peak hour)
. Winchester Road northbound off-ramp (P.M. peak hour)
. French Valley Parkway southbound off-ramp (A.M. peak hour)
. Winchester Road southbound off-ramp (A.M. and P.M. peak hour)
Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, a Statement of Overriding Considerations
would need to be adopted for the air quality impacts, which remain significant and
unavoidable after mitigation (pEIR, p. 5.13-23).
Section 5. Alternatives to the Project. The City Council hereby declares that it has
considered the alternatives identified in the PEIR as described below. CEQA requires that an
EJR evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to a 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. An EIR must only
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
41
evaluate reasonable alternatives to a Project which could feasibly attain most of the Project
objectives, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. In all cases, the
consideration of alternatives is to be judged against a "rule of reason." The lead agency is not
required to choose the "environmentally superior" alternative identified in an EIR if the
alternative does not provide substantial advantages over the proposed Project and (1) through
the imposition of mitigation measures the environmental effects of a Project can be reduced to
an acceptable level, or (2) there are social, economic, technological or other considerations
which make the alternative infeasible. .
A. No Project Alternative - 1993 General Plan
1 . Description
The No Project Alternative assumes that the 1993 General Plan remains as the adopted
long-range planning policy document for the Planning Area. The No Project Alternative
represents conditions that would exist in the year 2025 if development with the Planning
Area and the region continued to grow at the pace and extent permitted in the 1993
General Plan, and if the 1993 General Plan policies were implemented by the year 2025
(pEIR, p. 6-2).
2. Finding
The City Council finds that the No Project Alternative generally would have the same
significant unavoidable impacts as the proposed project and would introduce several
new significant impacts related to agricultural resources, air quality, land use and
planning, noise, population and housing, public services and recreation, transportation,
and utilities and service systems. The No Project Alternative would not meet most of the
project objectives. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers, make this alternative infeasible.
3. Supporting Explanation
Development pursuant to the No Project Alternative would not implement the policies
and programs of the proposed General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements.
Development would continue pursuant to the policies of the 1993 General Plan. As a
result, the local circulation system would not meet the needs of Temecula residents and
businesses nor calm traffic in residential neighborhoods and near schools because the
existing transportation system is not sufficient to provide for the efficient flow of traffic
throughout the Planning Area. The No Project Alternative does not specifically provide
for mixed-use areas, but rather designates numerous "village centers" throughout
Temecula, several of which have already developed into other more traditional
commercial uses. Therefore, concentrated areas adjacent to 1-15 with an appropriate
pedestrian-oriented mix of commercial, office, and residential uses would not result
under the No Project Alternative. Further, the No Project Alternative would not establish
agricultural preservation areas, the lack of which would hinder the City's objective to be
a regional historical and viticultural destination. In summary, the No Project Alternative
would not meet most of the identified project objectives (pEIR, p. 6-5).
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
42
B. Extension of North General Kearney Road Alternative
1 . Description
This alternative was conceived as a means of reducing traffic/circulation impacts along
several roadway segments and at intersections in the northwestern portion of the City.
In the Meadowview neighborhood, a number of streets originally planned to provide
access into and out of the community are currently closed. The extension of North
General Kearney Road from La Colima Road to Nicolas Road would add a roadway
connection to an area along Winchester Road where intersection levels of service are
close to or worse than LOS D. With this Alternative, all other provisions of the General
Plan update would be implemented (pEIR, p. 6-6).
2. Finding
The City Council finds that this alternative would not significantly result in reduced
environmental impacts relative to circulation. All other impacts would be comparable
those associated with the project. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or
other considerations, including the potential for significant adverse impacts on the
surrounding community, make this alternative infeasible.
3. Supporting Explanation
The extension of North General Kearny Road was intended to provide an alternate route
for local residents around two intersections along Winchester Road that are expected to
exceed the LOS D criteria in the General Plan in terms of the future projected left turn
movements from Nicolas Road to Winchester Road and westbound Winchester Road to
southbound Margarita Road. However, the traffic modeling that was prepared for the
environmental impact report did not show enough traffic improvements to justify the
potential adverse impacts to residents living along the proposed alignment.
B. 15 Percent Growth Reduction Alternative
1. Description
This alternative was conceived as a means of reducing environmental impacts of the
proposed project by reducing development capacity within the Planning Area to levels
comparable to projections published by SCAG.
The population growth rate between 2005 and 2025 estimated by SCAG is 2.9 percent
per year for Riverside County. Therefore, with this Alternative, the City would adopt the
proposed General Plan, but modifications would be made to the proposed Land Use
Element and map and the Circulation Element Roadway Plan such that net new
residential development would be reduced by 15 percent citywide relative to the
proposed project. This would result in a total population of approximately 96,407
persons living in 31,141 housing units within the current City limits, and a total of
143,806 persons living in 46,484 housing units within the Planning Area in the year
2025. These figures are more comparable to the adopted SCAG 2025 forecasts for
Temecula than the proposed project. All other goals and policies of the proposed project
would remain the same, including the establishment of Mixed Use Overlay Areas, Rural
Preservation Areas, and the French Valley Future Growth Area, as well as the
introduction of the Vineyards/Agriculture designation (pEIR, p. 6-8).
Statement of Findings of Fact 43
Temecula General Plan Update
2. Finding
The City Council finds that this alternative would result in reduced environmental impacts
relative to aesthetics, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public
services and recreation, and utilities and service systems. All other impacts would be
comparable those associated with the project. However, the alternative would not meet
all of the project objectives. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers, make this alternative infeasible.
3. Supporting Explanation
Although development in accordance with SCAG population projections would reduce
impacts with regard to aesthetics, land use and planning, public facilities and recreation,
and utilities and service systems, it would not achieve a number of critical project
objectives. This alternative would not fully implement the proposed Circulation Element
Roadway Plan, which is intended to ensure that the local circulation system meets the
needs of Temecula residents and businesses while calming traffic in residential
neighborhoods and near schools; not all identified roadway improvements may be
required under the reduced trip generation associated with this alternative. Reduced
development may not provided for a greater diversity of housing options to meet the
needs of all segments of the community, as residential densities may need to be
reduced and housing construction may need to be restricted to ensure that population
targets are not exceeded. Both of these actions may lead to higher housing costs and
restrict the diversity of housing options available in Temecula for all income ranges.
Further, this alternative could compromise the development of a strong business
community, quality housing stock, scenic open space, and cultural amenities that make
Temecula a desirable place to locate because development would be restricted in such
a way that not all aspects of the City would be permitted to grow.
The 15 Percent Growth Reduction Alternative would reduce population growth to a level
more consistent with SCAG projections. However, it does not achieve many of the most
critical project objectives as effectively as the proposed project and therefore has been
rejected (pEIR, pgs. 6-10 and 6-11).
Section 6. Project Benefits and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Pursuant
to State CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council must balance the benefits of the
General Plan Update against any unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to
recommend approval of the Temecula General Plan Update. If the benefits of the General Plan
outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, those impacts may be considered
"acceptable."
The City Council hereby finds that the Final PEIR has identified and discussed significant effects
that will occur as a result of the General Plan. With the implementation of the mitigation
measures discussed in the Final PEIR and General Plan, these effects can be mitigated to a
less than significant level except for the unavoidable significant impacts as discussed in Section
4 of these Findings.
The City Council declares that it has made a reasonable and good faith effort to eliminate or
substantially mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the Temecula General Plan.
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
44
The City Council finds that to the ex1ent any mitigation measures recommended in the Final
PEIR and/or General Pian could not be incorporated, such mitigation measures are infeasible
because they would impose restrictions on the General Plan that would prohibit the realization
of specific economic, social, and other benefits, including the provision of employment
opportunities for highiy trained workers. The City Council further finds that such changes or
alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City
of Temecula. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be
adopted by such other agency.
The City Council declares that, having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of
the General Plan to the extent feasible by recommending adopting of the proposed mitigation
measures, having considered the entire administrative record on the General Plan, and having
weighed the benefits of the General Plan against its unavoidable adverse impacts after
mitigation, the City Council has determined that the following social, economic, and
environmental benefits of the General Plan outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse impacts
and render those potential adverse environmental impacts acceptable based upon the following
overriding considerations:
1. The General Plan will allow for a diverse mix of land uses, thereby creating a
suitable inventory of housing for a range of income groups, a viable commercial
and employment base, ample open space and recreational opportunities,
adequate public facilities and services, and high-quality urban and rural lifestyles
for residents and visitors to enjoy.
2. The General Plan will encourage mixed use development providing opportunities
for creative reuse as commercial, residential, office, employment/technology, or
mixed use centers. Three Mixed Use Overlay Areas are identified in the Land
Use Plan: Jefferson Avenue, Town Center/Tower Plaza, and south of Old Town.
Successful completion of high-quality mixed use projects will assist the City in
accomplishing multiple housing, circulation, and land use objectives.
3. The General Plan will preserve rural areas, such as large lot/ rural
residential/agricultural areas in the community that represent lifestyle and open
space characteristics of Temecula. Four areas are designated by the General
Plan as Rural Preservation Areas in the Land Use Plan: Nicolas Valley, the
winery and agricultural areas of east Temecula, Anza road at SR-79 South, and
the Rainbow Canyon and Great Oak Ranch areas.
4. The General Plan will help to manage future growth. Unincorporated areas in the
City's northern Sphere of Influence are largely proposed for development through
specific plans under the jurisdiction of Riverside County. Temecula has an
opportunity to control land uses, phasing of development, project design, and
infrastructure improvements by annexing these properties prior to project
approval by the County. To achieve these purposes, the City has developed a
land use plan for the French Valley area, and has designated this area as a
Future Growth Area. The intent of these steps is to ensure that future
annexations are beneficial additions to the City, and to minimize impacts of future
development in the area on City roads and infrastructure.
The City Council finds that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through approval and
implementation of the General Plan Update outweigh the identified significant adverse
environmental impacts of the General Plan which cannot be mitigated. The City Council further
Statement of Findings of Fact 45
Temecula General Plan Update
finds that each of the General Plan Update benefits outweighs the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects identified in the Final PEIR 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.
The City Council finds that it has reviewed and considered the Final PEIR in evaluating the
General Plan Update, that the Final PEIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully
complies with the CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's CEQA Guidelines, and that the
Final PEIR reflects the independent judgment of the Council.
The City Council hereby certifies the Environmental Impact Report based on the following
findings and conclusions:
A. Finding
The following significant environmental impacts have been identified in the Final PEIR and will
require mitigation as set forth in Section 4 of this Resolution but cannot be mitigated to a level of
insignificance: short-term and long-term project and cumulative air quality impacts, and
transportation impacts.
B. Conclusions
1. All significant environmental impacts from implementation of the General
Plan Update have been identified in the Final PEIR and, with implementation of the mitigation
measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of insignificance, except for those impacts listed
in Section 4.
2. Other reasonable alternatives to the General Plan Update which could
feasibly achieve the basic objectives of the General Plan Update have been considered and
rejected in favor of the General Plan Update.
3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits
derived from the development of the General Plan Update override and make infeasible any
alternatives to the General Plan Update or further mitigation measures beyond those
incorporated into the General Plan Update.
Section 7. Adoption of Recommendation for the Adoption of a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program. The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program in Section 8.0 of the Final PEIR and attached to this
Resolution as Exhibit A. Exhibit A is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference
as though set forth in full. 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 shali control.
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
46
Section 8. Location of Records. 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. The proposed comprehensive updates of the
Land Use, Circulation, Open Space/Conservation, Growth Management/Public Facilities, Public
Safety, Noise, Air Quality, Community Design, and Economic Development Elements of the
General Plan for the City of Temecula, as amended.
Section 9. Council Member Roberts and Council Member Washington did not
participate in the public hearing and Council discussion of the North General Kearney Road
extension issues. Both own homes in the Meadowview Community and are part of the
Meadowview Homeowners Association. The Association owns the property on which the North
General Kearney Road extension would be built as well as property surrounding it; therefore the
Fair Political Practices Commission has confirmed that Mayor Pro Tem Roberts and Council
Member Washington have a conflict due to their home ownership. Based on this conflict of
interest, Mayor pro tem Roberts and Council Member Washington each hereby abstain in the
approval of this Resolution and certification of the Environmental Impact Report and the
approval of the General Plan as such actions relate to the extension of North General Kearney
Road.
Section 10. Mayor Comerchero and Councilmember Naggar did not participate in the
discussion of the Southern Bypass Road nor the land use designation for property located south
of the Morgan Hill Specific Plan. Council Member Naggar has a financial interest in
approximately 80 acres of real property in adjacent to Anza Rd and EI Chimisal in the
unincorporated portion of Riverside County and he believes that the implementation of the
Southern Bypass and the land use designations for property located south of the Morgan Hill
Specific Plan might have a significant effect on the value of this property. Mayor Comerchero
also will not be participating in this matter because he is the President of Rancon and Rancon
owns approximately 100 acres of property adjacent to Anza Rd and EI Chimisal in the
unincorporated portion of Riverside County and he believes that the implementation of the
Southern Bypass Road and the land use designation for property located south of the Morgan
Hill Specific Plan might have a significant effect on the value of this property. Based on this
conflict of interest, Mayor Comerchero and Council Member Naggar each hereby abstain in the
approval of this Resolution and certification of the Environmental Impact Report and the
approval of the General Plan as such actions relate to the Southern Bypass Road and the land
use designation for property located south of the Morgan Hill Specific Plan.
Section 11. Council Member Washington did not participate in the discussion
concerning Circulation Element Policies 3.6, 3.7, and 3.8 as he owns a home on a street which
could be impacted by this policy. Based on this conflict of interest, Council Member Washington
hereby abstains in the approval of this Resolution and certification of the Environmental Impact
Report and the approval of the General Plan as such actions relate to Circulation Element
Policies 3.6, 3.7, and 3.8.
Section 12. Mayor Comerchero did not participate in the discussion of the land use
designation for the Callaway Winery property because he is the President of Rancon and
Rancon owns approximately 330 acres of property in the unincorporated portion of Riverside
County and he believes that the implementation of land use designation for Callaway Winery
property might have a significant effect on the value of this property. Based on this conflict of
interest, Mayor Comerchero hereby abstains in the approval of this Resolution and certification
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
47
of the Environmental Impact Report and the approval of the General Plan as such actions relate
to the land use designation for Callaway Winery property.
Section 13. Council Member Naggar did not participate in the discussion concerning
Rainbow Canyon Road and Avenida de Missiones Bridge because Horton/Continental, owner of
the 20.4 acre property being developed at the northeast corner of Temecula Lane and Loma
Linda in the City is a source of income to him and he believes that the changes to this road and
the bridge might have a significant effect on the value of this property. Based on this conflict of
interest, Council Member Naggar hereby abstains in the approval of this Resolution and
certification of the Environmental Impact Report and the approval of the General Plan as such
actions relate to Rainbow Canyon Road and the Avenida de Missiones Bridge.
Section 14. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and it shall
become effective upon its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula
this 12th day of April 2005.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
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. 2005-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
T emecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 12th day of April 2005, by the following vote:
AYES:
o
COUNCILMEMBERS
None
NOES:
ABSENT:
o
COUNCILMEMBERS:
None
o
COUNCILMEMBERS:
None
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
48
EXHIBIT A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
49
ATTACHMENT NO.2
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GENERAL PLAN
R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report CC2.doc
12
RESOLUTION NO. 05-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING THE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF
THE GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, Section 65300 of the Government Code requires that cities adopt a
comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the jurisdiction as well
as any adjacent areas which, in the judgement of the City, bears a relationship to its planning;
WHEREAS, Sections 65302 of the Government Code requires that a general plan
address the following issues: land use, circulation, housing, conservation of natural resources,
open space, noise, and public safety;
WHEREAS, Sections 65303 of the Government Code allows the City to include any
other issues or concerns into the general plan which may relate to the physical development of
the City;
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the first General Plan, and certified the
Environmental Impact Report on November 23, 1993;
WHEREAS, the City Council has amended the General Plan from time to time and
determined that a comprehensive update of all the Element of the General Plan, except the
Housing Element, was necessary;
WHEREAS, the City Council appointed a community advisory committee to assist in the
process of updating the General Plan;
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Committee held meetings on January 7, 2002,
January 28, 2002, February 25, 2002, April 01, 2002, May 6, 2002, May 15, 2002, May 30,
2002, April 29, 2003, May 20, 2003, June 11, 2003, March 1, 2004, April 26, 2004, May 3, 2004,
and July 6, 2004 to consider the current General Plan and to recommend appropriate changes
to the Planning Commission and City Council;
WHEREAS, the City Council and Planning Commission held a joint workshop to
consider the recommendation of the Community Advisory Committee on August 10, 2004 and
provided a number of comments and suggestions on the recommended General Plan;
WHEREAS, Section 65302 of the Government Code requires that the City of Temecula
submit a copy of its draft Safety Element to the Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) for their
review and comment;
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula submitted its draft Public Safety Element to the DMG
on August 26, 2004, and
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula has made changes to the draft Public Safety Element
in response to the concerns raised by DMG;
WHEREAS, the Community Services Commission met to consider and provide
comments on the proposed General Plan on September 13, 2004, at which time members of
the public had the opportunity to comment to the Community Services Commission on the
proposed General Plan;
R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report CC2.doc
13
WHEREAS, the Traffic Safety Commission met to consider and provide comments on
the proposed General Plan on September 28, 2004 and January 27, 2005, at which time
members of the public had the opportunity to comment to the Traffic Safety Commission on the
proposed General Plan;
WHEREAS, the City held community meetings on December 26, 2001, January 12,
2002, April 4, 2002, and November 4, 2004 to solicit input, comments, and concerns from
members of the community;
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 18 amended Section 65352 of the Government Code to require
that local governments refer their General Plan to any California Native American tribe with
traditional lands located within the City's jurisdiction;
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula consulted with representatives of the Pechanga Band
of Luisefio Indians on January 20, 2005;
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula has made changes to the draft General Plan as a
result of the consultation with the Pechanga Band;
WHEREAS, Section 21676 of the Public Utilities Code requires that the City of
Temecula submit a copy of its draft General Plan to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC);
WHEREAS, Section 21675.2 of the Public Utilities Code requires that the ALUC
complete its review within 60 days;
WHEREAS, the General Plan recognizes the authority of the ALUC around French
Valley Airport;
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula submitted its draft General Plan to the ALUC on
February 4, 2005;
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended (Sections
21000 through 21177 of the Public Resources Code), requires that prior to the approval of any
project the Lead Agency consider the potential impacts and effects of said project, consider
alternatives to the project, and identify mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate the
impact of the project on the environment;
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula has prepared and circulated for public review and
comment an Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan in accordance with the
provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines prepared by the Office of Planning and
Research;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City provided its
responses to all persons, organizations, and agencies who commented on the Draft EIR on
March 22, 2005;
R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report CC2.doc
14
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held duly noticed public hearings on
February 2, 2005 and March 16, 2005 (continued from February 16, 2005) to consider the
proposed General Plan and Environmental Impact Report, at which time all persons interested
in the Project had the opportunity and did address the City Council on these matters;
WHEREAS, the City Council has held duly noticed public hearings on March 22, 2005
and April 12, 2005 to consider the proposed General Plan and Environmental Impact Report, at
which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the
Planning Commission on these matters;
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 05-_ on April 12, 2005 which
Certified the EIR, adopted a Statement of Overriding Consideration and Mitigation Monitoring
Program for the EI R for the General Plan;
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest for the City Council to adopt the comprehensive
updates of the Land Use, Circulation, Open Space/Conservation, Growth Management/Public
Facilities, Public Safety, Noise, Air Quality, Community Design, and Economic Development
Elements of the General Plan for the City of Temecula, as amended;
WHEREAS, the proposed comprehensive updates of the Land Use, Circulation, Open
Space/Conservation, Growth Management/Public Facilities, Public Safety, Noise, Air Quality,
Community Design, and Economic Development Elements of the General Plan for the City of
Temecula, as amended, are compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community;
WHEREAS, the proposed comprehensive updates of the Land Use, Circulation, Open
Space/Conservation, Growth Management/Public Facilities, Public Safety, Noise, Air Quality,
Community Design, and Economic Development Elements of the General Plan for the City of
Temecula, as amended, are internally consistent and comply with all applicable laws;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA:
Section 1. The recitals described in the whereas clauses set forth above are true
and correct and are hereby adopted as findings by the City Council.
Section 2. Council Member Roberts and Council Member Washington did not
participate in the public hearing and Council discussion of the North General Kearney Road
ex1ension issues. Both own homes in the Meadowview Community and are part of the
Meadowview Homeowners Association. The Association owns the property on which the North
General Kearney Road extension would be built as well as property surrounding it; therefore the
Fair Political Practices Commission has confirmed that Mayor Pro Tem Roberts and Council
Member Washington have a conflict due to their home ownership. Based on this conflict of
interest, Mayor pro tem Roberts and Council Member Washington each hereby abstain in the
approval of this Resolution and certification of the Environmental Impact Report and the
approval of the General Plan as such actions relate to the extension of North General Kearney
Road.
Section 3. Mayor Comerchero and Councilmember Naggar did not participate in the
discussion of the Southern Bypass Road nor the land use designation for property located south
of the Morgan Hill Specific Plan. Council Member Naggar has a financial interest in
approximately 80 acres of real property in adjacent to Anza Rd and EI Chimisal in the
unincorporated portion of Riverside County and he believes that the implementation of the
Southern Bypass and the land use designations for property located south of the Morgan Hill
R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report CC2.doc 15
Specific Plan might have a significant effect on the value of this property. Mayor Comerchero
also will not be participating in this matter because he is the President of Rancon and Rancon
owns approximately 100 acres of property adjacent to Anza Rd and EI Chimisal in the
unincorporated portion of Riverside County and he believes that the implementation of the
Southern Bypass Road and the land use designation for property located south of the Morgan
Hill Specific Plan might have a significant effect on the value of this property. Based on this
conflict of interest, Mayor Comerchero and Council Member Naggar each hereby abstain in the
approval of this Resolution and certification of the Environmental Impact Report and the
approval of the General Plan as such actions relate to the Southern Bypass Road and the land
use designation for property located south of the Morgan Hill Specific Plan.
Section 4. Council Member Washington did not participate in the discussion
concerning Circulation Element Policies 3.6, 3.7, and 3.8 as he owns a home on a street which
could be impacted by this policy. Based on this conflict of interest, Council Member Washington
hereby abstains in the approval of this Resolution and certification of the Environmental Impact
Report and the approval of the General Plan as such actions relate to Circulation Element
Policies 3.6, 3.7, and 3.8.
Section 5. Mayor Comerchero did not participate in the discussion of the land use
designation for the Callaway Winery property because he is the President of Rancon and
Rancon owns approximately 330 acres of property in the unincorporated portion of Riverside
County and he believes that the implementation of land use designation for Callaway Winery
property might have a significant effect on the value of this property. Based on this conflict of
interest, Mayor Comerchero hereby abstains in the approval of this Resolution and certification
of the Environmental Impact Report and the approval of the General Plan as such actions relate
to the land use designation for Callaway Winery property.
Section 6. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the comprehensive
updates of the Land Use, Circulation, Open Space/Conservation, Growth Management/Public
Facilities, Public Safety, Noise, Air Quality, Community Design, and Economic Development
Elements of the General Plan for the City of Temecula, as amended, in substantially the form on
file in the Office of the City Clerk.
Section 7.
The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula
this 12TH day of April 2005.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report CC2.doc
16
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. 2005-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 12TH day of April 2005, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report CC2.doc
17
ATTACHMENT NO.3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION PC05-014
R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report CC2.doc
18
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-014
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR THE GENERAL PLAN AND APPROVE THE
COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula adopted its first General Plan on November 9, 1993;
WHEREAS, Section 65300 of the State Planning and Zoning Law requires that all
jurisdictions adopt and periodically update a General Plan;
WHEREAS, the City Council decided to undertake a comprehensive update of the
adopted General Plan in 2001;
WHEREAS, the City Council appointed an 11-member Community Advisory Committee
to assist in updating the General Plan;
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Committee in meetings held on January 7, 2002,
January 28, 2002, February 25, 2002, April 01, 2002, May 6, 2002, May 15, 2002, May 30,
2002, April 29, 2003, May 20, 2003, June 11, 2003, March 1, 2004, April 26, 2004, May 3, 2004,
and July 6, 2004 to consider the current General Plan and to recommend appropriate changes
to the Planning Commission and City Council;
WHEREAS, the City Council and Planning Commission in a joint workshop to consider
the recommendation of the Community Advisory Committee on August 10, 2004 and provided a
number of comments and suggestions on the recommended Plan;
WHEREAS, the Community Services Commission met to consider and provide
comments on the proposed General Plan on September 13, 2004;
WHEREAS, the Traffic Safety Commission met to consider and provide comments on
the proposed General Plan on September 28,2004 and January 27, 2005;
WHEREAS, the City held community meetings on December 26, 2001, January 12,
2002, April 4, 2002, and November 4, 2004 to solicit input, comments, and concerns from
members of the community;
WHEREAS, based upon all the suggestions, comments, concerns and direction
received, a final public review draft of the Updated General Plan was prepared;
WHEREAS, an Initial Environmental Study was prepared to identify the potential issues
of concern to be evaluated within an environmental impact report;
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation was distributed on June 6, 2003;
WHEREAS, a public scoping meeting was held on June 25, 2003;
R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Final PC Resolution.doc
WHEREAS, based upon the Initial Environmental Study, the responses to the Notice of
Preparation, and the public scoping meeting, a Draft Environmental Impact Report was
prepared to evaluate the possible impacts associated with implementing the public review draft
of the Updated General Plan;
WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report was circulated for public review and
comment between December 17, 2004 and March 12, 2005;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered this matter on February 2, 2005, and
continued the matter from the February 16, 2005 meeting to March 16, 2005, at duly noticed
public hearings, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to, and did, testify either in
support or opposition to this matter;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE UPDATED GENERAL
PLAN AND ADOPT THE UPDATED GENERAL PLAN SUBSTANTIALLY IN THE FORMS
ATTACHED HERETO.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City of T
this 16th day of March 2005.
ATTEST:
~~--"'- ~5
Debbie Ubnoske., Secretary
. _[SEAL]
,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
.COUNTY OF R1VERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary of the Temecula Planning Commission, do hereby certify
that PC Resolution No. 2005-014 was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission
of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of March, 2005, by the
following vote:
AYES: 5 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Chiniaeff, Guerriero, Mathewson,
Olhasso, Telesio
NOES: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: 0 PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: None 7/-e-/;6.-c" k~ ~
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Final PC Resolution.doc
ATTACHMENT NO.4
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
R:\General PlanlComp Plan Update\Staff Report CC2.doc
19
MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 2, 2005
R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report CC2.doc
20
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 2, 2005
1 Aqenda
iero led the audience in the Flag salute.
The ity of Temecula Planning Commission convened in a regular meeting at
Wedne ay, February 2, 2005, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula C'
Business ark Drive, Temecula, California.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Com . sioners Chiniaeff, Guerriero,
Chairma Mathewson.
hewson, Olhasso, Telesio, and
Absent:
None.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Chairman Mathewson informed the audi c
individual not seated will need to exit the Cit
which has been opened for overflow seatin .
that, as per Fire Code requirements, any
ouncil Chamber to the Main Conference Room
Chairman Mathewson also implored th
ain courteous to speakers.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2
Chairman Mathewson announced to the audience that the Planning Commission will only be
focusing on the Circulation Element of the General Plan Update and that all other elements will
R:\MinutesPC\020205
1
be considered at another Planning Commission meeting. He also informed those individuals
wishing to speak with regard to the Anza Circulation Element should address their issues and
concerns with the County.
Clarifying the hearing process, Assistant City Attorney Curley advised that Chairman
Mathewson would be abstaining with regard to issues pertaining to Meadowview, North General
Kearney, and Kahwea.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
3 A General Plan Update to comprehensive Iv update the followinq elements of the General
Plan: Land Use Circulation. Open Space/Conservation. Growth Manaqement/Public
Facilities. Public Safety. Noise. Air Quality. Community Desiqn. and Economic Development
3.1 Recommend that the City Council approve the Updated General Plan of Land Use,
Open Space/Conservation, Growth Management/Public Facilities, Public Safety, Noise,
Air Quality, Economic Development, and Community Design Elements
Principal Planner Hogan offered the following comments:
. That the Update to the General Plan process began in 2001 with a Council Appointment
of a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) representing local citizens, local
businesses, and community organizations
. That the purpose of the Committee was to work with staff and consultants to create a
General Plan that would update the existing 1993 General Plan and address issues
within the community.
At this time, Mr. Hogan introduced Mr. Henderson and Ms. Stetson of Cotton/Bridges and
Associates.
By way of PowerPoint, Mr. Henderson highlighted the Draft General Plan, noting the following:
Status of General Plan
. Public Comment period for Environmental Report (EIR) will end March 12,2005
. Responses to agency comments to be distributed prior to City Council Hearing
scheduled in March 2005
. Airport Land Use Commission Determination of Consistency is pending
. California Geological Survey review of Safety Element completed (recommended
changes to Safety Element identified in staff report)
R:IMinutesPCI020205
2
-
General Plan Elements
. Land Use
. Circulation
. Housing (2002 Update)
. Open Space/Conservation Element
. Growth Management/Public Facilities Element
. Public Safety Element
. Noise Element
. Air Quality Element
. Community Design Element
. Economic Development Element
The above mentioned elements are from the previous General Plan and have had some form
of update in the current effort.
General Plan ChanQes
. Overall policy direction will remain consistent
. Most proposed changes will fit within the framework of the current General Plan
. Changes primarily affect the Land Use and Circulation Elements
. Technical changes to the Plan are based on:
. Changed circumstances, facts, and new information
. Consolidation of similar policies
. Updated implementation programs for each element
. New policy directions
. Encouraging mixed-use development near 1-15 corridor
. Preserving established rural areas - Nicolas Valley, winery locations, SR 79 South, and
Anza Road
Land Use Policv Map
. Several recommended changes reviewed with City Council/Planning Commission
Workshop in August 2004
R:IMinutesPCI020205
3
.
Additional property owner requests described in staff report
Rural residential
.
.
Vineyards! Agriculture
Tribal Trust Lands
.
.
Commercial Recreation Overlay
.
Industrial Park
.
Remaining Land Uses
.
Changes in French Valley
Plan will reflect entitlements granted by the County
.
.
Preservation of Open Space corridors
.
Consistency with French Valley Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALCUP)
Circulation Element
Primary ChanQes to Dolicy direction:
. Provisions that allow for additional street dedication at high-volume intersections
. CAC recommendation to consider opening closed connecting streets to improve City-
wide circulation
. New roadway cross-sections are introduced such as Modified Secondary Arterial, a
Limited Secondary Arterial, and a Rural Highway; that these new roadway designations
are not present in the current General Plan and are recommended for the updated
General Plan
. New Roadways are introduced in the roadway plan such as: Loma Linda/Avenida de
Missiones, Eastern/Southern Bypass, Sky Canyon Drive/Briggs Road
. Roadway Improvements: within the Rancho California 1-15 corridor
Roadway Plan
Residents Concerns
. Rainbow Canyon Road - Collector or Secondary Arterial
R:\MlnutesPCI020205
4
<
CAC Recommendation (not part of the Draft General Plan that is before the Planning
Commission)
. North General Kearny - Limited Secondary, La Colima to Nicolas Roads
ChanQes to Other Elements
Growth ManaQement/Public Facilities
.
New statement will discourage street closures that may limit or delay access to
emergency services
Ooen Soace/Conservation Element
. New discussion of historic and cultural resources
Communitv DesiQn Element
. New discussion of mixed-use design concepts
. Policies and implementation encouraging creation of public spaces and public art
Environmentallmoact Reoort (EIR)
Draft EIR circulatinQ for oublic review and comment
. 5 comment letters received to date
. Responses will be in final EIR
SiQnificant unavoidable imoact
. Air Quality - short term construction impact
. Air Quality - long term emissions exceed standards for particulate matter
. Transportation - 3 intersections and 6 freeway ramps projected to operate below LOS
standards
All other imoacts found to be less than siQnificant
. Required mitigation measures are incorporated in the General Plan as Implementation
FindinQs and statement of overridinQ considerations
At this time, Mr. Henderson concluded his PowerPoint Presentation.
Principal Planner Hogan presented the Planning Commission with additional changes to the
General Plan Update (see staff report)
R:IMinutesPCI020205
5
For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Assistant City Attorney Curley clarified that because the Planning
Commission would be acting as an advisory body making recommendations to the City Council,
the Commission would not be required to adhere to the closing period for the EIR.
In response to the Commissioner's Chiniaeff's query, Principal Planner Hogan stated that the
proposed General Plan will be consistent with the current Housing Element.
For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Hogan relayed that although the challenges and efforts of
coordinating continual growth with the County will continue, with a newly elected representative
on the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, improved awareness of the need to manage
growth and to match it with resources is present. He noted that staff would be of the opinion
that by incorporating and addressing the issues in the General Plan, it will give staff more weight
and authority when dealing with the County.
Deputy Public Works Director Parks stated that the City has been successful in challenging the
County's approval of specific plans for the French Valley area; that staff has required the County
to approve to require certain street improvements/infrastructure prior to the County's issuance of
building permits; that the City has been proactive in working with the County; and that by
including it in the General Plan, it would provide the City additional support.
It was reiterated by Chairman Mathewson that all non-Meadowview related circulation matters
will be addressed first and that he would be abstaining from any Meadowview-related circulation
aspects.
Principal Planner Hogan presented a brief staff report regarding Rainbow Canyon Road,
highlighting the following:
. That when the General Plan was adopted in 1993, Rainbow Canyon Road was
designated as a secondary arterial 88' right-of-way
. That during the planning process, the recommendation was to retain it as an 88' right-of-
way
. That staff has received several letters from residents in the Rainbow Canyon area
concerned with retaining Rainbow Canyon Road as a Secondary Arterial
. That the residents' primary concern would be the difference in the current size of
Rainbow Canyon Road (a collector with a 66' right-of-way) as that from the current
General Plan designation (Secondary Arterial with an 88' right-of-way)
. That staff would recommend that the roadway designation for Rainbow Canyon remain
as a Secondary Arterial; and that once the Southern Bypass has been completed, the
City will have an opportunity to readdress the designation of this roadway.
Expanding on Mr. Hogan's comments, Director of Public Works Hughes stated that the current
designation for Rainbow Canyon Road is as an 88' right-of-way with four lanes; that this
designation would be an appropriate classification and should not be downgraded; and that with
the new interchange and the Eastern Bypass connecting to the south, larger capacity road
would be necessary; and that Rainbow Canyon Road is the only alternate route to the 1-15.
R:IMinutesPCI020205
6
For Commissioner Chiniaeff, Mr. Hughes stated that, in his opinion, the appropriate right-of-way
width was not required when the existing 12 homes were built; that there is a deficient right-of-
way width along Rainbow Canyon Road for these 12 home fronting Rainbow Canyon Road; and
that staff would be of the opinion that options are available to widen the road without impacting
the existing homes, reiterating the need for these four lanes.
In response to Chairman Mathewson, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks stated that the
current 66' right-of-way on Rainbow Canyon Road would accommodate for two lanes and an
additional 22' would be needed to accommodate for the 88' right-of-way. In response to the
Commissioners, Mr. Parks offered the following comments:
. That the subdivision was approved by the County and built as a County Plan
. That the County had envisioned Rainbow Canyon Road as a 66' right-of-way/residential
collector
. That the County did not perform a Circulation Element for the City
. That once the City performed its first General Plan and Circulation Element, the City
could foresee the potential need for four-lane road (88' right-of-way)
. That as development occurs in the area, the City will be making the design to that
particular standard.
Assistant City Attorney Curley clarified that General Plan level planning does not create any
exposure to any claim against a City, noting it is recognized that it is part of a long-range
planning process.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
The following individuals spoke in opposition of the Rainbow Canyon Road Draft General Plan
Update:
. Mr. David Payne
. Ms. Renea Broderick
. Mr. Mark Broderick
. Ms. Roberta Adkins
. Ms. Adrian McGregor
. Ms. Kathleen Montaldo
. Mr. Bernie Thomas
The above-mentioned individuals spoke in opposition to widening Rainbow Canyon Road for the
following reasons:
. Potential destructions of the 12 existing homes
. Significant noise, air, light, and aesthetic impacts the future 1-15 interchange and
Bypass will create
. Significant impacts with regard to air quality and transportation
R:IMinutesPCI020205
7
. Traffic impacts
. Property depreciation for the existing 12 homes that front Rainbow Canyon Road
Speaking in support of the proposed General Plan, Mr. Mike Kuhn, Temecula resident, noted
that every community in the City should be considered as a whole and that the entire City would
benefit from the Draft General Plan.
At this time, the public hearing was closed.
Addressing the above-mentioned concerns, Public Works Director Hughes stated the following:
. That the current designation for Rainbow Canyon Road as a four-lane, secondary
arterial has existed since 1988
. That the impacted residents would be compensated at fair market value
. That with regard to the Eastern Bypass and the new interchange, staff does realize the
challenges with coordinating the connection work; that the 1-15/SR 79 Interchange will
be upgraded whether or not the Eastern Bypass Interchange is completed; and that
although the road widening will create impacts, the City will be required to mitigate them
. That the City has plan on improving the operations near SR 79 South/I-15
. That staff is not aware of any legislation, guaranteeing transmission lines along any
route that would connect with a freeway.
Mr. Hughes clarified projects that are currently funded for the SR 79 South:
. Upgrade SR 79 South/I-15 to be completed in the next five to seven years
. Upon City control of SR 79 South, the existing lanes will be restripped to eight lanes
between Pechanga Parkway and the freeway northbound ramps; that a median will be
installed from 1-15 to Butterfield Stage Road to assist with capacity and constricting
turning movements
Commissioner Chiniaeff, echoed by Commissioner Olhasso, stated that the City should be
planning to create parkways that have limited access and would allow traffic flow without
impacting and accessing local streets.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that Rainbow Canyon Road should be retained as an 88' right-of-
way; that the interchange is necessary and should be included in the Draft General Plan; and
that Anza between SR 79 South, near Auld Road, should be upgraded to a four-lane secondary
road.
Although expressing her support of the SR 79 South/I-15 Interchange, Commissioner Olhasso
expressed concern with the current designation for Rainbow Canyon Road (88' right-of-way).
R:IMlnutesPCI020205
8
For Commissioner Guerriero, Public Works Director Hughes advised that the proposed
upgrades for Loma Linda Road will not impact Pechanga Parkway or SR 79 S.
For Commissioner Mathewson, Mr. Hughes relayed that there are plans for development on
Pechanga Parkway, including a golf course; that staff has had on-going conversations with the
Tribal Council regarding secondary access to the casino; that while there is no firm commitment
at this particular time, the Tribal Council does understand the traffic impacts; that the City has
discussed the possibility of reserving corridors that such roadways but that the Tribal Council
has made no commitment.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to recommend that the City Council adopt the Draft
General Plan Update as presented by staff, including retaining Rainbow Canyon Road as an 88'
right-of-way and upgrading SR 79 South to a secondary arterial with limited access as
determined by traffic studies. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and voice vote
reflected unanimous aooroval.
Removing himself from the dais, Chairman Mathewson abstained from the following discussion.
At 8:03 P.M., a short recess was called and at 8:10 P.M. the Commission reconvened.
Vice-Chairman Guerriero thanked the audience for their patience and stated the following
issues to be discussed would be the North General Kearny Kahwea elements.
Vice Chairman Guerriero informed the public that additional seating was available in the
downstairs lobby area.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
The following individuals spoke in opposition to the ex1ension of North General Kearny Road:
. Ms. Lisa Stute Kardouce Mr. Joseph Wasek, Jr.
. Mr. Nicolas Kardouche Mr. Steve Gossett
. Ms. Maria Hetzner Ms. Linda Gossett
. Mr. Richard Moriki Ms. Jennie Strutz
. Mr. Norman Clark Mr. Robert Johnston
. Ms. Lisa Weinmann Mr. John Austin
. Mr. Williams Herrmann Ms. Nancy Ray
. Ms. Diana Lovett-Webb Ms. Ellen Ellish
. Mr. Terry Stute Ms. Adrian Mc Gregor
. Ms. Cheryl Huber Mr. Peter Francheschina
. Mr. Brett Saunders Mr. Jerry Throckmorton
. Mr. Bernie Thomas Ms. Teri Biancardi
. Ms. Lori Nelson Ms. Jessica Christopher
. Mr. Jon Andrews
The above-mentioned individuals spoke in opposition for the following reasons:
. That building a road through Meadowview to even traffic flow will not be a solution
. That the citizens of Temecula should not have to be impacted as a result of City actions
R:\MinutesPCI020205
9
.
That solutions must be explored - especially ones that will not continue to destroy the
neighborhoods and the City
.
That Meadowview was created long before the traffic congestion
That no more construction permits should be granted
.
.
That extending North General Kearny Road would directly overlap with the use of the
trails (bikers, horseback rides, walkers, and daily joggers)
.
That the City has a long and colorful history associated with the horse from Native
American to the famous Vail and Roripaugh Ranches, the Stage Coach, and Pony
Express; that horses have always been here; and that the City has a unique history for
suburban area and horses have always been a part of it
.
That Meadowview is zoned as low-density residential with open space
.
That horse ownership is inherent in this zoning designation
.
That a General Plan goals is to preserve rural communities within Temecula and to
preserve the quality and value of a single family neighborhood
.
That drivers tend to ignore horse crossing signs
.
That by opening Kahwea Road, the risk of horse/car accidents would increase
.
That by extending North General Keamy and Kahwea Roads, the City would not be
adhering to the goal to preserve rural areas and that the ex1ension would not
complement the zoning designation for Meadowview
.
That extending North General Kearny and Kahwea Roads would create a safety concern
for the Meadowview residents
.
That there currently are existing traffic problems on residential streets such as Calle Pina
Colada, Via Norte, Del Rey, and Avenida de Barca
.
That by opening another road into the Meadowview, the traffic congestion will
significantly worsen
.
That Meadowview roads such as Del Rey and Via Norte were designed for low-density
traffic usage; that drivers, not familiar with the Meadowview area, will not be accustomed
to driving on streets with no sidewalks, streets with trails, and no lights
.
That the Meadowview area has numerous housing densities (two churches, a school, a
public park, a doctor's office, and an equestrian center), which contribute to congestion.
The following individuals spoke in favor of the proposed Draft General plan:
. Ms. Evelyn Buchanan
. Mr. Brian Harrold
. Mr. Mike Kuhn
R:IMinutesPCI020205
10
. Ms. Susan Zychovich
. Ms. Diana Broderick
. Ms. Jessica Christopher
The above-mentioned individuals spoke in favor of the extension of North General Kearny and
Kahwea Roads for the following reasons:
. That the City of Temecula must take responsibility of opening roads and planned roads
in the City, including North General Kearny Road
. That Meadowview residents should have equal access to emergency services
. That opening roads will help balance the traffic flow in other congested areas
. That the removal of fences/barriers would assist local residents with daily driving routes
. That the Meadowview residents should have equal access to traffic circulation
. That the closed roads in Meadowview were planned to accommodate local traffic
. That Meadowview is within the City; that the streets are paid for and maintained by City
services, funded by tax dollars; that the Meadowview streets are not private; that they
are public streets and should be utilized as such; that maps show North General Kearny
Road and Kahwea Roads as through streets
. That Meadowview may choose to be a private gated community, privately funding all
required services and closing its streets to public access
. That opening North General Kearny and Kahwea Roads will not add more trips to City
streets; that it will decrease traffic on Calle Medusa, Calle Pina Colada, Winchester, and
Margarita Roads; and that residents of Calle Medusa and Calle Pina Colada should not
have to bear the burden of daily local traffic.
. That by providing alternate traveling routes, traffic congestion on heavily burdened
streets will decrease
. That in an effort to create proper circulation, alternative routes are necessary; that all
residents should share in the solution and benefits of improved circulation.
Although always dependent on the location of the emergency, Fire Marshal McBride noted that
road closures will negatively impact response times.
Principal Planner Hogan offered the following comments:
. That there would be one lane in each direction with space for a left-turn lane
. That in an attempt to design a road to minimize conflicts, the cross-section would have a
separated trail from the roadway; that this would be an attempt to separate pedestrians
and equestrians from the road surface; and that this cross-section is not currently in the
existing General Plan but would be a proposed addition
R:\MinutesPC\020205
11
~
. That when the Public Traffic Safety Commission reviewed this item, it was difficult for the
Commission to achieve a recommendation with regard to the ex1ension; that the
Commissioners who opposed the ex1ension were of the opinion that the ex1ension would
not be necessary to improve circulation efforts; that the Commissioners who were in
favor of the ex1ension were of the opinion that it was necessary to improve emergency
access and response times; and that it was also noted by a Commissioner that traffic
affects all residents and that a street closure would adversely impact all residents.
Commissioner Chiniaeff noted that the City has a traffic problem that must be resolved and that
the ex1ension of North General Kearny and Kahwea Roads should be reflected in the General
Plan for studying.
Deputy Director Thornhill offered the following comments:
. That the City has made limited General Plan changes
. That City has constructed the Overland Bridge, provided improvements around the
perimeter of the Promenade Mall, and installed signals near the Promenade Mall -
totaling over $ 35 million
. That the Promenade Mall generates $4 million a year in retail sales tax - monies which
are then utilized for new road construction and Capital Improvement Projects
. That the Roripaugh project at Pourroy and Nicholas Roads was preapproved by the
County under development agreements prior to City incorporation
. That the City inherited 10 to 11 thousand homes that were preapproved by the County
under development agreements which the City was obligated to process and approve;
that in addition, the City has had three Specific Plans that were transferred cases in
1990 from the County such as Wolf Creek, Harveston, and Roripaugh
. That the City has been very judicial in its review and approval of projects.
At this time, it was the consensus of the Planning Commission to extend the meeting another 20
minutes.
At this time, the public hearing was closed.
For the Planning Commission, Mr. Thornhill stated that Kahwea Road is not a General Plan
element; that the Planning Commission would be dealing with a policy regarding the opening of
closed streets; and that no separate action regarding Kahwea Road would be necessary.
COMMISSION DISCUSSION
Commenting on the importance of preserving the City's rural areas, Commissioner Olhasso
advised that she could not support the opening of North General Kearny and Kahwea Roads.
Although stating that the ex1ension of North General Kearny and Kahwea Roads should be
reflected in the General Plan, Commissioner Telesio, echoed by Commissioner Guerriero,
recommended that, at this time, no funding be proposed until a complete and comprehensive
study of the area has been performed.
R:\MinutesPC\02020S
12
:
MOTION: Commissioner Guerriero moved to ex1end the Planning Commission's meeting
another 20 minutes. Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the motion and voice vote reflected
approval with the exception of Chairman Mathewson who abstained.
MOTION: Commissioner Telesio moved to recommend to the City Council that the extension of
North General Kearny Road be reflected in the General Plan but that no funding be proposed
until a comprehensive study has been completed. Commissioner Chiniaeff seconded the
motion and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioner Olhasso who
voted !!2 and Chairman Mathewson who abstained.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to support the policy of opening roads.
Commissioner Olhasso seconded the motion and voice vote reflected approval with the
exception of Chairman Mathewson who abstained.
It was the consensus of Commissioners Chiniaeff, Telesio, and Guerriero to start future
Planning Commission meetings at 6:30 p.m. versus 6:00 P.M.
No report
ADJOURNMENT
At 11 :45 P.M., Chairman 'ourned this meeting to the next reaular
meetin!:l to be held on Wednesda Fe ar 1 005 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council
Chambers, 43200 Business Park Driv, emecula.
Debbie Ubnoske
Director of Planning
R:\MlnutesPC\02020S
13
MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 16, 2005
R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report CC2.doc
21
.
hiniaeff moved to approve Consent Calendar Item
motion was seconded by Commissioner e ected approval with the
ex .
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
Continued from February 2, 2005
3 A General Plan Update to comprehensivelv update the followinq elements of the
General Plan: Land Use. Open Space/Conservation. Growth ManaqementlPublic
Facilities. Public Safety. Noise. Air Qualitv. Community Desiqn. and Economic
Development - David Hoqan. Principal Planner
In light of the significance of this matter and considering the absences of two Commissioners,
Chairman Mathewson advised that it would be the desire of the Commission to continue this
item to the March 16, 2005, Commission meeting. For those individuals that may not be able to
attend the March 16, 2005, Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Mathewson encouraged them to
submit their comments in writing to staff.
At this time, Chairman Mathewson opened the public hearing.
MOTION: Commissioner Chiniaeff moved to continue this public hearing to the March 16,
2005, Planning Commission meeting. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Telesio and
voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Commissioners Guerriero and Olhasso who
were absent.
4
d by staff that this item be continued
No additional comment.
R:IMinutesPCI021605
2
MINUTES FROM MARCH 26, 2005
R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report CC2.doc
22
response to Mr. Ray's concern, Principal Planner Hogan clarified the
Pres ation area boundary, noting that Mr. Ray's property will not be affected.
MOTION: issioner Chiniaeff moved to approve staff's recommen Ion including a
modification to Con . 'on of Approval Nos. 11 and D6 to include that the eloper give notice to
the Department of Rea tate regarding Notice of Airport in Vicinit ommissioner Guerriero
seconded the motion and VOl vote reflected unanimous a r al.
A RESOLUTION OF THE P
THE CITY OF TEMEC APP ING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. ;6.-04-0178, TEN IVE TRACT
MAP NO. 3234 UBDIVIDING 28.6 ACR
SINGLE-F Y LOTS GENERALLY LOCAT ON
NORT DE OF NICOLAS ROAD, EAST OF JOSE
R ,KNOWN AS ASSESSORS PARCEL NO. 957-
80-014 AND 957-080-019 (PLANNING APPLICATION
PA04-0178)
Continued from February 2, 2005
3 A General Plan Update to comprehensivelv update the followinq elements of the General
Plan: Land Use. Open Space/Conservation. Growth ManaqemenVPublic Facilities. Public
Safetv. Noise. Air Quality. Communitv Desiqn. and Economic Development
3.1 Recommend that the City Council approve the Updated General Plan
Principal Planner Hogan presented a staff report (of record), highlighting the following:
. That staff's recommendation continues to be that the Planning Commission consider the
remaining eight elements of the General Plan, make any necessary changes, and
recommend to the City Council to approve the Updated General Plan
. That since the Community Advisory Committee's Draft Updated General Plan and Draft
Environmentallmpacl Report, four additional Land Use requests have been submitted --
one of which was received on March 16, 2005 and has not yet been reviewed or
discussed; therefore, staff will not be making a recommendation with regard to that
request
. That it would be within the Planning Commission's purview to make alternate
recommendations to the CAC's recommendations
. That those requests not supported by the CAC, the applicants of those request will have
an opportunity to make their requests to the Planning Commission and City Council.
Commissioner Chiniaeff suggested that the Planning Commission address the General Plan
followed by each individual Land Use Map Amendment.
DRAFT
R:\MinutesPCI031605
4
Open Space Conservation Element
See staff's addendum report; copies distributed to the Commissioners; no additional discussion.
Growth Manaqement/Public Facilities
See staff's addendum report; copies distributed to the Commissioners; no additional discussion.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Greg Kryzs, Temecula, expressed concern with the continual approval of projects and
requested that the Planning Commission review the current Public Facilities Elements and
Growth Management in the City in order to determine the number of General Plan Amendments
and rezones that have been processed by the City since 1993.
At this time, the public hearing was closed.
Public Safetv Element
See staff's addendum report; copies distributed to the Commissioners; no additional discussion.
No speakers for this item.
Noise Element
No changes being proposed to this item.
No speakers for this item.
Air Qualitv Element
No changes being proposed to this item.
No speakers for this item.
Communitv DesiQn Element
See staff's addendum report; copies distributed to the Commissioners; no additional discussion.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
In response to Ms. Diana-Lovett-Webb, Deputy City Manager Thornhill noted that staff would be
willing to work with Ms. Lovett in creating a Community Workshop to preserve rural
communities.
Mr. Don Stowe, Temecula, spoke of the importance of preserving rural equestrian communities
in the City of Temecula.
At this time, the public hearing was closed.
DRAFT
RIMinutesPCI031605
5
Economic Development Element
/
)
No changes being proposed to this item.
For future items, Commissioner Olhasso requested more detailed information in the staff report
with regard to Economic Development.
No speakers for this item.
At 7:13 p.m., the Planning Commission called a short recess and reconvened at 7:22 p.m.
Land Use Element
1. Northside of the Santa Gertrudis Channel between Margarita Road and Rustic Glen
Drive REQUEST: From Industrial Park (IP) and Public Institutional (PI) to Professional
Office (PO)
CAC RECOMMENDATION: As per the Draft Lane Use Plan, unanimous support for
Professional Office.
No speakers for this item.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to approve the CAC's recommendation.
2. Southeast of the intersection of Nicolas Road and Via Lobo REQUEST: From Very Low
Density Residential (VL) to Low Medium Density Residential (LM) and Open Space (OS)
CAC RECOMMENDATION: A majority of the CAC were of the opinion to retain this property as
Very Low Density would be appropriate. No changes were made to Land Use Plan.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Jack Diamond, representing the Garret Group, spoke in favor of the CAC's
recommendation.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to approve the CAC's recommendation and it
was noted that if there were any boundary line issues, those could be addressed through a
Planned Development Overlay.
3. Southeast of the intersection of Margarita Road and Solana Way REQUEST: From
Medium Density Residential (MD) to Professional Office (PO) Neighborhood Commercial
(NC), and Open Space (OS)
CAC RECOMMENDATION: A majority supported Professional Office and Open Space (OS).
The Professional Office and Open Space designations have been shown on the draft Land Use
Plan.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Matthew Fagan, representing Ms. Melinda Smith, spoke in favor of the CAC's
recommendation.
DRAFT
R:lMinutesPCI03160S
6
At this time, the public hearing was closed.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to approve the CAC's recommendation.
4. Between Butterfield Stage Road and Walcott Lane north of Solana Way REQUEST:
From Very Low Density Residential (VL) to Low Density Residential.
CAC RECOMMENDATION: No action recommended. This request was delayed until the
uncertainty of the dirt roads and the Roripaugh Ranch project have been resolved. No changes
were made to Land Use Plan.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Steve Galvez, Walcott Investments, noted for the record, that if he were granted a LM zone,
he would be willing to pave Liefer Road which would resolve road issues for residents of Nicolas
Valley.
Ms. Linda Beaudoin, echoed by Mr. Jo Rotell, spoke in favor of Mr. Galvez' offer to pave Liefer
Road.
At this time, the public hearing was closed.
Although appreciating Mr. Galvez' offer to pave Liefer Road, Deputy City Manager Thornhill
noted that a General Plan may not be conditioned or rezoned and that Mr. Galvez would have
no legal obligation to pave the road at his own expense.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to approve the CAC's recommendation.
5. South of Nicolas Road between Calle Medusa and Calle Girasol REQUEST: From
Very Low Density Residential (VL) to Low Medium Density Residential (LM)
CAC RECOMMENDATION: No action recommended. This request was delayed until the
uncertainty of the dirt roads and Roripaugh Ranch project have been resolved. No changes
were made to Land Use Plan.
No speakers for this item.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to approve the CAC's recommendation.
6. South of Temecula Creek Village project and west of the extension of Jedediah Smith
Road REQUEST: From Open Space (OS) to Unspecified Designations.
CAC RECOMMENDATION: A majority of the CAC was of the opinion that the Open Space
(OS) designation was the correct use for this property. No changes were made to Land Use.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Larry Markham, representing Markham Development Management Group, spoke in favor of
the proposed project, noting that the proposal would not be in the flood plain channel and that
the proposed project would not be within the Army Corps and/or Fish and Game jurisdiction.
At this time, the public hearing was closebRAFT
R:IMinutesPCI031605
7
It was the consensus of the Planning commission to approve the CAC's recommendation.
7. Northside of Loma Linda Road, east of Temecula Lane REQUEST: From Professional
Office (PO) to Medium Density Residential (MD)
CAC RECOMMENDATION: As per the Draft Land Use Plan, supported Low Medium Density
on the eastern-third and Medium Density on the western-third.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Mark Broderick, Temecula, expressed concern with traffic impacts that would be created as
a result of not constructing a bridge across Avenida de Missiones.
At this time, the public hearing was closed.
In response to Mr. Broderick's concern, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks noted that the
bridge has been earmarked in the City's CIP but has not yet been funded.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to not support the CAC's recommendation to
support retaining the eastern and western-thirds at Low Medium Density.
8. Southwest of the City's Northwest Sports Park (Temecula Education Project)
REQUEST: From Industrial Park (IP) to Community Commercial (CC), High Density
Residential (HD), and medium Density Residential (MD)/Mixed-Use.
CAC RECOMMENDATION: No action recommended. Staff was of the opinion that changes in
this area should not be considered until additional information about the Temecula Education
Project has been obtained and its potential impacts to the area.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to accept the CAC's recommendation.
9. South and west of the City's Northwest Sports Park (Temecula Education Project)
adjacent to request No.8 REQUEST: From Industrial Park (IP) to either High Density
Residential or Medium Density Residential (MD).
CAC RECOMMENDATION: No action recommended. Staff was of the opinion that changes in
this area should not be considered until additional information about the Temecula Education
Project has been obtained and its potential impacts to the area.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to accept the CAC's recommendation.
10. West of Butterfield Stage Road between Chenin Clinet and Ahern Place REQUEST:
From Very Low Density Residential (VL) to Low Medium Density Residential (LM).
CAC RECOMMENDATION: Supported a change to Low Medium Density Residential. This
has shown on the draft Land Use Plan.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Matthew Fagan spoke in favor of the proposed project.
DRAFT
R:IMlnutesPCI031605
8
Relaying her opposition to this request and to the CAC's recommendation, Commissioner
Olhasso expressed concern with the request of the Low-Medium designation.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to accept the CAC's recommendation with
the exceDtion of Commission Olhasso who voted No. -
11. Northwest Corner of Margarita and Dartolo Roads REQUEST: From Professional Office
(PO) to Community Commercial (CC).
CAC RECOMMENDATION: The CAC was of the opinion that retaining the PO designation
would be the most appropriate for this location.
No speakers for this item.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to accept the CAC's recommendation
12. Northeast corner of Winchester and Nicolas Road REQUEST: From Neighborhood
Commercial (NC) to Community Commercial (CC).
CAC RECOMMENDATION: As per the Draft Land Use Plan, the CAC supported this change.
No speakers for this item.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to accept the CAC's recommendation.
13. Rainbow Canyon Road west of Pechanga Creek REQUEST: From Open Space (OS)
and Highway Tourist Commercial (HT) to Open Space (OS), Highway Tourist
Commercial (HT), and Low-Medium Density Residential (LM)
CAC RECOMMENDATION: The CAC did not support this change.
Mr. Thornhill relayed that it was the opinion of the CAC that until any certainty as to whether or
not a southern interchange will occur, no intensification of Land Use should occur along the
corridor of Rainbow Canyon Road.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Bob Wheeler, representing the General Plan Advisory Committee, stated that it was the
opinion of the CAC to not support this change at this time.
Mr. Sam Alhadeff, representing Temecula Creek Inn, expressed the applicant's desire to be
given the opportunity, at a future date, to explore a Specific Plan Overlay.
Advising that the applicant is only requesting a Specific Plan Zone Overlay, Mr. Larry Markham
noted that Mr. Alhadeff's letter to the Planning Commission, dated January 31, 2005, references
language with regard to fractional ownership and that the applicant would be willing to fund the
Specific Plan with a full Environmental Impact Report.
At this time, the public hearing was closed.
For the Commission, Principal Planner Hogan relayed that staff could clarify in the Specific Plan
that developments consistent with the resort commercial would not require a Specific Plan; that
R:\MinutesPC\031605
DRAFT
resort uses would include a golf course, hotel rooms, fractional ownership units, day spa, etc.;
and that all other uses with exception of resort commercial activities would require approval of a
Specific Plan.
)
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to accept the CAC's recommendation.
14. SR-79 South east of Jedidiah Smith Road REQUEST: From Very Low Density
Residential (VL) to Professional Office (PO)
CAC RECOMMENDATION: The CAC did not support this change. No changes were made to
Land Use Plan.
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Larry Markham, representing Los Ranchitos Homeowners Association, noted opposition to
the request of Very Low Density Residential (VL) to Professional Office (PO).
At this time, the public hearing was closed.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to approve the CAC's recommendation.
The following requests had not been reviewed by the CAC:
15. Southside of Rancho California road, east of the city limits REQUEST: From Hillside
Residential (HR) and Open Space (OS) to some form of commercial.
It was noted that the applicant subsequently withdrew his request on February 12, 2005.
16. East side of Winchester road at Rustic Glen Drive REQUEST: From Neighborhood
Commercial (NC) to Professional Office (PO)
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Bart Doyle, representing the applicant, spoke in support of the requested change.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to deny the request but expressed a
willingness to a General Plan Amendment with a development proposal for senior housing at
some future time.
17. Northeast corner of Ynez Road and Tierra Vista Road REQUEST: From Professional
Office (PO) to High Density Residential (HD)
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Eric Luna, owner of project, spoke in favor of the request.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to change the designation from Professional
Office (PO) to Medium Density (MD).
18. Request for change to General Plan Land Use Plan for 2.5 acres located on the south
side of Pauba Road, west of the Plaza Del Sol Center
DRAFT
R:\MinutesPC\031605
10
At this time, the public hearing was opened.
Mr. Matthew Fagan, representing the applicant, noted that the change would represent an
ex1ension of uses that are consistent and compatible with the adjacent office/retail pattern of
development to the east and existing and proposed Public Institutional uses on the north side of
Pauba Road.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to deny the request and retain the Very Low
Density Residential designation.
Mr. Steve Corona, representing the Corona Family, spoke in opposition to the inclusion of
properties outside of the City's sphere.
In response to Mr. Corona's comment, Principal Planner Hogan relayed the CAC's opinion to
not convert areas that are currently agricultural and rural residential into urban densities; that
the CAC focused on urban development in urban areas and to maintain the agricultural and
rural character within the City, advising that noticing was provided by the newspapers.
At this time, the public hearing was closed.
MOTION: Commissioner Olhasso moved to recommend that the City Council approve the
Environmental Impact Report, to approve the Draft General Plan as amended by the Planning
Commission, and to adopt the resolution. Commissioner Guerriero seconded the motion and
voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2005-014
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE
CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY THAT FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT FOR THE GENERAL PLAN
AND APPROVE THE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF
THE GENERAL PLAN
Commissioner Olhasso stated that she
Commission meeting.
be ab
For Chairman Mathewson, ks relayed that he will ensur
regarding the mining operation on Ran alifornia Roa
'S REPORT
ditional comment.
DRAFT
R:IMinutesPCI031605
11
ATTACHMENT NO.5
FINAL CHANGE ADDENDUM
R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report CC2.doc
23
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE - LIST OF CHANGES
(as of March 22, 2005)
Introduction
1. Pages 1-6, after the second paragraph, add the following "Regional growth and
transportation plans prepared by the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) and implemented through the Western Riverside County
Council of Governments (WRCOG) also guide long range development within the
greater Temecula region. The goals and policies of this General Plan are
supportive of regional objectives established by the Regional Comprehensive
Plan, Regional Transportation Plan, and SCAG's Growth Vision Compass.
Temecula's General Plan represents a significant opportunity to implement these
regional plans and programs through local actions that benefit the community,
subregion, and region in the future." (PC 3/16/05)
Land Use Element
1. To the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure LU-2) make the following changes:
A. Change those portions of APN's 919-350-017, 018, 019, and 020 north of
the predominantly east-west portion of the channel to Low Density
Residential and the remainder of the site to Open Space. (Land Use Map
Change Request No.2) (PC 3/16/05)
B. Change the Medium Density Residential designation on the north side of
Loma Linda Road to Low Medium Density Residential. (Part of Land Use
Map Change Request No.7) (PC 3/16/05)
C. Modify the General Plan Land Use Designation for Planning Area 9A of
the Margarita Village Specific Plan from Low-Medium Density Residential
to Low Density Residential. (Part of Land Use Map Change Request No.
10) (PC 3/16/05)
D. Change APN 944-330-007 from Professional Office to Medium Density
Residential. (Land Use Map Change Request No. 17) (PC 3/16/05)
E. Modify the General Plan Land Use Designation for the three parcels
along the east side of Butterfield Stage Road immediately south of
Rancho Vista Road from Rural Residential to Public Institutional. (PC
3/16/05)
F. Add the label "BLM' to the map in areas where much of the land is owned
by the Bureau of Land Management is located. Specifically, these are the
Open Space areas located in the southern Planning Area. One area is
between Rainbow Canyon Road and Pechanga Parkway and the other
area is west of 1-15 south of south of the City limits. (PC 3/16/05)
2. Add a copy of the Final French Valley Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan into
the Land Use Element after the discussion on French Valley Airport. (PC
3/16/05)
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelFinal General Plan Addendum Document CC.doc
1
3. Page LU-20, change the density range for the Vineyard/Agriculture designation
to 0.0 to 0.2. (PC 3/16/05)
4. Page LU-21 , Vineyards/Agriculture discussion. Delete the sentence that begins
with "One dwelling unit". (PC 3/16/05)
5. Page LU-21 , Recreational Commercial Overlay, add the words "(including
fractional ownership units)" after the word "resorts". (PC 3/16/05)
6. Page LU-26, Figure LU-3. make the following changes:
A. Show the Temecula Creek Inn properties as a future specific Plan area
"AA". (PC 3/16/05)
B. Show the area of Land Use Request No.2 (Nicolas Road and Via Lobo)
as future specific plan area "BB". (PC 3/16/05)
7. Page LU-31 , Table LU-5, add the following information on future specific plans
"AA" and "BB" to this Table.
A.
Label on Fig. LU-3:
Future Specific Plan:
Location:
Description/Objectives:
General Plan Land Uses:
Acres:
B.
Label on Fig. LU-3:
Future Specific Plan:
Location:
Description/Objectives:
General Plan Land Uses:
Acres:
AA
Future Specific Plan AA
Temecula Creek Inn
Resort-related activities do not require a
specific plan. Resort related uses include a
golf course, hotel rooms, fractional
ownership units, day spa, and ballroom.
Any use of the site for residential, non-
resort-related, or non-open space-related
activities will require the approval of a
specific plan.
OS, Recreational Commercial Overlay
305 (PC 3/16/05)
BB
Future Specific Plan BB
Southeast corner of Nicolas Road and Via
Lobo
A planned development overlay that will
cluster development near the intersection of
Nicolas Road and Via Lobo while preserving
the channel and those areas to the south as
well as other significant on-site resources.
LD,OS
72 (PC 3/16/05)
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelFinal General Plan Addendum Document CC.doc
2
8. Page LU-32, Figure LU-4, make the following changes:
A. Remove future specific plan area "BB" (Land Use Request No.2) from
the Nicolas Valley Rural Preservation Area. (PC 3/16/05)
B. Remove the area between Hwy 79 South and Temecula Creek from
Rural Preservation Area 3. (PC 3/16/05)
Circulation Element
1. Page C-11, add the following to the first paragraph under the Principal Arterial
Section: "An exception to the standard cross section is found in the French Valley
area. According to an agreement between Caltrans and the County of Riverside,
the right-of-way for Winchester Road, between Hunter and Keller Roads, needs
to be 184 feet wide." (PC 3/16/05, CC 3/22/05)
2. Page C-15, under the Modified Secondary Arterial heading, add a second
paragraph that reads as follows: "The cross-section envisions a multi-use trail
adjacent to one side of the roadway beyond the current 88-foot right-of-way.
Prior to improving Ynez/DePortola Road to four lanes, the City will acquire
sufficient right-of-way or easements necessary to extend the multi-use trail along
all improved sections of the road." (CC 3/22/05)
3. Page C-33, to the end of the policy add the following: "unless is significantly
impacts rural preservation areas." (CC 3/22/05)
4. Page C-33, delete policies 3.7 and 3.8. (CC 3/22/05)
Open Space Conservation Element
1. Page OS-12 - Replace second paragraph with the following: "One groundwater
production well was contaminated by a MTBE plume but subsequent aquifer
remedial cleanup activities have allowed this facility to be placed back into
service. Furthermore, other groundwater production wells were nearly
contaminated by a separate MTBE plume, but subsequent aquifer remedial
cleanup activities have allowed these facilities to remain in operation." (PC
3/16/05)
2. Page OS-18 - Revise Plans in Action to identify that there are Williamson Act
contracts in the unincorporated portions of the Planning Area. (PC 3/16/05)
3. Add the following policies below Goal 6:
A. "Policy 6.10 Work with the Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians to
identify and appropriately address cultural resources and tribal sacred
sites through the development review process." (PC 3/16/05)
B. "Policy 6.11 Encourage voluntary landowner efforts to protect cultural
resource and tribal sacred sites consistent with State requirements." (PC
3/16/05)
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelFlnal General Plan Addendum Document CC.doc
3
4. Page OS-33, Implementation Measure OS-6. Replace the word "facilities" with
"or treatment methods". (PC 3/16/05)
5. Add the following Implementation Measure:
"OS-39 Tribal Cultural Resources
Development projects proposed on previously undeveloped property
which involve earth-disturbing activities or which are located in areas with
previously identified cultural resources need to comply with the following
requirements to appropriately address tribal cultural resources.
. All projects shall be evaluated by a qualified archeologist by
conducting a site records search, and if feasible, a Phase I walk-over
survey, and if necessary, a Phase II survey prior to project approval to
identify the potential for the presence of significant cultural resources.
. If significant resources are located on the project site, or a high
probability for cultural resources exists, the Pechanga Band of
Luisefio Indians shall be consulted in the identification of mitigation
measures to address impacts consistent with State requirements,
including provisions to address inadvertent discoveries.
. During on-site grading activities in areas with cultural resources, or
with a high potential for cultural resources, a qualified archeologist
and tribal monitors shall be on-site to monitor grading operations.
. In the event of the discovery of a burial site, human bone or
suspected human bone, grading in the immediate area shall be
immediately halted and the site protected, and the County Coroner
and representatives from Pechanga Band of Luisefio Indians notified.
Agency/Department: Planning, Public Works
Related Policy:
6.10" (PC 3/16/05)
Growth Manaqement / Public Facilities Element
1. Pages GM-9 and GM-14 - Revise to indicate that a portion of the City of
Temecula (primarily the Westside Business Centre area) is within the RCWD's
wastewater service area and these wastewater flows are treated at RCWD's
Santa Rosa Water Reclamation Facility, per Rancho California Water District
comments on Draft EIR. (PC 3/16/05)
2. Page GM-16 - Update Table GM-2 to include current data provided by the
Temecula Valley Unified School District as shown below. (PC 3/16/05)
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelFinal General Plan Addendum Document CC.doc
4
Table GM-2
School Facilities
Student
Name Location Enrollment as of
Januarv 2005
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS K-S)
Alamos Elementarv' 38200 Pacific Park Drive 593
Barnett Elementarv 39925 Harveston Drive 387
French Vallev Elementarv' 36680 Cadv Road 1,037
Jackson Elementarv 32400 Camino San Dimas 928
Nicolas Valley 39600 N. General Kearney Road 918
Elementarv'
Paloma Elementarv 42940 Via Rami 789
Pauba Vallev Elementa.rv 33125 Reoina Drive 884
Rancho Elementarv 31530 La Serena Wav 812
Red Hawk Elementarv' 32045 Camino San Jose 642
Reinke Elementarv 43799 Sunny Meadows Drive 1,122
Sparkman Elementarv 32225 Pio Pico Road 704
Temecula Elementarv 41951 Moraqa Road 792
Vail Elementarv 29915 Mira Loma Drive 773
Vintaqe Hills Elementarv 42240 Camino Romo 1,069
MIDDLE SCHOOLS (6-8)
Bella Vista Middle 1 31650 Brownino Road 697
Day Middle 40775 Camino Camoos Verde 978
Gardner Middle 45125 Via Del Coronado 789
Maraarita Middle 30600 Maroarita Road 982
Temecula Middle 42075 Meadows Parkwav 1,349
Vail Ranch Middle 33340 Camino Piedra Roio 952
HIGH SCHOOLS (9-12\
Chaoarral Hiqh 27215 Nicolas Road 2,882
Great Oak Hiqh' 32555 Deer Hollow Wav 1,253
Temecula Vallev Hiqh 31555 Rancho Vista Road 2,868
Rancho Vista Continuation 31340 Rancho Vista Road 227
ADULT SCHOOL
Temecula Adult School 31350 Rancho Vista Road n/a
. . ..
1. Located within sphere of Influence. Source: Temecula Valley Unified School Dlstnct, February 2005.
3. Page GM-17, update Figure GM-2 to indicate the correct location of French
Valley Elementary School. (PC 3/16/05)
4. Page GM-18 - Update Table GM-3 to include current data provided by the
Temecula Valley Unified School District as shown below. (PC 3/16/05)
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelFinal General Plan Addendum Document CC.doc
5
Table GM-3
Future TVUSD Schools
Location
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
Quinta Do La 0 in French Valle
Mor an Hill
Crowne Hill
Wolf Creek
Old Town
Rori au h Ranch
MIDDLE SCHOOLS
Rori au h Ranch
Middle School #8
Winchester 1800 S
HIGH SCHOOLS
High School #4 1 (in French Valley) Beyond 2006
,. Located within sphere of influence. Source: Temecula Valley Unified School District, February, 2005.
Estimated Completion
Date
2005
2005
2005
2006
Be ond 2006
Be ond 2006
Be ond 2006
Beyond 2006
Public Safetv Element
1. Page PS-3, replace the discussion of the Seismic Hazard Mapping Act to read:
"The purpose of the Act is to reduce the threat to public safety and minimize the
loss of life and property by identifying and mitigating these seismic hazards. The
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (Public Resources Code Section 2690, et. seq.)
directs the State Geologist to identify and map areas prone to earthquake
hazards of liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides and amplified ground
shaking. The Act requires site-specific geotechnical investigations be conducted
identifying the hazard and formulating mitigation measures prior to permitting
most developments designed for human occupancy within the Zones of Required
Investigation." (PC 3/16/05)
2. Page PS-3, delete the discussion on the Landslide Hazard Identification
Program. (PC 3/16/05)
3. Page PS-9, replace the Plans in Action discussion with the following: "California
law requires disclosure of Liquefaction, Landslide, and Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault zones as a part of all real estate transactions within identified areas." (PC
3/16/05)
4. Page PS-17, add the following to the end of the second paragraph "One
important way that residents participate in the City's emergency preparedness
program is through the Temecula Citizen's Corps. Created in 2002, the Corps is
a community-based volunteer organization whose goal is to prepare for natural
disasters or terrorist activity through coordinated response at the neighborhood
level. In the event of an emergency, the Corps will assist the City government by
providing assistance in cases where the scale of the incident has overwhelmed
conventional emergency services." (CC 4/12/05)
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelFinal General Plan Addendum Document CC.doc
6
5. Page PS-21 , add the following policy statement under Goal NO.4.
"Policy 4.6
Discourage the closure of streets that limit or delay access for
emergency services." (PC 3/16/05)
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelFinal General Plan Addendum Document CC.doc
7
ATTACHMENT NO.6
ACTION SUMMARY OF LAND USE MAP CHANGE REQUESTS
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report CC2.doc
24
ACTION SUMMARY OF LAND USE MAP REQUESTS
NO. APPLICANT/LOCATION REQUEST CAC RECO PC RECO
Peter Sterling - east side Public Institutional to
1 of Margarita Road north Professional Office. YES YES
of the Santa Gertrudis
Creek channel
Garrett Group - southeast Very Low Density YES
2 corner of Nicolas Road (04 du/ac) to (Low Density and
and Via Lobo Low Density N01 Open Space with
(1.0 - 2.0 du/ac) a future specific
r+ 42 Additional Unitsl plan overlv)
Malinda Smith - southeast Medium Density
3 corner of Margarita Road (7 -12 du/ac) to
and Solana Way Professional Office and YES YES
Open Space.
r- 70 Unitsl
Steve Galvez - between Very Low Density
4 Butterfield Stage Road (0.4 du/ac) to NO'
and Walcott Lane Low Medium Density NO'
(3 - 6 du/ac)
r+35 Additional Unitsl
Larry Markham - Very Low Density
5 northeast corner of (0.4 du/ac) to
Nicolas Road and Calle Low Medium Density NO' NO'
Medusa (3-6 du/ac)
r+72 Additional Units I
6 Larry Markham - south of Open Space to NO NO
Temecula Creek Villaqe Professional Office
Larry Markham - Professional Office to
northside of Loma Linda Low Medium Density
7 Road east of Rawhide (3 - 6 du/ac) and YES
Park Medium Density YES (Low Medium
(7 -12 du/ac) Density only)
[Between 200 and 418
Additional Units I
Larry Markham - west of Industrial Park to
the Temecula Education Community
Project Commercial, Medium
8 Density (7 -12 du/ac) N02 N02
and/or High Density
(13 - 20 du/ac)
[Between 500 and 800
Additional Units 1
Spanos Development - Industrial Park to
southwest of the Medium Density
9 Temecula Education (7 -12 du/ac) or
Project High Density NO 2 NO 2
(13 - 20 du/ac)
[Between 400 and 600
Additional Units 1
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report CC2.doc
25
NO. APPLICANT/LOCATION REQUEST CAC RECO PC RECO
May Group - northwest Very Low Density
corner of Butterfield (0.4 du/ac) to
10 Stage Road and Chemin Low Medium Density
Clinet (3 - 6 du/ac) and YES YES
Low Density
(1 - 2 dulac)
r+ 14 Additional Units I
11 Pat Fay - northwest Professional Office to
corner of Margarita Road Community NO NO
and Dartolo Road Commercial
12 Previouslv aooroved. YES YES
Open Space with a
Recreational
Commercial Overlay to
Open Space with a
Recreational NO NO
Commercial Overlay,
13 Low Medium Density
Temecula Creek Inn (3 to 6 du/ac)
. f+360 Additional Units I
Designate as a future NO YES
specific alan overlav
Include single family
residential in the NO NO
description of the future
soecific plan
14 Mel Malkoff - northeast Very Low Density
corner of SR-79S and (0.4 du/ac) to NO NO
Jedediah Smith Road Professional Office
15 Reauest Withdrawn. N/A 0 N/A
16 Hsiao-Feng Chao - east Neighborhood
side of Winchester Road Commercial to N/A 3 NO
at Rustic Glen Professional Office
American Property Professional Office to YES
17 Enterprises - southeast High Density N/A 3 (Medium Density
corner of Ynez Road and (13-20 du/ac)
Tierra Vista r+36 Additional Units I only)
Matthew Fagan - Pauba Low Density
Road east of Margarita (1 - 2 du/ac) to N/A 3 NO
18 Road Neighborhood
Commercial
Remove from N/A 3 NO
Chaparral Area
Notes:
1. Nicolas Valley Area Deferral
2. Temecula Education Project Deferral
3. Request received after the Community Advisory Committee completed its work and
submitted a recommended General Plan to the Plannina Commission and Citv Council.
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report CC2.doc
26
ATTACHMENT NO.7
LOCATION MAPS FOR LAND USE MAP REQUESTS
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report CC2.doc
27
REQUEST NO.1
Cl)
..
41t UI f..1
CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: Public Institutional
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: Professional Office
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report CC2.doc
28
REQUEST NO.2
CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION:
Very Low Density Residential
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential
RECOMMENDED DESIGNATION:
Low Density Residential, Open Space, with a
Specific Plan Overlay
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report CC2.doc
29
REQUEST NO.3
CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: Professional Office and Open Space
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report CC2.doc
30
REQUEST NO.4
11;
4.. 41t Itlf..l
CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: Very Low Density Residential
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report CC2.doc
31
REQUEST NO.5
4... I ..... II' l:lt ,..1
CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: Very Low Density Residential
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: Low Medium Density Residential
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report CC2.doc
32
REQUEST NO.6
'iD'
(l)
CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION:
Open Space
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: Professional Office
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report CC2.doc
33
REQUEST NO.7
CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION:
Professional Office
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential and Medium Density
Residential
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report CC2.doc
34
REQUEST NO.8
UI . ... "' .!" rut
CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION:
Industrial Park
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: Community Commercial, Medium Density
Residential, High Density Residential
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report CC2.doc
35
(l)
REQUEST NO.9
CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: Industrial Park
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: Medium or High Density Residential
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report CC2.doc
36
REQUEST NO. 10
CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION:
Very Low Density Residential
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential and Low Medium Density
Residential
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report CC2.doc
37
REQUEST NO. 11
(j)
CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: Professional Office
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: Community Commercial
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report CC2.doc
38
REQUEST NO.13
(l)
,-
CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: Open Space with Recreational Commercial Overlay
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: Open Space with Recreational Commercial
Overlay, and Low Medium Density Residential, with
a Specific Plan Overlay.
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report CC2.doc
39
REQUEST NO.14
<l>
CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: Very Low Density Residential
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: Professional Office
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report CC2.doc
40
REQUEST NO.16
CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: Neighborhood Commercial
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: Professional Office
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report CC2.doc
41
REQUEST NO. 17
Cl)
.... . 41t 1t1,..1
CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: Professional Office
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: High Density Residential
RECOMMENDED DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report CC2.doc
42
REQUEST NO.18
CURRENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: Very Low Density Residential
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: Neighborhood Commercial
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report CC2.doc
43
ATTACHMENT NO.8
LAND USE MAP CHANGE REQUEST CORRESPONDENCE
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelStaff Report CC2.doc
44
l'\j
~
o ()
WM 11 Partners, LP
2398 San Diego Avenue
San Diego, CA 92110
J
Phone (619) 542-0086
Fax (619) 542-0165
June 18,2002
If:;;, r~-I'~ 1"0; r~I'Is; "~il
i'I'" lr] t, ., \. L, jl
Ii . . - i i!
I" 1'1'
Ii 'i : - 0 .1 j~
"!'L' JUN 2 2002 i:1 Ii
!Ii i i;
r' , !
~yj) fi._..o===l
Mr. David Hogan, Senior Planner
City of Temecula
Community Development Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Re: General Plan Revision
of PI Zoned Property
Dear David:
Per our recent discussion, we are requesting that you add a request to your city-wide General
Plan Amendment to the City of Temecula Planning Commission/City Council to amend the
existing General Plan and Zoning for the property that we own (attached as Exhibit A) from
Public Institution (PI) to Professional Office (PO).
At a recent meeting with Don Hazen, Thomas Thornsley, Gary Nogle and Ed Anderson, it was
unanimously concluded that the original PI Zoning designation for this property was in error. It
was somehow included in the PI Zone along with the high school that is across the creek. All
parties at the meeting concluded that it would be most advantageous to include this General
Plan/Zone change in your upcoming revisions rather than require WM 11 Partners LP to apply for
its own amendment.
For your information, I am enclosing a letter from you, dated October 7, 1998, concluding (as did
Ron Parks) that this site (as well as the Rustic Glen site to the east) has development potential.
We received Development Plan approval for this site on March 1,2001. (Copy of the Conditions
of Approval with attachment is enclosed). Also enclosed is a sketch of the proposed 5000 SF
office use.
Please get back to me at my North Carolina office (828-263-0065) and let me know if we will be
included in your recommended General Plan/Zoning changes this fall. Do you require anything
else from us?
\~. ,
o
o
Mr. David Hogan, City of Temecula
June 18,2002
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
WM 11 PARTNERS LP
~~PARTNER
By: '-- .
Peter Sterling, Manager
cc: Don Hazen w/encls.
cc: Thomas Thornsley w/enc\s.
Page 2
LINE TABLE
LENGTH 8fAR/NG
LI 33.24 N 5'57'U"(
L2 18.13 N45"/O'47"
W 58. 14 >IlI3'40' "W
L4 '44.75 NI2"/O' II".
L5 55.75 N47"49'III"W
L6 50.00 N19'Ol '20"W
L7 16.96 N70'02'oo"W
L8 51.42 N37"24 '55".
L9 34.23 N23'55'1 / "
LlO 74.15 N78"14'49".
LlI 159.68 N15'/8'4".
CURVE TABLE
CURVf D€LTA Li:NGTH
CI 28"47'56" 50.26
C2 03"04'06" 102. /8
C3 19'07'/2" J03.04
C4 I 05'''" 291.111
~ 3'07'46" 549.85
C8 9'5 'U" 138.64
C7 14"04'29" 12/.45
C8 I 27'.14- 4"'.6.J
C9 1'15'J5" 4/10.70
C10 03"04 '06" 1/2.22
CI' 19-07'1. J65.5lI
elz '~"'J8. 4".~
CIS 94....J.21 1t/d.85'
'4 9"' 117.-'
LOT
. UHf
'V
~~~
LINE
.
EXHIBIT,1' 0
20JUSTMENT PA. 98-0477
it
SCALE: 1" = 300'
~
IL ~ ~
~~~
~s:!~
~ ~q; Il,;;'
~~ ~.
~~~i'
~~~
Jfl-si&
'!!\\l:
~~~
~~~
~~
RAD/US
/00.00
19011.10
9011. 10
1/01/.10
10087.00
26/.00
5/.00
1655.00
/295.50
2015.50
/015.50
12911.50
~/.~
39.tId.
.'
.,'0
.of>.
t>,'b
~
-. --- :;:'NIldIO'5G"E /26.00'
TE,ffECl/t.A VALLEY tJI.IlFIEO SCHML
DIST/(fCT PER CRAAlT DEED
RECt1RfJEfJ 9/:Jt1/9J @IIIST/(l/MENT
NO. ')847(,7
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
PARCELS D AND E OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
NO. PA95-044, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 15,
1995 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 304810 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED UNDER THE
SUPERVISION OF:
OWNERIAPPLICANT:
WM 11 PARTNERS LP
2398 SAN D I EGO AVENUE
SAN D I EGO, CA 92110 A.P. NO'S. 911-170-78, 85, & 90
AREA I :: /.1.38 At. (tiR()SS)
//.7JAC, (NET)
AREA 2 =5.45ACI?ES
d:-~~~.,--
JACK L. OSBO N
RCE 16583
ALTA CONSULTANTS
PLANNING BNGINEBlUNG st1RVlrYING
_.....ft. lI_ __ D'--" __ ~^^ <0_ ..._ .....-..... ,....... .... ..... ..__ I."U "'-1 .........
0
0
\ \ \
.
-
.9.
- ~
~
.~ ~i
~
. -i~
\
~~
,
~ ~ ,
~
~
,
,R ~ ~ \~~
\t &~
\~
J . \
/ \
c
(
()
2..-
BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA
CALIFORNIA INLAND EMPIRE COUNCil
1230 Indiana Court. Redlands, California 92374-2896
(909) 793-2463 or 825-8844 . FAX: 793-0306
6 November 2002
M< Gary Tbornhill, Deputy City Manager
City of Temecula
PLuming / Community Development Dept
Po. Box 9033
TemecuIa, CA 92589-9033
Alln: M< Dave Hogan, Gen=l Plan Upd.te Manager
Ro; City of Temecul. General Plan / Zone Design.tion
Modification for 73 acre site located at the corner
Of Nicolas Road and Via Lobo, TemecuIa APN# 919-350-
017,018,019,020
Mr. Hogan,
This letter is a formal request to the Planning Department for the consideration of rezoning the above descnbed property
from <~ery Low Residential Density" (VL) to "Low Medium Residential" (LM) as part of the City's current review and
revision of the City's Gen=l Plan.
We believe that this density is compatible with the surrounding property and would be bendicial to both the City and
ourselves.
Please direct all communications, or any questions that you may have to:
. The California Inland Empire Council of the Boy Scouts of America
Alln: Donald Townsend
1230 Indiana Court
Redlands, CA 92374-2896
. Mr. Rob Partin, Correspondent
The Gorrell Group, u..C
43592 Ridge Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
. Ronald Bradley, Correspondent
30348 Via Canada
Temecu1a, CA 92592
909/693-0036
Thank you for your considetation 0
~doutExecntive
A program for Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, Co-ed Ventures. and Co-ed Explorers
Supported by Friends of Scouting, Endowment Funds, and United Way
Remember Scouting in your will.
I ,,' , ., I '---", --- . \ \ 0 "'-. If., {"i .::>...1^-\
,I '" / ~,b. ';;::".A ,~
. 'L-.-,I ",'" '^\!I!liltQ,~"" /~f rY
\ - -\ .--" "." ',', c2;; Vi-3: !. "'. 'S
' ", ' . \..l--- \, j'::j.. Vr::. i~"""'/~ /l::::l
~ ' m" "".." --'--" \~-"fT/rr' n~ i~~(~~/ :-tii/;l
.. .." ~ ,(,.,~-,r-q\dl.i\\~~, )'!:.:,
,.,.'.... \~\" " ~\ffi~,.J&@~~ -
., , \\ A.I '~,11:r-;.. <::
." ' "CfII>>- \ , ~~ .y
;~. '~I: -d.: ' ",' \ ' ~
, '
,<c,~' : \--7 ~j\-JYk
r.o "',1 ! ---:. ':,'(""" \ - t-.. ~
',', "i}l ~\ .:[ :.1'-"
. Ii' " I fJ l" _
,....' ' "" ".. ,--
\, 1/ r l".1
r \ 111111111111 "".' I ''-! 111111111 ' \. L'::' _ ;:
"
'I,
r::::::"""~ 'I' : ~gl ~l:~~,,"~~Cur='i...l '''''''., ~~~~ - \..
\,- " H- I --!'i ......... I r'- 11- . '\\ I ' _~ '
\~l . ;JJ_L..",u._~~Y\p-I~ \~ ~ ~ ~ ~v""
_%~I!!!.l@~ II,t,','I' \ :1n~!::i \\\~ ~ en ~y~
~' ~/ =Hl ~_' JiUl~ -,ltcfu / ~ 1= '11'h1" ~ -, ~~;J"\
" z' ~~ K ~....... I Tn f-II~ \ , ~~ \,
, ~ rTf\.., ,~y _
""d'-i'\./l:::\, ~ '\ \\hllJ!J~/ . '~ ~,,\'.-,-.
~ \~\\-:~ llf= f: j\-~\ ,fJ' ~7f2%..~.Ilx;', ~ " l\\'" ,~~ '(
.h..;\ :::.\\::Hf:::t-j ..ll. ~ I ~~ ~ \ " \\1\ m' :'::::: t
r., 1~'-rmT~ ~ ~'4~ '. ffil.\ ~~\
/ Ll -_._~~~~\~~' =.~~~ ~~ ~~~'\:~~~.k
/ - _. - ~ ~~ .::"E:; ~ ~~~ \t::~""'" ~ :'1/.<< f
./ /I, ~~' , ~ ~ /~^~~~t"~~ ~\ ~I' ~~ ,\~
, ~..A~\i fiR ~'f-.\.--~~~1:l1 \ __ \ ,'- ~
. >']tl" ~ " \ ~\ '"
; I 'Igj '" _~ ~>I ";::: @~ \. ~ It:V, l' '. .'
.' ~ f.' I - ~ v;. ~ \ ~I' \~ ~(~ Ii ~ 7'v. / "41'
;'_,,~::.c-'T'~ ' 1- ,~ ~ /;; ~~ j \ ~~ ~ ~. ~/./f'--.-. I_
ii, !g '17l1~~ ~ ~~\~~I~~~~, -\\~_;o;, l--r--. .............
, I {,Sl:--l~_~Y:!I TTTIl' ~'e\' ~\::::t: \1::: ~ ,j, \\t7iini-- '^ \ '~
-\ ~ 11 ~ :>'UIl.U[gC ~\y~ fffj~l!-: (~>-"" 7j;j-"...\~L .,.,.. Jrml~ \","""'-, /
~ ~,(\' l/!.::t\ Z '-;f.,~i P \ I tti~ \~I "-
IF I. II ~~ II ~~(I'!.='~~ '/-. ::-;:/ \ \~ .",">, ~ I Tt,
'~ 'R~ ~ ~ II, II-\.-ur el}:j,' ' '\' , rj
....., " , ~ ~<~" . lffi71)t[f/'x.J.('\ f./1. i '"..'It,- ..,"t:~ ~.,'
'.... 'J~ ~9~ 7/&1 I~', ,Cj J ^' ,,~,,\
'" ( /-" 'T ()$. ~ 11.r: '. -' ~ I ~~
J-r'., l1'XI ,,"~. It I,' '",' ~~ /-...;
~ ''-. /^ / "Xi' . '" ,.;. ..'.' ,.' I ~ ,/
, " , /:.;tJ~'Y< ,f ' i 'i\ ~\_
". )~ ~"\'2 lJ)~, , - L \1-
~- ..... /,'1"\,/,." .,-.-~/~\J"Io.-Yf#o_N ....., , J
-
]
/
i
{
(
(
(.
1-2.
The Garren Group, llC
An Investment Management Company
Februal)' 15, 2005
City of Temecula
Planning Commisioners
432000 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Subject:
Planning Commission Meeting of Februal)' 16,2005
Public Hearing Item 3 - General Plan Update as it pertains to the
Nicolas 73 Project - Planning Application 01-0415 (Re-submitted
11/12/2004) with request for Change of Zone and General Plan Land Use
Designation change. (Tentative Tract Map 32196)
Dear Commissioners:
We are in receipt of Mr. Hogan's letter of Janual)' 21, 2005 with regard to the above application.
Further to the original request with regard to the Land Use designation, which was made by the
previous owners on November 6, 2002, (a copy of wIIich is enclosed) we respectfully request the
Planning Commission review the General Plan Update currently under consideration, and change the
land use designation for this property from "Vel)' Low Residential Density" (VL) 0.2-0.4 Units/net acre to
"Low Residential Density" ILl 0.5-2.9 Units/net acre.
As called out in the General Plan Update Land Use Section "Typical lot sizes (in the "L" designation)
range from 0.5 to 2.0 acres, however, clustering of development may be appropriate to minimize
grading requirements and impact to environmentally sensitive areas". Our proposed use will be
consistent with the Land Use designation of "Low Residential Density" (L) which has been included in
the General Plan Update for the neighboring property in the Meadowview development on the southem
boundal)' .
As other surrounding land uses are of a higher density, we feel that this designation suggests an
effective and smooth transition to the rolling hills of the Meadowview area, will be beneficial to the City
and provide for a quality community. Specifically, by carefully placing home sites, the proposed project
will preserve 51.75 acres of open space.
At your suggestion, we held a COmmunity Meeting for the surrounding residents on November 17,
2003, and our project was well received by the attendees. Subsequently another meeting was held in
the earty part of 2004 by the Citizens Advlsol)' Committee (as detailed in a,letter dllte<fJuly 28,2004 by
Mr. Greg Morrison). Unfortunately, our project was absorbed by concems over three other projects,
thus we were unable to gain a positive recommendation at that time from CAC to the City.
We then met with Planning Staff at a Development Review Committee meeting on July 15, 2004, a
summaI)' of which is detailed in a letter from the Planning Department dated July 22, 2004 (attached
hereto) in which we were advised that the 'CAC was supportive ofthe concept of clustered
development, they supported taking primary access from the intersection of Nicolas Road and
Via Lobo, and they supported the gross density of one dwelling unit per acre". We were also
asked to consider revising our Tentative Map to support lots of not less than 10,000 square feet.
43529 Rid!le Pari< Drive
Temecuta. CA 92590
Phone 9510506-6556
www.TheGarrettGroupllC.com
2..
The Garren GrODP,llC
An Investment Management Company
Then, a letter dated July 27, 2004 from the Planning Department advised us that the information in the
previous letter was 'incorrect', and that the CAC was not in support of a change in the gross density for
the project,
In an effort to continue to move our project forward in anticipation ofthe General Plan Update, we
prepared a revised Tentative Map to indude the Low-Density designation, and this was submitted to
Planning on November 12, 2004. Since that time the Tentative Map re-submittal has been on hold
pending the General Plan Update consideration.
Through continued communication with the City representatives, we believe our proposed project
presents a balanced development with a great deal of open space as a buffer to Meadowview, high
quality homes with beautiful elevations on all sides, and larger lots than previously proposed.
Specifically, our proposed project contains 70 buildable lots averaging 12,959 sq. ft. Those 70 home
sites constitute a density of 0.98 units per net acre, as defined in the "L"land use designation.
Endosed for your review is an exhibit ofthe proposed land use area for the property.
Should you require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me.
sr~.f
/J;J:imond1L
Director
Land and Forward Planning Division
Cc: Bradley Hay, Hunsaker & AsSociates
43529 RidQe Park Orive
Temecula. CA 92590
Phone 95Hj06-6556
www.TheGarrettGrouDlLC.com
( '.
Q
Wz
(1)0
0_
A.I-
Oct
I:Cz
a."
-
0.0
::JW
Oc
(I:C
"UJ
I-~
I-C
Wz
1I:c(
I:C~
c(
"
("
.-.".
~
.
.
~
o
W\
()
-
...I
-
-
en
o
-
-=
:i
u
c
.......
5
15
:;::;
CD
!
o
.
IX
.......
.
o
CD
16
N
I
10
.
-
~
o
...I
i
a.
o
L
i~l~
c(
I-
-
aD
-
:E
><
W
8~
c
Wz
(1)0
0_
a.1-
Oc(
a:z
A.CJ
-
a. en
:)w
oc
a:w
CJen
,::)
I-
I-c
~~
a:...
~
-
i d
! >C
CJ &\I
:I:
CJ
C
=>>
Q
('I
I
IQ
-
~
..J
'2..
M:~
,;; l~iJ!
at _ ~ I~i~ .
I ~ iih1
m
I-
-
m
-
:c
><
w
. ~'
.,
,
2-3
{'
\
July 28, 2004
Bob,
Please find outlined below a brief description ofthe discussion that took place a couple of
months ago at the General Plan Citizens Advisory Committee (CAe).
This is my best recolIection of the discussion that took place during the review of the
Nicolas 73 project. City staff asked the Committee to review Nicolas 73 and make
recommendations for staff to forward to the Planning Commission and City Council.
After careful consideration by the CAC, a motion was made and seconded to approve
Nicolas 73 with a Planned Development Overlay (PDO). The project was approved with
the PD~.
Several points were made with regard to the project that played a key role in approving
Nicolas 73 and the PD~.
They are as folIows:
(
1. In order to preserve the natural landscape of the project area, the PD~ suggested a
density of one-acre net with a 7,200 average lot size. This would alIow the project
to make a smoother transition to the rolling hills ofMeadowview and surrounding
development.
2. Precedent had already been set by a similar recommendation from the CAC for
future development in Chaparral Estates; east ofYnez Road. That
recommendation went forward with a similar PDO of one-acre net lot size to
rnaintain the surrounding natural landscape.
3. Nicolas 73 would also make flood control improvements to the blank channel,
saving the City ofTemecula approximately $25,000 to $30,000 a year in
rnaintenance costs.
4. The project is already bordered on three sides by much higher densityresidential
development and the CAC believed Nicolas 73 would provide the City with a
beneficial model for future development in Nicolas ValIey east of Calle Medusa.
EspecialIy with the encroaching development from the east, like Roripaugh Ranch
and others.
Later that evening, the CAC was presented with two or three additional considerations for
zone changes east of Calle Medusa. During that discussion, several CAC members felt
that since their decision could impact the future development and zoning for the entire
eastern portion of the Nicolas Valley, a town halI meeting should be scheduled to obtain
(, community input on what kind of development should be considered.
. .
"
2.
There was general consensus to have this town hall meeting, since the CAC was
considering more substantial zoning changes for the whole Nicolas Valley. However, a
couple ofCAC members also believed that Nicolas 73 should be included in that
discussion. .
Myself as well as several other CAC members disagreed with this viewpoint, because we
felt that Nicolas 73 was more of an "infill" project that already had high density
residential on three sides and Meadowview on its southern botmdary. Myself and a few
other CAC members were concerned that the Committee was not comparing "apples to
apples" with Nicolas 73 and the rural Nicolas Valley. We were also concerned because
we had already approved Nicolas 73 with a PD~.
However, a motion was made and seconded to reverse our approval of Nicolas 73 and
combine all four projects for future consideration by the CAC after the town hall
meeting. The motion passed.
I hope this helps with your discussion with City Council members and staff. I would be
happy to discuss this with you and/or staff in more detail.
Sincerely,
Greg Morrison
Chairman, General Plan Citizens Advisory Committee
909-376-1318
o
o
3
November 26, 2002
Mr. David W. Hogan, Principal Planner
City ofTemecula
Community Development Department - Planning Division
43200 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 9033
TemecuJa. CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
General Pian Update - Request for Change to General Plan Land Use Plan for 9.22 acres located
east of Margarita Road, north of Via la Vida and south of Solana Way (Assessor Parcel Numbers
921-220-024,921-030-025,921-030-026921-330-027 and 921-330-005)
Dear Mr. Hogan:
The purpose of this letter is to present my fonnal request the Planning Division to change the City of Temecula's
General Plan Land Use designation for the above referenced properties during the General Plan Update. The
proposal is to change the General Plan Land Use designations on the site from 9.22 acres of M (Medium Density
Residential, 7-12 dwelling units per acre) to a mixed-use combination of 4.44 acres of PO (professional Office)
and 2.23 acres ofNC (Neighborhood Commercial), with the remainder 2.55 acres to be designated OS-C (Open
Spare - Conservation). This request is depicted on Attachment A (proposed General Plan Land Use
Designations).
The rationale/justification fur the changes are listed below:
I. The change from M (Medium Density Residential, 7-12 dwelling unitslacre) to PO (Professional Office) is a
logical change because it would represent an extension of uses that are consistent and compatible with the my
existing ABC Pre-School located on Solana Way.
2. The change from M (Medium Density Residential, 7-12 dwelling units/acre) to NC (NC;)ighborhood
Commercial) is a logical change because limited commercial development would be appropriate at the
intersection of Margarita Road and Solana Way.
3. The current General Plan Land Use Designation ofM (Medium Density Residential, 7-12 dwelling units/acre)
is no longer a feasible option in this area. There is currently sufficient multi-family residential development in
the area,
4. A mixed-use development in this particular area will serve to fulfill the City's desire to 'create ''Village
Centers". As proposed, the change to PO (ProfesSiOnal',' , ce) and NC (Neighborhood Commercial) and
would allow services that are compatible in use and scale ' n an area that has concentrated residential uses.
Surrounding residents would be provided an opportunity" walk to commercial and office uses, thereby
allowing them to fulfill some of their daily needs without traveling to other portions of the City. In addition,
for those individnals working at the site, they also would have the potential to meet some of their daily needs
29'lO5 SOLANA WAY
TEMECULA, CA 92591 (909) 699-5251
Email: office@abccares.com
FAX (909) 676-7445
o
o
without requiring them to leave the site. Therefore, the potential exists to reduce dependency on the
automobile.
5. Approximately 2.55 acres would remain in permanent open space. This would help the City in its desire to
preserve open space areas.
6. 1be design would be high quality. Future development on the site would have to be consistent with the City's
Development Code and City-Wide Design Guidelines and ultimately be approved by the Planning
Commission. This, in conjunction with my ultimate vision for the site will ensure that future development will
be high quality. Examples of my vision for the site are included as Attachment B (property Vision
Photographs).
7. Public transit is immediately available adjacent to the property along Margarita Road. A change to the General
Plan Land Use designation from M (Medium Density Residential, 7-12 dwelling units per acre) to a mixed-use
combination of PO (professional Office), NC (Neighborhood Commercial) and OS-C (Open Space -
Conservation) would further support public transit.
s. As the property owner, I am open to the possibility of limiting permitted and conditionally uses, building
heights, hours of operation and ather modifications to development standards in order to ensure compatibility
with surrounding residential uses. Drive-through uses, gas stations and ather similar impacting uses could be
limited or not permitted.
9. 1be property is located in immediate proximity of the site where Guidant is proposing their expansion. The
proximity of the site to Guidant would be complimentary and has the potential to reduce dependency on the
automobile (see NO.4 above),
As you can see from the extensive list of rationales/justifications above, the proposed changes to the City's
General Plan Land Use designations from M (Medium Density Residential, 7-12 dwelling units per acre) to a
mixed-use combination of PO (Professional Office), NC (Neighborhood Commercial) and OS-C (Open Space -
Cmservation) represents a logical transition in the area and should be integrated into the General Plan Update. It
is also our understanding that the neighbor in the immediate area would support this change, as they feel that there
is sufficient multi-family housing in the area. Please respond in writing with staff's position on this requested
change.
I request that you keep me and my representatives apprised of all discussions and meetings pertaining to the City's
General Plan Update.
29705 SOLANA WAY
TEMECULA, CA 92591 (909) 699-5251 "I
Email: office@abccares.com
FAX (909) 67&-7445
o
o
Please contact me at 909.699.5251, Ronald Bradley at 909.693.0036 or Matthew Fagan at 909.699.2338 if you
have any questions or require any additional information.
Sincerely,
o/~~
Malinda Smith
Cc: Mayor and City Council
Planning Commission
Shawn Nelson
Gary Thornhill
Martin Terzian
Ronald Bradley
Matthew Fagan
29705 SOLANA WAY
TEMECULA, CA 92591 (909) 699-5251
Email: office@abccares.com
FAX (909) 676-7445
o
o
ATTACHMENT A
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNA nONS
1971lS SOLANA WAY
TEMECULA. CA 92591 (909) 699-5251
EmaiI: office@abccares.com
FAX (909) 676-7445
;l
d (') Z "1J
0 '" :u
> z fi 0
" Ul :I: r:1
f'1 CD
:u 0 Ul
~ Ul
:u 0
::;j :I:
0 0 ~
Z 0
0
~ 0
0 (') ."
Ul 0 ::!J
1 3:: (')
(') 3:: f'1
.".. f'1
:u ~
(') "1J
:;;: 0
r ."..
~
z
~
<D N N ...
N In " :,..
'" OJ> '" ...
1; 1; l>
1; (')
:u :u :u
:u f'1 f'1 f'1
f'1 Ul Ul Ul
Ul
o
I
I
I
)
)
-------------------------~
_ _ _ _ _ _ ..M!\jlGARJTlL~OAD _ _ _ _ __
I
,
I
,
1
,
I
,
I
,
I
o
1
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
1<
,:;;:
1<;
i~
,l>
1
o
I
,
I
,
1
o
I
/ '
/ !
I /
I,
I /
I ,
/ /
/ ,
'/
;~
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
l:g
0<;
Ij;
i~
,
I
o
I
,
I
o
I
o
I
,
I
,
I
o
I
,
I
o
I
,
I
,
I
o
I
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
/
,
/
c)
I
o
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
"-------
(------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/
I
o
o
ATTACHMENT B
PROPERTY VISION PHOTOGRAPHS
29'1OS SOLANA WAY
TEMECULA, CA 92591 (909) 699-5251
Email: omce@abccares.com
FAX (909) 676-7445
o
o
~
:::.II:.
_..JIo
..:..~
o
o
(
(
(
4-
Steve Galvez
45621 Corte Royal
Temecula, CA 92592
909-855-3338
General Plan Advisory Committee
City of Temecula
C/O Dave Hogan
43200 Business Park Dr
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Re: APN 957-170-032,033,034,035,036
Dear Mr. Hogan:
My partners and I spoke to you back in October of 2003. You may also recall the letter
'in regards to the above mentioned parcel numbers. Over the last few months we have
been working with Markham Development Management Group on our 22 acres that is
adjacent to the new Shea Development and just west of Roripaugh. I have enclosed a
parcel map to further illustrate where our property is located.
We would like to request a modification to the General Plan from our existing zoning of
VL to LM. Once the zoning is changed to LM we will fully develop and beautify this
parcel. This enhancement to the parcel will greatly improve the aesthetic value as
compared to its current state.
Our parcels have access to all utilities, sewer, water, etc. The parcels are located next
to a major subdivision, Shea Development. In addition, infrastructure support exists in
the form of a major transportation corridor. This corridor is the Butterfield Stage Road
and Walcott Lane.
We are residents of Temecula. We definitely have an interest in our City. If the zoning
remains as VL status, the enormous cost to improve the land could not feasibly be
absorbed, However, if the zoning is changed to L.M status, such costs to improve the
land would be feasible.
We are formally requesting a Modification to the General Plan from VL to LM, to help
offset the enormous costs that will be incurred to improve this parcel and the
surrounding area. '
I appreciate the consideration that will be given to this project and I look forward to
working with you in the future.
Z";J t /
~:Ve Galvez <'\rv'({
CC: Ulf Grefelt, Ed Galvez
'-'
~
......
~~
,
:;;:1
0--:;;
.0
~o~ ~
~9? ~
~~
:;;0;:;
..,
~
,.:
...
...
~
@
@
~
='::5
o =>
V>~
r--:i5
I-~
=\!;~
C"ol/=
=-
C"ol~
<.> '
.......
V>
t
=.....::1 _~__
-~...-
"ol!l
,,~-
,.:~S
g<co
~I~
I~:
~~
!?lli9
~i~
~~~
~=
ii-~
!!Ii..
s~;
@
7L
....'
'-,
J
~
--
..... ....
!i i@~ ,I ! i@~
<: ,-
~-- =/1 I
:r,j'\~~!
;!\3I... _
-
'" -
m 0
=. i
@ '"
~
'"
%
~
'A~
~\Y,
~
~~.
" or
. .
i
i
~
.A~
;~=
.
~
-=~
~\Y.
.
....
- :;;~~;
dJ :g:g :8:2:2~
an on..., ....,c::o_..... ~
;: .....r-_DOC'ooI~ct;;!i!!i!!ii!:=
=0 S!:~;;;~~~~::a:::&::I!::I!!
..... l:I.,.Q..a...o...
,.~ ~~!i!~~~Sl GOca_,..,
-00 g-~if6!:ii!S!"''l:J: I
~....-, ~~~<:-~~
.J::j:m:2~.s:.~~~S~a~
'- -.~.:;:::~,:...- ~ ~ :e c;; co ;: :::! _
r:::-__..,
...- ~=-:::a
... !i~ifE!~~S!S!fi!5: Q..D..
n ~
i@~
.
@
...
-~-
, ~
! ~=~
'=-' .
~ .
'~
- ~
i" ~
i/(;;\
'\;Y
@
@
@J
~
"
uW
I
= ~
~ !e~
,. 2 ·
= ~
!e~
~. ~
~
= ~
;8;
- l i
= ~ i
! !0P i I
~ p ~
~
W
-
0_
~-
~8
i!Z!i,.:; i
~] !
fi~
~..
-
-
c;)
w
4
t
I
I
!
!
['
I'
~"
4'2
(
11/03/03
\~OV
5 2003
,
:;
~ \
;1
"
City of Temecula
David Hogan, AICP
43200 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
\
,,_:_.,,~:::;.,=,,--:;.--,-l
Dear Mr. Hogan
I want to thank you for the time that you spent with us last Thursday the 30th of
October. Your input was appreciated by all of us.
(
,
I, along with my partners Ed Galvez and Ulf Grefelt , am writing this letter to you
in regards to our parcel numbers 957-170-032-36. These parcels total 22 acres that
border Butterfield Stage Road and Walcott Lane; it is adjacent to the Shea Homes
development. We are currently in negotiations to purchase an additional 8 acres on
the North end ofthese parcels.
The current zoning is 2.5 acre minimums. We will be petitioning in the very near
future for zoning amendment to Y. acre minimums. The current topography of the
22 acres is not conducive to the proposed zoning. However, we intend to spend
approximately two 'hundred thousand dollars in grading and in rill dirt to alter the
topography that is more suitable for ranchette style homes and will give greater
appeal to the area and more importantly to the surrounding neighborhoods. We
envision this area to be an extension ofMeadowview that would serve as a buffer
zone to the current Shea Development and the Roripaugh Specific Plan.
We have already started the engineering process with Mr. Randy Fleming of
Engineering Ventures. Through our initial meetings with Mr. Fleming we believe
that cooperating with the City of Temecula we could speed up and help r'ei:luce the
cost to construct Butterfield Stage Road.
We look forward to attending the Public Hearing meetings and working with the
City of Temecula in this venture. I, as well as my partners, have a special interest in
this project because we are not outside investors. We all live in the City of
Temecula and believe in taking an active participation in the area that we live in.
(
Sincerely L.._ /'
?:~G&1}OJ"'o
909-855-3338
~
March 7,2005
Steve Galvez
45621 Corte Royal
Temecula, Ca 92592
City of Temecula
David Hogan
Principal Planner
Dear Mr. Hogan
Please accept the following petition from the residents of Leifer Rd. We had a unarnious reception for the
zone change on our parcel in exchange to contribute to the paving of Leifer Rd,
We have also spoken to council members, who would support the project, as long as there is no opposition.
There has not been.
If you would be so kind as to forward this petition to the appropriate planning commission members, I
would greatly appreciate it.
Reg~!Jis/
A.// ,;;::- ,
Steve Galvez
909-855-3338
/ 951-302-9461 Fax
~
PETITTION FOR THE SUPPORT OF CHANGE OF ZONE FOR
PARCEL NUMERS 957~ 170-032-036
J
The following signatures are from the residents of the Nicholas Valley in "
the City of Temecula. By signing this petition, the residents are in
support of a zone change to LM (3-6 DU to the acre) on APN's 957-170-
032,33,34,35 & 36. In exchange the developer of said parcels will
heavily contribute to the Paving of Leifer Road as a Condtion of
Approval of the development of said parcels.
1)
'3'1)'1'0 "-'eF€!? ,<-/J.
2)
3)-fl ~)-- 3 cw r Lt at='.- ICQ,A.o
4) ,9/~ tr ~ 3'3/1 L ,"€'f:A #J.
lJ~tkt~.J ,5'11.5, 4)"') >tJj
6) ~~ ~~/' g9~ G'~hu Pel. ,
7) " ,- ~S>~~ M- KJ '
~ ~~ I ~
9) ru.w~~ ;?'lasO ~rdL~n 6U1ffi1IULM.
10) r--r~ ~ J' """'.., Jd_,",-e,2?
11) - '
t! .
12)' /2.D,
13 ,rr ~~
14) ~~
6)~4
.3r:Js;b ~~ RIM..!,
..3'//11'> ':::Z:)/()/,e1A1 .stlm~E 7>>_
311 'Ie ftrc.lr;... .J.;1'YIP>1e.... ;e.;t"
M -JVIG
5
MARKHAM DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.
December 30, 2003
Mr. David Hogan, Principal Planner
City ofTemecula
43200 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Subject:
Request for General Plan Designation Change
APN# 957-150-001,002,003,016
Newsom # 1191
Dear Dave,
The subject parcel is bounded by Nichols Road, Calle Medusa and Calle Girasol.
Prior entitlements include the compost facility and unapproved tentative map for 7,200
SF lots (TM 25082 & CZ 5613). We had discussions with staff about a proposed 10,000
SF subdivision in late 1999 (TM 29557). These were not pursued in light of the Council
policy regarding density ranges.
During the interim period, the City of Temecula has moved forward to approve the
Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and two nearby churches. These approvals bring with
them the extension of sanitary sewer in Nicolas Road along with enhanced water service,
channelization of Santa Gertrudis Creek and the improvement of Nicolas road to connect
to Butterfield Stage Road and Butterfield north to Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
The property is directly adjacent to the Calle Medusa residential community, and Riverton
Park on the south and an existing and proposed church on the west. The property is
buffered from the existing 2.5 acre parcels in the Liefer Road area by both Santa
Gertrudis Creek and Nicolas Road. Only two residences exist easterly of Calle Medusa
on 2.5 acre parcels. Topographically the property lies below the Calle Medusa
, community and roughly at grade with the churches.
Combining all these factors brings us to the conclusion that this property is logically
suited for a land use designation of Low Medium to Medium Density Residential.
We would like to discuss this proposal at the next committee meeting, which you
indicated would take place in late January.
Sincerely,
Markham Development Management Group, Inc.
, Larry R. Markham
President.
41635 Enterprise Circle North, Su~e B
Temecula, CA 92590-5614
(909) 296-3466
FaX: (909) 296-3476
www.markhamdmg.com
cc:
attachments
B. Newsom
~ i~M t ~
~. !~n" ."
ON ~H~~ ~ i l'
. t'~\m ~ =r-~~
4:) ~.\l~!J~- ~ ~~~~
:z: ,~.'... ~ l ..'
! I- ~~~~~ i .~~~
: ~ :~t'l" ~~,,~
):!:II:: ~.~~ t'; '"
I... 1Ii~ ~ It,
. ~~~tl~ ~,
..... ~ 'I & ~.
:: l ~~~~~l~ ~.~
I-!~ 1I~,:,' ~~\i
~""'I h.,
I-~ .."" ~ ~ l~~~
:Z:. .~~ < ,~!'l
~ i ~~~~~ ~ 1:h
r- ~"'~\l ~\o~t
i < i ~
f ~ ~ a ~ VI 1~ ~ ~
,! l i ~ ~~ t ~~~ ~!~
~ :. R ~ -: ~ ! ~;~~} l~~~
j It, ~ ~ \i _- ~ 't.. :t~,,~ ~!y,':
>', ~ <:I '" .. ~ I:l ~ l:i ~1J1t:\ \,1~'
" 'l~ ~ 't ';:i;;1 V ~<:l"\O' ."
N~, ~~~ \I~~~!! 'lilll" ~~i~
l~ >,,',.,-., >..l~ ~~
Sl ~'l,\ hl\ Il, ~ ~ ~~!t~ h 1
~ !r ~'n ~ ~ I ti '
I ~ ~ ~li !~~ p ~ h ~ ~
I~~: ~~~~:-~~: Nl ~ ~.
i ~ ~ ~ ~:i~ l;\:1~ \I ~ & '\!: 1'" ~
'. ' l ~ ~ " q ~ i'~ H
"i,' . , .. ~ ~ " , ... .~...
... ~ ~ ~ " ;.s." ~ ~ ~ i \i~~ il't "Ii
~i,"~'~!~ ."".t"
.,q"l- I'" ,~"i...~"'"
;' . ~ I I , .. ! ~ ~ ~ I'. ~ ~ ,.' i
l';nd H~~lh!~~~<<Hhl
~:~~~~~ ...~~~~
... 'I.l 1'1 ~ .. " " '<) -- ~
.,
,.
~, ~'V'A
!!! <w \l
~! ~ '
~',
." ~~ ~:H i; ;,j i 1 =. ~ iM 11 1 i
.. ~r., '1!'1 ri h . 1-. h, .., ,.!'l ~ "I
I! ~I. t I' n' 1 I II ~k ,.-.
siJ ~ h !~ ~J G ~ p. ; I~jii ~(j! !
Iii n~!I~ V~l ~i I! i d flit' 'Illl "ill' .
. . -; ili ~r.. OJ J ~.:i I J - C- 1 ~I
Ii "'1"" MI".""!l ; -j'~ "
J i' ~-.s!! ,,\. ij . J . 1!",,1 ..,:.
I';l Ilii~il,iJ rji ~. II i.jll ~l;! I "
" :!le,l,,!';! :'~l' :\ II' ,ll~' no! I!,
Ip :!lij~n..~t)l;: . I' I'!::!! :s:- ,I'
i:) 'ii11llIJj=-jl ji l;!J 1, ,/, LI!, bV.. Ii
}.; illll'i1Id;! iF,l:1 illli 'ij!~ 1j.1j Ii ~.'
.~ J"il!~IJ '.I.:::j II';J .111'lli~d ir.ji~ I'
Ilj lrl"!" j;l,i!j'jl,I'I!.t1l "up'
~h iii~~ir J! f :"1'1 i ,jl'~1 ;j]il ~",~ U
A.t. .P tl;- n 't!.o. 'j" 't t l'lJ" :1"'11 i"
HiI ul:pj! - ~i -l;it I i.1 llJ]i! inP-- Ii
.t~..: ,._t=",f t.i~! ~i ~ 1!I11 H~~ p~lr.i
'1~;;diJ=JIHd it i~'~r. i jl .IIE' ';;,1011'"
I .,oJr:k'i =~'=! rl !-Q~ .o;'.! flil riil J:::
SliiH ;5:.1;1;: i5i;J!lt~I~~n]ll -l.]~f .Itl!; it
!1l>""!~';1 " _~r.!., ',.lib ';vj 'I"! 'I'
=nJ:t1 !n~l-;l iil-'~1}~"Jhiil.i:;.di :..'= 1"
h;a"jlt"I\ t!'i"m="ia.''',';;. I'I"'!'
~j~i;U&;.t. :o:iUlg 5~~!I=!'Ji~'uf& i ~~ I',
!~lt~HP:i liJl!~i9 ;5;:lrl~~.If~!ii;llu~~P ~
:;1h1..=J..!.. In!:j~l.!I1=Ji.i~ ~d~1= __H~..,:;l
.':.1 ..._. _.. i _ __ ::i!ii ti.i _ Ii;;:.
".
15,
J
~~
~h
hl
11,~
~,!
~l'
q
, ~ ~
~ l!; ~
~t ~h'
"~ lr
t1'~ ~~~
.~~~ h~
~~~ ai
5 ~ IU ~g- i ~ n "
I \ '", · ~i' a
:t ~ H~ ~ " ~
J h ~~, ~ ~ 't i:
lla~ "1 ~~ !" ,l~}. ~~
'l'~~'~~ ~~, I' r-.
:jlol~b\l~~) l:tt..~ ~
t G ~~ ~ i~ ijj~ ~ 1 ~t i ti \ ~
~ ~ .,. .., ,ll"~' ~ '~l II ~
H ~~ p; t,~; III ~ij i ~~ I !
. . ~~ ~ ~ql'~ h ~ tl ~,~; ~
H ~! ~ ~~ ~H! ~i i ~! np i
i lli~~I'~~i~~ ~~~l~ !
~ H ~ h h" U lH~ ~ l~ \
l ~dl \li~~<"~l~l'
~ ~n:~ 1. n~ !~ a~ p~
~ ~~ ~ ,~~io ~ ~~ ~~ ~~: H
~~1:!i~ t~'t<:!\i
,
.
"
- ~
.
J tf-- .~c-
. 'HI '
'i \ I I
~~-
A' /.Io'ro.", \
\
$
....
"!:i
I~
~
~
_'tA ~
--
J
I,
1,
I,
s
.
"
o
,"
l~
,"
::a~
~h~
<IH
~!i i;
:C...E
/~-"
1lI
o
~
2
...
"'
...
~
i"
~
~
.
qj
! " "
.; .
e III
i :11
1:\'
, '11
II
, I
E'
...-----
"
I
!
,
'I(
\,
'\
b
M -lVICa
MARKHAM DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT GROUP. INC.
January 8, 2004
(
Mr. David Hogan, Principal Plarmer
City ofTemecula
43200 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Request for General Plan Designation Change
Jedediah Smith Road, adjacent to Temecula Creek
APN: 961-010-004
RainbowlBL V #877.1
Dear Dave:
The subject property lies immediately south of the Temecula Creek Village (TCV) project
currently under construction.
Attached you will find' the site constraint exhibit that defines the FEMA 100 year floodplain and
the jurisdiction areas for both the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and the California
Department ofFish and Game (CDFG).
The portion of the subject property that we are requesting a land use change are outside of all
constraint areas.
(
RainbowlBLV has negotiated a reciprocal ingress and egress easement for access and utility
'services. Consequently, we are requesting a change of the land use designation to better reflect
the unconstrained land use opportunities that are available to the subject property.
The current land use designation of open space affords no economic use of the subject property
whatsoever. With the construction of the commercial and multifamily components ofTemecula
Creek Village this property becomes a viable development site. The uses that we would pursue
would be lower intensity uses in nature with minimal ground disturbance and would provide a
good buffer between TCV and the truly constrained areas within the floodplain, which have
recorded conservation easements within the ACOE and CDFG areas.
RainbowlBL V has always been cooperative with the City of Temecula in seeking solutions to
City of Temecula ACOE and CDFG issues that have arisen in the past.
'ncerely, )'/,'
/'~
r
arry R. Markham
Cc: J. Heffernan, BL V, LLC.
C. Ewing, Peninsula Retail
.41635 Enterprise Circle North, Su~e B
() Temecula. CA 92590-5614
(909) 296-3466
Fax: (909) 296-3476
www.markhamdmg.com
r ,
.- .. ..
=
.- i-
-0
<7'"
~
. ' ,
ill '.'
. . ,
~ . ,
i:__ :::
: ~ ~
i,N ~'i@. .'
W .... ~~
;; ~---
<j> j I \
;;; i (II \
\
< \
'"
?
""
-
\
:: l;
il! r--. 0
\Y .
~
6
..
..
.
~@ :
o
c. ~Af-)M
~
~ -
=
~
"" .
!
'"
~:"l
.-=
=!!l
""-
O>~
-~
""i=
...--~
r-
<..>
~
'"
; .
@ ~1eib
j '"
.....
.....
.
J
/@
iJ
@
../
g :3 m!
~SN_ao-m-~
~~ti~~5!~i
!i~~g~~~~
"'~t;!i!!......!li!li
~~ ouD....D....
'To..o...~~~coco
-~' ~-'<'
~r::::.:.'!?~soco~oh
~_;:;:.S';::::-~"~
_......,___:Q;1;;a
!!IUUii!;;
IIP',~
~
;~g
~~
::;"'- I
,,~.. W
.~- .
~!ai;; ~ ~
~~~
- " ~ a
;;; - ~
-~" a
--a '"
;==
...:5J ~
~,...s
f!f~""
~ug ~
~~~
--- ~::::
-a-
i;~ . ~~
~i- @
~ " ,,~
~!:!~ -~
~;;
'~ ~~
~ .
M'-l\Ia
o
o
I
MARKHAM DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT GROUP, lNG,
January 9, 2004
Mr. David Hogan, Principal Planner
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Subject:
Request for General Plan Designation Change
Lama Linda Lane at Temecula Lane
APN: 961-010.016, thru 021
Continental/Ranco #1228
Dear Dave:
The subject property is surrounded by urbanized uses, with the existing single family tract homes
to the east, the Erie Stanley Gardner Middle School to the south, the approved seniors project to
the west along with the existing Pala Park.
The subject property has been designated Professional Office since 1993 and similarly zoned
since 1997.
These parcels, encompassing all of the existing horse/cattle ranches, have been assembled under
one ownership. The proposed project will be compatible with the Medium Density Residential
designation and thus Medium Density Residential is the designation that we are requesting.
LRM/slg
41635 Enterprise Circle North, Suite 8
Temecula. CA 92590-5614
(909) 296-3466
Fax: (909) 296-3476
www.markhamdmg.com
-+-2.-
""1
~
y:->
---",
'-,
'.
,;\
;1.,
r-'
,
-':-.
::.'~,
'~
"
"
".. :/i~B-~'
c,,(Joo' ," ".,' ",'
. ,,,/ }'/?
<>:J J ,:.c.
/..
&
.M -lVIG
January 9, 2004
MARKllo\M DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT GROUP. INC,
o
Mr. David Hogan, Principal Planner
City ofTemecula
43200 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Subject:
Request for General Plan Designation Change
Diaz Road and Dendy Parkway
APN: 909-370-018
TERC 52 # 1196
Dear Dave:
The subject property is immediately contiguous to the proposed Temecula Education Complex
(TEe), the existing Westside Business Park; the Rancho California Water District reclaimed water
storage ponds in the City of Murrieta, and the escarpment open space area.
We are requesting that the designation be changed from Industrial Park to a Multiple Use
designation. The requested change will provide the subject property with the ability to address the
opportunities that will present themselves as the TEC develops.
(-)
"--_/
Alternatively, a Planned Development Overlay (PDO) designation could be applied to the subject
property. The PDO could be designed to produce a mixed use zone to accommodate the
,same goals as the proposed Multiple Use designation. The PDO would be approved either
separately from a development application for a plot plan, conditional use permit and or
parcel/tract map or concurrently with one of these applications.
We would envision this designationIPDO to encompass Business Park, Professional Office,
PubliclInstitutional,uses along with both Medium and High density housing. This land use mix
would allow for the expansion of the TEC to the west should that need arise. The sub planning
areas within the subject property would be tailored to provide for the effective transition of land
uses from the TEC into lower and lower land use intensities in a westward direction.
This design would provide for either the success or failure of the TEC and the resulting impacts on
the subject property.
Cc: R, Haskins, TERC 52
C41~5 Enterprise Circle North, Suhe B
,,/ Temecula, CA 92590-5614
(909) 296-3466
Fax: (909) 296-3476
www.markhamdmg.com
~,..,
"
" 'z" ,
o ..'....
",
/~;>.
" "
/'/
?
~
~
~
{
\.
(
c
r
~
~
~t:
~~
26
:5"
~
~
j
~ Z 0 ~N
oe( c:t :j fii ~
.J ..~OI
5lL ~ E<3
owe,) ~h
_ t-1t)~
:;;~ ..!(E
w'" ",01'
~... > '"
~::E 1!:
::E 1!:
= ~
Cl
~
Q
8
~
.o"~.
jl
I
'.il /
1J; ~ !
:: "'1
,i ---~~--'.-L'
! ;;f - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _,
':: - - - - - - - - -, -
; ,
I "
I :: I
J ','..., __'
- ---=or - iJo
! ,- u..-.-..-:__",rr-- ~ (!)
.....-..- , ",,'"
"
@ f:,
----~-1:3
:.=..-......_----;-
"
"
"
~"fi
.....Il
~~e
.........iif
~.....;J
:a~b
eJi~c:
~ t!
"
'.
I,
, ,
"
.
~l :
'.!!
',0
-....----->J,
~'
....@l
"/
J
@<
,
I
, !l
,
I
:~
.,,,
-
.
@
-
@
l'
@ Hl~O~
~~!r $
"
"
".0
/
,
,~
'~@
'...
, "
"
"
"
s
'"
"H...:
Aia
Ii ,,'
fI'~
Ii
f
- ",",' - - ~". -~-"
,
-
i
!I.
,,~l
o
o
10
PLANNING. ENGINEERING. SURVEYING
January 29, 2004
Mr. David W. Hogan, Principal Planner
City of Temecula
Community Development Department - Planning Division
43200 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
General Plan Update - Request for Change to General Pian Land Use Plan for
18.3 acres located within Planning Areas 7 and 9 of Specific Plan No. 3
(Margarita Village Specific Plan), west of Butterfield Stage Road, north of Chemin
Clinet (Assessor Parcel Numbers 953-390-007 and 953-390-009)
Dear Mr. Hogan:
The purpose of this letter is to present a formal request to the Planning Division and General
Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) to change the City of Temecula's General Plan Land Use
designation for the above referenced properties during the General Plan Update. The proposal
is to change the General Plan Land Use designations on the site from VL (Very Low Density
Residential, .2-.4 dwelling units per acre) to LM (Low-Medium Density Residential, 3-6 dweiling
units per acre). Enclosed is a proposed tentative tract map for the site (Attachment A), which
would allow for forty-two (42) lots on the 18.3 acres. This equates to 2.3 dwelling units/acre with
an average lot size of 10,000 square feet. The majority of the lots are in excess of the minimum
lot size,
The rationale/justification for the changes are listed below:
1. The change from VL (Very Low Density Residential, .2-.4 dwelling units per acre) to LM
(Low-Medium Density Residential, 3-6 dwelling units per acre) is a logical change because it
would represent an extension of uses that are consistent and compatible with the adjacent
residential pattern of development. In addition, the project would be compatible with the
wineries to the east, as similar residential densities are located adjacent to the wineries in
other portions of the City.
2, Appropriate open space buffers and distances have been provided to the existing, adjacent
residential development.
3. Future residential development on the site would be high quality in nature and would
contribute to the overall well being of the existing development.
4. The project has approximately 3400 linear feet of frontage on Butterfield Stage Road. It is
anticipated that the project will be responsible for a fair-share contribution and/or
reimbursement to the improvement of this regional serving roadway. Under the current
General Plan designation, there are not enough home sites currently permitted to
reasonably spread this cost throughout the project.
1
8555 Aero Drive . Suite 305 . San Diego, CA 92123 . (858) 550-9901 . FAX (858) 550-9469
o
0"',
..' .
, '
5. The project will be subject to the City's Development Impact Fee (DIF) and the
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). The other portions of the Margarita Village
Specific Plan were not subject to these fees. In addition, the project will pay its share of
Quimby fees and potentially any fees associated with the Multi Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (MSCHP), The additional units requested in the re-designation request
will more than adequately mitigate any potential impacts from the proposed development.
6. The Margarita Village Specific Plan has been amended approximately five (5) times since its
initial adoption. All of the Specific Plan has been built-out with the exception of these
remaining 18.3 acres. As of the last amendment, the Specific Plan allowed for a maximum
of 3,922 units. Based on our research, only 3,700 units have been constructed. The
proposed re-designation request would allow for an additional 42 units, which, when added
to those existing units, would bring the total to 3,742 units. This is still well below the
maximum number of units allowed within the Specific Plan.
7. The site as designed will be buffered from Butterfield Stage Road by a slope and
landscaped wall, In turn, this project will serve as a noise buffer from Butterfield Stage Road
to the existing homes to the west.
8. The City is requesting that Ahern Drive be connected from the western residential
neighborhood to Butterfield Stage Road. The project will provide this connection in a safe
and logical manner.
9. The current General Plan designation of VL (Very Low Density Residential, .2-.4 dwelling
units per acre) is not consistent with the underlying Specific Plan density.
10. The project density, as proposed is more compatible than prior proposals for the site (i.e.,
church).
As you can see from the extensive list of rationales/justifications above, the proposed changes
to the City's General Pian Land Use designations from VL (Very Low Density Residential, .2-.4
dwelling units per acre) to LM (Low-Medium Density Residential, 3-6 dwelling units per acre)
represents a logical transition in the area and should be integrated into the General Plan
Update. We are hoping to meet with the surrounding neighbors within the next few weeks and
solicit their input and hopefully, their support of the change to the General Plan designation and
the proposed tentative map.
I request that you keep me and my representatives apprised of all discussions and meetings
pertaining to the City's General Plan Update.
~
2
o
o
Please contact me at 858.505.0435x104 or Matthew Fagan at 909.699.2338 if you have any
questions or require any additional information.
Sincerely,
'~A-~
~
Marwan Younis
Cc:
Mayor and City Council
Planning Commission
Shawn Nelson
Gary Thornhill
Matthew Fagan
~
3
o
ATTACHMENT A
PROPOSED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
~
()
4
o
LEGEND:
J.
J1
I'>l!-PU'
-...
~,
~..'~~.,,- .
f... 1'1 '"
I "
-."
~
'~"RI
Tentative MOfor:
VINYARDS VIEW ESTATES
City of Temecula Tract No.
i
""'IlP"
QE1GAL INFORMATION,
STATlSI'lCALINFORIdATION
""""","""U,",_'
........,...........-
t<t;T>ol_".''''''''
__......,'"'u.Z<N:'..
-.".....""...""""""'..
...."".....-..""..""'"
-~_..."'..""""'''
<>=--...."'.. ,,".. """'''
....~...u...~...="...==::
"""to<, """'-"-""""""'_
"""',,'" ""',...""........
,,,"...... .~
.><IW'<...'fCA._.....L:.Ol
_== ,?.?oo....
EART!M'ORKClUANTITlES'
",
"" _e..,
"""""""'T,_c.y.
...'"""'''''''-l"~,,,.......~.,.
.......~_...-
"",,,,-,,-,'
..'-.-""""'.0""'"''''''''....'''''''''''-....''''
...W<I"M"""......
~~.Jk'"::.J\.1IlE<lU........_"'"
"'"...,.........""'......,.,,,.""""'..-_...............
_"......DOS1IoO.,.,.,ufUn""""""''''''''-'''''''''''''........
.........""""",,-_.
'-"''',",PARC!L~
""""
:="~~~""it."~.Jlr.'''MlH_.'_--3IT...''"-
_aKt............."......N.ll><""" ow...... "__'0 ,,__ ..""_..............
."~...""....,"'_..,.....,,.."-..
......""lOT_TO"......",.,,"""'"."',,""""'"
...""'.TM__"''''"'''_........~.,'''''_.......,
~Et.I!Nt~;
~~_J
-~
"':=,:~-=':""
~-
-~
.-.-~-.....
~
-~
~1H::~~""
:~~
SOLIIIElGl.NEER:
lt~Vf~
""'"""
iSi~!:~
....M""
;;''':''
BYRE'f1S1ONS:
CI Cf'TDlE
T__
HEr
1
<If
1
'I
WESTFALL
C' Construction Company, Ine.
24190 Washington Ave.
Murrieta, CA 92562
909-676-8272
P.O. Box 1550
Wildomar, CA 92595
909-639-6062 Fax
March 19,2004
~~@~DW~~
lli1 MAR 2 2 2004 ~
By
City ofTemecula
Planning Department
PO Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Attn: David Hogan, AICP
"Ref: APN's 950-100-003 & 950-100-016
c
Dear Mr. Hogan,
I am writing on' behalf of the owner's of the above referenced parcels, Dan Atwood and Dirk
Westfall. They are requesting a General Plan Amendment and zone change to Community
Commercial (CO), Their parcels are on the Northwest corner of Margarita Road and Dartolo
Road. Presently both parcels are zoned Professional Office (PO), Across the street to the
south is the Arco Gas Station. Across Margarita Road to the east is a commercial mixed-use
project.
Considering that the properties located across both Margarita and Dartolo Roads are zoned
commercial and the fact that the city is in the process of performing a General Plan Update,
we ask that this request be given prompt attention,
Very truly yours
Q~
Patrick E, Fay
WESTFALL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, me.
Attachments:
Four (4 ea.) copies of Parcel Map page 950-10
Thomas Guide Map Page 979, Grid E2 with location ofPIQ
0'1
-.../
~~'
. .
. ..
. .
i ~
~,
.
\ \ 91<~
\ ~ -,...'.<- !~ @ ~
:\~ ~.nj;'--=-~--+-;.,:"
~ . 0
~ 7~1.86
s.'fI..I'l
"l ~ '!
'l ~)>
, ' :>;)
.. ' -I
.~ ~- -~~,~-~.
... ~ \S' '" -"..
~ ~ ...
.. :>;)
9
~,.
\ __Ul'
~l ~@ ~ ~~ \ , ".,.
~ ' ,,,"\ ; ~
.... '" . ,.> .. .
<'. ,6&.'1 ~~' --:::J~.-----'"
. < ~..~~.?I"':.
\ ",.",
t---------- '
\\ @
, <
,',
o
..
.
..
..
t:~
~::
a-
"
..
,
-
@
~ ~iI>"''''
~ !o ~ "= l\:
:... ~~~fl:
~~~~~
~ ..... I ~ "'-
0)1\, 0
II> :ll
, , "\)
, '!l
"
..
,
, , , ,~
"
,
~ ~ ::::~
..... ..... 9
~ ~<;q \()
" -I( Cl \:llll
~ ~ ~ wi'::
~Cl",Oj~
:::
'I>
",-
<>
,,~l:t..
:: :: :: ~
,
:; ~ ..
.
@
I ti,' ".,,,
.
..
..
~
~G ~
.. '
. ~
@
8~4.44
Sot?:$"
!
..
.
..,.,.,9
"@
- , ~
.. 0
~ '
!
~@~ ~
.. ,-
.; eo. 't
..
~G~
; ..
... 6S" 15
J41.J6
,.,.
. ..
,""' .
.\:;.1 ):,
1:#,"= ....~_:
,'i'..2.4 ...
:(.
tt<ii\ ~
~\::J ...
A3<
"
~.~
. ..
.
l !I
, .. JiID..
li"Ulf"!{
- ..
@
o
~
,
.'
~ ~-
b
~
..
i::"
~'l:
....
~~
~~
~,
~..
gc:J
:::~
~
'<
sg
::ij
:tJ V)))
~~\J
,.....::ij
~."l~
() ~
'l:'i:.;;:
IlJ,Ql()
\:)!J>::t;:
~Cl
~t;l
~,
~
~
h.
\.()
..~
:l:(J
;, I
.........
<:::l
"t
'"
;t>
<>
\"
g
...
c
February 16, 2005
City ofTemecula
Planning Commission
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
1/
REAL ESTATE TEMECULA
Patrick E. Fay
REALTOR@
31805 Highway 79 South #640
Temecula, CA 92592
951.676.8272 - 951.639.6062 Fax
pats re temecula@mac.com
Ref: Request to Change the General Plan Land Use Designate on property located on
Dartolo Road APN 959-080-012 and 013 (Request No. 11)
Dear Sir or Madam:
('.
At the request of my c1ients,A TWOOD & WESTFALL DEVELOPMENT, the owners of the
above reference properties, we request the committee's approval for a change in zoning for
APN 959-080-012 and 959-080-013 from Professional Office (PO) to Community
, Commercial (CC).
<.
Very truly yours,
Patrick E. Fay
Real Estate Temecula
II
<:
J:
~,
13-
(
Lati~~~~ ~;Engineering .
File: 716.00
April 21, 2004
Mr. David W. Hogan, Principal Planner
City ofTemecula
Community Development Department - Planning Division
43200 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 9033
, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT: General Plan Update - Request for Change to General Plan Land Use Plan for the
Temecula Creek Inn (see attached) located east ofI-IS and south of Highway 79
Dear Mr. Hogan:
Our firm represents JC Resorts, the owners and operators of the Temecula Creek Inn (TCI). We
are writing this letter on their behalf.
(
,
The purpose of this letter is twofold; 1) to bring to your attention an "oversight" in the Draft
Proposed Land Use Policy Map (Figure LU-2) of the current General Plan update; and 2) to
make a formal r(:quest to the Planning Division to change the City ofTemecula's General Plan
Land Use designation for the Temecula Creek Inn property during the current General Plan
Update.
Regarding the fust item, it has come to our attention after reviewing the referenced map (Figure
LU-2) that the entire Temecula,Creek Inn project has mistakenly been designated as Open Space
(OS). As you are aware, the current General Plan recognizes the existing hotel and conference
facility and designates this area of the project as Highway Tourist Commercial (HT). We
assume siIjce the hotel and conference facility continue to operate, at a minimum it should be
shown as HT and was merely a graphic error.
Regarding the second item, we would like to formally request a redesignation of the property
from HT and OS to a Specific Plan Area (SPA) in the current General Plan update. The SPA
designation would provide for a resort community incorporating an expanded hotel, timeshare
units, a conference/spa facility and single family residential uses. We believe there are several
logical reasons in support of said request, including but not limited to the following:
(
1. The existing General Plan designates the adjoining property to the south (APN 922-230-025,
922-230-026) as medium density (7-12 du's/ac) and neighborhood commercial (NC),
allowing approximately 700 total du's. It is our understanding that the current project
application for that property is 400 to 450 du's or :BOO du's less than allowed in the existing
General Plan. Additionally, although permitted by the current General Plan, no
J:lJob716OO\Hogan Letter.dDc
4933 Paramount Drive, Second Floor ., San Diego, CA 92123
(858) 751-0633 . Fax (858) 751-0634 . email:mailbox@latitude33.com
- Mr. David W. Hogan, Principal Planner
April 21, 2004
Page 2
neighborhood commercial uses are proposed. Further, the adjoining property to the east
(Temecula Band ofLuiseno Indians APN Nos. 918-180-005, 918-180-019, 918-180-020,
918-180-021 and 918-180-022) is currently designated for low-density residential. As you
are aware, this property will instead be developed as a golf course, rather than residential as
part of the Pachanga Casino project. TCl's total proposed single-family du's will be :1:350,
substantially less than that already analyzed in the current General Plan for the adjoining
sites. Therefore, traffic impacts, etc., would already have been analyzed in the existing
General Plan and are less than anticipated, even with the additional dwelling units.
2. A large percentage of the trips resulting from an expansion of TCI will be non-peak hours.
Customers using the golf, hotel, conference, spa and timeshare facilities will instead be
arriving and leaving the property at non-peak times when adequate traffic capacity exists.
3. The existing traffic congestion is primarily a result of the adjoining casino/boteJ use, not TCI.
A solution, potentially involving a new interchange on 1-15 (eastern bypass) is far beyond the
ability ofTCI to solve alone. While TCI can assist in its pro-rata share of the improvements,
it is unreasonable to preclude our project from being able to pursue entitlements until the
larger, more complex traffic solution is solved.
4. Environmental review, addressing issues such as traffic, visual and noise impacts will be
required when a specific project application is submitted for TCI. Designating the Temecula
Creek Inn now as a SPA for a resort community in the General Plan will not preclude this
future CEQA review process.
5. As part ofthe expanded project, we will participate in the realignment and improvement of
Rainbow Canyon Road, a much needed circulation road improvement.
6. Given the tremendous market competition for golf and hospitality in the area, it is critical that
TCI initiate the required City General Plan Amendment and entitlement process to reposition
the project as a true resort community now.
As you can see from the above justifications, the proposed change to the City's General Plan
Land Use designation from HT and OS to Specific Plan (describing a resort community)
represents a logical designation in the area and should be integrated into the General Plan update.
We would appreciate an opportunity to make a more detailed presentation at the next
Community Advisory Committee and to you and/or other staff. Lastly, it would be our desire to
submit a discretionary application to allow for the much needed expansion ofTCI into a true
resort community during the calendar 2004 year. We fully understand that we would be doing so
contingent upon approval of a SPA designation for our property as part of the General Plan
update.
\\LA TSERVI\OFFICEADMIN\1ob716OO\Hopll Letter.doe
(
(-""
1
~"-/
(/
Mr. David W. Hogan, Principal Planner
April 21, 2004
Page 3
We look forward to working with you and request that you keep us apprised of all discussions
aDd meetings pertaining to the City's General Plan update.
Sincerely,
Q Lo-SJ~
Randi~rsmith
Principal
cc: Paul Reed, J.e. Resorts
Douglas Leiber, General Manager, TCI
\\LATSERV1\OmCBADMIN\Job716OO\Hogan Ldta-.doc
~N
ON
Nq
qo
~ClO
.... ....
~ I .
It)ClOClO
0........
qOlOl
o ~ ~
",ClOOI....
..:.'.........N
',I qq
ClOOO
" .... ClO ClO
01........
'Z I I
' ClO ClO
:.D...... ....
ctOlOl
....
z
ZW
Z:E
-0
~z
WW
w:E
0:::"'"
0:....
:5:5
=>0..
O...J
~~
Ww
I-Z
W
C)
,.€~
\. _ ON
'-"" Z...t
(
(
(
File: 716.00
May 14, 2004
Selected Lanl!:ual!:e to Insert into the
General Plan Update for the Temecula Creek Inn
. The approximately 300-acre property is proposed for a Resort Community (RC) designation.
The existing hoteVgolf course development is anticipated to be expanded into a full Resort
Community with uses to include 18 holes of golf, additional hotel rooms, fractional
ownership units, a day spa, an event/meeting facility and single-faJllily detached dwelling
units.
A Specific Plan shall be prepared which addresses the realignment of Rainbow Canyon
Road, the potential for an "easterly bypass" from 1-15 and the comprehensive design of a
300-acre Resort Community.
.....n....._...dSd\inu\lmldcbam\Loea! Sd1~\Tempcauy )ntem:tFiles\CcnknllES':roJCZ1TIL\TCI Projec:I: Ducriplion.~
13-;
.
.
July 30, 2004
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT: General Plan Update - Request for Change to General Plan Land Use Plan
for the Temecula Creek Inn located east ofI-15 and south of Highway 79
To Whom It May Concern:
On behalf of JC Resorts we are requesting an inclusion to the City ofTemecula General
Plan Update. In the past few months we have coordinated with the City of Temecula's
Plarming Staff to modify the current Draft General Plan as it relates to the Temecula
Creek Inn project. The site is located at the southern portion of the City ofTemecula and
includes Assessor's Parcel Numbers 922-220-002,922-220-003,922-220-008,922-220-
031,922-230-002,922-230-003,922-230-004,922-230-007, and 922-230-008. We are
providing this letter to request that the below suggestions be incorporated in the
City of Temecula General Plan Update. We have reviewed the June 2004 Draft
General Plan in detail and we offer our suggestions to specifically address the Temecula
Creek Inn project site.
In the current Draft General Plan, the site has been changed to a land use designation of
Open Space with a Recreational Commercial Overlay from Highway Tourist. After
reviewing the Draft General Plan, it appears that this Overlay is the only area in the
City of Temecula that has this designation. The site presently includes an approximate
300-acre resort golf course with 129 hotel rooms, a restaurant, and conference facility. As
you are aware, JC Resorts is requesting to have a Specific Plan Overlay on the subject
site to provide additional facilities that will enhance the site as a Resort Community,
similar to the resort communities in the CoacheJla Valley such as La QUinta, 1>lilm Desert,
and Rancho Mirage. In order to achieve a "diverse, high quality land use," as desired in
the current General Plan, various sections, both text and maps, need to be updated. We
have provided a summary of the various sections in the Draft General Plan that apply to
the Temecula Creek Inn Resort project.
i. Figure LU-2 Proposed Land Use Policy Map: The plan currently shows the
project site as Open Space (green) with a RC-Recreation Commercial Overlay
(stripes). Please refer to number 2 for suggested modifications.
JC RESORTS
I .
533 COAST BOULEVARD SOUTH LA .JOLLA, CALIFORNIA 92037 . 858.454.9793 FAX 858.459.6758
(
City of Temecula
July 30, 2004
Page Two
2. Page LU-21 RC- Recreation Commercial Overlay Text describing the allowed
uses: Change the text to read, "permitted uses include commercial recreation,
conference centers, golf courses, clubhouses, hotels, resorts, fractional ownership
units, restaurants, parks, (eliminate camp grounds), open spaces, community
facilities, and residential uses.
3. Table LU-3 Development Capacity: Include the Temecula Creek Inn proposed 1.2
dwelling unit per gross acre capacity in the Development Capacity Table.
4. Figure LU-3 Specific Plan Areas: Add a new Specific Plan Area designation for
Temecula Creek Inn Resort and provide the following language, "To achieve a
Resort Community including a golf course, additional hotel rooms, fractional
ownership units, a day spa, ballrooms, and single family detached dwelling units not
to exceed 1.2 dwelling units per gross acre."
(
s. Table LU-7 Rural Preservation Areas: Add text to number 4 (Rainbow Canyon
and Great Oak Ranch) to read, "Preserve the hillsides in the southern portion for the
Planning Area and prevent residential encroachment upon BLM preservation areas
by promoting Hillside, Rural, Very Low or Low Density residential development,
and conserving a significant portion of the area as open space (does not applv to
those portions within the Temecula Creek Inn Resort proiect site)."
6. Preserving Rural Areas (pg, LU-41): Add to text to read "...Nicolas Valley, the
winery and agricultural properties east ofTemecula, Anza Road at SR-79 South,
and the Rainbow Canyon and Great Oak Ranch areas (does not applv to the
Temecula Creek Inn Resort proiect)."
We believe the above mentioned suggestions will provide substantial benefits to the
Temecula community and will allow the expansion of the Temecula Creek Inn to occur
and create a Resort Community. We look forward to working with the City ofTemecula
to move forward with the General Plan Amendment." ,
If further information is needed, please contact me at (858) 454-9793.
c
Sincerely yours,
~
Paul L. Reed
President
THE TEMECULA CREEK INN AND RESORT COMMUNITY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To Whom It May Concern:
In response to a changing market, the Temecula Creek Inn is embarking on a program to
reposition itself into a true RESORT COMMUNITY. As a result of said improvements,
the Temecula Creek Inn wiII expand the number of hotel rooms from 129 to 225 and add
a significant conference/meeting area and a day spa facility. Similar to other Resort
Communities, the Temecula Creek Inn wiII also include timeshare units and upscale
single family homes. These improvements wiII significantly increase the TOT revenues
to the city and include the participation in the much needed road improvements to
Rainbow Canyon Road.
In support of this repositioning effort, we believe it is fundamental that the current
General Plan update program designate the property as a Specific Plan (SPA 1.2 dulacre).
The SPA designation would provide for a resort community incorporating an expanded
hotel, timeshare units, a conference facility, spa and single family homes at a density not
to exceed 1.2 du's/gross acre of the property. As part of this request, we have included
the following items for your review:
· A conceptual Development Plan indicating the location of the various land uses
within the proposed expansion.
· A copy of a letter to Mr. Davis Hogan, Principal Planner, requesting a change to
the General Plan Land Use Plan to SPA 1.2 dulac.
· Draft language to include the General Plan update to accommodate the
repositioning of the property into a RESORT COMMUNITY.
. A Draft General Plan Land Use Exhibit
We look forward to working with you on the upcoming effort.
Sincerely yours,
Paul L. Reed
President
Je RESORTS
1 .
533 COAST BOULEVARD SOUTH. LA .JOLLA, CALIFORNIA 92037 . 658.454.9793 FAX 8S8.459.675A
(
~
,
\,
(~
1'5-3
ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP
41607 MARGARITA ROAO, SUITE 103
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA 92591-2984
MAIN TELEPHONE: (951) 719-3640
FACSIMILE: (951) 719-3650
Offices in San Diego and Temecula, California
November 17, 2004
SAMUEL C. ALHADEFF
SALHADEFF@A-SLAw.COM
10435.001
HAND DELIVERED - NOVEMBER 17.2004
Mr. Shawn Nelson
City Manager
City ofTemecular
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Ms. Debbie Ubnoske
Planning Manager
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula. California 92590
Re: Temecula Creek 100 Hotel Expansion PA98-0309
Dear Mr. Nelson & Ms. Ubnoske:
Bill Curley had the opportunity to review our letter of August 9,2004 in which we
provided an analysis which concluded that placing a Specific Plan Overlay on the Temecula
Creek 100 property would not create a vested right for the development of the Temecula Creek
Inn property. Bill confirmed, via e-mail dated October 30, 2004 his understanding of our
analysis, and further stated that neither he nor Debbie have any difficulty with the concept that
an overlay will not create a vested right. We appreciate their taking the time to review this
matter with us.
Given that understanding we believe it is appropriate to proceed with our suggested
Specific Plan Overlay.
In summary, the new Temecula General Plan would provide for a designation that the
Temecula Creek 100 property be treated as a "Future Specific Plan Area," and would further
change the Recreation-Commercial Overlay text to more accurately described the "Potential For
Further Project." In addition, the text would provide that all future development would, of
S:\Data From Sherry\Clients\Temecula Creek Inn\Nelson Ubno*e Letter II.16.04.doc
ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP
Shawn Nelson
Debbie Ubnoske
November 17, 2004
Page 2
course, be subject to full discretionary review and approvals, technical studies and the
appropriate CEQA process.
For your convenient reference, attached is a copy of our August 9 letter and Bill's
October 30 e-mail. We have also attached some suggested text and graphics which we believe
'should be included within the General Plan Updates and which accurately reflect the proposed
"Future Specific Plan Overlay".
Thank you so much for working with us.
SinelY,
fA--
Samuel C. Alhadeff, of')..
Alhadeff & Solar, LLP
SCA:sld
Enclosures
cc: Temecula Mayor and City Council
Temecula Planning Commissioners
Doug Leiber
Paul Reed
Randi Coopersmith
Larry Markham
c
(
(/
13
ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP
41607 MARGARITA ROAO, SUITE 103
TEMECULA, CAL'FORNIA 92591-2964
MA'N TELEPHONE: (951) 719-3640
FACSIMILE: (951) 719-3650
Offices in San Diego and Temecula, California
August 9,2004
SAMUELC. ALHAOEFF
SAL}lAOEFF@A-SLAW.COM
10435.001
Peter Thorson, Esq.
Richards Watson & Gershon
355 South Grand Avenue
40th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3101
Re: Temecula Creek Inn Hotel Expansion P A98-0309
Dear Peter:
As you will note, my office has moved and we have changed our address, fax and phone
number. We still are not up yet with the internet, so hopefully by the end ofthis week we will
have emaiL Just returning from vacation and participating in a move was exciting to say the
least.
The purpose of this letter is to discuss the language for an overlay in the proposed
revisions to the Temecula General Plan.
The language we suggest and I believe Dave Hogan is comfortable with is as follows:
,"The Recreational and Commercial Overlay designation may be applied to
properties designated for Open Space use. This designation provides for
operation and development of resort or amusement oriented commercial and recreational
use of regional interest that draw visitors from throughout the '
City and region. Permitted uses include commercial recreation, conference
centers, golf courses, clubhouses, hotels, resorts, restaurants, parks, camp-
grounds, open spaces and community facilities. Restaurants, hotels, and
resort uses are accessory to the underlying open space uses."
I think there is some concern by various representatives of the staff that our client, the
Temecula Creek Inn, may be receiving "vested rights" as a result of this proposed overlay
language. We have specifically reviewed the issue of whether the adoption by the City of
Temecula of a General Plan Update that included a Recreation and Commercial Overlay would
give our client any vested rights. We do not believe that any vested rights would be received by
our client based simply on the overlay. The only right we would receive is the right to have the
City approve or disapprove a subsequent development application according to the ordinances,
policies and standards in effect at the date the City determines the application is complete,
S:\Data From Sherry\Clients\Temecula Creek Inn\Thorson Letter 08.09.04.doc
ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLl'
Mr. Peter Thorson
August 9,2004
Page 2
pursuant to Government Code Section 65943. This procedure is provided for in Section 66474.2
of the Government Code. For your convenience I have attached a copy of that particular section.
As you know better than anyone, the A VCO Section, decided in 1976, clearly states the
rules applicable in this kind of a situation. Under A VCO a property owner has a vested right
under common law to develop only if the property owner has obtained a building permit for an
identifiable viable building and has expended a substantial sum in reliance on that permit.
Government Code Section 66474.2(a) gives the property owner the right to request the
City consider their development application under the then existing land use regulations, but
does not give the property owner the right to require the City approve that application. We
believe that Government Code Section 66474.2(b) is also instructive \vith regard to this
particular situation.
Accordingly, it does not appear that the City's adoption of the General Plan Update that
includes this proposed Recreation and Commercial Overlay would bestow any vested rights on
our client, other than a procedural right to have the development application approved or
disapproved under the General Plan Updates and Recreation and Commercial Overlay as
pro"ided for in Government Code Section 66474.2.
As I indicated, this letter is to give you this information as you are working with staff and
there is a hearing tomorrow evening on the General Plan. We wanted to make certain that we
had your consensus with these thoughts regarding this matter.
If we had a consensus we believe staff would feel more comfortable in working with us
on the Overlay, Again, as I indicated, Mr. Hogan feels that he could work with the proposed
language. We simply need to make sure that staff understands we are not trying to "over reach"
on this marter. Peter, I would like to just briefly discus this question with you on the telephone
so that if any Commissioner or Councilmember asks you about this issue you would be
comfortable with the thoughts expressed in this letter.
Thank you again. Best regards. I am looking forward to seeing you tomorrow evening.
Sincerely,
Se- 0t."'}
Samuel C. Alhadeff, of
Alhadeff & Solar, LLP
SCA:sld
Enclosure as noted
cc: Mr. Larry Markham (with enclosure)
(
\,
(
Recreation Commercial Overlay (Text and Exhibit)
Change text to read "permitted uses include Commercial Recreation, conference centers, golf
courses, clubhouses, hotels, resort, fractional ownership units, restaurants, parks, open spaces,
community facilities and residential uses.
C:\DocumenlS and Settings\salhadeff\Loca1 Settings\Temporary Inlemet Files\OlKB7\Recrelltion Commercial Ovel"lay Text Changes.doc
~
"
~
<
c
.., "
~Q:
...J~
'" .-
~ ~
CQCo
<'"
..13
,.
o
..
Co
Co
<
~
"
~
u
<C
...
r--
...
~
"
~
;:)
'0
C
"
....l
c
"
c:
-a
~
"
c
"
o
(/]
o
0:
:2
....l
~
"
>
.;::
u
"
:E'
o
~
c
.2
E-
.;:
u
~
"
a
c
o
.~
u
o
_J'
ii
c:
u
t;:;
'u
"
0.
(/]
'0
",
E-
o
'0
-<C
,..,
,
;:)
....l
bO
ti:
.5
-.;
.0
"
....l
~
.g
'"
"
1::
o
0.
0.
o
OJ)
C
.<;;
"
o
.c
-a
c
.g
:0
'0
"
"
'0
.;:
::
0.
~
'0
"
0'-
~ 0
~ ~
c "
-<C ~
'--E
o 0
~ c
~
,,'0
3: ii
-o.~
~U
o::~
,,~
'0'-
ill 0
>~
" "
t:;-E
o "
:2 ~
:;:
c
"
OJ)
~
o
:2
M
-
M
""
~
"
"
..
<
.... c
, "
;:l-
....lll.
J;;;J~
....l.-
CQ II
<Co
..'"
"
..
"
:;
...
~
"
~
u
<C
-
~
"
~
;:)
'0
C
"
....l
c
"
c:
-a
....
"
c
"
o
-'----
~
"
>
';::
u
"
:E'
o
~
c
,2
E-
.;:
u
~
"
a
f--
c
o
.~
u
o
....l
-
c
"
c:
u
t;:;
'u
"
0.
(/]
"
....
"
:;
""
-
,..,
;:)
....l
bO
ti:
.5
-.;
~
....l
'"
....
'"
...
,
U
U
:2
i
....l
(/]
o
i
i
....l
u"
U
o
0..
'- '0
vi ~ gOJ) 2
~ u ..... <.fl >.
:a $..o!::: tIl..... ......
t'\S oJ en 4) It) 0 ro
~ _ ><u..o"o ~
...... ro .- u:::: 00'0' B '(;; v
OJ) 'u E '>- ..0 I... "'C c:: 0
1..0 Q) ] _ Cl.. 2';> c:..c 0 iU
.~ 10 ~ C ~ <JJ - .'- ro :t:: -z: c:
~EE,:,roCllr.n]c;t::Q)~:.alZl
008o"E"OOf/l'';:.e- -oC:
..c";:: 0 :< Q) fa g -cJ ~ o. ~ .f' ro .2
"'OoUeE ..ot::"Oc..<.fl:-=Eu
t; ~ '"0 .- ~ d:g :"r;; go l:f:.e "; "C
(f) 8 fa -g E'~ ~.~ e Q).gf d go ~
~ .c.:....: t; c 0 Q) l.-o 5 bl) g.. 11) 0.8 .... ..
~'==.;::au"'C~-c._""C >.,(1)
>~_-""'r;j._CI):.acoorotl)
~ ;;> ...... o...~ 01) E c c ~...c: U 8 ::S
..... .."'l:j ;>,...0 1-0 d ::t: ::3 0"'" ......
5 t "c;j - '';::: _~ <+;< .... o...c::: .9 ... en 0
-0 "E e ~ 8..~..2 0 t:: ~.s ~ -g vi
-;; 8 Q!:'~ :: e gp lU ~ 0 u E 0 e
~ ~ ~ ~ 8 E"m 15:€ ~ ~ g. ~ ~
0..:2.5 ~ -5 E .8 B ~ c: goo ;:g u 'Ii
)( - - 0.''''' 0.... 4) t'\S C ;> bJJ E d
'-8 ':;: r.n 8 ~ u c: .E - ;> (I,) -8'v t e
d =a 0 ." t: 8 .~:9 "'C c..~ C:...c:: ro
ro $..ouEoroota:C':SooM.....o
4) ~..t:: 10 Q) ~tr..c: o.~ ~ s:::: c 0., ~
:E:a ~ ~ E :::s cd .5 e d e.2:.a o.oc-5
;> Cd''''' c.. CIl en 0"'" 0 ..... s::::::
e ::S ~ ..c::.3 u" '0] 0::2 1:-19 ::s 'i: u
0.. 0 ~ g u u ,o.~ 4) =' 0 C 0 ~ 4)
01::(; o~!:E 2's.o 0 o.~ t::l.i-i (5
E- ~ ~ E- "0 0 0... :.: .8 {;.s 0 ~.,g s.
'0
"
15.9 ~
... E..r::
~ /1) 0 03
E ~ en.-"'C"'C
Ol'l5..r::o,:-ga~
u"'05r-;--g-g0::
""'-00::""" oS
~,~ (/] (/] ,,~'iJ;
Q) - 0\ ,... 03
'€,~r-~~..sbO
o~",oo......Ea
zala::C2(/]:2
>-
"
"
....
-<C
ii
0::
u
t;:;
'u
"
0.
'"
N
"
"
....
<C
c
"
c:
u
,-
-
'u
"
Co
(/]
"
u
C
"
"
'"
.s
'c;>-
"
....
"
~
(/]
N
'"
'"
,..,
u
~
~
:r:
i
....l
u:i
o
o :>-..~
~ " c
3'0 "
o '" OJ)
u "c
~ CI).-
- ~-
0.- -
bOS~v
d 0.""0 ti
:?:'l:.a~ ~
:.a~..r::B
=' ~ ~ En
g~d)~
._ 0'0 :g
..- ^-
og:-=:~
,- 0 a'-
s.- 03 !::
at>";" ~
8 .g_ {1, il
OCl)C_
u 8'- "
t: 0 ~ :t
ooc""O
;a1..o03~
0::0 cti'-
O3bE""O
<u..c:: 0 8
> "'a 2 u
.~ c = ~
.c 0 "
u..o.oo
0::1 .- .....
o "'0 0::I~......
E--g~g
"
~] ]'
"8 -'"
diU /1)
t;E-~ /1)
1..0 /1) -'U~
2..c: d
..sc:::~~
;...O"-'B
o..r:: ~ u
t:: 1:: U E
dOe /1)
t.tlZUf-<
N
N
"
"
~
<C
a
c:
u
,-
-
'u
"
Co
(/]
N
N
.g
.
~
.
~
o
'"
.
~
~
,
3
~
.
'"
'g
~
~
~
=
'"'
~
~
~
!
.'S
f
1
~
.~
~
~
~
t
~
:-;
.f
~
'5
.
~
9
u
un 0:: Tu--rr:CiJU, -CE:':t:V~t f'L~".'
Ar)p~'~"'I:,d :::'~)J::.:'r;,~ P;-l;
. r' '--r-'--
I \->>
L___J~,~;" .
,_..".__.1.1 I!\
n Ic,,,..~~r.m.~
; ::Sph~' ,",hH-
f~l~._' ";:--'--...~'; !
1 ~. ~ 1
t---"
._....J'-~
r.....\ , .. ......___..11 ~ ......d
{ tJ"-...-- - /.../J ~
'\ tA
;-.... - "(
i l....... ":/~'\..\'
, r-" '" -....-i
~ ..).......... "\.-..(/~'-<:;"----"\r~
Il /
i
'r~==::.;:'-:;;::~ '--~:'::-~:X:=::~~T-
/ f- , . L)' I
'" rgui'.f: ,_. ~J
\ I ~e.'xi~c f'~~' i\reas .".--..
I,,,.
I i ;~
:\ ,,,
..~
I
IS"'" .......,.',..
:'.,".1 ~ j1",,,),,,;~", Jt..:..:h
~ :};:..,:,.-I 1.""..._,,1., '.' ~t~ \ ;;~S'
I
\
W .".. ,..,,,,\,",.,.,,,,,,.,
\ . 't . . ,), ~ ,~_u r !:.1
t ;:;lil;\~-:' $p'!ci;:( rb;I'
i
'.j
~.. .'
....I.'
I-''';r~~c~------
i t
.___L_L.:::.-=t~;'t...___,_ .
p:,),.;>.",,;:, "e"';'
;,"Kh::\',y~"n.--!-'
1"'''r...,,'-,'i,II..:;\~
-I !"'~.>l".;:f'Ht-.C:j'..,
:'i";......,,
('mlDtl',,1
.i;,-..ni<'il"
':.~-. ,:"'''r.~-.' 'It ;,j..,
S,- ;..,.,~.;I.. k~~\i~.\.i ,:-.,,~"
:':'_ 1:. ~",."...d" ,:,1I,.~~., _, {Jl,! i,,.., .
V' 0;, f:~:n.\'.,~_
','0.1;' \...!L.."ll
'".j; ,.",.;. (,~':!..
p;:.~:. ~ ":.~-,~l." POI..t,!.-
II I-~.'., i)'.I'.!, \;,:~...-1~
It l~-l !,..-~,:..,:, l:.'~u \-0,1"
~ :'1) ~-,';n'h"~~"1 P,r.t., :h~; ,.,.....'1......'
,. :'...~ f.!'t:! ....,,"~:'.
:.:1\,1 (,....,"..c)'Jl.."!:'->
) ~~. \...,.,.i.....I," 'llt::
/-C;1l',;,f'->
. Mpm.~'
~~.
\
I
!---.~-...:.
___._._J
_..~."..Y:~ .~\ ~ _~ h___. .~!
\
....." I,
--1
I
t.--- J
.
I
I
J
..,---.- I
,
I
---I
~-~---i
-.,"1
'----'1
-'
.
y
!
~:...)
.
'\
\.,......
,i
i ~.
...~
/'..:;' ~\..
. \ -----
>,~,y~~II'-'r
------~. ...-~'-~._.
.. ,;--.'" "
'" f~ .
<f
.
(
'\.
,
"
l ~J-
i -!
t- "
~"""".~,....
:.i" -
f,
l
L..~~.,/:'
-J
\
.
L
f'
,
i
i
.-
.'
;
J
1.'
..-.......if
-'.
1-'
.if ZZ
~ TEMECULA CREEK
INN & RESORT
.
"J,
(,
_1__---
i I '._-- ----- ..~
1 . -.- ~~.~.~,,,h(u~r,.',,''':_._.,
I ----.. $1'~'~'l'"l.""l",_"rlh.",,\d.,,,
.1__ ..l"""......_r..
1-' . i
! i_;'~~.;_._..:~'=.:~~..:'.;. :::..'::.;"::'~~::'::. ~:.:-: ~::. ..--J
,3... 0 :=:,(:0;) 10 DI..)('
., _~.1~. Er_,l:::i._.c=___.~r-C~{
.. 1-7J:';:-. ;'::-:_::f:.'}:::r::':J:::=_ ..__ ...-1 r~ 1:11:"
~ !r
f <' ,d -11
1111
II .J ..L'":.L'l.)'. 1
.~.._l,~_~=!- .'~ .~.l J 1
_.....
_.----.
L __.
----- --_._---~ .- ---'- - ._--- .-..- - .
'> L 1\ N
l
y
C' I.
1
t., t\'\ L L.
U L f\
(: EN', r~
/\ L
lU.31
...--,......
,~,-~~~:~~?
,~;J"'" t2r",
_'-'_~.Gr--:,";~
II
fl
r'~
u
11
.,/
<:;
1.."
F
I
_ __'--____.1_.___,___
'g- '--~.~\ '-J
'.'1; =--.
.... ::2: -^ ' . --
~'):: .q~ "fj " L_ ~ :~ c' 1L, ~ ~ ~ i l-:~'--'I
o -.a ::::: ,;I ..:::. )( ~ ~_;;t In"- J;: T'-; , r.\
"- h 0.. ~ '..!_s.:::l~~':'::~ E~E._ ~"@ ~.1f
<U~ ~.uw~(1".J Er.:f340i<1J ~ll...3 ~J ~-:::;!
1.1)2 "3'<-.r:u'9::l< ,o;?UH!:! :.J7;j-S ".E:.~,g C'
^ :> ~ i) j- Cl .!S ,-, 0 ~ J p_.'1ii co = :5 fj () "1:J E S'il ~
I A d t'i ~?i g fi ~ ~ ~ g Ij .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2'~ .' .3 (1 g ~ l
"CS:a ~ ,~-~- -'~. ,,~.-Ct-();':' 1J-'Z..-~...tJ-r.: <::-.~"'::s'
-J CI Q ')- ., :F. --- '.,. ""- "i: -- u'" ~ ~~ _\.-> .... l>I - . =. f' F>
("i _ a -- l5 6 \01 ei E r,~ D P S ~ 12;(:!E r:.. 11 -g lJ.. 2" .gl'W E <. Ii
:3i ~ ~t~~~B:~~~t~j,ij~!~~!!jllllfL
-N \V I.;.. ~ !% Z ::1 11-- .' C ~
~_~_t~J~~~ll~]H~I_' ~II~II ~I ~IIJI~]llUJ t
c
(
(
13-5
ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP
~n) rr"~[fT~--lFr!~~
;1 l' .'1 i1
III' JAN 3 1 2005 I I, Ii
!UU l LiJl
I ., I
I !
iBy I
."':1
41607 MARGARITA ROAD, SUITE 103
TEMECUlA, CALIFORNIA 9259142984
MAIN TELEPHONE: (951) 719-3640
FACS'MILE: (951) 719-3650
Offices in San Diego and Temecula, California
January 31, 2005
SAMUEL C. AlHADHF
SALHADEFF(8)A-SLAW.COM
10435,001
HAND DELIVERED
Planning Commissioners
City ofTemecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Re: Temecula Creek Inn - General Plan Update February 2,2005
Dear Commissioner:
We represent J.e. Resorts, the owners and operators of the Temecula Creek Irm (TCI),
We are writing this letter on their behalf.
The purpose of this letter is to make a formal request to the Planning Commission that at
your February 2, 2005 hearing, you amend the City ofTemecula's General Plan Land Use
Designation for the Temecula Creek Irm property.
We know you are aware, the Temecula Creek Inn is and has been an important partner
with the City of Temecula for many years. TCI wants to continue to grow with the City and
reposition itself into a true Resort Community, similar to those in the Palm Springs, Palm Desert
and Rancho Mirage areas. In response to a changing market, TCI would like to propose a full
service resort facility with a spa, golf, hotel, fractional ownership, dining and residential living.
This resort community would result in increased hotel TOT revenues to the City, an improved
golf course quality and experience, improve safety of Rainbow Canyon Road and maintain a
high-quality project which reflects the Temecula community character.
In order to accomplish our goal of a Resort Community, we would like to formally
request a re-designation of the property from HT (Highway Tonrist Commercial) and OS
(open space) to a Specific Plan area (SPA 1.2 du/ac) as part of the current General Plan
update, The SPA designation would provide for a resort community incorporating an expanded
hotel, fractional ownership units, a new conference/spa facility and single-family residential uses
at a maximum density of 1.2 dwelling units/grass project area.
S:\Data From Sherry\Clients\Temecula Creek (nn\Commissioner letter 1.31.Q5.doc
ALHADEFF & SOLAR, LLP
Planning Commissioners
January 31, 2005
Page 2
We would additionally request that a change to tbe Recreation Commercial Overlay
text be made to more accurately describe the opportunity for the potential for a future
project. We also believe our request reflects comments made and direction given by the City
Council, Planning Commission and CAC at the August 10, 2004 Joint General Plan meeting.
For your convenience and use we have attached both text and graphics which we believe
accurately reflect our request to create a true Resort Community.
We look forward to working with you and fully understand that placing a Specific Plan
Overlay on the Temecula Creek Inn property would not create a vested right for development
and would require both future environmental review and discretionary approvals.
Thank you in advance, Weare looking forward to working with you on this exciting
opportunity, one which benefits both the citizens of Temecula and the Temecula Creek Inn.
Sincerely,
l{'r;, . . /1 ,-J 11. _,' ." f.) .{/./
/-n ,;.",/ I f Ii fA IJ..<P ~ ..~..
;.../tv. ; l._-"'~-,--.-'-fl'--'/'-"'- v7/ l
'"
Samuel C. Alhadeff, of/;>
Alhadeff & Solar, LLP
SCA:sdb
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager (w/encls.)
Ms. Debbie Ubnoske, Director of Planning (w/encls.)
Mr. Dave Hogan, Principal Planner (w/encls.)
Paul Reed, JC Resorts (w/o encls.)
Douglas Leiber, Temecula Creek Inn (w/o encls.)
Randi Coopersmith, Latitude 33 (w/o encls.)
Larry Markham (w/encls.)
/'
\
(
(~
Recreation Commercial Overlay (Pg LU-21) (Text and Exhibit)
J:\JOO716OO\Recnation Commercial Overlay Text Changes.doc
RC-RECREATION COMMERCIAL OVERLAY
Intensity Range:
Target Intensity:
Varies
N/A
The Recreation Commercial Overlay designation may
be applied to properties designated for Open Space
use or to Specific Plan areas. This designation
provides for operation and development of resort
communities or amusement oriented commercial and
recreational uses of regional interest that draw
visitors from throughout the City and region.
Permitted uses include commercial recreation,
conference centers, golf courses, clubhouses, hotels,
resorts, fractional ownership units. restaurants, parks,
camp grounds, opens spaces, and-community
facilities and residential uses. R-e3tlltUSntJ, I">ld.,
ana I,36ft t13(.3 Mt:. ae:e:{.J301., t5 the. tlltekd,iftg 6pt:ft
3IHtt::e. tl3t:3.
~
..
"
I-
<
C
.....
;j6:
..J~
rOl-
~ll
=0.
<en
""'il
>
o
I-
0.
0.
<
~ ...
r--
" ...
...
u
-<
~
"
~
::>
-0
c
..
~
;j en
0: 0
"i! 0:
" :i
c
"
" ~
"'
:1
0
c.
c.
0
OIl
.5
~
g
~ ..c
" '"
.:?: c
~ .g
"
:s :a
~ -g
.51 -8
.~ 'S:
I- g
U C.
~
" 0
Q "'"
-0 -d' .~
~!+-oa:lU
JX: 0 ~ u
f;; "oS
" -0 .....
~ I- 0
'€"-
c ~ >;
0
.~ o 0 u u
-c.....c
0 ~"'CI S ~
0 :=: tii::; Sl
~
tii
0:
u
'"
'u
"
0- X
en
-0 fa
"
g. ~
-0 0
< ::;
M
:,
....l
00 :l
;;: M
.5 ""
"il
~
~
~
..
..
I-
<(
.... c
, ..
;J-
-'1"-
~(::
-'1-
=ll
<0.
"",en
~
"
-
"
~
~
"
I-
o
-<
e--
"'
"
~
::>
'0
fa
-'1
tii
0:
'"
...
"
c
"
"
-
~
"
.:?:
11
"
:s
o
t3
.51
E.
'C
u
~
"
Q
-
c
o
.~
u
o
~
-
fa
0:
o
'"
'u
"
c.
tI]
~
"
~
-
M
:,
....l
00
;;:
,5
o
...
u
u
:i
:i
....l
o
...
N
o
M
en
o
:i
:i
....l
U
u
6
""
U
0<:
~
::r:
:i
....l
..... '0
iii 0 ~ 0" ~
'" tU ~ .~ II) ~ ~ ~.~
~ ~ avill)~~ ~ g~on
C ~ ~8~u'&8 ~~ ~~.5
00 'u u E"t C; .D P: .0'"0 t:: u 0 .~ =
E t~~u~~ .._~~~g oo~;~
.~ ~ E I a III 1I)...c c; Ei u ~:.a \I) as Po '"C 0
o u E -g i:! '"0 U II) '': € c; >.. "'C t:: 00-- "0 ctI
..c'aoxuc~~5ou~'~.9 c..c~lI)
'"Ouo'-SE~oc"'CP.U):-::ut; '-~..cU)
c > "0 II,) - -0 tU .- 0. C ..c .!:I ._ -g Q) U 2
~cc-o-.~'~~~obO~~b -~s~
II)Oa:luP.S-u.2~u'-a:l~1I) g~~~
Cl,)U_s fi~~~~~~ee ._o'"C~
~~!~~~~~.s.~'"O~~~ ~1.~;
C;~5p.u~~o"'Cc~~ua:ls" -co~.-
'';: ""'0 >.:0 ..... a =t =' cu '";l ....:::t.- cu C
= t.- -'- .. f+:i .::. o..r::: 0 .oJ VI 0 ~ Jlo '":00',5 ,".
u_::u~t;o....t:__C'"Oui ....~
:g 5 ~.~ 0.'0 CD 0 ;3 tg.5 Vs 8 "
rno~U'Je""5G)v.I u ~ O"S::-
~ ~.s] 8 S"II) 6-5 ~~ g.~ ~ U e--"ii
os1e~eBg'i~~~~osui~gi~
x - - 0..'- 0 ..... ..... U t'3 C > 0.0 t'3 "" &.0 ttI N
.s '> ~ e ~ ~ 5 ~:D ~ 8. -8'u ~ ~ C2 G) u1 ~
tIS'RiOCl) O._.-ceolo..C..s:: .....S-o
cC~wococOu~ o 0.0"'" U cOO ~
Q) .t:. tU tU o..:.o>..s:::: p., Q) 0,) 0 U) Q)..c 0 ~
"'0.5 ~ > e go cO C e ~ tii 6.5 tlO~ > -;; ~ u
.~]tIS.2o.""U)'-O~~~]5......2c_~
2 ;J a: f:i ..9 ti '0 -g u:g e- S ::s.... 0 f:i .2 jg 0
0.. g...!Ml cO Q) 0 '~.~.8 ::s 0 5 e ~ .B cO.'t: J'....
o;:itao~lEee .,go.cs"38o::go..o
~~~~"'Oo~=g"".5o",,~~~cC""C
"0
"
'O.i! -5
.... Q) ::s -a
o bO ~ ._ "'t:J "0
~~oS",llfa1l
u"'O::sr;--g-gr:a::
~uor:a::"""oS
to t::::: CZI 00 co::....
u"'O\bO~..s::a
'€~:;:;g~,,,,S'
O"C-"S..,.
Z~"<.cen",
>- N
" "
" "
-< -<
fa fa
s: t:i:
u u
'" '"
.y .y
" "
0- C.
en tI]
"il
.c
..
~
"
u
c
"
"
<=
.s
'0> N
e
"
i5.
tI]
..
~] ]
" S
~lL) ~
t;I-JJ e
tu-;u
C oS ~ at
_lo.. cc.....
~o_~
O..c~ ~
ti 1:: G,) E
tIS 0 f u
"'ZCJE-<
~
..
~
fa
0:
o
'"
'u
"
c.
en
N
N
g
~
.
:;j
...
.
~
5
'"
i
~
.
.
.
l
~
~
1
i
11
~
~
'"
i<
I::
g
~
'"
'"
~
...
~
"
(
Figure LU-3
Specific Plan Areas
cm Of TEMfCUlA GENERAl PlAN
ApptO\I~ Spe-cific Plan~
SP. I Ronp"""ghfland,
$f- jl:..,,,,hoH'lIhl,,rnj,
SP. M>i'gAf1~V,llOlge
sr. 1'~~_'I'",e()OeI5cl
sr. Old 1'!:M"l)
~I'. C.vnpO!.VtluM
Sf. r"=fllK~iIllo:egiollitlC~lel
Sf>- (I, WP';,,,rt..jV,,I,,sn al Old Town
$P- '} Redh..-.wl..
SP.IO'Y..,(!\;J.nCh
5P-ll Wo!rC,Uk
'SP.Il H...v"""",..
SP.14 R9"p"vgbllM>Ch
POO~ T,,~ul~ C.ed, V.!l;.gl"
PDQ-S llOlf1fhQ rutblo
. lOt. O"",~hV,II..JJ,~
. Hl4 R;.ndw B,.jl~ '1"'1"
~, If ~13 W"."h6~, P'oP..,tJB,<"I~!:'r"""'~
1f265 Bol~^"JU,1;
If 1&4 Qu.nt.) 00 l",SQ
. ~~ Wtrlch~Ie' 1$00
II Bll C".....'ll y~~ V,!1<l8~
1t3H MorS~I>Hn
fuLIJre Speciii<: Plans
(
, ) \ ,
A )
// \,~
,~ J )~'-
< ~EMECUfA CREEK
---- INN & RESORT
r ..rn<<..lil C.,y llouoll;Hy
Spl....eo!lnlltll!lK..80llnd;j,fV
........ "''''''''''l! A'.a
!.t>"'t,.,.r""'.....uIlIG'~~N!("i'~'_...I...
w*,
s
o 5,000
I:::L H I
1---4 l-----I I
o
l
T Y
o F
c
_u
u
u
~.u
"
C
/
,I
,
l
-
----
....
10,000
I Feel
1 Miles
2
TEMECULA
LlI'33
G ENE R A L
r LAN
,&
L
^
N
o
u
S
E
Ml MALKOFF AND ASSOCIATES
18456 Lincoln Circle. Villa Park, California 92861 . Fax (714)288-6210 . (714)288-6200
ro
!I~~
I!I
r-
Ii" ~ D m r,'j:
',T) l!Il!c ," I
JUN ; 9 2004' L;
,~,
H
iJy
June 28, 2004
David Hogan, Senior Planner
Community Development Department
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92589
Subject: Request for'Change in General Plan Designation of Property owned by
Rancho Community Church: APN: 959-030-010, aka 30275 Jedediah Smith Road
Dear Dave:
As Authorized Agent for, and on behalf of, Rancho Community [Reformed] Church, we would
like to formally request a Change of General Plan designation for our property at 30275 Jedediah
Smith Road (map attached) from LM to Professional Office ("PO"). The, Church acquired this
property in Fee Simple on March 3, 2004 (hence, the City's GIS database is now incorrect (see
attached printout)).
As the Church owns the 39-acre property contiguous to this land, and that property is
general planned and zoned PO, we would simply like that PO designation extended to our
newest property. This is a logical extension of compatible use on adjacent properties. We
are confident that community concerns and traffic circulation issues can be worked out in
a satisfactory manner to all concerned - just as we did when addressing many other
issues with our neighbors about our Church and Schools Project, including their complete
support for contiguous, lighted sports fields!
It is my understanding that such letters as this needed to be into the City prior to the next
Advisory Committee meeting on July 6th. Please let me know if you have any questions
in this regard.
Respectfully submitted,
MALKOFF AND ASSOCIATES
Mel Malkoff, President
cc: Pastors Steve Struikmans & Scott Treadway, Rancho Community Church
Shawn Nelson, City Manager
9811 City. General Plan Amendment for RCC.doc
(
(
c
~
~
'\
(
(
1 b
July 23, 2004
r:;I .",,;:~,-:----~
IIi) "" Ii;
IUiJ JUU J100;'m
~
~::::==-----
Debbie Ubnoske
Community Development Director
City ofTemecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
RE: Change of Zone for 80134 Winchester Road. APN 911-150-005
Dear Ms, Ubnoske:
I am Writing as one of the owners of this parcel to request that the City consider rezoning
it from the current Neighborhood Commercial designation to Professional Office. The
property is located at the corner of Winchester Road and Rustic Glen Drive, adjacent to
the Tucalote Creek flood control channel.
Earlier this week, our representative, Mei Mei Ho, met with the Principal Planner on your
staff, David Hogan, to discuss the status of this project. Mr, Hogan indicated that the City
will embark on a review of its General Plan and Zoning Ordinance in the near future and
that it would be appropriate to submit an informal request for consideration because it
might be addressed in the overall review process and not require a formal application for
a Zone Change. He also stated that the General Plan update would probably begin with
workshops in August of this year. In addition to the zone change request, this letter serves
as a request that we be provided with written notice of any workshop or public hearing
affecting the future use of the parcel.
In light ofthe rapid growth in French Valley and the surrounding area, we believe that
there is a more pressing need for professional offices and other personal services than for
additional local retail outlets. We also believe that this type of use will generate less traffic
than a retail use.
If you need any additional information, please contact our project architect, Jack Wu, at
(626) 524-3164 or project enginyer, Charlie Chen, at (626) 280-8765.
Sincerely, ~ () (I
d~{;. UaG'
Hsiao-Feng Chao
Louisa H. Chao
t. " cc: David Hogan
Ii
.. AMERICAN
PROPERTY
.. ENTERPRISES
September 14, 2004
~.~ IL'~ ~; r:; n, I\~I ~ \~, ~
II ~-'l l.'; i':1 U L i..--'-:! \
[I -.' \
UU SEP 1 6 2004 ~
Mr. David Hogan, AICP
Principal Planner
CITY OF TEMECULA
PO Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
By
RE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE REMAINDER PARCEL OF TRACT
23992, CITY OF TEMECULA 3.07 NET ACRES, APN 944-330-007-6,
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE # PA03-0584
Dear Mr. Hogan:
Rancho Highlands, LLC is the owner of the above-referenced parcel, which I will refer to herein
as the Remainder Parcel. The Remainder Parcel is regulated by SP-2, which designates it
OfficeIProfessional. I understand that the City of Temecula is currently reviewing and updating
its General Plan and hereby request that the City re-designate the Remainder Parcel to High
Density Residential as part of the General Plan update.
We have spent considerable time investigating the feasibility of developing the Remainder Parcel
for either commercial or residential uses and have determined that residential use would best
utilize the site for the folIowing reasons.
1. Residential wilI generate less traffic than office/professional use.
2. Residential is more compatible with surrounding residential and park uses.
3. Residential use wilI better take advantage of the site's proximity to the park - the Duck
Pond - adjacent to the north.
4. Residential development will generate more fees for the City.
We hope you wilI concur with our [mdings and recommend to the City Council that the
Remainder Parcel be rezoned to High Density Residential.
Thank you for your help with this matter.
,
Very truly yours,
RA 1-1l~ ~G::S' LLC
Eri C. Luna
Vie President
ECURerone Request
Yl..i; lvfr......hn.1~.... T)..;.._ <:..rt.....?tY\. ~,.,... T"h.......... rA 0')1')1-.<1.711. _ /Qc:.Q\ c:.A~7A7A t;'....... (01:.0\ c:.AL 7A7,)
l8
Matthew Fagan Consulting Services
42011 Avenida Vista Ladera
Temecula, CA 92591
Phone: 951.699.2338 Fax: 951.694.4474
matthewfaQan@adelphia.net
March 16, 2005
Mr. David W. Hogan, Principal Planner
City of Temecula
Community Development Department - Planning Division
43200 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT: General Plan Update - Request for Change to General Plan Land Use Plan for
2.5 acres located on the south side of Pauba Road, west of the Plaza del Sol
Center and one (1) vacant 2.5 acre parcel (PA04-0476, Pauba Road Offices) and
known as Assessor Parcel Number 945-110-001
Dear Mr. Hogan:
I am writing this letter on behalf of Dr. Farooq Ahmad to present a formal request the Planning
Division and Planning Commission to change the City of Temecula's General Plan Land Use
designation for the above referenced property as part of the City's General Plan Update. The
proposal is to change the General Plan Land Use designation on the site from VL (Very Low
Density Residential, .2-.4 dwelling units per acre) to NC (Neighborhood Commercial). Enclosed
are site photos, vicinity map and site plans for the existing and proposed developments to the
east. Dr. Ahmad currently owns this parcel, as well as the parcel immediately adjacent to the
east. Dr. Ahmad's parcel, located immediately adjacent to the east, has a Development Plan
application (PA04-0476) scheduled for the March 30, 2005 Planning Commission hearing. This
Development Plan is a proposal for two (2) office/retail buildings totaling 18,237 square feet on
2.5 acres, The property to the immediate west has one (1) single-family residence.
The rationale/justification for the change is listed below:
1. The change from VL (Very Low Density Residential, .2-.4 dwelling units per acre) to NC
(Neighborhood Commercial) is a logical change because it would represent an extension of
uses that are consistent and compatible with the adjacent office/retail pattern of
development to the east and existing and proposed Public Institutional Uses on the north
side of Pauba Road.
2. Pauba Road will be shortly be widened to four lane, Secondary Highway and this type of
designation will be more compatible than a very-low residential density designation since it
wouid not create sensitive receptors adjacent to this busy roadway.
1
3. The change from VL (Very Low Density Residential, .2-.4 dwelling units per acre) to NC
(Neighborhood Commercial) would allow for additional retail/office uses in an area that is
primarily residential and Public Institutional uses. Allowing additional retail/office uses in this
area would create a synergistic affect on the exiting/proposed retail/office uses in the area,
while allowing for reduced vehicle trips to reach these types of uses along the SR79South
corridor and the Rancho California Road corridor. Potential uses could serve the needs of
the surrounding residential development.
4. Appropriate buffers and distances will be provided to the existing, adjacent residential
development located to the south (across the drainage channel) and to the west.
5. Future retail/office development on the site would be high quality in nature and would
contribute to the overall well being of the existing and proposed development within the
area.
6. The project will be subject to the City's Development Impact Fee (DIF) and the
Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). In addition, the project will pay its share of
Quimby fees and potentially any fees associated with the Multi Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (MSCHP). The additional units requested in the re-designation request
will more than adequately mitigate any potential impacts from the proposed development.
7. Environmental studies have been performed on the site and no significant resources will be
disturbed. No significant cultural resources were identified on site and any biological
resources will be avoided or mitigated in accordance with the City's MSHCP Ordinance.
As you can see from the extensive list of rationales/justifications above, the proposed change to
the City's General Plan Land Use designation from VL (Very Low Density Residential, .2-.4
dwelling units per acre) to NC (Neighborhood Commercial) represents a logical transition in the
area and should be integrated into the General Plan Update
I request that you keep me and Dr. Ahmad apprised of all discussions and meetings pertaining
to the City's General Plan Update.
Please contact me or Dr. Ahmad at 951.506.6872 if you have any questions or require any
additional information.
Sincerely,
tlh~ F,g,~
Cc: Mayor and City Council
Planning Commission
Shawn Nelson
Gary Thornhill
Dr. Ahmad
2
ATTACHMENT A
LOCATION MAP
3
City ?fTeme~u1a GIS Application: MaplReport Window
City of Temecula
Geoeraphic Information Systems
43200 Business Park Drive Temecula. CA 92590
(95t)308-6300 www.cityoftemecula.org
.........w.....m_'..____WMW~..
i'Av1AA 1l\;
.."T.....r'\'uuu'.~.".,..
)" \
l \.
"\'"
......."".",.""....r-eu'.....".:......
"""'Hm'l \
, I.
I,
"
"\.
" I,.
'\. \\, \
.... .,
'\ \ \
. -:.. \
...-..... \. ~
~ \
.:....1:
-" '''~''''...,...
'..
~
".-
Title
SubTitle
."""~,..,....,".>',..../. ^,-
http://www.cityoftemecula,org/GIS_ArcIMS/Print]rocess.asp
......,,<.,.
""".
",.
)
/'
","
,"
"
...;. '\.
........
~......,,_.,
". """"""'1>"
\...,...u......". "...,. '''\W~:; ~ ~ .:" W
\ '\(ib1-)7
~ W".
,
.. ....,.w""",
.........,....-.:,,(.
,
'~
,..."..,.."......"'......j
,
i
'(i)j
,"
...r""
",/"
",
",
,,'
,......'...
......,.
/
,,'
1 of 1
\
,,/"'"
\
/'
,,--'"
,
,p,.\"......
'.; .....
\
\
\
..."......,
i,
...,.....,
\
~. /.....\.....-...
"
.t.....
.; """"
\ ..........
........':,:../'
.J'<>""
,,- .~.
....-.-/"\....,
, J
/"'"
.,--,'
......(
",
"
",
<.......
"
""""~~~~'~><
"""" -'IIi';:,
.'.....,
.........:.,.,."..>.,
",
" ~'(
,'" ;'.
1 '\
,
..
..
,
;
..
,
i
I
I
..".....
/
......
.~:/"
,
\.
\
."
",
",
.....,.
.....
.,>"-
....
"".>
/."
.....
, -',.....
'\..,."
'<
\
\
..,.'
/
'"', ,y'-
,<Y'~~-""-~"
i
l
i
.!
!
"
'Y,
......".,.
.../
./.....
/....
"~,,
,,/
/'
.~..,..~
3/16/2005 10:27 AM
ATTACHMENT B
PA04-0476 SITE PLAN & ELEVATIONS
4
~"'~"""JIDO______""_~~
lOI::l._y__
C!'V'J't<<OOCll;ff'='W ilSWIO
lBJ.N30 Cl'9'Y'fHY l:fO oJ.::Q"CIlW
i
: ~ ! I
::;- i:;" _ _ ~ ~
,q':'j11 I!
!zl!" ~~
,I,ll! I';
iilin ! HI
ill!!! !I!I!!!I! ! ;;1
imm;;;;;;;;;i!!l
~ ~~~~:~ ;~~;;;~1~ ~ ~ii
~ l/U
~ ~~i~:~ ~!!~~!~~~ ~ !!~
1"'1' I,t
. .
ill' ., ~l'
I' "I'! . !.
I ,
" r"
Iml i Ill. 'I I
!jll!' Iii!
Bill I !! ',.,
!u~ I ,_..
II:
,....,...,.,.,'"
I I Ii Ii I!
, i,ll I II ill III
! hliB ,!mllll ! hi
I I,
\'.! II
-'Ii I,
Ili:iM
.i!: !Ii
g!l!lni!
I I l
~ I .
~ I Iii 'II
i I! l! I
.. ,
UI
~ ~ t:' t:' t:' ~
iiiSlf1f
~ I 9 ~ .:: II
:; :I t ~ ~
I. I I
l!l I I I
'I !illl!:IIII'IIPj'l! ,Ill I
ll!!! , II l! U
~II lilli,,!'ll!'!l' l!!l!
~ lailh lllidilll,jlli
~! 000 <;) <;) , <;) '" folD
~ E9EEO e . (<) 0 i
/--:1
_ ~ ~~~~~~1
-~'C::-:;~~;:':_::::'::::::'::::::_>------ i
/\
~
.
~
~
___..-l
~-----~--~----
0:0
> >
.."i w3
i't w
~~ Bi
.
I
z
j
II..
o
Z
~
j
II..
>-
~I
z.
~.
:::d
w,
a:1
II..j
i
I
i
.
i
I
.
I
.
i
I
I
I
I
I
i
.
i
.
,,1~13;1~!~;vi~
-_._---_...._....--...._~..._........._---_.-.....__....._......_._._.._--.._._.-.......----...-.--...---.. -----
W~_.......-=wQ;t ~~~~ I, !l~.-' -- .,-..-.
__I. T',I _"
__.__,_._________S"-J.!JJg~!~~~~~!~__~__'.___=__=L:..:.___ .1,1 I ",L~,
1
.
.
I
I I
I't
qlf
Ill'
I.d
'lIt I
!l, ~f "
1 H! I
:5~EI88"
i
1
!.
\.
f
"
I.
,
I
i
i Ii l
h ii n f uu h
~ t.'-:"."~t~:~:.C:t: .!:~:-: ~
"...-....-... ..'" """
. -;., -. .-- i[ '~
'"
o
8~
..
"
~J
~
~
i
I
I
II
t.-
,
.
! J I.
hH u h b h
~:!".,-~:;~~:?~:".r.:::~i~~~
I
i I
II '
1: I I I II III
S ,IJIU11'ljl'l
J&l M_MMM d k
.,
,
,
l
.
iil
~,
,
]:~,
f'~
ll.!J
~
o
~~
~l
~
z
~-:.1,_.........:::'i::i.
__._____...._~...~...~_~.._....._~____~__...__....._......._.__R_..___..__._""..____.._~__..___. ___..._
t6St,~""""".L . .--
POO\I.........P...P""'ll~fld.nw, I ',,' . ...
I;' .
....... __. i.,. ,M
S<lJ!lJO peol! eqned ~:: -=- i .:... ,I tf, I <l:
___.___.____._~_______.__________.______._._~_______________.___.__.._._._.._.___._._____.J.____"___----=---~____..;.__
1
,
1
,
111
. II
JlI'
il,P{
. i,j II
jIll,
! Jilll
,l-BBBIO].
~~
y-----~----
. I'~-'-:
~:g
1 ~1
, I'
illJ
.
j
~
,( to
h~ ~ 0
y-..----, ,1
Ir--.r--l Ii
II I illJ
, .. I'
I '
~
~
J
2'> t,
11:' ,........1 I
] I I I I' III i
!i tlli IJlt1f 11'1
l M.MM ~ M.!tM ;
"
o
15~
".
E'
"l
]
f
.
.
.
I
J.
if
.
, j "
II Jl h
t- -. ..
"'-;.-:::--;;:/----';'-:-'-'
I
b h
... --!
..
, '
"'
c
.
~,. '
ii; ~
w: ;
~. '
.5;1
]i,1
ff~i
G.:J!
'"
o
!!
E'
"J
~
ATTACHMENT C
SITE PHOTOS
(.0."-------'"
,"
(-j
5
.
ATTACHMENT NO.9
ADDITIONAL AIRPORT.RELATED CHANGES
R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report CC2.doc
45
ADDITIONAL AIRPORT.RELATED CHANGES
Land Use Element
1. Modify Policy 8.3 (Page LU-47) to read as follows:
"Ensure development projects within the French Valley Airport area of influence
comply with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for the Airport, and
refer all land use actions identified within the ALUCP to the Airport Land Use
Commission for mandatory review."
2. Add a new Policy 8.4 (Page LU-47) as follows:
"Ensure that development proposals within the French Valley Airport Area of
Influence fully comply with the permit procedures specific in Federal and State law,
with the referral requirements of the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), and with
the conditions of approval imposed or recommended by the Federal Aviation
Administration and ALUC. This requirement is in addition to all other City
development review requirements."
3. Modify Implementation Measure LU-24 (Page LU-54) to read as follows:
"Plan for land use compatibility with the French Valley Airport through the
implementation of the following measures:
. Refer land use development actions identified within the Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) to the Airport Land Use Commission.
. Participate in any future updates to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
and Master Plan for French Valley Airport.
. Obtain avigation easements as required by the ALUCP to ensure that
landowners acknowledge potential impacts associated with aircraft."
Agency/Department: Planning, Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission
Related Policies: 8.3, 8.4"
Public Safetv Element
1. Add a new Policy 2.5 (Page PS-19) as follows:
"Reduce potential hazards associated with airplane crashes by ensuring compliance
of proposed development projects with the risk contours contained in the Airport
Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for French Valley Airport."
Noise Element
1. Add the following footnote to Table N-2: Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix (Page
N-7):
"2. Regarding aircraft-related noise, the maximum acceptable exposure for new
residential development is 60dB CNEL."
R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report CC2.doc
46
ATTACHMENT NO. 10
NON-CIRCULATION GENERAL PLAN COMMENT LETTERS
R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report CC2.doc
46
(
September II, 2004
Mr. John Telesio
Cbainnan Planning Commission
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula California
92589
(
Dear Mr. Telesio:
Earlier this week, my neighbor Mr. Hayden Porter and I met with Mr. Ron Patks of the City Planning
department. The pwpose of our meeting was to discuss the progress of paving Santiago road and what we
could do to expedite getting pavement to our properties. In our discussions, we discovered that the
neighboring properties north of Santiago road and south of oUr lots are owned primarily by Seaway
Properties. Ron mentioned that Seaway would likely be working to pave the road in the next two years
since they have requested a zoning change to increase the density of their proposed development. It is my
understanding that current zoning requires lot sizes no smaller than one or two acres. Ron mentioned that
the intent was to go to one half aae or less. I CllJIDOt teU you bow important it is tbat the lot size
.. zoning change not be approved. We purchased our home in early 2003 and Mr. Porter purchased his in
late 2003. We were of the understanding, (I checked with the city), that this area is zoned as rural horse
properties not track housing. I believe that cbanging the zoning to higher density would negatively affect
our property values.
I would very much appreciate any feedback and information regarding this very critical matter.
We have been struggling with Santiago road in its current condition and have discovered that we cannot
obtain building pennits for intprovements until it is paved. My house is 23 years old. Ron Patks has told
me that one option is a special assessment district But the planning department is overwhelmed and could
nOl work with us to begin the process. So we can't do the road and we can't get pennits.
In addition to the above problems I would like to bring to your attention the following issues:
Santiago road has become a dumping area for people who have no respect for others property. I have
enclosed a few photographs. We have called the police reganling this and about the off-roading and
groups of people partying on the biIltops. I don't mind people enjoying the bills. But we have a clear fire
risk with this kind of activity. As a retired reserve police officer, I do not believe that our lack of attention
is the fault of the local Police. I see them sitting two and sometimes three deep at the intersections in town
Writing tickets fQr left turns. They have th<;ir marching orders. I would hope that they would include
frequent patrolling and enforcement in our neighborhoods as well.
Any help that you or your fellow commissioners could provide regarding clarification and/or resolution of
these issues would be greatly appreciated.
Respectfully yours,
GaryGary.R~eidman
. ./J1f.<J~
30680 Santiago Rd.
Temecula, Ca.
92592
951.699.4682
cc: Mr. Ron Patks(City ofTemecula Planning Dept.)
Ms. Mary Jane olliasso (City Planning Commissioner)
Mr. Dennis Chiniaeff (City Planning Commissioner)
Mr. Ron Gueniero (City Planning Commissioner)
Mr. David Mathewson (City Planning Commisser)
Mr. Hayden Porter
c-
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION of
GOVERNMENTS
Main Office
818 West Seventh Street
12th Floor
Los Angeles, California
90017-3435
t (213) 236-1800
~(213) 236-1825
Officers: Pr=rif1fa~~8~:m Ron Roberts.
Temecula' first Vice Presidenl: Coundlmember
Toni Young, Po,t Hueneme . Second Vice
President: Vacant
l..pell~ICounty: 10 Shields. Brawley
Las AnJeles County: Yvonne Brathwaite Burke.
Los Angeles County. lev Yaroslavsky, Los
Angeles County - lim Aldinger. ManhaUan
Beach' Harry Baldwin. San Gabriel - Paul
Bowlen.Ceffitos-TonyCardenas.losAngeles'
Margaret Oark. Rosemead . Gene Daniels.
Paramounl' Mike Dispenza, Palmdale . ludy""
DLmlap.lngtewood 0 Rae Gabelich, long- Beach
-fricGafcrlti.losAngeles'WendyGreuel,Los
Angeles-FrankGurule, Cudahy 0 James Hahn,
Los Angeles' Janice Hahn, Los Angeles'
!sadOfe Hall. Com pion - Tom laBonge. Los
Angeles . Martin Ludlow. Los Angeles 0
Llewellyn Miller. Claremont . Cindy
Miscikowski. Los Angeles 0 Paul Nowalka,
branti' - Pam O'ulflnor. Sanla Monica ~ Alex
Padilla. Los An~les' Bernard Palks. Los
Angeles' Ian Perry. Los Angeles - Beatrice Proo,
Pko Rivera - Ed Reyes. Los Angeles; Greig
5mith,losAngeles" Ditk Stanford. Azusa "Tom
SVkes,Walnul-PauITalbol.Alhambra"Sfdney
lYter.Pasadena- Tonia Reyes Uranga. Long
Beach" Antonio Villaraigosa, Los Angeles 0
DmnisWashburn,Calabasas-lackWeiss.Los
Angeles. Bob Youselian. Glendale 0 Oennis
Z"me,LosAngeles
Onn~ County. Chris Norby, Orange County .
}olIO Beauman, area '-Lou Bone, Tuslin' Art
Brown. Buena Park-Rkhard Chavez. Anaheim
- Debbie Cook, Huntington Beach - Calhryn
DeYoung. Laguna Nlguel-Richard Dixon. Lake
Forest. Marilyn POl'. Los Alamltos - Tod
Ridgeway, Newport Beach
RiwersideCounly: lelfSlone, Riverside County 0
Thomas Buckley, Lake Elsinore 0 Bonnie
flickinger. Moreno Valley - Ron lovefidge.
Riverside' Greg Pettis. Cathedral City ."Ron
Roberts, Temecula
San Btrnardino County: Gary Dvin, San
Bernardino County. Bill Alexander. Rancho
~ucamonga' Lawrtmte Dale, Barstow' LeeAnn
Garda, Grand Terrace - SUsan Longvme. San
Bemanlino' Debora~ Robertson. Rialto
VentunCoanty:JudyMikels,VenturaCounty.
Glen Becerra,SimiVaIJey-CarlMorehouse.San
Buenaventura. Toni Young. Port Hueneme
Or~ngt County Tnnsport;rtion Authority:
Vacant
RiwerskIe County Tnnsportalion Commission:
Robin Lowe. Hemet
Verttun County T~nsportrtlon ComRlission:
keithMlllhoose.Moorpark
i)Prinltdonlleqd....Paper 559"'/>010',
FEB 0 7 2005
February 2, 2005
Mr. David Hogan
Principal Planner
City of Temecula Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
P. O. Box 9033
TemecuJa, CA 92589-9033
Dear Mr. Hogan:
Thank you for submitting the Public Hearing Draft of the Updated
General Plan for the City of Temecula to the Southern California
Association of Governrnents for review and cornment. A description.
. of the proposed plan was published inSCAG's December 16-31,
2004 Intergovernmental ReviewClearinghouseReport for public
review and comment Inaddition,SCAG staff revieWed and ..
commented on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of
Temecula General Plan Updafe'iJnderseparate cover on January .
10, 2005. Each of our reviews is from a regional perspective with an
intent to share information, data and adopted plans and programs
that set forth regional policy. ': .
It is important to note that requests, such as yours,to review a local
government general plan covering a 62 s'quare mile planning area in
a fast growing county, represent a significant opportunitY to identify
where regional policy can be implemented through local action,
thereby benefiting your community, subregion and region in the
future. It may, therefore, be beneficial to include a short section in
your Purpose of General Plan section (pages 1~6 through.1-9) to.
discuss the regionaVsubregionaVlocal planning relationships.
We were pleased to note your mention of the Regional
Transportation Plan, (AlP) and the'Regional Comprehensive Plan, ..
SC"AG'sGrbwth ViSIon Coi'ilp'ass and -SCJXG'S GhjMh Managemenf'
RlarrlhrbuglrOutttieiOhift-Gene-ral'Plah;> ." .<,
':.-"~,,"':j. ".;.-. .,' ."''-':1'':\ :;~.':!'.~r ::. :--::\ :-;:(;',-. ":-'
We. recOgnize yotiieffot'ts,tb SlipporrreglOllal goalS: ahd. pdl.k:ies with
tfleJllch.JSi6riofneiABlanCluse:'eategori13S'ftlre mixed':us'e' ;., ; f..' .
development; theliiikageswithmulti~usElffails:aniNuti.JrE~ goals for
new transportatfon opportunities through the exten~ion of .
Measure A.
DOCS#7619Ov7
MCB
\.IERN CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION of
GOVERNMENTS
Main Office
818 West Seventh Street
12th Flo'or
Los Angeles, California
90017-3435
t (213) 236-1800
f(213) 236.1825
www.scftg.ca.gov
OfrKft$l Presidenl: May<lfProTem Ron Roberts,
Temecula' First Vice !>resident Coundlmeniber
Toni Young, .Porl Hueneme . Second Vice
Pre~"' "'Yacanl
m( unty:loShields,Brawley-.
los'''',..voesCounty:Yvonne Brathwalle Burke,
Los Angeles COunfy . lev Yaroslavsky,.los
Angeles County - Jim Aldinger, Manhallan
Beach 0 Harry Baldwin, San Gabriel' Paul
BowIen,Cerritos o Tony Cardenas, Los Angeles'
'Margaret Clark,. Rosemead 0 Gene Daniels,
ParamGllnt. Mike Dispenza, Palmdalt . Judy
Du'1lap, lnglewood . Rae Gabelich, long Beach
o Eric Garcetti, Los Angeles' Wendy Greuel, Los
Angeles 0 Frank Gurule, Cudahy 0 James Hahn,
Los Angeles 0 lanice Hahn, Los Angeles'
Isadore Hall.. Compton 0 Tom laBooge, Los
Angeles 0 Marlin ludlow, Los Angeles .
Llewellyn Miller, Claremonl- Cindy
Misdkowski. leis Arigeles . Paul' Nowatka,
Torranreopam-O'Connof,SantaMonicao,Alex
Padilla. Los Angeles 0 Bernard P,nks, Los
An~es-lanPe,ry.LosAngeles'BealriceProo,
Pica R"wera 0 [d Rl!'ff!s. Los Angeles - C,rl':ig
Smith,LosAngeleso Dick S1anlord,Azusa 0, Tom
Sykes,WalnutopaulTalbot,A1hambraoSidney
liIer.Pasaden.a- Tonia Reyes Uranga, Long
-Beach. Anlonio ViUaraigtlsa, 'Los Angeles 0
Dennis Washburn, Calabasas 0 Jack Weiss, Los
Angeles' Bob:YouseJian, Glendale 0 Dennis
line, IJlsAngeles
OranpCounty: Chris Norby, Orange County .
John Beauman,. Brea o Lou Bone, Tustin' Art
Brown, Buena Park, Richard Chavez, Anaheim
. Dellbie Cook, Hunllngton Be.Kh o,Cathl"fTl
. DeYoung. Laguna Niguel . Richard DMn, lake
forest. Marilyn Poe, Los Alamitos 0 Tod
Ridgeway. Newport Beaw
liYeJsldeCounty: Jell Stone, Riverside County 0
Thomas Buckley, Lake Elsinole . Bonnie
nickinger. Moreno Valley 0 Ron Loveridge,
Riverside 0 Greg Pettis, Cathedlal City 0 Ron
Roberts.Tememla
San Bernardino Coooty: Gary Ovilt, San
Bemardino County. Bill Alexandel,.Rancho
CucalllOl1gaolawrenceDale,BarstowoLeeAnn
Garcia, Grand Terrace' Susan tongvilie, San
i__-"'lOoOeborahROberlSOll,RiaItO
:,uoty: Jwfy Mikels,VenturaCOIInty.
..__,.,ra.SimiValleyoCarlMorehouse,San
BuenafMtura - Toni)'oung, Port Hueneme
Orilnre (ounly Transportation AuthoTity:
Vacant
Riwrslde Counly Transportation Commission:
Robinlowe,Hemet
Ventura County Transportation Commission:
keilh MilthouSl'. Moorpark
@Pri,*"onRtcyl:le<I~r
'f.I)-1/20JO')
Overall, Temecula's Draft General Plan acknowledges and supports
Southern California Growth Vision Compass Principles of:
Mobility -Improve Mobility for All Residents
Livability - Foster Livability in All Communities
Prosperity - Enable Prosperity for All People
Sustainability - Promote Sustainabilityfor Future Generations
. The City of Temecula's effort to maintain consistency with regional
plans such as, the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Regional
Transportation Plan is highly commendable. We appreciate your
commitment to the regional vision and look forward to hearing of
your land use/transportation successes as you realize your local
vision through your newly revised General Plan. .
Thank you again for the opportunity to review this most important
city planning document. .
Sincerely,
C-~
~i Harris.
Managerof Community Development
. Planning and Policy Department
~~~Ar
DOCS#7619Ov7
MeR
".
March 16, 2005
Temecula Planning Commission
Temecula City Hall
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92589
Dear Commission Member,
A recent news article discussed "Rural Preservation Areas" and their designation on the
General Plan. After reading the General Plan, I was curious as to why Meadowview, Los
Ranchitos and Santiago Ranchos, Chaparral & Santiago Estates were not included in this
designation as they seem to have matched much of the criteria.
After contacting members from these communities to see if they were interested in
pursuing this, we arranged for a meeting with Gary Thornhill and Dave Hogan, which
took place on March 2nd. Members from all three communities were present. Mr.
Thornhill and Mr. Hogan explained this designation and why it was not appropriate for
our communities but suggested that we propose a designation that recognizes the
characteristics within these neighborhoods that are unique, create and reinforce the
perception of our town and are worth preserving for the long term benefit of Temecula
and its residents.
Tonight we will be at the meeting to present our "proposal" for designating these areas as
"Horse Rancho Preservation Neighborhoods". Following is an initial attempt at
outlining our ideas, much of which is based (or copied word for word) on information
from the General Plan, which would need to be formalized through a Community
Workshop with input from all concerned.
I know it is very late notice but if you could, please review the following docwnent and
we look forward to seeing you tonight.
Sincerely,
~~~.
Diana Lovett-Webb
30241 Corte Coelho
Temecula CA 92591
676-2482
.
Temecula has a long and colorful equestrian tradition. From Native Americans to the
famous Vail and Roripaugh ranches, the stage coach and the Pony Express, horses have
played an important role in Temecula's history. Ranch-style fencing, see throughout
Temecula to this day, is a constant reminder of this rich heritage. Even during the
beginnings of modern development in the 1960' s, as Rancho California, Kaiser
established "horse ranchos" as a major type of development in this "semi-urban pastoral
complex" we now call Temecula.
While the City of Temecula has experienced substantial development since its
incorporation, there remain several specific areas within city limits that have retained
their original equestrian residential character: Los Ranchitos, Meadowview, Santiago
Ranchos, Santiago & Chaparral Estates. These areas help to define how we perceive and
experience the community and exhibit characteristics we want to preserve for community
pride and quality of life. Although horses are no longer vital to our mail delivery system,
they and their owners playa vital role in assisting "Citizen Corps" by helping to transport
livestock during emergency situations.
These equine areas have been designated as "Horse Ranchos Preservation
Neighborhoods" and share these common characteristics that should be maintained:
.:. Reductions to the minimum width of roadways and of street lighting
.:. Zoning of low to very low density
.:. Road designs without paved gutters or sidewalks
.:. Horse trails
.:. Native, natural hillsides and open spaces
.:. Sensitive site planning, buffers and minimum intrusion oflight, glare and traffic noise
Mawb 22, 2005
Mr- Dave Hogan, Principal Planner
City ofTemecl1l",
TelJl.:cuIa, CA.
Dear Mr. Hogan:
T reJl:l"et I will be 11D8hle to attend the Council Meeting this evening but would like to go
on .xoord as to the following:
,. The Corona Family disagrees with the inclusion of properties outside of the City's
boundaries and sphere in their plalmiug area because it is outside oCtile City's
jurisdiction.
2. There was no notificalion to property owners outside of the City to either the
advisory rommitll:e ...-i11g,'l, Planoing Ct:unmi""ion bearing. or of the City
CouOOl meo-rillg If a public bearing is beld that affi:ds specific propedies no
matter whose jurisdiction it is, those property owners must be notified and given
an opportunity to speak.
:3 By not lUlCIII3tely ~fiecting the approved county geoera1 plan, you are
underestimating the cumulative impact analysis. You cannot simply wish that
something is there, that is not. This will lead to an incorrect analysis.
4 The City sat on the Couoty General Plan Advisol}' Committee and after almost 3
years had multiple opportunities to be heard in regard to the CoWIly's General
Plan. It is time to WOJk on wbal the City needs within its jwisdictionaJ
boundaries, DOt what bas already been decided at the County level.
S. It is inta1:sting to note that two of the tI:m:e rural pltsel VI: area are already in the
CoUDty GaIaal pJan aDd .t-i8""t"'CJ as agricultltte. The other area north of
Highway 79 and east of Butterfield Stage Rd. is designated 2 - S dwellings per
acre, and bas bad residential dP.C:igll"tions since 1989. The Corona fiunily is the
major property owner in this area. We are surrounded on three sides by high-
density development Deve1ope1S are acquiring properties to the east as we speak.
The infrastruc1lu:e for ultimate build-out is being planned and built - it makes no
ra.--:-.s _..... __ t:_~ d';'v __:..at.." __ he.--"'-, ~ a-. ...il.,. t..a. QIUun.t
otbel- motive in mind.
Sinc<.:rely,
The':orona Family,
>,L. Q.7 er<oI
-
ATTACHMENT NO.11
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Staff Report CC2.doc
47
8.0 Responses to Comments on
the Draft fiR
This section of the Final EIR contains comments and responses to written comments received during
the public review period on the Draft EIR (DEIR) extending from December 17, 2004 through
March 12, 2005. Revisions and clarifications to the EIR in response to comments and information
received on the Draft EIR are indicated by strikeout (DEIR tC)(t rClTlo>,cd) or underline (text added to
the Final EIR). Corrections of typographical errors have been made throughout the document and
are not indicated by strikeout or underline text.
Each letter has been assigned a number code, and individual comments in each letter have been
coded as well to facilitate responses. For example, the letter from the Rancho California Water
District is identified as letter 4, with comments noted as 4-1, 4-2, etc.
Comments Received that Address Environmental Issues
The City received letters from the following organizations and individuals:
1 a. Terry Roberts, Senior Planner, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit, February 1, 2005.
1 b. Terry Roberts, Senior Planner, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit, February 5, 2005.
2. David Cohen, Associate Environmental Planner, California Department of Transportation,
Division of Aeronautics. December 29, 2004.
3. Andrew L. Webster, P.E., Rancho California Water District. December 29, 2004.
4. Michael McCoy, Senior Planner, Riverside Transit Agency. january 12, 2005.
5. John H. Robertus, Executive Officer, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San
Diego Region. january 18, 2005.
6. Karen Hackett, Environmental Compliance Analyst, Eastern Municipal Water District. January
25, 2005.
7. laura J. Simonek, Manager, Environmental Planning Team, Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California. january 26, 2005.
8. Gail Acheson, Field Manager, Bureau of land Management, Palm Springs - South Coast Field
Office. january 27, 2005.
9. Teresa Tung, Senior Civil Engineer, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District. january 31, 2005.
10. Robert C. johnson, Planning Director, County of Riverside, Planning Department. January 31,
2005.
11. George A. Johnson, Director of Transportation, County of Riverside, Transportation Department.
january 31, 2005.
12. Carol Gaubatz, Program Analyst, Native American Heritage Commission. january 31, 2005.
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-1
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comment) on the Draft fiR
13. Dave Gallaher, Director of Facilities Services, Temecula Valley Unified School District. February
2, 2005.
14. Mark Macarro, Chairman, Pechanga Indian Reservation. February 2, 2005.
15. Lynn Harris, Manager of Community Development, Planning and Policy Department, Southern
California Association of Governments. February 2, 2005.
16. Jeffrey M. Smith, Senior Regional Planner, Intergovernmental Review, Southern California
Association of Governments. January 10, 2005.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PlAN UPDATE
CITY OF TEMECUI.A
8-2
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
A
.
'--'STAT.E OF CALIFORNIA '_c
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
'State Clearinghou,e and Planning GnU
{~
.~.
'\ill..="
Arnold
Sclnwnenegger
Gov<<JK/r
JaaBoel
Acting Dirrdor
February 1. 'lno;
L W~ [i~' ,-(TIT! f2hj/
eTt$.. j.C\. fU FE8 0 8 2005 '~,il
By __ I
Oavjd HOl;a~
City ufTemCcula
43200 Business 'Park Driv~
Ten1eCUla. C".A 92.590
Subject: City QfTemecula Ol:nernl Plan Update
SC)!~, .200:\061041
Dear Dllvid ~(lglln;
The Stilt: Clearingb.otuic submitted lhe above rnurru Draft EIR to sclecled "ute ligd:lCje; for review. On tk
enclosed Oncurnent Detaib Report please note that ttlt Ckaringhou$e has listed tin: ~tDte agenc:ie.s1hllt
reviewed your docunm, The n:violJ" period closed on January 31, 200.5, and the comme~ts from !be
rcsponding <igs:ncy (ies) is (arc) enclosed. Jilhis tommenl pDCkage i$ nor in order.. pleasenollfy the State
ClC81in&hOlJ8c ilnm:dia.tely, PJeaseIefer to the project':i ttn.digitS1ate C1earin&houseaumber in future
oorrcspond('.r.ce SQ llult we may n:::spond promptly,
Please note ~\3.t Scctic.n 211 ()4(c) of the CllIifoxnia Public Resources Code Slates that:
W^ ~"Sponsjl;llc OT omer public l:Igellcy shall only make substantiVOCOlJlmCIltS resarding those
(let~\'iLie:l Lilvolved in a project which are within !utlll'ca ofcxpcrtiile oftbc agL"DCY Qf which 11[;
feCJlIircd 10 be carried olLt or <lppmvcd by the agGtlCY. Those Coml1ltnts shall be supported by
sp~i lie uocl\meniation."
\,,-1
'fll1:~ comr4ents are forwllCded for LISe in preJXlring your final cn~iroMl(lntal docu~nt. Should you [l~cd
more infOrm!11Qn or clarification of the enolosed comments. we: recommend that you eontact the
~Onllnenllllg: a~e!lcy directly.
Thi:lletler :jdmmvl~Jge3 thai you h4"c complied with the SI31e Cleannghouse review n:(luirem~nt.~ lilT draft
envirOllinen~ill ~Ot:uments, pursuanllo t!XI California Ellvir~l Qu:llity Act. Please (;ont~t the State
CJCf1riugllolme at (916) 44'-0613 if}'ou have my ~OTJ~ re~llIding tho. en...ttonrncntal review proCCl:ls"
Siucercly,
-:!:::YI' CJ ~. ~
.~
TcttyRo ;
Dirt<,;lof, St,-t..: Ch:lll'ill;holl"~ .
Endu$ureR ~
tc: .k~S(Jur~l'" Ag~ncy
14o(1lENTHSTREET r.o.OOX]044 SACRAMENTO,CALIFORNIA ~5812-3W
. TBLf916)445-0oU PAXcgU!)323-301S. WWW.opr.C&,jltIY
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-3
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR
Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base
7ypG
De$c({ptJe'ul
200J~6104'
City $f 'femecula Generel Plan UPdete
Tem~ula; City-of
E;!R . DraflE1R
Tile City of TlflmaCuJa has complet1:ld ;t comprehetlsJva update program for the General Plan. The
upda~d General Plan addresses the seven St:ilil miilndsted GettEH'al Plan ~Iemen(s, as wall as otllar
i~,.u~'1 that aM important to the- communlty,lnCludlng growth managllment, Bconomic d~IQpmej'll. Qfr
quall1Y, and community design. TM Hrmsing Element was feeently updated In 2002, and thus is nol
being compmhens!vely updated as part of thlB program.
SCH#
Pm jeer Tltla
l..ad Agency
Lead Agency Cortact
Name Daviq Hogan
Agpncy Cit~ 6r Temec:ula
PhQrte. (9S1}B94-MOO
ema~1
Address. 4320o.-'Busfness Part: D,;\fljo
Crey Teme:::ula
Fax
St..iIt'8 CA Zip 92590
Project Location.
County Riverside
City Trnn,*r:ula
Rogion
Cron Slteets NIA.
Par~9{ Nc. NIA
Township
Range-
Section
Ba..
Proximity to:
Highways SR-i9,1:15,1~215
Mrporu: Fren~h Valley Airport
Ra/lwaw None
Waterways Tem~la, Murrieta, Tucalota CreeKS and Santa Margarita River
Schools AI' TYUSO Schools
Land Use Vari~s
Project ISSUQfi Ae!l~eticNi$t,l.llj Agricufb.J~.a1 Lsm!: Air Quafily; Ar('.h:aaologk.Hlsforic; Cumulative Effects;
Drahi:agelAbsorplion; Flood PlainlFlQodingj Forest LandIFir9 Hazard; GeologldScismle; Gn)w.h
Inducir;g; l;InclUSl;:; Minerals: NolsQj Otl1er I$$u~; PapulallonlH,lJul>lnQ Balance; F\lbUo SasvJCES:
Racrbation/Parb; SchoolslUnlv8railies; Septic System; Sewer Cepuolty; Soil
Eros!on/compactionlGrading; Solld Waste; 'roxlr./Hazardous; TraffleIClrculalion; Vegetation; Water
Ql1l:ll!ly; Waler SIiPPIy: Watlamt/Ripari(ln, W~dljte
Reviewi/lg ResOurces Agency: Ragjonal W~er QualIty Control Soard, Region 9; D~ilrlmenl of ParKS and
AI1MC/~s Recr~ation; N9Iiv(l AmerIcan Heritage Commission; O~ce of (:.merpency SSNlces; Oepa/'tl'neflt of Flsn
and Ge.me. Reglofl6; Department of Water Resources: California Highway Patrol; Callran.s, Olstr1ct. B;
Call1Sns, Division of Aeronautics
D"toRecefverJ 12117/200<
St<JrlofRavicw 12/17/2004
EndofRevi9W 0113112005
NOI~ Blank:s In datol field., result frum Insufficient information provided by lead agency.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
CITY OF TEMECUI.A
8-4
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR
la. Terry Roberts, Senior Planner, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit, February 1,2005.
Response 1 a-l
The comment states that the State Clearinghouse received the Draft EIR and forwarded it to
relevant state agencies for comment, and further states that.the project has complied with State
Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act. The comment is acknowledged, and no further response is required.
Note: The following comment letter was attached to the State Clearinghouse letter and is included as
Letter # S in this section of the Final EIR.
fohn H. Robertus, Executive Officer, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego
Region. /anuary 18, 2005.
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-S
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR
-
WI
Fclrruary7.~OO5
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Governor', Offiee of Planning and R.se~t~~;-i{F r
State Clearinghou,e and PlonDing Uni(' -- .
i,i]- FElll 0
'Ii,'
f'U
b:L:.~_..-::...,,':'"' '.
~~
,,-II!)
,. .
- ,..
1005 ;' floc!
A,",,~D""'''''
Arnold
Schwarncoegaet
00""""
.DavidHoHlW
Clty ofTemi:cula
43200 Bu.<:inc.'l$ ParlI. Drive
Teme<:ulll. etA 9259B
Sllbjf:Ct~ Ciiy ofTtml.ecula Geneml pbm Update
RCH#: 200)061041
LE;l\e1l 1b
Dear David lloe.all;
The enclosed wrnmcnt(s) 00 yourDrUl ElR was (were) received by tlw Stale- Cle~nghouse after the ond
of lhe stele review period, whi~h dosed un I~IlIIafY 31, 2005. We are forwaroing the.sc cClIIllIlCDt9 LO you .
OOcnuse they provide inforn:wt1on or f;1isc j~ues that should be addrcllseu in)IUUl' firuU environm:mtal
doCU1'lleo.t
1b-.t.
The CaliforrlJa l3uvil.'onmental QuHlily Act docs not r~quirll U:adAg,encles"OO respond lu late comments.
However, w~ encoutag<3 you to incorporate these additional c~ts intO}'<lUl final environmental
documern a:dd tu cortSlder them prior to laking rUlllI i1ction on the proposed project.
Plca~l; cuntllk( lhe SUlIe Clearinghouse 11\ (916) 44~-D613 if you MY!:: any quo:stions ~Qnl:eruing the
cnvironIrUmfa!tcvlew prQc:e$~, .If you bl1ve II- question regarding tlw above-named proje~t, pleru:e Tef~ tu
~'lC Icn.diHiL~:::tl:ltc Cleadnghouse number (2003061 041) wben COlltaCting thi5 Q!llct),
SinCtl'ely. .
~~
TlCrry Roberts
Senior ~11L!'Ilier. State Clf'aringhousc
Enclusures .
cc; ReSOutc~s A~eDC)'
1400:TI!NTH STREET P.O. BOX 304.( SACRAMENTO, CAUFORNlA 95812-3044
TEL(916l44S~13 PAX(916P1J.1018 www.upr.ClI..$ll1.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PIAN UPDATE
CITY OF TEMECUIA
8-6
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR
1 b. Terry Roberts, Senior Planner, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit, February 1,2005.
Response 1 b-1
The comment states that the Native American Heritage Commission comment letter, dated January
31, 2005, was received by the State Clearinghouse after the end of the initial review period. This
comment letter was also sent to the City Planning Department and was received prior to the end of
the review period.
Note: The following comment letter was attached to the State Clearinghouse letter and is included as
Letter # 12 in this section of the Final EIR.
Carol Gaubatz, Program Analyst, Native American Heritage Commission. /anuary 31,2005.
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-7
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft EfR
SrA'JEO'IlCAlJR)ltNIA-.HI~"INK$.'I, TRANSPOX't'ATION AND UOtlSiHO M).I!N(;Y
1I1Uf01.I)SC8W~('IIl_
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA TTON
DlV!SlON OF AERONA1JTfCS M.s. #40
112(J N STRBET - ROOM 3300
P.O. BOX 942J7~
SACRAMHNTO. CA 94273.,ooof
(916)6S4-4959
FAX (916j653-9S31
TI'V (lJJ6l 6'1:W21
~
Fl.U'I"'"PUlHr!
H6_'tfJI~J1it'.u.JJtl
December 29, 2004
I..E,.,.-a. 'Z.
Mr. David Hogari
CIty of Temecul.'
43200 Business Park Drive
Teuu:<;ula, CA 92590 .
Dear Mr. Hogan:
Re: City ofTeiru:cula General Plan Update
SCH#200412104l
Thank you for in~luding: the Caiifornia Department ~f Transponation (Caltrans),' Division
of Aeron,autics inJhe environmental review proc~8 for the above-referenced project. We
reviewed the Draft Environmental Jmpact Report, dated December 2004, with respect to
ailpon land use ~ompatibiJity planning issueo pursuani to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). The Division of Aeronautics has technical expertise in the areas of
airport operations safety, aviation system planning, and airport land use compatibility
planning. We are a funding agency for airport development plans and projects, and we .
have permit authority for public and special use airports. We offer the following
comments for yoUr consIderation.
2.-1
1. The project is :the comprehensive update to the City of Temccula General Plan, except
for the Housillg Element that was updated in 2002. French Valley Airport is localed
adjacent to fue northern boundaries of the City of Temecula. The role of regional
comprehensive planning and lbe airport Jand use commission is heightened if. an
airport is located in one city, and may have noise and safety impacts on another.
2. In accordance, With the Public Utilities Code (PUC) 2t676 el seq., local General Plans
nnd any aftl~ndrnents must be consistent with the adopted airport land use
compatibility plans developed by ALUCs. The Rivmide County Airport Land Use
ColUID.ission's consistency review will be. required of the City of Temecula's
proposed general plan update. This requirement ill accessory 10 ensure that General
Plan policies: and recommendations for noise impact assessment and land use
densities are appropriate. given lbe Itslure of airport operations.
l~L
"Cc4lr>JII~lrtlprcwlSl mUll, m:rlJSJ" Czlqi:mrtn ~
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-8
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
.Mr. Da.vid Hogan:
Decembcr29,200i1
1'a302
3. As mentioned in State Law, the ruc Section 21676 et ..q., Callrans reviews and
comments on:the specific findings a local government intends to use when proposing
to Ove!TUlc .,j ALUC. Caltrans specifically looks at (he proposed findings to gauge
their relationShip to the overrule. The findings should show evidence that the city is
"minimizing the public's exposure to excessive noise ond safotyhazards within areas
aroWld public airports to the. extent that these ""'.. are not already devoted to
incompatible l1Ie'."
1-!l
4. General Plans and their element' must clearly demons Irate the intent to adhere to
ALUC policies to ensure compliance with compatibility criteria. Any direct conflicts
between mapped land use designations in a Geneml Plan and the ALUC criteria JIlUSt
be resolved. A General Plan needs 10 include policies colllmitting the city to .dopt
comp.tibility 'criteria es.cnli.1 to ensu.ri.ng thot such conflicts will be avoided. The
criteria do neit neeessari1y need to be spelled out in a General Plan. There are a
number of wa~s for the city to address the airport consistency issue, including:
1-4
. lncOlpomt.ng airport compatibility policies into the update
. Adopting an airport combining zone ordinance
. Adopting lln A vfation Element into the General Plan
. Adopting the Airport Compatibility Pion.. a "stand-alone" document or as a
specific plan
5. The General l>tan mu,t ackriowledge that until ALUC compatibility criteria are .1.
incorporated i~to the General Plan, proposals within the airport influence area must be
submitted to the ALUC for review. These provtslons must be included in the General
Plan at a minimum for it to be considered consistent with the ahport land use
compatibility plan.
~-S'
6. In aecordance:with CEQA, Public Resources Code 21096, the Caltrons Airport Land
uSe Planning llondbook (Handbook) must be utilized as a resource in !he preparation
of environmental document< for projects within the boundaries of an airport land use
compatibility plan. or if such a plan has not been adopted, within two nautical miles
of OJ" airpon. : The Handbook provides n "General Plan Consistency C'heckli,," in
Table 5A, and "AirPort Combining Zone Compon.n.." in Table 5B. For yoOf
reference, our.Handbook is published on-line at httpJlwww.dot.ca.govlhqi.planningl
aeronaur/hllt1lfi1e1landuse.php.
7. The planned height of buildings, antennas, and other structures should be cheeked J
relative to the'Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 criteria if development is . 1-"7
close to the airport, particuIarly if situated within the rwlWay approach conido,..
2-<0
"CaltfWUt Wl,pllllJl/fl1Mbilitj, rtr.1'tl$l CNi{orniti"
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-9
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PlAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR
Mr. David Hogan ,
December 29. 2004
Page 3
General PI~ mnst include policies restricting the height of structures to pro!el:t
navigable airspace. To ensure compliance with FAR Part 77. "Objects Affecting
Navigable Airspace," the f'Iling of a Notice of Proposed Conslnletion or Alteration
(Form 7460-t) with the Pederal Aviation Admlniatratiori (FAA) may be required. For
further techiUcal information, please refer to the FAA'. web site at
.httoJ(wwwt .faa.20v/ats/ata/ A T A4001oeaaa.html.
8. The Edueatiq" Code. Section l72t5 requires a school sile investigation by tho
Division of Aeronautics prior to acquisition of land for a proposed school site within
two miles of ~ airport runway. The Division's recommendations arc submitted to the
Stale De~cm of Education for use in determining the aceeptability of the sileo
This should bio a cOMideration prior to designating residential uses in the vicinity of
an airport. .
9. The Section 11010 of the Business and l'rofe..iollB Code, end Sections 1102.6,
1103.4, and 1~53 of the Civil Code lhup;/Iwww.leirlnfo.ca.2ov/calaw.hlmll address
buyer notificatioa requirements for lands around ailJlnrtli. Any person who intends to
offer land for sale or leOlle within an airport influence area is required to disclose that
fact 10 the pel\\On buying the properly.
10.Land US~ pra~tices that atlnl.cl or sustain hazardous wildlife populations on or near
airports can significantly increase the potential for wildlife-aircraft collisions. The
FAA reconnnends that landfills, wastewater lreatment facilities, surface mining,
wetlands, and ~lher ases that have the potential to .attract wildlife, be restricted in the
vicinity of an airport The FAA's Advisory Circular (AC 150152O().33) entitled
"Hazardous Wildlife Attractants On or Near AilJlnrts" and AC 15015200-34 entitled
"Construction: or Establishment of Landfills Near Public Airports" address these
issues. These :advisory circularS can be accessed at httn:llwwwl faa.r!Ov/aroJ. For
further technical information. pJeOllc refer to lbe FAA's web site at btlD://wildlife-
mitti~ation.tc.faa..ov/public htmlf1ndex.html. You lIUly also wish to conlaer the U.S.
Department O{Agriculture, Wildlife Services at (916) 979-2675.
I I. Aviation plays an important role in Califom;a'. transportation system. This role
includes the movemeut of people and goods within and beyond our Slate's network of
over 250 airports, Aviation contrihutes nearly 9% of both total State employment
(1.7 million jo!>.) and total Slate output ($1I0.7!>illlon) iumually. These benefits were
identified in a: recent study, "Aviation in California: Benefits to Our Economy and
Way of Life," availabte on-line at. hllD:llwww.dolca.anvlh°/olanninElaeronaut.
Among other things, aviation improves mobility, genemtes tax revenue. saves lives
through emer~ncy 'esponse, medical and fire fighting services. annualty transports
.C"IkGM i1fIJlf'OlJU 1Mb,Lity ac'ro(J& CkzJJ.fomia"
1.-"7
C.ONT.
t-9
2-'
2.-/0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
8-10
CITY OF TEMECULA
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
Mr. David HOSlIn '
December 29, 2004
Page 4 .
air cargo valuixJ at over $170 billion and generates over $14 billion in tourist dollars.
which in turn Improves Our economy and quality of life.
12. The protection of airports from tile encroachment of incompatible land u..... i. vitalli>
the 'afety .of airport operations, the well being of the communities surrounding
airports, and io California'. economic future. French Valley Airport is an economic
asset that shi>u1d be. protected througb effective airport land nse compatibility
planning and Iiwarene5&. Consideration given to the i..ue of compatible land uses in
the vicinity of'an airport should help relieve furure conflicts between airports and their
neighbor.. .
1-10
UN!',
These comments! reflect the areas of concern to the Department's Division. of
Aeronautics. .We'.dvise you to contact Ms. Rosa Clark in our District 08 office at
(909) 383.6908 regarding surf""e transportation issues.
We appreciaJe lIu, opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any
questions, please call me at (916) 654-5253.
Sincerely,
)). GI.....-
DAVID COHEN ~
Associate Enviro$tcntal Planner
C: Slate Clearinghouse
French Va!jey Airport
Riverside County ALUC
'"thl/Jww impro!ll<ll mnbilit)' lJI:",," ~IfoTnid'
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-11
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR
2. David Cohen, Associate Environmental Planner, California Department of Transportation,
Division of Aeronautics. December 29, 2004.
Response 2-1
This comment provides an introduction to the Department of Transportation, Division of
Aeronautics comments on the Draft EIR. No response is required.
Response 2-2
The comment is noted. The City has referred the Draft General Plan to the Riverside County
Airport land Use Commission (AlUC) for review and a consistency determination with the French
Valley Airport land Use Compatibility Plan in accord with Public Utilities Code Section 21676 et
seq. At the time of preparation of this Final EIR, the AlUC had not completed its review.
Response 2-3
The comment is noted. Please refer to Response 2-2 regarding ALUC review of the Draft General
Plan. The City of Temecula does not intend to overrule the County ALUC. As required by State
law, the City intends for the Draft General Plan to be consistent with the French Valley Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan and will work with the ALUC to achieve consistency.
Response 2-4
The Draft General Plan Land Use Element includes the following goal, policy, and implementation
program as a demonstration of the City's intent to adhere to ALUC policies to ensure compliance
with compatibility criteria:
Goal 8:
A City compatible and coordinated with regional land use and transportation
patterns.
Policy 8.3
Participate with the Airport Land Use Commission in the implementation of the
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for the French Valley Airport, to the
extent feasible.
Implementation Program lU-24
. Work with the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission to review development
projects within the French Valley Airport area of influence, and participate in any future
updates to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) and Master Plan for the
Airport.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-12
Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR
Response 2-5
Please refer to Response 2-2 regarding ALUC review of the Draft General Plan and Response 2-4
concerning Land Use Element goals, policies, and implementation programs addressing airport land
use compatibility. Policy 8.3 and Implementation Program LU-24 (referenced in Response 2-4)
address provisions for ALUC review of proposed projects within the French Valley Airport area of
influence.
Response 2-6
The comment is noted. The Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan was used as a
basis for completing the land use compatibility analysis in Section 5.9 Land Use and Planning of the
Draft EIR. The ALUCP utilizes the Caltrans Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, dated January
2002, as guidance for policies, consistency determination criteria, and preparation of airport
compatibility maps.
Response 2-7
The comment summarizes the planned height of buildings, antennas, and other structures relative to
the Federal Aviation Regulation Part 77 criteria for development close to an airport. As described
on pages 5.9-3 and 5.9-11 of the Draft EIR, the maximum permitted height of buildings/structures
within compatibility Zones D and E, which cover properties within T emecula, is 70 feet for Zone D
and 100 feet for Zone E. Development proposals pursuant to implementation of the General Plan
that exceed these maximum allowable heights will require airspace review.
Response 2-8
This comment does not raise a question regarding the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. The
comment summarizes procedures for school development within two miles of an airport runway
and disclosure requirements for property sales or leases within an airport influence area. As
described on pages 5.9-10 through 5.9-12 of the Draft EIR, construction of schools is generally not
permitted in ALUCP Zone D unless no feasible alternative is available. Additionally, as stated on
Page 5.9-10 of the Draft EIR, all properties within Zone D are required to have recorded deeds
reflecting these restrictions to alert potential property owners of the restrictions. Furthermore, the
Draft General Plan includes the following implementation program to improve awareness of the
airport throughout the influence area:
Implementation Program LU-24
Obtain aviation easements as required by the ALUCP for the French Valley Airport to ensure
that landowners acknowledge potential impacts associated with aircraft.
Response 2-9
The comment is noted. As stated on page 5.9-6 of the Draft EIR, projects that may potentially
attract birds or other wildlife hazardous to aircraft operations within the French Valley Airport area
of influt;nce are subject to ALUC advisory review.
CITY OF TEMECUlA
8-13
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR
Response 2-10
This comment does not address an environmental issue nor raise any question regarding the
analysis or conclusions in the EIR. No response is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-14
@
Ranaha
Water"
JlolUdW'UiR<:Io..
"1lh611'.lIDafIIoall
1'r....rlI>ot
0001>01'.'"
"..Vlm_~..-t
Skphc:.J.CeMno.
r~fl.llf11y
......R-'Dnoh
LI.. D. B--.u.
~iMoo..,tI,"""iIl,...
(1/11""""
.
DriDa.J.D..d,
............'
l'b:iI,",1.t'HR.
JJim:larotn....z.n.l''''..u"''',
E.J.'.'1luV~
l'q_,.rli:nt;o......."""
Pwr)'R.lJ;>1Idr.
~GCPlj,Dnilll!
.htOlJ.~
,.......
Uadlltd..r~
IllMdo:l.lJtc:nw:dAibli~/IlI\'t
I:'Il'YIOMIII..~..
(l.ldid.ef.eo.tu
1kM.>>Nl..IUtIIWUI
,~.....lt}ao...l
Responses to Comments on the Draft EfR
--
lleoemherJO, 2004
D ~ ~ Ten W n: ~
JAN lf3 2005 ! ~J
,
1--. --'"-"".CC",,".d
David Hogan, Prindpnl P!annct
City .fT.m..uI.
Planning Departmeot
43200 Business Park Drive
1'em..ula, CA 92560
SIJBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN
PUBLIC REVIEW OF DRAFT GENERAL PLAN AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Le'TTe~ 3.
Dear Mr. Hogan'
~chn C.alifornia Water District (RCWD) appreciates the opportunity to
provide comments fot the Public Review of tho Draft City of T\.\mecula General
plan and tho D1'aft Environmcntallmpact Report (ElK). RCWO', comments are
as folloWJ: .
;wI
Water Resources
The first sentence of tho second paragraph on page 08-12 of the Drqfi General
Pian is misleading, ljim:e pollution ofthc underground aquifer is not limiled to
. ot;Lly indWltrial sites. .
The third and fo\llth sentence of the seeond pa!"l\l"ph on PliKe 08-12 .fthe
Drqf/ Oeneral Plan should be updalcd as ColloWll:
31..
"'One groWldwater production well was con1atninate4 by a MTBE plume
but . subsequent aquifer remedial clemup activities has allDwed this
facility to be placed back into ~ervicc. ~'urthermo~, other groulidwawr
production wells were nearly contaminated by a separate MmE plume
but subsequent aquifer remedial cleanup activities has allowed thelre
facilities to remain in o~ation."
Wa!ltewllter'Servlce
A.s previously noted in RCWD's comments to the Notice of Preparation, Q
PQrtion Qf the City of Tcn'lccuIa (primarily the Wcs~ide Business Centre area) is
within RCWD's wastewater service area and these W"'olst.ewaterfiow5 are tr,eated
lit'RCWD's Santa Roso W.ter Reelamatio" Facility, Pages GM.9 andOM-14 of
th.c Drqft Genernl Plan as well as the Em. should be revised accordingly,
13
1!aDClLo)Ca!Ultr>>.hoW.t.erllblrllll
.~J~\Vl1I<hm0l"tt...d . "..trnrl<lllno..~nl1. """"""1.. ('...lhi. ~l1 . IllGll;ll,lH\m"'Uli5Ulll'lHl6O
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-15
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PlAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft EfR
.
David HopnlCl:ty OrTemN.'ull
Dec~be(" 29J 2004 :
Page Two
If YOu should ha~(: any questions or n~~ additional inform..atio~ please call us at this office at
(951) 296-6900.
Sincerely,
RAN/5;;jCTER DTSTIUC7
~ Webster.P.E.
Planning & Capitd Projec", Manager
D4\AW:BlI30\~E<.l
e;. E. P. "Blib" Lemons, lJlreclOr of Bngint:cring
Mike Meye.rPerer, Develuprm.-nl Engin~llrfng Manager
Enclosure
ItaadwClolllN:al:lWaIt'rDtslriot
4~'~IP'\'i..il...!erlWo<d . t'lNl10!l1foQod017 . ToItI<lO'-ll..~;fom;.!l2Illi!l.!IIr1 . lIlUI/'~JI6.IillII<1 . ~A~(llII9'*,M/IIl
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
8.16
~
CITY OF TEMECULA
Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR
3. Andrew L. Webster, P.E., Rancho California Water District. December 30, 2004.
Response 3-1
This comment provides an introduction to the Rancho California Water District's comments on the
Draft General Plan and Draft EI R.
Response 3.2
This comment requests a technical clarification within the Open Space/Conservation Element of the
Draft General Plan and does not raise any environmental issues regarding the Draft EIR.
Recommended technical changes to the Draft General Plan will be considered by the City for
inclusion in the Final General Plan.
Response 3.3
In response to this comment, a new sentence under the "Wastewater Environmental Setting"
subheading on page 5.14-4 of the Final EIR has been added as follows:
A oortion of the City of Temecula iorimarilv the Westside Business Centre area) is within the RCWD's
wastewater service area, and these wastewater flows are treated at RCWD's Santa Rosa Water
Reclamation Facilitv.
The revision does not affect any of the impact conclusions contained in the EIR. Similar technical
changes recommended for the Draft General Plan will be considered by the City for inclusion in the
final General Plan.
CITY OF TEMECUlA
8-17
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
J=~
......
RiI'IIIisillbt 1'mIdt Ilpnq'
January 12, 2()()4
PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMO
DEVELOPMENT REviEW
Le,.,-c:;~ 4
To;
Arjne Palatlno, Director of Planning
M~hael McCoy, Senior Planne~
Dt~ft EIR for Temecula General Plan Update - RT A Comments
B$ routes effected: .23. 24. 79. 202. 206, 208 and future additional routes
From:
Subject:
Summary: The ~ 01 T8mecula Community Devefopment Dept has issued the Draft
Environmonlallil1paet Report (DEIR) for ita yeer 202S Generel Plan update. This DSIR
will be one of th~ most Important policy documents guiding land use and development
decisions In rerMeula over Ihe next ZO yeare. RTA .tall r.vlewad the Plan'e NOIIce Of
Preparation in Md the Initial Sludy In Z003 and suggested additional attention 10 lronsit
alternatives be fOrthcoming In tho General Plan. .
The Orolt eJR now fully addresses Iransllln nearly all Its aspecta. from convonlently
placed bus ,stopS to transit..friendly development practices, RT A believes the document
now sends a streng, pro-a'ctive 'welcome' to transit 8S one of tho viable remedies for the
congesdon and pollution that plagues the Inlend Counties. RT A staff makes the
following obse",ations aboul the Draft E1R:
. summary; of Impacts and Mitigation. Measures affecting transit, pp 1-8 to 1~16:
o Mf$sure T..J underscores the City's financiar commilment to transit facilitieS;
o PrO-transIt measure T.5 requinw; developments to incorporate tfansit-ftIendly <iesign
reaiures .such as bus turnouts. shelters and pedestrian connectivity to residential areas;
o Ml$sure 1-11 encourages Me share, park-and-ride and transit oasis featlJres:
o Air Quality measures AQ.7, AQ-8, AQ~14 and AQ-17 voice a strong commItment 10
exc;eUence In transit planning. especially In regl1rd!i to tranalt-friendly development
practices, the Trip Reduction Ordinance. and new park anCllide facmties. transit
oort;dOr5, transit (lases and other strategies to reduce vehicle trips and lower mobile
~ emissions 01 unhealthful pollutants,
iI Implicalldn8 the Roadway Plan would have on future transit. pp 3011;
o ThIS map Is an excellent tool ff)rtranslt planning. It helps <ietermlnc future bus routes;
o As trenslf seMoa Impmves In Sou1hWeSt Riverside County over the coming yearn, the
-density" Of routes willlncreSS9 from the current two local routes to 8eyetal routes;
o All of the first 3 roll<l caIoQQJi.. (Urban Arterial. prinCipal Arterial. sn<I Major ArIona!) are
IlkeJy candidate!:! for future bUS routes In Temecula. These are routes along which RTA
Plahnlng wUl recommend future transit amenltle,. Example: Butterfield Stage Rd;
Q A ~alively smaller portlOn of Secondary Arterials wrtl also be selectl3d for bus setvk:e.
Some alteady carry an RTA route. Ex.ample: Pal,lba Rd;
o Some collector Mrs<<. In hlgh-denslt'y. special design or lnstitutionaJ..use areas may carry
transit. Example: Old Town Fron! Sf.
. The Growth Visioning principles, pp 5-9.20 Ii 21 are &trong policy .tatements In
favor of trianslt al.ternetlvllS where possible and practical:
F:\OOIa\PIcmning\MkeM\Wonl\Cov RovlMlerrww\ll\2005\OraftEIR. GVIll PI&ln.~
+-1
4-2..
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
8.18
CITY OF TEMECULA
Responses to Comments on the Draft EfR
The Pmpj,&ed Land Use Policy Map, pp 3-5, will help !renolt plan nor. corrolate
future deyelopmont patterns with potentIal transit routesj
. The descr'Ptlon of Temeculs's RTAStllvlt;es on PP t):.13-2Is entirely accurate;
. In the Ext;stlng Traffic Conditions portion, on pp 5..13.18, thetoxl ac;:curatety
descrlbe~ ongoing cooperation between the City and publiC and prlvatetran.it.
The text continues by emphasizing key City polities that encourage tranalt use
and !rensU-frlendly development ptilctices;
Overall. the Draft ElR is one Df the most supportive General Plane. In Riverside Cqunty
that RTA suff h_s reviewed In regards to a general upgrading of and encouragement for
new transit facilitIes. The entire General Plan team 18 to be oommended for this vision.
The Plan's appr~ilIoh also underscores Tomecula's acclaimed transition from a small
rural node to a more mature urban envirorunent known for its equidistant satellite center
stat\l$ relative tci Los Angel.., san Diego end Rlvef$lde. Most planne<s bollov. a strong
commitment to transit at this point in the planning pro...s Is . hallmark of th. leading
cftles of the futu~ and will provide a significant "livable communities'.' payback.
1nd88d. this &tro~9 commitment to transit alternative. deserve. to be Incorporated into
the Pmject Objel:tive. not on pag.1-2. porhaps tho warda '1ransll-fnondlY community"
could be Incorp~rated In some form into the bullet about th!t local circulation systllm.
Recent Information developed by RT A Indicates the federal government has set aside
funds towards estsbllahment of B full..feature Temecula Transit Center. Ms Palatino. the
RTA Director of Planning Is now working with Temec-ula Planning 5taff to datermlns the
best &ite for thisitranslt cantor. The consensus, 80 far, I' for a Center location some-
where GlOBe tQ t~e Intsr&tate 15 corridor and at or naar any proposed commuter or hlgh-
speed rail station. However. since the station may be too far in th.e Mure to be located
with certainty, a~ Inwrlm site. should be solected as part of the General ~lan proCHI.
Identification of ihe Transit Canter sne would be a distinct "enefit to planners, develop-
ars and the overall community mobility. Whan the Canler location 10 datormlnsd and II
publishing scheClul.. porml~ tho slle should bo doscribed snd mepped In the final
O'tnoral Plan do~ument&.
Also, at this oPPbrtunlty, RTA staff wants to commend the City of Temeculals. elected and
lll'polnted offici." and their supporting otaff for their 9....,;ng coop8nIlion with the tran-
oil agoncy ovar Utel.stsevoral yaars. Tomecull; W8ll one of the fin.. of the 15lurisdlc-
tlons In Western! Riverside County to partner wilh RTA on routine development review for
transit amenitieS: and was one of the flnt ~o begin Incorporating ~e agency's Design
Guidelines for T~nsit-Friendly Development Inlo the .plannlngprocess.
In summary, RTAslrongly supports the Dratt EIR and ancouragestha City of Temeculato
go fo.ward with.adopllon and Implementation of the Geno",t Plan for 2025.
INITIAL REVIEW INFORMATION . Review completed date: January 12, 2005.
Documents recei~ed at RTA; December 20,2004;
Reply-by Date: J.nuary.30, 2005;
City Counc;l Agerid. Oate: Unknown at present or N/A:
Thomas GUide Map page grid: Not applicable:
F:\data\PlannlngIMlkeMIWO!ti'CeY R....iwATemllClJta\200SIDralleJR. Gen1 Plan.doc
4-.'l.
(,Nt'.
+-3
4-.,.
8-19
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR
Case Numbers: $tate Clearinghouse Number Is unknown;
Contact Planne,,' Principal Planner David Hogan. (951) 694.6477;
Applicant: City of Temecula, CA
Applicanfs Cons~ltant: Cotton E1rtdges Associates; of Pasadena CA
RTA PlANNING FOLLOW.UP:
Standard ~Acceptable.IMtElr to JurisdIction without comments
-fJ.. StandaA1 ~Acceptablelf Ilittter to jurisdiction With compliments or positive advisories
Letter with advi50rles re transit Iss~
LaUer .enl: Dale: rlitfpf'
I
SECOND REVIEyV:
Review materials placed in archIve files: Date: ~~
F;1data\Pl3rmlng\MikeM\Word\l)ev RoWlWITllIt\OClJ;l\2005\DrtifSR. Gen'l PIlln,doQ
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
8-20
CITY OF TEMECULA
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
4. Michael McCoy, Senior Planner, Riverside Transit Agency. January 12, 2004.
Response 4-1
This comment provides an introduction to the Riverside Transit Agency's (RTA) comments on the
General Plan Update Draft EIR.
Response 4-2
The opinions stated are acknowledged. The comment commends transportation mitIgation
measures T-3, T-5, and T-ll and air quality mitigation measures AQ-7, AQ-8, AQ-14, and AQ-17, the
Roadway Plan, the SCAG Growth Visioning Principles on pages 5.9-20 and 5.9-21 of the Draft EIR,
the Land Use Policy Map, the description of RT A services on page 5.13-2 of the Draft EIR, and the
existing traffic conditions on page 5-13.18 of the Draft EIR. The comment does not present new
information or raise any specific environmental question or issue. No response is required.
Response 4-3
The opinion stated is acknowledged. The comment addresses the General Plan Vision and Draft
EIR Project Objectives, as well as the desirability of identifying the Transit Center site in the final
General Plan document. When the site is determined, appropriate changes will be made to the
General Plan. The comment does not raise any environmental issue associated with the Draft EIR.
Response 4-4
The comment is noted. This comment provides a closing statement to RTA's comments on the
Draft EIR. The City recognizes RTA's support of the Draft General Plan.
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-21
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
~CaIifornia Regional Water Quality Control Board
\;;;: San Diego Region
AIAD Co Uoyd; Pb,I). . 0vtI' so v..... Ser'1llI: Hao1llf&oo, Qrm:e.1I1d Ittrmldc: ComUlell
Ikertlllr1ft1r 1kdplnJ.lotu..~I'DrlruIllM!llalA.WlIr41or~A~llltTtzua,ftnmU3EJ>A.
.._""
Prt1IzttiM 0174Sk1h.tCouIt,Suitllll1O,8uDicp.CaIiCam921234l4O
AA)467.~2.1'U(158)$1I-6912
hllyJI"'W".WlIIMl(l:lt4t.m.SO"1Nndl~
8
ArmkI Seb.-.rmIeI
""""'~
l-&TTe.tl !:"
l.nwiry 18. 2~5
1F.i"1 ,'.. ,^, " n In '" .
il~IIC 1.;( II l'i U; ~
"" J ~ 4
Iii' IAN2nos '
n rep ~!Uer 0: ~
WPN: ~:~:~~~::~_:___
Mr. David Hogan. Principal ptanner
Pll:I.nning Divi~ion
City OfTemeouJa
43200 B",ines;, Pork Dic:e
Temeculs., Ca:Ufomia 92590
De~
S~II2003061041 CITY OFTEI\lECIILA GENERAL PLAN
UPDATE
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the DraftEnv1ronmental ,Tmpact RepOrt
(EIR) for the City of Te....,oJ.', GeneratPlan Update. ThoCily', pmjcctcd growth rate
makes this.8 cthical limt: for the City to include appropriate water quality and, waterShed
protection prlnlOpJ.. and policies in ilS General Plan. M. <fucussed on page 5.8,5.of lite S.'
report, cQIlStroction of new housing unib and coIDIIlC!Cia;l and industrl1tl: projects will
incease the amount of impervious sllIfaces throughout the Ptamling Area, ~u1ting in Il
potenti.1 chang;.. to local strelllll hydrology. In addition to lite potential auisan<:e flooding
hnpact describCd in the draft EIR~ these changes to ~ hydrology could result jn
adverse impactS to water quality and the beneficial uses of water in the Santa Margarita
Rivet' Watershed,
The quality'OHutfacc,and EfOURliwal:er in the.watenhcd.Qepcnds on ~arious factors
including the iritera>;t1on of diffCIent physical and biological processes. eacb of which is
Strongly influenced by the degree of imperyiOllS cover present in the wlllershed. In many
CB5C8, changc& in hydrology can have miJI'e significant impacts on receiving waters than
those attributa~ to the contaminants found in storm water discharges, t These
hydrologically felated impacts include stream bank erosion, benthic habitat degradation.
and cte.;:reased ~versity of macroinvertebrntes.
By limiting the :discuss.ion of impncts from iTlcreusOO impervious surfaces to potential ('. S
flooding witho~t including the water quality, the druft EIR overlooks the benefits of a low~
S"'l.
I UllitedSllItuEfA. !999.f'llrlU 4UC!lRParu:9, 122, 123, and 124, Naliol1llIPolluUlJUDischargc
Elimhlation Syslem- Regulations for Revision oftbe Watet Po1Julion Corrtrol Program Allciresslng Storm
Warcr Dischargclilj:Final Rula Federal Register. Washington D,C.
.Colifomia Em.ironmental PrtJttt:hOIl Agency
~fWler
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-22
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR
Mr. David Hog.n
SClU.2003061041
-2-
January 18, 2005
S".'J
(,OWT,
r-1'
CITY OF TEMECULA
impact development approach to stonnwatcr management. Instoad, the draft ElR focw:cs
on B conventi~Dal stormwater approach requiring new deveJopment projects to ensure that
adequate flood control eapacily is available by providing on-site drainage and paying fees
for expansion ~f the storm drain system. In contrast lD conventional stonnwater
management approach. the low-impact development approilt'h is 10 IIWnage runoff at the
source In dJscri,te units throughout the site to emulate tho predevelopmcnt hydrologic
regime. Low-impact development technology utilizes onaite management praCtices
including bi.,,;tention facilities, dry wells, filter or buff... strips and otboc multifunctionlll
","d$elipe."""'!l swales, bioretention swales, and wet awalca.. pon of development deslgn.
In oOOpting Order No. R9-2Q04.001 (the MS4 waste discharge requirements). tite
SDRWQCB ..;knowIedged tho importance oflocalgeneral plans.. part of a
comprehensiVe municIpal atonn walM program. Specifically. Provision P.t requires the
City to includc:water quality and watershed protection principles in its General Plan that
will direct 1im.d~use decisions and ri:quite implementation of consistent water quality
protection me~ures for development projects. This Provision is cOl1Bistent with
Govomment COde Section 65302(d) that identjfies the "prevention and control of me
pollution of s~ and othe.r waters" and the; "protection of watersheds" as items to
consider as parr of the General Plan's conservation element. Examples of th& principles
and policies listed in Provision P.I that are consistent with a low-impact development
appioach and should be CtJIl.idered by tbe City include:
.. MinimJt.o the amount of lltlpelVlous surfaces and directly conne<:tM lmpo!vlous
surfllCOli In areas of development and, where feasible, slow mooff and lOaXimizc on.
site infi~tration of runoff.
b. Impl~[ pollutlon prevention tncthod! supplcmcnttd by source control and
trca~ control BMPs. Use small collection strategies locm:ed at, or as close as
. pOssl51~Th;lhe sliiii'Cc\f.e.,.the point WM walcrlnltiallymeelS the ground) to
minimiic tho tIm1Sport of um.an runoff and pnflullln'" offsne and into an MM.
c. PreservC, and where possiblo, create or restore llteIlll tbat provide important Waler
qualily benefit.s, such.. riparian con:ldors, wetlands, and buffer 1.0004. Encoull\ge
land ac<jui&itiou of such llteIlll.
. d. Ltmlt ~turbancca of oatlltill water bodies and os\w1l1 drainage system. caused by
developincnt irn;luding roads, highways, and bridges.
e. Prior 10 ,"liking land use decision" utlllze methods available to estimate incre.... in
pollulaIil.1oads and flowa resulting from projocted future development. Requite
inco~tion of appropriate BMPs to mitigate the projected increases in pollutant
loads and flows.
Cdifomia Environmental Protection Agen"
~pfJ(m
8-23
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR
Mr. David Hogan
SCH# 2003061041
- 3-
January 18, 2005
f. Avoid development of areas that ore plllticulady susceptible to erosion and sediment
Ios.; or establish development guidance that identifia these "".. and proleclB them
from erosion and sediment loss.
g. Reducti pollutants associated wllh vehicles and Increasing traffic resulting from
t1eveIOJ!ment.
h. Po5t-dcivClopment runoff from a sire shall not contain pollutant loads that cause or
contrit,j.ne to an exceedance of receiving water quality objectives and which have
not' ~ reduced to ill; MEP. . .-. - . .. ,. .- -"
We urge the qty to review the above example' of wall:r quality andwttershed principles
and policies and to include in the General Plan and/or list as mitigation measure(.) In the
Hydrology andw.ter Quality section of the EIR tho.. actions that are appltcabhl in the
City ofTemecu", We noted that the mitigation measures listed for Biological Resource$
already contal" some elements of a low,impact development approach. Por example, the
City will requite the e&tabJisl1ment of open space areas that eontain significant
wateIcouracs. Wildlife C(Inidon, and M.bitats for rare or endangered plant and animal
species (MUi,p'Uon Measure B-2) and require appropriate teSOllTCCprot.ection measures to
be prepored in conjunction with spe<ific plmis and subsequent development ptopo8a\8
(Mitigation Mciastni: B-3).
Mitigation ~l.Ire B-10 contains a key,statement related to water quality protection. It
states "ProposM developments in proximity to MSHCP conservation &rea$ shall
inoorpornte ~ures. including mess""" required through the Natiooal Pollutant
Discharge Elin\imltion S~em (NPDES) requ.irement! to ensure that the quantity and
quality of runoff discharged is not altered jn an- adverse way when comp.wed lo cAlt.lling
conditions." We recommend that this statement be modified as follows:
"Propo5ed 4evelopmenIB in 1'f8lciMi~ te 1'I€HCP e&ftservatien areas. within the
Dlannimi arta of the Citv of Tem.ecula shall incorporate measures, including measures
required bv'the CilV D1It!l1lanttn ~e National Pollutant Discharge Elimination.
S)'1llem (NPDES) Permit No. CAS0108766, lOlfdUemeftlo to ensute that the quantity
and quality Of runoff discharged <loa not cause or contribute to the vlolalion of water
anality standards (desilltUlted beneficial U.~5 and water anality obiectiVCl!. nN'''''/;lsarv to
orotect th~ beneficial uses) and is not altered in an adverse way when compared to
existing cOliditions."
in conclusion, the report stJs~ on poge 5.8-6 that nil development proposals must prepare.
Wau:r Quality Management Plan (WQMP), oullining how the project will minimize water
quality impacts:during project operation. To be effective in reducing pollutants in urban
CaUfomla EnvironmenW ProtecJi<m Age.C)I
.,,,,,,.,,,
5-4t
(.0"",,
S'..~
S'-G:l
s...,
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PlAN UPDATE
8-24
CITY OF TEMECULA
CITY OF TEMECUlA
Mr. David Hogan
SCHII200306104!
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR
-4-
January 18, 2005
nmoff to the ~a:<imum extenl proiCticable. these project specific WQMPs must address
City tequimn~nts thOl are based upon BOUnd urban runoff management policies and
principles and ~ commitment by the City to enforce these requirements in accordance with
Order ND. R9'2004-IDt.
Please can Mr ~Robert Morris at (858) 467-2962 Ore-mail'at bmoni,,@waterboardr;.CLIlOV
if you have an~ questions regarding this matter.
Respectfully,
HN H. RO!\ERTUS
Executive Offl~r
RegiDnal Watei Quality CDnltDl Boan!
JHR:mpm:rwni
Californ.ia Environmentm Protection Age;,q
6''''''-
I
S~1
c.otIf ,
8-25
ENVIRONMENTAlIMPA(T REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR
5. John H. Robertus, Executive Officer, California Regional Water Quality Control Board,
San Diego Region. January 18, 2005.
Response 5-1
This comment provides an introduction to the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board's
(SDRWQCB) comments on the Draft EIR. The comment stresses the importance of appropriate
water quality and watershed protection principles and policies in the General Plan and reiterates the
hydrology and water quality impacts described on page 5.8-5 of the Draft EIR. No response is
required.
Response 5-2
In response to the comment, under the "Surface Water" subheading on pages 5.8-5 and 5.8-6 of the
Final EIR, a second paragraph has been added to the EIR as follows:
The qualitv of surface and groundwater within the Planning Area deoends on various factors.
including the interaction of different ohvsical and biological orocesses which can be influenced bv
the degree of imoervious cover oresent. In manv cases. changes in hvdrologv can have more
significant imoacts on receiving waters than those attributable to the contaminants found in storm
water discharges. These hvdrologicallv related imoacts include stream bank erosion, benthic habitat
degradation, and decreased diversitv of microinvertebrates.
The revision does not affect any of the impact conclusions contained in the EIR.
Response 5-3
The City acknowledges the comment regarding the benefits of a low-impact development approach
to stormwater management. The City encourages development designs that manage runoff at the
source through practices including bioretention facilities, dry wells, filter or buffer strips, and swales.
Biological Resources mitigation measure B-l0 recommends the use of the low-impact development
methods mentioned by the SDRWQCB with regard to proposed development in the Multi-Speices
Habitat Conservation Plan conservation areas. The comment does not raise an environmental issue
that results in a significant impact to hydrology or water quality. Therefore, no additional analysis or
mitigation is required in the Final EIR.
Response 5-4
The comment states that the City must incorporate into the General Plan the water quality and
watershed protection principles identified in the SDRWQCB-adopted Municipal Separate Storm
Sewer System (MS4) permit (Order No. R9-2004-001 ).. The purpose of this requirement is to
ensure consistent implementation of the MS4 permit within the Planning Area since the City is a co-
permittee of this permit. The SDRQCB MS4 permit (Order No. R9-2004-001) was adopted on July
14, 2004 for the Santa Margarita River (SMR) Watershed permittees in Riverside County. The SMR
permittees include the cities of Temecula and Murrieta, the County of Riverside, and the Riverside
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.
The new MS4 permit requires the City of Temecula to designate minimum Best Management
Practices (BMPs) to specified facilities. These BMPs will focus on preventing non-stormwater
discharges, and eliminating, controlling, and/or treating pollutants in stormwater runoff.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
8.26
Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR
All new development projects and significant redevelopment projects (e.g., parking lot expansions,
building expansions) will be subject to Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP)
requirements. SUSMP requirements consist of structural source control and treatment control
BMPs to be maintained by facility owners, operators, property managers, homeowners associations,
etc.
The City of Temecula continues to support environmental quality issues that are important to
maintaining the quality of life and health of its residents. As a result, many of these issues are
addressed in the General Plan. However, the list of suggested principles (items a through h) are not
wrillen in General Plan-appropriate terminology and cannot be directly incorporated into the
updated General Plan. However, the General Plan does incorporate equivalent policy direction in
several elements, including the Land Use and the Open Space/Conservation Elements. Open Space
and Conservation Element Policies 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9 and 3.7, as well as Implementation
Measures 05-5, 05-6, 05-11, 05-14, and 05-34, address these principles. Land Use Element
Policies 6.2 and 6.3, as well as Implementation Measure LU-20, appropriately addresses these
issues.
As stated in the Open Space/Conservation Element of the Draft General Plan, the City requires the
use of BMPs consistent with NPDES permit requirements. The Draft General Plan fully addresses
the new MS4 permit and Provision F.1 in the updated Open Space/Conservation Element through
incorporation of the following goals, policies, and implementation programs:
Goal 2 Conservation and protection of surface water, groundwater and imported water
resources.
Policy 2.1 Coordinate with the Riverside County Flood Control District to design flood control
improvements that preserve, to the maximum extent feasible, important natural
features and resources of the local creeks and riparian forest of the Santa Margarita
River.
Policy 2.5 Require the use of soil management techniques to reduce erosion, eliminate off-site
sedimentation, and prevent other soil-related problems that may adversely affect
waterways in the community.
Policy 2.6 Regulate and manage lands adjacent to or affecting watercourses as stipulated by
the Regional Water Resources Control Board.
Policy 2.7 Ensure that approved projects have filed a Notice of Intent and Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan in accordance with the Federal Clean Water Act, prior to issuance
of grading permits.
Policy 2.8 Ensure adequate inspection and enforcement of the requirements of general
construction permits, particularly related to erosion control during grading and
construction.
8-27
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
Implementation Program 05-5
Require all development projects to implement best management practices. Work with the San
Diego Regional Water Quality Board and other State and federal agencies to identify other
opportunities and techniques for maintaining or improving water quality.
Implementation Program 05-6
Review individual development projects to ensure that adequate stormwater detention or
treatment methods are provided to accommodate surface water runoff generated by the
project, and where needed, incorporate detention of stormwater run-off at the point of origin.
Additionally, this EIR requires the execution and monitoring of General Plan implementation
program OS-6 through mitigation measures in the Hydrology and Water Quality section. The City
will comply with implementation of the new MS4 permit and any other NPDE5 permit.
Response 5-5
The mitigation measures in the Hydrology and Water Quality section of this EIR and the Draft
General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs referenced in Response 5-4 adequately
address the MS4 wastewater discharge requirements.
Response 5-6
In response to this comment, the following mitigation measure, HW-7, was added to Section 5.8
Hydrology and Water Quality on page 5.8-7 of the Final EIR. This measure is not required to address
any new impact; rather, the measure clarifies existing policies and options for compliance with
NPDE5 requirements.
HW-7
Proposed develooments shall incoroorate measures. including measures required bv the
Citv oursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Svstem (NPDES) Permit. to
ensure that the quantitv and qualitv of runoff discharge does not cause or contribute to
the violation of water qualitv standards. Measures shall be required to avoid discharge
of untreated surface runoff from develooed and oaved areas. Stormwater svstems shall
be designed to orevent the release of toxins. chemicals. oetroleum oroducts. exotic
olant materials. or other elements. This can be accomolished using a varietv of methods
including natural detention basins. grass swales. or mechanical trapoing or treatment
devices. Regular maintenance shall occur to ensure effective ooerations of runoff
control svstems (General Plan Imolementation Program 05-5).
With regard to removing references to the MSHCP, the City continues to actively support the
MSHCP process and does not believe that removing references to MSHCP is appropriate.
Response 5-7
The comment is noted. The significance of impacts to hydrology and water quality resulting from
specific future development projects will be determined on a project-by-project basis. If project-
level impacts are identified, specific mitigation measures will be required per CEQA. The City
recommends that Water Quality Management Plans from new development proposals address City
requirements for urban runoff policies and principles. The City is committed to enforcing these
requirements in accordance with the MS4 waste discharge requirements (Order No. R9-2004-00l).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
CfTY OF TEMECULA
8-28
~"imlflJIJlrer.TOI'f
PMitknt
RMd}' A JUconJ
Vi~P,V!ddllll
Dnid.l.!iI;r.wllI.ln
~ich\1ldR.ll~11
R~r D. ~icm.
iti;i'-kfW:-!Ulli~;iQ
B4UtI,'r<r>'rd._y
Rllselll_tlc V. tMwcll
t;)tt1ffl1fM.uJq",
.o\rnoonyJ.l'lst:k
DInt..1vrv{dUI
lrIarnplJ/ilrln "',liter
bbrri(1iJ/S~CtJlij.
Rlnd)'^.I\~ofd
n-a.Il'~
.kMph J. "-"\;\11\:1", ('L'A
IAgIIICvlRu.i:/
Rei.....i,,"'j1I....ShI'l"tiU
Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR
(;,.,
.. .....'..'..8
.1 ..; I". 1
""" ".\"
, : ' ' :~,,:, ~
;i'"
JAN 3 1 2005 :"!
: j
"
t': :-. ~; . .
,.,
iJc
,
,.,....
\--- ~
JM.lUlIry 25, 2005
Mr: Davld Hogan. Principal Planner
Crti'd Temecula
43200 Buslnes8 Park Drive
. ~~la,_CA 92590
RE: Draft En.lm_llmpact Report (DEIR)
City of Tomecula General Plan Update
Dear Mr. Hogan;
E..8tom Municipal Water District (EMWO) appreciates the opportunny to review
the, Draft Envlronmente! Impat;t Report tor lhe City of Tem.cula's General Plan
Update. EMWD off.... the following commonts.
~1l.~
Paae !t1+2. Tabl& 6.14-2.. EMWD Cumtnt and Protected Wlter SUDDII88
1lI<t FuIIlre (2020) Purchased Water figure of 1 1 ,0121s Incolrect The correct
fig~", i. 110,012. .
Page g.14-4
Wallowaler
EnVIronmental Settlna
The correct t&rm tor emuen! pump.d from !he T.meeuls facility Is recyeJed water.
Th<i !hinl"l1lelIc,"of !hIS palagreph should be revised 10 ",ed, .'8OC8l1S8the
Temecula facility 18th. amellest of EMWO'811va reclamation ptanlS, tome
rec:ycled wablr Is pumped from the T.mecul. recility tan mil.. north to a 4;;0-
m1l1ion-gallon slorlllJe facility In W1nc:l1ester".
Thank you forth. opp_nlty to ",view the DEIR. Pleas. fOlWllld Gny
subsequent documents ~ilrding J!1e prOject Ie my attentJOI1 at !he mailing
add",.s below. Thank you.
Slnce"'ly, .
/falbO' J/~
Karen Hackett
EMlronmental Compliance Analys1
,j; ~ 1"IlO,~QlNUR<ll_, r ~""'-lDI",,"
Mailing A{Jdre.~,~': PU91 Ol1icc RClX 83011 Pl;1Till, CA 91572-8300 Telephone; (!lSl) 928-37n Fmt: {951l 928-6177
J.ncaiuJlI: 2270 TI1l11Thle Road Perris, C^ 92570 internet: \\'Ww.e.lllwd,org
CITY OF TEMECULA
"-I
'-2.
,..,3
,...4\'
8.29
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
6. Karen Hackett, Environmental Compliance Analyst, Eastern Municipal Water District.
January 25, 2005.
Response 6-1
This comment provides an introduction to the Eastern Municipal Water District's (EMWD)
comments on the Draft EIR.
Response 6-2
In response to the comment, the typographical error in Table 5.14-2 on page 5.14-2 of the Final EIR
has been revised to read as follows:
Table 5.14-2
Eastern Municipal Water District Current and Projected Water Supplies
(Acre-Feet per Year)
Source
Purchased Water
Groundwater
Transfers
Recvcled Water
Desalination
Total
Source:
Present (2000) Future (2020)
67,390 11Q,012
17218 17280
N/ A 4,500
25,000 39,000
N/ A 12,000
109,608 182,792
Eastern Municipal Water District, 2000 Urban Water
Management Plan.
The revision does not affect any of the impact conclusions contained in the EIR.
Response 6-3
In response to the comment, the following sentence from the "Wastewater Environmental Selling"
subheading on pages 5.14-4 and 5.14-5 of the Final EIR has been revised:
Because the T emecula facility is the smallest of EMWD's five reclamation plants, some waste
recvcled water is pumped from the T emecula facility ten miles north to a 450-million-gallon storage
facility in Winchester.
The revision does not affect any of the impact conclusions contained in the EIR.
Response 6-4
Prior correspondence with EMWD requires clarifications and revisions to be incorporated into the Final
EIR since distribution of the Draft EIR precluded the incorporation of the changes.
In an email communication dated December 17, 2004, Mr. Jeff Wall, Senior Civil Engineer, from
EMWD stated that the ultimate planned expansion of 54 mgd of the Temecula Valley Regional Water
Reclamation Facility was incorrect and from an outdated report. Additionally, Mr. Wall stated that the
most recent EMWD study indicates EMWD only needs 35 mgd of treatment capacity for the T emecula
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-30
Responses to Comments on the Draft EfR
service area. EMWD's projections are based upon its observed and measured generation factors. The
recalculation of the projected wastewater generation using the EMWD standard of 2,000 gallons per
day per acre for commercial development and the correct acreage of 831 acres results in a projection
of 36 mgd of wastewater generation within the Planning Area, or a projected flow in excess of planned
treatment capacity, as EMWD plans a 35 mgd expansion. Given that future demand is based upon a
very long-term buildout horizon, the 1 mgd difference is not considered significant, although additional
mitigation is included in the EIR to provide for continued monitoring and potentially an update of
EMWD's master plan to reflect Temecula's projections. The following 'Wastewater" section from the
Final EIR on pages 5.14-5 and 5.14-6 is provided below to document the clarifications and revisions as
a result of the correspondence with EMWD.
Environmental Impact
Implementation of the General Plan will result in up to 77,504 net new residents, 25,005 net
new dwelling units, and 36.2 million net new square feet of non-residential construction over
the 20-year horizon of the General Plan within the Planning Area. The increase in population
and development will require additional wastewater treatment capabilities. EMWD uses
generation factors of 300 gallons per day per person for residential development and 3-1.000
gallons per day per acre of commercial development to estimate sewage generation.
Residential development will be the major generator of wastewater, with a maximum additional
population of 77,504 persons generating an additional 23.2 mgd. New commercial projects
within the Planning Area constructed pursuant to the General Plan will result in development of
up to an additional ~831 acres and will generate approximately ~L.Z mgd. Combined with
existing wastewater generation within the Planning Area (11.1 mgd), future wastewater
generation under the proposed General Plan will be approximately ~36 mgd. TRe ultimate
planned e"pansion of EM'ND's Temecula Valley Regional '.'later Reclamation Facility is projected
provide a capacity of 51 mgdH EMWD's most recent studv calculates a future treatment
caDacitv of 35 mgd for the Temecula Vallev Regional Water Reclamation Facilitv service area."
Estimated future wastewater treatment demand required to support the project is witAift 1 mgd
greater than the e"isting proiected capacity of District facilities currently serving Temecula,..-aOO
represents roughly 69 percent of the eapaciti of tRe planned €)(pansion of tRe T emecula Valley
Regional Water Reclamation Facility. Given that future demand is based upon a very long-term
buildout horizon, the 1 mgd difference is not considered significant, although additional mitigation
is included in the EIR to provide for continued monitoring and potentially an update of EMWD's
master plan to reflect T emecula' s projections.
Mitigation Measures
Impact will be less tRan significant, and no mitigation is required.
USS-5
The City shall assist the Eastern Municipal Water District in the process of updating its
water master plan for projecting wastewater service to be responsive to the
population and housing unit capacities established by the General Plan (General Plan
Implementation Program GM-8).
level of Impact after Mitigation
Impact is less than significant.
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-31
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR
-H EasterA ,\1l:lAidJ3al \Vater DistriEt. TemeEI:J.'a Va,','e} Reg;aFla,/~1'atE. Rec.'amat:sFI.rac.:,':t.,. Laeate8 at
hUB: 1,\.v.'\\,ERl\\d.org{AE\',,;/IRSi!i!:Ats {insights temecula.l3df. ~18'. effiBer S, 2001.
14 Wall, leff Senior Civil Engineer. Eastern Municioal Water District. Email Communication. December 17, 2004.
Sections 1.0 Executive Summary and 10.0 References have been updated to reflect the changes
described above.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-32
Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR
IJ
MWO
METROPOliTAN WATER OISmlCT 0/ SiJIITHERN CAliFORNIA
.q
JAil 8 I 2005
ExecuttveOf{;;e
January 26..2005 .
Mr. David Hogan,: Principal PIlll\JJer
City of'Ieme<ula.
43200 Busine" Park Drive
Tt:me\~w-a, CJ.. 92590
L.e. TTe2. . 7
Dear Mr. Hogan:
Draft Environmental Imoact Renort for the City of Ternecllta General Plan (Iodate
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Meiropolitao,) ha. reviowW a copy of the
Draft Eovironmental Imp"'" Report (Draft ETR) for the City ofTemecula General Plan IJpdate.
The City ofTemc:t.1da (City).. as the Califumia Environmental Qualily Act lead agency. prlJpos~ (0
adopt and implement the City's GenerdJ. Plan Update. The updated GcGcral Plan will addnJs!' the
seven State-mand&ted general plan clemenls (Iund use, houalfl1!, ci),\lllation, safety. open space. .,- t
conservation, W'Jd. .r7.oise), as well as ~r issues tlwt are lmt)OrtlmL to the community. including
growth management, economic development. air qunlity. ~ community design. The HOWling
Element was tecen.tly updated in 2002, Wld thus is not being comprehensively updated as part of
lhi:i project. 11lc updated General Plan, csta~Iishes an overall. .development capacity for -the City
and surrounding areas, and serves as a policy guide for determining physical development and
character through the year 2025. This letter (;On1ainB Metropolitan's-respons~ to the InitiuJ Study
and NOP.a, both a:potentialty affcCled agency and responsible agency.
Metropolitan staff\ll1s reviewed the Draft ErR and determined that Our existing San Diego
P;~H"e noo I, 2, ~>~. and 5 n.eed to he c~ssi1i~ ,IS ?uhJic lD~itn1io.lJ~1 F..w;-iliJies (p.n on J1igl.U:'C
3.2. Addilionally~ Metropolitan's facilitit..'S arc withiD both pemwlllmt easement and tOO-(lwned
property within the:botmdaries of the General Plan Updato area and Mettopolitan also owns
pT(lperty to tha west ofLake Skinner, a portion.of which is located outaide of the eity limits, but 7.1-
wiOrin the Planning Area for this document. This property is part of the OpcrutiOD!i ollr~a for Lake
Skinner and serves 10 accommodate releases from Lake Skinner. Metropolitan requesls that the
ElR note that neither private nor publicdevelopcrs have any entitlements to buiJd Over Qur fee-
owned rights-of-way or properties and there arc limited.allowances on our JX,.'l1t1anent castments
for private OT public improvements.
If the City docsnot:feel that the:: Piland use designation is appropriate, Menopolitanrcquests UmI.
our facilities and -property be given a Jand tl'lC designation similar to the City'~ public fUL-ilities -,_ ,
(e.g., roadways). This lan\l use designation should sat forth that development in and around ~
M~polhan'g facilities shall be eO.D.sistent with the express use of our pipelines as public
700 N; AlllJT1eda Stree~ LosArge~s, C~~rrla ocxn2 -Mailing Addi1:8$; Elo.x 54163, Los Angeles, CaJbmia 90(}54;.()153 <II Telephone (213) 217-6000
CiTY OF TEMECULA
8-33
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR
THe METROPOL"AN WATER Q!S1'J!HCTOF.SOUTHI!1WCALIFORNfA
Mr. David Hogan,; Principal Planner
Page 2 .
January 26, 2005 :
facilities. MetropOlitan requests this designation bosed on the land uses shown on Figure 3-2 of
the DraftElR, which indicates "Open Space" across Metropolitan's San Diego Pipeline Nos. I
through S in nwuefoUS locations. In addition, Figure 3-2 aI.o identifies Metropolitan's property
west of lake Skin~er as Open Space. These.landS! are not intended for opelfspace,use nor should
they be inlplied ..such. Metropolitan reqllire.s unobstructed access to our pipelines and property
for routine and en1iorgODCY main_e and operations, and !he possible iJistalJ.tion of additional
pipelines and aboVil-ground facititieslncluding but not limited to water treatmenl faeiUties,
therefore, any desig.ation o!ber then "Publio Facilities" Is in"""urllle.
We 8pprt<;illle1lR: b~ide input to yollfplailiiiiigpf5Ces. atid"welooK forward to. .
receiving fub.we enWonmantaI documentation, including a copy of!be Final ErR, for this project. .
lfwccan he offi1nher assistance, pi..... conlllct Mr. John Vrsslovich at (213) 2t7-6066.
Very truly yours. :
l~~JG,~
LauraJ. Si~on~ i
Manager, Enviro~ental Planning Team
'-3
cOloJ't ,
LIMlrdl
(Publw F9Idm1Jll'UfLdtcn(lSoJAN.05A.doc - David: HQgun)
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-34
Responses to Comments on the Draft EfR
7. Laura J. Simonek, Manager, Environmental Planning Team, Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California. January 26, 2005.
Response 7-1
This comment provides an introduction to the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California's
(MWD) comments on the Draft EIR.
Response 7-2
The commenter's opinion is acknowledged. The comment addresses areas of MWD pipeline on
the Proposed Land Use Policy Map in the Draft EIR, requests changes to the map, and notes
changes within the EIR regarding future use of Metropolitan's permanent easements. This comment
does not raise or address any specific environmental issue raised within the EIR. Concerns
regarding the Proposed General Plan Land Use Policy Map and other technical changes to the
General Plan will be considered by the City. The designation of property on the General Plan Land
Use Policy Map does not affect the ownership of property. The City of T emecula recognizes that
property owned by the Metropolitan Water District cannot be used without the approval of MWD.
Response 7-3
The commenter's opinion is acknowledged. The comment addresses areas of MWD facilities on
the Proposed Land Use Policy Map in the Draft EIR and requests a change to the Open Space
designation for MWD property to Public Facilities. This comment does not raise address any
specific environmental issue raised within the EIR. Concerns regarding the Proposed General Plan
Land Use Policy Map will be considered by the City. Desired changes to the map should be
expressed to the Planning Commission and the City Council at the public hearings scheduled for
adoption of the General Plan. The designation of property on the General Plan Land Use Policy
Map does not affect the ownership of property. The City of T emecula recognizes that property
owned by the Metropolitan Water District cannot be used without the approval of MWD.
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-35
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR
rffilH1l ~ OW ~rm
ill] JAN J8 1005 W
By
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OFLAND MANAGEMENT
FaJ.:ra Spriugs-smuh Coasl Reld Ot'lic:c
690 Weill Gamel A~ue
P.O, Box 581260
NOIthPliro SpDnBll,CA 922S8-1260
(16(1):251-4800 Pn (760)251-4899
V,.,"", ""''''1..".",,, t..eTT'eIL 8'
www.t:il_blm.8~lmspriJ'l&J
-
1610 JAN~r2li1l5
(CA.~6Q,03)
Mr. David Hogan
Principle Planner
CityofTemecula
43200 Busines!l Park Drive
Temecula, Ca1ifomi~ 92592
Dear Mr. Hogan:
. . I
'Thank )lou'for scnd1rig !.he Bureau of .LInd Management (BLM) a. cnpy of the Draft: EnvironmenLal
Impact Report for th~ City of Terneculn Genera.! Plan Update Project. The ELM would like to offer the
following commc:nts ~n this document.. .
f-I
This dr.n ElR indicate, that public lands Iruttlaged by thellLM "'" iucluded within !be projecl
planning area (Sp~ of Influence BOUllcUrY). However. the document.makes little QX no :mention of
these lands, or possi~e irnpactf: t.o the resources on these public landS. The- only reference: to BlM
lands is under 3.0 Prdjcct Description, Page 3~], Regional Selling, ibe Cit)' is bordered. by the
unincorporated De. L1iz area to the we~, ... and the Pechanga Indian Reservation, Bun:au orland
Management lands, aP,d unincorporated portions of San Diego County (o the 50uth." The BLM lands,
though not identified) are shown in va.rious maps, such as Figure 3-2, Proposed Land Use POlicy.Map.
as "Open Space."
<<-1,.
Two fiLM managed pan:cl. Me located within the project boundary, parcel # 219-291, approximately
911 acres, and parn:! #218-231, approximately 300 acrea. Parcel # 21B-231 i. a1.0 within theSlIltta
Marg81ita River Ecolqgica1 Reserve and Area Qf Critical Environmental Conce.m (ACEC). These
public Imds are rnan.agro under the BLM's South Coast R~source Mllllagemeot Plan (RMP), adopted
in L994. and are c~msidered core habitat onder the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habilal
Conservation Plan rMsHCP). Some of the resource condition objectives for these lands under the
. South Cum;.l kMP ~!to emphasize protcclkm and enhancement of sensitive species habitats and open
.space values, provide iecreation opportunities which are compatible with .l:ensi~vc species
management objecti v~; and protect Native Amoricm values and cultW'a1 resoUJl:eS. In addJtiun, lands
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
8-36
g-3
CITY OF TEMECULA
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR
within the Santa Mqarita. ACEC (parcel # 218-231) arc: unavailable for mineral malarial sales and
livestock grazil1,g, ate a right-of-way avoidam::e ar~a, amI arc cIoscd.lo motorized. vehicle use_
The B1M WQuld lik~ to see thl?; EIR include a brief description, such liB abovc; of the public lands
within 'the plllJming ~ca. and identify theDLM lands in the appropriate land use maps. Since public
lands contain a vari~ty of important TeIl()UP;:es. impacts _to these resources could be discussed in the
sections un Aesthetits, Biological ReS(.1Urces, Cultord.l ResoutCe6, and PubIicServiceslRecreati01l.
Cumulative and long-1CJnl effects to thoso resotirces from increased population and utbaniztrtion could
also be discussed. Some eX""Ples of pO""'tial imp""" might include ooIllCStic cats and dogs which
may stray onto pubIi~ lands. and.kin bitd and reptile species resulting in "habitat sinks", night lighting
of natural area., whith upsets the diurnal paUcm of species, and unconlrolled off-higbway vehicle use
from new residents 4ding On adjacent puhlic hmd's.. Another Cf.>nCC'ln, ICSulting from recent wildtuCs.
is tbe potential construction by new homeowners of fire breaks on public hmw; instead of clearlp:g
vegelaliort lIn lheir pi!vate property. .. .... .--. ..
The B1M enconrngcs COInmWlity pl~g for recreation I.1seli on public lands such as hiking,
horseback riding, nature study and other activities compatible wlththe Western Riverside County
MSHCP. Our office~would welcome the opportunity to work with the City of TemecuIa to establish a
cooperative rccrcatioi'J and natural resource managemenL strategy to maximize the benefils of living .
neaf:nmutal areas, prptoot natural resources, and minimize Uncats ~o life and property from wildfires.
We apprecii". the oPJ><munity to comment on this EIR Il1\d General PIIl1\ Update. If you would like
more information on BlM maIiaged public lands. our land U$C management plan. or t~e resources (In
these lands, please cOntact Greg Hill, Planning and Environmental Coordinator at (760) 251-4840.
Smcetely.
rr~
Gail Acheson
Field Manager
&-~
c..sN\ .
8'-~
r-
8- S"
CITY Of TEMECULA
8.37
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
8. Gail Acheson, Field Manager, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs - South Coast Field
Office. January 27, 2005.
Response 8-1
This comment provides an introduction to the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) comments on
the Draft ElK
Response 8-2
This comment requests changes to the Proposed Land Use Policy Map of the General Plan Update
but does not raise any environmental issue associated with the Draft ElK The BLM-recommended
change to the General Plan Land Use Policy Map will be considered by the City for inclusion in the
Final General Plan. Please refer to Response 8-3 regarding the clarifications to public lands
managed by the BLM.
Response 8-3
In response to comments 8-2, 8-3, and 8-4, the following clarification has been added to the Project
Description in the Final EIR on page 3-1:
Two BLM managed parcels are located within the proiect boundarv. parcel #219-291.
approximatelv 911 acres, and parcel #218-231. which total approximatelv 300 acres. Parcel
#218-231 is also within the Santa Margarita River Ecological Reserve and Area of Critical
Environmental Concern (ACEC). These public lands are managed under the BLM's South Coast
Resource Management Plan (RMP1. adopted in 1994. and are considered core habitat under
the Western Riverside Countv Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan f MSHCP1. Some of
the resource condition obiectives for these lands under the South Coast RMP are to emphasize
protection and enhancement of sensitive species habitats and open space values. provide
recreation opportunities which are compatible with sensitive species management obiectives.
and protect Native American values and cultural resources. In addition. lands within the Santa
Margarita ACEC (parcel # 218-231\ are unavailable for mineral material sales and livestock
grazing. are a right-of-wav avoidance area. and are closed to motorized vehicle use.
Response 8-4
Refer to Response 8-3 for a description of BLM lands within the Planning Area and to Response 8-2
addressing the request for identification of BLM land on the Proposed Land Use Policy Map.
The proposed General Plan Update does not propose development on BLM lands. As this is a first-
tier Program EIR, CEQA analysis regarding impacts to BLM land is beyond the scope of the current
analysis. Impacts associated with individual development projects will be assessed on a project-by-
project basis in accordance with CEQA provisions. Further, such development would likely require
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Response 8-5
The comment is noted. The comment does not address the content of the EIR. No response is
required.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-38
Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR
WAIUlEl<Il. WILLlAMS
""""""'~I"~
@
''''$ MAltKIrr STP.IlJ!T
IUVElWDIl. OIL tl$OI
!/$1.9!5.UOO
9$1. ~'.PK5FJI)(
RIVERSIDE COUN1Y FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
f..ull)' l1.2005
t..e.\l a '1
PAn>> TBlS D~TE TO 1J51.694.6411
Mr. David Hopli, Principal PIaIm..
City ofTeDlllOlll. ,
Post Office Box 9033
r.mocula. CA 92~8?-90ll
ow Mr, HOgllD'
Ro: . Nod.. .fCompletion/Avallabilily
of. DnflllovirollllWltaJ Imp..'
Roport fbr tho city ofT....oul.
O..oral Plan Upda10
This leU<< is writteP. in mspome to the NQtIee of CompletionlAvaildlillty 0' a Draft BuviuIIUDonta11mpaot
Report (D!l1R) for d1. Cily of T.......la 00n0Iat Plan Updm 11>< propoood JUqJ..t_ oftbc adoption
and imp\emonlaliou of the Cily of t......1a 0_ Plan update. Th. O..oral Plan u...... ><ld"",. fIl.
seven State mmlb.ti:d general plan olttmeDtI (l8J1d use. bousins. oiroulatioll., s&(My, open ap.ace. ocmservation.
and iml/lCl)J U '\V~ as oth<< issues that arc impqrtant 10 "the colMl.unity, 1neJudinS srowtft m~t.
~DJZic devclop~tmt. air quality, a,ad oommunJty design.. Tho project plan4lng IJ'Oa erv::ompll~
approxlrnnteJy 62 squaro miles (j:9,iSIO acre!!) lUId eon"lst8 of propertiea <<Intained witbilt the City's corporate
limits and S})here ot~q~cl:lln 5oudrwostom 'RIvorslde COum,y.
The RiYlnide Colll\tY P100cl Control ..d W_ CanscmDo. DJllTiol h..1h. followin, comm..Woo,,,,,,,,,
1lI11 'hoUJd ""aJ!dfo$sod in the DElI\; . ,
Page>> 4-2 ar1ci ~.J4-6 - Refermeos IrQ mado ~oemll1S: the Dlst1Jot't JurisdicdorJ fit regitlcu flood
control focilities, molu(liq m..j(lr ehann.ell and atonn drainl, Pap 5.14-6 intPneetly states that. the
Dimlct "do<is 001 maInlaln Ilorm dralo IoJ... '" pip" 1... Ill.. 42 Inelll' in d_." For
elariflOa1lon, the District does not mainJain, and in m.0It oases doea' not have jUrlsd1C'UOll over, IItOffT\
dnln in'''' or ptpos Ie&._ 36 inoll.. I. dIam_.
2. Fag" U-l. 'S.8-l. lllId l.14-7 - It Is _d t!lIIlhe otormw.ter i. t.m.,,,,I. I. "llOY.mod" by the
Dislriol and that "all proposecl development pelli"" witIliD the PlanDing Affll ... IOvl6W&<I' by tho
Diltrlat prior io Approval by tho city ofTomoeula "lUv",ia. Counly.
L
. .
It should be ~Iaritieclln tht DBla thai; wbllo mongly lCQommended, the Di8triofs review of future
development Within tbc ~te limits: ofme City ofTemecuJa is not a roquirtment for approval Io.d
t"ondu.lOd it th'le<l.'" ofth. OIlY. Acldltio"llr.i. !bould be noted in th. DRIR filII Ill. Plonnlon
Afflllo l0C4tOd _n lb. DIs1rIOl'IMuwll'ilMp Plan (MOP) lOr the Murrieta Crook """_ Wh.n
lUlIy Impl.....ted. tit... MOP IOoDittes will providellood proteotio. fD ..II... tho.. ".., within m.
plan ofth. mil" mf... -.B problem. and WIll provIde 'doqo,te dnitJa&e onll.... Th. Diltrlcl'
MD, facUity:I1l4PS can bl!l vJawed OIllino.at wwwfloodoontrolco.nvemlde..ca..UAlmdn.A.<rD. To
obtain fUrther: il\format1on on the MOP and tho prtJpVR!d .Dl$iot &cWdcs, contagt Nt D1u: of tba
Diltrl.... Plann"" _on &l9SI.9lS,ll4l.
'-1
'-1.
~.3
8-39
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR
Mr. David Hogan :
Re: NoticeofCaniplotiolliAvailabiliIy
of. Draill/llvi,onmontallm_
Report fo, the City ofT....oulo
Oenom! Plan llpdmo
.-2.
1",...,,31,2005
4.
p.... 1-6 .$l3-19 - n.. Dimiot should b. listod.. an _met maY UI. th.G....-al PIA. dooum.n' I tt- At
for approval offufuro flood 00lllr01 f.lclHt1os.
Page 1-37. Tab.. 1.1 - k l/lpctln !h. "- DraI1l"8'" "ol1Oll Illlder "lJdlitl.. "'" Service I , . S"
S)'Itcm8" is;mullbeltd aadsbouldread "Bn'1g)'t. .
Fu_ ....ecti.., of __ facUkleI o_d for new <lov...., to .....og Olslrlot
facilid... 'Muld bo loc_ ODd ovaIua1Od u part ofdl. ovetall projeot in 1I10 CIlQA ",,",,",01 Jlftl'=l.
An.y work ti:tar iuvolws I>f.sb1ct rtght of w.y, easements.. or f~Uitles wih r8QUim aa. e=roa;bmtot G.L.
pormlt &om tlte OlaJrlot. n.. COlll1tUctlOll of facWd.. within road riQh' of Will' tbat _ inIPIC' r..
Disrnct atolm drains should dsa bo QOordiDated w;~h UJ. To abttin further information 011
en....,ochmoi1' pcnnltl or oxiotiog faoiliti6t, COlltaot Jld 1M> of tII. Olslriot'. Bo_ Permi,
So<<IOl1 It 951.955.1266. . .
Thank you f..- the OpportW\!ly to _ tho Noti,. ofCompIotioW^.,,;labillty..d OBI!<. P..... fOrward ...y
'ob..qu.., ..vlrolimo."" do_ .qardlns the project to my ~0l1 AI dill olllo.. Ally fIlrrt>er
quo,.... co......urigtbl. I.u..._ be ,d""IU. m. 01951.955.12J3" Man> M'ndz.t 951.955.4643.
5:
3.
J=~o
TERESA 1'l!NG
Senior CivllllD8ineei
.: at., MooI
AnDia!;
Bob Cullo.
BdlM>
MAM;,cw
PC\!n7!l6
,.I
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-40
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR
9. Teresa Tung, Senior Civil Engineer, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District. January 31, 2005.
Response 9-1
This comment provides an introduction to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District's (RCFCWCD) comments on the Draft EIR.
Response 9-2
In response to the comment, the second sentence of the second paragraph on page 5.14-6 of the
Final EIR has been revised to read as follows:
"In most cases, RCFCWCD does not maintain or have iurisdiction over storm drain inlets or
pipes less than 4;! 36 inches in diameter."
The revision does not affect any of the impact conclusions contained in the EIR.
Response 9-3
In response to the comment, under the "Surface Water" subheading on page 5.8-6 of the Final EIR,
the first sentence of the third paragraph has been revised to read as follows:
To ensure that adequate flood control capacity is available to support new development, all
proposed development projects within the Planning Area are reviewed by the Riverside County
Flood Control District at the request of the Citv. prior to approval by the City of T emecula or
Riverside County.
In response to the comment, on page 5.14-70f the Final EIR, the first sentence of the second full
paragraph has been revised to read as follows:
To ensure that adequate flood control capacity is available to support new development, all
proposed development projects within the Planning Area are reviewed by the District at the
request of the Citv. prior to approval by the City of T emecula or Riverside County.
In response to the comment, under the "Stormwater Drainage, Environmental Setting" subheading
on page 5.14-6 of the Final EIR, the second paragraph has been revised to read as follows:
The RCFCWCD is also responsible for construction of new facilities called for in its adopted
Master Drainage Plan (MDP). The Planning Area is located within the MDP for the Murrieta
Creek area. The Murrieta Creek Area Master Drainage Plan, implemented by the RFCWCD,
requires collection of drainage fees for developments. Fee revenues are used to support
infrastructure improvements and expansion within the City of Temecula. When fullv
implemented. the MDP facilities will provide flood protection to relieve those areas within the
plan of the most serious flooding problems and will provide adequate drainage outlets.
The revision does not affect any of the impact conclusions contained in the EIR.
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-41
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR
Response 9-4
In response to the comment, the agency lists on pages 1-7 and 3-19 of the Final EIR have been
updated to include the RCFCWCD, as indicated below:
The following lead, responsible, and trustee agencies may use this Program EIR in the adoption
of the General Plan and approval of subsequent implementation activities. These agencies may
include, but are not limited to, the following:
. South Coast Air Quality Management
. City of Temecula District
. Temecula Redevelopment Agency . County of Riverside
. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service . Metropolitan Water District of Southern
. United States Army Corps of Engineers California
. California Department of Fish and Game . San Diego Regional Water Quality
. California Department of Conservation Control Board
. California Department of Housing and . Temecula Valley Unified School District
Community Development . Rancho California Water District
. California Department ofTransportation . Eastern Municipal Water District
(Caltrans) . Riverside County Airport Land Use
. State Lands Commission Commission
. California Water Resources Control Board . Riverside County Local Agency Formation
. Southern California Association of Commission
Governments (SCAG) . Riverside County Flood Control and
. Western Riverside Council of Water Conservation District
Governments (WRCOG)
Response 9-5
On page 1-37 of the Final EIR the Utilities and Service Systems subheading was revised to correct
the typographical error and reads as follows; "Storfflwater DraiAage Energv".
Response 9-6
The comment is noted. The comment addresses the CEQA approval process for the Draft General
Plan and encroachment permits for work in a RCFCWCD right-of-way, easement, or facility.
Encroachment permits and facility construction within roadway rights-of-way pursuant to
implementation of the Draft General Plan will be coordinated with the District on a project-by-
project basis. No further response is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-42
Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR
r~ Omtms
AtfnC1 DwctOl'
Planning Department
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
TRANSPORTATION AND
LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY
JanU8ly 31, 2005
Lem.R. 10
City of Temecula
Al1'N: Mr. David Hogan, Prine/pal Planner
43~ Business Parf< Drive
. . Tomecula. CA 92592
RE: NOTICE OF COMPLETlONINOllCE OF AVAILABILITY OF A DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CITY OF TEMI!COLA GENERAL
PLAN UPDATE
Dear Mr. Hogan:
Thank you for ProViding the Rlve",ide County Planning Department the opportunity to review the
draft Progl3m Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) for the City of TemeC\Jla General Plan
UPdate (hereafter 'Project"J. As indicated In the PEIR, subsequent actlviU.. Which may be
consldsred within the scope of this PEIR may Include: revisions to the City's Development
Code; rezoning for consiotency wfth the uPdated Lend Ose Policy Map; approval 01 speCific
plans, developmenl plans, development agreements, facility and service master plans, public
improvement projects and resource management plans; acquiSition of property by purchase or
eminent domain; issuance of municipal bonds and permits for public and private development
projects as well as other permits necessary for fmplementation of the General Plan. Thli letter
pmvid.. County .staWs comments on the dreft PEIR, and the County reserves tha right to
pmvide lurther comments on the City's General Plan and eny other subsequent Implementation
act~ties. .
The PEIR Indicates that the Project Planning Area consists of epproximately 62 .quars miles (or
3.9,680 grosa acres), of which epproxlmately 26 square mile. (or 17,955 gross acres) lie within
the city limits of the City 01 Temecul.. The remaining 34 square miles of planning area are
located In the unincorporated areas of RIverside County and includes approxlmetely 24 square
miles (or 15.380 gross acres) of properties located wtthln..the City's sphere of Innuence end
approxlmataly 10 square miles (or 6,400 gross acre.) of properties located Qutolde Its sphere of
Innuence. The Rlv\ll1llda Local Agency Formation CommisslOll (LAFCO) has no CUrrerlt
proposallo change the City's sphere of Influence, but I. overseeing the preparation Of Municipal
Service Reviews (MSFts) a.s part of a reassessmen1 of spheres of influence.
Under Population and Housing, Iha PEIR Indicate. that approximately 77,460 persons resided
In 24,964 mldenUal units within the corporate City limits In 2004. Future devalopment over the
nexl20 years, or to 2025, pursuant to the. proposed General Plan may result In an additional
25.005 new residential units (Includes detached slngle-famlly residential. allached slngle-famlty
10-1
RlVerslllt Offict, 4080 Lcmoa Street, 9lb Floor
P.O. BoX: 14M, iuvertide, CsIl!omla n502.1409
(95/) 955-321JO. PIX (9SI)9SS.31S7
IndloOffice' 82-67SH'W)/lrl,2ndPJoor
Room. 209. tndlo, Callfomi' 92201
(760)86).8217' Fa.-< (760)863.7555
MUlTitlaOffioo' 39493 LoI AJamoa Road.
Mv.nid:a,CaJifumIa92S~
(9S1)60().6]?O.Ptx {9$1)6{)~1A5
8.43
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
Responses w Comments on the Draft EfR
City 01 Temeoula .
Draft EIR - City otTumecula General Plan Update
Pagt2 ot8
residentlal ana mUItJ..famlly r89IdenUat) and 36.2 m~llon square feet of net new nonresIdential
deveIOpm..,~ resulting In up to 54.687 total residential units and 78.3 mUUon square feet 0'
nonresidenual development and provide for a total population capacily of 169.184 persons
wlthfn the Planning Area.
County Planning stat! oilers the following commenle for your consideralion end incorporation
Into tl)e draft PEIR:
1. Approximately 34 square miles of the Planning Area tie outside the city limits. wfthln the
unincorporated area of RJv"",lde County. The City's proposed land use designations do
not reflect existing County land use approvals within tI1e unincorporated areas. For I~ _ 1-
example, the sRe of en approved high-density senior housing project Is proposed for tile
CitY!: Rural dedgnation (maximum intensity 0.2 dWiOlnng unlb per acre). (See the
discussion under item 15 below.) Failure to reflect existing County land use and land
division approvalS mey be expected to lead to an underestimate of overall, cumulative
Impacts on tra1lIe. air polManl emissions. noise, waler supply, and nonrenewable
resource consumption.
/0-\
c,)IJ'f ,
2. The Allematlves analysis should Include consideration of an aUernative that utilizes tile
City's proposed land. use deslgnaUons w1t11ln ile existing jurisdictional bounden.. and the ,.... 'll
County'S land use designations wllhln ils existing junsdlctlonal boundarlas. This study is ..."
merited In lhatlt would provide en analysis. of potential development in the event that the
City were to adopllts proposed General Plan, but not ennex any additional land.
3. The portion of the Planning Area outside city limile Includes approximately 10 square
miles of unincorporated areas not currently toeated within the City's sphere Of influence.
. The Project Desooption of the draft PEIR should cite under what authority the CIty ;" 10- ~
Including the 10 square miles of area oulelda ile sphere of Influence 'as pa~ of itS
Planning Area and whether the City intends to file a proposal to expand Its sphere of
Influence B!ld annex: thiS area.
4. 111era era inCOll$lstencles throughOut the draft PEIR when discussing population,
dwelling units, and nonresidential square footage within the City limits and Planning
Area. For example, the Exeoutive Summary discussion of the Land Use Element 10 -f'
ldentifie. total nonresidential development pursuant to the proposed General Plan as
78.3 mimon square feet (page 1.3). while the Project Description on page 3-8 identifies
total nonresldentiel development a. 76.4 million square. reet (page 3-8). Such
discrepancies need to be ....olved. .
6. The environmental document utilizes Southern CalifornIa Association of Governments
(SCAG) 2000-2025 growth for<lcasts, bulld-out capacity of the proposed General Plan
wllhln the City limits and within the Planning Area. the City of Temacula 2004 Population
Prallle for Cities of Temecula (for eress within City limits only). Murrieta and Western , 0 ~ ~
Riverslda County. and the 2004.Stalo Oepertment of Flnanc. City/County Population
and Housing Estimates (for areas within City limits only). Please Include a c::ornparison
table for these different facto", In the executive Summary or Project Oesooption Section
of the dreft PEIR so thai the ravlewer can cleaoy understand the relationShip between
these factors and whether they support the analyses end findings in various parts of the
draft PEIR.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-44
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
city of Tameeul.
Draft ElR - City of Temecul. General Plan Update
Page 3 of8
.. . page 4-1, under cnvlfOl1mentaJ 8etUn~, ldenOOe. the unincorporated portions of !he
Plennlng Area as being comprised Of 16,480 .eres (or 26 square mil..). Pi.... provide /.:>_.,
an .xplenatlon of why this number Is inconsistent with tho Project Characteristics
discus.lon in Ih. executIVe Summa,}iofth. PEIR. .
7. On Pa~. 5-1, undar EnYlronmenlallmpacts and Mitigallon Measures, the draft PEIR
slates that mllfgation. In addilion 10 measures !hat tho lead agency wiJIlmplement can
also include meaSUT$$ that are withIn the responsibility and jurisdIction of another public
agency pursuant to CECA Guidelines Section 15091(0)(2). To cltethe applicable CECA
section: .
'No public agency shen epprove cr carry out a project for Which an EIR has
been CQrtified which Identiflcs one or more significant enVironmental effects of
the project unl..s tho pUblic agency makes one or more written fll)dings for
.ach of those significant effects, accompanied by a bri.f explanation of the
IaIJonale for aach flndlng." .
'0)-1
It is a violatiOn of CEQA to defer mItigation. This section crearfy doe~ not e~cUse-.the
Ie.d ag.ncy from Id.ntlfylng all feasible mitigatton and conSidering a reasonable renge
of ellemaUves to reduce significant Impacts resulttn~ from the lead agancy's authority to
use its discretionary pow.rs.
8. Under SsclJon 5.2 Agrloultural Resou","", the draft PEIR S_s thai th. project will
"'s.llln a 1.00 lhan slgnlftcant Imp.ct wUh ragard 10 Williamson Act eontractlands, as
there are no WIlliamson Ad contracts in the Planning Area. This statement is incorrecl
There are a number of agricuhuraJ preserves located in the unincorporated areas of the A
Planning Area. Consequently, 1here are numerous parcels located within the boundaries '0 -- ,.,
of an agricultural preserve, many of lhem under active WIlliamson Act contracts.
Easterly of Butterfield Stage Road, there are several large development projects
currenUy being processed through the County of Riverside. each invQMng large lot
resfdentlal development and proposIng cancellation of the effecled agricultural preserve
eonfracls.
9. Please indicate in the discussion under Carbon Monoxlde Hot Spots in Secuon 5.3 Air
Quality wh.thor all exlsUng roadways that are currently operating below an acceptable
lavel of o"",lce (LOS 0), as well as all future Impacted roadways. were monitored and l:>~' I)
Included In Appendix e. If all impact.d roadways haven1 be.n evalualad endl... II
fa%rs used to calculate traffic Impacts are revioed, Ihls study should be revised
accordingly and Included In tile appendix and draft PEIR.
. 10. The discuoslon under 5.4 8Iologlool Resources states on page 5.4-17 !hal
Implementation of the City's proposed General Plan will result in "sfgnlflcant and
adverse~ impacts on rare, threatened, and endangered specles. The dl$cussion under
5.9 Land Use and PlannlngslaleS on page 6.9.1 that the Gen"",1 Plan "was found to IO~ 'I
conflict with" the adopted Western Riverside County Multiple Spacl.. Habitat
Conservatton Plan. However, both sections then mal<e the flnding of less than
significant Impact to biological resources end 10 an adopted regional plan with
Imprementatlon of mitigation measures. One such mitigation measure Is that future
projects comply with ilie MSHCP. For example, ff a Iulura proposed project Ie
inconsistent with the MSHCP because avoidance of riparian/riverIne: areas or vernal
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-45
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
City 01 TemocuJo
Draft EIR - City of T"",el;ulo General Plan Updal<l
Pagfl 4 of 8
P-I'
LOJ.Ji,
11.
POOlS 18 unfeasible, a nnc:lrng of bIologIcally equivalent or superior preservalior'l must be
made in acoordanee with guidelines contained In the MSHCP. Therefore. a finding of
less than significant impact to biological resources cannot be made at thl. program levei
. due to the lack of future projects' specificity.
SecUon 6.10 Noise us.. level of .ervice (LOS) C for edJacent roadways to estimate
maximum level Mure noi.e Impacts. However, SeCllon. 5.3 AJr Quality and 5.13
. rrall6pol1.otion Indicate that severel intersections and freeway ramp. are ourrently ,... _I"
operating at LOS E and LOS F. These intersections and ramps will be further '" ..
"""carbated by eddhlonal traffic resulting Irom ultimate build-out of the Planning />rea.
. Future traffic will also impact new areas at the exIsting roadways by exceeding
acceptable levels of servfce. The analysis In this section of the PEIR shoLJld utilize a
realistic level of service In determining project and cumulatfve noise impacts. Please
revlsa Appendix E and the Noise Sectlcn of the dreft PEIR.
under Section 5.13 Transportation, ~ appears !hat existing traffic conditions were baSed
on studies conducted wlthln the CitY; Dmlts and not within the proposed Planning Area 10
erriv.at average dally trtp (ADT) volumes. These ADTs were then edded 10 future ADT 10 ,':II
volumes based on residential and nonresidential bulld",ut under the prOPOSed General - ~
Plan. The trafflc analysis should address existing conditions of the Project Planning
Area. WithIn the City and unincorporated areas. Please revise the analyses u.nder this
sactlon as well as all affeetGd sections of the draft PEIR.(Le., alrquanty, noise, etc.).
12_
13.
Under the Environmental Sellf~g end Section 5.13 Transportaticn, the draft PEIR
Identifies several intersections and freeway ramps ~at currently operate at LOS E and
lOS F. Impacts to these same inte~ections and freeway ramps rGSulting from
Implementation of trle proposed General Plan are then determined not to be sIgnIficant
since unacceptable LOS already 8Jdsts at these roadways and no new Impacts will result
from the additional ADT volumes. Implementation of the Project Will result. at a ,0-1'
minimum. In dOubling existing ADTs. It cannct accuretely be staled that the I'ro)eel will
not have direct impacts on existing roadways resulting 'rom increased AnT volumes.
This Is an inappropriate applicatIon of CEQA, 'M'lera it states that the envirOnmental
baseline is establiahed at the tlm! the NotiCe of Preparation ls distributed to the public.
This section of the draft PEtR Is Inadequate and lails 10 fully disclose and. analyze
existing and ruture ~efflc Impacts. Please revise this section as well ell effected sections
of the draft PEIR (I.e.. air quality, carbon moncxlde hct spots, noise, etc.) and IdentIfY
mjtigation measures which will reduce said Impacts.
The draft PEIR Identifias that Implementation 01 the Project will resun In significant,
unavoidable, pro)ect~ovel and oumulonve impacts to Air Quality and TransllOrtation, but
that noise Impacts will ba less than slgnificantwllh mitigation. However, page 1-44 of the 10 "I~
Executive Summary states that Nina-eased lraftic noise may have Significant Impact ... in
the long tenn~ and thii1.t "residual Impacts WIll remain slgnlflcanl" Please darlfy wt:aether
or not noise impacts will be significant and ,adverse and Include mitigation measures to
reduce said Impacts.
The draft PEtR end tho City's Land Use Policy end Foous maps shculd tie revised to I
reflect the following existing County land us. epprovals within tho unincorporated area. 10 - I b
14.
16.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-46
Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR
City of Temecula
Dr$ EIR - City of Temecula General Plan Update
Page5of8
. e. An .11.51-acre area at the .outheast comer of the Intersec1ion of Rancho
California Road at Ranmo Vista Road (Assessa(e Percel Numbers 951.140-016
through 951004~18) Is the site of a ..nlor housing and health care complex
approved through Public U.. Permit No. 791, as mo<ll1led by Subslantial 10- I'"
ConfQrmance No.1. This propelty is designated Very High Density Residential
(14,20 dwelling units per acre) WIthin the Community Development Foundation
Component on the SoIltl1west Area Plan. The Cny proposes a deslgnallon of
Rural - 0.2 dwlllllng units per aere on the Cily's proposed Land Use Map, wllhln
Rliral PreselVallon Alea No. 2. This site should be designated High Density
Residential (13-20) on the City Plan. However, _er or not the City moos..
to acknowledge this approved project In I1s laf1d Use Plan, any cumulative
Impaclanelyses and traffic models need to reflect this proJact approval.
. b. An 84.34-acro area southe~y of the Morgan Hili development <_sor's Parcel
Numbers 952.25~08, -012, and -044 tI1rough ...(46) Is the s~e of a 143.lot
subdlvtslon mep approved through TGntaUve Tract Map No. 29473. This propertY
Is designated Medium Density Resldenllal (2-5 dwelling unlls per acre) w~hln the
Community Development Foundallan Component on the Southwest Alee Plan. 10 I.\;.I...
The City proposes a designation of VineyarnsJAgricu~urel on the City's proposed - U
land Use Map, within Rural PreseMltlon Aree No.3. This site Should be
designated low Density ResldenUal (0.5-2.9 dwelling un~s par acre) on tI1e City
Plan. However, whether or not tI1e City mooses to acknowledge this approved
project In Its laf1d Use Plan, any cumulative Impact analyses and Irafflc models
need to reflect this Pllljecl approval.
16. The boundaries of the Rural Preservallon Areas should be modified, at least to the
extent necessary to recogl1ll:e existing County approval. pre-dating the release of this 10 - ,.,
P~. .
17. The above .peclfled projeels In tI1e Rural Preservation Area. reflect only the malor
PlIljects tI1at have been approved. There are a number of otl1er projects in process that
mey need to be addressed In cumulative Impact analysis. Staff offers the following
Information for your oollSlderallon:
Rural Preservation Area - T~ecula Wine Countrv/East Rancho Califomla
Considur the .area bounded by De Portola Road on the north, Anza RQad on the east,
State Highway Route 79 South on tI1e soutl1, and the Teinecula city limits on the west. 10 -\8
This area Is designated for Community Development Foundation Component uaea on
the Southwest Area Plan - Medium Danslty Residential (2.5 dwelling units per ecre) and
Commelcial Tourist The City proposes a de!l9nation of Vlneyards/Agrlcultural (0.1
dwelling units per acre). In tI1ls area, tI1e eight westerly parcels are designated Medium
Density Residential, but.a,. not the s~e Of any major planning cases. However, the
easterly area I. characterized by smeller parcels. end those In the southerly portion heve
been the location for a number of planning cases. These Include an approved lmani
Temple on APN g52-170-005 located northwesterly of the Calle Amez cul-de-sac. The
parcel Jocatad at the northwesterly comer of Stale Highway Route 79 South and Anza
Road (APN 952-170-007).wa. formerly approved for a church 1hrough Public Use permit
No. 764. That permit has since expired, J>ut tha County Is processing a change of zone
al\d oondltional use permR (Change of Zone Case No. 6664 and ConditiOnal Use Permrt
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-47
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft EfR
City Of i'emecula
Dlaft ElR - City of Temecula General Plan Update
Pa9fl8of8
NO. 338T)~ to estabUsh a gaa station, minf-mart, anr;l car wash at thfs locaflon, which Is
designated Commercial Touri.t .
Except for Ihe areas southerly 01 De Portola Road and the Public Use Permit site
referenced above, the County designations within the area identified by the City as EIlsl
Rancho CaIWomla or Temecula Wine Country (an within the Rural Community and
Agriwlture Foundation Components. However,. thare are a number of dlllerences
between the County and Ci1y provisiOns.
The County designates properties located westerty 01 Anza Road. southerly of Peuba'
Road, and n~rtherfy 01 De Portola Road as Estate Danslty. Resldel11lal - Rural
Community (EDR-RC: one dwalllng unll per two acres). The City proposes to designate
this. ares aD Rural Reaident/al with a denEiity slandard of 0.2 dwelling unit per acre, or
one un~ per rIVe acres, with a .mall araa along the northerly .,de 01 De Portola Road
de.lgnatad VlneyardalAgrloolture (0.1 dWelling unit per ecra). However. a reView of
existing 101 Size patterns indicates that tha predominant lot size in this area, other than
the area along the northerty slda 01 De Portela Road, Is In the 2),\ - 5 acre renge. Thus,
use 01 the density standard of 0.2 dwelling units per acre mey resullln an underestimate
of the acluellntensity of this area, with consequent impacts on Ihe accuracy Of projected
levels of trafllc and .eCOndary impacts on the aceuracy o( noise and air quality modeling.
(Tha area on the rlOftherly side of De Portola Road Is characteri<8d by larger lot sizes,
however, this area Is al.o designated EDR-RC on the County's Plan.) It is
recommended that this area be dasignatsd and modeled as within tha City's Very Low
(density) Residential, 0.2 - 0.4 dwelling units per acre.
Northerly of Pauba Road Is a large are. desiQnated as Agriculture within the Citrus
VIneyard Pollcy Area on the SWAP. with some exceptions In the area southerly of
Rancho CaIWornla Road. This Policy Area flanking Rancho Carlfornla Road between
Butterfield staQ' Road on the _t and Anza Roed on the ea.t differs from most
agriooltuml areas in the County In Its allowance lor e five acre minimum lot siZe for t~
maps and parcel maps.. In contrast, !he CIty's proposed Vlneyards/Agrioollure
designation provides for a maximum development Intensity of 0.1 dwelling units per acre
(one dwelling unit per ten acres). While some 01 the area dapicted as Cltru. VIneyard on
the SWAP is proposed as Very Low Re9identlal or Rural Residential on the City'S Land
Usa Policy Map, most of this area Is proposed as within the Vineyards/Agriculture
d..iQnation on the CIty's Map. It Is recommended thet this area retain the
Vlneyards/Agricullure deslQna1lon, except where the Counly designation Is for a higher
Intenslly than Agrtcu~ure, b\ll that the development intensity for thl. designation bll
Changed to 0.2 dwelling unlle per acre.
Northerty of the Citrus Vineyard Policy Are. is enother area desIgnated Estate Densily.,
ResldanUal- Rurel Community on the SWI>J'. The portion of this area southwastariy of~
Calle Contento Is proposed for a designation of Rurel Residential (0.2 dwelUng un~s per
acre) on the City's Plan. It Is recommended that this area be designated as Very Low
(density) Resldentl.al; 0.2 -0.4 dwehing units per sere on the City'$ Plan. .
Rural Preservation Area South.Anza" Road tal SR.79
Tentative Tract Map No. 29473 referenced In 15b. above affecls fl."" of the parcals
,wi~in an. area of fifteen. ~reels located southeasterty of the: Morgan Hill development
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
8-48
10-"
~.
CITY OF TEMECULA
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
.. .
'. CIty.Of Jemecu'.
Draft EIR - CIty of Temecula General Plan UP<late
Page 7 ota
and designated Medium Density Residential on the SWAP. M. this time, there Is no
urban development wHhin this area. However, tentaUva !rect maps I1ava been flied on
flv. Of the other ten propetti.. (!\PNs 952-250-005, 000, 007, ota, end 015). These
!rect maps (32226, 32227, a2775, and 32988) together propose 275 lOts on 93.2 acres.
The.. !rect maps ere presently In the review process, although non. is ready to b.
scheduled for hearing as of this writing. An additional four parcels established through
Parcel Map No. 28289 (/IPNs 952-380-001 through -0(4) are five acres In grots ......
Only one of the flfteen parcels Is 10 acres or larger and Is not the subject of e proposed
subdMslon.
W. recommend that tn. area designated Medium Denslt~ R.sidentlal on the SWAP be
removed fi'om the Rural Preservation Area and be designated for Low or Low Medium
OClnsity ReDldontial developr't'l4nt on the CIty'. land Uee PoliC)' Map. In any event,
consldereflon should be given to the COunty desfgnations of this land in cumulative
Impact analysis and !refflc modeltng.
Ille County does not obJecl to the InClusion at the remainder of the depicted .rea
southerly and easterly of the Morgan Hill developm.nt within the Rural Preservation
~a, as depicted. Howev.r, bearlng In mind that the majority of this area Is designated
Rural Residential on the SWAP. the City should either deslgnat. tha properUes Rural
Residential or change the density within \he Vlneyards/Agricullural designation to 0.2
dwelling units per acre as recommended above.
The City's Policy Map and Focus Map diffar with respect to the treatment of the area
located on the south side of Stala Highway Route 79 South, westerly of An%a Road.
The Focus Map depicts this area as beIng included wtthln tna Rural Preservation Area,
while the Land Use Policy Map depicts this area as being designated for Low Medium
and Low dansity resklaritlal develoPment. We reeommend that the area located
southerly of State Highway Route 79 South, northarly of Temecula Creek; and w..teriy
of Mz;j Road be removed from the Rural Preservation Area.
FrenCh Vallev Future Growth Area
In genaral, the City's proposed land ~.. designations for this area appear to conform to
County land usa designations. Give.n the dlffarences In ranges between the City and
County designations, direct comparison for the ultan density areas is not simple.
However. we have Identified one area where there are discrepandes. TIle northeast
quarter of the northwest quarter of Section 4 consists of sixteen pal"Cels. each about 2%
acres In size. This area Is designated as Estate Density Resldenttal within the Rural
Community Foundation Component (ona dwelling unit per two acres) on the SWAP.
The City proposes a designation of Rural. Residential (0.2 dwalling units par acre);
howevar, If a. residence Is allowed on eath existing lot. this area will build out al a
density of 0.4 dweltlng units per acre. This should be consldared in analyzing
cumulative impact and traffio analysis. Given tha existing lot size pattern. we
recommend that this area be designated Vary Low density ReS:identi~1 on th4t City'o
Land Usa Policy Map.
Tha City may also wish to consider re-deslgnaflon of Ihe southeast quarter of tha
southwest quarter of Section 33 as Very Low density Resldantial, as this area Is also
designated Estate Density Residential- Rural Community on the SWAP.
'.
I~-I'l
c:.olJt.
8-49
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PlAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
:Clty ofTemecuJa
Draft E1R - City of Temecul. General Plan Upd.te
Page 8 of8
The orall PI!IR provides an analysis of tile potential environmental impacts of the City's
propossd Geneml Plan. n the General Plan is a policy doeumsn~ msny of the mlllgation 10.. r lit
measures Identified to mitigate potential Impacts are policies and may not he effective as
millgalion. The draft PEIR should elOa~y IdentIIY actions reqUired by the City to make sold
pol/de. vlabie O.e., resolution, ordinance, ete.).
Thank you for considering 0"- commonls and for the opportunity to review the draft PEIR for the
City of Temeeula General Plan Update. ~you should have any qussllons regarding these
comments, please cenlae! Kathleen Browna, Urban Raglonal Planner III, at (909) 955-4949.
Sincerely,
Y:\T~ONN!!IDERLOg'Rujll,.n'o1OOOO'l'etMIaIIIGP ..E1R.cIoa
,." ..,
ENVfRONMENTAllMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-50
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR
10. Robert C. Johnson, Planning Director, County of Riverside, Planning Department. January
31,2005.
Response 10-1
This comment provides an introduction to the County of Riverside, Planning Department's
comments on the Draft EIR. The introduction summarizes the Project and indicates that the
Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) has no current proposal to change the
City's sphere of influence. This comment does not address an environmental issue nor raise any
question regarding the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. No response is required.
Response 10-2
As stated in the Draft General Plan, under California law, every city must adopt a comprehensive,
long-term General Plan to guide physical development within the incorporated area, as well as to
plan for land beyond the municipal boundaries that bears a relationship to the city's planning
activities. The City of Temecula believes that the identified Planning Area provides a reasonable
measure of the City's present region of interest.
The comment further indicates that City land use designations within the unincorporated areas of
the Planning Area do not reflect approved County plans and adopted land use designations for the
area, and that this inconsistency may underreport and analyze incorrectly cumulative project
impacts.
The City has purposefully chosen to assign lower intensity land use designations in part of its Sphere
of Influence area and other unincorporated areas of the Planning Area than current County plans
provide, as these designations are consistent with overall City objectives for outlying areas specified
throughout the Draft General Plan. The thrust of the updated Generai Plan is to concentrate new
development as infill within the established City framework, and to apply smart growth principles
and reduce greenfields development. Since infill places new development closer to existing
services and complementary land uses, this approach has the ability to reduce overall impacts.
Response 10-3
The City has previously considered using the County's land use designations within the areas that
have been identified for rural preservation. However, this was rejected through the Plan
development process because of the greater impact to the environment and the inconsistency with
the City's long-term goals. A preliminary study indicated that using the County's more intense land
use designations would add an additional 38,000 average daily trips to the City's circulation system.
Using the County's designations is also expected to result in greater noise and air quality impacts.
These increased impacts are not mitigated by the County General Plan.
Per Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft Program EIR examines alternatives which
"would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially
lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate comparative merits of the
alternatives." Given that the County's land use designations in some parts of the unincorporated
portions of the City's Planning Area allow for higher intensity uses than proposed City policy, and
given that such higher intensity may result in greater traffic, air quality, public service, and noise
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-51
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR
impacts than would the Project, such an alternative would not work to reduce significant impacts of
the Project. Thus, CEQA guidelines do not support evaluation of such an alternative, and the
alternative is not examined in the Draft EIR. This is clarified in Section 7.0 of the Final EIR.
Response 10-4
The comment states that the Planning Area includes approximately 10 square miles of
unincorporated areas not currently located within the City's sphere of influence and that the City
should cite under what authority the City is including these areas outside of the sphere of influence.
As per California Government Code 964300, each City is required to prepare and adopt a long-term
general plan for physical development of the city, "and of any land outside its boundaries which in
the planning agency's judgment bears relation to its planning."
As stated on page 1-2 of the Draft General Plan, "While properties beyond the City limits are under
the jurisdiction of Riverside County agencies, they bear a critical relationship to Temecula's planning
activities, and from a visual standpoint, form a significant backdrop to the community. One day,
they may become part of the City, and planning for service extensions, integrated infrastructure, and
high design quality is timely and prudent."
The majority of the area outside the sphere of influence but within the Planning Area consists of
vineyards and agricultural uses located east of the City. As noted on pages LU-20 and LU-21 of the
Draft General Plan, these locations are designated Vineyards/Agriculture, a designation "intended to
promote rural, agricultural, and vineyard uses of properties located to the east of the City within the
Planning Area. Continued operation of vineyards and agricultural businesses on these properties is
vital to the economic health of the City. Through this designation, they are set aside for these
purposes in the future."
No specific proposal to annex or pre-zone these areas or to expand the City's sphere of influence is
contemplated at this time. However, the City acknowledges that these interim steps would be
required prior to full implementation of the General Plan within the identified areas. The City will
work with the County and Riverside County LAFCO to achieve these long-range objectives.
Response 10-5
In response to the comment the following revision has been included on page 1-3 of the Final EIR:
During this time, approximately 36.2 million square feet of net new nonresidential development
is expected to be developed, resulting in just over ;z&l. 75.4 million square feet of
nonresidential development within the Planning Area.
The revision does not affect any of the impact conclusions contained in the EIR.
Response 10-6
As described in the comment, the EIR analysis includes population data and growth forecasts from
different sources. The following summary accounts for the population data sources that were
utilized in the EIR.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-52
Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR
The General Plan's estimated population increase to 113,421 persons by the year 2025 is based on
planned land uses - specifically, new housing units. The Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) growth forecasts are analyzed in Section 5.11, Population and Housing, but
the build-out capacity of the proposed General Plan was used to describe the environmental effects
of the project due to the following inconsistency with the SCAG growth forecast
SCAG's projections for the region allocate to Riverside County a proportionally greater increase in
population in the future, when compared to Temecula. SCAG estimates that the County's
population will increase by 76 percent between 2002 and 2025, while Temecula's population will
increase by 33 percent. However, historical trends indicate that Temecula has typically experienced
a much greater rate of growth than the County. For example, Temecula grew at an average of
3,062 people a year from 1990 to 2000, an increase of 113 percent. Between 1990 and 2000, the
County population grew by 32 percent. This is expected to change over the next decade as the
City becomes substantially built out Considering these factors, Temecula's future population
appears to be better represented by estimates derived from the land capacity established within the
General Plan. Therefore, the proposed General Plan buildout population of 113,421 persons was
used for the analysis in Section 5. 11, Population and Housing.
California Department of Finance (DOF) data were used to describe the existing population since
DOF bases population estimates on approved housing units, whereas SCAG data utilizes
projections. Thus, the DOF data is better suited to describe existing conditions.
The SCAG growth forecast was used in Section 7, Cumulative and Long-Term Effects because the
Regional Growth Projections Method is the appropriate methodology for evaluating cumulative
impacts for a project such as a General Plan, as it provides general growth projections for the region
and considers long-term growth. The SCAG growth forecast data that were used for the cumulative
impacts section included the Western Riverside County Council of Governments (WRCOG) region
The environmental effects of the project are most reliably predicted using General Plan buildout
estimates. As each of the other sources is used for a limited purpose, no comparison table is
required.
Response 10-7
In response to the comment, the following revision has been made to page 4-1 of the Final EIR:
The unincorporated portions of the Planning Area, comprising 16,180 15,360 acres (;u, 24
square miles), are more rural and agricultural in character.
Response 10-8
The Program EIR for the updated General Plan analyzes the impacts and identifies all feasible
mitigation measures to reduce the impacts associated the implementation of the General Plan.
Impact mitigation has not been deferred, and a reasonable range of alternatives was considered.
CITY OF TEMECUlA
8-53
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR
Response 10-9
The City acknowledges that numerous parcels within the unincorporated areas of the Planning Area
are located within the boundaries of a Williamson Act contract. In response to this comment, the
sentence regarding Williamson Act contract lands has been deleted on page 5.2-1 of the Final EIR.
The City's proposed General Plan emphasizes the preservation and protection of prime
agricultural lands. Many such lands are designated as part of one or more Rural Preservation
Areas in the Land Use Element, discouraging their conversion to urban uses.
Mitigation measure AG-1 (General Plan Implementation Program 05-28) in the EIR requires the City
to recognize existing agriculture preserve contracts and promote additional preservation contracts
for prime agricultural land in rural preservation areas. This measure illustrates the City's
commitment to agricultural preservation. With mitigation incorporation, implementation of the
Draft General Plan will have a less than significant impact on Williamson Act contracts or other
agricultural lands within the Planning Area.
Response 10-10
As described on page 5.3-11 of the Draft EIR, selection of intersections to be analyzed for carbon
monoxide hot spots was limited to those intersections experiencing the worst level of service (LOS)
conditions, in combination with proximity to sensitive receptors. The following intersections these
criteria and were analyzed within the Draft EIR:
. Rancho California Road and Old Town Front Street
. Ynez Road and Rancho California Road
. Ynez Road and Rancho Vista Road
. SR-79 North and 1-15
No significant impacts from carbon monoxide hot spots were identified.
Response 10-11
The Initial Study and the Draft EIR concluded that the Project could conflict with the Western
Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) since areas of the MSCHP
might lie within the City boundary and other portions of the Planning Area. The General Plan is a
guide for development and conservation. The MSHCP seeks to conserve flora and fauna species
and habitats. As noted on page 5.4-16 of the Draft EIR, Draft General Plan policies require
development proposals to identify significant biological resources and provide mitigation, including
the use of adequate buffering and sensitive site planning techniques, selective preservation,
provision of replacement habitats; and other appropriate measures to protect sensitive habitats
(General Plan Policy 05-3.1). The Draft General Plan also calls for the City to work with nonprofit
groups, the County, and other interested parties to set aside and enhance areas containing
significant biological resources (General Plan Policy 05-3.2). One of the key features of biological
resource protection is the City's inclusion of MSHCP policies and programs within the Draft
General Plan. As a signatory agency, the City will continue to work with the County of Riverside
and other implementing agencies to ensure that sensitive biological areas throughout the County
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-54
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
are protected from future development and habitat conservation measures are incorporated into
the development review process.
Additionally, biological resources mitigation measures B-1 through B-11 require the execution and
monitoring of MSHCP requirements within the General Plan Planning Area. Thus, given the
programmatic nature of the Draft EIR and the long-term time frame for the General Plan, the goals,
policies, and implementation programs within the General Plan and the mitigation measures in the
ErR serve as effective and appropriate means of addressing any potential impacts. At the
programmatic level, impacts associated with the MSHCP will be less than significant with mitigation
incorporation, supported by the goals and policies of the General Plan. Significance of impacts to
the MSHCP resulting from specific future development projects pursuant to the General Plan will be
determined on a project-by-project basis. if project-level impacts are identified, specific mitigation
measures will be required per CEQA.
Response 10-12
Noise analysis in the Draft ErR is based on roadway traffic volumes rather than level of service
(LOS), as indicated by the comment. The existing and future noise contours found in Appendix E of
the Draft EIR were calculated using average daily traffic (ADT) volumes per roadway segment. LOS
measures are used in the analysis contained in Section 5.3, Air Quality and Section 5.13,
Transportation. However, the analyses completed for air quality and transportation are independent
of the noise analysis found in Section 5.10, Noise.
The comment appears to refer to noise mitigation measure N-S, and the City's practice of utilizing
LOS C to estimate future noise impacts. The LOS is used in this case for noise mitigation since it
estimates free-flow roadway conditions and produces the maximum community noise exposure
(CNEL).
The use of ADT for noise analysis is standard practice; no further analysis or revisions are required.
Response 10-13
The comment correctly notes that existing conditions were summarized for roadways within the
City limits. However, future conditions were derived from the City's traffic model, which includes all
of westem Riverside County. Hence, the future ADTs were not derived from any additive process
in which existing volumes formed a base. Rather, the future ADTs were actual future modeled
volumes for future land uses as defined within the Draft General Plan Land Use Element.
The existing peak-hour intersection analysis addresses only those locations identified as Principal
intersections, as described in the Draft Circulation Element. The number and location of Principal
Intersections will change over time as local conditions change. All are currently located within the
existing City limits.
Response 10-14
The comment states that as per CEQA, the baseline is established at the time the Notice of
Preparation (NOP) is distributed. In the case of this EIR, the NOP was distributed on June 4, 2003.
Therefore, the existing conditions or baseline of the project for traffic conditions is 2003. The traffic
data were collected during 2002 for this project and at the time of the baseline traffic analysis, the
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-55
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR
following three study intersections did not meet the City's performance standard of LOS 0, as
described on 5.13-6 of the Draft EIR:
. Jefferson Avenue at Winchester Road - LOS E at P.M. peak hour
. Nicolas Road at Winchester Road - LOS E at A.M. peak hour
. Old Town Front Street at Rancho California Road - LOS E at P.M. peak hour
Additionally, the following three ramps did not meet Caltrans' performance standard of LOS E
(maximum 1.00 VIe), as described on page 5.13-7 of the Draft EIR.
. SR-79 South Northbound On-ramp - LOS F at A.M. peak hour
. Winchester Road Southbound Off-ramp - LOS F at A.M. and P.M. peak hours
. Rancho California Road Southbound Off-ramp - LOS F at A.M. and P.M. peak hour
These three intersections and three freeway ramps are currently deficient. Over time, development
pursuant to General Plan land use policy will result in the addition of trips at these currently
deficient locations. In recognition of the existing deficiencies and anticipated further deterioration
in the absence of any improvements (due to project traffic and regional traffic, as noted on page
5.13-15 of the EIR), the General Plan Circulation Element includes extensive roadway system
improvements to address the long-term impact. Table 5.13-9 beginning on page 5.13-20 of the EIR
identifies these planned improvements, as they are part of the project.
With implementation of the project, the intersection of Old Town Front Street and Rancho
California Road will be the only intersection among the three currently deficient intersections that
will continue to operate at LOS E in 2025. Implementation of roadway improvements pursuant to
the Draft General Plan is anticipated to improve the operation of the intersection from 0.96 ICU in
2002 to 0.91 ICU in 2025. The project does not create a new LOS E condition at this intersection
or worsen its operation to LOS F. Impact to Old Town Front Street at Rancho California Road is
therefore less than significant.
In the future, the SR-79 northbound on-ramp, Winchester Road southbound off-ramp, and Rancho
California Road southbound off-ramp will continue to operate at LOS F in 2025. Long-range
implementation of the General Plan does not create a new LOS F condition at these ramps,
although the project will add traffic and increase the VIC at these locations. However, this impact
does not meet the City's criteria for significance. No Statement of Overriding Considerations is
required.
New roadways and intersection improvements are identified in the proposed Roadway Plan
described on pages 5.13-9 through 5.13-11 of the Draft EIR. Table 5.13-5 on page 5.13-13 of the
Draft EIR compares the existing and future (2025) Planning Area land use and trip generation.
Additionally, Table 5.13-6 on page 5.13-15 of the Draft EIR describes how new roadways and
freeway connections proposed in the Roadway Plan will have a key role in expanding system
capacity because existing facilities, particularly Winchester Road and Rancho California Road,
currently operate near capacity. The Draft EIR provides a comprehensive discussion of existing and
future traffic impacts, and no further analysis is required.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-56
Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR
Response 10-15
In response to the comment the following sentences have been removed from the EIR, as shown on
page 1-45 of the Final EIR. The revision is made to be consistent with Section 7, Cumulative and
Long-Term Effects.
Futurc development will generate construction noise from individual de~'Clopmcnt projccts that
may affect adjoining uscs in tAe sAort tcrFfl. Incrcascd traffic noise may have significant impact
to residcnccs and SCAOOI5 ncar tAC frcewa'is in tAe long tcrm. \!VAilc policies included in tAe
Draft Ceneral Plan will reducc tAesc impacts to tAe e)(tent possible, tAC rcsidual impacts will
remain significant.
Response 10-16a
This comment requests a technical change to the Draft General Plan Land Use Policy Map and does
not raise any environmental issues associated with the General Plan EIR. Proposed General Plan
Land Use Policy Map and other technical changes to the General Plan will be considered by the
City. The City recognizes that change should be made to the Land Use Policy Map at this location.
This recommendation will be made to the Planning Commission and the City Council at the public
hearings scheduled for adoption of the General Plan.
Response lo-16b
This comment requests a technical change to the Draft General Plan Land Use Policy Map and does
not raise any environmental issues associated with the General Plan EIR. Proposed General Plan
Land Use Policy Map and other technical changes to the General Plan will be considered by the
City. The requested change represents a potentially significant increase in average daily trips and is
contrary to the goals of the General Plan. See also Response to Comment 10-3.
Response 10-17
The opinion stated is acknowledged. The requested boundary changes for Rural Preservation Areas
found on the Land Use Focus Areas figure in the Draft General Plan do not raise or address any
specific environmental issue raised within the EIR. Any concerns regarding the Land Use Focus
Areas Map in the Draft General Plan should be expressed to the Planning Commission and the City
Council at the public hearings scheduled for adoption of the Draft General Plan.
Response 10-18
Please refer to Response 10-17. The City has purposefully chosen to assign lower intensity land use
designations within the identified Rural Preservation Areas and other unincorporated areas of the
Planning Area than current County plans provide. This approach is consistent with overall City
objectives for outlying areas specified throughout the Draft General Plan and mitigates the
environmental impacts of unplanned development. Any concerns regarding the Draft Land Use
Focus Areas Map and the City's planning objectives within the identified areas should be expressed
to the Planning Commission and the City Council at the public hearings scheduled for adoption of
the Draft General Plan.
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-57
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft EfR
Response 10-19
The Draft EIR contains mitigation measures for all environmental issues areas that are directly
related to the City's General Plan Implementation Program, as referenced at the end of each
mitigation measure. All of the Draft EIR mitigation measures are General Plan Implementation
Programs. The City's General Plan Implementation Program identifies specific actions to achieve
the goals, policies, and plans in the General Plan. The mitigation measures in the EIR will be
recorded and tracked through the Project's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as
required by CEQA.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-58
Responses to Comments on the Draft EfR
e
...,-rJ
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
TRANSPORTATION AND
LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY
1ransportation Department
m"'lSlo.
~."......"'l1
...:;..~
lhn"" A. }cAfI#Ofl. P.E.
DINtlor of Tnwptn'kllinfl
January 31, 2006
Mr. Davld Hogan, Principal Planner
City of Tem'lCUla
43.200 Buslness Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Lerre~ 1\
AE: Draft Envlronmenl!lllmpact Repon (OaR) for the City of Temecula
General Plan Update
Dear Mr. Hogan,
The Riverside County Transportation Department has reviewed the Draft EIR for the
City of Temecula General Plan Update. We appreciate the .opportunlly to review and
C<lmment on this dooumenl
In ongoing discuSsions with fhe County, the CIIy as been an advocate of developing
strategIes to address the Impacts of growth on the regional arterial and freeway system
throughout southwest Riverside County. The Cily haw cons/stenUy emphasized the II _,
need to plan and Implement a circulation system (regiOnal arterials and freeways) that
can accommodate future lrafflc. As such, thE> City has challenged the County to
develop a perfoll1lanoe based circulation improvement program to ensure adeque.te
capacity will be prOVided on the artertals and freeways to accommodate growUlln the
region. The City's Gene",1 Plan dces nof evaluate freeway capacity or impacts. The
propoSed GeneraJ Plan also laoks a perfonnance based infrastructure ImpfOV<lment
program. Please show US how the City intends to address the freeway and regional
arterial Challenges with an adequately funded Infrastructure phaslng program.
. Based upon our review of the documen~ the Transportation Department has the
following comments:
1. The lrafflc analysis d09ll.not address lramc Impacts to the freeway system.
Neither the Exlsting ADT Volumes (Figure2-1), nor the 2025 AOT Volumes
(FIgure 4-1) indicata any traffic volumes on either 1-15 or '-215. There. i. .no I' -1.
analysis anywhere in the report of impacts to the freeway mainline. The only
analysis. of freeway Impacts is limited to local access Interchange.. The
4080 Lemollo Suea, 3t1l FIoot. Rlversi4&. Californill 92501 . (951) "'-6740
P.O. Box 1090. Rlvenide, CalifOmw 92502.1090. ~AX (9.51) 955-319$
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-59
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
'., ",
January 31, 2000
Mr, OavICI Hogan, Principal Planner
RE: DEIR for City of Temecula General Plan Update.
Page 2
analysis should be expanded to evaluate and address impacts to the freeway In. 'l..
system. GOt.1\.
Land' use assumptions for the unincol)lorated area of French Valley are
inconsistent with the County's Highway 79 Policy Aroa (0 2.7, copy
enclosed), which calls for a 9% reduction In residential trip ganeratlon. The
plan should be revised to recognize and implemenlthls trip reduction strategy
for the French Valley area.
2.
3.
The traffic analysis for the unincorporated portions of the City's plan should
also be oonsIstent wlth the County's policy relaliva 10 commercial
development (LU 23.2, copy enclosed). The policy requires thai once 40% 0/
all designated commercial properties have developed, further commercial
development must demonstrate a ma0f<91 need, as well as provIde for the full
mitigation of traffic Impacts. II is further assumed thai the remainder of the
commerclany designated properties may need to convert to medium density
reSidential. County policies call for a program to monitor and Implement such
limitation, as should the city's General Plan for the unincorporated areas.
The Oraft EIR Suml!l8lY of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures
(Table 1-1) indicates that the City will Implement certaln procedure. and
program. 10 monitor and mitigate impacts to transpoo1a1lon infrastructure,
however, there sre no policies conlained in the General Plan nor In the Draft
EI R which would indicate a commitment to implement such procedures and
program..
The table furll1er Indicates that six interchange locations will operate at LOS
F. Additionally, the levals of service reported in Table t-1 do not coincide wllh
levels of selVlce repolled in the traffic study or In other secllons throughout
the draft EIR. These Inconsistencies must be reconciled.
4.
\I-~
II-At
IIwS"
Further, lhe statement attached to Table 1-1 that mitigation measures are
required to reduce the level of Impact Is vague and ambiguous. Mltigallon
measures should be specific and performance-based to link Infrastructure
Improvements to development Impacts.
5. The Roadway Plan (Agure 3-3) contains a number of inconsistencies when
compared to the County General Plan Circul;\t1on Element (copy enclosed)
for the unincorporated areas Incluaed In the Clty's General Plan. I' _" Ol.
a, SR 79 (WInchester Road) In the CIty's Roadway Plan is designated as an
8~ane Urban Arterial within the City, and as a 6~ane Principal Allertal in
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
S-60
CITY OF TEMECULA
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
January 31, 2005
Mr. David Hogan, PrInCipal Planner
RE: DEJR for City of Tem""ula GBIleral Plan Updale
Page 3
the County Area. The County currently has an MOU with CaHrans and the
City of Murrieta (copy enclosed), which defines Mure access, right Of way
and Imprpvemenls for SR 79 between Hunter Road anI! Domenlgoni
Parkway. The MOU calls for a 184' rlw from Hunter Road fO Keller Road.
and a 220' rlw from Keller Road to the Domengonl Parkway. Both typical
cross sections call for 6-1ane Improvements thaI could be expanded to
accommodate 8-lanes within the designated righl of way. The Clly's plan
should be revised 10 be consistent with this MOU.
b. The City plan has upgraded the designation 01 Ann Road to a .-lane
PrlnclpaJ ArterlaJ as the planned roadway approaches the new planned
interchange on 1-15 80IIlherly of SR 79 South. We agree with thla revision
and commend the City for this cllClllation nelYiork enhancemenl. However,
the City plan designates Anza Road In. the unincOrpQrated area as a 2-
lane Rural Highway, while the Courity designates Anza Road as a 4-1ane
Major Highway. The remafnder of the City pcll/on carries a similar 4-lane
Major Arterfal designation. Anza Road, In combination with or as an
alternative 10 Butterfield Stage Road, could funCllon as lhe "Eastem
Bypass" which has been the loplc of muoh discussion belYieen the City
and Ihe County. The traffIC analysis assumes that the 2~ane Aural
Highway has ia capacity of 20,000 vehicles per day. Our analysis and
experience with such 2-lane rural roadways Indicates that thiS Is an overly
optimistic estimate of capacity, which Is more In the range of 13,000
vehicles per day. More over, lhe 2025 forecast traffic volumes on the
northerly reach of Anza Road Indicates daily trafflo volumes approaching
nearly 30,000 vehicles per dey. By either standard, the forecast volumes
clearly exceed 2~ane capacity. II Is our recommendation !hat the City
adopt a dasignation thaI more Closely reflects the County 4-lane Major
Highway designation. .
c. Rancho CaIWornia Road In the City Roadway Plan is also designated as 2-
lane Aural Highway. The County designates this faolllty as a Mountain
Arterial (110' rlw), which has a number 01 optional oross sections ranging
from two to three to four~lln$s, depending upon traffio demand and local
cond'rtions. At present the road Is a1ready3.lanes, which Includes a center
left turn lane. It Is our recommendation that the City develop a standard to
match the County's Mountain Arterial designation.
I H....
tot.1r.
ll-4b
II -" Co
6. The traffic study lJlm"es the ICU methodolOgY to calculate level of service. and
Indicates, .on page 2-5, that the ICU values are calculated on the basis of
Ideal operaUng conditions, while. suggesting that physical constraints may If'"
prevent Ideal conditions from occurring. The use of tI1e ICU metl1OC1ology 10
8-61
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
We believe that the use of the ICU methOd produces unrealls1fCa11y Optimistic
results at several locations. For example, the study repor!$ an exlstlng LOS C
at the 1-15 NIB ramp&' Winchester Road intersection. The HCM methOd for
!his sam. location Indicates LOS E, whloh Is more consistent with actual 11-'
observed operaUOns at this Intersection. Similarly.. the Winchester
RoadlMargarila Road intersection Is reported to operate at LOS 0 lor the Co~ .
exlstlng PM peak hour. The HCMmethOd indicates LOS F. egafn more
. consistent with actual observed operation. As such. we believe thal the ICU
methOd has consistently underststed traffic impacts for both existing
. conditions and future year forecasts.
In addition, the Drall EIR Is internally inconsistent with respect to the
methoclology used to determine traffle /mpaols, as the Noise and Air Quality
sactions of the Draft EIR have used the HeM melho<l and report different
Iavels of service for the same Intersections. We recommend thatlhe level 01
service calculations be revised to consistently utilize the. HCM methOd
throughoulthe document.
The !raffic analysis only addresses impacts within the City boundaries, whOe
other elements such as No/se and Air Quality consider the entire Planning
Area. Including unlncolpOrated areas adjacent to ll1e City. Omitting the
analysis oItralflo bnpaols lor the unincorporated areas is inconsistent wllh lhe
remafnder 01 the draft General Plan. The traffic stlJdy needs to be revised and
expanded to address the whole Planning Area.
The baseline data used to establish e>dsting condi6ons Is very outdated I
(200012002). Generally baseline data should be no more than one year old. .
The baseline data needs to be updated to refleCt current !raffia volumes.
Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR
January 31, 2005
Mr. Dav/cl Hogan. Prfncipal Planner
RE: DEIR for City 01 Temeoula General Plan Update
P~e4 .
calculate level 01 service is inconsistent with currant transportation Industry
standards for traffic Impact analysis and lI1e Clly's OWn gu/clelines for 1I1e
preparation of traffic impact studies. The Coun1y 01 R1IIerside reguires
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methcclologlea to assess the levsl 01
service measurement.
7.
B.
9.
The traffic study lorecasts future VOlumes only 10 the year 2025. It is typical
when anall"lng General Plan Impacts to evaluate build out 01 the . General
Plan. WhHe the City.may assume that the entire City area will be bulldout by
2025. that Is not a reasonable assumption lor the surrounding area. We
recommend that the analysis be revised and expanded to Include a buiiclout
scena~o.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
8-62
II-ca
11-'"
\HO
CITY OF TEMECULA
Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR
~ilnuary 31, 2005
Mr. Davld Hogan, Principal Planner
RE: DEJR for City of Temeoula General Plan Update
page 5
10. The traffic study, page I-I. Indicates that the traffic forecasts for the analysis
were derived from the City of Temecula TraffiO Model. We would like to verify
that this model Is consistent wilh the County's RCIP traffic model, particularly
with respect to land use and network assumptions for the adjacent County
unincorporated areas, as the future year forecasts do not appear to match
with fOrecasts obtained from the RCIP model.
11-1\
For example, the future year peak hour volumes at the Winchester
RoadIMunieta Hot Springs Road Interseotion are very low compared to
forecasts Which have .u.ed the I'ICIP model a. a basis. Specifically, the
northbound left tum movement Is ""own to be 0 and the eastbound left turn Is
shown as 100 vehicles, while recent count data Indicates cUrrent volumes of
167 and 315, respectively. We can see no logical eXplanation S<JCh a drastic
reduction in \\Imlng movements for future year scenarios. An RCIP model
output has projected signiflcantlnoreases in volume for future years.
We recommend that the traffic analysis be reviewed for consistency with the
RCIP model.
We are prepared to work with the CIty to address these issues and reach a mutual I
understanding 01 \he tmfflc ImpaCl$ aSsociated with the CIty's new l3eneral Plan, along I' -12-
with the CIty's approach to policies and programs which the City plans to Implement In
order.to mitigate traffic impacts.
Please feel free to contact Ed Studor, Administrative Manager, at (951) 95S-B767
should you have any questions or wish to discuss these comments further.
Sincerely,
~ohn~~
Director 01 Transportallon
GAJ:ES:es
EnClosures
ce: :Supervisor Jeff Stone, Third District
. Tony Carstens. TlMA Director
Greg Neal, Agency Program Administrator
CITY OF TEMECULA
8~63
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
in~I-~l_n _'-,---\\).
I rT--'n""-~i- ''\1
I'~_u___! -i---.""---...----:.-~.f ~-p~
i I .: i '----,
I I f-'--.'.
:----J '..!
-T
ijJf~
'., .
I I
. . 'n..~__..L
I
,;
\
!
I.
I
,
!,
/
./ "
^ /\ - -----.../--.-
,,/ v < \ J
" . \
'""\ \" ~'x:
. /',,', ;/
// '\ \<' i Temecula
. \.....
l '..... \: ~
; __ "', '1 \~\ _n., . /
. ,", '\' '---" J ~
.'-~- \ /-----'--/
\j \.; \
J--
!
.---'-
;
~ Highway 79 Policy Area
CJ Area Plan Boundaty
.... @ ~c.
~ "--~-=-~"
~--".._~.,._"><,."..-'._.
"'.....,..."."~...,..,,.'.."'-,
.~ ,..,'""!....... ,.,.. L.:.'~~.,... ,_ "'~...,"'.~~
.'"'~......_._,.,,"'~-" ~......._-,;..'..
~."~" ~,.'.",<i.._,,< -"""_"'<""_"" ....~._
;;:;'.-':'~'~;:::":':'.:::::,~::':,7""':~,"::':;:;::;..';::::':
......-..,--.. "-'.,+,....._.'~..""',,"...;- ."...~,~
~~::::.:;,::~~:::':;;;-~~:.:~::~.~.~:-:,1::;:::':: ~~.
:..':': ': :'~ ::,~:;.;::: '.: .:;-;::;;~, :;.~..:.:, ;- ~;;:::;~ :,..
,...."',..."'-.,~"''"_.o';."''"
FigllrcC-2
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
HIGHW A Y 79 POLICY AREA
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-64
(9.......
",' .....
, .
R' ~.
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
County of Riverside General Plan
Circulation Element
C2.5
The cumulative and indirect traffic impacts of development may be
mitigated through the payment of various impact mitigation fees such
as County Development Impact Fees. Road and Bridge Benefit
District Fees, and Transportation Unifonn Mitigation Fees to the
extent thai these programs provide funding for the improvement of
facilities impacted by development.
C2.6
Accelerate the consttUction of transportation infraslructure in the
Highway 79 Policy Area (Figure C-2). The County shall require that
all new development projects demonstrate adequate tr,uwponation
infrastructure capacity 10 acconunodate lhe added traffic growth. The
County shall coordinate with cities adjacent to the policy area 10
accelerate the usable revenue flow of existing funding programs, thus
assuring that transportation infrastructure is in place when needed.
C2.7
Establish a program to reduce overuU trip generation in the Highway
79 Policy Area (Figure C.2) by creating Il trip cap on residential
development within this policy area which would result in a net
reduction in overall trip gencrntion 000,000 vehicle trip per day
from that which would be aDticipated from the Genera.I Plan Land
Use de.~i8natiOl1s a.~ cu.m:ntly recormnended. The policy would
generally require all new residential developments proposals within
the Highway 79 Policy Area to reduce trip geoemtion proportionally,
and require that residential projects demonstrate adequate
transportation infrastructure capacity to accommodate the added
growth.
Page Cl0
Chapler 4
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-65
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
8"0"::<,,
i. . '",. .
R \,"
m
RoOf Aru Ratio (FAR) is measvted
bydividingthe/'ll.llllbe(dsquarufeef
ofbUilding by the rwmberdsquare
feetdlhsparcei.For9X8lllple,a
1hr9&-story,6O,OOOsquanHool
bvRrDng (20,QOOsquare fsef pel floor)
ona2C,OOOsquar&-kJtiparcelhaaa
FARof3.0.
County of Riverside General Plan
Land Use Element
CommerciJll Re'lllil (CR) - The Commercial Retail land use designation allows
for the development of commercial retail uses at a neighborhood, community
and regional level, as weIl as for professionsl office and tourist-orienu:d
commercial uses. Commercial Retail uses will be permitted based on their
compaiibility with SUJTOllIlding land uses, and based on the amount of
Commercial Retail acreage already developed withio County unincorporated
territory. The amount of land designated for Conunercial Retail development
within tbe County's land use plan exceeds that amount which is anticipated io be
necessary to serve the County's population at build out. This oversupply will
ensure that flexibility is preserved in site selection opportunities for future retail
development within the County, Floor area ratios range from 0.2 to 0.35. (In
order to more accurately pr~ect the actual potential for retail development
within the County unmcorporated areas, and the traffic and environmental
impacts that would result from it, the statistical build out projections for the
General Plan EIR asswned that 40% of the area designated Commercial Retail
might ultimately develop as commercia] uses. It was further assumed that the
remaining 60% of the area designated CR would likely develop as residential
uses within the Medi\l1tl Density Residential iange,)
ColllltUrcifl.J Tourist (C7) - The CouunerciaJ Tourist land use designation allows
for tourist-related commercial uses such as hotels, golf courses, recreation, and
amusement facilities. Commercial Tourist uses will be pennitted based on their
compatibiJity with surrounding hmd uses, Floor area ratios mnge from 0.2 to
0.35.
Commercial Office (CO) - The Commercial Office land use designation allO'NS
for a ...-ariety of office uses, including financial institutions, legal services,
insurance services, and other office and support services. Commercial Office
uses will be permitted based on their compatibility with surrounding land uses.
Floor area ratios range from 0.35 to ] .0,
Pollde.:
The following policies apply to commerciaJly designated properties within the
Community Development General Plan Foundation Component, as further
depicted on the area plan land use maps,
LU 23.\ Accommodate the development of connnercial uses in areas
appropriately designated by the General Plan and area plan land use
maps. (AI 2, 6)
Community De5igD
LV 23,2 Once 4()<'/o of the area designated Commercial Retail within any Area
Plan is bu.ilt out. commercial retail development applications that are
proposed. within that Area Plan will only be considered for approval
based on demonstrated market need, as well as a demonstrated ability
to accommodate the traffic impacts the development will generate.
(All)
LU 23.3 Site buildings along sidewalks, pedestrian areas, and bicycle routes
ami include amenities that encourage pedestrian activity. (AI 3)
Page LU-58 Chapter 3
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
8-66
CITY OF TEMECULA
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
~
~
\ : ~
) I
//
j,~
,
~_/
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-67
'e,\;. .~~7
~ .W),W
s '~C(_
;1 z z
'. <; 0
;f ; ~ 0: ;::
<
'f <{ -'
'. ~ ::::.
n :::I. u
I " <{ E
i ~ ij; U
i' ..
f; , ~ ~
i) I. :t
'it j; ~
,.
d 1j ~
1;' , ~
. . d V;
1 j $ ~
01' 10
;
I
;
"
r
.,,,
:--',-
,
t
ii
,
" h
~! .
L~
@~
~t21
l
~
~;' <,
~ ~ j
j-;':.J
H ~ r
",-),,'
I II
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft. fIR
~
, .
f i';
~
181
i .
~
H c
8
0 0
; ~
. g
~ ~
-0.
o! l
'.
SuBMITrALTO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
t:;;A
X!i
l\Cll.\~
FROM: TLMA - Transportation Dept.
SUBMITTAL DATE:
June 7,2004
SUBJECT: Stale Route 79 MOU with Caltrens
.
~
"
~
"
'0
RECOMMENDED MOTION: APPROVAL of Memorandum of Underslanding with
Callrans for Stale Route 79 North (Winchester Road)
BACKGROUND: The Transportation Department has been Involved in on going
discussions with Caltrans relative to access and right of way for State Route 79 in the
French Valley Area. These discussions have lead to a general agreement relative to .the
uUimale right of way configuration and access control along the route. Callrans
previously entered Into a similar agreement with the City of Temecula regarding the _
portion of Route 79 within the City from 1-15 to Hunter Road. The subject MOU picks up
the route at Hunter Road and continues through the French Valley Area to the
Intersection with the Domenigoni Parkway. The MOU describes the ultimate right of way
for the route which is planned fo be 184' from Hunter Road northerly to Keller Road.
Between Keller Road and Scott Road the ultimate right of way is planned to transllion to
a 220' right of way and remain at this width all the way to Domenigoni Parkway. This
width is consitent with current planning for the State Route 79 realignment, which Is
under study at present to the north through the Cities of Hemet and San Jacinto.
The MOU also describes the uUimate access configuration for the route, with access
generally limited to minimum half-mile intervals. Some existing acessspoints are
planned to be eliminated in the ultimate configuration, as development occurs in the
area.
--
~
;;
~
6
FORM APPROVED
.- COUNTY COUNSEL
JUN 0 3 2004
B~~Q_
ASSISTANT COUNTY COUNSEL
EDS;jas
./7 /7/.,z
/v~...... :>( /.~~
Goo . Johnson ,F
Director of Transp~tion
(Continued On Attached Page)
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
On motion of Supervisor Venable. seconded by Supervisor Buster and duly eanied by
unanimous vote, IT WAS ORDERED that the above matter is approved as recommended.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Date:
xc:
Buster, Tavaglione, Venable, Wilson and Ashley
None
None
Ju e 15,2004
T nsp., Caltrans, Co. Co., HR.
Prevo Agn. Ref. District: 1 & 3
rm 11p (RI!V 0612003) F:'FILES.FORr.lll\SR 79 MOll U>"l.eed (~M_
3
18
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-68
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
'The Honorable Board of Supervisors
RE: Slate Route 79 MOU with Caltrans
May 28, 2004
Page 2 of 2.
New access points are planned and severai existing access points will be modified to
improve geometries and sight distance; in some cases access will be restricted to right
in-right-out only. All planned access points are for public street connections. The MOU
prohibits any private driveway connections to the highway. During the time period that
this MOU was under development, the City of Murrieta has annexed a portion of this
segment of the route and is now a party to the MOU. The MOU has been executed by
both Caltrans and the City of Murrieta. The Department recommends the the Board of
Supervisors approve the three party MOU to aide us in the review of development
proposals adjacent to the highway and provide consistency with respect to access and
right of way requirements among the jurisdictions involved with this important artery.
CITY OF TEMECUlA
8-69
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR
Memorandum of Understanding
08-Riv-79-PM R6.0/15.8
Hunter Road to Domenigoni Parkway
City of Murrieta .
County of Riverside
State of California, Department of Transportation
May 2004
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
8-70
CITY OF TEMECULA
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
STATE ROtITE 79, HUNTER ROAD TO DOMENlGONI PARKWAY
This Memorandum ofUnderslanding (MOll) is between the State of California, Department
of Transportation (hereinafter Departmenl); lhe City of Munieta (hereinafter City); .and the
County of Riverside (hereinafter County). This MOU consututes a guide to the respective
obligations, intentions' and policies of the City, County and Department to follow in
reviCY(ing, approvin'g and conditioning new development along State Route 79 between
Hunter Road and Domenigoni Parkway. This MOU addresses the existing facility and
acknowledges planning efforts for the ullimate constmcuon of State Route 79 to a 6.lane
controlled access expressway by the City, County and Department. This MOU does not
authorize funding for project effort, nor is it a legally binding contrac~ but is designed to
provide pertinent criteria upon which development review decisions may be based:
Development review criteria:
l UDvrade of Existinf! State Route 79 to the Ultimate ConceDl ~actlitv
The City, County and Department concur with the ultimate concept facility requirements
stip.ulated in the approved Transportation Concept Report for State Route 79 that designates
State Route 79 as a 641ane divided expressway with partial control of access. The aligruncnt
. wilt' generally follow the existing centerline; however. the ultimate facility should be
evaluated for a potential new alignment southerly of Keller Road. Existing and future access
locations are depicted in Exhibits A and B.
/1 Interim ImDrovemen.t Projects
Interim improvements to the.facility include widening of the facility from two to four Janes
and a two~way left turn Jane, and the signalization and widening of local street intersections.
Additional spot improvements are anticipated as traffic demand increases.
(Exhibits A, B and C).
ill. Local Jurisdiction's Plans for Existinv Alirmment of State Route 79
The City and County -agree to preserve right-of-way along the existing alignrnenl for an
ullimate 6.lane expressway: three !ravel lanes in each direction. The City and County shall
hereafter protect right-of-way for 56.12 meters (I 84-feet) from Hunter Road to Keller Road,
per Exhibit D, and 67.2 meters (22().feet) from Keller Road to Domenigoni Parkway, per
Exhibil E, for the 6-lane expressway through development review, and condition
development through their land Use planning and pennit process.
2
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-71
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR
IV. lnlerITovernme1Jta/ Rel'iewlNatio1Ja( Environmental Protection Act
(/GRlNEPAJlPermiu
The City and Counly will actively participate in the project notification process and will
submit new development plans to the Department. The Department will evaluate the impact
on, and the mitigation of impacts to stale transportation facilities. The Department will
ensure that impacts to i11frastmcture under its jurisdiction are fully disclosed -and that
reasonable mitigation is recommended and implemented.
V. lmDrovements and Access Control-Existinv State Route 79
The City and County agree to limit access to State Route 79 in accordance with the
Department engineenng standards. Any proposed or reuse driveway access will be restricted
and any proposed street or Jocal road intersections will be subject to negotiation with the
Department (See Exhibit A).
VI. lntentions
The following criteria and related intentions have been identified and agreed upon by all
parties:
. . The Department, City and County wilt jointly not approve new access along State Route 79
within the limits of this MOU where access can be gained from a local road.
. AU existing private driveway access will be eliminated, In the interim. where access
driveways cannot be eliminated, due to a lack of ~xisting alternate parcel access. access must
be combined to serve multiple. properties, wherever possible, and shall be restricted to rlgbt-
turn in azid right-tUTU out only. Raised medians, acceleration and deceleration transition
lanes will be utilized where appropriate. hnplementation of these control measures will be
detennined on a case-by-case basis.
. The City and County will condition developers for dedication of the right-of-way widths (as
addressed in Section III above) wi_tl4n their jurisdictions as adjacent parcels develop along
this route segment.
. Negotiations will continue between the Department. the County, and the City for the
reconstruction and realigrunent of interim improvements to the state facility.
.
Cooperative agreements may be required in the future to accommodate improvement projects
unknown or unforeseen at this time,
3
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
8-72
CITY OF TEMECULA
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
This MOU may be nlOdified BlIlI\JI limo by Ibo asreement oflbo parties hemo.
Attachments (Exhibit. A, B, C, D, E)
~proved'
()A4t /f/I~/
ANNE MAYER, D~Director
Department ofTransportatioo
Dislrict8
/J ',oJ I ,/')
HON KABLE RI
City of Murrieta
..'".
.'
f\\.. "'.'
....;,.
(t y)'\ \J """ ,
C.\\:)CkM:.
OS
,'-'!' "
Mayor
ROY WILSON, Chairman
Board of Supervisors
County of Riverside
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-73
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft EfR
I~ ~ I~
.,f ~ '"
~" J
. .
o 0
<OJ m :c
il!I!il'I~l!i I~I~I~I~ I~ ~ . . . I~'o '"
~~~~I ~ .~;t~;t I ~ ~ ;t;t;t ;tE~
~Ii! ! ilfi f ~ ~! ~i~ ~ii
.. II:i~ ~ ::~!!~! ~ f\ ~.'- !!~.! : ~i~
~ ~ll~i~~~~~~S~~B~!~~~ro~~~~~~~~
~ a~~-~mi~mc~!c-~c~-~~~~ ~c~rolm
" ":g.~ ~ E " 81H~ EI~.n n~ l!:~ l!:g ~ 0 0 H " 0 0
w~~will~m~ooooo ~ww~mww~ro~w~~ooww~81~
~z . .
Q~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~:. ~
~c~~oc~~~~~ocl~~~~oc~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Uo~oc . OC ~ ~ ococ oc.oc oc
'00 ,
,.,;I'" .
Q~ ..-
~ ~[j -I~.s ~I~I~I:" ~:'!: ~1~1~1~13j~.li -I ~1~ljljI313L"IL)12I.. ..J -I J~
~~I~~M~~M~~MZ JMM~I~~M ~~~M~~MM~~Mn
~w ..
>-
~W~~ia ~~ ca~~.~~Jg~'~~iU~I'~i ro~~~~-ro~~ti ro ro~~~
~~m~ ~~m~~11~ Q~~~ IQ~m~~m0m~~~.~
m>~ >ee>~~ I ~2~~ >~~~~,>~e~>~~-a~
~..l!I1 -e:.sS(!5jgCll S..1::.2:!'c'c-.!lS$~.J::$.re.2-':::'c-$.re.s
~ E~_c~S ~~__ESc~EccSSSS.oSSSOQESS
., .
to-
z
2 NN~~~~am~M~o~~mmm~~~mmaV~M~~~mm
W~~~~~q~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
m~m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~NN~~~~~~~
g ~oc~~~~~~ocococ~ocococ~ococ~~ococococ~~~~~~~
'"
~ ~~m .~O ~o ~mm~No~~~~~~~~.~~~b"
~~o~~~~~~~~~m~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~~~
~~d~d~~~~~~~~oOddOP__NNMM~..V~~~~
o ~~2~~~~OC~ococ~~~oc~~~ococococ~~~oc~~;~;
~ .,' I
~ ; ,.
Z .j
~ ;~.. (~; <:; .!~
~
.';0
; . .... -
i~ 0,
! :;, ~ ~.~.
d! '5 I~ ~.
.~ ~ ~ fu
~ .;yt ~ c 0 ~ I~ .~
.~ ~ € '8 3 8 I ~
~ c: ...., 0 ~ III 0;( ~
.9 -d 'U Z :a~ Cl ~ C,) .
~ s::; ~ a:: , Q) ('II Q) ...
~ ~ (j Iii 0 ~ ill -;:" 5 5 S i~ -" ~
_ill &ll'!~~,g;l! i~~~ H.";; €g!!'n I~
e1::: 'tJ.a~~ ul~ Isl?lr; ~mli:c oa>.c. -oa,<l) !~
~2 !~i~~ 2 g~~ c:~~~ .z~g oc~~ a
~~ 0 .~oc"O~ ~~QD og ~~;BZ"OSDD~ ~
~~ .'tJ~oc'tJo~Q)I~-'tJ'tJ~u'tJ~'tJ~~'tJ~~fii'tJoc~o
L('III~ c~~Q)' ~~!~OC~~~~BE~~ 2o~t .~
~~~~OC~EocE~~;g~ococ~ococ~~oo~oc ~ococ 5E
C~~~~~~~E'~~~~~~;i~~~BQm~~O~~~Q)io
z~~<COOmD~~~~~~oo~a'Duoo00DU~0QQz~o
d!
~ .
~~NM.~~~oom~~~~~~~~~~gN~~~~~~~~gM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
8-74
,
1;'
-0
..,
~ -~
;. ~ c
"
"
E
~
o
.0
u
o
10
.5
~
"
o
8
~
'"
~
o
'x
.w
W
f-
a
z
a
~~
~fa
w
II
o
.S
"
a:
..;
o
o
!::!
.'<t
N
ia
CITY OF TEMECULA
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
J1I"lON
\I .LUIIHX3
eovolI OJ'lncl aa80clOIl'
U ILIIOII I.LV.L8
8AYMIAIIIO aNV
@
~ ;;;
. "'
'"
w .,;
IL N
0:
..
=
@>
;;; ~
~ 0
'" II:
<B>~ ..
Oll. tl:
II:~ 0
z~ IL
O~ .
.. "'. III
.. 0: Z
>C " ..
IL ll.
o '"
II: ~
Z '"
o ~
~ 0...
U "
::I ~
II: '"
.. "'
. ::
z 0:
o '"
u ..
,,- i - ,
i ;;;
f - r ~ I Ii;
L ~ ,., , .
'D 0::: ~ ~ ...
1&1\': ~""'.: ll. I'
. ~.~-\t:Jf.! = Ilt"
~N JC III I ~
~ w ~ 2
<f) ..;1
'"
'"
..
'"
'"
;;;
~
~
'"
0:
..
"
@N
'"
o '"
II: ~
o ~
z '"
>C
'" ~
'" 0:
o "
= ..
N
'...'"
, >..
... "
..,-
l:c v
'5 ~
'''' '"
.. -
,ii? 0:
:> "
,. ..
o
'"
.,;
0:
"
..
o
1
'i
I ~
, e
, !l!
J ...
!!l
, S.
~
f
,l!l
..
J :::
-% .-
J >5 .11
,.~ z,.,..:
!Ii' 'COl.
I 3! ~ '.
J ~J'"
~~
.';',
@
z .. .
0:
"
..
'"
"
ll.
'"
'"
N
@;;;
'"
'" .
i 0:
Ii ..
J~
'"
!i
~
" "
~ ll.
'"
'"
'"
~
@~
" ..
! =
.~ "f
II ;::
e
o
-m
III
)>
>C
II:
ClI
'"
C
f.^
... 0....-0
.. 'L'" o.
: ^~\ ...~
III .~,..).o
.. ,,,,,,- (>..
@jfjf
o
~
"0
,
Q
'"
.
'"
>
,.
1 ~
, '"
, ~
.
0:
ll.
"
Q
'"
'"
0:
~
o
~
. '"
x "
'" ..
jf@
*
* Q
\So
il~
5' ~~
ii , \1),.
"I ?
'"
!J
~
"
~
" g: ,
; ~,
f :: I ~
._ 0: C,...
. .. I 0: .
tI x ~ oJ)
@:i;:' i<;
.- -I ~ ..
x", "
""1 -
~ W (Jl
0:1!!l :l:
", S 0
.. ~-
0:
@ ~
I
,
1
,
,
0' ....'" ,
0:, 0.
.... ~ J
~ 0; __ - _ ..,
;lI CJlI N03' 3Ynln~1
,
~,
ill
it'
'"L
w
!I,
"
, 51 :;l
'"
, .. .
.. '"
, go:
, - ~
z _
, i ..
I '" ~
., ~
'''' '"
_ !J a:
~ "
@20.
..
"
J
'"
/~
.
~
~
"
..
CITY OF TEMECUlA
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
8-75
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
Inll al80ll(lllll aNY IlNIJ.81Xi1
III lI.LYJ.8
;
..
N
I...'"
1:C ~
..-
I; ~
I'" 0
...~
I'" n
1!5 cr
S '"
I'" ..
I ~ i ~
I :f t ~
-~ ... N
I >~ ..ij rr
I ,! ~ Il'l\ ' l:;
!!<!i. Ib'l; -
I J! lS '.,-
I!~ w ~
@2 ~
'"
@ l;!
Q ..
II: ~
'"
i ~
c .;
II. ;;:
II: '"
C ..
ell
I ~
I ...
I:!",
>~
I j!:~
II ~~
~...
I ~
"
..
'"
.. --
'"
'" '"
n ..
~ '"
~ ~
;;: '" N
;;: @ N
.. i
~ .. ,
~
..
0 "
;;; ~
~ i
.; ~ 0
.; '"
a: Ii "'
a: ..:
'"
.. '" ~
.. r
"
..
~.... I t
.01 e"' I a:
. J ~ U; :r
~ ----~ If .~: I:
O~ NO]' 3HnlnJI \. ~ ~ I :it
@I .0 e.;::: Ie
~l "" "Nl"
';;1 -r... L>I ~ I"d
;; ~ ~ ll!
:1 tP.: ~
~I 0,,0. ~
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
'~L-~S 01 lft1nJION]dH3d 03N011Y311 38 OLlI~ *
'1S Y'138Y ONY AOHHflOd 3l11\1nJ 01 OlNOI1Y311 38 01 It*
'03!YNlnI13 38 01 ..
'S1NIOd SSlJJY 035OdOHd QNy
ONUS/X3 03^OlIddY JO SNOI!YJ01 @
ION30:
"
@l;!
* ..
"
"
a: ~
~ '"
~ ":
"
:ll N
cr
" '"
S ..
"'
* 0
Q N
II: ~
. ~
ell
16
II: '"
II. ;
(ij;)~
'"
o
"
~
,.;
;;
i
" -
e N
. g
> .
ij i
..
e.; ..:
"
... ~
N
~
~
8-76
@
~tf'
~o
G
~~
-I
.
'"
:;; '"
,.. - :g
@P ~
_.. Q. a:::
~..: ~Q.
tJ -- r ~
0'Ir.:::\. -
~\.:;:.I~ 0
e ~
'"
o
"'
@::.
",.
Q ..
II: ~
a: ~
\If '"
"" ,;
'"
\If
",'
;;
e-
~
";;*
'" ~ !s
"J..
.:~ ~.
...tt. ~
"'.. "
::i-~ U
.. @
\';i.
\:
\~
~
, :>
..
CITY OF TEMECULA
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR
z
~ ~
.... t.l
... 5 8~
w~ iii !S~
tl l!
..1
~. II ~
~ ...
l , ~
..
~
,",w
a
.
CITY OF TEMECULA
"!..
.~
.-
3 ~ OJ
. - .
" -
.
.
. ~
!,; ~
=
- -
..;::
-~ fo-'-'-'-'-
!"" ~
::~
~
". -
..;.
= -
l
"l
r.
8-77
,.
.
~
~
i
o
!
.Z"
hOle
....
~8i
Ooi
z,.
"a~
~.. ~
=m..
,.
~
Z
.
o
..
.
UI
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
~
~
2
a
is
~
" -
i ~ oJ
~"'':
.
"! 0-
S. = ~
i~ "
"
= "
..
~
~ &;;j~
~ " h....
i . - - "0.
"'I' -- -= ;"i
~ . ":~ ~IZ
i ~- - III..:
.. ......
~'t<-,.;,
-!-
.~ ..
=~ = .
0
"
..
~
.0 - ~
..;~
:
~ ~ 01
~=-
~ "
"t S
W. <
8
.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
8-78
Q
I
~h
i:I ,., i
~
CITY OF TEMECULA
Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR
~ . ~
~ ~
.
.
;~ .
.. ..
o~ a 8~
..;!! 5"
:c
1:1 II
~
Ii:
f;
CITY OF TEMECULA
.
.
.. ~--- 2
~ '"
:!
.
.~
~.
.
i
.-
e~
~
.
~
wQ:-
. 0
- -
. -
...:-.W
.~
Il\
!!
it
- ~
Q -._.~
~
.
,;
.
~
~~
.
. -
o.
. 0
~...=:
I:f
.-
e~
1
0-
..;~
~
..
~
w
~
;;
o
....
:!;
~::
:)~=
oo~
...."
.. w
...0..
:cC:;r:
;~;
:::.
w
.
a
o
.
~
8.79
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR
11. George A. Johnson, Director of Transportation, County of Riverside, Transportation
Department. January 31, 2005.
Response 11-1
The comment is correct that the City's General Plan does not address freeway capacity or impacts.
The commentor requests that the City analyze impacts to the freeway. The General Plan establishes
a policy framework to guide City land use, circulation, economic development, and related
decisions through the year 2025. No new development projects are specifically proposed by the
Draft General Plan. Furthermore, the General Plan does not provide for significantly increased
planned land use intensities that would negatively impact freeway capacity within the Draft General
Pian.
As stated on pages 5.13-1 of the Draft EIR: "Temecula's circulation network includes freeways,
principal arterials, and a well-developed local road system. Interstate 15 (1-15) bisects the western
portion of the Planning Area and provides connections to other regional freeways in Riverside
County, San Diego County, San Bernardino County, and beyond. Interstate 215 (1-215), located
north of the Planning Area, provides direct access to the communities of Moreno Valley and
Riverside." These freeways are beyond the City's jurisdiction. The City recognizes the need to
address regional impacts to the freeway network. As a result, the City is participating in an inter-
agency process to address and mitigate impacts to local freeways.
In addition, the traffic analysis conducted for the Draft EIR evaluates the impact of General Plan land
uses upon the freeway through analysis of 15 freeway ramps located within the City, and the
General Plan Circulation Element includes the following goal and policies regarding regional traffic
impacts:
Goal 2 A regional transportation system that accommodates the safe and efficient movement of
people and goods to and from the community.
Policy 2.1
Actively pursue the construction of system improvements outside the City's
jurisdiction in cooperation with Caltrans, the City of Murrieta, Riverside County, the
Pechanga Band, and local developers. Measures should be taken to preserve
anticipated right-of-way needs and to identify funding mechanisms for needed
interchange and regional arterial improvements.
Policy 2.3
Actively pursue improvements to current freeway interchanges within the City and
construction of new overpasses as required to achieve performance standards.
Implementation Program C-l0
. Work with the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), Caltrans, South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and other regional agencies to
coordinate local street improvements with major transportation system
improvement projects such as additional access to 1-15 and construction of a bypass
route around T emecula.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
8.80
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
It is the practice of the City of Temecula to apply conditions of approval on projects to construct
and/or fund in whole or in part necessary traffic improvements associated with the proposed
project, through the assessment and collection of traffic impact fees. As applicable, individual
development projects will be required to determine a project-specific impact on freeway facilities
and identify specific mitigation measures to reduce such impact as part of the City's standard review
process. Project-by-project review, combined with implementation of General Plan policies and
programs, will ensure a less than significant impact to freeway facilities. No further analysis is
required.
Response 11-2
Please refer to Response 11-1.
Response 11-3
The County's Highway 79 Policy Area assumptions and procedures differ substantially from the
City's purpose and objectives in adopting the Draft General Plan and specifying planned land uses
within the French Valley Future Growth Area.
The primary reason that the City of Temecula has elected not to incorporate the County's Highway
79 policy into the Temecula General Plan is because the City's Land Use and Circulation Elements
are internally consistent. This means that land uses and the roadway network serving T emecula
have been analyzed under the same assumptions and conditions. The reason the Highway 79
policy was developed for the County General Plan was because the County's Land Use and
Circulation Elements are substantially inconsistent. As a result, the policy was needed to reduce the
disparity between the two elements. The policy is therefore not a necessary component of the
City's General Plan.
Response 11-4
The County's policy relative to commercial development, as described in the comment, differs
substantially from the City's purpose and objectives in adopting the Draft General Plan and
specifying planned land uses within the French Valley Future Growth Area. Therefore, the City has
purposefully chosen to assign different land use designations within unincorporated areas of the
Planning Area than current County plans provide. Furthermore, the City has chosen not to
implement the County's policies relative to commercial development, as these are inconsistent with
overall City objectives for outlying areas specified throughout the Draft General Plan.
Additionally, the City of Temecula has elected not to require a monitoring system for commercial
development because the City has created Land Use and Circulation Elements that are consistent
with one another. As stated in Response to Comment 11-3, the City's systems have been
developed to balance each other. The reason the Highway 79 policy was developed for the
County General Plan was because the County's Land Use and Circulation Elements are substantially
inconsistent. As a result, the policy was needed to reduce the disparity between the two elements.
The policy is therefore not a necessary component of the City's General Plan.
CITY OF TEMECULA
8.81
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Commenrs on the Draft fIR
Response 11-5
The Draft General Plan Implementation Programs represent commitments of the City to implement
policies stated throughout the General Plan. Many of the Draft Implementation Programs are
required as mitigation within the EIR and further stress the City's commitment to implement the
goals, policies, and plans described in the Draft General Plan.
As stated in the Draft EIR on pages 5.13-18 and 1-14, long-range implementation of the General
Plan will create new deficiencies at six freeway ramps. Both of these conclusions are consistent
with Table 4-2, Peak Hour Ramp Volumes - 2025 on page 4-6 of the December 14, 2004
Circulation Element Traffic Study prepared by Austin-Foust Associates, Inc.
Typographical errors on pages 5.13-18 and 1-14 of the Final EIR have been revised to read as
follows:
. Winchester Road northbound off-ramp - LOS F at A P.M. peak hour
In response to the last paragraph of this comment, the following sentence has been added to the
paragraph before Table 1-1 on page 1-7 of the Final EIR.
Table 1-1 summarizes the environmental effects associated with the adoption and long-term
implementation of the General Plan, the mitigation measures required to avoid or minimize
impact, and the level of impact following mitigation. The mitigation measures will be
implemented through various Citv departments or other responsible parties and the Citv will
monitor and report on each particular mitigation measure upon certification of the General Plan
EIR.
Given the programmatic nature of the EIR and the long-term time frame for the General Plan, the
policy statements, Implementation Program, and mitigation measures serve as effective and
appropriate means of addressing impacts. In particular, please refer to implementation measures C-
3, C-4, and C-6.
Response 11-6a
This comment requests changes to the Roadway Plan in the Draft General Plan Circulation Element
and does not raise any environmental issue associated with the Draft EIR. The recommended
change will be incorporated into the final Circulation Element. Any concerns regarding the Draft
Roadway Plan map should be expressed to the Planning Commission and the City Council at the
public hearing scheduled for adoption of the Draft General Plan.
Response 11-6b
This comment addresses designation of portions of Anza Road on the Roadway Plan contained in
the Circulation Element of the Draft General Plan. It does not raise any specific environmental issue
related to the Draft EIR. The City concurs that the current designation of Anza Road within the
unincorporated portions of the Planning Area as a two-lane Rural Highway may be inadequate to
handle the future volumes anticipated for that roadway without further clarification.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-82
Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR
The City will clarify the ultimate function of this roadway segment as a segment of the "Eastern
Bypass" and rnay take steps in the future either to reclassify the roadway as a four-lane Secondary
Arterial or to clarify that the Rural Highway designation is an interim designation for the roadway,
specifying that at least an 88-foot right-of-way must be provided to enable a future redesignation of
the roadway as a segment of the bypass. The Rural Highway designation allows for a right-of-way of
88 to 150 feet, thereby providing future capacity for additional lanes. Any concerns regarding the
Draft Roadway Plan map should be expressed to the Planning Commission and the City Council at
the public hearing scheduled for adoption of the Draft General Plan.
Response 11-6c
The City's Rural Highway classification, as described in the Draft Circulation Element and on page
5.13-9 of the Draft EIR, accommodates the County's Mountain Arterial designation. The Rural
Highway class allows for a right-of-way of 88 to 150 feet, and while typically the roadway is
designed as 2 lanes undivided, it has capacity for additional lanes.
Response 11-7
Both ICU and HCM methodologies are industry standards for traffic analyses. The HCM is typically
used for existing conditions or for short-range impact analyses. The ICU methodology is used for
long-range planning where detailed traffic operations parameters are not known. The traffic report
recognizes this and on Page 2-5 states the following:
"ICU values are calculated on the assumption of ideal operating conditions. Short
roadway sections, which cause vehicle queues to block adjacent intersections or
inadequate turn pockets, can prevent ideal conditions from occurring. Examples are
Winchester Road on both sides of the 1-15 Freeway interchange and Rancho California
Road on both sides of the freeway interchange."
For 2025 conditions, the study does not attempt to speculate on signal timing and phasing or signal
progression, etc., and uses the ICU methodology which establishes volume/capacity (V /e) ratios
and hence shows how much future capacity is being used at the principal intersections. Reporting
the amount of delay (e.g., LOS 0 versus LOS E is 55 seconds versus 57 seconds) may be
understandable to traffic practitioners, but is not useful or understandable in a long-range planning
context where capacity is the issue.
Response 11-8
The traffic study gives future average daily traffic (AOT) volumes for the entire Planning Area. The
existing peak-hour intersection analysis addresses only those locations identified as principal
intersections, as described in the Draft Circulation Element. The number and location of principal
intersections will change over time. All are currently located within the existing City limits.
As areas are annexed into the City, the principal intersections will be expanded and as noted in the
Draft Circulation Element, this will be an administrative action rather than a General Plan
Amendment. As part of the General Plan's implementing mechanisms, the principal intersections
will be monitored over time, and new intersections added to the list as appropriate.
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-83
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft fIR
Response 11-9
Per Public Resources Code S 15125, Environmental Setting, the baseline for existing conditions are
"the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the
notice of preparation is published." The Notice of Preparation for this EIR was published on June 4,
2003. The existing conditions data for traffic for this EIR was collected during 2002 and are
acceptable for use as baseline traffic data.
Response 11-10
When analyzing General Plans, it is typical to choose a horizon year for which a formal set of
demographic or land use forecasts exists for areas outside the City. The traffic forecasts then are
used to evaluate a future scenario in which the City is built out in that horizon year and the land use
forecasts outside the City are used as background for that analysis. At the time the traffic study was
carried out, demographic projections were available for 2025, and since they were the basis for the
countywide RClP traffic forecasts, they were also used in the General Plan Traffic Study. Use of this
data provided consistency with the RCIP and ensured that traffic forecasts were set in a regional
context of accepted and documented land use projections for the surrounding area.
Response 11-11
The City of Temecula Traffic Model, as described in the traffic model documentation, is consistent
with the County's RClP traffic model. It essentially provides a finer-grained derivative of the RCIP
traffic model with the ability to provide more detailed forecasts within the primary area. The
forecasts do not match exactly with those from the RCIP model for two reasons. First, the City's
model employs a more detailed network and zone system. For example, the RCIP does not include
some Circulation Element roadways, and the RCIP's large zone system is adequate for regional level
forecasts, but not for detailed intersection level analysis. Second, the land use forecast data for the
Draft General Plan, as derived from the Draft Land Use Element, are not exactly the same as the
RCIP data for the primary area.
With respect to the Winchester Road and Murrieta Hot Springs intersection, the diagram in the
Draft EIR and traffic report inadvertently gave the wrong location for intersection #31. (It is actually
at French Valley Road somewhat to the north.) The Murrieta Hot Springs Road intersection with
Winchester Road is #30, and the 2025 intersection capacity utilization (ICU) data is summarized on
the next page.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-84
30. winchester i Kurrieta
2n25 Proposed Cir.:. (Balle Case)
'f~.'
"co",
;}.}i?,~ :'ftP""LITY V:'i.
1i50 50
7Ci')( '!.U\
r!.)( 320
l'i.'y,'1 :(1)
'iV)( :';1)
1::)0 110C
3':00 1jG
!,~5( l"H}
3"G
513::
~;;r
<:;"T
3.:;;
~Er
:::,1
SSR
ie"
;;5('
"liS(
;;87
i',.'l"
J\i:., [;rJjli.sc-;:,ar.c
:n:1?t'0.l
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
31. Trench "ialhy i nUtriet3;
2025 Proposed Cire. (Base Case)
J;!ifrnCil]?
r-H ?K "0'H'_
,!;.,N !':,,' rr0lT
r1J fK fi0U)1
Vff. VOL vie
lME2 C;'.P.~,C:-I~ 'X:;; :~ '."' vie
NB: " , ~, ,r - 1 0 , ,
HilT
rIB;; - , S0 ??,S , , _'w~
c:;n
,'i iF
S ll:R (}
[N, i;
,,[17 :i 25(' ~0X ... , ~~"' "
, " ~ , so : l\i "
NR-t- 3~OO -1; , 'ii , ::n 2. ,
I'lf}T S ,'i(' . :2 ,J ,. ..
Wl3F:
.Os-
23(
2?J0
1(:
..12'
,:2
.;;1
y,,.
.;1;+
;"PC
, ~;'
1})(
.'-f
.07
51;;
.17'
>;,'
~~<'.~'
'.i'
"
;:(1
':10
2t)
.01' K
.':; n"f'
SE!1 2.(;. ss~:
',If,l:oL'lIr:,
Cle:,lO!,(::..
.J.O'
.if)"
IJ:te; ."";Ln.,,s 8.igt.t-'[m::n (rf>2rliip f'~r SSR
1.25
TOTAL CAPJi.CITY UTILIZATION
TOrAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION
."
1.32
.9S
In this regard, it should be noted that the Draft Circulation Element includes an east/west roadway
connection between Winchester Road and French Valley Parkway just south of Murrieta Hot
Springs Road. At one time, French Valley Parkway was planned to intersect with Winchester Road
at a point north of Murrieta Hot Springs Road. That is no longer feasible because of development
approved by the County, and the intersection between Winchester Road and Murrieta Hot Springs
will have inadequate capacity in the future, as can be seen from the ICU. Hence, this new roadway
link has been added to allow special circulation/operational plans to be developed to address the
problem. The intersection forecasts reflect this, and operational configurations using the two
roadways will be studied in detail with the City of Murrieta sometime in the future. The ICU
calculations displayed on the next page for the four intersections involved show an example of how
this might operate, but the concept has yet to be explored in detail.
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-85
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR
30. Winchester.. lbrrieta
2025 Pwposed eire, lv/Parallel Rdl
n, French Villey &; Murrieta
,n}.
H8';
h8P
5BL
:iiL
3?F<.
f'.J:,
EI,L'
t:B.R
({3L
<(8':'
,,;all
'\NBS ," 0 ,;'~.':T'1'y
,
>')
'J
17,;;('
70t,
]7:;',
175,:
7(.)('
n':;r
,7:'(
~~S0
(,
:E0(;
;,1.';('
AY. ,,~ no:)?
r,,,, ?K EC')R
'ii''!., 'i,
2025 Proposed Circ, Iw/Paralhl Rd)
.f'''
IE!,
;J, ~K :'[7:):;,
lNES ,'Mi_aC t' ,;;: '.'/('
+)
fJ
'JGL V/C
&20
~ lG
.0.1.' e:
.12 iVY,
,;:3 :1:1
N,,;
,,j(:'
.n
l;aT
l?:D
;~ ,(;
/;{)
,'<,
. Q ~,
.S3L
rCJ
.)~ '
132:1
.<::<':'
,Jti
,!;;'j
.r:?R
J)
; ,,:W
SO
.ri~
! ,~.-,
.06'
t3t.
R2T
p~
JIi);:
.22
I.;;()
G";u
~l;
.(,1'
2;;:
.Bi
031.
ti3':'
W3F
jln
.2(,-
. ,.~
130
Rl<:J..~ T'lU') !'.<i1"st::Cr\~;
Cl":;r;;"]-A! h!~:'1'11
;)
'is(;
57.50
e,
I ~ Q,~':: ",1; ?di,I"t:;,f.,:: Sh<l .02'
~ '",1''''''' {r,tu",,1 ,l~V .,,,
__ ,,," ,,,,'oC,"" '-iq'Hm "'."L', '=-=~__~_____j
TO'1'AL CAPACITY UTILlZATIOIf
,
fj
"
o
"
o
1
350(;
c
:7,':0
t
()
G
:?'1()
:i$C
...
.OJ
TOTAL CAPACITY UTILlZATIOH
H, W1nchester & Parallel
I 2025 Proposod Cir~. {v/Paulbl Rd}
I
iiRT
:'Hr~
:::9:-,
,',3L
,<i;;;- 1)
..iSf.
"HI.
i\BI,
",j
::81',
,~3:.
,.,,).1[,.i'C>e"Li,['-J\;;,:l
U-l,?}; ,. "-rn,"~
D
,
,
t
I)
;!:!(
it'l0
~"i)(
3,~O(;
1'))0
TOTAL CAPACITY IJTILlr.A'I'IOIf
49, FriliJIlch valley r. Puallel.
o
,
:S1?0
4},)
3&0
1G8()
(\
;;~f Fh: H0'l~
'leI \-:T
l;>,< i'K E<:?
';c-r. ;/:
2025 PropcsGd eire:, {w/Panlld RdJ
IJ! 'j()i);.-
.',,- \'/::.
"lC
,(ii'
:eL
LiltliS c:+.t,CrfY
o
S2.~0
,
,
",50
>;v;
',:,(;
e,
c
c
c
,^
TOTA1 CAPACIl'l !JTILIZATIOIt
,
nO
",<!
~ 10
~80
,
J320
.,
4('
.S<
.6E
L.o:'.1 T!lrr, l>cJl :SL1<;fj:
Cle~o.hCB: !r.t2Yvd
:kt'2; F.53'J:.e5 RbLt-luUl (-"-'",11,,:'
-I
~LfYc E~~~ !
,0J,'
.i)f' I
I
I
'1"
r;Ui
.D9
.1} ~()
lH;
N8i<
,)
,
o
,
o
J;;0,~
,)}
5.',~
.:n
,
:;::<1
1 ~ ~Q
1.2:(;
.:1'
i V"~
:1;:(
:3()~ n;:-:;
,i2 iDe
I
.7(,> i
.11 1
01)
$3.'\
,:r:> ~}0
.Z~ .
r,,~C
,
.J,)>
9Ci
~:3t
f,r,-
0''':0
. I; J ~5:
.'jc\
sc-(;
.Ii
,J(>
HH!i ,:2'
t' I
-
.79
t1~1.
:'i,,;:
i^Ui'.
. !.(I'
.74
:':1 b ,l(JiJ~
<!OL .."
.-::('
.21:
G~J
1:[;2
,::i'
.5,
2~ ,
.J.
;::~:'
=13;)
.iF
t:'
.02
i:i):
.-1
:m?
.10'
'",.. ::!'ii\
.77
.n
For the Draft General Plan, the important component is the new east-west roadway, which will
provide options for solving this problem, which was created when the northerly extension of French
Valley Parkway was made infeasible by the development approval noted above.
Response 11-12
The comment is noted. The City will continue its efforts to work with the County of Riverside
Transportation Department, as stated In Draft General Plan policy statements and Implementation
Programs, to coordinate transportation improvements within the Planning Area.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
8-86
CITY OF TEMECULA
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR
-
lttAWnF r:!lIRlRt.IIA
-
NATIVE AMI:RICAN HERITAGE COMMlSStON
91GCAPrroz. MAU., ROOM 384
SACRAMENtO, CA Q58'f4
(911)-
(911)6S1.esso-Fox
AII'NlWAd- ~.IIIIIlW.
~
Jan_ 31, 2005
Mr. Da'o1d Hogan
CIlf ofTemecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecuta. CA 92~
Re: Proposed Citl' of Temecula G""""" Plan Update
SCH# 2003061041
Dear Mr. Hogan:
Thank you far the oppolIunlty to comment on the aboYlH11eotionod doc:ument The commission I
was ebIe to conduct. SOCt8ClLand. FIle ...rch for lhIs projeel, which 1dentiHI!ll no racollfed sileo wltllln
the "'*"'..... The absence of.....nted siU!a, on _the Sacred landS FIle or tho Slate or N_
HisIoric Regl_, however, does not predude the posoiIllIIty IhaI ~ oites may ellIsI on the
p~l1y.
On March 1 of this year. i.J:JcaI Govemmenls wUl be requIred to comply witII Senate BUl1e
(Chapter 905, 2004 SI.M",,), wnlch requies cons_ with _oprlale NoIive American IrIbeo
_f<Ii19 ony amondmenl to . _ Plan or SpectiIc Plan. TIle GooOl8l Plan Guidelines wIU be
amended to _the new low, which IncIudell a raqulremenl to conlllCt tha Native Amerlcan Heritage
commission for the approprlale Ir1baI con1aC\1l. Becau..thls laW will be Implement sI1orlIy, we encoursge
you 10 ini_tho consu1lallOn ""'"""" now for the Genoral Plan Amendment ~ under
consfderl.tJon. (To read a copyofth8 d1aptered law, pleasogo1o http'/linfo.sen ca tov/cf!li~
hinlJl:P~QJlerv?hi1l nllmhe~b J8&!;e.c:~PREV &hous:e=:B&.c:iti'!=U'.nl .
e.rIy consuflatlon with tribes in your ar.. Is the beat way to avoid unanticipated dlsco\lOl1es on""
a projed Is undelway. Enclosed Is ali8l 01_ AmerlcanslndMdualslorg_ thot may h3vo
uilIQuo _ge of cllIlural resources in the projed..... Tho CommI..lon ma\<es no reoommondetlon
of. single indIVIdual <<group over another. By contacting aD tII050 listed, your organization wUl be_r
abloto respond 10 _a offallu... to consult with the appmprtate lribe or gJOUJ>. ~YO\l hove not received
e fll8POI1SO within two weeks' time. we......mend 1het you _p wfIh 0 telephone coI1 tornalo> sure
thot tho infom'lelIon was received.
Leek of surfece evidence of archeologIcal reooun:es does not pteClude the exIstenCe of
archeologIcal resources. I A#ld l3aenales should oonalder avnirtance aa dafined In ~ 15!70 d the
~A GuldeJirw.s. when sIonifioant aJlturAl MlXMJrcea f'<NIWI MIlI<<-IM. ProvIsfons should also be
inCluded for occIdenle1ly dIsooveIed an;heoIoglceI....urces during conS\nlolio!l per CeIlfomia
Enwallll..ntel QUe1lty Act (CEQI>.), Publlo R"""",ces Code 515054.5 (fl. H08Ith end Safely Code
57050.5; and Public ilesou.... Coda 55097.98 mandata the process to be followed In tho event of en
otcIden1ol dlscovory of any human ...malns in e Jocetlon olherthan . ded_ cemetery and should ba
Included In all environmental documents. If you hove any.".-., pi..... oontacl me ol(916)663-
8251.
LeT'TU. 11-
11..-1
\\...1.
l \. --3
6Incerely,
Co: S1a1e ctea~r>ghOUll8
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-87
ENVIRONMENTAL tMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft. EfR
NatIVe American Contacts
R/vSrsJlIe County
January 31, 2005
Cups CUHural Center (PaIa Bancl)
WilHam J. eontrerllS. Archaeology and CUltural Res.
P.O. Bol( 455 LuIsenO
Pals ' CA 92059
(760) 742-3784
PaIa Band of MIssIOn Indlans
Robert Smith, Chairperson
P.O. Sol< 60
Pals ' CA 92059
(760) 742-3784
(760) 742-1411 Fax
LulsBno
CUpeno
Pechanga Band of Mission Indians
Paul Macarro. Cultural Resource centsr
P.O. Sol< 2183 LulsBno
Temecula , CA 92593
. (951) 308-9295
(951) 5OlHl491 Fax
11lIs Ust '" ounent only M of tilt dMO of ",,,~OCUm&lftt
D1strlbutlon outulllt doeS I1O! rellBvellt'lY I)efSOn of statUtOry telilpl:!ntlblll1y IllI deflnld In SeotIClln 7090.6 Of 11Io HlllIUI\ IInd
... CoA, SOCtion 60&1-14 ofth8 Pullino Aeao\ll'Cfl$ Code and $8eIIQn GOf7.18 of1!le PvJ)HO AeIGuIces COda.
TNa [1st 1$ ont! ~ forcont8Cdnll klcle.f NidlgAMetloanawlth regard 10 culbmll r8IGUI'Oe _oUl'~"tof'thD propoMd
caret ralllKUla "GenlNII PI... Upd&W, SOHI2llOSGG1OC1, AMlnlklo eoumy.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-88
Responses to Comments on the Draft. E1R
12. Carol Gaubatz, Program Analyst, Native American Heritage Commission. January 31, 2005.
Response 12-1
This comment provides an introduction to the Native American Heritage Commission's comments
on the Draft EIR. The comment indicates that although there are no recorded sacred sites within
the Project area, the possibility of unrecorded sites within the Planning Area exists. The City
acknowledges sensitivity to sacred Native American sites and has addressed this issue with
mitigation measures included in Section 5.5, Cultural Resources, of this EIR.
Response 12-2
The comment is acknowledged. Maintaining a good working relationship with the Pechanga Band
is important to the City. As a result, the City initiated early consultation with the Pechanga Band of
Luiseno Indians regarding the General Plan Update. The City understands that an agreement with
any impacted Native American tribe must be obtained for approval of development proposals that
impact tribal lands. The Draft Open Space Element recognizes the requirements of Senate Bill 18
(Chapter 905, 2004 Statues) and addresses consultation with Native American tribes, and in
particular the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, through Policy 2.1 and Implementation Program
C-11. In addition, as a result of this consultation process, new Implementation Measure OS-39 will
be incorporated into the General Plan as follows:
05-39 Tribal Cultural Resources
Development projects proposed on previously undeveloped property which involve earth-
disturbing activities or which are located in areas with previously identified cultural resources
need to comply with the following requirements to appropriately address tribal cultural
resources:
. All projects shall be evaluated by a qualified archeologist by conducting a site records
search, and if feasible, a Phase I walk-over survey, and if necessary, a Phase II survey prior to
project approval to identify the potential for the presence of significant cultural resources.
. If significant resources are located on the project site, or a high probability for cultural
resources exists, the Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians shall be consulted in the
identification of mitigation measures to address impacts consistent with State requirements,
including provisions to address inadvertent discoveries.
. During on-site grading activities in areas with cultural resources, or with a high potential for
cultural resources, a qualified archeologist and tribal monitors shall be on-site to monitor
grading operations.
. In the event of the discovery of a burial site, human bone or suspected human bone,
grading in the immediate area shall be immediately halted and the site protected, and the
County Coroner and representatives from Pechanga Band of Luiseiio Indians notified.
Agency jDepartment:
Related Policy:
Planning, Public Works
6.10
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-89
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
Response 12-3
The comment states that the EIR should provide provisions for accidentally discovered archeological
resources during construction. Per Public Resources Code S 15064.5(f), Health Safety Code
S7050.5, and Public Resource Code S5097.98, Cultural Resources mitigation measure CR-1 on
pages 5.5-7 and 5.5-8 of the Final EIR addresses this comment and applicable State laws. This
mitigation measure, combined with long-term implementation of policies in the Draft General Plan,
will avoid or ensure less than significant impacts to cultural resources. Furthermore, the CEQA
process required for individual projects will provide for identification of cultural resources and
require appropriate project-specific mitigation.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-90
Responses to Comments on the Draft. fiR
TEMECULA VALLEY
Unilied School Disiricl
BOARD O~ rnUCATJON
RoblIrtSrown
~3rY'lEdw3r.:l9
~~r1.MOI'IU
Ke~nelhAay
e..~.Tooket
SLJPERINTeNDENT'
DlWid B~Aii~'" "-'.. -
February 2, 2005
Mr. David Hogan
Planning Depaltment
Cit)' 01 Temecula
P.O. Box 9033.
Temecula, CAS2589-9033
SUaJECT: . Temecula General Plan Update - Environmef'ltal impact Report
, T &mecwia General Plan - PublIC Review Draft dated DeCember 2004
LE'lTeL '3
Dear Mr. Hogan:
Th~ Tamoeula Valley Unified Schoal District has reviewed the Temecuta G&I'IOral Plan Update -
Environmenlanmpact Ftepor1 and Temaoula General Plan - Public: Revjaw Draft dafOd Oecember 2004
and has the following comments:
1. ~rooosed land Use Pollcv Mac (Figure 3-2) The map indicates low, medium ami high
denstry re6identiaj development in Old Town with a small opan space location (apparently
mlrrori!'tg the propa.secl Villages ot Old Town Specific Plan). With the development
anticipated far that area, the DistrIct will also need an elementary sltl} tQ service those
6tuden.m. We have discussed this several times with City staff and provided wtittQIl
raquasts to the City on several occasions over the past three years, and the City (most
recentlY Gary ThomhilO has resPOnded th:tt along with those proposed zone changes,
ff1ere would he i;I designatEd public insttrutianal (blue) area of at least 1 ().-acres centrally
in thai future specific plan area. The map doe, not Indicate the blue area and W$ f~uesl
that it:~ updated to include It. Please advise as to how I may assist in getting this
deslgn~too appropriately.
An elementary site at Auld and Pcurroy Road3, pf9Vious.ly identifJed as the future Crown
Valley;Village Elementary, Is baing &Ilminated from the Distrlct's master plan and should
be removed from the land use map. {See attached map}.
2. School Facilities Student Enrollment (Table 5.12-2) (See attached updatel1 enrollmont
figure3:as of Janua~ 2005)
3. Schoo! Facilities MaD (Figure 5.12-2) (See carrected location of French Valley
Elementary Schoof)
4. Fut re:TV ch 5 (Figure 5.12'4) (Adjust the order oj the schools openings to
reflect Cregk>Elementary openiryg in 2006, after the 2005 openings of Quinta Do
La ,~organ Hill and Crowns HIli Elementary SChools)
31350 Fhmchll ~~ Road lTemec",la. CA 9259:' I (SIOlIJ tl7B-26el1
CITY OF TEMECULA
\'?>- \
I '3-1-
I ",,1
Ill-4\'
8-91
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft ElR
.....
,0
!:::
"""
,(I)
a
0"'-
oct
"5~
C/,)cs
"00
~i3
"c: C/) ""'"
:::> It) 4
~g
:::::~
~~
g
~C\l
::;,
~
E:
~
J
~
1
I
- ~
J "f lit f I I) t
I jl IllIffflf f i!i,,' tiffl t il !
~ jtlil!I~lliilf illlIJ lfJ~j ~ lJ !
~ ~hW~~mh~;i u~m m~1 ~ ~E i
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
~
8-92
...
I
g
J
.
CITY OF TEMECULA
Schools
Environmentol Setting
Responses to Comments on the Draft. EfR
Pubk St"rvit-w imd Rt:('Jealio"
. .
The Temecula Valley Un,1fied School District rrvUSD);serves the City of Temecula, providing K-12
educational services and many sped<ll educa.tion pr9grams. TVUSD service boundarielii extend
north to Jean Nicholas R~ad In French Valley, ~ulh to'the RiversIde County-San Diego County nne.
ea~t to Yail L~k~, and ~est [0 the Temecula city I!mil TYUSO maintains a full spectrum of
educational facilities frol;Yl elementary to adult SChOO~.5 Figure 5.12-2 illustrates the locations of
school (",dlrlies,. Ta.hle ~.12.2 identifies thr! pubfic ~ucational facilities in the City and lists the
current (2894') enrollment levels of e~ch fa.dlity. .
~()f ;
Table 5.12-2
S,~ool Fadllties
EI.J:MENTARY sQloOis K-5
^~llO5 E1ementarv~__..~
Barnett E:lcmenta
,Frcnd1 va/iev t/ELrJ1<i1lta '
klf!ssoo Elemenwv: _ .
Nicolas Vallev Elem~nlary'
Palom~ Elgr:ncnt,;ry' .....
P-auba Valley Flp.rnt'tltary
RMCho Elementa . -"
Red H<lwIc Ele';;!!~..~!y'1
~1~J~~lltitty ~
~ Sparkm.lo Elemenm
Temc911a Bem~nlai'Y
VaiJ[le:ffi!'!'.nav .
Vin e.!!tlls Semehwrv
MIDDlE sQmoiS (~)
Bella Vi&b: MkkDe1 :
D::tv Middle ~,...
Gardner Mkldk" ;,
Mit!&!rila Middle ~-
lem<<uIa Mddlc
Vall Ranch Middle ,
HIGH SCHOOLS ~12
Ch~rral High '
Great OaH~gb
Telneg.lIa Valk.v HdI .....
Rancho Vista Continuation
ADULTS-OioOL
TcmcclJl";' A.dult Sc~ool
1,Lo<;.;rlltrlvrith;,,~pl~renf:nfluenc:e.
5o.urct:' Tt~.ul.. v..~ty Vnillo,J S,:hQol Olwkl, JOQ.4
Narl:le.
lOCildon
...-~.'-'
33200 Pacific Park Ortve
39925 H.lrveSton Drive -
36WO 9t#V Road-.'.
32400 C3mtnoSlln:Dima~
39600 N. ~Cfal KP..llneY ~.9.3d
~.2~~.9 Via Rilm1 :
33125 Reg!~a ~
31530~Seren.aW<rV
32045 5=amlno San1~..
43799 SunlW McaOOvrs DriVE!
3222.? "'0 Pir.:u ~9 .
41951 M<2~.ar.a Road
29915 Mira..lomil Driv~
42240 Camino ~rfw
31 l?50 BrQWni~_~Oad
40775 Camlnn Cnrn >os- Verde
45;25 Via Der"COr(rI"l3do
30G00Marwuit., ROiJd
4~07.s Mea~~s P,ukwav
333~ Canlino F:'~t,!.R 0
27215 Niool<is Kood
32555 ~ HoUow Way
31555 Raocho\li~l.a Road
) 1 J4Q- Rancho \list,l B.q~.
31350 Rancho Vlstil Road".
udent fnroftment
~ of MIl\ 2883
._9pens 2004-'sii
74! 038'
a 1~'7
683 ....~f"
..801 /1'
829 'If'!
~~O yii"
780 .._8,),
624 .~'i)"
846 /I":J,.
64& ")Dt'
810 '1'-'
.. .~9 ",."
969 If/'
o ens.2004 ''17
1.235 ~'.9J.(.
n Cl ,?;??
1,000 ff},-
ll~?? l.u1
1 ,36~ . 9s-l.
2,:is'i ~"...
()' zU04 1.uJ
J322 J~I
~..;.;t.'1
n a
J Oly of Temeo.,l" wp.Mll:!. .~chools- ~ locart'd ilt ~mTj iW'MV t.:irv.m(t'1IllN"IJI;l nrl!:lhome-\)tll!c/f<esid~rlJ9/lVU5dhlltl-
Nrwt!rnl>p.f 1, 2004.
CITY OF HMfCtV.
CITY OF TEMECUlA
51"}."
8-93
tl'lVDlONMOOAL IMrM.~
GH4EIW.PlANUPDATl
--, '-~
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft. EIR
figure 5.12-2
School Fadlltle.
'-'
@ ; [IernentarySchool
@ :MIddII!School
@ ~HId>Sd,,,oI
o :PrIviltv$chQO/
:Tl!fTleCulaCtysounlWy
:5pherlloflnJ!ufll1te8oUl1$ry
:PlaIlIKngAn..a
N " ',000
.' J--< H >-
't-i J--<
, 0
I.~.'....'-."
.;'--"]
,
-- ...... .
.. ",
:,,' '.. ..!
rI'MRQNMrNTAi:IMPt.(T REPORT
CENEli'Al"'ANtJPt))"tt
5.12.&
C11YOFTtMCCUI.A
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-94
Responses to Comments on the Draft. fIR
Pvbiic Setvkej and Rf1.:reat/nrt
To meet future educational needs, TVUSD prepare~ Five.Year Fadlily Conslruction Plans. Future
schoof COl1struc(jo~ proje<.ts within the current pfan are summarized in lable .5.124. The proje'l.;ted
opening date o( s<.:hools may d1ange 1IS il re....;ult of changes in Mool enrollment. levels of new
home coll$tJUction,:and lhe availability of Sla~ funds far school construction/renQvallon.
Table 5.12.4
Future TVUSD School.
N3mc
EUMENTARV SQlO0L5
Qui"", Dn loRn !French V.lley) .~..---=:- .2005 - .
~:"~e~~l .." '. ',. .... '..~. ._ . ;:~J=""
Cr . HiR . 2~
Old Town. 'Sewn 006 .
Rorijjol~h Rand, ~ ~.~. - . ~ond 2006 v .~
MIDDlE SCHOOLS
'ori~nch_~--:---~.. aeyO.,d200~ .
NIi~Sdloolf8(lnWincheste(1BOO) B ld2006
f.renJhVil~~. ,~.,~.._
HIG SCttQOLS
High Sdtool#4 (Frellr:h Valley) .--- -~ond2006'~-
5o~rr.t"..: Te-mec:ub Y.alley Unified scho(>l D~lriI;t, NQ~mbcr. 2004.
Estimated C(lmpl@l,i~.
.4/0) .,
--}-,." I~~
s<, .,-bee
With adoptlon of Senate Bm 50 and Proposition 1 A in 1998. schoof districts that meet certain
requfremenl5 now h~"Ve the option of adoptillg alternative school fees, also known as level 2 Fees
.and level 3; Fees (Public Resources Code Sections 659~5.5, 65995.6 and 65995.7). In seneral,
altcrnalive SdlOOI fee-s, which are calculated (or e~ch school dl$lrict, apply 50Jely to residential
construction within Ii school district. In order to impose ahemalivl;! school fees on new residential
construction within the Dislril:t, lYUSD annually prepares and adopts a Schoof Fadlities Needs
Analysis (SFNA) as r~Ul(ed by State faw. Additionally, the City works with developers and lVUSD
to designate school fadllly locations when new residen'ial ptojects are proposed.' 'fVUSD meets
the educational need~ of its sludel1t population through both pennanent and interim fadllties,
Payment of .llterna~ school fees wilf be ~lsed to Offsel the C05t to lVUSD of providing education
fadUdes lO future Sludel1ts. The environmental effecu of e):pansJon, construction;. 'and'opera.fion"of.
admtionaJ school facilities will be evaluated by lVUSD in its efforts to plan (or construct:ion of new
. schools or expansion:of existing fac:illtie$. S8 50 slates that for CEQA purposes, payment of Ni$ to
the affected school d~trict reduces school (adlity impa(;t$ to a less thall signifICant level.
Mitigation Meawres
No mitigation beyond the paymel1l of schoof fees is required.
--
, Tmnecula varl'Y Unified ~d\ooI Ois1rkl. Developet Fees. loeilled at!luE)./IWY/w.tvust! ,k1~. NOYM'twr 2, 2004.
T"N\iil:ONMENj"~tI'QRt -,.
CENERAlPIJ..NUPOA.Tf '
5,11.0
.----oiY~Of TEMfClJt.A
CITY OF TEMECULA
8.95
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft. fiR
13. Dave Gallaher, Director of Facilities Services, Temecula Valley Unified School District.
February 2, 2005.
Response 13-1
This comment requests technical changes to the land Use Policy Map in the General Plan and does
not raise any environmental issues associated with the General Plan EIR. As part of the public
hearing process, these recommended technical changes will be considered by the City for inclusion
in the Final General Plan.
Response 13-2
As requested in the comment, Table 5.12-2 on page 5.12-5 of the Final EIR has been updated as
shown below to reflect the updated enrollment figures provided by the Temecula Valley Unified
School District.
Table 5.12-2 identifies the public educational facilities in the City and lists the current (W84
2005) enrollment levels of each facility.
Table 5.12-2
School Facilities
Student Enrollment
Name Location as of May 2003
lanuarv 2005
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (K-5)
Alamos Elementary' 38200 Pacific Park Drive 593
Barnett Elementary 39925 Harveston Drive +47387
French Valley Elementary' 36680 Cady Road Ata_1.037
Jackson Elementary 32400 Camino San Dimas &lB928
Nicolas Vallev Elementary' 39600 N. General Kearnev Road 00+918
Paloma Elementary 42940 Via Rami lh!-9789
Pauba Valley Elementary 33125 Regina Drive lQfl884
Rancho Elementarv 31530 la Serena Wav ;zgg812
Red Hawk Elementary' 32045 Camino San Jose lh!-4642
Reinke Elementarv 43799 Sunnv Meadows Drive &4&1122
Sparkman Elementarv 32225 Pio Pico Road <>46704
Temecula Elementarv 41951 Moraga Road lQfl792
Vail Elementarv 29915 Mira Loma Drive 43977 3
Vintage Hills Elementarv 42240 Camino Romo %91 069
MIDDLE SCHOOLS (6-8)
Bella Vista Middle' 31650 Browning Road 697
Dav Middle 40775 Camino CamDos Verde -hB5978
Gardner Middle 45125 Via Del Coronado Ata 789
Margarita Middle 30600 Margarita Road +,g00982
Temecula Middle 42075 Meadows Parkway -+,;Y71.349
Vail Ranch Middle 33340 Camino Piedra Roio -869952
HIGH SCHOOLS (9-12)
ChaDarral High 27215 Nicolas Road ~2.882
Great Oak High 32555 Deer Hollow Wav 1253
T emecula Vallev High 31555 Rancho Vista Road ~2.868
Rancho Vista Continuation 31340 Rancho Vista Road Ata_227
ADULT SCHOOL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-96
Responses to Comments on the Draft. EJR
Table 5.12-2
School Facilities
Name
Location
Student Enrollment
as of Ma-( 2003
anua 2005
n a
Temecula Adult School 31350 Rancho Vista Road
1. Located within sphere of influence.
Source: Temecula Valley Unified School District, 2004.
Similar technical changes recommended for Table GM-2 on page GM-16 of the Draft General Plan
Growth Management and Public Facilities Element will be considered by the City for inclusion in the
Final General Plan. The revisions do not affect the analysis or conclusions contained in the EIR.
Response 13-3
As requested within the comment, Figure 5.12-2 on page 5.12-6 of the Final EIR and Figure GM-2
on page GM-17 of the Draft General Plan have been updated to identify the correct location of
French Valley Elementary School.
Response 13-4
As requested by the comment, Table 5.12-4 on page 5.12-8 of the Final EIR has been updated as
shown below to reflect the sequential order of the development of future schools in the T emecula
Valley Unified School District.
Table 5.12-4
Future TVUSD Schools
Name
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
uinta Do La 0 French Valle
\^/olf CFcd~
Mor an Hill
Crowne Hill
Wolf Creek
Old Town
Rori au h Ranch
MIDDLE SCHOOLS
Rori au h Ranch
Middle School #8 (In Winchester 1800)
French Valle
HIGH SCHOOLS
High School #4 (French Valley) Beyond 2006
Source: Temecula VaHey Unified Schoo! District, November, 2004.
Estimated Com letion Date
2005
~
2005
2005
2006
Be ond 2006
Be ond 2006
Be ond 2006
Beyond 2006
Similar technical changes recommended for Table GM-3 on page GM-18 of the Draft General Plan
Growth Management and Public Facilities Element will be considered by the City for inclusion in the
Final General Plan. The revisions do not affect the analysis or conclusions contained in the EIR.
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-97
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
@"-
~1
~
PECHANGA INDIAN RESERVATION
" Teomecula Barld of Lutsello MISSion 1I!dtans
----'---.- -'-.- . ..._""4
PostomCOl:lOX1477.nmCt'UIB,Jk~~~!m~":; :~":"j \i;" !;..,;liiH
1eleph.olleI9511ts7&2768 f'ax(951~S$5-ii7a" \\\11
.' " FEB 0 7 2005 ::;;
IlL: ~"'
,
l"Lc_'.
Sent via Facsimile to (951) 694-6477
February 2, 2004
Ms. Debbie Ubnoske,
Planning Direelor
City ofTemeJut.
P.O. Box 903i
Tcmc:cul.. CA 92589
LETrEI.. I'\'
RE: Comments on City of Temecula General Plao DEIR
Dcar Ms. Ubnoskc,
TrlbalClnllrrollJl:
Mark Macarro
CouacllMecabers'
MBlkCalac:
M~Tr.I.uk~T
,lnbn~
Anctrc:w MIIIII~I,ST.
DOllna. Mu:ld
RuliStll "Butth" Murphy
TrIOOlSKrltW:y:
O.I\Thm..Mlr...nda
Trtbl\l Tm\lJIX1't;1":
ChrlStme Luku
We submit th~se wmments as a federally recognized Indian Tribe and interested party in
this CEQA app,fOval process [or the City's General Plan. Additionall}', the Tribe has an
interest in these proceeding:; W5 a landholder of properties that arc directly adjacent to the
City'sjurisdic~ional boundary, and which appear to be affected by this proposed General
Plan. We request that these comments be incorporated intu tht: offici",! ~cord of
approval ror the General Pion.
14-1
it is our underStanding that the proposed General PlanlDEIR contains a proposed major
arterial alignment alternative which passes through and near lhe Tribe's external
reserva.tion boundaries. This alignment is depicted in Figure C-2 On page C-21 ofthc
proposed GeTleral Plan. and appears to be proposed as an entirely new exit from the 1.15
to connect with Deer Hollow Way via tTlwcrslng Tribal lands.
14--1..
Tt is our'unde$anding that this alignment is just one of the propo!>ed alternatives to
address traffiC:concems within the City, and that such a major arterial alignment would
be legally required to go though a formal appruvilJ and pennitting process with the
involvement of other interested agencies and particst inctudlng the Pechanga Tribe.
Whlle the Tribe is understanding and supportive of addressing traffic concerns within the
City, any aligriment through Tribal lands is subject to certain legal requirements,
including consultation with and agreement by the Tribe, including posslhle Bureau of
Indian Affairsinvolvemenl. iftriba11ands ate affected.
It appears Ihat:the City is aware oflhc consultation requirement, as Policy C-ll un page
C-40 stales tl:1il the City will work with the Pechanga Band on these issues. We would
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
8-98
14-3
CITY OF TEMECULA
Responses to Comments on the Draft. EIR
like to reiteratC the necessity in obtaining the Tribc'5 agreement and approval on any such
proposals that)mpacl our Tribal lands, and look fonvard to working with you on a
govcrnrnenHo;-govemmenl basis to address issues that are of shared concern lo the City
and the Trihe. '
~~
Mark Macarro
Chainnan
C,,: leffComerchcro, Mayor
Ron Roberts, Mayor Pro Tem
Shawn Nelson. City Manager
David ~ogan, Principal Planner
14-3
COto3f .
CITY OF TEMECUlA
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
8-99
Responses to Comments on the Draft. fJ~
14. Mark Macarro, Chairman, Pechanga Indian Reservation. February 2, 2005.
Response 14-1
This comment provides an introduction to the Pechanga Indian Reservation's comments on the
Draft EIR. The comment indicates that the Tribe has an interest in the General Plan since the Tribe
is a landowner of properties that are directly adjacent to the City's jurisdictional boundaries. The
City acknowledges that the Pechanga Indian Reservation land is adjacent to parcels in the City's
jurisdiction. This comment does not address an environmental issue nor raise any question
regarding the analysis or conclusions in the EIR. No response is required.
Response 14-2
The comment is acknowledged. The City has initiated early consultation with the Pechanga Band
regarding the General Plan Update. The City understands that an agreement with any impacted
Native American tribe must be obtained for approval of development proposals that impact tribal
lands, including the approval process for the proposed Eastern Bypass. See also Response to
Comment 12-2.
The Draft Open Space Element recognizes the requirements of Senate Bill 18 (Chapter 905, 2004
Statues) and addresses consultation with Native American tribes, and in particular the Pechanga
Band, through the following policy and implementation program:
Policy 2.1 Actively pursue the construction of system improvements outside the City's
jurisdiction in cooperation with Caltrans, the City of Murrieta, Riverside County, the
Pechanga Band, and local developers. Measures should be taken to preserve
anticipated right-of-way needs and to identify funding mechanisms for needed
interchange and regional arterial improvements.
Implementation Program C-11.
. Work with the Pechanga Band, City of Murrieta, RCTC, and Caltrans to create
additional access points to 1-15 and 1-215 to ensure that access to the freeways is
provided for future bypass routes on both the west and east sides of the City, in a
manner that has the least potential impacts on the environment.
Response 14-3
The comment is noted. Please refer to Response 14-2.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-100
SOUTHERN CAUfOJlHIA
><
ASSOCIA1IONof
GOVERNMENTS
MaIn Office
818WQASCWQnthStfMt
1Zt~ Allor
lO$AAI'e\es, (Ahrofllla
9111117"Us
l(2~"2.,6.J8Dll
f(2i!l)l~/'i-l81,
*'ll~ed.~WlqnRob\OJll.
l'tlDfaQ.fn\'ru/'nIldellr:tI..,ftWlfI'\lJH
Ta'/hq,......llIloftt....S~..yllr
...~-.w
"'"",IOlnlr.lt~lllb. DlMrv .
wNllda~"-"',..hlOilue.,a,
~" ""I~ to&dr . z... 'tmlwsn 1.M
~ltl aull\y' ~II' ,,~. /Il~hMlU
hll' '1W1\I.1!'m.."~ QlllIrrl' "Ill
eo..tl"tfffi~"1CIWt1tOtllu.0l~..H.'
"'lrpllltlillLlosl!lltU . GlOItOIIlifl5.
I'IrllllO,~'"~llIl(IeIll.hlNitPoludr
1I1I~~'''t~te.loor1'
~oloi:<:~LOI~~~~~~
tu MpIn . "'.no IiIh. tol A1t!'l.. .
1u4Gr.1YI.""'lPI''''''''~''ln
...pll~ '~if" lvW. It.! Awla .
1I_1ill lIIil... 03r,...n. , CInd-I
Mln...."I. ~ MClin' 'llll _llU.
ffllJllC\" f'GrIl).CIllV\ll~ hIlIi lI\IonICI,A1r.
nClO... USAIIf*S' BlllIlnlhltl. In
="'~~"r."~~::1:~~:;~::
",11\,1lIIArvltI-DlacStaIlWll,Nl&l.loO\t,
~J,""''''''IIIlT'II~L~_'SI","
"ltt.f........... To:onOI""",lhup.loIq
:::'t.~':~.=~I~~~~
~. "~'IlxIWIL 6If.'''' '0.611-
7W>f,~"''''''"
'==~~.~~,;;;~~r:.;
......1uI"'M.I:kWCb-.M.III1lII'I
=:~~~::".'lr=~~~
flffll'MlrlInt.IlIiAl'lIdhr)'lod
1I~p..r..II"""Irl"""~
R~t1aU\j':"'~~MwI!"i""c.u...
tltHlII ha.h!t. ~k. tls~... I~."it-
nal~I.NM<"ly.u-.v'R..IQwri""',
t':;" ~:!}'tlli1. Cld,,"~~ tltr. IQ.
$II! fIl'"'''''' ca~.11! '111 o.R~ h.
~Hurao.O 011..,. lil ...,..In.... ......
lVClII*IfI'lMrwtt~II,.~.'II'l'.u
~"Gi.llldT"'",,'1,"1IfI"""'1II.5.1.
ht..........~........I~.,~O
=~IIi:n~~~it~r~c:~
Or._rU'I'1:loI'f{l\lll.PO/\Wv/llflnl
ll'_ c-I~ T'II"I(JI~ A\I!I>111QI,
"'.,
DoWlI~~c..IIl>>i'rr:
...-...
VWUIJ ~ ".,,,,11.I",,, r...n..tloll<
I:fIIIlNiINiA.."...",arl
(j)",,,,,,,..~~~~ "''\I'"''''
Responses to Comments on the Draft. ElR
February 2, 2005
~I~
Mr. David Hogan
Principal Planner
Cily of Temeoula Planning DepsrtmGhl
43200 Business Park Drive '
P. O. Box 9033
Temscula, CA 92589-9033
Dear MI. Hogan: !
;"~k you for submitting the Public ~earlng Draft of the Updated
General Plan for the City of Temec~l. to the Southern CalKomla
Association of Governments for review and comment A description
of the pmposed plan was published I~ SCAG's .December 18-31,
2004 Intergovernmental Review Clearinghouse Report for public
review and comment. In addlllon, SCAG staff reviewed and
commented on the Draft EnvimnmeM\a1lmpact Report for 1hfi) City of
Temecula General Plan Update under seperate cover on January
10,2005. Each of our reviews is from a regional perspective with on
Intent to share information, data and adopted pians and programs
that sst forth regional policy.
It Is Important to nole that requests, sLch as yours, to review a tocal
government general plan covering a 62 square mila planning area in
a faslgrowing county, represenl a.slghlficant opportunity to identify
where regional pOlicy can be implemented through IocaJ action,
thereby bensntlng your community, subregion and region In the
future. It may, therefore, be beneficial to Include a short section in
your Purpose of General Plan ssction; (pages 1-6 through 1-9) to
discuss the rsgional/subregionaVlocal planning relationships.
Ws were pleased to note your mentiO(l of the Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) and the R~gional Comprehensive Plan,
SCAG's Growth Vision Compass and SCAG's Growth Managsment
ptan throughOilt the Dralt Generat Pta".
We recognize your efforts to support regional goals and policies wllh
the Inclusion of new land use categories for mixed.use
development. the linkages with mutli-</se trails and future goals for
new trsnsportation opportunities thmuph the extension of
Measure A. !
,
I
I
I
I
DOCSll~UO'"
MCD
IS' "I
1~.1..
1S'.3
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-101
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft EfR
SOllTHlRll CALlPORNI.&
>~
ASSOCIATION of
GOVERNMENTS
Main Office
BJSW'l!!stSeventhSlreel
uthFloor
Los AnplH,.Clllfoml.
900J7')~)S
t(J.t3>:lJ6-1&oD
f(21,h,6-tU,
Ollfertr~~*~
,,"-,lI'I'hViDtPleWMlI:CMdIlMlIIbtt
~':.."o':' 1Iu_. S-. VII.
.-,.tIlChlllrl/tSAllilllS.anky
lI.I.....~w.lII.,.,...l\1lkt.
~~~,~~~= ~
6tila.N~hldwlt..SU(jlbIM.~
......Cenl....lbJr<tmol~tN"....l.
=.~ ~:r.RM~Io.=~a.~:~
Dao\alr. UtltlIOH . bl...... UIC t1iK_
~~'::'W$:'::'~~~J:
lM........./ollOOllilll.wARp/n.
IwM ~CtllopIOI1'" lI....l.Ii
Uffla 'MM1.IaIlcrII.IIlo~i'
U"""", -.. cw.IIlI . celli'
IIIhd'llllllIL"'......ln.P..lI.-JIk*.
"1lJ1ICt ' ~i!II O"eor.o.. hili ..... AIfr.
'idI"'IlIJ~.8traMPtrQ.~
~'I"'''It.IIl''''18.)allkI''''
MllMo.(tIMI,lJ,.liIl&tkl'Grf!I
s.,aa.IaAftlIJI.oltIlSllIllt""~'~
SjIllL.......1W.oIh...........II1.fli'nq
td. I'IlUtIllI. IM~ bRJ l/rIIp,. I."
.r.nIt_'=..~=,:=:ta:
~...'IIIlItI'.....Glenftll.OIrir
1l.t,""1IIpItI
=-r.:::I.~..~~
1...~rI,I"'\.lld1adO'ItU.Anlbiftl
D==f~.:rJll..m:tt
ftmI'MlriIp"'..L.'oWm!tlS'Tld
.~IWIlIl1Bnlll
.loIrdftc."IJl"fb>I."-"""'~r'
n..1l11 hill"", bi:t O~..... Iolni.
"1li1lftl./QIII'l\'Jn'l'.~
:~~ ~~a,.
,......I"""'c-.tro~O<O..h"
IfrU/JlUGI~Itt.IlllAbir..IH...q
ClICIMIp.u.w.-a.OalI.I#SIIrri'LN'"
:n":;.:=~~;~~f.
t:'~~~t.~::L'nC:t;
!Il~'llI~I""''''NIIIlIHif
Or.,.~T",,,,,'dHAIIlII/IIJ:
-
..........'IWtWIt_CllIIIIIM',
IciclIt...tlelrlft
Veo1m (H.... ",",""JIIoo c......
lCoIIl"IUlll"~
$"''''.~Il(II",_ ...,...)
Overalt, Temecut~.s Draft General Pflrn acknowledges and supports
Southern Catlfomla Growth Vision eclmpass Princlptes of:
Mobility, Improve MobiIitylor Residents
Livability - Foster LJvsbl/lty In I Communl/lss
PrOSJlllrfty - Enable Proeperlly or All Psopls
Sustalnabllity - Promote bIIity lor Future Generetions
Ths City of Temecula's effort 10 mai!!lain consistency wltll regional
plans such as, the Regional eompreIensiv8 Plan and Regional
TranspoFtaUon Plan. Is highly comme dabls.. We appreciate your
commllment to ths regional vision an look forward 10 hearing of
your land use/lransporlation success s as you reallzll your local
vision through your newly reviSed Ge oral Plan.
Thank you again for ihe opportunIty If review this most Important
city planning document.
Sincerely,
r~~
LYlfn' Ha;riS
Manager of Community Developmenl
Planning and Policy Departme.nt '
D0CSI/76100,.7
MCB
1S'-'!
c.o~.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAl PLAN UPDATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-102
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
15. Lynn Harris, Manger of Community Development, Planning and Policy Department,
Southern California Association of Governments. February 2, 2005.
Response 15-1
This comment provides an introduction to the Southern California Association of Governments'
comments on the Draft General Plan. This comment does not raise or address any specific
environmental issue raised within the EIR. No response is required.
Response 15-2
The commenter's opinion is acknowledged. This comment does not raise or address any specific
environmental issue raised within the EIR. The comment requests additions to the Purpose of the
General Plan portion of the Draft General Plan introduction to discuss regional/subregional/local
planning relationships. The City will consider this addition. Any concerns regarding the content of
the Draft General Plan should be expressed to the Planning Commission and the City Council at
public hearings scheduled for the adoption of the Draft General Plan.
Response 15-3
The comment is noted. The City recognizes the influence and importance of regional planning
within the Draft General Plan and strives to maintain consistency with local, subregional, and
regional planning efforts.
CITY OF TEMECUlA
8-103
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Responses to Comments on the Draft. fiR
SOUTI1~IUIl CAUFOIUrIlA.
~
ASSOCIATION of
GOVERNMENTS
Mala Office
1l-,8We:ltS~nlh Sllll~l
1:,rI1F1oor
losA""le~(al1r()([llll
90017"J435
l(;.r;lllzJb-~
r(ll<j)~,6'l82S
_.'oIllt.l...!,,,,
OJroalf. I'l"...t.rot: l.ll1lllcil/JltUl~ ."',
lIul""h. .J........1o ' 1m! V1~1 ''tiI>oIl11,
(_~b1I'lt.II!'.""'I!llo:.",",.
"MaIm!Ykt""~ettvu.~
~ICII'l\y;JII1IlI'k!I.!nl'!l!o
""_lDtNltJtI\alllfHI3111walll~il~
,ot.."....j'lllnl..lt.lonU'....IQ,lN>
Merl!l ~GllI1ft. ~ill iWillp.. Mirl'.'..
loti"" 1Vll\' I"~,",," \;II liMiII'l'\IoI
IcIfth!'~CIo~.ltI..c..fII....I...~,,".
l!.l~.ru..._Uli.~....n..;'...
'......n"._llio:po......","""olI..P,""
~~~~~::~~~~~~:
Merre,;.kI..bInI;..wdl~.II"II!\Hl~a.
t"" Alrfo.... -loUT ~~bn. l~i A"!l!ln.
~>l:l"l(llll*,,'!~l.'~.~
~'Ill1I11.I.JJd\o1o,Lo'''''~'IIJ'
i.I_1r.n /Illlltr. lkltmcml. Ul4f
Ml..tl\....IO,u..~...Po"l"""'"';.'.
1bll"iliItt'Vill1l'1'tNfdf.:!lol"...^,",,,...m..
l'I~m", lIS Al~lol.. I.".", "",k.. l...
~Oll""JoiA"",,,lm~.e...u..Ptw,
l'lco ~"'rlI'l:I: ",",.IM AmIltS 'G1t~
5"I~~tolo"'!I<Io..C""SI4o""'d.""",'Ta..
~e1.Wi1abl'91..lI-'Mr4ltlIl...~....,.
w.. V~~Uta. biJ...,.. \11.0I"", \<"If
..... 'AoJa",;,\,iIlo"~~l.II...A"",.....
Ilr"""llt...i!llullr,("..~.",,;w,.i,,"lo.
""rI-,.~""""",...ldr.<Wr'llN'"
11..\1"''',(<'11....
::~...,er.u:=.~io~T.:~iv;
-...lII.....,,,...tltlllcl~.~lhotll'l.
'hrl1Ji<'{_,~~ritiom..NCr '\.il9.f\'I.
~1_Nf".Il'I'.'rl'~'~P""...l.kt
FOI'\'" , 1Il~", l'tI" l.01l1li1r-lI01' l~
tl~~""'I>"'I~~
1lliIItrWIl.r.."'r.rrSlo.r,liIot......t....uy.
1lo.......R,.ll'...htrFl>.i......Ilo~
nHinl".J,I."'ntIIl'lIl",. toolll"'f~~.
1ilo,.,..6.' ~"" l'\oft<, l:lI....""'J '''!' '110'
bb<'l\\.TI.....n.'~,
,. D111114i11, cnntr.hullw"!. 50.
h-...(..~-.........,""r'.I/<'lr..
(\mI""l,,",,'11J'lll1l~~.~'II'l~
""'o.G....oI'o/lil....\lIIInlOllp;lifk.)on
/IoIi'IItIIt'",'IloM..hlolft.<tII'I_~
lbt_CIu1liot"""UIo<l~~iurn("'-"I\I'
liIl..e.tlll"'5il1>iVJ....,.c..lllblb""",,~..
11I......:!1lUIJ.Tlml'llJ..."PMH...'lll!lrl>
au,.. CdlI~ n...,...._ AII"'tJ1
-.
.bmIiIoCllolly..........."'''''''iSlliDll:
~1""".IINll".
:~~~:.MplJU[;O. c._I..Io.,
1jI1'1i,,'.,j...(:,,~...r..,.. '-""';'1"
.January 1 0, 2005
'=;-:;~"""cc~: ,;;;;'[?1
I',,, ". '0' . ,.. .-. ,,1
JiT'" '.' . - i;~\\
'':' JAN 18 2005,>!
II;. "\
t."
~;-- ..=.-.
Ib-l
I~-t.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
:tl.tr. David Hogan
:Prlnclpal Planner
:Clty Df TMlecufa
Planning Dopar1menr
43200 Business PM< Drive
Tem",ul.. CA 92592
Len l!l1... I C:>
RE,
Commenl$ on the Draft Envlronmentll'lmpact Report for th& city of '.rnecula
Ge....1 Plan Update - SCAG No.1 ~0040834
Dear Mr, Hogan:
Th8nk you far WMl'ItUitl9 tl)t Dra.1: EnvrcvnrnvnJml ~ R.pJrt fer the City of Ternecufl'l
Cenml Plan Update to SCAG for review and ClOmmlimt, As areawide clearinghouse for
tegfOnaHy 5ignif~t projects, SCAG reviews the oonsi$terJC:Y 01' local plans, projects, and
pn:>grams with regional plans. This activIty IS based 01'\ SCAG's responsibiUtles as a
rl!Jgional plannIng organization pursuam to stala anrJ f9daral laws and regulations,
.Guldance provided bV these reviews js intended to assist looal agencies and proJect
sponsors 10 taka actions that contribute to the trttainment at regional goals and policies.
It i5 f8C0gnlzed that the propOSed Project cOllslders the comprehensive update or the city
of Temecula General Plan,
SCAG o!aff haS ova.\Jaled 1l1. Draft Environmental I",pact Report for "'. CIty 01
Temll!ellla GeneraJ Plan Update for consi$lency with !he Regional Comprehenslw Plan and
Guide- alld RE1glonal Trar.sportatlon PlBn_ The Draft EJA Includes a discussion on the
J)rOpOI9d Projoots' oonsl$b;one:y with SCAG pol'lCies and app/lcable regJonal plans. which were
<?utlfned In our ~ptembBr 2, 2Q04letter on the Notice of Preparalfon (NOP} for this Draft EIR.
The Draft EIR, i1 Section 5.9: Land Use and Planning, cUad SCAG poltcies and addressed the
manner in which the proposed Project Is oonsfstanl wm-J applicable COfV policies and
~upportiva of applicable ancillary polbles. This approach to dlscussng cansistljncy or support
qf SCAn polIcies is oornmendable ancJ we appreciate your efforts. Based on the informatlon
pm...Jded In the Draft EIR, we have no further cornmerns. A deacriptlon of the -proposed
Project was publiShed In the December 16-31, 2004 Intergovemmental Review Oear1nghQUS8
Fteport for public review atld ccmmel11.
tt you nave any questions. p1aase contact me al (213) 236-1887. Thank you.
~~~~~' 7h~
J'. ..~. MITH, AIC~ .
Senior Rog/ aJ Planner
l~tergoverml1;H1la1 Review
8-104
Responses to Comments on the Draft fiR
16. Jeffrey M. Smith, Senior Regional Planner, Intergovernmental Review, Southern California
Association of Governments. January 10, 2005.
Response 16-1
This comment provides an introduction to a second comment letter received from the Southern
California Association of Governments. No response is required.
Response 16-2
The comment is noted. This comment indicates that SCAG has reviewed the Draft EIR and does
not have any further comments.
CITY OF TEMECULA
8-105
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
CITY OF TEMECULA
CITY CLERK DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: ~Susan W. Jones, City Clerk
DATE: \J April 12, 2005
SUBJECT: Amended General Plan Resolutions - Council Agenda Item No. 13
Please find attached amended General Plan Resolutions. The first resolution Certifies the Final
Program EIR, and the second approves the comprehensive update ofthe General Plan.
4/12/05
RESOLUTION NO. 05 -_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING THE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF
THE GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, Section 65300 of the Government Code requires that cities adopt a
comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the jurisdiction as well
as any adjacent areas which, in the judgement of the City, bears a relationship to its planning;
WHEREAS, Sections 65302 of the Government Code requires that a general plan
address the following issues: land use, circulation, housing, conservation of natural resources,
open space, noise, and public safety;
WHEREAS, Sections 65303 of the Government Code allows the City to include any
other issues or concerns into the general plan which may relate to the physical developrnent of
the City;
WHEREAS, the City Council approved the first General Plan, and certified the
Environmental Impact Report on November 23, 1993;
WHEREAS, the City Council has amended the General Plan from time to time and
determined that a comprehensive update of all the Element of the General Plan, except the
Housing Element, was necessary;
WHEREAS, the City Council appointed a community advisory committee to assist in the
process of updating the General Plan;
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Committee held meetings on January 7, 2002,
January 28, 2002, February 25, 2002, April 01, 2002, May 6, 2002, May 15, 2002, May 30,
2002, April 29, 2003, May 20, 2003, June 11, 2003, March 1, 2004, April 26, 2004, May 3, 2004,
and July 6, 2004 to consider the current General Plan and to recommend appropriate changes
to the Planning Commission and City Council;
WHEREAS, the City Council and Planning Commission held a joint workshop to
consider the recommendation of the Community Advisory Committee on August 10, 2004 and
provided a number of comments and suggestions on the recommended General Plan;
WHEREAS, Section 65302 of the Government Code requires that the City of Temecula
submit a copy of its draft Safety Element to the Division of Mines and Geology (DMG) for their
review and comrnent;
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula submitted its draft Public Safety Element to the DMG
on August 26, 2004, and
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula has made changes to the draft Public Safety Element
in response to the concerns raised by DMG;
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelFinal GP Update Resolution.DOC
WHEREAS, the Community Services Commission met to consider and provide
comments on the proposed General Plan on September 13, 2004, at which time members of
the public had the opportunity to comment to the Community Services Commission on the
proposed General Plan;
WHEREAS, the Traffic Safety Commission met to consider and provide comments on
the proposed General Plan on September 28, 2004 and January 27, 2005, at which time
members of the public had the opportunity to comment to the Traffic Safety Commission on the
proposed General Plan;
WHEREAS, the City held community meetings on December 26, 2001, January 12,
2002, April 4, 2002, and November 4, 2004 to solicit input, comments, and concerns from
members of the community;
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 18 amended Section 65352 of the Government Code to require
that local governments refer their General Plan to any California Native American tribe with
traditional lands located within the City's jurisdiction;
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula consulted with representatives of the Pechanga Band
of Luiseiio Indians on January 20, 2005;
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula has made changes to the draft General Plan as a
result of the consultation with the Pechanga Band;
WHEREAS, Section 21676 of the Public Utilities Code requires that the City of
Temecula submit a copy of its draft General Plan to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC);
WHEREAS, Section 21675.2 of the Public Utilities Code requires that the ALUC
complete its review within 60 days;
WHEREAS, the General Plan recognizes the authority of the ALUC around French
Valley Airport;
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula submitted its draft General Plan to the ALUC on
February 4, 2005;
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended (Sections
21000 through 21177 of the Public Resources Code), requires that prior to the approval of any
project the Lead Agency consider the potential impacts and effects of said project, consider
alternatives to the project, and identify mitigation measures necessary to reduce or eliminate the
impact of the project on the environment;
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula has prepared and circulated for public review and
comment an Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan in accordance with the
provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines prepared by the Office of Planning and
Research;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, the City provided its
responses to all persons, organizations, and agencies who commented on the Draft EIR on
March 22, 2005;
R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Final GP Update Resolution.DOC
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has held duly noticed public hearings on
February 2, 2005 and March 16, 2005 (continued from February 16, 2005) to consider the
proposed General Plan and Environmental Impact Report, at which time all persons interested
in the Project had the opportunity and did address the City Council on these matters;
WHEREAS, the City Council has held duly noticed public hearings on March 22, 2005
and April 12, 2005 to consider the proposed General Plan and Environmental Impact Report, at
which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the
Planning Commission on these matters;
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 05-_ on April 12, 2005 which
Certified the EIR, adopted a Statement of Overriding Consideration and Mitigation Monitoring
Program for the El R for the General Plan;
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest for the City Council to adopt the comprehensive
updates of the Land Use, Circulation, Open Space/Conservation, Growth ManagemenVPublic
Facilities, Public Safety, Noise, Air Quality, Community Design, and Economic Development
Elements of the General Plan for the City of Temecula, as amended;
WHEREAS, the proposed comprehensive updates of the Land Use, Circulation, Open
Space/Conservation, Growth ManagemenVPublic Facilities, Public Safety, Noise, Air Quality,
Community Design, and Economic Development Elements of the General Plan for the City of
Temecula, as amended, are compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community;
WHEREAS, the proposed comprehensive updates of the Land Use, Circulation, Open
Space/Conservation, Growth ManagemenVPublic Facilities, Public Safety, Noise, Air Quality,
Community Design, and Economic Development Elements of the General Plan for the City of
Temecula, as amended, are internally consistent and comply with all applicable laws;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA:
Section 1. The recitals described in the whereas clauses set forth above are true
and correct and are hereby adopted as findings by the City Council.
Section 2. Council Member Roberts and Council Member Washington did not
participate in the public hearing and Council discussion of the North General Kearney Road
extension issues. Both own homes in the Meadowview Community and are part of the
Meadowview Homeowners Association. The Association owns the property on which the North
General Kearney Road extension would be built as well as property surrounding it; therefore the
Fair Political Practices Commission has confirmed that Mayor Pro Tem Roberts and Council
Member Washington have a conflict due to their home ownership. Based on this conflict of
interest, Mayor pro tem Roberts and Council Member Washington each hereby abstain in the
approval of this Resolution and certification of the Environmental Impact Report and the
approval of the General Plan as such actions relate to the extension of North General Kearney
Road.
Section 3. Mayor Comerchero and Council member Naggar did not participate in the
discussion of the Southern Bypass Road nor the land use designation for property located south
of the Morgan Hill Specific Plan. Council Member Naggar has a financial interest in
approximately 80 acres of real property in adjacent to Anza Rd and EI Chimisal in the
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelFinal GP Update Resolution.DOC
unincorporated portion of Riverside County and he believes that the implementation of the
Southern Bypass and the land use designations for property located south of the Morgan Hill
Specific Plan might have a significant effect on the value of this property. Mayor Comerchero
also will not be participating in this matter because he is the President of Rancon and Rancon
owns approximately 100 acres of property adjacent to Anza Rd and El Chimisal in the
unincorporated portion of Riverside County and he believes that the implementation of the
Southern Bypass Road and the land use designation for property located south of the Morgan
Hill Specific Plan might have a significant effect on the value of this property. Based on this
conflict of interest, Mayor Comerchero and Council Member Naggar each hereby abstain in the
approval of this Resolution and certification of the Environmental Impact Report and the
approval of the General Plan as such actions relate to the Southern Bypass Road and the land
use designation for property located south of the Morgan Hill Specific Plan.
Section 4. Council Member Washington did not participate in the discussion
concerning Circulation Element Policies 3.6, 3.7, and 3.8 as he owns a home on a street which
could be impacted by this policy. Based on this conflict of interest, Council Member Washington
hereby abstains in the approval of this Resolution and certification of the Environmental Impact
Report and the approval of the General Plan as such actions relate to Circulation Element
Policies 3.6, 3.7, and 3.8.
Section 5. Council Member Naggar did not participate in the discussion concerning
Rainbow Canyon Road, Avenida de Missiones Bridge, and Land Use Map Request NO.7 (72
acres at the north side of Lorna Linda) because Horton/Continental, owner of the 20.4 acre
parcel being developed at the north east corner of Temecula Land and Lorna Linda in the City is
a source of income to him and he believes that the changes to the road and bridge and the land
use designation might have a significant effect on the value of the property. Based on this
conflict of interest, Council Member Naggar herby abstains in the approval of this Resolution
and certification of the Environmental Impact Report and the approval of the General Plan as
such actions relate to Rainbow Canyon Road, Avenida de Missiones Bridge and Land Use Map
Request NO.7.
Section 6. Mayor Comerchero did not participate in the discussion of the land use
designation for the Callaway Winery property because he is the President of Rancon and
Rancon owns approximately 330 acres of property in the unincorporated portion of Riverside
County and he believes that the implementation of land use designation for Callaway Winery
property might have a significant effect on the value of this property. Based on this conflict of
interest, Mayor Comerchero hereby abstains in the approval of this Resolution and certification
of the Environmental Impact Report and the approval of the General Plan as such actions relate
to the land use designation for Callaway Winery property. Mayor Comerchero also did not
participate in the discussion of the land use designation for Land Use Map Request No.2, 72
acres of property at the corner of Nicholas Road and Via Lobo. Although not a technical
conflict, the owner of the 72 acres for Land Use Map Request NO.2 at Nicholas Road and Via
Lobo will sponsor a major fund raiser for Mayor Comerchero this and he believes it is only
appropriate that he not participate on this matter. Based on this conflict of interest, Mayor
Comerchero hereby abstains in the approval of this Resolution and certification of the
Environmental Impact Report and the approval of the General Plan as such actions relate to
Land Use Map Request No.2.
Section 7. In 2003 the City Council changed the General Plan land use designations
for the property at the southwest corner Butterfield Stage Road and Pauba Road and off of Via
Campanula near Paloma Del Sol Park as well as the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan. In 2003 the
R:IGeneral PlanlComp Plan UpdatelFinal GP Update Resolution.DOC
Corona Family Trust filed a lawsuit against the City over the changes that were made in the
General Plan and Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan at this location. At this time, it appears that the
City will prevail in the legal challenge. As a result, when these legal proceedings have
concluded, the previously approved land use designation changes will be restored to the
General Plan without further action of the City Council. These changes are not in conflict with
the current General Plan proposal and nothing herein is intended to nor shall anything herein be
construed to modify the previously approved General Plan land use designations for this
property and in the Paloma Del Sol Specific Plan.
Section 8. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the comprehensive
updates of the Land Use, Circulation, Open Space/Conservation, Growth Management'Public
Facilities, Public Safety, Noise, Air Quality, Community Design, and Economic Development
Elements of the General Plan for the City of Temecula, as amended, in substantially the form on
file in the Office of the City Clerk.
Section 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula
this 12TH day of April 2005.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
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. 2005-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 12TH day of April 2005, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
R:\General Plan\Comp Plan Update\Final GP Update Resolution.DOC
ATTACHMENT NO.1
RESOLUTION NO. 01 -_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA CERTIFYING THE FINAL PROGRAM
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE
TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND RELATED
ACTIONS, AND ADOPTING THE 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 TEMECULA GENERAL
PLAN UPDATE
Statement of Findings of Fact
Pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15091
for the Temecula General Plan Update
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula General Plan Update and related actions ("General
Plan Update") have been initiated and prepared on behalf of the City of Temecula. The project
proposes the adoption and implementation of the City of Temecula General Plan Update. The
General Plan Update addresses the seven State mandated general plan elements (land use,
housing, circulation, safety, open space, conservation, and noise), as well as other issues that
are important to the community, including growth management, economic development, air
quality, and community design. The Housing Element was recently updated in 2002 and thus
has not been updated as part of the project. The updated General Plan establishes an overall
development capacity for the City and surrounding areas, and serves as a policy guide for
determining the appropriate physical development and character of the City for the next 20
years. The Land Use Element establishes land use designations to identify the types and
nature of future development permitted throughout the Planning Area. The Circulation Element
describes how Temecula residents and employees get around using automobiles, public transit,
bicycles, airplanes, sidewalks and trails, and railways. In addition, it presents the City's plan for
future roadways that provide adequate capacity to accommodate travel needs resulting from
development pursuant to the Land Use Element. All of the elements combined establish a
vision for the City, emphasizing a family-focused lifestyle and a strong local business community
that includes agricultural, technological, and manufacturing industries, with the overarching goal
of maintaining Temecula as a vibrant, attractive, and enjoyable place.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), the City is
the lead agency for the General Plan as the public agency with both general governmental
powers and the principle responsibility for implementing the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Program Environmental Impact Report
("Draft EIR or Draft PEIR") was issued on June 6, 2003, and a public scoping meeting was held
on June 25, 2003, inviting comments from responsible agencies, other regulatory agencies,
organizations, and individuals pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15082; and
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update April 4, 2005
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 PEIR; and
WHEREAS, a Draft PEIR was prepared by the City pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines
section 15168 to analyze potential adverse environmental impacts of General Plan
implementation pursuant to CEQA; and
WHEREAS, upon completion of the Draft PEIR dated December 17, 2004, the City
initiated a 45-day public comment period between December 17, 2004 and January 31, 2005 by
filing a Notice of Completion with the State Office of Planning and Research in December 17,
2004; and
WHEREAS, the City also published a Notice of Availability for the Draft PEIR in a
newspaper of general circulation. Copies of the Draft PEIR were sent to public agencies,
organizations, and individuals. In addition, the City placed copies of the Draft PEIR in public
libraries in Riverside County and made copies avaiiable for review at City offices; and
WHEREAS, during and before the official public review period for the Draft EIR, the City
received seventeen written comments, all of which were responded to by the City. Those
comments and the responses are included as part of the Final Program Environmental Impact
ReporVResponse to Comments document ("Final Program EIR, Final PEIR, or PEIR"); and
WHEREAS, the Community Advisory Committee held meetings on January 7, 2002,
January 28, 2002, February 25, 2002, April 01, 2002, May 6, 2002, May 15, 2002, May 30,
2002, April 29, 2003, May 20,2003, June 11, 2003, March 1, 2004, April 26, 2004, May 3, 2004,
and July 6, 2004 to consider the current General Plan and to recommend appropriate changes
to the Planning Commission and City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City Council and Planning Commission held a joint workshop to
consider the recommendation of the Community Advisory Committee on August 10, 2004 and
provided a number of comments and suggestions on the recommended General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Community Services Commission met to consider and provide
comments on the proposed General Plan on September 13, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the Traffic Safety Commission met to consider and provide comments on
the proposed General Plan on September 28, 2004 and January 27,2005; and
WHEREAS, the City held community meetings on December 26, 2001, January 12,
2002, April 4, 2002, and November 4, 2004 to solicit input, comments, and concerns from
members of the community; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.5, on March 22, 2005,
the City provided its responses to all persons, organizations, and agencies who commented on
the Draft EIR; and
WHEREAS, Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines prevents the City from
approving or carrying out a project for which a PEIR has been completed that identifies any
significant environmental effects unless the City makes one or more of the following written
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecuia General Plan Updale
2
finding(s) for each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the
rationale for each finding:
(1) 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
(2) 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
(3) 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 General
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 PEIR which the Planning
Commission finds are less than significant and do not require mitigation are described in
Section 2 hereof; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final PEIR as potentially significant,
but which the Planning Commission finds can be mitigated to a less than significant level
through the imposition of mitigation measures and/or conditions identified in the Final PEIR and
General Plan and set forth herein are described in Section 3 hereof; and
WHEREAS, environmental impacts identified in the Final PEIR as potentially significant
but which the Planning Commission finds cannot be fully mitigated to a less than significant
level despite the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures described in Section 4 hereof;
and
WHEREAS, alternatives to the General Plan that might eliminate or reduce significant
environmental impacts are described in Section 5 hereof; and
WHEREAS, a discussion of General 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 6 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 Planning Commission has heard, been presented
with, reviewed, and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, and
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
3
all oral and written testimony presented to it during meetings and hearings. The Final PEIR
reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission and is deemed adequate for
purposes of making decisions on the merits of the General Plan and related 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 PEIR under
CEQA, nor do the minor modifications to the Final PEIR require additional public review
because no new significant environmental impacts were identified, no substantial increase in the
severity of any environmental impacts would occur.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby determines the
following:
Section 1. Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula determined that based
on all of the evidence presented, including the Final EIR, written and oral testimony given at
meetings and hearings, and submission of testimony from the public, organizations, and
regulatory agencies, the environmental impacts associated with the adoption and long-term
implementation of the Temecula General Plan Update will have a less than significant impact
with regard to the following, as evidenced through the analysis presented in the Initial Study
contained in Appendix A of the Final EIR:
A. Aesthetics - Scenic resources and vistas; visual character
To preserve public views of significant natural resources, all new public and private
development projects will be reviewed to ensure that they will not obstruct public views
of scenic resources, such as the hillsides, scenic roads, or significant open space areas.
During the review of individual projects, the Community Development Department may
require site redesign or place height limits on projects that have the potential to block
views. New projects will also be reviewed to ensure that the proposed landscaping and
tree planting will not obstruct views of significant natural resources. Implementation of
the identified policies through this review process will ensure that impact will be less than
significant on a project-by-project basis (Initial Study, p. 10).
B. Agricultural Resources - Williamson Act contracts
No Williamson Act contracts are in effect within the Planning Area (Initial Study, p. 11).
C. Air Quality - Compliance with regional plans; odors
The Air Quality Element of the General Plan addresses compliance with the current Air
Quality Management Plan for the South Coast Air Basin. The Air Quality Element is
designed to ensure City land use decisions work to implement and comply with federal,
State, and local regulations pertaining to air quality. No conflict with the regional air
quality plan will result, and no adverse impact will occur (Initial Study, p. 12).
Development anticipated to occur pursuant to the General Plan will be predominantly
residential and commercial uses consisting of retail stores, offices, and business parks.
Each new development will be required to comply with the South Coast Air Quality
Management District's guidelines regarding odor control. Compliance with these
existing regulations will ensure that impact will be less than significant (Initial Study, p.
12).
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
4
D. Biological Resources - Conflict with policies, ordinances, or plans
All new development will comply with City policies and ordinances protecting biological
resources, including tree preservation policies. The updated General Plan provides
policies and implementation programs that fully support adopted habitat conservation
plans. No impact will result (Initial Study, p. 13).
E. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Businesses and operations involving the use, transport, or disposal of hazardous
materials will only proceed in strict compliance with federal, State, and local hazardous
materials regulations. The General Plan maintains the goal of protecting '1he public and
environmental resources from hazards related to hazard materials and waste, and
nuclear power production" (Goal 2, Public Safety Element). Four policies are included to
carry out this goal. Implementation of these policies, together with compliance with
existing regulations, will result in a less than significant impact.
No sites in Temecula are included on the Department of Toxic Substances Control
Hazardous Waste and Substance List, known as the Cortese List (Initial Study, p.17).
Temecula has adopted a Multi-Hazard Functional Plan to ensure the effective
management of City personnel and resources in responding to emergency situations
stemming from natural disasters, technological incidents, and nuclear defense
emergencies. Implementation of the Public Safety Element policies, along with the
continued implementation of the City's Multi-Hazard Functional Plan, will ensure a less
than significant impact with regard to emergency preparedness (Initial Study, p.18).
F. Hydrology and Water Quality - Water quality; 1 OO-year flood hazard
All new development will be required to comply with existing water quality standards and
waste discharge regulations set forth by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San
Diego region. Impact will be less than significant.
Each new development will be required to comply with stormwater regulations set forth
by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Diego region, including NPDES
regulations. Compliance with existing regulations on a project-by-project basis will
reduce potential impact to a less than significant level (Initial Study, p. 19).
The City participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which makes
flood insurance available to affected property owners within a 100-year floodplain. The
City also reviews development plans for projects within floodplains to ensure compliance
with City and FEMA floodplain development requirements. No development of any kind
will be allowed in the f100dway portion of a 1 OO-year floodplain. Implementation of these
measures, which represent standard City practice, will reduce the risk from flooding to a
less than significant level.
The Planning Area is not subject to tsunamis due to its inland location. Seiches have
not historically occurred within the Planning Area (Initial Study, p. 20).
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
5
G. Land Use and Planning - Divide community; conflict with habitat conservation
plans
The majority of undeveloped land within the Planning Area is located north of the
Temecula corporate city limits, in the sphere of influence. No physical division would
result from development pursuant to the General Plan (Initial Study, p. 21).
Temecula is located within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (MSHCP) planning area. In response to the provisions of the
MSHCP, the General Plan Open Space/Conservation Element includes the goal of
"conservation of important biological habitats and protection of plant and animal species
of concern, wildlife movement corridors, and general biodiversity' (Goal 3, Open
Space/Conservation Element). This goal is supported by the policy to "coordinate with
the County of Riverside and other relevant agencies in the implementation of the
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan" (Policy 3.3,
Open Space/Conservation Element). The General Plan supports applicable habitat
conservation plans, and no impact will result (Initial Study, p.21).
H. Mineral Resources
According to the California Geological Survey, no known mineral resources exist in
Temecula. Development pursuant to the General Plan will not result in the loss of a
known mineral resource (Initial Study, p. 22).
I. Population and Housing - Displacement of people or housing
The General Plan will allow the development of a variety of uses on currently
undeveloped land. However, this new development will not displace substantial
numbers of housing units or people. No impact will result (Initial Study, p. 24).
J. Transportation - Air traffic patterns; hazardous design features; emergency
access; parking; plans for alternative modes of transportation
The French Valley Airport is located within Temecula's sphere of influence. Growth
pursuant to the General Plan is not anticipated to change air traffic patterns. The County
is planning to update the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for French Valley Airport in
response to additional region-wide demand for airport services; as part of this process,
the impacts of potential increased airport use will be subsequently analyzed. Impact will
be less than significant.
The Circulation Element addresses the importance of compatibility between design
issues and land use compatibility. However, new development is expected to result in
additional roadways. All new roadways will be built in accordance with all requisite City
and County design requirements. No significant impact will result.
The City has a Multi-Hazard Functional Plan in place. In addition, the Public Safety
Element calls for regular reviews by the City to assess response times and incorporate
newly developed areas to ensure adequate fire and police protection. Impact will be less
than significant.
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
6
All new development pursuant to the General Plan will provide parking in compliance
with City standards for the particular use. No significant impact will result.
One of the key components of the Circulation Element is to promote the use of
alternative transportation modes, including bicycling and walking. Public bus service is
provided by the Riverside Transit Agency. The City is committed to ensuring that public
transportation becomes a viable alternative to the automobile for residents. The
Circulation Element also emphasizes the network of Multi-Use Trails planned for in the
City's Multi-Use Trails Master Plan. Impact will be less than significant (Initial Study,
p.27).
K. Utilities and Service Systems - Wastewater treatment requirements; solid waste
The General Plan will not result in development of any use that could exceed
established treatment standards. All new development will be required to comply with
existing wastewater treatment requirements set forth by the Regional Water Quality
Control Board, San Diego region. Impact will be less than significant.
Each development approved pursuant to General Plan policy will be required to comply
with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to the disposal of solid
waste. No adverse impact will result (Initial Study, p. 28).
Section 2. Findings. The City Council of the City of Temecula determined that based
on all of the evidence presented, including the Final EIR, written and oral testimony given at
meetings and hearings, and submission of testimony from the public, organizations, and
regulatory agencies, the environmental impacts associated with the adoption and
implementation of the Temecula General Plan Update will result in a less than significant impact
with regard to the following issues, as identified through the analysis presented in the PEIR;
therefore, no mitigation measure is required:
A. Air Quality - Carbon monoxide hotspots
The CALlNE-4 analysis shows that while all study intersections will experience some
level of carbon monoxide (CO) concentration, ranging from 0.1 parts per million (ppm) to
1.5 ppm during the 1-hour period, no intersections are anticipated to exceed South
Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds for the 1-hour standard.
Therefore, implementation of the proposed General Plan will not result in a significant
impact with regard to CO hot spots (pEIR, p. 5.3-11).
B. Geology and Soils - Seismic groundshaking
The City requires geological and geotechnical investigations on properties where new
development is proposed and seismic and geologic hazards are of concern.
Liquefaction assessment studies are also required in areas identified as susceptible to
liquefaction. Compliance with General Plan Safety Element goals and policies and
implementation of existing regulations will ensure that impacts can be avoided. Impact
will be less than significant through the application of these policies and continued
standard permit review and building practices (pEIR, p. 5.6-6).
Statement of Findings ot Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
7
C. Hazards and Hazardous Materials - Hazardous materials; flood hazards; airport
proximity; wildland fire hazards
In accordance with City, State, and federal requirements, any new development that
involves contaminated property will necessitate the clean up and/or remediation of the
property in accordance with all applicable federal, State, and local requirements and
regulations. No construction will be permitted to occur at potentially contaminated sites
until a "no further action" or similar determination has been issued by the City's Fire
Department, State Department of Toxic Substances Control, State Regional Water
Quality Control Board, and/or other responsible agency. Compliance with existing
regulations will ensure a level of safety to current standards, and impact will be less than
significant (pEIR, p. 5.7-6).
The City will continue to enforce disclosure laws that require all users, producers, and
transporters of hazardous materials and wastes to clearly identify the materials that they
store, use, or transport, and to notify the appropriate City, county, State, and federal
agencies in the event of a violation. Compliance with existing regulations will ensure a
less than significant impact (pEIR, p. 5.7-6).
Currently, the City participates in the National Flood Insurance Program, enforces
Development Code (Title 17 of the Municipal Code) regulations regarding development
in the floodplain and floodway, and maintains a dam inundation evacuation plan.
Compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations and plans, including the
City's Multi-Hazard Functional Plan, will result in a less than significant impact (pEIR, p.
5.7-7).
All land use development entitlements within the area of influence must be approved by
the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission; must be consistent with the French
Valley Airport ALUCP to protect the public health, safety, and welfare; must ensure
continued orderly use of the airport; and must prevent the creation of new noise and
safety problems. Compliance with the ALUCP, which is supported by numerous policies
within the proposed General Plan, will ensure a less than significant impact (pEIR, p.
5.7-7).
The General Plan Public Safety Element includes policies and implementation programs
that direct the City to reduce the potential for dangerous fires by concentrating
development in previously developed areas where the risk of wildland fire is lower; to
protect hillside areas from expansion of the urban-wildland interface; to encourage
residents to plant and maintain drought-resistant, fire-retardant landscape species on
slopes to reduce the risk of brush fire and soil erosion; and to work with the Fire
Department to control hazardous vegetation. Stringent application of these policies will
reduce impact to a less than significant level (pEIR, p. 5.7-7 and 5.7-8).
D. Hydrology and Water Quality - Groundwater
Per the 1940 Stipulated Judgment in Santa Margarita v. Vail, the water master
determines the safe annual yield based on annual audits of the groundwater basin,
including how much water was withdrawn from and recharged to the aquifer. Water
service providers must purchase imported water or utilize recycled water supplies based
on the water master's yearly determination. Compliance with these existing agreements
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
8
will ensure a less than significant impact on groundwater resources (pEIR, p. 5.8-4 and
5.8-5).
E. Land Use and Planning
The Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) prepared by the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG) contains policies applicable to the
General Plan. In particular, the General Plan was compared to the SCAG growth
management, Regional Transportation Plan, Air Quality Chapter Core Actions, and the
Open Space Chapter Ancillary Policies described in the RCPG. The General Plan is
consistent with the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide administered by SCAG.
Impact is less than significant (pEIR, p. 5.9-23).
In compliance with California Water Code Sections 10910-10915, all future development
projects pursuant to the proposed General Plan that meet criteria specified in the law are
required to determine whether projected water supplies available during normal, single-
dry, and multiple-dry water years will be sufficient to satisfy demands of the proposed
project, in addition to existing and planned future uses. No major development project
will be permitted to proceed unless required determinations can be made. Compliance
with existing regulations will minimize the potential for impact (pEIR, p. 5.9-23).
F. Noise
The General Plan Noise Element includes goals and policies that direct the City to
comply with the French Valley ALUCP. Ongoing compliance with the ALUCP and
implementation of General Plan policy will ensure a less than significant impact (pEIR, p.
5.10-14).
G. Population and Housing
Given historical growth patterns and growth management policies contained within the
General Plan, implementation of the General Plan will not substantially increase
population beyond that already projected to occur within the Planning Area.
Furthermore, as described in Section 5.9, Land Use and Planning of the EIR, the
General Plan is consistent with SCAG's growth management policies. Impact will be
less than significant (pEIR, p. 5.11-3).
H. Public Services - Schools
Payment of alternative school fees will be used to offset the cost to the Temecula Valley
Unified School District (TVUSD) of providing education facilities to future students. The
environmental effects of expansion, construction, and operation of additional school
facilities will be evaluated by TVUSD in its efforts to plan for construction of new schools
or expansion of existing facilities. S8 50 states that for CEQA purposes, payment of
fees to the affected school district reduces school facility impacts to a less than
significant level (pEIR, p. 5.12-8).
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
9
I. Transportation/Traffic - Specified Intersections
The intersection of Old Town Front Street and Rancho California Road currently
operates at a deficient LOS E condition. This intersection will continue to operate at
LOS E in 2025, although implementation of the General Plan is anticipated to improve
the operation of the intersection from 0.96 ICU in 2002 to 0.91 ICU by year 2025. The
project does not create a new LOS E condition at this intersection nor worsen its
operation to LOS F. Impact to Old Town Front Street at Rancho California Road is
therefore less than significant.
The SR-79 northbound on-ramp, Winchester Road southbound off-ramp, and Rancho
California Road southbound off-ramp all currently operate at a deficient LOS F condition.
These ramps will continue to operate at LOS F in 2025. Long-range implementation of
the General Plan does not create a new LOS F condition at these ramps. Impact to
these ramps is therefore less than significant.
J. Utilities and Service Systems - Wastewater and Stormwater Drainage
Proposed General Plan goals, policies, and implementation programs address the
impact on City storm drain facilities. Implementation Program GM-9 directs the City to
maintain an effective, safe, and environmentally compatible flood control system.
Compliance with existing regulations and General Plan Implementation Program GM-9
will ensure a less than significant impact (pEIR, p. 5.14-7).
K. Cumulative Impacts - Wildland Fire, Hydrology, and Noise
Regional jurisdictions that rely upon the Riverside County Fire Department for service
will be subject to similar wildland fire hazards requirements as the City of Temecula.
Compliance with existing federal, State, and local regulations and plans regarding
hazardous materials, flooding, and wildland fire will result in a less than significant
cumulative impact (pEIR, p. 7-6).
Water service providers must purchase imported water or utilize recycled water supplies
based on the water master's yearly determination. Compliance with these existing
agreements will ensure a less than significant impact on water supply.
Increased development throughout region, especially on currently undeveloped lots, will
increase the amount of impervious surfaces, thereby increasing the amount and speed
of runoff, which may impact water quality. Developers of new projects are required to
provide on-site drainage and pay area drainage fees. Compliance with existing
regulations, including NPDES regulations applicable to construction activities and larger
developments, will ensure a less than significant cumulative water quality impact (pEIR,
p. 7-6 and 7-7).
Implementation of City and County noise ordinances, construction of buildings according
to State acoustical standards, and implementation of the Land Use Plan that has been
designed to avoid land/use noise compatibility conflicts will ensure cumulative noise
impacts will be less than significant (pEIR, p. 7-7).
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
10
Proposed General Plan Land Use Element policies and programs are designed to
accommodate City and regional population growth forecast to occur within the Planning
Area through the year 2025. Given historical growth patterns and the growth
management policies contained in the proposed General Plan, implementation of the
Plan will not substantially increase population beyond that already projected to occur
within the Planning Area. The proposed General Plan will not contribute to significant
cumulative population and housing impacts (pEIR, p. 7-7).
New development throughout the region must comply with the Rancho California Water
District's and/or Eastern Municipal Water District's water and sewer service master
plans. Fees will be paid as required to fund infrastructure and thus avoid cumulative
impact.
All jurisdictions within the region will be required to continue to reduce waste generation
and divert materials from regional landfills. Compliance with existing local, county, and
State regulations will ensure a less than significant cumulative impact (pEIR, p. 7-8).
Section 3. The City Council hereby finds that mitigation measures contained in the
PEIR have been incorporated into the Temecula General Plan Update, and that such measures
avoid or substantially lessen the following potentially significant environmental impacts identified
in the General Plan Update PEIR to a less than significant level. The potentially significant
project impacts and the mitigation measures that have been adopted to mitigate the impacts to
a less than significant level are as follows:
A. Aesthetics / Light and Glare
1. Potential Significant Impact
Light levels within the Planning Area will increase as new housing units and commercial,
industrial, and institutional projects are developed pursuant to the General Plan. New
structures could create glare effects if they incorporate reflective building materials.
Depending upon the location and scope of individual development projects, the impact
on surrounding uses could be significant (pEIR 5.1-3).
The General Plan acknowledges the importance of the Palomar Observatory through
policies that continue the City's participation in Palomar Observatory's dark sky
conservation requirements. If future development pursuant to the General Plan
increases the amount of nighttime lighting within the Planning Area, effectiveness of
Palomar Observatory may be reduced. A potential exists for a significant aesthetic
impact if the project results in substantial light and glare (PEIR 5.1-3).
2. Findings
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 PEIR. Implementation of the following mitigation measure will reduce potential
aesthetic impacts to a less than significant level:
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
11
a. The City will ensure that new development projects comply with
the City Light Pollution Control Ordinance when building plans are submitted for permits
and when projects are field-inspected (General Plan Implementation Program OS-31
and PEIR 5.1-4).
3. Supporting Explanation
General Plan policies state that the City will work with the County of Riverside and
California Institute of Technology to ensure preservation procedures for dark skies are
implemented within the City's development review process (pEIR, p. 5.1-3). Future
development pursuant to the General Plan shall comply with all applicable codes and
standards, including the California Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, etc. Compliance
with the City's standards shall assure safe utilization of the facilities at night by the
public.
With implementation of the above mitigation measure, no significant impact related to
aesthetics and light and glare are anticipated (pEIR, p. 5.1-4).
B. Agricultural Resources
1. Potential Significant Impact
Future development within the Planning Area pursuant to the land use policies of the
updated General Plan may result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, and Farmland of State and Local Importance to non-agricultural use. Of the
areas currently identified as Vineyard/Agriculture, approximately four acres may be
converted to Rural Residential uses as a result of adoption and implementation of the
General Plan. This represents approximately 0.01 percent (one one-hundredth of one
percent) of the land currently in agricultural use (pEIR, p. 5.2-5).
2. Findings
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 PEIR. Implementation of the following mitigation measure will reduce potential
agricultural resources impacts to a less than significant level:
a. The City will preserve agricultural lands by:
. Developing effective zoning regulations or other land use
mechanisms that control the expansion of intensive non-
agricultural development onto productive or potentially productive
agricultural lands.
. Recognizing existing agriculture preserve contracts and promoting
additional preservation contracts for prime agriculture land.
(General Plan Implementation Program OS-28, PEIR, p. 5.2-5)
Statement of Findings of Fact 12
Temecula General Plan Update
3. Supporting Explanation
The proposed project may result in the conversion of four acres of land designated as
Vineyard/Agriculture to Rural Residential uses. This represents approximately 0.01
percent (one one-hundredth of one percent) of the land currently in agricultural use
within the Planning Area. With regard to areas designated for agricultural use, parallel
zoning designations will protect such uses. The City recognizes the importance of
agriculture and viticulture in particular to the local economy and tourism base.
C. Biological Resources
1. Potential Significant Impacts
Impacts to Reqional Sensitive Habitats
Development pursuant to implementation and adoption of the General Plan will result in
adverse significant impacts if such development results in the modification or removal of
regional sensitive habitats within the Planning Area, including:
. Coastal Sage Scrub/Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub
. Vernal Pools/Riparian Scrub, Woodland, and ForesVOpen Water,
Reservoir, Pond
. Coast Live Oak Woodland
. Raptor ForaginglWintering Habitat
Impacts to non-native grassland and agricultural land will be significant if the habitat is
determined to provide high wildlife value for raptor wintering and foraging, or to support
federally or State listed, endangered, or threatened species (pEIR, p. 5.4-16).
Impacts to Desiqnated Critical Habitat
The Temecula Planning Area encompasses designated critical habitat for the California
gnatcatcher and Quino checkerspot butterfly, as determined by United States Fish and
Wildlife Service. Critical habitat is primarily located in the northern portion of the
Planning Area in French Valley designated for low-medium residential development
(pEIR, p. 5.4-16).
Impacts to MSHCP Conservation Area/Core Linkaqes
The Planning Area encompasses four MSHCP conservation areas and core linkages.
Portions of MSHCP conservation areas within French Valley (subunit 5), Pauba Valley
(subunit 2), and Temecula Valley (subunits 1 and 6) will incur permanent, indirect
impacts from development-associated increases in the amount of fragmented habitat,
artificial nighttime illumination, and human intrusion into natural habitats. In addition,
impacts to chaparral will be significant if the habitat is located within a MSHCP
conservation, core, or linkage area (e.g., Pauba Valley or Temecula Valley). The
General Plan provides for development in these areas; at a Plan level, impact may be
significant (pEIR, p. 5.4-17).
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
13
Rare. Threatened. Endanqered and Sensitive Species
Development associated with implementation of the General Plan will result in
permanent indirect impacts to sensitive flora and fauna species present within the
Planning Area where development encroaches into habitat or directly affects the
following species:
. Munz's onion . Quino checkerspot butterfly
. San Diego ambrosia . Arroyo toad
. Nevin's barberry . Southwester willow flycatcher
. Vail Lake ceanothus . American peregrine falcon
. Slender-horned spineflower . Bald eagle
. San Diego button-celery . Coastal California gnatchatcher
. Spreading navarretia . Least bell's vireo
. California orcutt grass . Stephen's kangaroo rat
. San Miguel savory
Impacts to federally and State-listed, rare, endangered, and threatened species will be
significant and adverse. Mitigation measures are required to reduce adverse impacts to
a less than significant level.
Impacts to lower-sensitivity species will be significant if it is determined that proposed
future development will substantially reduce the species' population stability or conflict
with the MSCHP conditions of coverage. Mitigation measures are required to provide
further environmental review of individual future development projects (Draft EIR, p. 5.4-
17).
2. Findings
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 PEIR. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential
biological resources impact to a less than significant level:
a. The City shall require development proposals in all areas inside or
adjacent to sensitive habitat areas, designated critical habitat, and MSCHP
conservation areas and core linkages as defined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, the California Department of Fish and Game and the Multiple Species
Habitat Conservation Plan, to provide detailed biological assessments to
determine the potentially significant impacts of the project and mitigate significant
impacts to a level below significance (General Plan Implementation Program OS-
9, PEIR, p. 5.4-17).
b. The City shall require the establishment of open space areas that
contain significant water courses, wildlife corridors, and habitats for rare or
endangered plant and animal species, with first priority given to the core linkage
areas identified in the MSHCP (General Plan Implementation Program OS-10,
PEIR, p. 5.4-17).
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
14
c. The City shall require appropriate resource protection measures to
be prepared in conjunction with specific plans and subsequent development
proposals. Such requirements may include the preparation of a Vegetation
Management Program that addresses landscape maintenance, fuel modification
zones, management of passive open space areas, provision of corridor
connections for wildlife movement, conservation of water courses, rehabilitation
of biological resources displaced in the planning process, and use of project
design, engineering, and construction practices that minimize impacts to
sensitive species, MSHCP conservation areas, and designated critical habitats
(General Plan Implementation Program OS-11, PEIR, p. 5.4-18).
d. The City will evaluate and pursue the acquisition of areas with
high biological resource significance. Such acquisition mechanisms may include
acquiring land by development agreement or gift; dedication of conservation,
open space, and scenic easements; joint acquisition with other local agencies;
transfer of development rights; lease purchase agreements; State and federal
grants; and impact fees/mitigation banking (General Plan Implementation
Program OS-12, PEIR, p. 5.4-18).
e. The City shall use the resources of national, regional, and local
conservation organizations, corporations, associations, and benevolent entities to
identify and acquire environmentally sensitive lands, and to protect water courses
and wildlife corridors (General Pian Implementation Program OS-13, PEIR, p.
5.4-18).
f. The City shall continue to participate in multi-species habitat
conservation planning, watershed management planning, and water resource
management planning efforts (General Plan Implementation Program OS-14,
PEIR, p. 5.4-18).
g. The City shall require project developers to retain coast live oak
woodland, including oaks within new development areas, and shall require
surveys of all coast live oak trees prior to construction to determine if any raptor
nests are present and active. If active nests are observed, postponement of
construction activities until the end of the fledgling season is required. The City
shall apply the following guidelines adapted from the Riverside County Oak Tree
Management Guidelines:
. Construction and development activities will be avoided within the root zone
(e.g., encompassing an area one-third larger than the drip line of an oak tree
. Landscaping, trenching, or irrigation systems will be avoided within the root
zone
. Land uses that will cause excessive soil compaction within the root zone will
be avoided
. Manufactured slopes will not be located within the root zone
Redirection of surface moisture which alters the soil moisture within the root
zone for an extended period of time will be avoided
. Filling around the bases of oak trees will be avoided through sedimentation
and siltation control
. Dying oak trees will be retained in place unless determined to pose a health
or safety hazard
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
15
. Relocation of trees will not constitute mitigation
. Oak protection will be oriented toward protection of the life cycle of oak trees
and woodland (General Plan Implementation Program OS-32, PEIR, p. 5.4-
18).
h. The City will require project proponents to minimize impacts to Coastal
sage scrub, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, chaparral, and non-native grassland
consistent with the MSCHP. Such mitigation measures will include, but are not
limited to: on-site preservation, off-site acquisition of mitigation land located within
the City and inside MSHCP conservation areas, and habitat restoration of degraded
sage scrub vegetation that increases habitat quality and the biological function of the
site (General Plan Implementation Program OS-33, PEIR, p. 5.4-19).
i. The City shall require project proponents to avoid adverse impacts to
Riparian Scrub, Woodland, and Forest and Water vegetations communities to the
maximum extent possible. Mitigation consistent with the MSHCP, and future
mitigation ratios established by the City will be required, including, but not limited to:
wetland creation in upland areas, wetland restoration that re-establishes the habitat
functions of a former wetland, and wetland enhancement that improves the self-
sustaining habitat functions of an existing wetland. Mitigation measures will be
required to achieve "no net loss" of wetland functions and values (General Plan
Implementation Program OS-34, PEIR, p. 5.4-19).
j. The City shall review development-associated impacts to MSHCP
conservation areas for consistency with the MSHCP reserve and buffer development
requirements, and shall require compliance with the following MSHCP Urban/Wildlife
Interface Guidelines:
. Drainage: Proposed developments in proximity to MSHCP conservation
areas shall incorporate measures, including measures required through the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, to
ensure that the quantity and quality of runoff discharged to the MSHCP
conservation areas is not altered in an adverse way when compared to
existing conditions. Measures shall be put in place to avoid discharge of
untreated surface runoff from developed and paved areas into the MSHCP
conservation areas. Stormwater systems shall be designed to prevent the
release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant materials, or
other elements that might degrade or harm biological resources or ecosystem
processes within the MSHCP conservation areas. This can be accomplished
using a variety of methods including natural detention basins, grass swales,
or mechanical trapping devices. Regular maintenance shall occur to ensure
effective operations of runoff control systems.
. Taxies: Land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP conservation area
that use chemicals or generate byproducts (such as manure) that are
potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, habitat, or water
quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such
chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP conservation area.
Measures such as those employed to address drainage issues shall be
implemented.
Statement of Findings of Fact
T emecula General Plan Update
16
. Lighting: Night lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP conservation
area to protect species within the MSHCP conservation area from direct night
lighting. Shielding shall be incorporated in project designs to ensure ambient
light levels within the MSHCP conservation area do not increase.
. Noise: Proposed noise generating land uses affecting the MSHCP
conservation area shall incorporate setbacks, berms, or walls to minimize the
effects of noise on MSHCP conservation area resources pursuant to
applicable rules, regulations, and guidelines related to land use noise
standards. For planning purposes, wildlife within the MSHCP conservation
area should not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise
standards.
. Invasives: When approving landscape plans for proposed development
adjacent to the MSHCP conservation area, the City shall require revisions to
landscape plans to avoid the use of invasive species defined within the
MSHCP for the portions of development adjacent to the conservation area.
. Barriers: Proposed land uses adjacent to the MSHCP conservation area
shall incorporate barriers, where appropriate in individual project designs to
minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal
trespass, or dumping in the conservation area. Such barriers may include
native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls, signage and/or other
appropriate mechanisms.
. Grading/Land Development Manufactured slopes associated with proposed
site development shall not extend into the MSHCP conservation area
(General Plan Implementation Program OS-35, PEIR, p. 5.4-19).
k. The City shall require work corridor surveys to identify active nests for
projects with the potential to adversely impact nesting migratory birds, as defined
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Development projects shall avoid
active nests and, if necessary, require seasonal timing constraints for riparian habitat
clearing and an MBTA Special Purpose permit prior to the removal of active nests of
MBTA covered species (General Plan Implementation Program OS-36, PEIR, p. 5.4-
20).
3. Supporting Explanation
Implementation of the mitigation measures will reduce the adverse impacts to biological
resources associated with adoption and implementation of the proposed General Plan to
a less than significant level (Draft EIR, p.5.4-20).
D. Cultural Resources
1. Potential Significant Impacts
Impacts to Historic Resources
Small urban infill development or redevelopment projects that are not subject to
discretionary review by the City may occur that could involve the removal or alteration of
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecuia General Plan Update
17
existing structures of historical value or significance. Thus, mitigation is required to
minimize potential impacts to historic resources associated with the adoption and
implementation of the General Plan (pEIR, p. 5.5-7).
Impacts to Archaeoloqical and Paleontoloqical Resources
Unknown archaeological sites, structures, and fossils may be unearthed during
excavation and grading activities for specific projects. If previously undiscovered
artifacts or remains are uncovered during excavation or construction, impact will be
significant. Mitigation measures are required to reduce the impact to archaeological and
paleontological resources to a less than significant level (pEIR, p. 5.5-7).
2. Findings
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 PEIR. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential
cultural resources impact to a less than significant level:
a. The City shall use the development and environmental review
process to:
. Ensure that appropriate archaeological and paleontological surveying and
documentation of findings is provided prior to project approval.
. Require effective mitigation where development may affect archaeological or
paleontological resources.
. Require that an archaeologist or paleontologist be retained to observe
grading activities in areas wher!, the probable presence of archaeological or
paleontological resources is identified.
. Enforce CEQA provisions regarding preservation or salvage of significant
archaeological and paleontological sites discovered during construction
activities.
. Require monitoring of new developments and reporting to the City on
completion of mitigation and resource protection measures (General Plan
Implementation Program 05-26, PEIR, p. 5.5-7).
b. The City shall enter into a Memorandum of Agreement with the
Eastern Information Center of the University of California, Riverside to establish
procedures for reviewing the archaeological sensitivity of sites proposed for
development (General Plan Implementation Program 05-37, PEIR, p. 5.5-8).
c. The City shall continue to implement a historic preservation
ordinance in the Old Town area to protect historically significant buildings, sites,
roads/trails, and other landscape elements, and to encourage their re-use where
appropriate. Preservation of other historic resources will also be considered
(General Plan Implementation Program 05-27, PEIR, p. 5.5-8).
d. The City will encourage owners of local sites to apply for
recognition in the State Historic Resources Inventory, as Riverside County
Landmarks, as State Points of Historic Interest, as State Landmarks, and as sites
Statement of Findings ot Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
18
on the National Register of Historic Places, as deemed necessary (General Plan
Implementation Program OS-27, PEIR, p. 5.5-8).
3. Supporting Explanation
At the time individual development projects proceed, if such excavation or grading
uncovers archaeological resources, developers will be required to comply with CEQA
Section 21083.2 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 regarding the discovery
sensitive archaeological resources. Generally, excavation/grading activity will have to
be temporarily suspended to allow for an assessment of the resource and appropriate
mitigation. Compliance with these existing regulations for individual development
projects will result in less than significant impact (pEIR, p. 5.5-8).
E. Geology and Soils
1. Potential Significant Impacts
Temecula is located in a seismically active area, as is all of Southern California.
Projects developed pursuant to General Plan land use policies will expose additional
people and structures to groundshaking hazards associated with earthquakes (pEIR, p.
5.6-5).
Seismic activity along regional faults creates the potential for groundshaking impacts
within the Planning Area. Portions of the Planning Area are underlain with weak, semi-
consolidated bedrock and loose, unconsolidated and often saturated alluvial sediments.
These soil types have the potential to liquefy or collapse in the event of a major
groundshaking event. The fine-grained components of the bedrock units are potentially
expansive. The weak soil, combined with steep slopes and saturated drainage
channels, make areas of Temecula susceptible to landslides and mudflows (pEIR, p.
5.6-6).
2. Findings
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 PEIR. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential
geology and soils impact to a less than significant level:
a. The City shall work with the County of Riverside and California
Geological Survey to monitor and compile information on faults located within the
Planning Area (General Plan Implementation Program PS-4, PEIR, p. 5.6-6).
b. The City shall develop a Land Use Suitability Matrix for Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones and County Fault Hazards Zones. The matrix will
categorize land uses according to risk and develop restrictions for these uses
within the Zones (General Plan Implementation Program PS-4, PEIR, p. 5.6-7).
c. The City shall: 1) prepare and adopt hillside development
standards for site development and drainage that work to control runoff for
erosion control and water quality purposes; 2) implement a Hillside Grading
Ordinance; 3) require the use of proper soil management techniques to reduce
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
19
erosion, sedimentation, and other soil-related problems; and 4) implement a
grading ordinance to ensure that grading associated with new development
projects is conducted in accordance with appropriate geotechnical engineering
standards (General Plan Implementation Programs OS-21 , PS-5 and PS-16,
PEIR, p. 5.6-7).
3. Supporting Explanation
The General Plan Public Safety Element includes goals, policies, and programs that
direct the City to identify and mitigate adverse impacts of ground surface rupture at the
project level and potential adverse impacts of liquefaction and landslides at the project
level; to apply and enforce seismic design standards and building construction codes for
new development; to work with property owners to remediate hazardous buildings; and
to establish development management techniques to lessen the potential for erosion and
landslides and to monitor the potential for seismic events. Impact will be less than
significant with implementation of these policies and the implementation programs listed
above.
The City requires geological and geotechnical investigations on properties where new
development is proposed and seismic and geologic hazards are of concern.
Liquefaction assessment studies are also required in areas identified as susceptible to
liquefaction. Compliance with General Plan Safety Element goals and policies and
implementation of existing regulations will ensure that impacts can be avoided. Impact
will be less than significant through the application of these policies and continued
standard permit review and building practices (pEIR, p.5.6-6).
F. Hydrology and Water Quality
1. Potential Significant Impacts
New development pursuant to the General Plan will result in approximately 15,800 acre-
feet per year (af/yr) of additional water demand, based on the gallons per day per capita
average factors reported by EMWD and RCWD (pEIR, p. 5.8-4).
New development will result in greater areas of impervious surface such as streets,
roofs, sidewalks, and parking lots. The absorption rate for impervious surfaces is less
than the rate for natural lands. Instead of being absorbed into the ground, stormwater
on impervious surfaces is conveyed into local surface streams and improved channels.
Increased runoff volumes and speeds may create nuisance flooding in areas lacking
adequate drainage facilities (pEIR, P.5.8-5).
2. Findings
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 PEIR. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential
hydrology and water quality impact to a less than significant level:
a. The City will work with the water districts to promote water
conservation and ultimately reduce the demand for peak-hour water supply
wastewater capacity, review the adopted Uniform Building Code, and require
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
20
water conservation measures to reduce water consumption. Such measures
may include, but are not limited to, the use of plumbing fixtures that reduce water
use, low-flow toilets, drip irrigation systems, and xeriscape landscaping that
maximizes the use of drought-tolerant plant species (General Plan
Implementation Program OS-4, PEIR, p. 5.8-6).
b. The City shall review individual development projects to ensure
that adequate stormwater detention facilities are provided to accommodate
surface water runoff generated by the project, and where needed, incorporate
detention of stormwater runoff at the point of origin (General Plan Implementation
Program OS-6, PEIR, p. 5.8-6).
c. The City will require drought-tolerant landscaping in new
development and where feasible, will require incorporation of reclaimed water
systems within landscape irrigation plans (General Plan Implementation Program
OS-7, PEIR, p. 5.8-6).
d. The City will implement, where appropriate, Water Resource
Management Guidelines drafted by the subcommittee comprised of Eastern
Municipal Water District and local jurisdictions (General Plan Implementation
Program OS-8, PEIR, p. 5.B-6).
e. The City shall prohibit the use of underground storage tanks and
conventional septic tanks/subsurface disposal systems in any area designated
within Zone A of a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency wellhead protection
area (General Plan Implementation Program GM-13, PEIR, p. 5.8-6).
f. The City shall require all proposed development projects using
septic tanks and subsurface disposal systems for the disposal of wastewater to
provide detailed geotechnical analysis of the project site and siting
recommendations in accordance with the EPA's Design Manual for On-site
Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Systems that will ensure no impact to
potable water production wells in any area designated within Zone A of a U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency wellhead protection area (General Plan
Implementation Program GM-13, PEIR, p. 5.8-6).
g. Proposed developments shall incorporate measures, including
measures required by the City pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permit, to ensure that the quantity and quality of
runoff discharge does not cause or contribute to the violation of water quality
standards. Measures shall be required to avoid discharge of untreated surface
runoff from developed and paved areas. Stormwater systems shall be designed
to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum products, exotic plant
materials, or other elements. This can be accomplished using a variety of
methods including natural detention basins, grass swales, or mechanical trapping
or treatment devices. Regular maintenance shall occur to ensure effective
operations of runoff control systems (General Plan Implementation Program as-
s, PEIR, p. 5.8-7).
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
21
3. Supporting Explanation
To further ensure that groundwater supplies will not be impacted by future development
pursuant to implementation of the General Plan, mitigation measures, although not
required, are recommended to guarantee that the City work with RCWD and EMWD to
investigate additional measures to maintain supply and prevent groundwater depletion
(pEIR, p. 5.8-5).
Since the General Plan allows for new development within a wellhead protection area
designated as a Zone A using criteria of the Environmental Protection Agency, impact
could be significant. Mitigation measures have been included that require all proposed
development projects using septic tanks and subsurface disposal systems for the
disposal of wastewater to provide detailed geotechnical analysis of the project site and
siting recommendations that will ensure no impact to potable water production wells (
(pEIR, p. 5.8-5).
Temecula participates in the Storm Water Clean Water Protection Program and
therefore requires all development project applicants to prepare a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to mitigate construction-related water quality impacts
associated with storm events. In addition, all development proposals must include a
Water Quality Management Plan that includes Best Management Practices (BMPs) and
outlines how water quality impacts will be minimized during project operation.
Compliance with these existing regulations will ensure a less than significant impact on
the water quality in surface water bodies. Mitigation measures, although not required,
are recommended to maintain adequate stormwater drainage (pEIR, p. 5.8-6).
G. Land Use and Planning
1. Potential Significant Impacts
Riverside County's Southwest Area Plan (SWAP), as presented in the Riverside County
Integrated Plan, envisions substantial amounts of new development surrounding
Temecula. The City's General Plan Land Use Policy Map incorporates SWAP-
recommended uses for unincorporated areas, and thus no direct conflict between the
two plans results. However, development in unincorporated areas pursuant to the
SWAP, particularly within the French Valley area, will result in significant impacts with
respect to traffic, air quality, and resources that are beyond the City's ability to control.
The City has developed a land use plan for the French Valley Area (shown on the
proposed Land Use Policy Map) and has designated this area as a Future Growth Area.
This part of the land use plan is substantially similar to the County General Plan in this
area. The intent of these steps is to ensure that future annexations are beneficial
additions to the City, and to minimize impacts of future development in the area on City
roads and infrastructure (pEIR, p. 5.9-9).
Proposed General Plan iand use policy may conflict with provisions of the current City
Development Code and the Riverside County Zoning Ordinance, particularly with regard
to land use designation/zoning consistency. For example, areas designated on the Land
Use Policy Map as Rural Residential or Vineyards/Agricultural conflict with current
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
22
zoning, as these are new designations that do not have corresponding zoning districts
within the City's Development Code (pEIR, p. 5.9-9).
The General Plan includes three Mixed-Use Overlay Areas, identified within the Land
Use Element of the proposed General Plan, that apply within the Temecula
Redevelopment Project Area. In some cases, the Overlay Areas provide for the addition
of residential units within existing shopping centers. On other properties, new mixed-use
projects could be constructed. In both scenarios, residential units will likely be
introduced within the Redevelopment Project Area, and development intensity may
increase (pEIR, p. 5.9-10).
Implementation of General Plan policies and programs will ensure that development
pursuant to the General Plan within the French Valley Airport area of influence does not
conflict with the current County ALUCP for French Valley Airport. Implementation
Program LU-24 is required as a mitigation measure to ensure consistency between the
General Plan and ALUCP (pEIR, p. 5.9-14).
Development pursuant to the General Plan Land Use Element could be inconsistent with
some of the development standards outlined in currently adopted specific plans,
particularly those under the jurisdiction of the County of Riverside within the City's
sphere of influence (pEIR, p. 5.9-23).
2. Findings
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 PEIR. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential
land use and planning impacts to a less than significant level:
a. The City shall require preparation of an annexation plan and fiscal
analysis prior to annexation of new areas to the City. Within the annexation plan,
applicants must show how adequate levels of public services and facilities will be
provided to serve the new development without reducing service levels for
currently urbanized areas. The fiscal analysis shall determine the impact that
additional development will have on current Temecula neighborhoods and on the
community as a whole, including any impact fees necessary to offset public costs
caused by the proposed project, and shall include an examination of fiscal and
service impacts of the proposed project on roads, water, sewer, storm water
runoff, fire, police, schools, libraries and other community facilities (General Plan
Implementation Program LU-15, PEIR, p. 5.9-24).
b. The City shall review implementation of the General Plan and
Land Use Policy Map to ensure consistency is maintained between the General
Plan and the Development Code (General Plan Implementation Program LU-1,
PEIR, p.5.9-24).
c. The City shall review and update the Development Code to
ensure consistency with the General Plan (General Plan Implementation
Program LU-3, PEIR, p. 5.9-24).
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
23
d. The City shall implement and update as necessary the
Redevelopment Plan to establish consistency with the General Plan and
amended Development Code (General Plan Implementation Program LU-11,
PEIR, p. 5.9-24).
e. The City shall ensure consistency with the County Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) for French Valley Airport through the following
measures:
. The City shall review development projects within the French Valley
Airport area of influence, and participate in any future updates to the
ALUCP and Master Plan for the Airport, in conjunction with the
Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission.
. The City shall require project proponents to obtain avigation
easements as required by the ALUCP to ensure that landowners
acknowledge potential impacts associated with aircraft.
(General Plan Implementation Program LU-24, PEIR, p. 5.9-24)
f. The City shall review and update the Five-Year Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) on an annual basis to achieve consistency with
improvements identified within the General Plan, and to meet changing needs,
priorities, and financial conditions (General Plan Implementation Program LU-17,
PEIR, p. 5.9-24).
g. The City shall cooperate with Riverside County LAFCO and the
County of Riverside to direct growth outside the City limits to the French Valley
Future Growth Area, on lands that are served or are planned to be served with a
full range of urban services, such as public water and sewer, local and regional
road networks demonstrating adequate capacity, safety and emergency
response services, parks, trails and open spaces (General Plan Implementation
Program LU-16, PEIR, p. 5.9-24).
h. The City shall continue to implement the procedures,
requirements and contents of specific plans contained in the Development Code.
Properties under single ownership or multiple ownership which are generally over
100 acres will utilize the specific plan or village center plan as an implementation
tool. Private landowners or the City may undertake the preparation or
amendment of a specific plan, in accordance with Government Code Section
65450. Specific plans shall include the location of land uses; standards to
regulate height, bulk and setback limits; standards for constructing proposed
streets; standards for population density and building intensity; standards for
conservation and management of natural resources; and implementation
provisions to carry out the Open Space/Conservation Element (General Plan
Implementation Program LU-5,PEIR, p. 5.9-25).
3. Supporting Explanation
Mitigation measures have been included that: 1) describe annexation requirements for
surrounding areas, and 2) require the City to cooperate with Riverside County LAFCO
and the County of Riverside to direct growth outside the City limits to the French Valley
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
24
Future Growth Area, on lands that are served or are planned to be served with a full
range of urban services, such as public water and sewer, local and regional road
networks demonstrating adequate capacity, safety and emergency response services,
parks, trails and open spaces. Impact will be less than significant with implementation of
these measures (pEIR, p. 5.9-23).
To avoid conflict, mitigation measures are included that: 1) describe annexation
requirements for surrounding areas; 2) require the City to periodically review and update
the General Plan Land Use Policy Map, and to review and update the Development
Code and Specific Plans to be consistent with the updated General Plan; and 3) require
the City to continue to implement the procedures, requirements, and contents of specific
plans contained in the Development Code. Impact will be less than significant with
implementation of these measures (pEIR, p. 5.9-23).
H. Noise
1. Potential Significant Impacts
Noise Standards
Future noise levels along major streets in the City are projected to range from
approximately 60 dB(A) to 75 dB(A) CNEL. In some portions of the community, the 60
dB noise contour could expand by as much as 395 feet. Although some roadway
segments could experience a decrease, wide-ranging variability exists across the
roadway network. As a result, new development pursuant to the proposed General Plan
could conflict with adopted noise standards. This is considered a significant impact, and
mitigation is required (pEIR, p. 5.10-9).
Groundborne Vibration or Noise
Long-term implementation of the General Plan could expose persons to excessive
groundborne vibration and/or noise. Problems could arise in cases where noise-
producing uses are located immediately adjacent to sensitive uses, such as business
park areas near residences or schools. Mixed-use projects, such as those encouraged
within four Mixed Use Overlay Areas identified in the General Plan Land Use Element,
also present unique concerns, such as when restaurants with nighttime entertainment
are located close to residential units. In addition, construction-related activities will be
short-term sources of groundborne noise that could affect occupants of neighboring
uses. These are potentially significant impacts at the project level, and mitigation is
required (pEIR, p. 5.10-12).
Ambient Noise Levels
Transportation-related noise is the strongest contributor to ambient noise levels within
the Temecula Planning Area. Future noise levels along major streets within the City are
projected to increase due to additional trips on the roadway. New noise levels
associated with new transportation facilities shown on the City's Roadway Plan will
increase the permanent ambient noise level in the City. These increases in permanent
ambient noise levels are considered a significant impact, and mitigation is required.
Statement of Findings of Fact
TemecuJa Generat Plan Update
25
Long-term implementation of the General Plan creates capacity for additional
development within the Planning Area, which could result in substantial temporary or
periodic increases in ambient noise levels due to construction activities. Construction
equipment generates high levels of intermittent noise ranging from 70 dB(A) to 105
dB(A), and thus will result in a significant impact where noise-sensitive land uses adjoin
construction sites. Although construction-related noise will be short term for each
specific construction project and will cease upon completion of construction, the
cumulative impact over time could be significant at specific locations (pEIR, p. 5.10-12).
2. Findings
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 PEIR. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential
noise impact to a less than significant level:
a. The City will review residential and other noise-sensitive
development proposals to ensure that noise standards and compatibility criteria
are met, and will require incorporation of noise-mitigating features identified in
acoustical studies prepared for development projects including, but not limited to,
the following measures identified in the Noise Element (General Plan
Implementation Programs N-1, N-3, N-5 and N-7).
. Use of building setbacks to increase distance between noise sources and
receivers
. Placing noise tolerant land uses such as parking lots, maintenance facilities,
and utility areas between noise sources and receptors.
. Orienting or clustering buildings to shield outdoor spaces from noise sources.
. Placing bedrooms on the side of a house, facing away from major roadways.
. Placement of noise tolerant rooms (e.g. garages, bathrooms and kitchens) to
shield noise-sensitive portions of homes.
. Use of additional insulation and double-pane windows when bedrooms
cannot be located on the side of a house away from a major roadway.
. Avoid placement of balconies facing major travel routes.
(pEIR, p. 5.10-14)
b. Where architectural design treatments described in mitigation measure a
above fail to adequately reduce adverse noise levels or will significantly increase
the costs of land development, the City will require the combined use of noise
barriers and landscaped berms (General Plan Implementation Program N-7,
PEIR, p. 5.10-14).
c. The City will require all non-emergency construction activity to
comply with the limits (maximum noise levels, hours and days of activity)
established in State and City noise regulations (Title 24 California Code of
Regulations, Temecula Development Code and Chapter 8.32 of the Municipal
Code), and will require proposed industrial or commercial projects located near
residential areas to demonstrate that the project, when constructed, will meet
City noise reduction requirements (General Plan Implementation Program N-2,
PEIR, p. 5.10-16).
Statement of Findings of Fact
T emecula General Plan Update
26
d. During review of development applications, the City will consider
the noise and vibration impacts of the proposed land use on current or planned
adjacent uses (General Plan Implementation Program N-4, PEIR, p. 5.10-16).
e. The City will: 1) incorporate noise control measures, such as
sound walls and berms, into roadway improvement projects to mitigate impacts
to adjacent development; 2) provide noise control for City streets within the
Planning Area experiencing unique noise problems; 3) use the ultimate roadway
capacity at LOS C and the posted speed limit to estimate maximum future noise
impacts; and 4) coordinate with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department and
the California Highway Patrol to enforce the California Vehicle Code noise
standards for cars, trucks, and motorcycles (General Plan Implementation
Program N-8, PEIR, p. 5.10-16).
3. Supporting Explanation
With implementation of mitigation measures list above, land/use noise compatibility
impacts can be addressed at the project level to avoid impact. Impacts resulting from
groundborne vibrations or noise will be reduced to a less than significant level (pEIR, p.
5.10-16).
I. Public Services/Recreation
1. Potential Significant Impacts
Fire and Police Protection
Development projects anticipated to occur pursuant to General Plan policy will result in
increased demand for fire and police protection services and facilities, as well as
increased demand for water resources for fire protection and other emergencies. This
represents a significant impact.
The Fire Department conducts final construction plan check reviews and issues
certificates of occupancy for all new development projects. Projects within the City limits
are also required to pay Development Impact Fees (DIF) to fund the expansion of fire
protection and emergency services. Nonetheless, mitigation measures are required to
reduce impact to a level below significance (pEIR, p. 5.12-4).
Libraries
The new Temecula Public Library will have 34,000 square feet of library space and
80,000 volumes. Additional volumes are available through the Library District's branch
library system and interlibrary loan agreements. Nevertheless, residential development
projects anticipated to occur pursuant to General Plan policy will result in demand for
library resources beyond those provided by the new Temecula Public Library. Even with
the opening of the new library, new development associated with long-term
implementation of the General Plan will require the construction of new or expanded
library facilities. Impact will be significant, and mitigation measures have been added to
the project (pEIR, p. 5.12-10).
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
27
Parks and Recreation
Residential development projects anticipated to occur pursuant to General Plan policy
will require the City to provide 204 net new acres of parkland to meet parkland per capita
goals. This net new acreage is in addition to the acreage needed to meet an existing
164-acre deficit. Sufficient parkland to meet the needs of existing residents is
anticipated to be provided by the year 2013 through the acquisition and dedication of
parks and school facilities within identified specific plan areas. However, new
development projects pursuant to the General Plan will result in increased use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks, other recreational facilities, and trails, and this
increased use may cause or accelerate substantial physical deterioration of these
facilities. Impact will be significant, and mitigation measures are required (pEIR, p. 5.12-
14).
2. Findings
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 PEIR. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential
public services/recreation impact to a less than significant level:
Fire and Police
a. The City will periodically evaluate levels of sheriff, fire, and
emergency medical services, based on changes in population and development,
and will: 1) provide a minimum of one full-time officer per 1,000 residents for
police protection services; 2) maintain facilities, staffing, and equipment
necessary to maintain a five-minute response time for 90 percent of all
emergencies; and 3) implement new programs to meet the changing needs of
residents (General Plan Implementation Program GM-4, PEIR, p. 5.12-4).
b. As part of the development review process, the City will require
new development projects to address fire and police protection proactively,
through all-weather access street design, orientation of entryways, siting of
structures, landscaping, lighting, and other security features; and will require
illuminated addresses on new construction (General Plan Implementation
Program GM-5, PEIR, p. 5.12-4).
Libraries
c. The City will identify and solicit funding from additional sources to
supplement library facilities and services. Such funding sources may include
State and federal grants and loans, public and private donations, sponsorships
by local and national corporations, and other private individuals and groups
(General Plan Implementation Program GM-7, PEIR, p. 5.12-10).
d. The City will coordinate with the County to determine location,
facilities, and services of new branch libraries needed to serve the community
(General Plan Implementation Program GM-7, PEIR, p. 5.12-10).
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
28
Parks
e. The City will identify potential sites for additional park land,
monitor demand for park land and facilities concurrent with development
approvals, and prioritize potential parkland acquisitions, expansions, and
improvements within the five year Capital Improvement Program, consistent with
the adopted Parks and Recreation Master Plan (General Plan Implementation
Program OS-1, PEIR, p. 5.12-14).
f. The City shall continue to implement a local code that
incorporates standards for parkland dedication and development. Specifically
the City shall: 1) require the dedication of parkland or the payment of in-lieu fees
and the development of recreation facilities for all new development; and 2)
require developers of residential projects greater than 200 units to dedicate land
based on the park acre standard of five acres of usable parkland to 1,000
residents (General Plan Implementation Program OS-2, PEIR, p. 5.12-14).
g. The City shall: 1) implement policies and standards of the Parks
and Recreation and Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plans, including trail
classifications, design standards, implementation mechanisms, and capital
improvement programming; and 2) ensure that bike routes are provided or
reserved concurrent with new development (General Plan Implementation
Program OS-29, PEIR, p. 5.12-14).
3. Supporting Explanation
The City will continue to collect Development Impact Fees to offset impacts on fire and
police protection seNices, and to require that design features be incorporated into
projects to minimize threats to public safety. Adequate mitigation is included and
adopted as General Plan implementation programs to expand library seNices and
facilities as demand dictates, and to provide park lands and other recreation facilities for
existing and future residents. The implementation/mitigation cited above will reduce
impact to less than significant levels (pEIR, pp. 5.12-4, 5.12-10, 5.12-14).
J. Utilities and SeNice Systems
1. Potential Significant Impacts
Water Supply
Buildout pursuant to General Plan land use policy will not result in demand for water
service that exceeds RCWD's planned future supply in 2020. Impact on the RCWD's
ability to provide water will be less than significant. However, increased demand by
agriculture and other water users within RCWD's seNice area could lead to an impact on
future water supply (pEIR, p. 5.14-3).
Buildout pursuant to General Plan land use policy will not result in demand for water
service that exceeds EMWD's planned future supply. Impact on EMWD's ability to
provide water will be less than significant. However, increased demand by other water
users in the district's service area could lead to an impact on future water supply (pEIR,
p.5.14-3).
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
29
Wastewater
Estimated future wastewater treatment demand required to support the project is one
million gallon per day (mgd) greater than the projected capacity of water treatment
facilities currently serving Temecula. Given that future demand is based upon a very long-
term buildout horizon, the one mgd difference is not considered significant, although
additional mitigation is included in the PEIR to provide for continued monitoring and
potentially an update of EMWD's master plan to reflect Temecula's projections (pEIR, p.
5.14-5).
Enerqv
The demand for electricity is anticipated to increase by about 102.1 megawatt hours
(mwh) per month. Southern California Edison will construct additional electricity facilities
as necessary to meet increased demand. The future energy supply for the Temecula
and California is considered a major task for long-range planning. SCE will need to
consider the future generation of electricity with careful consideration of the anticipated
peak usage within its service areas (pEIR, p. 5.14-9).
The demand for natural gas is anticipated to increase by approximately 104.49 million
cubic feet (met) per month. The Gas Company will work with the City as new
developments are proposed to construct additional natural gas infrastructure as
necessary to meet demand. The Gas Company will consider the future gas supply for
its service areas with attentive consideration since the majority of gas consumed in
California is transported from out-of-state sources (pEIR, p. 5.14-10).
Solid Waste
Solid waste generation is anticipated to increase by 425,271 pounds per day, for a total
of about 876,443 pounds per day at General Plan buildout. The City currently manages
a residential recycling program that diverts nearly 50 percent of the solid waste
generated. Furthermore, the Riverside County Waste Management Department expects
to expand the capacity of both EI Sobrante and Badlands Sanitary Landfills. The City
will continue to implement solid waste reduction programs in compliance with Section
40050 et seq. of the California Public Resources Code. Thus, although implementation
of the General Plan will result in new development and redevelopment within the
Planning Area and related increases in solid waste generation, impact will be less than
significant with mitigation (pEIR, p. 5.14-12).
2. Findings
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 PEIR. Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce potential
utilities and service systems impact to a less than significant level:
Water SupplV
a. The City shall assist the Rancho California and Eastern Municipal Water
Districts in the process of updating their urban water management plans to be
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
30
responsive to the population and housing unit capacities established by the General
Plan (General Plan Implementation Program GM-B, PEIR, p. 5.14-4).
b. The City shall review the adopted Uniform Building Code and require new
development projects to include water conservation features to reduce consumption,
including, but not limited to: use of reduced-flow plumbing fixtures, low-flow toilets, drip
irrigation systems and xeriscape landscaping (General Plan Implementation Program
OS-4, PEIR, p. 5.14-4).
c. The City shall ensure that discretionary projects implementing the
General Plan (Specific Plans, land divisions, development plans and conditional use
permits) comply with California Water Code Section 10910, requiring the preparation of
a water supply assessment indicating that a long-term water supply for a 20-year time
frame is available. Written acknowledgement that water will be provided by a community
or public water system with an adopted urban water management plan that includes
consideration of the project's water consumption and supply shall constitute compliance
with this requirement (General Plan Implementation Program OS-38, PEIR, p. 5.14-4).
d. The City shall: 1) continue to require drought-tolerant landscaping in new
development projects; 2) where feasible, incorporate reclaimed water systems into
landscape irrigation plans; 3) continue to implement a recycled water ordinance in
accordance with the requirements of Senate Bill 2095, Water Recycling in Landscaping
Act; and 4) convert existing City of Temecula non-domestic water uses to recycled water
use in accordance with Sections 13550-13556 of the State Water Code when feasible
(General Plan Implementation Program OS-7, PEIR, p. 5.14-4).
Wastewater
e. The City shall assist the Eastern Municipal Water District in the process of
updating its water master plan for projecting wastewater service to be responsive to the
population and housing unit capacities established by the General Plan (General Plan
Implementation Program GM-8, PEIR, p. 5.14-6).
Enerqv
f. The City shall coordinate with Southern California Edison, the Southern
California Gas Company, and other responsible companies to provide for the continued
maintenance, development, and expansion of electricity and natural gas systems
(General Plan Implementation Program GM-11, PEIR, p. 5.14-9).
g. The City shall participate in the formation of regional siting plans and
policies for energy facilities (General Plan Implementation Program OS-15, PEIR, p.
5.14-10).
h. The City shall implement land use and building controls that require new
development to comply with the California State Energy Regulation requirements
(General Plan Implementation Program OS-17, PEIR, p. 5.14-10).
i. The City shall 1) enforce all current residential and commercial California
Energy Commission energy conservation standards, 2) encourage public institutions to
use high-efficiency heating and cooling systems, advanced lighting systems, and
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
31
passive solar systems to reduce energy use; and 3) adopt project-related energy
conservation guidelines that are incorporated within the development approval process
to promote and require conservation strategies as development occurs (General Plan
Implementation Program OS-18, PEIR, p. 5.14-10).
Solid Waste
j. The City will 1) assist the Riverside County Solid Waste Management
Department to implement the County's Solid Waste Management Plan, and when
feasible and appropriate, assist the County in locating cost effective and
environmentally acceptable solid waste sites and facilities; and 2) promote awareness
of recycling options for businesses (General Plan Implementation Program GM-10,
PEIR, p. 5.14-12).
k. The City will require incorporation of recycling as a condition of approval
for all multi-family residential, commercial and office projects, and will work with the
private sector contractor providing solid waste services to ensure that appropriate
recycling containers, procedures, and education are readily available (General Plan
Implementation Program GM-14, PEIR, p. 5.14-12).
I. The City shall continue to compost green waste collected from landscape
and park maintenance (General Plan Implementation Program GM-15, PEIR, p. 5.14-
12).
3. Supporting Explanation
The proposed project will create increased demand for utilities and service systems at
both the local and regional levels. After mitigation, potential project impacts are reduced
to a less than significant level.
Section 4. The City Council hereby finds that, despite the incorporation of mitigation
measures outlined in the PEIR, the following impacts cannot be fully mitigated to a less than
significant level, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations is therefore included herein:
A. Air Quality - Short-term Construction Related, Long-term, and Cumulative
1. Potential Significant Impact
The proposed project will have a short-term impact on air quality from construction
activities. While individual development projects will be required to employ construction
approaches that minimize pollutant emissions (e.g., watering for dust control, tuning of
equipment and limiting truck traffic to non-peak hours), on a cumulative basis over the
next 20 years, pollutant emissions associated with construction activity will be significant,
and mitigation is required (pEIR, p. 5.3-9).
The proposed project will add emissions to a non-attainment air basin. Levels of PM10
have exceeded State standards regularly in the past and are expected to continue
exceeding these standards in the future. Therefore, long-term air quality impacts
resulting from adoption and implementation of the proposed General Plan will be
significant, and mitigation measures are required (pEIR, p. 5.3-10).
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
32
2. Findings
Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce short-term, long-term,
and cumulative air quality impacts to the extent feasible:
a. The City will support regional transit initiatives and promote development
of high-speed rail service connecting Temecula to San Diego and Los Angeles; actively
participate in efforts to protect and improve air quality in the region; and attend meetings
with the County of Riverside, WRCOG, SCAQMD, SCAG, and other agencies as
required to support these objectives and fulfill Temecula's requirements and obligations
under the AQMP and Sub-Regional Air Quality Implementation Program (General Plan
Implementation Program AQ-1, PEIR, p. 5.3-11).
b. The City will continue to involve the general public, environmental groups,
the business community, and special interest groups in the formulation and
implementation of air quality programs; conduct periodic public outreach efforts; and
continue to promote public education as a method of employer compliance with the City
Trip Reduction Ordinance (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-2, PEIR, p. 5.3-
11). .
c. The City will adhere to policies and programs of the Land Use Element,
including development of mixed-use projects where designated and feasible (General
Plan Implementation Program AQ-3, PEIR, p. 5.3-12).
d. The City will encourage development and expansion of businesses, and
promote development of housing affordable to all segments of the community near job
opportunity sites, and within Mixed Use Overlay Areas (General Plan Implementation
Program AQ-4, PEIR, p. 5.3-12).
e. The City will continue to implement a site development permit process
and use the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in the review of proposed
development projects. The City shall require individual development projects to comply
with the following measures to minimize short-term, construction-related PM1Q and NOx
emissions, and to minimize off-site impacts:
. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
. Cover all haul trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
. Pave or apply water four times daily to all unpaved parking or staging areas.
. Sweep or wash any site access points within 30 minutes of any visible dirt
deposition on any public roadway.
. Cover or water twice daily anyon-site stockpiles of debris, dirt or other dusty
material.
. Suspend all operations on any unpaved surface if winds exceed 25 mph.
. Hydroseed or otherwise stabilize any cleared area which is to remain in active for
more than 96 hours after clearing is completed.
. Ensure that all cut and fill slopes are permanently protected from erosion.
. Require the construction contractor to ensure that all construction equipment is
maintained in peak working order.
. Limit allowable idling to 10 minutes for trucks and heavy equipment.
. Encourage car pooling for construction workers.
. Limit lane closures to off-peak travel periods.
Statement ot Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
33
. Park construction vehicles off traveled roadways.
. Wet down or cover dirt hauled off-site.
. Wash or sweep away access points daily.
. Encourage receipt of materials during non-peak traffic hours.
. Sandbag construction sites for erosion control.
Approve development that could significantly impact air quality, either individually or
cumulatively, only if it is conditioned with all reasonable mitigation measures to
avoid, minimize, or offset the impact. (General Plan Implementation Programs LU-4
and AQ-5, PEIR, p. 5.3-12).
f. The City will ensure location of new sensitive receptors away from major
air pollution sources, and require buffering of sensitive receptors from air pollution
sources through the use of landscaping, open space, and other separation techniques
(General Plan Implementation Program AQ-6, Draft EIR, p. 5.3-12).
g. The City will incorporate strategies into City-wide design guidelines and
development standards that promote a pedestrian-scale environment, encourage use of
mass transit, and reduce dependence on the automobile (General Plan Implementation
Program AQ-7, PEIR, p. 5.3-13).
h. The City will promote the use of alternative work weeks, flextime,
telecommuting, and work-at-home programs among employers in Temecula, and
continue to enforce provisions of the City Trip Reduction Ordinance, including
requirements for preparation of Trip Reduction Plans (TRPs) for qualifying development
projects and employers (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-8, PEIR, p. 5.3-13).
i. The City will require employee rides hare and transit incentives for large
employers, consistent with the requirements of the City's Trip Reduction Ordinance, and
continue to encourage voluntary compliance with the Ordinance for smaller employers
(General Plan Implementation Program AQ-9, Draft EIR, p. 5.3-13).
j. The City will require operators of large scale outdoor events to submit a
Trip Reduction Plan (TRP) applicable to both patrons and employees during the course
of the event, and encourage special event operators to advertise and offer discount
parking incentives to carpooling patrons, with two or more persons per vehicle, for on-
site parking facilities (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-10, PEIR, p. 5.3-13).
k. The City will work to achieve local performance goals for vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) reduction, consistent with SCAG's Growth Management Plan
recommended standards for the Western Riverside County sub-region, and enforce
requirements and options within the Trip Reduction Ordinance (General Plan
Implementation Program AQ-11, PEIR, p. 5.3-13).
I. The City will promote and encourage the use of alternative fuel vehicles
and consider the adoption of an ordinance requiring provision of alternative fueling
stations at or near major employment locations, shopping centers, public facilities, and
mixed-use developments (General Plan Implementation Program AQ-12, PEIR, p. 5.3-
13).
Statement ot Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
34
m. The City will encourage pedestrian and bicycle trips as an alternative to
single-occupancy vehicle trips by constructing and maintaining trails and bikeways
specified in the Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan, and will periodically update
the Master Plan as needed to meet resident needs and City objectives (General Plan
Implementation Program AQ-13, PEIR, p. 5.3-13).
n. The City will work with Caltrans and RTA to identify potential sites for
Park and Ride facilities adjacent to key commuting routes within the City, and to
prioritize development of such facilities in corridors served by more than one mode of
planned transportation (automobile, transit, and/or high-speed rail) (General Plan
Implementation Program AQ-14, PEIR, p. 5.3-13).
o. The City will require incorporation of energy efficient design elements in
residential, commercial, light industrial and mixed-use development projects. Examples
may include (but are not limited to) the following.
.
Site orientation strategies that use shade and windbreak trees to reduce fossil
fuel consumption for heating and cooling.
Building designs that maximize use of natural lighting, provide for task lighting,
and specific high-efficiency electric lighting (General Plan Implementation
Program AQ-15, PEIR, p. 5.3-13).
.
p. The City will improve roadway capacity by restricting on-street parking,
improving signal timing, widening intersections, adding through and turn lanes, and other
transportation systems management measures (General Plan Implementation Program
C-3, PEIR, p. 5.3-14).
q. The City will develop and promote park and ride and Transit Oasis
facilities, and encourage preferred parking for ride-sharing and low emission vehicles
(General Plan Implementation Program C-18, PEIR, p. 5.3-14).
r. The City will continue to work with trucking industry representatives to
orient trucks to truck routes, and to divert commercial truck traffic to off-peak periods to
reduce congestion and diesel emissions (General Plan Implementation Program C-19,
PEIR, p. 5.3-14).
Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including the
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the
imposition of additional mitigation measures.
3. Supporting Explanation
The proposed project is anticipated to exceed SCAQMD's daily threshold emission
levels of PMlO for construction activities. Further, the addition of emissions to an air
basin designated as non-attainment is considered under CEQA to be a significant
impact. Mitigation measures are proposed and will be included as General Plan
implementation programs to reduce this impact.
The General Plan will facilitate construction of new development throughout the Planning
Area over an approximate ten-year period, which will result in air quality impact due to
construction activities. The addition of emissions to an air basin designated as non-
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
35
attainment is considered under CEQA to be a significant impact. The project's
incremental contribution to this impact will be reduced by mitigation measures a through
r above. The project's incremental impact, after mitigation, remains significant.
With implementation of goals and policies in the General Plan and incorporation of the
mitigation measures into the General Plan as implementation programs, air quality
impacts will be substantially lessened. However, the degree to which these measures
will reduce particulate matter emissions and construction-related emissions cannot be
quantified at this time. Air pollutant levels will still continue to exceed the SCAQMD
threshold criteria for significance. Impact will be significant and unavoidable (pEIR, p.
5.3-14).
Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, a Statement of Overriding Considerations
would need to be adopted for the air quality impacts, which remain significant and
unavoidable after mitigation (pEIR, p. 5.3-14).
B. Transportation
1. Potential Significant Impacts
Long-range implementation of General Plan land use policy will create new operating
deficiencies at the following three intersection locations:
. Ynez Road and Winchester Road - LOS E at P.M. peak hour
. Ynez Road and Solana Way - LOS E at P.M. peak hour
. Ynez Road and Rancho California Road - LOS E at P.M. peak hour
Impact will be significant at these intersections. Mitigation measures are required to
reduce the level of impact (pEIR, p. 5.13-15).
Long-range implernentation of General Plan land use policy will create new operating
deficiencies at the following six freeway ramps:
. Winchester Road Direct northbound on-ramp - LOS F at P.M. peak hour
. Winchester Road Loop northbound on-ramp - LOS F P.M. peak hour
. Southern Bypass/Anza Road southbound on-ramp - LOS F at A.M. peak hour
. Winchester Road northbound off-ramp - LOS F at P.M. peak hour
. French Valley Parkway southbound off-ramp - LOS F at A.M. peak hour
. Winchester Road southbound off-ramp - LOS F at A.M. and P.M. peak hours
Impact will be significant at these freeway ramps. Mitigation rneasures are required to
reduce the level of impact (pEIR, p. 5.13-18).
2. Findings
Implementing the following rnitigation measures will reduce transportation impacts to the
extent feasible:
a. The City will: 1) prioritize, secure funding, design, and build new
roadways and complete roadway improvements using the established Capital
Improvement Plan process to irnplement the circulation systern shown on the proposed
Roadway Plan concurrent with land development; and 2) require that new roadways
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
36
meet roadway classification design specifications and performance criteria established in
the proposed Circulation Element. Table 1 summarizes new roadways and arterial
widening projects required to implement the proposed Roadway Plan 1 (General Plan
Implementation Program C-1, PEIR, p. 5.13-18).
b. The City will monitor the performance of Principal Intersections on an
ongoing basis and ensure that Principal Intersections approaching Level of Service D
are prioritized for improvement within the City's Five-Year Capital Improvement Program
(General Plan Implementation Program C-3, PEIR, p. 5.13-19).
c. The City will: 1) continue to update the Capital Improvement Plan on an
annual basis to plan for and fund future improvements to the roadway, pedestrian, and
bicycle systems; 2) identify available funding sources and establish a financing plan to
guide construction and funding of transportation system improvements, and 3) require
new development projects to construct and/or fund in whole or in part necessary traffic
improvements associated with the proposed project, through the assessment and
collection of traffic impact fees. Such improvements should address both automotive, as
well as alternative means of transportation (General Plan Implementation Program C-5,
PEIR, p. 5.13-19).
d. The City will require additional dedication of right-of-way on all
approaches to Principal Intersections. Such right-of-way shall be preserved for future
intersection improvements that may be required at these intersections, such as full width
auxiliary turn lanes and/or dual-left turn lanes (General Plan Implementation Program C-
4, PEIR, p. 5.13-19).
e. The City will implement the following procedures and requirements to minimize
impacts of proposed development projects on the City's circulation system, and to
encourage increased use of alternative transportation:
. Evaluate development proposals for potential impacts to the transportation and
infrastructure system.
. Require mitigation in the form of physical improvements and/or impact fees for
significant impacts prior to or concurrent with project development.
. Require dedication of adequate right-of-way along new roadways to permit
pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
. Require new development to incorporate design features that facilitate transit service
and encourage transit ridership, such as bus pullout areas, covered bus stop
facilities, efficient trail systems through projects to transit stops, installation of bike
lanes, bikeways, and bicycle parking, and incorporation of pedestrian walkways that
pass through subdivision boundary walls, as appropriate.
. Require new specific plans and other projects to provide an internal system of
pathways and trails. Trails should link schools, shopping centers, transit, and other
public facilities in residential areas.
. Require transportation demand management plans to be submitted for preliminary
review at the Specific Plan or Development Plan stage of site development and
1 The improvements described in Table 1 respond to the likely future operating conditions of the roadway network.
Details regarding the configuration of proposed improvements represent the best options availabie based on current
information. Actual improvements, particularly those at intersections, will be established through engineering design.
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
37
submitted for final approval prior to issuance of building permits (General Plan
Implementation Program C-6, PEIR, p. 5.13-19).
f. The City will: 1) identify local streets that are currently closed that may
benefit citywide circulation if the street was re-opened or construction of the street was
completed; 2) assess the feasibility of opening previously closed streets or completing
construction of local connecting streets that benefit citywide circulation on a case-by-
case basis, providing ample opportunity for both neighborhood residents and the
community at-large to comment on such proposals, and 3) establish a review process for
the future closing of any local street that requires City Council determination that the
closure does not have an adverse affect on citywide circulation (General Plan
Implementation Program C-7, PEIR, p. 5.13-22).
g. The City will: 1) continue to work with WRCOG, SCAG and others to
advocate future commuter or high speed rail service connecting Temecula to Los
Angeles, Riverside and San Diego; 2) ensure that any future commuter rail corridor
serving Temecula is located on the west side of 1-15 to reduce noise impacts on
residential areas; and 3) require new commercial, industrial, or mixed use development
in areas surrounding proposed stations to include transit-oriented design amenities
(General Plan Implementation Program C-12, PEIR, p. 5.13-22).
h. The City will promote the use of alternative work weeks, flextime,
telecommuting, and work-at-home programs among employers in Temecula, and
continue to enforce provisions of the City's Trip Reduction Program Ordinance, including
requirements for preparation of Trip Reduction Plans (TRPs) for qualifying development
projects and employers (General Plan Implementation Program C-13, PEIR, p. 5.13-22).
i. The City will implement the adopted Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways
Master Plan to complete design and construction of a comprehensive alternative
transportation network, promote safe use of the trail system, and ensure accessibility of
pedestrian facilities to the disabled (General Plan Implementation Program C-15, PEIR,
p.5.13-22).
j. The City will continue to improve transit service and encourage ridership
through the following actions:
. Require transit facilities in major new development and rehabilitation projects.
. Coordinate with providers to get more frequent service and broader transit coverage
serving employment, shopping, educational, recreational, and residential areas.
. Work with providers to identify and receive additional funding sources for additional
transit services.
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
38
I/)
..
IJ
<<l
C.
.E
E
..
~
,
Cl
t:
o
...J
Q)
..
<<l
Cl
E
:E
.....s
..9:!"C
.QQ)
C'a.:
I- ::l
0'
Gl
a:
I/)
..
t:
Q)
E
Q)
>
o
..
c.
E
>.
<<l
:::
"C
<<l
o
a:
c
o
:;:
'"
"
0::
"in
'"
'"
C3
I~
- ~~ ~~-~~ ~~~ ~ ~~
~~_~rno~orol~~ro~rorou~o~roB
_Q_ro,~uuIOnUI~UUIOUCUID~UI~UcU
'~g~l~g~I~~ggggl'~OgOO~~~o~
~.~~~U~~~U.~UU~UUU~~~U~
~ ~O O~~~~ ~~~ 0 ~O
'0
o
::;;
-
C
CIl
E
~
o
9-
.E
e:le: i,; ~ >
~" "> > " ~"
~~~~ ~ -g-g~
....00... - 12eo
Q) ~;;;; ~ ~ CD Q) ;;; a>
~ ctlC:CCCl CO CCC ffi
- ,<<lca. ~.5S!ctl
I ~ ^' :r " - :r
C\! ,,""'j" .... ..." .... .q .q ..l ....
~ WNvW W .... W
ro <tI (f) CI.l m ro (/) UJ (f.I ctl
_ _ ctl <tI ttl
C C'U'UC C cc: c
Q~QOCOC.Q~~.Q~~.Q~g~~.Q~~
~ ~ (f) _ CI.l ._ ._ (f) ._ ._ (f) ._ ._ (f) (f) ._ ._ ._ (f) .- .-
Q) Q) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m $ ~ m ID ~ m ~ m m ~ m m
~txtXa>a>xttxtt~~Q)ttxtt
ro<tla>caa>XXQ)roroa>roro~~XroroQ)ctlro
ma> Q)UQ)Q)UIDa>UIDa>a>a>a>a>C1> IDa>
CC~C""UU""CC....CCUUUCC~CC
~~ro~ro........ro~~ctl~~roOO""~~ro~~
I ';:' $: ro ctl $: , , $: , , ':>::. ctI I , :i: ' I
V~~V~~$:~Vm~vvZZ$:VC\!~VC\!
$:$:t$:~~m5$:$:S$:$:~~m$:$:t$:$:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
!
I~
--=-
'"
"5
U
CIl
E
CIl
I-
-
o
~
-~
C '"
CIl-
E .~
g~
1/)<(
1,;'
- "
...... ro.!!:!~
...... :::::l - ctl
:g g Q; ~,"-
o a: <<l Q) -I?'
.S: Q) a.......O Q)
..CI c:OO;:~
"C CC !::2cc CCQi CC_ >
c: CC 00 ~"C OOQ) OOCO
o 0 ._c:....._ 0 ~
I~~"C ~ .~~ B~m~~~g
i cccc m> (tIOOCC .~N~ C~Q)"c"C
u~~~iSg-E~~ii,~oo~~~~~~
~~(tI oOO"C~~I~O~O~ ~oo~~
o--~~"Cmoo"Cm ~~O.-O ~-"",c
~gi~m~~~~QiB~m~o;~~w2g
.-coo N~ m~CCCOQ)gccO=~CC
~~g=~~~5>~B<i~~~B~~~~
oC~Q)o~~ o~Q)g~uo""'o~ooo
-cc-.S-~oog-oE-o ~Q)"CoB--
~U~-~ "C "C-Q)CC Q) cm~~"C"C
o~oU~g-~mc~oomem~~ cccc
ooooocm=~.~oOo'~ Q)~>>~ooo
ccDm.E-~o~>~~.-,-gE~>~ ~~
a..c~ ~oQ)~NQ)rr~ooE~c ~~"C"C
.~'~~~I~~~~,~~.~~~o~~j~~33
>~wuz>mUo,>wUU::;;,<(ZZ<(<(
...;
-
~
U
'0
"
o
~
~
ro
>
~
"
~~~~~~I~~J~~~~I~~~I~
.Qoo"C"Col.~g~"C"C"Cgl~"Cg"C
.m~~gg'ccg~~~g~~g~oo~
~~~oo~'c~~ooo~~o 0
Q) Q) a.. Q) Q) Q) a.. Q) -g Q)
0000 000000 00_00
oE
::J
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00
Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q)
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
-----------------
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c C
Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q) Q)
"C"C"C"C"C"C"C"C"C"C"C"C"C"C"C"C"C
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
i,;
"
-"
:a
"-
"
Oc
~
ro
(,) Cii i3
o CC E C
~ .- Q) (tI 00
~ g E(,)~ ~3
CO Q) 0 ccgQ)~oo Eo
>Q)~ c OO~'2~e>~ ~~
~.~S_~ ~So~OQ)Eo~o ~I
o ~v "0 -0 -~~ oCii
cO~~~~moo~~E~~Q) _Q)
mO~~~~EmUgo~~~ 000
~>o mE.-~ 0''''''''''.- m
o~Z~~ooOOC~~o€~~mwg
;omco~joooo-Q)S~-oS~
._-~>_cc<oi_Q)rro>cQ)cc
E;::~o'C'O - 'C~~wo"~"
omoo-ccQ)o"CrrmcCll"o-OQ)m~
~3~~o-ol~moo o-~ -m
~~CiiS~~'~O;~~~~S.~OOa..
om_occo~OCc(tlcmQ)O>~~
oa..~oo~- oQ)~o~Dooo.~3
~~~mm(tlm~Ciicooocc=m-~m
u'Cu~~~c,,- 1~~~~~NCIl~
c C c ' :::' ~ ~ 001 ;::' =;;;. . Q) = "0
mQ)~~~(tIo~co~Q)~,~~c~Q)
~O>oo~a..ooa..~~J~>oo>oo~
-
~ 0
C ~
~ - ~
~ "0 $ # ~
c: m 0-0'-
.!! __ 0 c m CO ~
~ c"C"C "c rr.2 ~ S ~'C
... m CC c :::0:::0 0 00 (/) _ u.. (tI
~ ,200 0 >>.~ CC ~..... c:O _~-
Q oorrrr ~ ~~c coQ) # Q) _rr ~ co~
~ iQ)~ i ~~~.I~'~~"Ca~ i~;~ ~~"C"C"C} Q)~} ~
~ ~rom(/)~ ~~W~OOQ)Q)ro~~ ~"C_cc ~mrom(tl....."C>=~~ 0
~ ~Ci52w_~~m_~~,~0~~ gm~~ i~SSS~(tI'cea..a.."C"Cc
b "0"0 "0 ~mCC-- - Q)~~mVJ"C,-o. u..u..u..u..oO~ rom
~~~~~~~o.~~~~~~"CCoci~~oc;~ii~~BBBoorr"C"Cm~~~~
~~~~'-'-O~E~~~C_co wE~~~~._ooNQ).c.c~~mccgc e
ccm(tl~iQ)OEoom~.~~~~~mN==bi~rrmwgl~~"Cg~~~~~~IBCIl
~NNN~~=a..O~~E:::,,,,,,Q)cc~cQ)ee~=N~a..OO~I~;~'ro,,,,,Q)Q)oo~~
~ccc~~mQ)_..........o~~O>ccrooccmro~~~~mro~~S~~>>Q)Q)mmQ)
~<<<oomocw~~~~~ rrooro~>a..a..~moo~~~~~~~OOa..a..a..a..a..
'"
'"
.$
'0"
,,'0
u..c,
_:J
o c
'" "
~c:
:oe
.~ Q)
u..c
_CIl
o~
E"
CIl-
E 13
CIl CIl
-;;E
- OJ
WI-
UJ
...
o
Ol
Q.
.s
E
...
~
.
Cl
C
o
....I
Gl
...
Ol
Cl
E
:2
....s
~'O
,CGl
ca.:
1-:;,
0-
Gl
a:
UJ
...
C
Gl
E
Gl
>
o
...
Q.
.E
>-
Ol
~
'0
Ol
o
a:
" ~
I~ Ciil~ '0 J~ ~ ~ ~I~ ~ I~
0 !:; I~ ~ c:
'" ~ 0 I~
'" '" 15 I.g c:'O c: c:'O 15 0 15 .gl.g ,g ,g I.g .g
<J '0 '" '0 ._ '0 Ol "''0 '0 '0 '0'0 '0 '0
:;:: c: '", 0 '" c: .c c: '" c: '", <J c: Ul '", ~ c: c: c: c: c: c: c: <J
0 '" c: -eO 0 -eO c: 0 :J 0 0 '" '" 0 o 0 0 0 '" '" c: '" '"
'iij 0 ::;; ::;; it =>0 :5 <J =><J ::;; .;:: 0 '0 ::;; 0: 0 <J ::;;::;; <J o <J 0 0 ::;; ::;; ." ::;; ::;;
OJ> Ol Ol c1l Ol 0.. Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol 0..
'" Ul Ul Ul Ul :€ Ul Ul Ul UlUl Ul Ul
0 '0
0
::;;
I- -
c:
- 0 1) Ol
" t5
Ol Ol c: c:
E c: '" '"
., c: .r::; .r::;
> 0 ~ ~
0 oCii Cii Cii Cii Cii Cii (ijcti ., Ol
~ OJ> OJ> OJ> OJ> "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "' "'"' "' Q) ';:: ." ." ." ." ." ';::';:: "' "' "' "' "' "' ~ ~
Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol c: Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol
.E c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: '" t t t t t t tt c: c: c: c: c: c: " "
'" .!!1 .!!1 .!!1 .!!1 .!!1 .!!1 .!!1 .!!1 .!!1 .!!1 '" '" '" '" ~ '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" .!!1 .!!1 Ol Ol
~ to " to ro " ro " ro " " d;:;} :}:j: ., Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol ~ ~ ~ ;b " " c: c:
'0 c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: '0 '0
.9.9 .9.9 B2 .8 .8 .8.8 .8 .E.8 .8.9 :;; .!!1 .!!1 .!!1 '" '" '" '" '" .8 .8 .8 .8 .8 .8
c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: c: " " " "" " " " " " ~ ~ ~ :}~ " " " " " " 2 2
Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol .r::; " " " " " " " " Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol 1ii 1ii
'0 '0 '0 '0 '0'0 '0 '0 '0'0 '0 '0'0 '0'0 t '0 '0 '0 '0 '0'0 " "
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ o Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ 00
zz z z z z z zz ~ U
'"
I!! 0; '0
Ig -0: '0
'" I!! '"
'0 g 0 Ol
'" '00 ii5 '0 0: >
ii5 0 'c ",0: '" " ';:: en
0: 0 I~ ~:2 " 0 '0 ~ 0"
)!J '0 " ~
Qi I~ '0 0: 0: '" '" 0
E '" '" i) " Ot ~- 0
't: 0 ii: I_~ 0: 0 " )!-+==
'" " 0: '"
:::; 0: 00
Ol ii5 .!!! ! '0 ~ g Z :i': ~ Ol ~ .~ ~
~ 0; 'S 1; '0 oll '" 5 Ul "' 5 I!! "
'0 E '" 0 0 m '0 '" 0; 0 rom
I!! i5 0 " 0 ii5 Ol -'"
i:3 Ol Qi "' 0 ~ r--- ~:i: I!!
'0 g '0 0.. 0.. I :~ d: 0.. ...J Ul u-
- .r::; iii 0 '" 't: E '0 '" 0: ~ " ii5 0-=
" I~ 0 0 '" Cii 0 J!! "' e .8 '" Ul ~ 0: 0 0 0 .8 .8
., 'S 'C 2 ~ 0: " .~ 0; ;:: ;:: - .
0: '0 0 U "' 5 (; g "
~ 0 J!! 'S .~ 0 ;;; a.r::; -
0 N .8 '0 '" 0: ~ .r::; Q; I!! .r::; 0 .r::; .r::; .r::;
Ul u: " .~ Ol " '" 0 0 '0 .;: '0 0 t 5 I ~-a t I~ t t t
., -'" Ol -'" 0; 0 0: '" .r::; '" '" 0.. 0 1ii ii5 0 :i': 0 0 0
rn 0 :;; " 0 :;; 0: .c 0 .!!! :;; Ol ., 0 Z ::;; '" Ol Z "' " Z Z Z
~ '0 >- 1-;; I!! :J c: 'C ::;; 1:: .8 0; EZ '" :i':
0 N ::;; 0: .r::; "
0.. '" .8 0.. ii5 Q; '" '" '" '" -0: m .8 ." 0 0 Om m :i: "' m m m
" .8 "' ::;; ~ g 'C is 0.. 0: Ul .8 .8 -'" ~ r--- 5 " 5l .r::;r--- r--- '" r--- r--- r---
" 0; 0 d: '0 ~ f-' d: .8 :i: d: d: d:
-'" .8 -'" 'C :J .8 .8 .8 .8 '0 '0 :J ti '" ::;; c: oa:
:;; -'" 0 I!! :;; 0 I '" '" Ol Ul 0 :i': _Ul ~ '0 Ul Ul Ul
:;; '0 N '" '" '" 0 a: .8 .8 "' '" .8
0.. '" Ol ii5 0.. .r::; u: .8 " 1ii 1ii '0 0 a: 0 " '" 'O~
0.. Ol 0 e '" a: 1-;; g Q; " '" Ol Q; 0 '0 Q; di ID
g " :> :> 0 '0 '0 :i: ~
"' ::;; >- 'C "' Ol " c: 10 J!! 1ii 0 '" '" 0_ 1ii '" 1ii Uj1ii
"' " 0.. " 0 a: g '" " ~ 0 0 a:"' 0
0 0.. 0 0 I'~ :i: '" Ol .8 Ol Ol a: Ol Ol Ol
'" Ol '0 '0 u: 0 .8 0 ~ .r::; .r::; '" .!!! .r::; a: 0: ",.r::; .r::; e .r::; .r::;.r::;
.r::; " '0 f- Ol .!!! 0 0 .c U 0 E " :.: 0 0 5 " 0 00
0 .;;; 1ii 1ii '" "' " " :J 'C 0 ~ " 0 '0 '0 0 Ol " " c: " "
'0 Ol '0 '" Cii '" " :; :; 0
Ol :J '" '" 0 - 0 Ol '" '" '" '" ~ .r::; Ol .c .- ~ 0 Ol ~ ~~
0.. Ol W W ::;; ..., U 0: a: 0.. Ul ::;; :> Ul f- -0: -0: ...J -o::i: 0.. ...J
:;,
0
~ ~
'" "
" '"
.11 :;, .r::;
'" !!
-.2 :2 " 0 '0 Ol
~ ~ '" 'C
tt 0 .~ Ol
00 '" '" '" '" '" .:l ~ a: '" g
Z Z (5 (5 (5 00 ~ "
'0 t t t tt ... '0 " '"
m m 0 '" .S ~ .r::;
'" '" '" '" '" r--- r--- 0 0 0 o 0 0 '" "
" 'c 'c .c 'c 0 d: d: 0.. 0.. 0.. 0..0.. ~ a: '0- " .:~ '" !!
~ ~ g ~ g a: '0 '" Ol {j 0.. Ol
'" ~ ~ Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol ~ "' '0 '0 0 I!! Ul 11; ~
c: '" 0 0 0 00 ~
.r::; 0 '" '" '" a: ii5 '0 '0 -
'" Cii Cii Cii Cii 1ii 'S - - - -- (5 '0 '" '"
u a: Q; Q; '0 '0 '0 '0'0 "tl '0 '0 '0 0 0 " '" 1; '0 '0 0 0 '0 0 ='0
U U U u :> 0 1ii 1ii '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" .r::; '" a: 0: 0 '0 0 '" '" 0: a: ",I '" '"
" Ul g 0 0 0 o 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 e e 51 Ol a: 0 0 0", > 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 Ol Ol a: a: a: a: a: a: a: Z a: E " " " a:- .r::;a:
.c .r::; .r::; .c .r::; .r::; m .r::; .r::; E .!!! "tl a: a: 0 0 Ol o '"
" 0 0 0 0 0 r--- ~ 0 0 N N N N N il: '" Qi " " 5 5 '" 'C 'C (ii';::
" " " " " d: " " Ol Ol Ol Ol Ol N 0 0 " Qi l!l '0 '0 o ~ " N
.iii 15 '"
'" '" '" '" '" '" ~ ~ " " " " " ~ " Ol Ol 0 0 .r::; " .c :; :; Ol Ol I!! "
a: a: a: a: a: a: Ul Ul >- >- >- >->- -0: Ol ..., ...J 0.. 0.. f- => -0: II: -0: -0: Ol Ol Ol::;; u.-o:
o
"
Ol
-10
0'0
"'c.
u.=>
'0"
"' '"
g>C::
:oe
.~ Q)
u."
-Ol
O(!)
'C '"
Ol-
E 13
Ol Ol
- E
J!!Ol
Ulf-
The City will also collaborate with providers to identify needs and provide special transit
services beyond fixed-route buses. Potential services include, but are not limited to:
. Subscription or dial-a-ride service for lower density residential areas
. Offering limited transit service between outlying residential areas and the City's
commercial/employment core
. Shuttle or trolley service between Old Town and other destinations along the 1-15
commercial corridor, and expanded service to other areas, including the wineries
along Rancho California Road, as opportunities arise
. Providing bicycle carrying racks on buses.
(General Plan Implementation Program C-16, PEIR, p. 5.13-22)
k. The City will encourage carpooling and use of public transportation in
Temecula through the following measures:
. Develop and promote park and ride and Transit Oasis facilities within the City.
. Encourage preferred parking for ride sharing and low emission vehicles (General
Plan Implementation Program C-18, PEIR, p. 5.13-23).
Additional changes or alterations to the regional circulation system are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City of Temecula.
Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted
by such other agency. Also, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers, make infeasible additional mitigation measures.
3. Supporting Explanation
Even with implementation of mitigation measures, significantly impacted intersections
and freeway ramps cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level. These facilities
include:
. Ynez Road and Winchester Road (P.M. peak hour)
. Ynez Road and Solana Way (P.M. peak hour)
. Ynez Road and Rancho California Road (P.M. peak hour)
. Winchester Road Direct northbound on-ramp (P.M. peak hour)
. Winchester Road Loop northbound on-ramp (P.M. peak hour)
. Southern Bypass/Anza Road southbound on-ramp (A.M. peak hour)
. Winchester Road northbound off-ramp (P.M. peak hour)
. French Valley Parkway southbound off-ramp (A.M. peak hour)
. Winchester Road southbound off-ramp (A.M. and P.M. peak hour)
Under CEOA Guidelines Section 15093, a Statement of Overriding Considerations
would need to be adopted for the air quality impacts, which remain significant and
unavoidable after mitigation (pEIR, p. 5.13-23).
Section 5. Alternatives to the Project. The City Council hereby declares that it has
considered the alternatives identified in the PEIR as described below. CEOA requires that an
EIR evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to a 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. An EIR must only
Statement of Findings of Fact 41
T emecula General Plan Update
evaluate reasonable alternatives to a Project which could feasibly attain most of the Project
objectives, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. In all cases, the
consideration of alternatives is to be judged against a "rule of reason." The lead agency is not
required to choose the "environmentally superior" alternative identified in an EIR if the
alternative does not provide substantial advantages over the proposed Project and (1) through
the imposition of mitigation measures the environmental effects of a Project can be reduced to
an acceptable level, or (2) there are social, economic, technological or other considerations
which make the alternative infeasible.
A. No Project Alternative - 1993 General Plan
1. Description
The No Project Alternative assumes that the 1993 General Plan remains as the adopted
long-range planning policy document for the Planning Area. The No Project Alternative
represents conditions that would exist in the year 2025 if development with the Planning
Area and the region continued to grow at the pace and extent permitted in the 1993
General Plan, and if the 1993 General Plan policies were implemented by the year 2025
(pEIR, p. 6-2).
2. Finding
The City Council finds that the No Project Alternative generally would have the same
significant unavoidable impacts as the proposed project and would introduce several
new significant impacts related to agricultural resources, air quality, land use and
planning, noise, population and housing, public services and recreation, transportation,
and utilities and service systems. The No Project Alternative would not meet most of the
project objectives. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers, make this alternative infeasible.
3. Supporting Explanation
Development pursuant to the No Project Alternative would not implement the policies
and programs of the proposed General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements.
Development would continue pursuant to the policies of the 1993 General Plan. As a
result, the local circulation system would not meet the needs of Temecula residents and
businesses nor calm traffic in residential neighborhoods and near schools because the
existing transportation system is not sufficient to provide for the efficient flow of traffic
throughout the Planning Area. The No Project Alternative does not specifically provide
for mixed-use areas, but rather designates numerous "village centers" throughout
Temecula, several of which have already developed into other more traditional
commercial uses. Therefore, concentrated areas adjacent to 1-15 with an appropriate
pedestrian-oriented mix of commercial, office, and residential uses would not result
under the No Project Alternative. Further, the No Project Alternative would not establish
agricultural preservation areas, the lack of which would hinder the City's objective to be
a regional historical and viticultural destination. In summary, the No Project Alternative
would not meet most of the identified project objectives (pEIR, p. 6-5).
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
42
B. Extension of North General Kearney Road Alternative
1. Description
This alternative was conceived as a means of reducing traffic/circulation impacts along
several roadway segments and at intersections in the northwestern portion of the City.
In the Meadowview neighborhood, a number of streets originally planned to provide
access into and out of the cornmunity are currently closed. The extension of North
General Kearney Road from La Colima Road to Nicolas Road would add a roadway
connection to an area along Winchester Road where intersection levels of service are
close to or worse than LOS D. With this Alternative, all other provisions of the General
Plan update would be implemented (pEIR, p. 6-6).
2. Finding
The City Council finds that this alternative would not significantly result in reduced
environmental impacts relative to circulation. All other impacts would be comparable
those associated with the project. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or
other considerations, including the potential for significant adverse impacts on the
surrounding community, make this alternative infeasible.
3. Supporting Explanation
The extension of North General Kearny Road was intended to provide an alternate route
for local residents around two intersections along Winchester Road that are expected to
exceed the LOS D criteria in the General Plan in terrns of the future projected left turn
rnovements from Nicolas Road to Winchester Road and westbound Winchester Road to
southbound Margarita Road. However, the traffic modeling that was prepared for the
environmental impact report did not show enough traffic improvements to justify the
potential adverse irnpacts to residents living along the proposed alignment.
B. 15 Percent Growth Reduction Alternative
1 . Description
This alternative was conceived as a means of reducing environmental impacts of the
proposed project by reducing development capacity within the Planning Area to levels
comparable to projections published by SCAG.
The population growth rate between 2005 and 2025 estimated by SCAG is 2.9 percent
per year for Riverside County. Therefore, with this Alternative, the City would adopt the
proposed General Plan, but modifications would be made to the proposed Land Use
Elernent and map and the Circulation Element Roadway Plan such that net new
residential development would be reduced by 15 percent citywide relative to the
proposed project. This would result in a total population of approximately 96,407
persons living in 31,141 housing units within the current City limits, and a total of
143,806 persons living in 46,484 housing units within the Planning Area in the year
2025. These figures are more comparable to the adopted SCAG 2025 forecasts for
Temecula than the proposed project. All other goals and policies of the proposed project
would rernain the same, including the establishment of Mixed Use Overlay Areas, Rural
Preservation Areas, and the French Valley Future Growth Area, as well as the
introduction of the Vineyards/Agriculture designation (pEIR, p. 6-B).
Statement of Findings of Fact 43
Temecula General Plan Update
2. Finding
The City Council finds that this alternative would result in reduced environmental impacts
relative to aesthetics, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public
services and recreation, and utilities and service systems. All other impacts would be
comparable those associated with the project. However, the alternative would not meet
all of the project objectives. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained
workers, make this alternative infeasible.
3. Supporting Explanation
Although development in accordance with SCAG population projections would reduce
impacts with regard to aesthetics, land use and planning, public facilities and recreation,
and utilities and service systems, it would not achieve a number of critical project
objectives. This alternative would not fully implement the proposed Circulation Element
Roadway Plan, which is intended to ensure that the local circulation system meets the
needs of Temecula residents and businesses while calming traffic in residential
neighborhoods and near schools; not all identified roadway improvements may be
required under the reduced trip generation associated with this alternative. Reduced
development may not provided for a greater diversity of housing options to meet the
needs of all segments of the community, as residential densities may need to be
reduced and housing construction may need to be restricted to ensure that population
targets are not exceeded. Both of these actions may lead to higher housing costs and
restrict the diversity of housing options available in Temecula for all income ranges.
Further, this alternative could compromise the development of a strong business
community, quality housing stock, scenic open space, and cultural amenities that make
Temecula a desirable place to locate because development would be restricted in such
a way that not all aspects of the City would be permitted to grow.
The 15 Percent Growth Reduction Alternative would reduce population growth to a level
more consistent with SCAG projections. However, it does not achieve many of the most
critical project objectives as effectively as the proposed project and therefore has been
rejected (pEIR, pgs. 6-10 and 6-11).
Section 6. Project Benefits and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Pursuant
to State CEQA Guidelines section 15093, the City Council must balance the benefits of the
General Plan Update against any unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to
recommend approval of the Temecula General Plan Update. If the benefits of the General Plan
outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, those impacts may be considered
"acceptable. "
The City Council hereby finds that the Final PEIR has identified and discussed significant effects
that will occur as a result of the General Plan. With the implementation of the mitigation
measures discussed in the Final PEIR and General Plan, these effects can be mitigated to a
less than significant level except for the unavoidable significant impacts as discussed in Section
4 of these Findings.
The City Council declares that it has made a reasonable and good faith effort to eliminate or
substantially mitigate the potential impacts resulting from the Temecula General Plan.
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
44
The City Council finds that to the extent any mitigation measures recommended in the Final
PEIR and/or General Plan could not be incorporated, such mitigation measures are infeasible
because they would impose restrictions on the General Plan that would prohibit the realization
of specific economic, social, and other benefits, including the provision of employment
opportunities for highly trained workers. The City Council further finds that such changes or
alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City
of Temecula. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be
adopted by such other agency.
The City Council declares that, having reduced the adverse significant environmental effects of
the General Plan to the extent feasible by recommending adopting of the proposed mitigation
measures, having considered the entire administrative record on the General Plan, and having
weighed the benefits of the General Plan against its unavoidable adverse impacts after
mitigation, the City Council has determined that the following social, economic, and
environmental benefits of the General Plan outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse impacts
and render those potential adverse environmental impacts acceptable based upon the following
overriding considerations:
1. The General Plan will allow for a diverse mix of land uses, thereby creating a
suitable inventory of housing for a range of income groups, a viable commercial
and employment base, ample open space and recreational opportunities,
adequate public facilities and services, and high-quality urban and rural lifestyles
for residents and visitors to enjoy.
2. The General Plan will encourage mixed use development providing opportunities
for creative reuse as commercial, residential, office, employment/technology, or
mixed use centers. Three Mixed Use Overlay Areas are identified in the Land
Use Plan: Jefferson Avenue, Town Center/Tower Plaza, and south of Old Town.
Successful completion of high-quality mixed use projects will assist the City in
accomplishing multiple housing, circulation, and land use objectives.
3. The General Plan will preserve rural areas, such as large lot/ rural
residential/agricultural areas in the community that represent lifestyle and open
space characteristics of Temecula. Four areas are designated by the General
Plan as Rural Preservation Areas in the Land Use Plan: Nicolas Valley, the
winery and agricultural areas of east Temecula, Anza road at SR-79 South, and
the Rainbow Canyon and Great Oak Ranch areas.
4. The General Plan will help to manage future growth. Unincorporated areas in the
City's northern Sphere of Influence are largely proposed for development through
specific plans under the jurisdiction of Riverside County. Ternecula has an
opportunity to control land uses, phasing of development, project design, and
infrastructure improvements by annexing these properties prior to project
approval by the County. To achieve these purposes, the City has developed a
land use plan for the French Valley area, and has designated this area as a
Future Growth Area. The intent of these steps is to ensure that future
annexations are beneficial additions to the City, and to minimize impacts of future
development in the area on City roads and infrastructure.
The City Council finds that the foregoing benefits provided to the public through approval and
implernentation of the General Plan Update outweigh the identified significant adverse
environmental irnpacts of the General Plan which cannot be mitigated. The City Council further
Statement of Findings of Fact 45
Temecula General Plan Update
finds that each of the General Plan Update benefits outweighs the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects identified in the Final PEIR 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.
The City Council finds that it has reviewed and considered the Final PEIR in evaluating the
General Plan Update, that the Final PEIR is an accurate and objective statement that fully
complies with the CEQA, State CEQA Guidelines, and the City's CEQA Guidelines, and that the
Final PEl R reflects the independent judgment of the Council.
The City Council hereby certifies the Environmental Impact Report based on the following
findings and conclusions:
A. Finding
The following significant environmental impacts have been identified in the Final PEIR and will
require mitigation as set forth in Section 4 of this Resolution but cannot be mitigated to a level of
insignificance: short-term and long-term project and cumulative air quality impacts, and
transportation impacts.
B. Conclusions
1. All significant environmental impacts from implementation of the General
Plan Update have been identified in the Final PEIR and, with implementation of the mitigation
measures identified, will be mitigated to a level of insignificance, except for those impacts listed
in Section 4.
2. Other reasonable alternatives to the General Plan Update which could
feasibly achieve the basic objectives of the General Plan Update have been considered and
rejected in favor of the General Plan Update.
3. Environmental, economic, social and other considerations and benefits
derived from the development of the General Plan Update override and make infeasible any
alternatives to the General Plan Update or further mitigation measures beyond those
incorporated into the General Plan Update.
Section 7. Adoption of Recommendation for the Adoption of a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program. The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program in Section 8.0 of the Final PEIR and attached to this
Resolution as Exhibit A. Exhibit A is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference
as though set forth in full. 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.
Statement of Findings of Fact
T emecula General Plan Update
46
Section 8. Location of Records. 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 210B1.6. The proposed comprehensive updates of the
Land Use, Circulation, Open Space/Conservation, Growth Management/Public Facilities, Public
Safety, Noise, Air Quality, Community Design, and Economic Development Elements of the
General Plan for the City of Temecula, as amended.
Section 9. Council Member Roberts and Council Member Washington did not
participate in the public hearing and Council discussion of the North General Kearney Road
extension issues. Both own homes in the Meadowview Community and are part of the
Meadowview Homeowners Association. The Association owns the property on which the North
General Kearney Road extension would be built as well as property surrounding it; therefore the
Fair Political Practices Commission has confirmed that Mayor Pro Tem Roberts and Council
Member Washington have a conflict due to their home ownership. Based on this conflict of
interest, Mayor pro tem Roberts and Council Member Washington each hereby abstain in the
approval of this Resolution and certification of the Environmental Impact Report and the
approval of the General Plan as such actions relate to the extension of North General Kearney
Road.
Section 10. Mayor Comerchero and Councilmember Naggar did not participate in the
discussion of the Southern Bypass Road nor the land use designation for property located south
of the Morgan Hill Specific Plan. Council Member Naggar has a financial interest in
approximately 80 acres of real property in adjacent to Anza Rd and El Chimisal in the
unincorporated portion of Riverside County and he believes that the implementation of the
Southern Bypass and the land use designations for property located south of the Morgan Hill
Specific Plan might have a significant effect on the value of this property. Mayor Comerchero
also will not be participating in this matter because he is the President of Rancon and Rancon
owns approximately 100 acres of property adjacent to Anza Rd and El Chimisal in the
unincorporated portion of Riverside County and he believes that the implementation of the
Southern Bypass Road and the land use designation for property located south of the Morgan
Hill Specific Plan might have a significant effect on the value of this property. Based on this
conflict of interest, Mayor Comerchero and Council Member Naggar each hereby abstain in the
approval of this Resolution and certification of the Environmental Impact Report and the
approval of the General Plan as such actions relate to the Southern Bypass Road and the land
use designation for property located south of the Morgan Hill Specific Plan.
Section 11. Council Member Washington did not participate in the discussion
concerning Circulation Element Policies 3.6, 3.7, and 3.8 as he owns a home on a street which
could be impacted by this policy. Based on this conflict of interest, Council Member Washington
hereby abstains in the approval of this Resolution and certification of the Environmental Impact
Report and the approval of the General Plan as such actions relate to Circulation Element
Policies 3.6, 3.7, and 3.8.
Section 12. Mayor Comerchero did not participate in the discussion of the land use
designation for the Callaway Winery property because he is the President of Rancon and
Rancon owns approximately 330 acres of property in the unincorporated portion of Riverside
County and he believes that the implementation of land use designation for Callaway Winery
property might have a significant effect on the value of this property. Based on this conflict of
interest, Mayor Comerchero hereby abstains in the approval of this Resolution and certification
of the Environmental Impact Report and the approval of the General Plan as such actions relate
Statement of Findings of Fact 47
Temecula General Plan Update
to the land use designation for Callaway Winery property. Mayor Comerchero also did not
participate in the discussion of the land use designation for Land Use Map Request No.2, 72
acres of property at the corner of Nicholas Road and Via Lobo. Although not a technical
conflict, the owner of the 72 acres for Land Use Map Request NO.2 at Nicholas Road and Via
Lobo will sponsor a major fundraiser for Mayor Comerchero this and he believes it is only
appropriate that he not participate on this matter. Based on this conflict of interest, Mayor
Comerchero hereby abstains in the approval of this Resolution and certification of the
Environmental Impact Report and the approval of the General Plan as such actions relate to
Land Use Map Request NO.2.
Section 13. Council Member Naggar did not participate in the discussion concerning
Rainbow Canyon Road, Avenida de Missiones Bridge, and Land Use Map Request NO.7 (72
acres at the north side of Lorna Linda) because Horton/Continental, owner of the 20.4 acre
parcel being developed at the north east corner of Temecula Land and Lorna Linda in the City is
a source of income to him and he believes that the changes to the road and bridge and the land
use designation might have a significant effect on the value of the property. Based on this
conflict of interest, Council Member Naggar herby abstains in the approval of this Resolution
and certification of the Environmental Impact Report and the approval of the General Plan as
such actions relate to Rainbow Canyon Road, Avenida de Missiones Bridge and Land Use Map
Request NO.7.
Section 14. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and it shall
become effective upon its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula
this 12th day of April 2005.
Jeff Comerchero, Mayor
ATTEST:
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. 2005-_ was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 12th day of April 2005, by the following vote:
AYES:
o
COUNCILMEMBERS
None
NOES:
o
COUNCILMEMBERS:
None
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
48
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
o
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
49
None
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Statement of Findings of Fact
Temecula General Plan Update
50
STANLEY R. HOFFMAN
ASS 0 C I A f e. s
11661 San Vicente Boulevard Suite 306
Los Angeles, California 90049
310.820.2680.310.820.8341 fax
www.stanlevrhoffman.com
Memo
To: Jeff Henderson, CottonIBridgeslAssociates
From: Stan Hoffman, Stanley R. Hoffman Associates
Date: April 11, 2005
Re: Fiscal Projections for T emecula General Plan Update
Introduction
The purpose of this memorandum is to present the fiscaJ impact analysis of the Temecula
General Plan Update, which includes the following geographic areas: 1) the current City of
Temecula corporate boundaries; and 2) the Planning Area that extends beyond the City's
corporate boundaries, and includes Temecula's sphere of influence areas. This fiscal analysis
also presents the property tax increment to the City's redevelopment agency from development
that is projected to take place within the existing redevelopment boundaries.
Additionally, revenue projections are presented for the various Citywide Community Services
District charges that are made against single family and multi-family residential units and non-
residential acreage to support operations and maintenance for parks and recreation, arterial
street-lighting and median landscape maintenance, and residential street-lighting and
refuse/recycling costs. Finally, the memorandum summarizes the key assumptions for land use
development through build-out of the General Plan with the detailed Jand use, market and fiscal
assumptions presented in appendices available under separate cover.
The projections are presented in 2005 constant dollars for the incrementaJ development through
build-out under the proposed General Plan. For areas that require future annexation, according
to current policy, the property tax transfer assumption is that 25% of the County of Riverside's
General Fund property tax rate would be allocated to the City of Temecula.
Summary
General Fund. Table 1 presents the projected annual recurring revenues and costs to the City of
Temecula General Fund resulting from the build-out of the City's General Plan. The projections
are presented for the existing City and the Planning Area, separately and then shown in
combination. As shown in Table I, the annual fiscal projection at build-out for the existing
incorporated City is a positive $598,400 with a revenue/cost ratio of 1.04. Retail sales and use
tax represents the largest revenue source at about 21 percent of total revenues. The largest
ongoing cost is for police protection at about 60 percent of total costs.
The fiscal projection for the Planning Area is a positive $2,398,300 with a revenue/cost ratio of
1.15. This projection is relatively more positive than the Citywide projection because a higher
proportion of retail development is included in the General Plan Jand uses. For this projection,
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates
April 11 , 2005
Mr. Jeff Henderson, CBA
Fiscal Projections for Temecula General Plan Update
Page 2
retail sales and use tax constitutes about 43 percent of total revenues. Also, police protection is
estimated at about 47 percent of total costs.
While not specifically identified in the General Plan land uses, it was assumed that an additional
200 hotel rooms would be added within the proposed mixed use areas of the existing City. Also,
public works costs represented a higher proportion of total costs at 22 percent for the Planning
Area compared with 15 percent of total costs for the existing City boundaries. This was because
it was assumed that areas that were slated for redevelopment within the existing city were
already receiving public works services that would continue. However, for newly developing
areas, both within the City and the Planning Area, additionaJ public works costs were projected.
Also projected were General Fund costs for non-fee supported Community Services. This is
particularly true for Parks and Recreation service costs that currently exceed the existing levels
of service charges and user fees. Additionally, it was assumed that the level of non-fee
supported planning costs would remain stable over time within the existing City boundaries, but
for the newly annexed areas, these service costs would increase as the physical size of the City
expanded.
Table 1 summarizes the combined fiscal impact of the Citywide and Planning Area analysis. In
combination, the fiscal projection for the incremental development for the total General Plan area
is $2,996,700 with a revenue/cost ratio of 1.10.
Community Service District (CSD) Revenues. The City of Temecula has established a series of
Service Level charges for different land uses to fund various types of services, such as:
.
Citywide Service Level- Parks & Recreation
Service Level A - Arterial Streetlights and Median Landscaping (included under
Citywide)
Service Level B - Residential Street Lighting
Service Level C - Perimeter Landscaping (funded by Homeowners Association)
Service Level D - Residential Refuse and Recycling
.
.
.
.
As shown in Table 2, the annual increase in CSD revenues for incremental build-out within the
existing City boundaries is projected at about $3.70 million for the various service levels. For
the Planning Area, the annual increase is projected at about $3.32 million. The total annual CSD
revenues are projected at about $7.03 million for the entire GeneraJ Plan area.
Redevelopment Propertv Tax Increment. The City of Temecula has redevelopment areas within
its existing corporate boundaries. For these redevelopment areas, annual property tax increment
is projected at build-out of the General Plan land uses. As shown in Table 3, the total annual
property tax increment is projected at about $10.64 million. This is based on an estimated
increase in assessed valuation for residential and non-residential land uses within the
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates
April 11 , 2005
Mr. Jeff Henderson, eBA
Fiscal Projections for Temecula General Plan Update
Page 3
redevelopment areas of about $1.5 billion. Further, the City's redevelopment agency IS
estimated to receive about 70.9 percent of the 1 percent property tax levy.
Summary of Land Use and Demographic Assumptions. Table 4 summarizes the residential land
use assumptions and the projected increase in population. As shown, the total increase in
housing units is estimated at 13,286 for the existing City and 11,911 for the Planning Area. This
yields a projected increase in population of 41,277 for the existing City and 36,799 for the
Planning Area.
Table 5 summarizes the non-residential land use assumptions and the projected increase in
employment. As shown, the total non-residential square footage increase in the existing City is
estimated at 17,428,000. This includes 2,245,000 square feet within the mixed use areas. For
the purpose of fiscal analysis, the mixed use square footage was further allocated among Retail
(40%), Office (40%) and Public/Institutional (20%) land uses. The total non-residential square
footage increase in the Planning Area is estimated at 16,417,000 square feet. There is no mixed
use development areas assumed for the Planning Area.
This yields an estimated employment increase of 36,037 for the existing City and 27,933 for the
Planning Area. As mentioned earlier, detailed land use, market and fiscal assumptions are
provided in appendices under separate cover.
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates
r-----""_
~~
April II, 2005
Mr. Jeff Henderson, CBA
Fiscal Projections for Temecula General Plan Update
Page 4
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF RECURRING REVENUES AND COSTS
TEMECULA GENERAL PLAN UPDATE FISCAL ANNEXATION ANALYSIS
Citywide Planning Area
Revenues/Costs Buildout Bulldout Total General Plan Area'
Recurrina Revenues: Amount % Amount % Amount %
Property tax $3,261,000 20.0% 2,401,100 12.3% 5,662,100 15.8%
Property Transfer tax $312,600 1.9% 300,200 1.5% 613,000 1.7%
Sales & Use Tax: Retail $3,468,000 21.2% 8,422,300 43.2% 11,890,300 33.2%
Sales & Use Tax: Non-Retail $2,400,000 14.7% 2,475,000 12.7% 4,875,000 13.6%
Transient occupancy tax $379,600 2.3% 0 0.0% 379,600 1.1%
Business License tax $328,700 2.0% 254,700 1.3% 583,400 1.6%
Franchises $971,600 5.9% 884,700 4.5% 1,856,300 5.2%
Motor vehicle in-lieu $2,142,800 13.1% 1,910,300 9.8% 4,053,100 11.3%
State gasoline tax $742,100 4.5% 661,500 3.4% 1,403,600 3.9%
Measure A sales tax (capital projects) $1,189,400 7.3% 1,060,400 5.4% 2,249,800 6.3%
Fines and forfeitures $722,100 4.4% 604,500 3.1% 1,326,600 3.7%
Interest $427,100 2.6% 519,500 2.7% 946,600 2.6%
Other $0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0%
Subtotal $16,345,200 100.0% $19,494,200 100.0% $35 839,400 100.0%
Measure A sales tax caDital Droiect5""' $1,189,400 $1 060,400 2,249 600
Total Revenues $15,155,800 $18,433,800 $33,589,600
Recurrina Costs:
Police protection $8,760,600 60.2% $7,487,400 46.7% $16,248,000 53.1%
Net fire cost $203,500 1.4% $37,400 0.2% $240,900 0.8%
Animal control $70,200 0.5% $62,500 0.4% $132,700 0.4%
Public Works $2,187,000 15.0% $3,569,900 22.3% $5,756,900 18.8%
Community Services2 $1,851,100 12.7% $1,704,800 10,6% $3,555,900 11.6%
Planning (Non-Fee Supported)3 $0 0.0% $1,537.700 9.6% $1,537,700 5.0%
Citywide overhead $1,485,000 10.2% $1,635,800 10.2% $3,120,800 10.2%
Total Costs $14,557,400 100.0% $16,035,500 100.0% $30,592,900 100.0%
Net Recurrino Fiscallmoact $598,400 $2,398,300 $2,996,700
Recurring Revenue/Cost Ratio
1.04
1.15
1.10
Note: 1. The total General Plan Area is the combination of the area covered by the City of Temecula's current corporate
boundaries, plus the Planning Area that extends beyond these boundaries and includes the Sphere of Influence areas.
2. These are net General Fund costs that are not covered by the CSD parcel charge revenues.
3. The current level of non-fee supported Planning costs are assumed to increase within the Planning Area only, and are
to assumed to remain stable at the current level within the existing City.
Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.
City of Temecula Fiscal Model
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates
~
April 11, 2005
Mr. Jeff Henderson, CBA
Fiscal Projections for Temecula General Plan Update
Page 5
TABLE 2
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT (CSD) REVENUES
CITY OF TEMECULA
(In 2005 Dollars)
Service Level Rate Citywide Planning Area Total
Citywide
Single Family Residential $63.44 per Unit $731,209 $646,771 $1,377,980
Multi-Family Residential $47.58 per Unit $83,741 $81,647 $165,388
Non-Residential $380.64 per Acre $375,170 $371 ,227 $746,397
Service Level B
Single Family Residential $25.68 per Unit $295,988 $261,808 $557,795
Service Level C
Single Family Residential nla $0 $0 $0
Service Level D
Single Family Residential $192.48 per Unit $2.218.524 $1.962.334 $4.180.858
Total Estimated CSD Revenues $3,704,633 $3,323,786 $7,028,419
Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.
City of Temecula Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Budget.
TABLE 3
PROJECTED ANNUAL PROPERTY TAX INCREMENT
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (RDA), CITY OF TEMECULA
(In 2005 Dollars)
Description
Amount
RDA -- Projected Assessed Valuation
Property Tax Increment @ 1 %
RDA -- Property Tax Increment @ 70.9%
$1,500,306,312
$15,003,063
$10,637,172
1. Projection is made for the buildout of land uses for the
proposed General Plan.
Source: Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, Inc.
City of Temecula Fiscal Year 2004-2005 Budget.
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates
I--c:.
.~
April 11, 2005
Mr. Jeff Henderson, CBA
Fiscal Projections for Temecula General Plan Update
Page 6
TABLE 4
RESIDENTIAL LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS SUMMARY
CITY OF TEMECULA
Housing Units Population
land Use Citywide RDA Non-RDA PA Citywide RDA Non-RDA PA
SINGLE FAMILY (PPH::: 3.089)
HR Hillside 16 S 11 22 50 17 34 69
RR Rural Residential 23 0 23 .20 70 0 70 -63
VL Very Low 42 0 42 68 129 0 129 210
L Low 1,112 0 1,112 .9 3,434 0 3,434 -29
LM Low Medium 4923 .27 1M1 ~ 1.2..ill ~ 15296 =
Sub-Total 6,116 -22 6,138 10,195 18,895 -68 18,963 31,499
MUL T1-FAMIL Y (PPH = 3.089)
M Medium 3,888 30 3,858 958 12,013 93 11,920 2,959
H High ~ 496 1..Qg2 ~ 4703 ~ 3170 ~
Sub-Total S,410 526 4,884 1,716 16,716 1,625 15,090 5,300
MIXED-USE (PPH = 3.220)
MIX Mixed Use 1760 1 105 ~ Q 5667 3562 2105 Q
Sub-Total 1,760 1,105 6SS 0 5,667 3,562 2,105 0
TOTALS 13,286 1,609 11,677 11,911 41,277 5,119 36,158 36,799
Source: Stanley A. Hoffman Associates, Inc.
Cotton/Bridges/Associates.
Stanley R. Hoffman Associates
~
Aprilll, 2005
Mr. Jeff Henderson, CBA
Fiscal Projections for Temecula General Plan Update
Page 7
TABLE 5
NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS SUMMARY
CITY OF TEMECULA
Non-Residential (l,OOO's) Employment
Sq.FU
Land Use Citywide RDA Non-RDA PA Employee Citywide RDA Non-RDA PA
COMMERCIAL
NC Neighborhood 340 0 340 218 500 679 0 679 435
CC Community -398 .784 386 2,959 500 -797 -1,568 771 5,918
HT HighwayfTourist 650 562 88 469 500 1,301 1,124 ,n 938
SC Service 2,538 1,620 918 -57 500 5,076 3,241 1,835 .114
PO Professional Office 5,501 412 5,089 3,397 300 18,336 1,372 16,964 11,324
HO Hotel 1ilil M Oll Q 1,000 1ilil OQ Oll Q
Sub-Total 8,630 1,810 6,820 6.986 24,695 4,219 20,476 18,501
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL
IP Industrial Park ~ ~ :lHl ~ 1,000 ~ ~ :lHl ~
Sub-Total 6,553 2,666 3,887 9,432 6,553 2,666 3,887 9,432
MIXED-USE
MIX Retail (40%) 898 732 166 0 500 1,796 1,464 332 0
Office (40%) 898 732 166 0 300 2,993 2,440 553 0
Public/Institutional (20%) ~ 366 ~ Q nla !lIll nla !lIll "/a
Sub-Total 2,245 1,830 415 0 4,789 3,904 B8S 0
TOTALS 17,428 6,306 11,123 16,417 36,037 10,789 25,249 27,933
Source: Stanley A. Hoffman Associates, Inc.
Conon/Bridges! Associates.