Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout012291 CC AgendaA OENDA TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL A REGULAR MEETING TEMECULA TEMPORARY COMMUNITY CENTER- 27475 COMMERCE CENTER DRIVE CALL TO ORDER: Invocation Flag Salute ROLL CALL: PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS JANUARY22, 1991 - 7:00 PM Next in Order: Ordinance: No. 91-04 Resolution: No. 91-09 Pastor J. Beckley Rancho Community Church Councilmember Moore Birdsall, Linderoans, Moore, Muf~oz, Parks PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 1 5 minutes is provided so members of the 'public can address the Council on items that are not listed on the Agenda. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council about an item 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 and address. For all other agenda items a 'Request To Speak' form must be filed with the City Clerk before the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. NOTIC/= 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 discuss;on of these items unless members of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. 2/'lgendMO 1~291 I 0111etil CONSENT CALENDAR Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure RECOMMENDATION 1.1 Waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. 2 Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Approve the minutes of January 8, 1991 as mailed. 3 4 5 Resolution ADDrovinq List of Demands RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: · RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY,COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CUllMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A Initiative Processin(] Fee Resolution RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING A FEE FOR THE PROCESSING OF AN INITIATIVE PETITION FOR ANY MUNICIPAL MEASURE Coooerative A(]reement with CalTrans for Sionels at I-15 and Rancho California Road RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Authorize the Mayor to execute the Cooperative Agreement for the traffic control signals on the Rancho California Road freeway overpass. 2/NenddO t 22e 1 COUNCIL BUSINESS 6 Mid-year Review of FY 1990-1991 Ooerating Authorized Positions. Titles and Salary Ran=es RECOMMENDATION 6.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- 6.2 Bud<3et - Aooroval of Additional A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PERSONNEL POLICIES Adopt a resoluti~)n entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO AMEND THE FISCAL YEAR 1990-91 ANNUAL BUDGET FOR CHANGES IN ESTIMA TED REVENUES AND APPROPRIATIONS CSD MEETING - (To be held at 8:00 PM) Please see sepa~te agenda PUBLIC HEARINGS 7 Plot Plan No. 179 - Johnson + Johnson Southwest Cbrner of Rio Nedo and Tierra Alta Way RECOMMENDATION: 7.1 Adopt the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 179 7.2 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 179 TO CONSTRUCT A 57,284 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING; AND A 3,250 SQUARE FOOT TESTING FACILITY ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 4.5A CRES LOCA TED ON THESOUTHWESTCORNER OF RIO NEDO AND TIElIRA ALTA WAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-290-036, 037, 060, and 061 2281 3 01117/81 8 Revised Vesting Tentative Tract 23! 43. Change of Zone 5535 Continued from the meeting of January 8, 1991. RECOMMENDATION: 8.1 Continue the public hearing on revised vesting tentative tract 23143, Change of Zone 5535 to the meeting of January 29, 1991. COUNCIL BUSINESS (CONTINUED) 9 Oral Presentation by John Hennigaro Rancho California Water District - "What the Drouqht Means to Temecu!a" RECOMMENDATION: 9.1 Receive report. 10 URM (Unreinforced Masonry Buildings) Ordinance/Senate Bill No. 547 Oral Presentation by Chief Building Official Tony Elmo 11 Modification to City Buildin¢~ Codes Addina a Chaoter for Mitigation of Unreinforced Masonry Buildinq RECOMMENDATION: 11.1 Introduce an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 91- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING ORDINANCE 457. SECTION 4, 'UNIFORM BUILDING CODE' OF THE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE BY THE ADDITION OF SECTION 4,12 l (a) WHICH MODIFIES THE 1988 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE AS ADOPTED BY SAID COUNTY, BY ADDING CHAPTER 71, FOR THE PURPOSES OF IDENTIFICA TION OF SEISMIC HAZARDS AND THE MITIGA TION THEREOF AS REQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 8875 ET SEQ 11.2 Set for public hearing on February 12, 1991. 2/NendWO122e I 4 01111/ll 12 WRCO~ Mission and Goals Continued from the meeting of December 18, 1990 RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Approve an official position for the City of Temecula and authorize the Mayor to so advise the Western Riverside Council of Governments. _ CITY MANA OER REPORT CITY ATTORNEY REPORT CITY COUNCIL REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: January 29, 7:00 PM, Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California 2/agende/O 122l 1 I 01/1Ifil ITEM NO. 1 ITEM NO. 2 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL HELD JANUARY 8, 1991 A regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order at 7:02 PM at the Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California. Mayor Ron Parks presiding. PRESENT 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Also present were City Manager David F. Dixon, City Attorney Scott F. Field, and Deputy City Clerk June S. Greek. INVOCA T/ON The invocation was given by Pastor Gary Nelson, Calvary Chapel. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Councilmember Birdsall. PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS None given. PUBLIC COMMENTS Wait Swickla, 33480 Pauba Road, asked that Vesting Tentative Tract 23143, Extension of Time be tabled to allowed the applicant to work with staff on making the necessary changes. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Lindemans stated he would be abstaining from Items 5 and 9 due to a conflict of interest and requested the removal of Item No. 11 for clarification. Councilmember Lindemans also stated he did not have a problem on Item No. 14 but would like the City to purchase a VCR so that the public could view Council Meetings if desired at City Hall. Ninutes\01\08\g1 -1- 01/14/91 City Council Minutes January 8, 1991 Councilmember Mu~oz requested the removal of Item No 14 from the consent calendar for separate discussion and action. Hearing no objections Mayor Parks removed Item No. 6 from the consent calendar for separate discussion and action. approve Consent Calendar Items 1-5, 7-10, 12 and Lindemans abstaining from Items 5 and 9. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to 13, with Councilmember The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure 1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. Minutes 2.1 Approve the minutes of December 11, 1990 as mailed. 2.2 Approve the minutes of December 18, 1990 as mailed· 2.3 Approve the minutes of December 19, 1990 as mailed· Resolution Ap13roving list of Demands 3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91- I A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A Hinutes\01\08\91 -2- 01/14/91 City Council Minutes 4. January 8, 1991 Claim for Damages - Harvell vs. County of Riverside/City of Temecula 4.1 Deny the Claim for Damages. Second Reading of Ordinance Relating to Zone Change for Nicolas and Liefer Roads 5.1 Read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 90-26 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA,, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION CONTAINED IN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 5663, CHANGING THE ZONE FROM R-R- 2.5 (RURAL RESIDENTIAL - 2.5 ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE) TO R-R-1 (RURAL RESIDENTIAL - 1 ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE) ON 5.02 ACRES OF PROPERTY LOCA TED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF NICOLAS ROAD AND LIEFER ROAD The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: 1' COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans AdoPtion of Murrieta Creek Area Drainage Plan and Fee Update 7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE MURRIETA CREEK AREA DRAINAGE PLAN AND FEE UPDATE Hinutes\01\08\91 -3- 01/14/91 City Council Minutes 8. 10. 13. Acceptance of Public Improvements in Tract No. 20882-1 8.1 8.2 8.3 January 8. 1991 Accept the Public Improvements in Tract No. 20882-1; Authorize the reduction of street, sewer, and water letters of credit; Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. Additional Right-of-Way Dedication Alon9 Green Tree Road 9.1 Accept the additional dedication along Green Tree Road for road, drainage, and utility purposes, but not as part of the City Maintained Road System. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Lindemans Dedication of Merlot Crest Realignment 10.1 Accept the dedication of Merlot Crest realignment for Road,, Drainage and Utility purposes, but not as a part of the City Maintained Road System. City-Wide Speed Survey Program 13.1 Authorize the City Manager to Request Bids for Flood Lights. Second Reading of Waste Management Ordinance This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Mayor Parks at the request of David Jones. David Jones, P.O. Box 988, asked the Council to consider either an exemption or a two-year grace period to allow small businesses to maintain construction Hinutes\01\08\91 -4- 01/14/91 City Council Minutes January 8, 1991 storage bins, and large dumpsters on construction sites. He reported that an exemption for construction currently exists with the County of Riverside. Councilmember Mu~oz asked if recycling is a voluntary program and whether this ordinance would prohibit Mr. Jones from operating his business. City Attorney Field answered that this Ordinance would provide for a single hauler who would collect all construction solid waste. He stated this is necessary due to the State mandated AB929, which calls for a substantial reduction in solid waste, but said that a "Grandfather Period" of two years could be possible. Councilmember Mu~oz recommended passing the ordinance and directing staff to work out allowances for a "Grandfather Period" and bringing those allowances back to Council for action at a later date. Verlyn Jensen, 650 Town Center Drive, #1250, representing Inland Disposal, stated that the County of Riverside no longer has an exemption for Construction Roll-Off Bins and now requires a permit for such operations. He asked that the Council approve the second reading of the Waste Management Ordinance. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore to read by title only and adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 90-27 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS GOVERNING INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT, INCLUDING REFUSE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL SERVICES WITHIN THE CITY, AUTHORIZING THE FURNISHING OF SUCH SERVICES BY THE CITY OR PURSUANT TO FRANCHISE OR PERMIT AND REPEALING RIVERSIDE COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 657 WITHIN THE CITY OF TEMECULA The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None Minutes\01\08\91 -5- 01/14/91 City Council Minutes January 8, 1991 11. Final Tract Map No. 21673 Doug Stewart, Deputy City Engineer, introduced the staff report. Mr. Stewart stated a letter regarding Quimby Fees had been received and referred this to the City Attorney. City Attorney Field stated a letter was sent to himself and Council which disagreed with Quimby Fees being assessed for the Margarita Village development. He stated this he does not agree with this opinion and he believes the City is entitled to Quimby Fees according to the terms of the Development Agreement. He stated this would need to be resolved between the City and Bedford, but should not hold up this map approval. It was moved by Councilmember Lindemans, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to approve Final Tract No. 21673, Amendment No. 1, subject to the Conditions of Approval. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, MuRoz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None 14. Policy Regarding Preparation of Minutes and Retention of Audio and Video Taoes This item was removed from the Consent Calendar by Councilmember Mu~oz who stated he agreed with Councilmember Lindemans that the City should purchase a VCR so that City Council meetings could be viewed by the public. He said, however, he believes that the audio and video tapes should not be destroyed in two years, stating that they may have a historical significance since this is the beginning of a new city. He suggested that after a period of time these tapes be made available to the library, a museum, or even himself personally. City Manager Dixon suggested that the City retain the tapes for two years and after that time come before the Council to seek direction on whether these tapes should be destroyed or moved to another location. Hinutes\01\08\91 -6- 01/14/91 City Council Minutes January 8, 1991 June Greek, Deputy City Clerk, reported that this language could be included in the retention schedule, requiring City Council approval of the destruction prior to final implementation. It was moved by Councilmember Mu~oz, seconded by Councilmember Moore to adopt the attached policy regarding the preparation of all City Council and City Commission minutes, with instruction that the City Clerk will prepare the retention schedule for Audio and Video Tapes to require City Council approval of the destruction prior to final implementation. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None PUBLIC HEARINGS 1 5. Negative Declaration for the Widenin9 of Ynez Road to Six Lanes from Rancho California Road to Apricot Street City Attorney Field introduced the staff report. Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 7:50 PM. Having no requests to speak the Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 7:50 PM. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore to Adopt a Negative Declaration with mitigation measures, as proposed for the Ynez Road widening, and direct the City. Clerk to post and file a Notice of Determination with the Clerk of the Board of the County of Riverside. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: None Hinutes\01\08\91 -?- 01/14/91 City Council Minutes January 8, 1991 16. Extension of Television/Radio Antenna Moratorium Ordinance Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning, introduced the staff report. Mayor Parks asked what has been done to resolve the issue, voicing his concerns over moratoriums. Mr. Thornhill reported this has not been a priority issue, however staff could begin work on the final solution. Mayor Parks suggested bringing this issue back in 60 days for input from the Council and public. Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 8:55 PM. Having no requests to speak, Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 8:55 PM. City Attorney Field stated this is an urgency ordinance requiring a 4/5ths vote to pass. It was moved by Councilmember Mu~oz, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to adopt an ordinance entitled: ORDINANCE NO. 91-1 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA EXTENDING ORDINANCE NO. 90-01, WHICH DECLARES A MORATORIUM ON THE CONSTRUCTION AND USE OF TELEVISION AND RADIO ANTENNAS and directed staff to bring this matter back to Council in 60 days to formulate guidelines for proper zoning. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, .Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None RECESS Mayor Parks called a recess at 7:58 PM. The meeting was reconvened following the CSD Meeting at 8:35 PM, with City Manager David Dixon absent. Ninutes\01\08\91 -8- 01/15/91 City Council Minutes January 8, 1991 PUBLIC HEARINGS (CONT.) 17. Tentative Tract 25603 Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning, introduced the staff report. Councilmember Lindemans read into the record that Commissioner Ford could have voted for sending this back for review, but felt the project should include all the amenities and CC&R's. Mayor Parks asked why a secondary driveway was required by staff. Mr. Thornhill responded that it was a condition of the Fire Department. Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 8:50 PM. Kevin McKenzie, 40550 La Colima Road, representing the applicant, stated the intent of the applicant, Mr. Wait Dixon, is to develop a series of 53 to 58 four- plexes with a residential look. He stated these four-plexes would provide an opportunity for lower-cost housing, without the apartment style living and also serve as a transition between the single-family units to higher density, condo style housing. Mr. McKenzie addressed issues raised by the Planning Commission as follows: Lack of open space-recreation. He stated this project has been conditioned for Quimby Fees and this should satisfy the requirement. He also stated there would be space between the four-plexes creating a "back-yard" effect. With regard to the lack of CC&R's, Mr. McKenzie stated this is a condition as part of the map and would be addressed. He explained grading concepts could be altered if the condition of a secondary road could be eliminated, and explained this was not proposed by the applicant, but was a requirement by the Planning Department. Mr. McKenzie stated that the proposed density is in conformance with SWAP, however the applicant could reduce the lots from 57 to 54. With regard to the lack of a formal development plan, Mr. McKenzie stated the intent is not to build 54 different four-plexes. Mayor Parks asked if there is anything that is being done for approval of buildings and layout. Mr. McKenzie stated he does not have a problem with conditioning the types of structures available. Hinutes\01\08\91 -9- 01/14/91 City Council Minutes January 8, 1991 Councilmember Lindemans asked if this subdivision would be built in phases. Mr. McKenzie answered it would be built in three phases. Tim Crough, 41815 Hawthorne Street, Murrieta, stated he is in favor of this project, stating the concept is suitable and appropriate for the area. Gary Martin, 30601 Cabrillo Avenue, said he is an adjacent property owner and feels that this is a responsible project and will serve as a buffer between his more dense condominium project and the single-family residential. Mayor Parks stated he had received a petition with 51 signatures from surrounding property owners who are in opposition to the development. Bill Bellino, 42111 Humber Drive, stated his opposition to the development due to its lack of architectural uniformity and recreational facilities. Jim Bacarella, 29892 Corte Tolano, said he is not opposed to a townhouse project with the proposed amenities but is not in favor of a project where there is no architectural uniformity. Chris Martinelli, 30255 Corte Cantania, stated she lives in the Meadowview Development where CC&R's call for 1/2 acre plus zoning, and stated this development would not provide an effective buffer to single-family zoning. Robb Vankirk, voiced his opposition to the development citing design flaws as his major concern. Sydney Vernon, 30268 Mersey Court, stated his opposition to the project due to three issues, density, lack of facilities and build out time. Mr. McKenzie, representing the applicant, stated this property is more of a transition property than a buffer and is designated for higher density than what is being proposed. He stated that the mana~]ement of the property issues have already been addressed in the conditions of approval placed on the project. Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 9:30 PM. Councilmember Birdsall stated her concerns over the second entrance to the project and asked if it is a requirement Fire Department. Councilmember Moore also voiced her concerns over this entrance, along with concerns over the drainage agreements. Hinutes\01\08\91 -10- 01/14/91 City Council Minutes January 8. 1991 Councilmember Mu~oz stated Council seems to have an interest in reexamining this case, and even those in opposition were not opposed to a townhouse type project, just this particular areas of concern. He suggested sending this back to staff for further review. Mayor Parks asked if there is a method with plot plan approval to approve the units in conjunction with a tentative map. Gary Thornhill stated there is no requirement for a plot plan, however he felt staff could work this problem out. He stated the major concern is that in order to reduce the grading, the configuration of the four-plexes would have to be redesigned and density might have to be reduced. Mayor Parks asked the applicant, Mr. Wait Dixon, if he would be willing to work with staff on this project. Wait Dixon, 41785 Enterprise Circle, stated he would be willing to work with staff but needed direction from the Council on their specific intent. He asked what height crib-walls would be allowed, whether a secondary entrance is needed, and stated he has a revised lay-out that would provide for 53 units including a tot lot. Mayor Parks stated that he is willing to accept that there will be crib walls. He said CC&R's would need to be in place, that plot plan and elevation as well as common open space should be addressed. Councilmember Mu5oz stated that if the applicant is willing to provide a tot lot and satisfy the remaining Quimby responsibility in fees, he would be in favor of the proposal. It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz to refer this to staff and Planning Commission to address the specific concerns regarding CC&R's, common open space areas, and crib walls. Gary Thornhill stated that additional fees would be needed for further work on this project and time deadlines would need to be waived. Councilmember Birdsall amended her motion, Councilmember Mu~oz amended his second refer this to staff and Planning Commission to address the specific concerns regarding CC&R's, common open space areas, and crib walls and to direct that the applicant be required to pay time and material costs incurred by the additional consideration and directed staff to waive any time deadlines which may be exceeded as a result of the reconsideration. Hinutes\01\08\91 -11- 01/1~/91 City Council Minutes The motion was carried by the following vote: January 8, 1991 AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCILMEMBERS: None NOES: 0 ABSENT: 0 It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Moore to extend the meeting to 11:00 PM. The motion was unanimously carried. RECESS Mayor Parks called a recess at 9:58 PM. The meeting was reconvened at 10:10 PM. 18. Vesting Tentative Tract 23143, Extension of 77me. Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning, introduced the staff report. Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 10:20 PM. Ernie Eager, 27447 Enterprise Circle West, representing Taylor Woodrow Homes, stated the applicant is continuing discussions with surrounding homeowners and do expect resolution. He asked that the City Council approve the Time Extension of Tentative Tract 23143. Mayor Parks closed the public hearing at 10:21 PM. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz to adopt a resolution entitled: RESOLUTION NO. 91-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING A FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 23143, A SUBDIVISION WITH 1,0-26 RESIDENTIAL LOTS Hinutes\01\08\91 -12- 01/14/91 City Council Minutes 19. January 8, 1991 Revised Vesting Tentative Tract 23143, Change of Zone 5535 Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning, introduced the staff report. Mayor Parks opened the public hearing at 10:25 PM. Mayor Parks stated a representative from the adjacent property owner group, Mr. Wait Swickla, addressed this item during public comments and input his concerns. It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Mu~oz to continue the Revised Vesting Tentative Tract 23143, Change of Zone 5535 to the meeting of January 22, 1991. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: Birdsall, Lindemans, Mu~oz, Parks 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None COUNCIL BUSINESS 20. Community Service Funding Request Recommendations Mary Jane Henry, Chief Financial Officer, presented the staff report. Moore, She said the committee outlined criteria which included, the City would not fund overhead or education for workers, commercial ventures and requests from religious groups. Councilmember Lindemans stated he understood the funds requested by Temecula Valley Playhouse were for production of events, not for a obtaining a building. Councilmember Birdsall stated that these funds are to get the organization started. Mary Joe Helmeke, 30540 Avenida Buena Suerte, President of the Arts Council of Temecula Valley, requested favorable consideration of the Arts Council's request for funding and assured the Council that these funds would be well used to promote the visual and performing arts in this community. Hinutes\01\08\91 -13- 01/14/91 City Council Minutes January 8. 1991 Keith Wertz, 26895 Fayence Drive, Murrieta, representing the Arts Council of Temecula Valley, spoke in favor of supporting the Arts Council's funding request. Tom Lovingier, P.O. Box 1064, Murrieta, representing the Temecula Valley Playhouse stated the funds are not intended to pay the rent, but to develop a community theater and build programs. Bill Bopf, 41707 Winchester Road, representing the Temecula Valley Playhouse, spoke in favor of granting a larger sum for the Playhouse. Margie Hammersley, P.O. Box 2255, representing the Community Pantry of Temecula, asked that the Council reconsider a grant to this organization stating that the Pantry provides food and rehabilitation for many citizens. Michael Donaldson, 31240 Calle Felicidious, representing the Boys and Girls Club of Temecula, asked that the Council consider this group for a grant as well as the loan that has been offered. Carliene M. Danielsen, 41540 Via Del Monte, representing the Economic Development Corporation, asked that the Council reconsider funding this organization. She stated this service is vital to the development of a community, stating more local jobs are needed as well as revenue for the City. Bill Bopf, 41707 Winchester Road, representing the Economic Development Corporation, stated that without the support of the City, this organization could not function, and the benefits gained would far exceed the funding requested. Mayor Parks asked Ms. Henry to respond to the questions asked by the speakers. She stated that the Economic Development Corporation request was denied due to several concerns of the committee, one of which was that the functions and overhead of this corporation were redundant with City operations. She stated it is also redundant with Chamber functions. She stated there are many ways the City can encourage economic development; i.e. solving traffic problems, providing incentives for businesses to expand, and cooperating in the planning process. She stated the application of the Temecula Valley Playhouse stated it was for a facility, however staff now understands the request is for the entire production process. Shawn Nelson, Director of Community Services, stated that a multi-user Community Recreation Center is being developed that can facilitate cultural Hinutes\01\08\91 -14- 01/14/91 City Council Minutes January 8, 1991 special events and concerts, with not only indoor but outdoor/amphitheater productions. Ms. Henry explained Mr. Nelson has spent a great deal of time with organizers of the Boys and Girls Club looking at modular units to house a youth facility. She stated there is a critical need to receive funds, and a loan on very favorable terms is a common practice of cities. Mr. Nelson stated he met with Leigh Engdahl, a representative of the Boys and Girls Club, to aid in securing modular buildings from the City of El Cajon. Mr. Nelson stated he also discussed loaning the organization the money necessary to purchase these building and assistance in locating a functional site in a relatively short period of time. Mayor Parks called a one minute break to change the tape at 10:O5 PM. Ms. Henry explained that the application of The Pantry was received after the deadline, however it was considered. She said the application was from TEAM, Inc. which stands for Temecula Evangelical Assistance Ministries indicating a religious affiliation. She also indicated the application did not properly address the financial statement required. Mayor Parks stated he believes that the Pantry donates to anyone that asks for assistance on a non-sectarian basis. Councilmember Mu~oz stated that the list of services this organization provides makes it necessary to review this request further. He said that religious institutions of all types receive assistance from government and asked the City Attorney to clarify this point. City Attorney Field stated that this would require a review of the non-sectarian nature of the benefits, but that possibilities exist for religious organizations that provide a community based benefit. Mayor Parks called a one minute break at 1 1:10 PM to change the tape. The meeting was reconvened at 1 1:1 1 PM. Councilmember Lindemans suggested bringing the Pantry application back in one week, working with City Attorney Field and Mary Jane Henry to work out the problems, stating that this organization should be funded. Ms. Henry stated that if this case is reviewed, several other religious organizations should also be reviewed. A straw vote was taken to consider applications from religious organizations as long as their contributions benefit the entire community. The vote was unanimously in favor. Ninutes\O1\O8\g1 -15- 01/14/91 Citv Council Minutes January 8. 1991 Councilmember Birdsall stated she felt the amount of the Temecula Valley Playhouse grant should be increased since the use of these funds has been clarified. Councilmember Moore stated she feels the Economic Development Corporation is of vital importance to Temecula and asked that it be considered as part of the mid-year budget review. Councilmember Mu~oz asked why the Senior Center was not considered for funding. Councilmember Birdsall stated that repeated attempts were made to contact the senior center to no avail. She stated the Senior Center receives State and United Way funds and did not request assistance from the City. Mayor Parks stated he felt the Economic Development Corporation is needed in this City and asked that it be considered. He also stated he is in support of funding for the Pantry and asked that this be reconsidered. Ms. Henry stated that the criteria for determining grants should be reviewed along with the additional review of organizations for funding. It was moved by Councilmember Mu~oz, seconded by Councilmember Lindemans to approve recommendations contained in Attachment A of the staff report for the Community Services funding requests and directed staff to review the requests for funding submitted by the Economic Development Corporation, the Boys and Girls Club, the Temecula Valley Playhouse and the Community Pantry, and to reconsider the criteria used for making the grants, with this matter being placed on the January 29, 1991 agenda. The motion was carried by the following vote: AYES: 5 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Mu~oz, Parks NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None CITY MANAGER REPORTS None given. Minutes\01\08\91 -16- 01/14/91 City Council Minutes January 8, 1991 CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS o None given. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Moore requested that staff provide Council with an update on the status of the City's sign ordinance. Mayor Parks requested that the City apply as much pressure as possible to assure that the Date Street overcrossing receives funding and is built. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Councilmember Moore, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to adjourn at 11:45 PM, to the meeting of January 15, 1991, at 7:00 PM, at the Temporary Temecula Community Center. The motion was unanimously approved. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk Hinutes\01\08\91 -17- 01/14/91 ITEM NO. 3 RESOLUTION NO. 91- 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 have been audited by the City Manager, and that the same are hereby allowed in the amounts of $57,118.76 SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 22nd day of January, 1991. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk [SEAL] 3,'R¢sos 131 01/11/91 m.. -~. .r-; ~-j~ ~ n mrn -t · rn~. -~z orn m © ".4 ,"', m ,C, C, OC, C,O ~C,~ 0 UI C- %0 ~O ~r C Z 0 A -H 01 :=, ~, C, C, C,C,C ,D,~O C,C,C, Q,~, 0 I- Z C, 0 Q © C, C 0~ m 0 t.O I'..,1 1,3 ['J C,C,~ O- Lq m ~ I~ C, C, .-, C' 0 r- r- ~- r-c Z' r-I-I-- -~ t'-) Z ~ Z Z 0 '. '=l '=' ~, I"..) (.4 '.4 0 : I , ! , .C' F' ? ~' F' c, coOo C,O 0 C,O t ' ..~ (,.q ~. 4~ C' i',.) G..I ',4 C, C, ©m .om rrl o' :z27~ rrl u1 rrl < tq O' 0 0 C, (.q r-.3 (.q 0 ,'" t..,) O 0 0 FJ m C m o c, TM n x z t'.3 0~ C, ',4) 0 ,_'t., 0 0 O 0 '~' ,D t...~ ,D ',,4 -q C ,D Z r" u-") 0 c~ Z m t,.) r-..) < <2 0 · $ 0 O~ n '"t o ,-,1 n 0 0 ,C, C. 0 r',) ~'O t'3 t-J t-3 r_rl ~ 1'..4 ,>.t ~ C, ~ -13 Z h3 m t,] ~ ~, fq rrl -t t..]~ ~D ~'.,.~ m kri U3 -OZ 43 431~ C ~ C C~ m '.,I b"3 43 ..003 43 ~"~ C: 0 rrl n m n ~ n m n (.4 0 l'J m c, iTi oz o c4 z 13 Z Z U3 {11 Ill 0 C ,-, C' 0 r'.] t,3 C C' UI Lq C, ,C, ,0 0 0 C, C' ; J t-J C4 (4 6-4 t-J m C. I'0 0'1] hi r~ F' 0 C' 0 C, C, 0 0 C, ,?, C4 ,'4 t,3 O C. '-. C' -43 ',4 C' C' r.J r.3 I...] i....1 ~,,ci t..3 ~ t-.] ~ 43m 43m 0 F" ,-', 03 -1- 02. n 0 r- ~ ~ Z Z '-' ~ m ~0 C, C' C, 0 C' I'0 t..] 4~ (Z) m Lrl C, C, hi m~- 0 , t3 ~C t"l n -q Z 0 C, 0 C' C, C4 ,41 0 Om m a m a :~ ~' a ~ r" ~ ED ~ ~ 'tl rt =rl "tl --~ rrl ' .~ r~ · 't] I I'll 64 ~ I ~ 0 -...I Z ..< "r Lq r' ,1.4 T 0 ~ "' C4 ;.4 O C' O U1 LII cq ~.q ~ 0 C1 C' 0 0 C 0 C, 0 C, ; {',3, t..] n ~ ~Z 0 r' "1 .43 -0 hi 01-0 ~x COx (71 I-- .-4 '-4 r~ C' m )-r-,I t..] ~ C'~, C' 22 Z I-- C,Z C, I C, C, C' C, C, C, r..J rg t-3 hi t,~ hJ KJ ~ ~ ,~4 C' O ~ C, 1111114 FmZZZZ 0 ~0000 Z~ ~r~ COOO0 0000 ZOOO~ I © C, C, '-4 t'--7 ~ f.l~ ¢'1 1',3 rfi 4~ C' '-' ~ -0 ~ ~ ',4 .b ~ C, C, C, ,0 n m m 0 h,) © ,3 ,D C, 0 r-~ t..] r.J < < 0 ~ n n r~ 0 ~-Z "t 0 n 0 r- z ~r~ n o KIn ITEM NO. 4 APPROVAL ~ CITY A TTORNEY~ FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: MEETING DATE SUBJECT: CITY MANAGER/CITY COUNCIL SCOTT F. FIELD, CITY ATTORNEY JANUARY 14, 1991 JANUARY 22, 1991 INITIATIVE PROCESSING FEE RESOLUTION. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a Resolution entitled: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING A FEE FOR THE PROCESSING OF AN INITIATIVE PETITION FOR ANY MUNICIPAL MEASURE. DISCUSSION: California Elections Code Section 4002(b) authorizes the City Council to set an Initiative Processing Fee to recover some of the costs for processing initiative petitions. This Section also provides that if the City Clerk certifies as to the sufficiency of the petition, that the filing fee shall be refunded to the initiative proponent if this certification occurs within one year of the date of filing. Initiative petitions are particularly costly for the City to process. The City is required to develop a ballot title.and summary for the proponents, and the City Clerk is required to determine the sufficiency of the initiative petition at the commencement of the proceedings for an initiative measure, and then to review the petition and count and verify signatures once the petitions are filed with the City Clerk. Section 4002 of the Elections Code provides a mechanism for recovery of some of these costs. In addition, if a bona fide initiative measure is circulated and qualifies for the ballot, this processing fee is returned to the initiative proponents. Because of the costs involved, it is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution which sets an Initiative Processing Fee of $200.00. FISCAL IMPACT: Will allow cost recovery for proposed initiatives which are not certified for the ballot. A TTA CHMENTS: The resolution RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING A FEE FOR THE PROCESSING OF AN INITIATIVE PETITION FOR ANY MUNICIPAL MEASURE WHEREAS, Section 40020>) of the Elections Code of the State of California authorizes the City Council to establish a fee not to exceed two hundred dollars ($200.00) for the purposes of processing an initiative petition; and, WHEREAS, The City Council finds that the City incurs substantial costs in processing initiative petitions which should be recovered from initiative petition proponents. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That pursuant to Section 4002(b) of the Elections Code of the State of California, the City Council establishes a fee of two hundred dollars ($200.00) to be paid to the City Clerk by any person at the time of filing a notice of intent to circulate an initiative petition in the City. SECTION 2. The City Clerk is directed to deposit any fees collected pursuant to this Resolution into the General Fund of the City. The fee will be refunded to the filer if, within one year of the date of filing the notice of intent, the City Clerk certifies to the sufficiency of the petition. SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFFED this day of ,1991. ATTEST Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk [SEAL] Resolution 91- Page 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) CITY OF TEMECULA ) SS I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the day of , 1991 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk 2/RESOS/133 ITEM NO. 5 APPROVALs- FINANCE OFFICB~ CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council David F. Dixon, City Manager January 22, 1991 Cooperative Agreements RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute the Cooperative Agreement for the traffic control signals on the Rancho California Road freeway overpass. DISCUSSION: Attached you will find a Cooperative Agreement from the State of California. The Cooperative Agreement specifies the responsibilities of the City and the State of California. The Cooperative Agreement will provide State funding for the construction of signals and lighting related to the improvements at State Route 15 and Rancho California Road. Pursuant to this agreement, the State will fund approximately $287,000 worth of traffic signal and safety lighting improvements. The signalization of State Route 15 and Rancho California Road is a long awaited project. It is our hope that the improvements will be completed by July 4, 1991. The approval of the Cooperative Agreement is a first step in a long list of procedures that we must follow in working with Caltrans to improve the traffic circulation in the City of Temecula. FISCAL IMPACT.' Financial impact upon the City is minimal as Caltrans has agreed to fund the majority of the project costs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA--BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY .DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 8, P.O. BOX 231 SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92402 TDD (714) 383-4609 GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, Governor January 7, 1991 08-Riv-15-4.98 Rte 15 @ Rancho California Rd 08212-295011 C.A. #8-730 Mr. David F. Dixon City Manager City of Temecula P.O. Box 3000 Temecula, CA 92390 Dear Mr. Dixon: Please find enclosed three copies of the proposed Cooperative Agreement for the installation of traffic signals and safety lighting at State Route 15 and Rancho California Road. In order to execute this Agreement, all three copies must be signed and returned to Caltrans for approval. Also, you should include copies of the council minutes where the Agreement is voted. If you have any questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact me at (714) 383-6810. Sincerely, B. F. CUTTER Chief, Electrical Design Enc 08-Riv-15-4.98 1-15 & Rancho Calif Rd 08212-295011 District Agreement No. 8-730 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, ENTERED INTO ON is between the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, referred to herein as "STATE", and CITY OF TEMECULA a body politic and a municipal corporation of the State of California, referred to herein as "CITY" RECITALS (1) STATE and CITY contemplate installing traffic control signal and safety lighting and performing roadwork at the intersection of Rancho California Road with State Highway Route 15 ramps referred to herein as "PROJECT", and desire to specify the terms and conditions under which PROJECT is to be engineered, constructed, financed, operated and maintained. (2) If any work involving high/low risk underground facilities or subsurface construction within said State highway is needed, STATE requires that said work be accomplished in accordance with STATE's "Manual on High and Low Risk Underground Facilities Within Highway Rights of Way". (3) It is anticipated that Federal-aid Interstate Funds will be allocated for financing 100% of the construction and construction engineering costs which are eligible for Federal-aid participation, and STATE will bear the remainder of the costs as set forth herein. SECTION I CITY AGREES: (1) To provide all necessary construction engineering services for the PROJECT. (2) If a consultant is used to administer a construc- tion contract for PROJECT, to follow the Consultant Selection Procedures for Federally-funded Highway Projects specified in Volume I, Section II of STATE's current Local Programs Manual. (3) To identify and locate all high and low risk underground facilities within the PROJECT area and protect or otherwise provide for such facilities, all in accordance with STATE's "Manual on High and Low Risk Underground Facilities within Highway Rights of Way". Costs of locating, identifying, protecting or otherwise providing for such high and low risk facilities shall be distributed and borne in the same manner as described in Section III, Article (12). CITY hereby acknowledges the receipt of STATE's "Manual on High and Low Risk Underground Facilities Within Highway Rights of Way" and agrees to construct the PROJECT in accordance with such manual. (4) To apply for necessary encroachment permits for required work within State highway rights of way, in accordance with STATE's standard permit procedures. (5) That PROJECT will be advertised, awarded, and administered in accordance with STATE's current Local Programs Manual, Volume II. (6) To construct the PROJECT in accordance with plans and specifications of CITY, to the satisfaction of and subject to the approval of STATE. (7) Upon completion of PROJECT and all work incidental thereto, to furnish STATE with a detailed statement of the total engineering and construction costs to be borne by STATE and to refund to STATE (promptly after completion of CITY's audit) any amount of STATE's deposit required in Section II, Article (1) remaining after actual costs to be borne by STATE have been deducted or to bill STATE for any additional amount required to complete STATE's financial obligation pursuant to this Agreement, subject to the limitations of STATE's participation as stipulated in said Section II, Article (1). (9) Upon completion of PROJECT, to furnish STATE a complete set of full-sized film positive reproducible "As-Built" plans. (10) To pay 100% of the electrical energy costs for the traffic control signal and safety lighting. (11) To retain or cause to be retained for audit for STATE or other government auditors for a period of three (3) years from date of FHWA payment of final voucher, or four (4) years from date of final payment under the contract, whichever is longer, all records and accounts relating to construction of the PROJECT. SECTION II STATE AGREES: (1) To deposit with CITY within 25 days of receipt of billing therefor (which billing to be forwarded immediately following CITY's bid advertising date of a construction contract for PROJECT), the amount of $287,000; which figure represents STATE's estimated share of the expense of construction engineering and construction costs required to complete PROJECT, as shown on Exhibit A. STATE's total obligation for said anticipated project costs under this Agreement shall not exceed the amount of $330,000, excluding costs referred to in Section III, Article (12). (2) STATE's share of the construction cost (estimated to be $250,000), shall be an amount equal to 100% of the total actual construction cost the total actual signal and lighting related construction costs as determined after completion of work and upon final accounting of costs. (3) STATE's share of the expense of construction engineering sha~l be an amount equal to 100% of the CITY's actual costs for construction engineering for the entire PROJECT. (4) To pay CITY upon completion of all work within 20 days of receipt of a detailed statement made upon final accounting of costs; therefore, any amount over and above the aforesaid advance deposit required to complete STATE's financial obligation pursuant to this Agreement, provided that STATE's total obligation does not exceed the amount as stipulated in Article (1) of this Section II, exclusive of utilities referred to in Section III, Article (12). (5) To maintain the traffic control signal and safety lighting as installed and pay 100% of the maintenance costs. (6) To operate the traffic control signal and pay 100% of the operation cost. (7) To furnish the traffic signal control equipment for project. This equipment shall consist of signal controller units and signal control cabinets. (8) To issue, upon proper .application by CITY and by CITY Contractor, the necessary encroachment permits for required work within the State highway rights of way. (9) To prepare a "Project Report" justifying the need for PROJECT, to prepare all necessary environmental evaluation and clearance documents and to furnish copies of these documents to CITY in a timely manner. (10) To provide a State Project Coordinator to coordinate and promptly review the work of CITY and its consultants, if any, during the preparation of PS&E for PROJECT. SECTION III IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: (1) All obligations of STATE under the terms of this Agreement are subject to the appropriation of resources by the Legislature and the allocation of resources by the California Transportation Commission. Should CITY award a contract for PROJECT prior to the allocation of resources by the California Transportation Commission, there is no guarantee of STATE's participation and CITY shall assume all risks thereof. (2) Should any portion of the PROJECT be financed with Federal funds or State gas tax funds, all applicable laws, regulations and policies relating to the use of such funds shall apply notwithstanding other provisions of this Agreement. (3) That construction by CITY of improvements referred to herein which lie within STATE rights of way or affect STATE facilities, shall not be commenced until CITY's original contract plans involving such work, have been reviewed and approved by signature of STATE's District Director. of District 8, or his delegated agent, and until an Encroachment Permit authorizing such work has been issued by STATE therefor. Receipt by CITY of CITY's contract plans signed by STATE shall constitute STATE's acceptance of and official approval of said plans. (4) That CITY will obtain the aforesaid Encroachment Permit through the office of STATE's District $ Permit Engineer and that CITY's application therefor shall be accompanied by reproducible tracings of aforesaid STATE approved contract plans. Receipt thereafter by CITY of the approved Encroachment Permit shall constitute CITY's authorization from STATE to proceed with work which lies within STATE rights of way or which affects STATE facilities, pursuant to work covered by this Agreement. CITY's authorization to proceed with said work shall, however, be contingent upon CITY's compliance with all provisions set forth in said Encroachment Permit. (5) That CITY's contractor will also be required to obtain an Encroachment Permit from STATE prior to commencing any work which lies within STATE rights of way or which affects STATE facilities. The application for said Encroachment Permit shall be made through the office of STATE's District Permit Engineer and the permit shall be issued free of charge by STATE. (6) CITY shall not advertise for bids to construct PROJECT until after an encroachment permit has been issued to CITY by STATE, nor shall CITY award a contract to construct PROJECT until after receipt of STATE's deposit required in Section II, Article (1). (7) After opening of bids, STATE's estimate of cost will be revised based on actual bid prices. STATE's required deposit under Section II, Article (1) above will be increased or decreased to match said revised estimate. If deposit increase or decrease is less than $1,000, no refund or demand for additional deposit will be made until final accounting. (8) After opening bids for the PROJECT and if bids indicate a cost overrun of no more than 15% of the estimate will occur, CITY may award the contract. (9) If, upon opening of bids, it is found that a cost overrun exceeding 15% of the estimate will occur, STATE and CITY shall endeavor to agree upon an alternative course of action. If, after 30 days, an alternative course of action is not agreed upon, this Agreement shall be deemed to be terminated by mutual consent pursuant to Article (11) of this Section III. (10) If existing public and/or private utilities conflict with the construction of the PROJECT, CITY will make all necessary arrangements with the owners of such utilities for their protection, relocation or removal. CITY will inspect the protection, relocation or removal, which if there are costs of such protection, relocation or removal which STATE and CITY must legally pay, STATE will pay the cost of said protection, relocation or removal, plus cost of engineering overhead and inspection. If any protection, relocation or removal of utilities is required, such work shall be performed in accordance with STATE policy and procedure. (11) Upon completion of all work under this Agreement, ownership of all signal and lighting equipment shall be vested in 5 the STATE and roadwork shall be based on the respective rights of way of the STATE and CITY. (12) The cost of any engineering or maintenance referred to herein shall include all direct and indirect costs (functional and administrative overhead assessment) attributable to such work, applied in accordance with STATE's standard accounting procedures. (13) Neither STATE nor any officer or employee thereof shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this Agreement. It is also agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4 CITY shall fully indemnify and hold STATE harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by CITY under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction not delegated to STATE under this Agreement. (14) Neither CITY nor any officer or employee thereof shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this Agreement. It is also agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, STATE shall fully indemnify and hold CITY harmless from any liability imposed for injury (as defined by Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by STATE under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to STATE under this Agreement. (15) That, in the construction of said work, CITY will furnish a representative to perform the functions of a Resident Engineer, and STATE may, at no cost to CITY, furnish a representative, if it so desires, and that said representative and Resident Engineer will cooperate and consult with each other, but the decisions of STATE's representative shall prevail on work within STATE's right of way. (16) That the costs referred to herein are only "matching funds" based on the assumption that Federal-aid Interstate Funds will be allocated for financing approximately 100% of the costs as shown on Exhibit A. In the event that Federal-aid participation is not secured, or is less than 100% of the cost, this Agreement may be terminated mutually by either party at any time prior to the award of a construction contract, or alternatively, each party's participation may be renegotiated to "make up" for the loss of Federal funds. If termination occurs, costs shall be limited to the sums set in Articles (10) or (11) of this Section III. (17) That those portions of this Agreement pertaining to the construction of PROJECT shall terminate upon completion and acceptance of the PROJECT construction contract by CITY or on January 1, 1993, whichever is earlier in time; however, the ownership, operation and maintenance clauses shall remain in effect until terminated or modified in writing by mutual agreement. STATE OF CALIFORNIA Department of Transportation CITY OF TEMECULA ROBERT K. BEST Director of Transportation BY Mayor By District Director Attest: City Clerk Approved as to form and procedure Attorney, Department of Transportation Certified as to funds and procedure District Accounting Officer 7 08-Riv-15-4.98 1-15 & Rancho Calif Rd 08212-295011 District Agreement No. 8-730 Description Construction Cost Signals Roadwork *Construction Engineering 15% **Utilities TOTALS EXHIBIT A ESTIMATE OF COST Total City's State's Cost Share Share $250,000.00 0 0 0 37,500.00 0 $250,000.00 0 37,500.00 0 0 0 $287,500.00 0 $287,500.00 *FIXED ENGINEERING CI~%RGEB According to Policy & Procedure No. P-77-37 CONSTRUCTION COST (Thousands) 0 - 50 50 - 75 75 - 100 100 - 150 150 - 250 CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING % 22 2O 18 16 15 ITEM NO. 6 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECUI A AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Mary Jane Henry, Finance Officer January 22, 1991 Mid-Year Review of Annual Operating Budget For The Fiscal Year 1990 - 91 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula providing for the Establishment of Personnel Policies. A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Temecula to amend FY 1990-91 Budget as outlined on Attachment A. DISCUSSION: Attached you will find a mid-year review of the City's FY 1990-91 Annual Operating Budget for the General, Gas Tax and Development Impact funds. The budgets for capital improvements and redevelopment will be prepared in the next few months. Significant adjustments in general fund revenues are as follows: The decrease in Planning and Building fees of $600,000 and $653,000, respectively is primarily due to the slow down in the development industry. A fee study is currently in progress to consider the adequacy of the current fee schedule. The decrease in the reimbursement from the Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) results from a refinement in the estimate for City overhead support of the TCSD. The increase in Transient Occupancy Tax is based on actuals through November 30, 1990. The "Operating Transfer In" represents estimated gas tax revenues. These revenues were transferred to the general fund to more easily account for the related road improvements, maintenance and expenditures. Based on our discussions with the County Transportation Department, $655,000 of plan check and review fees are due to the City and are reflected as Due from Other Governments. Proposed amendments to General Fund appropriations include the following significant items: The unencumbered balances for office furnishings and computers by department were transferred to the nondepartmental budget. The office furnishings budget was increased based on preliminary quotes from the furniture vendors. The City Attorney's budget was reduced by 9100,000. Planning and Building and Safety consulting fees increased because planning services are expected to be contracted for nine (9) months rather than three (3) months as originally anticipated. Appropriations for road improvements were decreased due to timing delays for such improvements. Based on our discussions with Chief Wright, the fire services contract is expected to cost $350,000 less than originally budgeted primarily due to hiring delays. An estimate of $150,000 was added to fund an emergency breathing support truck resulting in a net decrease in fire services of $200,000. A decrease in office equipment (nondepartmental) primarily results from the high speed copier being leased rather that purchased. A residual equity transfer is also recommended to establish a fund for the self- insured retention for claims against the City. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment "A" - Mid-Year Review of Annual Operating Budget for the Fiscal Year 1990-91. Attachment "B" - Personnel Allocation by Program Area Resolution Providing for the Establishment of Personnel Policies Resolution to Amend FY 1990-91 Budget. FISCAL IMPACT: Amend the FY 1990-91 Annual Operating Budget as outlined on Attachment "A" Z Z 0 0~0 0 'l:l I:~ 0 ~) ~ o~ ~ ~o o~o oo~ o oo ~o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~oo ~ ooo~ ooo ~o o ~ o ~oo ~ ooo ~ooo ~o ~o ~ooo~ oo~o ~o ~oooo ~o~o ~o ~ooo~ ~o~o ~o o~o o~oo ~ o~o o~o~ ~o~ o~o o~o~ oo ~ o ~ ~ ~o~ ~o o ~ o o o ~ o -,-I tO ,--I 4d 0 ~U m :::1 -,4 o ~u ~ .~ ..~ .,4 ~ 0 0 c: JJJJ J · 0 : ~0 II o II II II II II II II II II II -- II u-i II r.~ II ,.o II ,,,. II ,,a', II or, II t'~ II ,.. II ,-t II '.-" II II II u't II r,'l II ,~o II ,~ II '~' II o', II 04 II ,.. II ,-~ II II II 0 II II II II II II II II II o -,-I 0 0.00~ 0 · ~ o ~ 0 ~ 0 "0 00 ~ 0 ~ 000 0000 000 00 ~ 0 ~ 0000 0000 000 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ O0 0 ~ 0 ~ 000000~00 000000~00 0~00~0~00 o 4.J · ,-I -..I 0 >m O~ ~ ~-~>>0~ · ~m O~ 0 o ~0~00 ~00~000 ~ ~00 ~0 000 O0 000 O~ O~ ~ ~0~00 ~00~000 ~ ~00 0 · ~00 ~ 0 0 0 0 (~ 0 cq 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 o~ 0 ~ 0 H I 0 ~ 0 0 o o o ~ ~ o oooo~o o o o o o o oo omo oo ~ o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 o o I 0 o o o 0 C~l 0 g ~ 0 0 .o II a3 II ~ II Go II II II II II II II ~"~ II c~i II ,-~ II - II o II m II II II 0 0 n~ 0 ~) w 0 ~ ,-4 · ,-1 -.4 o'~' o ~D 0 0~ 0 a~ o,~' o ~,D 00~ 0 a~ 0 0 c0 0000~00 00~0~0 ~0~00~ ~0~0~ ~ O~ ~00 ~0 -,.-I = 0 0 .u II m II T II ~' II - II 0 II u*l II II II II *~' II ~1 II In II - II 0 II 0% II ,-I II II 0 0 o 0~ 0~ 0 ,~ ~J ~0 .~ .,4 ~ 0 tno ~0 ,-~ ~ o o~o oo o~o ~o ~ ~o 0 000 0 O00 '~ ~ 0 0~000 0~00~ 0 0 O~ 0 ~00 00 00 00 '~ 0 0 · ~ 0 e...i I o 0 ,-4 I ~ 0 0000000 0000000 0 0 J~ -,,4 m ~ G 4.* .c: 'U C: 0 0 ~ II tn II u:) II u"l II - II 0 II t"q II II II II O~ II ~,0 II o"~ II - II "~ II c',l II r..l II II 0 0 o o o o u'l o o o o o o u~ o 0 o o o o II o II o II i.n II ,.. II o II o II ~ II II II II ~ II o II o II u'~ II ,~ II ~ II ~ II '...' II II II II o II o II o II ~. II o II o II e,~ II II II II II ~o II · -t II ~o II ,.. II ~o II ~ II II II II ee 0 .,,~ o~o~o o~o~o ~o~ o o o o o o o~o~o o~0~o ~o~ o o o o o o o o o o o 0 0 o o o o o o o o o II tn II ~o II ~ II ,- II ~'~ II ~'~ II ~ II II II II ~ II oO II t~ II ~ II ~ II ~ II ~-~ II II II II II ~ II ~ II ~ II ~ II c~ II ~ II II II II II oo II ~ II ~%~ II · ~ II ~ It ~ II ,-4 II II II ~ o ooooooooo ooooooooo (3~ o~ 0 o o o 0 4d II ~! II ~ II t-- II II II II II II II ~1 II o II i~ II - II ,-t II n II ~ II II ooo~o ~o~ ~o~ o o o o o o o o o o ~ o o o o o II m II ul II q3 II .,. II o II i.n II II II II II ~ II u3 II m II o~ II - II m II ,~ II ~ II II II II a3 II co II i.n II .,. II ~!* II o~ II II II II II II ,,D II m II I'-- II - II ~ II ,--I II II II II 0 m ,-4 0 0 ~ 0 :1 0 0 .,-( .,-I ~m o o o o o 0 m 4-) .,4 .~ .,~ ~0 ,-4 ,-4 r. o 0 4J ~ ,.~ m '~ · 0 ~ 4J 0 0 ~-~ ~0 --4-.-~ ~ 0 0 "~ ~ O0 0 ~00~0 ~00~0 0~0 0~0 ~0 0~0 ~0 000 ~0 00 00 O~ 0 00 00 0', 0 i,n ,,-t 0 · 0 ..4~ 0 I~or~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~D 0 0 II II II II II II II II II II II ~ II O~ II o,I II ,-I II - II ~-I II m II *-t II '-' II II II I~0 II '~' II ~ II - II I'- II 1'~ II 0 II ,,, II ,-I II II II ~'1 II 0 II 0 II - II 0 II *~' II ~'t II II II · 0 0 0 0 .u II II II II II II II II II II ~1 II ~ II I'~ II II II II II II 0 0 o o o o o o II oo II ~1 II ~ II ,- II o~ II ~,o II P. II II II tl ~o I o o -H 0 ,-4 ~ 0 ~ I 0 · E 0 ~ 0 0 m ~ ~ 0 0 ~J 0 0 ~ 0 ~ 0 ~'~ 0 CO ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~,~ ~1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~=1 ~0 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 C~l 0 ~'1 · ~o 0 0 0 0 I E O O ~ o ~ O E E ~ E O ~ ~ E 0000000 0000000 0 0 m ~0 ~J r~O E 0 0 II L~ II ~, II II La II II '- II II Ln II Ln II II II L~ II - II U'l II Ln II U'I II ' II CO II II II ~D L~ O~ 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 *'~ 0 0 ~,o 0 O~ I~0 Ln 0 0 0 0 ~0 0~00 ~00 ~000 0000 0000 ~00 0~00 ~00 CO I" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o~ooo o~ooo ~oo ~ooo oooo ~00 0~000 0~000 ~00 o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 ~ ~ r~ 0 0 ~ co o (D W- 0 · 0 0 0 O0 0 0 C 0 ~ 0 0 ~ 0 000000 000000 ~000~0 00 00 0 u~ 000000 000000 ~0~0~0 0 00 0 00 t". 00 00 0 0 0 0 u~ 0 0 0 0 00 0 00 ~ 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 II 0 II 0 II t'- II · - II ~ II ~1 II t,'l II - II ,~ II II ~ II 0 II 0 II ~ II · - II ~D II 0 II ~n II ~ II II II 0 II 0 II ~ II ,. II 0 II '~ II ~0 II · - II ,~ II II II ~'~ II ,~ II 0 I1 · . II ~ II ,-~ II II II II II II II II I-~ II ~) II · II o II I-~ II ~ II II II ~ II ~ II c0 II II o II -. II I~ II o II o II II II ~ II ul II o II c~ II ~ II ul II o II o II ~ II II II ~ II II (.~ II (.~ II ~. II ~ II o II o II o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o~o~o~ o oooooo o oooooo o ~ ~o ~ ~o o oo o oo o~ooo~ o oooooo o oooooo 0 n. 0 m · O~ r~ ~ 0 0 ~O 0 o o o o o o ~ 0 (~ o o o 0 ~u ~ o II P- II ~ II (~ II ,,. II ~ II r-i II II II II r'~ II t~ II c~ II ~. II ~ II o II ~ II II II II II ~ II I,~ II I-~ II" II II ~ II ~D II II II ~ II ' II II CO II 0 II" II I~ II O~ II ~ II II II II I'~ II II Ln II - II I~ II 0 II O~ II II II ~ II I~ II I~ II ~ II II ~ II ~ II L~ II I-3 0 I-'- 0 0 0 0 0 00~ 000~0 000~0 00~ 0000 000~ O~ ~ O0 ~ 00~ 000~0 000~0 m~'o U~ ~ 0 O~ r~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,'~ a3 00~ 00~0 00~ 0000 0000 000~ 00~ 00~0 00~ .-40 O :30 ~OOO~ 0 0 0 0 L~ ~1 ~0 0 c~ 0 0 .P 0 ~ 0 0 m I ~ C.) 0 C~ ~ 0 CJ -.-4 0 II II I~ II ~ II ~1 It ' II II ~ II II II II II ~. II I~ II - II II ~ II II 0000000 0000000 CITY OF TEMECULA Personnel Allocation By Program Area (Full-Time Equivalents listed) PROGRAM: GENERAL GOVERNMENT (Continued) Department: Personnel Assistant to City Manager Office Assistant Department Total Department: Information Systems Manager of Information Systems Network Administrative Administrative Secretary Secretary Office Assistant Department Total Amended 1990-91 0.5 1 1.5 Proposed Amendment 0 0 0 0 0 0 (1) (2) (3) Authorized 1990-91 0.5 1 1.5 1 1 1 0 0 3 PROGRAM TOTAL: 33 (.5) 32.5 CITY OF TEMECULA Personnel Allocation By Program Area (Full-Time Equivalents listed) PROGRAM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Department: Planning Director of Planning Senior Planner Associate Planner Assistant Planner Planning Technician Administrative Secretary Secretary Office Assistant Department Total Department: Building and Safety Chief Building Official Senior Inspector Code Enforcement Officer Building Inspector Building Technician Administrative Secretary Office Assistant Department Total Amended 1990-91 10 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 10 Proposed Amendment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Authorized 1990-91 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 10 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 10 PROGRAM TOTAL: 20 0 20 3 CITY OF TEMECULA Personnel Allocation By Program Area (Full-Time Equivalents listed) PROGRAM: COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Department: Community Services Director of Community Services Park Development Coordinator Maintenance Supervisor Maintenance Worker Recreation Program Supervisor Recreation Leader/Assistant Volunteer Coordinator (Office Assistant) Senior Maintenance Worker Administrative Secretary Office Assistant Department Total Amended 1990-91 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 0 1 1 11 Proposed Amendment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Authorized 1990-91 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 13 PROGRAM TOTAL: 11 13 TOTAL: 64 1.5 66 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1990-91 ANNUAL BUDGET FOR CHANGES IN ESTIMATED REVENUES AND APPROPRIATIONS The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1: That the FY 1990-91 Annual Budget of the City of Temecula is hereby amended in accordance with the "Mid-year Review of Annual Operating Budget, Fiscal Year 1990-91" attached herein as Attachment A. Section 2: resolution. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of January, 1991 ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk [SEAL] RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PERSONNEL POLICIES WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority under Chapter 2.08.060 of the City's Municipal Code, the City Manager has the authority to hire, set salaries and adopt personnel policies; and, WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended and the City Council now wishes to adopt those policies as identified below; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula as follows: SECTION 1. The attached list of Position Titles and Salaries (Exhibit A) is hereby adopted pursuant to Section 45001 of the California Government Code. Such list is attached to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. The list of Position Titles and Salaries shall become effective immediately and may be thereafter amended. SECTION 3. The City Manager shall implement the above list of Positions Titles and Salaries and has the authority to select and appoint employees in accordance with the City's personnel policies. SECTION 4. All prior resolutions and parts of resolutions in conflict with this Resolution are hereby rescinded. PASSED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 1 lth day of December, 1990. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk [SEAL] 3/Resos 136 # of Positions 2 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 12 2 2 1 0 3 1 2 1 2 Exempt/ Non-exempt NE NE NE E NE E NE E NE NE E E E NE E E E E E E E E NE E NE E NE NE NE E E NE E NE NE E 67 Attachment I - Exhibit A CITY OF TEMECULA Authorized Positions. Titles and Salary Ranges Title Minimum Maximum Account Clerk Accountant Account Technician Administrative Assistant Administrative Secretary Asst. City Mgr./Dir. Admin. Services Assistant Planner Assistant to the City Manager Associate Planner Building Inspector Chief Accountant Chief Building Official City Manager Code Enforcement Officer Councilmembers Deputy City Clerk Director of Community Services Director of Planning Executive Secretary Finance Officer Information Systems Manager Maintenance Supervisor Maintenance Worker Management Analyst Minute Clerk Network Administrator Office Assistant Planning/Building Technician Recreation Leader Recreation Superintendent Recreation Supervisor Secretary Senior Accountant Senior Building Inspector Senior Maintenance Worker Senior Planner $1600 $2.498 $1.993 $2.105 $1.702 $5 763 $2 464 $2.807 $2.885 $2,431 $3,377 $5,236 $2,193 $ 300 $2,414 $5 236 $5 236 $2 285 $5 236 $4 148 $3 331 $1,667 $2,498 $1,454 $2,498 $1,303 $2,193 $1,424 $3,331 $2,533 $1,454 $2,788 $2,675 $1,926 $3,424 $1,993 $3 111 $2 481 $2 621 $2.120 $7.176 $3.068 $3.495 $3,592 $3,027 $4,205 $6,519 $2,731 $ 300 $3,006 $6,519 $6,519 $2,846 $6,519 $5,165 $4,148 $2,076 $3 111 $1.811 $3 111 $1.624 $2 731 $1 774 $4 148 $3,154 $1,811 $3,471 $3,331 $2,398 $4,236 Revised 1/22/91 ITEM NO. 7 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department January 22, 1991 Plot Plan No. 179 PREPARED BY: RECOMMENDATION: Oliver Mujica The Planning Department Staff recommends that the City Council: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 179; and, ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving Plot Plan No. 179. based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: P R OPOSA L: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Johnson + Johnson Lusardi Construction Construct a 57,284 square foot industrial building; and a 3,250 square foot testing facility on 4.5 acres. Southwest corner of Rio Nedo and Tierra Alta Way. M-SC (Manufacturing - Service Commercial) Plot Plan No. 179 is a proposal to develop the subject 4.5 acre site with a 57,284 square foot industrial building; and, a 3,250 square foot testing STAFFRPT\PP179 1 BACKGROUND: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: OM: ks Attachments: 1. o f~cility. The proposed industrial building contains 36.930 square feet of manufacturing/distribution/ warehouse and 20,354 square feet of office space, The testing facility consists of two main areas with 14 test units, The proposed industrial building, which has an overall height of 29'6", is a concrete tilt-up structure and is contemporary in appearance; and has been designed to feature sandblasted concrete panels (medium grey) and dark grey tinted glass panels. The proposed development has been designed in accordance with the standards of the M-SC (Manufacturing - Service Commercial ) zone, On January 7. 1991. the Planning Commission considered the applicant's proposal and reviewed the Environmental Assessment prepared by the Planning Staff; and, forwarded a recommendation of approval to the City Council by a vote of 5-0, The Planning Department Staff recommends that the City Council: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 179; and, ADOPT Resolution No, 91- approving Plot Plan No. 179. based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, Exhibits A. Site Plan B. Exterior Elevations C. Floor Plan Resolution Conditions of Approval Planning Commission Staff Report (dated January 7. 1991) Planning Commission Minutes (dated January 7, 1991) Development Fee Checklist Large Scale Plans STAFFRPT\PP179 2 :] sl J, lid! I, 'tl ......... !i : i L RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLOT PLAN NO. 179 TO CONSTRUCT A 57,284 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING; AND A 3,250 SQUARE FOOT TESTING FACILITY ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 4.5 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF RIO NEDO AND TIERRA ALTA WAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-290-036, 037, 060, AND 061. WHEREAS, Johnson + Johnson filed Plot Plan No. 179 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Plot Plan on January 7. 1991, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify 'either in support or opposition; WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission recommended approval of said Plot Plan; WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Plot Plan on January 22. 1991, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff Report regarding the Plot Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findinqs. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a 9eneral plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. STAFFRPT\PP179 3 [2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and meets the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (1) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. (2) The City Council finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: a) There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 179 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. STAFFRPT\PP179 4 c) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. D. (1) Pursuant to Section 18.301c), no plot plan may be approved unless the following findings can be made: a) The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. b) The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. 12) The City Council, in approving the proposed Plot Plan, makes the following findings, to wit: a) There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 179 will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law due to the fact that the proposed industrial building is consistent with the existing zoning and the SWAP land use designation of General Light Industrial. b) There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan. if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan due to the fact that the proposed industrial building is consistent with the existing zoning. the SWAP land use designation of General Light Industrial. and the permitted uses of the surrounding area. c) The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws due to the fact that the proposed use complies with Ordinance No. 348 and the action complies with State Planning Laws. STAFFR PT\PP179 5 d) e) f) g) h) i) j) The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use due to the fact that the proposed industrial development complies with the standards of Ordinance No. 348. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare due to the fact that the Conditions of Approval include mitigation measures which will be ensured through the implementation of a mitigation monitoring program. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, intensity, and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties due to the fact that the proposed industrial development is consistent with the zoning ordinance. The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area due to the fact that the surrounding properties are also zoned M-SC (Manufacturing - Service Commercial ). The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic due to the fact that the vehicular improvements of the proposed industrial building has been approved by the Traffic Engineering Staff. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the expanded initial study performed for this project due to the fact that a mitigation monitoring program has been included for this project. The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project. STAFFRPT\PP179 6 E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, recommended. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves Plot Plan No. 179 to construct a 57,284 square foot industrial building; and a 3,250 square foot testing facility located on the southwest corner of Rio Nedo and Tierra Alta Way and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 909-290-036, 037, 060, and 061 subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A. attached hereto. SECTION 4_~, The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 22nd day of January, 1991. RONALD J PARKS MAYOR I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 22nd day of January, 1991 by the following vote of the Council: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCILMEMBERS COUNCILMEMBERS JUNE S. GREEK DEPUTY CITY CLERK STAFFRPT\PP179 7 CITY OF TEMECULA Personnel Allocation By Program Area (Full-Time Equivalents listed) PROGRAM: GENERAL GOVERNMENT (Continued) Department: Personnel Assistant to City Manager Office Assistant Department Total Department: Information Systems Manager of Information Systems Network Administrative Administrative Secretary Secretary Office Assistant Department Total Amended 1990-91 0,5 1 1.5 Proposed Amendment 0 0 0 0 0 0 (1) (2) (3) Authorized 1990-91 0,5 1 1.5 1 1 1 0 0 3 PROGRAM TOTAL: 33 (.5) 32.5 Access Access into the proposed development is provided by thirty (30') foot wide driveways on Rio Nedo, Tierra Alta Way, and Avenida Alvarado, which has been determined to be acceptable by the Traffic Engineering Staff. In compliance with the requirements of the Traffic Engineering Department and the Riverside County Fire Department, an internal twenty-eight 128' ) foot wide driveway aisle is provided through the proposed parking area. Project Desiqn The proposed industrial building, which has an overall height of 29'6", is a concrete tilt-up structure, which is contemporary in appearance, and has been designed to feature sandblasted concrete panels I medium grey) and dark grey tinted glass panels. After reviewing the applicant's exterior elevations, Staff has determined that, although there are no other buildings in the immediate area, the proposed project design will probably be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, since the adjoining properties are also zoned M-SC. In regards to the potential outdoor storage within the proposed loading area, Staff has included the following condition (see Condition No. 28), within the recommended Conditions of Approval, in order to eliminate the potential visual impacts from surrounding properties: "All outdoor storage shall be located within the loading area only and shall not exceed the height of. six ( 6' ) feet or that of the proposed concrete block screen wall, whichever is less. Such outdoor storage area shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Department." Landscape Adequate landscaping is planned for the site, in which the proposed 22.5% landscaping for the site exceeds the required landscaping under the Development Code. Staff has determined that the STAFFRPT\PP179 5 CITY OF TEMECULA Personnel Allocation By Program Area (Full-Time Equivalents listed) PROGRAM: COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT Department: Community Services Director of Community Services Park Development Coordinator Maintenance Supervisor Maintenance Worker Recreation Program Supervisor Recreation Leader/Assistant Volunteer Coordinator (Office Assistant) Senior Maintenance Worker Administrative Secretary Office Assistant Department Total Amended 1990-91 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 0 1 1 11 Proposed Amendment 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Authorized 1990-91 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 13 PROGRAM TOTAL: 11 13 TOTAL: 64 1.5 66 ANALYSIS: water, oil, and high pressure CO2. Due to the hazardous materials involved with the proposed use, Staff has included the following condition (see Condition No. 27) within the recommended Conditions of Approval: "Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the applicant shall submit an emergency response plan and an emergency evacuation plan to the Planning Department and Riverside County Fire Department for approval." The proposed development has been designed in accordance with the standards of the M-SC (Manufacturing - Service Commercial) zone. Traffic Impacts The Transportation Engineering Staff has reviewed and accepted the findings and mitigation measures as specified in the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for Plot Plan No. 179; and has determined that the proposed project will have a minimal impact to the existing road system and given the proposed mitigation measures, there will be no adverse unmitigable significant traffic impacts resulting from the development of this proposed project. The proposed project will generate only 560 trip ends per day with 80 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 85 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour. This is not a significant amount of traffic and it can easily be accommodated by the existing roadway system. All of the intersections in the vicinity of the proposed site will continue to operate at a level of service "A" during the AM and PM peak hours for existing plus project traffic conditions. The traffic impacts of the proposed project upon these intersections are not significant and can be accommodated without causing any adverse change in LOS at these intersections. Mitigation measures shall include the standard signal mitigation fees, public facility fees, a signing and striping plan for Terra Alta Way, and sight distance calculations at each driveway access point along Avenida Alvarado and Rio Nedo. STAFFRPT\PP179 3 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF PERSONNEL POLICIES WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority under Chapter 2.08.060 of the City's Municipal Code, the City Manager has the authority to hire, set salaries and adopt personnel policies; and, WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended and the City Council now wishes to adopt those policies as identified below; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula as follows: SECTION 1. The attached list of Position Titles and Salaries (Exhibit A) is hereby adopted pursuant to Section 45001 of the California Government Code. Such list is attached to this Resolution and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 2. The list of Position Titles and Salaries shall become effective immediately and may be thereafter amended. SECTION 3. The City Manager shall implement the above list of Positions Titles and Salaries and has the authority to select and appoint employees in accordance with the City's personnel policies. SECTION 4. All prior resolutions and parts of resolutions in conflict with this Resolution are hereby rescinded. PASSED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting held on the 1 lth day of December, 1990. ATTEST: Ronald J. Parks, Mayor June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk [SEAL] 3/R¢sos 136 Recommendation: STAFF REPORT - PLANNING CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION January 7. 1991 Case No.: Plot Plan No. 179 Prepared By: Oliver Mujica 1. Recommend Adoption of Negative Declaration 2. Recommend Approval APPLICATION INFORMATION APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PROPOSAL: LOCATION: EXISTING ZONING: SURROUNDING ZONING: SWAP DESIGNATION: PROPOSED ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USES: Johnson + Johnson Lusardi Construction Construct a 57,284 square foot industrial building; and a 3,250 square foot testing facility on 4.5 acres. Southwest corner of Rio Nedo and Tierra Alta Way. M-SC (Manufacturing - Service Commercial) North: M-SC (Manufacturing - Service Commercial) South: M-SC IManufacturing - Service Commercial ) East: M-SC (Manufacturing - Service Commercial ) West: M-SC (Manufacturing - Service Commercial ) General Light Industrial Not applicable. Vacant North: South: East: West: Vacant Vacant Vacant Vacant STAFFRPT\PP179 1 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Plot Plan No: 179 Project Description: Industrial Complex Assessor's Parcel No.: 60,534 Square Foot 909-290-036, 037, 060, and 061 Planninq Department The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for a 57,284 square foot industrial building containing 36,930 square feet of manufacturing/ warehouse/distribution area and 20,354 square feet of office space; and a 3,250 square foot testing facility on 4.5 acres. The permittee shall defend, indemnify. and hold harmless the City of Temecula. its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action. or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers. or employees to attack. set aside, void, or annul. an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Plot Plan No. 179. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action. or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any such claim. action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense. the permittee shall not. thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify. or hold harmless the City of Temecula. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. This approval shall expire on January 22, 1993. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on Plot Plan No. 179 marked Exhibit A. or as amended by these conditions. o Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department's Conditions of Approval which are included herein. STAFFRPT\PP179 8 o 10. 11. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, three (3) copies of a Parking, Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 348. Section 18.12. and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation. and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten (10) feet of an entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty 130) inches. A minimum of 162 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12. Riverside County Ordinance No. 3~8. 162 parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit A. The parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on ~ inches of Class II base. A minimum of 5 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit A. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectorized sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade. or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade. ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at or by telephone " In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the following agencies: Planning Department Engineering Department Environmental Health SCAQMD School District Riverside County Flood Control Fire Department. STAFFRPT\PP179 9 12. 13, 15. 16. 17. 18, 19. 20, 21. 22. A Plot Plan application for a Sign Program shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director prior to occupancy, Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit B, Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit B IColor Elevations). Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening material shall be subject to Planning Department approval, In accordance with the written request of the developer to the City of Temecula. a copy of which is on file. and in furtherance of the agreement by the developer to contribute to the financing of public facilities. no building permit shall be issued by the City of Temecula for any units within the subject property until the developer, or the developer's successors or assignees. provides evidence of compliance with the terms of said agreement for the financing of public facilities, All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with masonry block and a steel gate which screens the bins from external view, Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along streets and within the parking areas, All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No, 655. Prior to the issuance of grading permits. the applicant shall comply with Ordinance No, 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance which is based on the gross acreage of the parcels proposed for development. Should Ordinance No, 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution, Eight (8) Class III bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations as approved by the Planning Director to facilitate bicycle access to the project area. Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities. in amounts to be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved plan, and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year. shall be filed with the Department of Building and Safety, STAFFRPT\PP179 10 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. Prior to the issuance of grading permits and/or building permit, the developer or his successor's interest shall submit a mitigation monitoring program to the Planning Department for approval, which shall describe how compliance with required mitigation measures will be met and the appropriate monitoring timing of the mitigation. The applicant shall pay all costs associated with all monitoring activities. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the applicant shall submit an emergency response plan and an emergency evacuation plan to the Planning Department and Riverside County Fire Department for approval. All outdoor storage shall be located within the loading area only and shall not exceed the height of six (6') feet or that of the proposed concrete block screen wall, whichever is less. Such outdoor storage area shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Department. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the applicant shall submit a ride- share program, pursuant to the guidelines of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, to the Planning Department for approval. Within forty-eight (48) hours of the approval of the project, the applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashiers check or money order payable to the County Clerk in the amount of One Thousand, Two Hundred, Seventy-Five Dollars ($1,275.00), which includes the One Thousand, Two Hundred, Fifty Dollars ($1,250.00) fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(2) plus the Twenty- Five Dollar ($25.00) County administrative fee to enable the City to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section 21152 and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations 15075. If within such forty-eight 148) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department the check required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.41c). Material used in the construction of the testing facility shall be consistent with the materials used for the industrial building as shown on Exhibit B (Color Elevations). STA FFR PT\PP179 11 Riverside County Fire Department 32. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings using the procedure established in Ordinance 546. 33, Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 3000 GPM for a three (3) hour duration at 20 PSI residual operating pressure, which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6x4x2x21/2), will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. 35. Install panic hardware and exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code, 36. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. 37. install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC. 38. Prior to the issuance of building permits. the applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit a check or money order in the amount of $558,00 to the Riverside County Fire Department for plan check fees. 39, Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit with the City of Temecula. a check or money order equaling the sum of 25 cents per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This amount must be submitted separately from the plan check review fees. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and Safety Office. 41. Warehouse and Manufacturinq Buildinq ae Install a complete fire sprinkler system. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front of the buildin9. within 50 feet of a fire hydrant. and a minimum of 25 feet from the building, A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprinkled must appear on the title sheet of the building plans, Install a supervised waterflow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department prior to installation as per UBC, Quantities of hazardous materials stored and used in building shall be stored in proper containers and shall amounts listed in table 9A UBC (1988). warehouse not exceed STAFFRPT\PP179 12 42. Hazardous Chemical and Waste Storacl. e Buildinq Install dry chemical fire extinguishing system. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. Hazardous material building shall be a minimum 50 feet from any building or property line, 43. Test Buildinq a, Install extra hazard fire sprinkler system in building, b. Install a minimum 40 BC fire extinguisher in the building. 44. General ae Propane tank must be a minimum 10 feet away from property lines, plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for Approval prior to installation, Paint spray booth must meet provision set forth in Article 45 UFC (1988). Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department prior to installation. Co All buildings containing hazardous materials shall be placarded. using labeling and placard system in NFDA 704. En~ineerinq Department The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering Department. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements. traveled ways. and drainage courses. and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further consideration, PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: 45. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; CATV Franchise; and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). STAFF R PT\PP 179 13 46. The developer shall submit four 14) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code and Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24"x36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. 47, The developer shall submit four ~4) copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. 48. If grading is to take place between the months of October and April, erosion control plans will be required, Erosion control plans and notes shall be submitted and approved by the Engineering Department. 49. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development, The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits, If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid, 50. All concentrated drainage directed toward the public street shall be diverted through the undersidewalk drains, PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT: 51. A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval, The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation. and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions, 52, Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact, PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY: 53, Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project. including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project. in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. If an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee, a copy of which has been provided to Developer. Developer understands that said agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated (assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. STAFFRPT\PP179 1~ Transportation Enqineerin.q PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for Tierra Alta Way and shall include stop signs, stop legends, stop bars at Rio Nedo and Avenida Alvaratio, and a center line stripe from Rio Nedo to Avenida AIvarado. 55. Sight distance calculations shall be required for each driveway access point with Avenida Alvarado and Rio Nedo. 56. Prior to designing any of the above plans, contact Transportation Engineering for the design requirements. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 57. All signing and striping on Tierra Alta Way shall be installed per the approved signing and striping plan. STAFFRPT\PP179 15 FINDINGS: o e There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 179 will be consistent with the City's future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law due to the fact that the proposed industrial building is consistent with the existing zoning and the SWAP land use designation of General Light Industrial. There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan due to the fact that the proposed industrial building is' consistent with the existing zoning, the SWAP land use designation of General Light Industrial, and the permitted uses of the surrounding area. The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws due to the fact that the proposed use complies with Ordinance No. 348 and the action complies with State Planning Laws. The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use due to the fact that the proposed industrial development complies with the standards of Ordinance No. 348. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare due to the fact that the Conditions of Approval include mitigation measures which will be ensured through the implementation of a mitigation monitoring program. The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, intensity, and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties due to the fact that the proposed industrial development is consistent with the zoning ordinance. STAFFRPT\PP179 7 The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area due to the fact that the surrounding properties are also zoned M-SC (Manufacturing-Service- Commercial). The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic due to the fact that the vehicular improvements of the proposed industrial building has been approved by the Traffic Engineering Staff. The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the expanded initial study performed for this project due to the fact that a mitigation monitoring program has been included for this project. 10. The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Department Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward the following recommendations to the City Council: ADOPT the Negative Declaration for Plot Plan No. 179; and, ADOPT Resolution No. 91- approving Plot Plan No. 179, based on the analysis and findings contained in the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. OM: ks Attachments: Resolution Conditions of Approval Environmental Assessment Exhibits: A. Site Plan B. Exterior Elevations Large Scale Plans STAFFRPT\PP179 8 CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY II Backqround 1. Name of Proponent: Address and Phone Number of Proponent: Date of Environmental Assessment: Johnson + Johnson 4. Agency Requiring Assessment: 29377 RanchoCalifornia Road, Ste. 202 Temecula, CA 92390 (714) 676-1604 November 30, 1990 CITY OF TEMECULA Name of Proposal, if applicable: Plot Plan No. 179 Location of Proposal: Southwest corner of Rio Nedo and Tierra Alta Way Environmental Impacts ( Explanations of all answers are provided on attached sheets. ) Yes Maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: ae Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? X be Disruptions, displacements, compac- tion or overcovering ef the soil? X Substantial change in topography or ground surface relief features? X de The destruction, covering or modi- fication of any unique geologic or physical features? X ee Any substantial increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off site? X STAFFRPT\PP179 9 Yes Maybe No e 3e fe Air. a. Ce Water a. be Ce de ee fe Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earth quakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Will the proposal result in: Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? The creation of objectionable odors? Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any chan~je in climate, whether locally or regionally? · Will the proposal result in: Substantial changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? Substantial changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns. or the rate and amount of surface runoff? Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? .Discharge into surface waters, or In any alteration of surface water quality, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? Alteration of the direction or rate of flow or ground waters? X X X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\PP179 10 Yes Maybe No Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct addi- tions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? he Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flood- ing or tidal waves? Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: ae Change in the diversity of species, or number of any native species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? be Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? Introduction of new species of plants into an area of native vegetation, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? de Substantial reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: ae Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals I birds, land animals including rep- tiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X X X X X X X X X X STA FFR PT\PP179 11 Yes Maybe No e 10. 11. 12. 13. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce substantial new light or glare? Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: ae Substantial increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? Substantial depletion of any non- renewable natural resource? Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 'b. Possible interference with an emerg- ency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X X X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\PP179 12 GENERAL PLAN AND SWAP CONSISTENCY: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: proposed landscape design is acceptable. However, additional landscaping {shrubs and/or vines) should be provided in front of the proposed six ( 6' ) foot high concrete block screen wall, in order to lessen the potential view impacts from the public rights-of-way. A detailed landscape plan will be submitted for approval by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of building permits. The proposed project is consistent with the SWAP Land Use Designation of General Light Industrial, which includes distribution warehouses and similar industrial uses. In addition, Staff finds it probable that this project will be consistent with the new General Plan when it is adopted. An Initial Study was performed for this project which determined that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, no significant impact would result to the natural or built environment in the City because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration has been recommended for adoption. In order to ensure the implementation of the mitigation measures adopted through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, which in this case is the Negative Declaration per the Environmental Assessment, the Planning Department Staff has included the following condition (see Condition No. 25) within the recommended Conditions of Approval: "Prior to the issuance of grading permits and/or building permit, the developer or his successor's interest shall submit a mitigation monitoring program to the Planning Department for approval, which shall describe how compliance with required mitigation measures will be met and the appropriate monitoring timing of the mitigation. The required mitigation measures are noted in the Environmental Assessment." STAFFR PT\PP179 6 CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST CASE NO.: Plot Plan No. 179 The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this project. Fee Habitat Conservation Plan (K-Rat) Parks and Recreation (Quimby) Public Facility ( Traffic Mitigation ) Public Facility ( Traffic Signal Mitigation ) Public Facility ( Library ) Fire Protection Flood Control (ADP) Condition of Approval Condition No. 20 N/A Condition No. 53 Condition No. 53 Condition No. 53 Condition No. 39 Condition No. 49 STAFFR PT\PP179 16 Parkinq One hundred, sixty-two (162) parking spaces are provided along the north side of the proposed building. According to Section 18.12 (c)(22) of Ordinance 348, "1 ndustrial Uses", the following off- street parking is required when the number of employees cannot be determined: Office: 20,354 sq.ft. ~ 1/200=102 Manufacturing: 36,930 sq.ft. ~ 1/500= 74 Total Parking Spaces: 176 According to Section 18.12 { e) ( 5 ) of Ordinance 348, "Request for Special Review of Parking", the applicant may submit, as part of a review of Plot Plan No. 179, evidence and documentation demonstrating conditions that warrant a parking reduction. Thus, the applicant has submitted a proposal to provide a ride-share program for the employees. In addition, the applicant has provided the following employee count per shift: Shift #1 133 Shift ~2 25 Shift ~3 4 According to Section 18.12 Ic)(26) of Ordinance 348, "Manufacturing", two (2) parking spaces for every three employees on each of the two ( 2 ) larger shifts is required, which translates into eight-nine (89) parking spaces required. Therefore, since the total number of employees per any given shift does not exceed 133,at this time; and, the applicant is proposing to provide a ride- share program pursuant to the guidelines of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Staff is of the opinion that the proposed 162 parking spaces are adequate to accommodate the proposed project. It has also been noted that the 162 parking spaces would aUow a maximum of 243 employees per shift. As indicated on the site plan, the designated employee parking area, as well as the proposed loading area, will be enclosed by a six 16') foot high concrete block screen wall. The proposed gate for the loading area will remain open during regular business hours; and, the gates for the employee parking area will be opened during work shift changes only. STAFFRPT\PP179 4 All concentrated drainage directed toward the public street shall be diverted through the undersidewalk drains. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT: q9. A precise grading plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for review and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location and elevation, and the Soil Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing compaction and site conditions. 50. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer shall deposit with the Engineering Department a cash sum as established per acre as mitigation for traffic signal impact. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATION OF OCCUPANCY: 51, Developer shall pay any capital fee for road improvements and public facilities imposed upon the property or project, including that for traffic and public facility mitigation as required under the EIR/Negative Declaration for the project, in the amount in effect at the time of payment of the fee. if an interim or final public facility mitigation fee or district has not been finally established by the date on which Developer requests its building permits for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for Payment of Public Facility Fee. a copy of which has been provided to Developer. Developer understands that said agreement may require the payment of fees in excess of those now estimated l assuming benefit to the project in the amount of such fees) and specifically waives its right to protest such increase. Transportation Enqineerinq PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS: 52. A signing and striping plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer for Tierra Alta Way and shall include stop signs, stop legends, stop bars at Rio Nedo and Avenida Alvarado, and a center line stripe from Rio Nedo to Avenida Alvarado. 53, Sight distance calculations shall be requ!red for each driveway access point with Avenida Alvarado and Rio Nedo. Prior to designing any of the above plans. contact Transportation Engineering for the design requirements. PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS: 55. All signing and striping on Tierra Alta Way shall be installed per the approved signing and striping plan. STAFFRPT\PP179 PROJECT STATISTICS: BACKGROUND: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: No. of Buildings: No. of Acres: Total Square Footage: No. of Parking Spaces: Building Height: 2 4.5 60,534 180 29.5 Feet Status Plot Plan No. 179 was submitted to the City of Temecula on October 2, 1990. On October 25, 1990, this project was reviewed by the Preliminary Development Review Committee (Pre-DRC) in order to informally evaluate the project and address any possible concerns, as well as suggesting possible modifications. The comments by the Pre-DRC included the following: Traffic Impacts Proposed Testing and Materials. Subsequent to the Pre-DRC meeting, Staff met with the applicant to discuss the required supplemental material in order to address the Pre-DRC's concerns. On December 6, 1990, Plot Plan No. 179 was reviewed by the Formal Development Review Committee; and, it was determined that the project, as designed, can be adequately conditioned to mitigate the DRC's concerns. In addition, Conditions of Approval were prepared by the Riverside County Fire Department to mitigate potential environmental impacts, due to the proposed hazardous materials involved with the proposed land use. The DRC has forwarded a recommendation of approval subject to conditions. Plot Plan No. 179 is a proposal to develop the subject 4.5 acre site with a 57,284 square foot industrial building; and, a 3,250 square foot testing facility. The proposed industrial building contains 36,930 square feet of manufacturing/distribution/ warehouse and 20,354 square feet of office space. The testing facility consists of two main areas with 14 test units. The specialized test area is utilized for testing seals in hazardous fluids such as light hydrocarbons, high temperature liquids and hard abrasive slurties. The General test area is used for testing seals in non-flammable liquids such as STAFFRPT\PP179 2 Paint spray booth must meet provision set forth in Article 45 UFC ~1988). Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department prior to installation. All buildings containing hazardous materials shall be placarded, using labeling and placard system in NFDA 704. Enqineerinq Department The following are the Engineering Department Conditions of Approval for this project, and shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the Engineering Department. It is understood that the Developer correctly shows all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further consideration. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS: 43. The developer shall receive written clearance from the following agencies: Rancho California Water District; Eastern Municipal Water District; City of Temecula Fire Bureau; Planning Department; Engineering Department; Riverside County Health Department; CATV Franchise. The developer shall submit four (4) prints of a comprehensive grading plan to the Engineering Department. The plan shall comply with the Uniform Building Code and Chapter 70 as may be additionally provided for in these Conditions of Approval. The plan shall be drawn on 24"x36" mylar by a Registered Civil Engineer. The developer shall submit four (4) copies of a soils report to the Engineering Department. The report shall address the soils stability and geological conditions of the site. If grading is to take place between the months of October and April, erosion control plans will be required. Erosion control plans and notes shall be submitted and approved by the Engineering Department. A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The charge shall equal the prevailing Area Drainage Plan fee rate multiplied by the area of new development. The charge is payable to the Flood Control District prior to issuance of permits. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already credited to this property, no new charge needs to be paid. STAFFRPT\PP179 33 Yes Maybe No 15. 16. be Effects on existing parking facili- ties, or demand for new parking? Substantial impact upon existin9 transportation systems? Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? ee Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? Public Services. Will the proposal have substantial effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? de Parks or other recreational facilities? Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other governmental services: Energy. Will the proposal result in: Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? be Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? X X X X X X X X X X X X X STAFF R PT\PP 179 13 Yes Maybe No 17. 18, 19. 20. b. Communications systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? Human Health. Will the proposal result ~: ae Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard [excluding mental health) ? Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? Cultural Resources. ae Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? be Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? Ce Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X X X X X X X X X X X X X STAFFRPT\PP179 14 Yes Maybe No 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species. cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels. threaten to eliminate a plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? be Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term. environ- mental goals? I A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long- term impacts will endure well into the future, ) Does the project have impacts which are individually limited. but cumu- latively considerable? (A project's impact on two or more separate resources may be relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant, ) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substan- tial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X X X X STAFFRPT\PP179 15 III Discussion of the Environmental Evaluation Earth oao lob. oco lodo 1.fo 1.go No. The project site will require a minimal grading effort, since the site was created under a previous approval. A conceptual grading plan for the project was reviewed and approved by the City Engineer and designed in accordance with Temecula's standards; and the Conditions of Approval include mitigation measures in regards to grading. Therefore, the proposed project will not create an unstable earth condition or change the geologic substructure. Yes. All development disrupts the soil profile to some degree and results in soil displacement, compaction, and overcovering. However, this impact is not considered significant, due to the fact that the Conditions of Approval include mitigation measures in regards to all grading. No. Since the site has already been rough graded and is level, there will not be any change in topography or ground surface relief features. No. There are no unique geological or physical features on the site. Maybe. Wind and water erosion potentials will increase during the construction phase and remain high until disturbed areas are replanted and the proposed drainage facilities are constructed. The wind erosion impact is considered significant but will be mitigated through the use of watering trucks and erosion control planting of disturbed areas after grading. After the project is completed, water will be channeled to drainage easements and streets. Appropriate drainage control devices will have to be approved by the City Engineer and designed in accordance with Temecula's standards and the Conditions of Approval. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant, due to the fact that appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the project. No. There is no body of water near the project site which could be affected by the proposed project. Yes. The project site is located within a liquefaction and fault hazard zone area according to the Riverside County General Plan Geologic Hazard Map. A geologic report for the project should address these potential issues. Therefore, This impact is not considered to be significant, due to the fact that appropriate Mitigation Measures have been implemented with the project through the Conditions of Approval. STAFFRPT\PP179 16 Air Water .Ce .8. Maybe. The proposed project consisting of a 57,284 square foot industrial building will generate an increase in vehicle trips to the site. The increased vehicle trips will increase the carbon monoxide emissions and particulates in the area. However, since the ambient air quality in the project vicinity is currently very good due to the local wind patterns, this potential impact is not considered significant. The proposed project will not by itself deteriorate the local area's or regional air quality, but will add to the cumulative impact on air quality due to the substantial growth in the area. No. The proposed project will not create any objectionable odors or alter the area's climate. No. The proposed project will not impact any body of water. Maybe. The proposed project may increase the amount of impermeable surfaces on the site and the existing drainage pattern may be altered. However, water will be channeled to drainage easements and streets through drainage facilities and control devices which will have to be approved by the City Engineer and designed in accordance with Temecula's Standards and the Conditions of Approval. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant since appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the project. Maybe. Drainage patterns will continue to be directed to the streets and flood channels. However, in order to mitigate the downstream impacts brought about by runoff appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the project and drainage plans for the site will have to meet the requirements of the City's Engineer. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant. Yes. During construction, the proposed project will increase turbidity in local surface waters. This impact is temporary and is not considered significant. After the project is completed, water will be channeled to drainage easements and streets, which will have to be approved by the City Engineer. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant since appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the project. No. The proposed project will not alter the rate of flow of ground water. No. Although the proposed project will increase the amount of impermeable surfaces on the site, the addition of irrigation for the landscape areas will help to off-set any loss of water absorbed into the ground. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant. STAFFRPT\PP179 17 3oh. 3.J. ¥eqetation 4.a,b. Wildlife 5.a,c. Noise 6~b. No. The proposed project will not significantly affect the public water supply. No. According to the Riverside County General Plan Flood Hazard Map the subject site is not within a hazard zone. No. No native species or sensitive vegetational associations or species were identified on-site. Yes. The proposal includes landscaping which will be designed to City standards. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant since appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the project. No. No agricultural production occurred on-site. No. Maybe. A survey for Stephen's Kangaroo Rat prepared for this project analyzed biologic resources on-site. In that no individuals of the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat were found there is no occupied habitat within the bounds of this project. Implementation of this project as proposed will not result in a taking nor would it result in any adverse effect on the species or on the species' habitat. In that surrounding lands to the north, south, east and west have previously been developed at urban levels of use or are presently being developed at such levels of use, preservation of this site as a reserve is inappropriate. In addition, the site is now isolated from all other known colonies by impassable residential and other barriers and reinvasion of the site is virtually impossible. Implementation of the project as proposed will not have a significant effect and no mitigation other than payment of fees under the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Fee Ordinance is required. Yes. On-site noise levels will increase temporarily during construction. Long-term noise impacts will occur due to increased traffic volumes. This impact is not considered to be significant since the surrounding land uses are not noise sensitive. No. Severe noise will not be generated by the proposed project. STA FFR PT\PP179 18 Liqht and Glare e Yes. However, the project has been conditioned to comply with applicable lighting standards. Therefore, this impact is not considered to be significant since appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented with the project. Land Use No. Project is consistent with both the zoning designation and the Southwest Area Community Plan. Natural Resources 9.a,b. No. The proposed use will not increase the consumption rate of any natural or non-renewable natural resources. Risk of Upset 10.a Yes. The proposed use will require the use of hazardous substances, However, this impact is not considered to be significant due to the fact that the Riverside County Fire Department has prepared appropriate Mitigation Measures which have been implemented through the Conditions of Approval. During construction it should not be necessary to close any streets which would interfere with emergency vehicles. 10.b Maybe. The proposed use may interfere with an emergency response plan. However, this impact is not considered to be significant due to the fact that a complete emergency response plan and emergency evacuation plan will be required for approval prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, which will be implemented through the Conditions of Approval. Population 11, No. The proposed 57,284 square foot industrial building will generate some jobs but not a significant amount to alter the area's population. Housinq 12. No. The proposed 57,284 square foot industrial building will not generate a significant number of jobs to create a demand for additional housing. Transportation/Circulation 13.a. Yes. 13.b-e. No. 13. f. Maybe. The Traffic Study which was prepared for the proposed project has addressed potential traffic impacts and has concluded that the cumulative impacts will not be STAFFRPT\PP179 19 significant. have been Approval. In addition, appropriate mitigation measures implemented through the Conditions of Public Services 14. a-c, e. Yes. lq.d,f. No. Except for parks and recreational facilities, the proposed project will have significant adverse effect on public services. However, these impacts are not considered to be significant since appropriate mitigation measures have been implemented through the Conditions of Approval. Enerqy 15.a,b. No. The proposed project will not result in the substantial use or increase in demand of fuel or energy. Utilities 16.a-f. No. The proposed project might require the use of utilities but will not require substantial alteration to the existing system. Human Health 17.a,b. No. The proposed project will not have significant adverse effect on human health. Aesthetics 18. No. Because the proposed project has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, there will be no significant impact on aesthetics. Recreation 19. No. The subject site is not currently used for recreational uses. Cultural Resources 20.a-d. No. The subject site has previously been mass graded and it is unlikely that the project will result in the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site. If a site is discovered, an archaeologist or paleontologist should be called on site to supervise the digging and determine if the site is significant. The proposed project will not impact any building of historic significance, affect unique ethnic cultural values or restrict sacred uses. STAFFRPT\PP179 20 Mandatory Findinqs of Siqnificance 21 .a. Maybe. The proposed project may have a significant impact on plant or wildlife species. However, the project is located within an area designated by the Riverside County as habitat for the endangered Stephen's Kangaroo Rat, the project will be subject to mitigation fees for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan. In addition, during grading activities, a qualified paleontologist shall be present. 21 .b. Maybe. The proposed project may have the potential to achieve short- term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals. However, no significant impacts will occur if the mitigation measures are followed. 21 .c. 21 .d. Maybe. The proposed project may have impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable which may have environmental effects. However, no significant impacts will occur if the mitigation measures are followed. Maybe. The proposed project may have impacts which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. However, no significant impacts will occur if the Mitigation Measures are followed. STAFFRPT\PP179 21 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a signi- ficant effect on the environment, there will not be a signi- ficant effect on this case because the mitigation measures described on attached sheets and in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project. A NECATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT R required. November 30, 1990 Date effe~on J For CITY OF TEMECI~A X STAFFRPT\PP179 22 RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF PLOT PLAN NO. 179 TO CONSTRUCT A 57,284 SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL BUILDING; AND A 3,250 SQUARE FOOT TESTING FACILITY ON A PARCEL CONTAINING 4.5 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF RIO NEDO AND TIERRA ALTA WAY AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 909-290-036, 037, 060, AND 061. WHEREAS, Johnson+ Johnson filed Plot Plan No. 179 in accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by reference; WHEREAS, said Plot Plan application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing pertaining to said Plot Plan on January 7, 1991, at which time interested persons had 'opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to said Plot Plan; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received a copy of the Staff Report regarding the Plot Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findinqs. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the following findings: A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65360, a newly incorporated city shall adopt a general plan within thirty (30) months following incorporation. During that 30-month period of time, the city is not subject to the requirement that a general plan be adopted or the requirements of state law that its decisions be consistent with the general plan, if all of the following requirements are met: (1) The city is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the general plan. (2) The planning agency finds, in approving projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, each of the following: STAFFRPT\PP179 23 (a) There is a reasonable probability that the land use or action proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. lb) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. Ic) The proposed use or action complied with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. B. The Riverside County General Plan, as amended by the Southwest Area Community Plan, (hereinafter "SWAP") was adopted prior to the incorporation of Temecula as the General Plan for the southwest portion of Riverside County, including the area now within the boundaries of the City. At this time, the City has adopted SWAP as its General Plan guidelines while the City is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of its General Plan. C. The proposed Plot Plan is consistent with the SWAP and meet the requirements set forth in Section 65360 of the Government Code, to wit: (1) The City is proceeding in a timely fashion with a preparation of the general plan. J2) The Planning Commission finds, in recommending approval of projects and taking other actions, including the issuance of building permits, pursuant to this title, each of the following: a) There is reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 179 proposed will be consistent with the general plan proposal being considered or studied or which will be studied within a reasonable time. b) There is little or no probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted general plan if the proposed use or action is ultimately inconsistent with the plan. c) The proposed use or action complies with all other applicable requirements of state law and local ordinances. STAFFRPT\PP179 2~ D. I1) Pursuant to Section 18.301c), no plot plan may be approved unless the following findings can be made: a) The proposed use must conform to all the General Plan requirements and with all applicable requirements of state law and City ordinances. b) The overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. ( 2 ) The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the proposed Plot Plan, makes the following findings, to wit: a) There is a reasonable probability that Plot Plan No. 179 will be consistent with the City~s future General Plan, which will be completed in a reasonable time and in accordance with State law due to the fact that the proposed industrial building is consistent with the existing zoning and the SWAP land use designation of General Light Industrial. b) There is not a likely probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future General Plan, if the proposed use is ultimately inconsistent with the plan due to the fact that the proposed industrial building is consistent with the existing zoning, the SWAP land use designation of General Light Industrial, and the permitted uses of the surrounding area. c) The proposed use or action complies with State planning and zoning laws due to the fact that the proposed use complies with Ordinance No. 3~8 and the action complies with State Planning Laws. d) The site is suitable to accommodate the proposed land use in terms of the size and shape of the lot configuration, circulation patterns, access, and intensity of use due to the fact that the proposed industrial development complies with the standards of Ordinance No. 3~8. STAFFRPT\PP179 25 e) The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the public health or welfare due to the fact that the Conditions of Approval include mitigation measures which will be ensured through the implementation of a mitigation monitoring program. f) The project is compatible with surrounding land uses. The harmony in scale, bulk, height, intensity, and coverage creates a compatible physical relationship with adjoining properties due to the fact that the proposed industrial development is consistent with the zoning ordinance. g) The proposal will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it does not represent a significant change to the present or planned land use of the area due to the fact that the surrounding properties are also zoned M-SC {Manufacturing - Service Commercial ). h) The project has acceptable access to a dedicated right-of-way which is open to, and useable by, vehicular traffic due to the fact that the vehicular improvements of the proposed industrial building has been approved by the Traffic Engineering Staff. i) The project as designed and conditioned will not adversely affect the built or natural environment as determined in the expanded initial study performed for this project due to the fact that a mitigation monitoring program has been included for this project. j) The design of the project and the type of improvements are such that they are not in conflict with easements for access through or use of the property within the proposed project. E. As conditioned pursuant to SECTION 3, the Plot Plan proposed conforms to the logical development of its proposed site, and is compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding property. STAFFRPT\PP179 26 SECTION 2. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions of Approval have been added to the project, and a Negative Declaration, therefore, recommended. SECTION 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of Plot Plan No. 179 to construct a 57,284 square foot industrial building; and a 3,250 square foot testing facility located on the southwest corner of Rio Nedo and Tierra Alta Way and known as Assessor's Parcel No. 909-290-036, 037, 060, and 061 subject to the following conditions: A. Exhibit A, attached hereto. SECTION 4_~. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of January, 1991. DENNIS CHINIAEFF CHAIRMAN I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 7th day of'January, 1991 by the following vote of the Commission: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS PLANNING COMMISSIONERS STAFFRPT\PP179 27 CITY OF TEMECULA CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Plot Plan No: 179 Project Description: Industrial Complex Assessor's Parcel No.: 60,534 Square Foot 909-290-036, 037, 060, and 061 Planninq Department The use hereby permitted by this plot plan is for a 57,28~ square foot office and industrial building containing 36,930 square feet of manufacturing/ warehouse/distribution area and 20,35t~ square feet of office space; and a 3,250 square foot testing facility on q.5 acres. The permittee shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, its agents, officers, and employees from any claims, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void, or annul, an approval of the City of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards, or legislative body concerning Plot Plan No. 179. The City of Temecula will promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Temecula and will cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the permittee of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the permittee shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Temecula. This approval shall be used within two (2) years of approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within the two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion, or the beginning of substantial utilization contemplated by this approval. This approval shall expire on January 7, 1993. The development of the premises shall conform substantially with that as shown on Plot Plan No. 179 marked Exhibit A, or as amended by these conditions. o Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine directly upon adjoining property or public rights-of-way. The applicant shall comply with the Engineering Department's Conditions of Approval which are included herein. STAFFRPT\PP179 28 o J o 10. 11. Prior to the issuance of grading or building permits, three (3) copies of a Parking, Landscaping, Irrigation, and Shading Plans shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. The location, number, genus, species, and container size of the plants shall be shown. Plans shall meet all requirements of Ordinance No. 3tt8, Section 18.12, and shall be accompanied by the appropriate filing fee. All landscaped areas shall be planted in accordance with approved landscape, irrigation, and shading plans prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed and all landscaped areas shall be maintained in a viable growth condition. Planting within ten (10) feet of an entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30) inches. A minimum of 162 parking spaces shall be provided in accordance with Section 18.12, Riverside County Ordinance No. 3t~8. 162 parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the Approved Exhibit A. The parking area shall be surfaced with asphaltic concrete paving to a minimum depth of 3 inches on ~ inches of Class II base. A minimum of 5 handicapped parking spaces shall be provided as shown on Exhibit A. Each parking space reserved for the handicapped shall be identified by a permanently affixed reflectori zed sign constructed of porcelain on steel, beaded text or equal, displaying the International Symbol of Accessibility. The sign shall not be smaller than 70 square inches in area and shall be centered at the interior end of the parking space at a minimum height if 80 inches from the bottom of the sign to the parking space finished grade, or centered at a minimum height of 36 inches from the parking space finished grade, ground, or sidewalk. A sign shall also be posted in a conspicuous place, at each entrance to the off-street parking facility, not less than 17 inches by 22 inches, clearly and conspicuously stating the following: "Unauthorized vehicles not displaying distinguishing placards or license plates issued for physically handicapped persons may be towed away at owner's expense. Towed vehicles may be reclaimed at or by telephone In addition to the above requirements, the surface of each parking place shall have a surface identification sign duplicating the Symbol of Accessibility in blue paint of at least 3 square feet in size. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall obtain clearance and/or permits from the following agencies: Planning Department Engineering Department Environmental Health School District Riverside County Flood Control Fire Department. STAFFRPT\PP179 29 12. 13. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. ;71. 22. A Plot Plan application for a Sign Program shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Director prior to occupancy. Building elevations shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit B. Materials used in the construction of all buildings shall be in substantial conformance with that shown on Exhibit B IColor Elevations) and Exhibit C I Materials Board). Roof-mounted equipment shall be shielded from ground view. Screening material shall be subject to Planning Department approval. In accordance with the written request of the developer to the City of Temecula. a copy of which is on file, and in furtherance of the agreement by the developer to contribute to the financing of public facilities, no building permit shall be issued by the City of Temecula for any units within the subject property until the developer, or the developer's successors or assignees. provides evidence of compliance with the terms of said agreement for the financing of public facilities. All trash enclosures shall be constructed prior to the issuance of occupancy permits. Each enclosure shall be six feet in height and shall be made with masonry block and a steel gate which screens the bins from external view. Landscaping plans shall incorporate the use of specimen canopy trees along streets and within the parking areas. All street lights and other outdoor lighting shall be shown on electrical plans submitted to the Department of Building and Safety for plan check approval and shall comply with the requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 655. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall comply with Ordinance No. 663 by paying the fee required by that ordinance which is based on the gross acreacje of the parcels proposed for development. Should Ordinance No. 663 be superseded by the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan prior to the payment of the fees required by Ordinance No. 663, the applicant shall pay the fee required under the Habitat Conservation Plan as implemented by County ordinance or resolution. Eight {8) Class III bicycle racks shall be provided in convenient locations as approved by the Planning Director to facilitate bicycle access to the project area. Prior to the issuance of building permits, performance securities, in amounts to be determined by the Director of Building and Safety to guarantee the installation of plantings, walls, and fences in accordance with the approved plan. and adequate maintenance of the Planting for one year, shall be filed with the Department of Building and Safety. STAFFRPT\PP179 30 23. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, all required landscape planting and irrigation shall have been installed and be in a condition acceptable to the Director of Building and Safety. The plants shall be healthy and free of weeds, disease, or pests. The irrigation system shall be properly constructed and in good working order. 25. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed underground. Prior to the issuance of grading permits and/or building permit, the developer or his successor's interest shall submit a mitigation monitoring program to the Planning Department for approval, which shall describe how compliance with required mitigation measures will be met and the appropriate monitoring timing of the mitigation. The applicant shall reimburse the City for all monitoring activity cost. 26. All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by this permit. 27. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the applicant shall submit an emergency response plan and an emergency evacuation plan to the Planning Department and Riverside County Fire Department for approval. 28. All outdoor storage shall be located within the loading area only and shall not exceed the height of six 16~) feet or that of the proposed concrete block screen wall, whichever is less. Such outdoor storage area shall be submitted for approval by the Planning Department. 29. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the applicant shall submit a ride- share program, pursuant to the guidelines of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, to the Planning Department for approval. Riverside County Fire Department 30. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings using the procedure established in Ordinance 5/46. 31. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of delivering 3000 GPM for a three ~3) hour duration at PSI residual operating pressure, which must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 32. A combination of on-site and off-site super fire hydrants, on a looped system (6x~x2x21/2), will be located not less than 25 feet or more than 165 feet from any portion of the building as measured along approved vehicular travelways. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent hydrantl s) in the system. 33. Install panic hardware and exit signs as per Chapter 33 of the Uniform Building Code. STAFFRPT\PP179 31 34. 35. 36. 37, 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. Certain designated areas will be required to be maintained as fire lanes. Install portable fire extinguishers with a minimum rating of 2A-10BC. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant/developer shall be responsible to submit a check or money order in the amount of $558.00 to the Riverside County Fire Department for plan check fees. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the developer shall deposit with the City of Temecula, a check or money order equaling the sum of 25 cents per square foot as mitigation for fire protection impacts. This amount must be submitted separately from the plan check review fees. Final conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed in the Building and Safety Office. Warehouse and Manufacturinq Buildinq Install a complete fire sprinkler system. The post indicator valve and fire department connection shall be located to the front of the building, within 50 feet of a fire hydrant, and a minimum of 25 feet from the building. A statement that the building will be automatically fire sprinkled must appear on the title sheet of the building plans. Install a supervised waterflow monitoring fire alarm system. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department prior to installation as per UBC. Quantities of hazardous materials stored and used in warehouse building shall be stored in proper containers and shall not exceed amounts listed in table 9A UBC 11988). Hazardous Chemical and Waste Storaqe Buildinq Install dry chemical fire extinguishing system. Plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for approval prior to installation. Hazardous material building shall be a minimum 50 feet from any building or property line. Test Buildinq a. Install extra hazard fire sprinkler system in building. b. Install a minimum 40 BC fire extinguisher in the building. General Propane tank must be a minimum 10 feet away from property lines, plans must be submitted to the Fire Department for Approval prior to installation. STAFFRPT\PP179 32 ITEM NO. 8 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Council/City Manager Planning Department January 22, 1991 Revised Vesting Tentative Tract No. 23143, and Change of Zone No. 5535. PREPARED BY: R ECOMMEN DAT I ON: Scott Wright Staff recommends that the City Council: Continue Revised Tentative Tract No. 23143, and Change of Zone No. 5535 to the January 29, 1991 City Council Meeting. DISCUSSION: RECOMMENDATION: The applicant has a scheduled meeting with the adjoining property owners, Homeowner Association, on January 17, 1991, The meeting is to discuss the tract design in relation to the 200 to 300 foot open space buffer required by the Planning Commission to address the concerns of some of the property owners in the adjoining development. The adjoining development is a large lot(2 1/2 acre minimum lot size) rural type development. The additional buffer was added to separate the proposed higher density and the existing large lot development. Staff wants to include a written statement regarding the January 17, 1991 meeting in the Council Packet for the Council to have a complete report to review for the Public Hearing on this project. Staff recommends that the City Council: Continue Revised Tentative Tract No. 23143 and Change of Zone No. 5535 to January 29, 1991. STAFFRPT\TM23143 1 ITEM NO. 9 ITEM NO. 10 ITEM NO. 11 ORDINANCE NO 90- AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING ORDINANCE NO 457 "UNIFORM BUILDING CODE" OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA BY THE ADDITION OF SECTION 4- K, WHICH MODIFIES THE 1988 EDITION OF THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, AS ADOPTED BY SAID CITY, BY ADDING CHAPTER 71, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE IDENTIFICATION OF SEISMIC HAZARDS AND THE MITIGATION THEREOF AS REQUIRED BY GOVERNMENT CODE 8875 ET SEQ WHEREAS, Temecula, like most California Cities is subject to periodic earthquakes; and, WHEREAS, SB 547, now codified as Government Code Section 8875 et see., enacted by the State of California in 1986 requires that all cities within Seismic Zone 4 to identify all potentially hazardous buildings and to establish a program for mitigation of identified potentially hazardous buildings; and, WHEREAS, In the City of Temecula there are several unreinforced masonry structures which may be subject to SB 547. NOW, THEREFORE, The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Section 4, "Uniform Building Code", of the Code of the City of Temecula is hereby amended by the addition of a new subsection (K) as further amendments to the 1988 edition of the Uniform Building Code to read as follows: Section 4-K Chapter 71 is hereby added to read as follows: "Chapter 71 SEISMIC HAZARDS IDENTIFICATION PROGRAM Sections 71.01 - 71.09 71.01 71.02 71.03 71.04 71.05 Purpose Definitions Potentially Hazardous Buildings Exemptions Identification Process FORMS\ORD-002 I STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF TEMECULA ) SS I, June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, HEREBY DO CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance No. 90- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Temecula on the __ day of , 1990, by the following roll call vote. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk FORMS\ORD-002 13 (e) "Civil Engineer or Structural Engineer" means an active, licensed civil or structural engineer registered by the State of California pursuant to the rules and regulations of Title 16, Chapter 5 of the California Code of Regulations. (f) "External hazard" means an object attached to or forming the exterior facade of a building which may fall onto pedestrians or occupants of adjacent buildings. Examples of this type of hazard include, but are not limited to, the following: Nonstructural exterior all panels, such as masonry infill or decorative precast concrete. 2. Parapets. Marquees, awnings or other roof-like projections from a building. 4. Masonry or stone wall veneer and wall ornamentation, including cornices or other decorative appendages. 5. Masonry chimneys. 6. Tile roofing. Wall signs and exterior lighting fixtures hung from a building exterior. 8. Fire escapes or balconies. (g) "Occupants" means the total occupant load of a building determined by Table 33-A of the 1988 Uniform Building Code of the actual maximum number of occupants in that building if that number is less than seventy five percent (75%) of the number determined by using Table 33-A. The number of actual occupants may be documented by counting actual seating capacity if permanent seating is provided in occupancy, or by employee and client counts which can be substantiated as a practical maximum use of the space in the building. FORMS\ORD-002 3 (h) (j) (k) The Building Official will establish the procedure for documenting occupant loads. "Solution" means any justifiable method that will provide for the transfer of lateral forces through a system or connection to a degree which will substantially eliminate a potential collapse failure. A general description of the methods and materials to be used shall be included in sufficient detail to allow for a cost estimate of the solution to be made (i.e., adding shear walls, overlaying horizontal diaphragms, strengthening critical connections, etc.). "Unreinforced masonry (URM) building" means any building containing walls constructed wholly or partially with any of the following materials: 1. Unreinforced brick masonry. 2. Unreinforced concrete masonry. 3. Hollow clay tile. 4. Adobe or unburned clay masonry. Unreinforced refers to construction without imbedded metal rebar of 3/8" diameter minimum or wire mesh meeting engineering standards for the specific building type in question. "Unreinforced masonry (URM) wall" is a masonry wall in which the area of reinforcing steel is less than twenty five percent (25%) of that required by the Building Code for reinforced masonry. "Unreinforced masonry bearing wall" is a URM wall which provides the vertical support for a floor or roof for which the total superimposed load is over one hundred (100) pounds per linear foot of wall. FORMS\ORD-002 4 71.03 Potentially Hazardous Buildings 71.04 71.05 The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to all existing buildings in Seismic Zone 4 having at least one unreinforced masonry bearing wall. Except as provided herein, all other provisions of the Building Code shall apply. Exemptions This Chapter shall not apply to: Detached one or two family dwellings and detached apartment houses containing less than 5 dwelling units and used solely for residential purposes. Essential Facilities as defined in Table 23-K of the Building Code. Hazardous Facilities as defined in Table 23-K of the Building Code. Buildings designated as historical landmarks or preservation districts as designated by ordinance of the City Council, provided such buildings comply with all the requirements provided in said Ordinance. Federal Buildings, State Buildings and Public Schools, for which the City has no jurisdiction. o Buildings which have been structurally upgraded in substantial accordance with the 1973, or later, edition of the Uniform Building Code. Identification Process (a) Survey. The Building Official will cause to be completed a survey of structure in the community and research of available records to develop preliminary list of potentially hazardous buildings. As required by SB 547, the Building Official will cause said list to be submitted to the California Seismic Safety Commission. FORMS\ORD-002 5 (b) Initial Owner Notification. The property owners whose buildings have been identified on the preliminary list shall be notified by the City that their building has been identified as being potentially hazardous within the scope of this Ordinance, and that if this building is on the final Listing that they will be required to have an engineering report prepared on the structural adequacy of this building. The initial notification will include a request for submission of any and all information within ninety (90) days as to the building's age, structure, occupancy, repairs or improvements to strengthen the building, and documentation if their structure may qualify for an exemption. 71.06 Final Listing of Potentially Hazardous Buildings At a scheduled public hearing, notice of which will be provided to the property owners of each building on the preliminary list, the City Council will consider all evidence, testimony and the recommendations of Building and Safety in developing a final Listing of Potentially Hazardous Buildings. 71.07 Order and Recordation Within thirty (30) days of the City Council's determination, the City Clerk shall cause to have issued an order to each and every owner of buildings on the final Listing of Potentially Hazardous Buildings. The order shall be in writing and shall be served either personally or by certified or registered mail upon the owner as shown on the last equalized assessment, and upon the person, if any, in apparent charge or control of the building. The order shall specify that the building has been determined by the City to be within the scope of this Ordinance, and, therefore is required to prepare an engineering report as outlined in Section 71.08 of this Ordinance. Said engineering report shall be submitted to the City's Building and Safety Division within six (6) months of the date of the mailed notice. At the time that the aforementioned order is served, the City Clerk shall file with the office of the County Recorder a certificate stating that the subject building is within the scope of this Ordinance and that the owner has been ordered to FORMS\ORD-002 6 structurally analyze the building and file an engineering report with the City within six (6) months of that date. 71.08 Appeal from Order The owner of the building may appeal the building official's initial determination that the building is within the scope of this Chapter to the Board of Appeals established by Section 204 of the Building Code. Such appeal shall be filed with the Board within thirty (30) days from the service date of the order described in Section 71.07 of this chapter. Any such appeal shall be decided by the Board no later than ninety (90) days after writing and the grounds thereof shall be stated clearly and concisely. Appeals or requests for modifications from any other determinations, orders or actions by the building official pursuant to the Chapter shall be made in accordance with the procedures established in Sections 105 and 106 of the Building Code. 71.09 Engineering Reports (a) Preparation of Reports. Building owners of potentially hazardous buildings shall employ a civil or structural engineer to prepare the investigation and engineering report outlined below and as referenced to Appendices A and B. (b) Purpose. The engineer shall investigate, in a thorough and unambiguous fashion, the building's structural systems that resist the forces imposed by earthquakes and to determine if any individual portion or combination of these systems is inadequate to result in a structural failure (collapse or partial collapse). (c) General. Each building shall be treated as an individual case without prejudice or comparison to similar type or age building which may have greater or lesser earthquake resistance. Generalities or stereotypes are to be avoided in the evaluation process by focusing on the specifics of the structural system of the building in question and the local geology of the land on which the building is constructed. FORMS\ORD-002 7 (d) Level of Investigation. Some buildings may require extensive testing and field investigation to uncover potential structural deficiencies, while others will allow the same level of overall evaluation by a less complicated process due to the simplicity of design or the availability of original or subsequent alteration design or construction documents. (e) Format for the Report. The following is a basic outline of the format each engineering report should follow. This outline shall not be construed to be a constraint on the professional preparing the report, but rather to provide a skeleton framework within which individual approaches to assembling the information required by the Ordinance may be accomplished. It shall serve as a means for the City to evaluate the completeness of each report. General Information. A description of the building including: (i) street address; (ii) the type of occupancy use within the building, with separate uses that generate different occupant loads indicated on a plan showing the square footage of each different use; plans and elevations showing the location, type and extent of lateral force resisting elements in the buildings (both horizontal and vertical elements); (iv) a description of the construction materials used in the structural elements and information regarding their present condition; (v) the date of original construction, if known, and the date, if known, of any subsequent additions or substantial structural alterations of the building; and FORMS\ORD-002 8 (f) (vi) the name and address of the original designer and contractor, if known, and the name and address of the designer and contractor, if known, for any subsequent additions or substantial structural alterations. Investigation and Evaluation of Structural Systems. All items to be investigated and the methods of investigation for each type of building under consideration are contained in Appendices A and B, attached hereto. Test Reports. All field and laboratory test results shall be included in the report. Evaluation of the significance of these test results shall be made with regard to each structural system or typical connection being evaluated. This evaluation may be limited to a statement of the adequacy or inadequacy of the system or connection based on the lateral load demand it would be required to resist by calculation. If tests reveal inadequacy, a conceptual solution must be included in the report. Conclusions. Based on the demand/capacity ratio and the specific evaluation items contained in Appendices A and B, a statement shall be provided explaining the overall significance of the deficiencies found to exist in the building's lateral force resisting system regarding potential collapse or partial collapse failure. Recommendations. An appropriate solution, which could be used to strengthen the structure to alleviate any collapse or partial collapse threat, shall be specified. Exceptions and Alternatives. Exceptions to the specific items required to be included in an engineering report may be granted by the Building Official upon review of a written request from the engineer preparing the report. Such a request shall provide evidence that adequate FORMS\ORD-002 9 information concerning the required item(s) can be determined by alternate means or that conclusion can be made about the item without following the solution called for in the appropriate appendix. The purpose of granting such exceptions shall be to reduce the costs or disruption that would result from taking required actions, when it can be shown that they are unnecessary to provide information available by other equivalent means. In no case will an exception be granted which would result in an item not being completely evaluated. The decision of the Building Official in granting exceptions is final. 71.09 Review of Reoorts (a) City Building and Safety Officials will review the report, with the assistance of civil and structural engineers as necessary, to determine whether the report conforms with the requirements of this Ordinance. (b) The cost of this review shall be recovered by a fee assessed from the building owner based on the time required for the review. This fee amount may be deducted from or partially credited to the plan checking fee collected for any future construction work that deals directly with correcting any of the structural inadequacies specified in the engineering report. (c) Copies of the engineering report shall be available to interested individuals for a standard copying fee or may be reviewed at the Building and Safety Offices during regular office hours. 71.10 Responsibilities of Building Owners (a) Availability of Report. The report shall be available to the tenants of the buildings. (b) If the building is found in compliance, another notice of that fact will be recorded to that effect. FORMS\ORD-002 10 71.11 71.12 71.13 (c) Letter of Intent. A building owner shall submit a letter to the City Building and Safety Office within six (6) months of the date the engineering report was submitted, indicating the owner's intentions for dealing with the potential collapse hazards found to exist in the building. Status Reports The Building Official shall submit periodic reports, not less than annually, to the City Council on the status of the seismic hazards identification program. The reports shall include information regarding the number of buildings analyzed, the severity of the structural inadequacies discovered and any action taken by individual building owners to correct these inadequacies. Abatement of Dangerous Buildings If satisfactory progress is not made or intent plans of the building are not followed, the City may process the structure as a Dangerous Building pursuant to City Building Code Section 203, et. seq. Remedies It shall be unlawful for the owner of a building identified as being in the scope of this Ordinance to fail to submit a report on either building collapse hazards or external hazards, provide notice or to fail to submit a letter to intent within the time periods specified in this Ordinance. The following remedies are available to the City: (a) The City may seek injunctive relief on behalf of the public to enjoin a building owner's violation of this Ordinance. (b) A building owner violating this Ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punishable in accordance with Section 1.01.200 of the Code of the City of Temecula. FORMS\ORD-002 11 SECTION 2. The City Council Hereby finds that this Ordinance is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15031 (d), 15309 and 15321, pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines. SECT/ON 3. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause it to be posted in at least three public places in the City. FIRSTREAD at a of meeting held on the regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on the day , 1990, and finally adopted and order posted at a regular __ day of , 1990. Ronald J. Parks, Mayor ATTEST: June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk [SEAL] FORMS\ORD-002 12 and 2) the potential threat to pedestrians or occupants of adjacent buildings from falling external hazards. (b) Capacity vs. Demand of the Existing Structural System and Its Elements. Define the overall types of lateral force resisting system used in the building based on Table 23-1 of the 1973 Uniform Building Code. If the building has a dual or hybrid system, describe the systems and explain how they function both in combination and separately to justify the "K" factor to be chosen. For each type of diaphragm, shear wall, moment frame, braced frame and interconnection of lateral force resisting systems provide an analysis of the loads (demand) which these elements would be subject to based on the design parameters set forth in the 1973 edition of the Uniform Building Code. J For each type of diaphragm, shear wall, frame and interconnection of lateral force resisting system determine a maximum capacity based on currently accepted or published allowable values, adjusted as appropriate for the material involved when used to resist earthquake forces. Provide a ratio of capacity to demand for each system or interconnection evaluated in (2) and (3) above and provide a statement of the significance of this ratio, regarding the potential for failures which could lead to a collapse, considering the materials used and the type of lateral force resisting system present. (c) Specific Evaluation Items. The report shall contain a statement regarding the significance of each item in this section which is found to occur in the building· (1) General. Ae Assess the condition of the structure, the quality of workmanship, the level of maintenance and the type of construction with regard to the potential loss of strength in the structural systems due to decay or deterioration. FORMS\ORD-002 A-2 APPENDIX A Procedures for Investigation of All Buildings (Except Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall Types) (a) Preliminary Field Survey. Provide drawings of the building in plan, elevation and section sufficiently detailed to reveal the correct dimensions of the spans and extent of all structural elements in the building, including openings in walls and changes in framing directions or other data which will be used to evaluate the building. (b) Areas of Special Investigation. Specify the type of roof diaphragm used in the building and its capacity for transfer of lateral forces. If the building is multi-story specify the existing floor diaphragm at each level above the foundation and give its capacity for transfer of lateral forces. Specify the types and spacing of connections used at each level to transfer the forces of the horizontal diaphragms into the vertical shear resisting elements of the structure, and the capacity for transfer of each type of connection present in the building. .. Specify the type of vertical structural elements which resist lateral forces and their individual capacities as determined either by testing or use of standard values for the types of construction found in the vertical elements. Specify the type and spacing of connections used to connect vertical shear resisting elements to each other and to the building foundation, and the capacity for transfer of each type of connection present. Specify the type of foundation system used and note any evidence of settlement. Specify the type of connection used to attach wall appendages or precast wall elements to the structural frame. Standards for the Analysis and Evaluation of All Buildings (Except Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall Types). (a) Purpose. The objective of these investigations is to identify and quantify the structural inadequacies that may be present in a building which could lead to a collapse or partial collapse during an earthquake. The focus of the reports should be; 1) determining the potential life safety threat that the building presents to its occupants, FORMS\ORD-002 A-1 (4) (5) (6) Assess the level of drift control, particularly at open storefronts and the actual physical separation distance between the exterior walls of the building and adjoining building walls. Assess condition where the all of a building on one property provides support for structural elements of the adjoining property's building. Non-Ductile Reinforced Concrete Frames. Consider non-ductile frames which act alone without the benefit of shear walls or braced frames. Assess the level of compression or shear forces due to existing vertical loads on the critical supporting elements of the frame. Go Assess masonry infill walls between frame members and their effect on the forces a column/beam joint will be subjected to when attempting to transmit lateral forces into these walls. Precast Concrete Connections. Assess the effects of temperature creep and shrinkage of concrete surrounding welded insert connections to precast systems and elements. B. Consider the potential brittle failure of such connections. Non-Structural Elements. Assess the effect that partitions, infill walls, precast concrete exterior (architectural) elements and ceiling systems, which have considerable strength and stiffness characteristics, may have on the overall response of the building. Assess the effect of inadvertent bracing by non- structural elements such as infill walls, stair stringers or other situations of localized restraint on columns. FORMS\ORD-002 A-4 (2) (3) Assess the redundancy exhibited in the structural system and the reserve capacity that elements of the system may provide. Assess the presence or lack of ductility in the lateral force resisting elements and ductility differences due to the use of dissimilar materials in the horizontal and vertical diaphragms. De Assess how adequately the building is tied together in an overall sense to allow the lateral force resisting systems an opportunity to receive the forces they are designed to resist. Geometry. Consider how and where torsional (rotation) forces induced by the eccentricity of the building center of mass to its center or rigidity, are taken into the lateral force resisting system and identify the individual elements which will transmit these additional forces. Assess the potential capacity these elements have to resist the additional loads from this source. Consider the effect of discontinuities in the lateral force resisting systems with regard to the existence of adequate ties, boundary members, chords or drag struts, etc., to allow redistribution of forces. Assess the capacity of the systems or elements which would receive the redistributed forces if adequate ties exist. Consider the effects of reentrant corners (including the shape of individual columns) and assess their contribution to the response of the building at locations where they occur. Building Separation. Consider the effects of adjoining buildings, which may have different vibration periods resulting in consynchronized movement of the adjacent exterior walls, placing out of plane impact forces on these walls. FORMS\ORD-002 A-3 APPENDIX B Procedures for Investigation of Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall Buildings (a) Preliminary Field Survey. Prepare framing plans for roof and floors noting all beams, trusses or major lintels of all URM piers or pilasters. Prepare elevations of all URM walls noting all openings i the walls and any discontinuities above the building base. (b) Special investigations of the following nature must be made: Note all parts of the vertical load carrying system that may act as ties to lateral load-resisting elements, to determine the elements or systems that may control relative displacements between the building's base, floors and roof. Note on floor plans all interior crosswalls that are continuous between floors or floor and roof, even if the connection of such walls to the floor or roof is only by finishes· Draw the relationship of roof or floor framing and ceiling framing to determine the extent and method of any, of their inter-connection. Draw the support systems for URM walls that are not continuous to the building base noting the materials used to provide that support. (i.e., steel, frame, concrete frame, etc.) Draw on floor and roof plans the extent of sheathing and finish materials and describe their nature and nailing pattern. Note any difference in material used which could lead to substantial variations in diaphragm stiffness· Opening of floors or roof adjacent to URM walls must be noted. Note the type of roofing system currently in place and note if this roofing is applied directly to the main roof deck or if there are locations where it is on a cricket or other superimposed deck. (c) Investigation of current anchorage or URM walls to floors and roof. Show the location of all wall anchors on the floor/roof plans and specify their spacing, size, and method of connection. Details of the existing anchorage system should be prepared. Embedded portions of anchors must be exposed to determine this level of detail. A minimum of two percent (2%) or two (2) anchors exposed per floor or roof level should establish average conditions· FORMS\ORD-002 B-1 Ce Assess the potential stress concentrations at the unrestrained ends of columns which may result from partial restraint or bracing of columns. (7) Site Geology. Consider the maximum ground shaking intensity for the building site and liquefaction potential or susceptibility by using available earthquake hazard maps. So Assess any existing site specific geology/soils reports to gauge the effects that the local conditions may have on the overall response of the building. FORMS\ORD-002 A-5 The rod anchor shall be given a reload of 300 points prior to establishing a datum of recording elongation. The tension test load reported shall be recorded at 1/8" relative movement of the anchor to the adjacent masonry wall surface, The testing of existing URM walls to determine the allowable bed joint shear is required in accordance with the following requirements. In Place Shear Tests of Brick Masonry. The bed joints of the outer wythe of the masonry shall be tested in shear by laterally displacing a single brick relative to the adjacent bricks in the wythe. The opposite head joint of the brick to be tested shall be removed and cleaned prior to testing. Steel bearing plates of the full dimension of the brick shall be inserted at each end of the test jack. The bearing plates shall nQ~ contact the mortar joint. The minimum quality mortar in 80 percent of the shear tests shall not be less than the total of 30 psi when reduced to an equivalent zero axial stress. The shear stress shall be based on the gross area of both bed joints and shall be that at which movement of the adjacent brick is first observe. The minimum quantity of tests shall be two (2) per wall or line of wall elements resisting a common force (i.e., per story) or one (1) per 1,500 square feet of total URM wall surface, with a minimum of 8 tests for any building. The tests should be conducted at least two brick courses above or below the bond course and be distributed vertically to include a variety of dead load surcharge situations. The exact test location shall be determined at the building site by the engineer responsible for the investigation and the distribution of such tests must be approved by the building official prior to actual testing. In single story buildings, the wall above the lintel beam at an open storefront need not be tested. (a) Analysis. 1. Standards for the Analysis and Evaluation of Unreinforced Masonry Bearing Wall Buildings. General The total lateral seismic forces should be computed in accordance with the following equation: V = IKCSW FORMS\ORD-002 B-3 (d) Investigation of existing URM walls. Investigate the following items if they occur in the building, and determine: 1. The thickness of URM wall at all levels and location of any changes in thickness. The materials used for lintels and masonry arches and their bearing area on columns or piers. 3. The materials used in columns or piers supporting lintel beams or arches. The height of parapets, cornices, and gable ends of URM walls above the uppermost existing anchorages. The anchorage or bonding of terra cotta, cast-stone or similar facing to the back up wythes of brickwork at cornices and other architectural appendages. The coursing of exterior wythes of masonry, the bonding of vvythes of masonry, and the materials used in each wythe. The condition of mortar joints and areas of lightly unburned brick should be noted in the wall elevations. Existing cracks in wall elements should also be noted· (e) Testing. The testing of existing anchorage systems must be made to determine an average capacity. Testing shall be accomplished in accordance with the following requirements. Existing Wall Anchors of URM Buildings. Ten (10) percent of existing rod anchors shall be tested in pullout by an approved testing laboratory. The minimum tested quantity shall be four (4) per floor or roof level, with two (2) tests at walls with framing perpendicular to the walls and two (2) at walls with framing parallel to the wall. The test apparatus shall be supported on the masonry wall at a minimum distance of the wall thickness from the anchor tested. Where due to obstructions this is not possible, details of the condition encountered and the alternate method used must be included in the test result report, with calibration adjustment for conditions where the reaction of the test apparatus contributes to the tension value of the anchor. FORMS\ORD-002 B-2 (b) 6. Analysis Procedure. Stresses in materials and existing construction utilized to transfer seismic forces from the ground to parts of portions of the structure shall conform to those permitted by the UBC and those types of materials of construction specified under the Materials of Construction Section (b). In addition to the seismic forces required, unreinforced masonry walls shall be analyzed as specified in the UBC to withstand all vertical loads. When calculating shear or diagonal tension stresses due to seismic forces, existing masonry shear walls may be allowed to resist 1.0 times the required forces in lieu of the 1.5 factor required in unreinforced masonry walls. Walls not capable of resisting the required design forces specified in this appendix shall be deemed inadequate. Exception: Unreinforced masonry walls which carry no design loads other than their own weight may be considered as veneer if they are adequately anchored to elements which are not part of the existing lateral force resisting system. 7. Existing Materials. When stress in existing lateral force resisting elements are due to a combination of dead loads plus live loads plus seismic loads, the allowable working stress specified in the UBC may be increased 100 percent. However, no increase will be permitted in the stresses allowed in Section (b). The stresses in members due only to seismic and deal loads shall not exceed the values permitted in the UBC > 8. Allowable Reduction of Bending Stress by Vertical Load. Calculated tensile fiber stress may be reduced by the full direct stress due to vertical deal loads. Materials of Construction. 1. General All materials permitted by this code, including their appropriate allowable stresses and those existing configurations of material specified herein, may be utilized to show adequacy of existing construction. FORMS\ORD-002 B-5 The value of KCS need not exceed the value set forth in Table B1-1. The value of / shall be equal to 1.0. The value of VV shall be set forth in the Uniform Building code. Lateral Forces on Elements of Structures. Parts or portions of buildings and structures shall be analyzed for lateral loads in accordance with Chapter 23 of the UBC but not less than the value of the following equation: Fp - ICpSWp For the provisions of this section, the product of IS need not exceed 1.0. The value of Cp and Wp shall be as set forth in the UBC. Exception' Unreinforced masonry walls may be analyzed in accordance with Section (b). The elements of buildings required to be analyzed shall include the following: Wall height to thickness ratio. Tension bolts for bending. In-plane shear forces. Parapets. Diaphragm stress and diaphragm chords at floors and roof. Anchorage and Interconnection. Anchorage and interconnection of all parts, portions and elements of the structure shall be analyzed for lateral forces in accordance with the ##?UBC and the formula in Subsection 2 above. Masonry walls shall be anchored to all floors or roof to resist a minimum of 200 pounds per linear foot of load per analyses acting normal to the wall at the level of the floor or roof or will be considered inadequate. Required Analysis. Except as modified herein, the analysis and recommended structural alteration of the structure shall be in accordance with the analysis specified in the currently adopted edition of the Uniform Building Code. A complete, continuous load path from every part or portion of the structure to the ground shall be shown to exist for required lateral forces. All parts, portions or elements of the structure shall be shown to be interconnected by positive means. FORMS\ORD-002 B-4 Design seismic in-plan shear stresses shall be related to test results in accordance with Table B1-4. Intermediate values between 3 and 10 psi may be interpolated. Compression stresses for unreinforced masonry having a minimum design shear value of 3 psi shall not exceed 100 psi. Design tension values for unreinforced masonry shall not be permitted. 6. Construction Details. All unreinforced masonry walls shall be anchored at all floors and roof with tension bolts through the wall or by existing rod anchors at a maximum spacing of six feet. All existing rod anchors shall be secured to the joists to develop the required forces. Testing of the existing rod anchors shall be conducted according to Section (e) of the investigation portion of this appendix. Diaphragm cord stresses of horizontal diaphragms shall be developed in existing materials or be considered inadequate. Where trusses or beams other than rafters and joists are supported on masonry piers, these piers must be shown to provide adequate support during seismic loading. Parapets and exterior wall appendages not capable of resisting the forces specified in this appendix shall be considered hazardous, and the methods for property anchorage must be developed. FORMS\ORD-002 B-7 2. Existing Materials. Unreinforced masonry walls analyzed in accordance with this appendix may provide vertical support for roof and floor construction and resistance to lateral loads. The bonding of such walls shall be as specified in the UBC. Tension stresses due to seismic forces acting normal to the wall may be neglected if the wall does not exceed the Height to Thickness ratio and the in- plane shear stresses due to seismic loads set forth in Table B1-2. If the Wall Height or Length to Thickness ratio exceeds the specified limits, the wall will be considered inadequate unless braced by vertical members designed to satisfy the requirement of the UBC. The deflection of such bracing members at design loads shall not exceed one-tenth of the wall thickness. Exception: The wall may be supported by flexible vertical bracing members designed in accordance with the appendix if the deflection at design spacing of vertical bracing members shall not exceed one-half the unsupported height of the wall or ten feet, whichever is less. 3. Existing Roof, Floors, Walls, Footings and Wood Framing. Existing materials, including wood shear walls may be used as part of the lateral load resisting system, provided that the stresses in these materials do not exceed the values shown in Table B1-3. Wood shear walls may be recommended to strengthen portions of the existing seismic resisting system. 4. Minimum Acceptable Quality of Existing Unreinforced Masonry Walls. All unreinforced masonry walls, utilized to carry vertical loads and seismic forces parallel and perpendicular to the wall plane shall be tested as specified in Section (e) of the investigation portion of this appendix. All masonry shall be of a quality not less than the minimum standards established or shall be considered inadequate. Pointing of mortar of all masonry wall joints may be performed prior to testing if joints are raked and cleaned to remove loose and deteriorated mortar. Mortar shall be Type S or N, except masonry cements shall not be used. All preparation and pointing shall be done under the continuous inspection of a special inspector, whose reports shall be included in the final report. Determination of Allowable Stresses for Design Methods Based on Test Results. FORMS\ORD-002 B-6 ITEM NO. 12 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT City Manager/City Council Mayor Ron Parks January 22, 1991 WRCOG Mission and Goals RECOMMENDATION: Approve an official position for the City of Temecula and authorize the Mayor to so advise the Western Riverside Council of Governments. BACKGROUND: The attached draft mission and goals were presented to the WRCOG at the December 4, 1990 meeting. Members were asked to take this information back to their councils for review and comment. Mr. A. J. Wilson, Executive Director of WRCOG, will be available to answer questions. WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS DRAFT MISSION AND GOALS MISSION: To serve the citizens of Western Riverside County through effective cooperative efforts local government to enhance the quality of life, improve the quality of governmental services, and increase cooperation and consideration between local governments and other public agencies. GOALS: A. Enhancing the quality of life in Western Riverside County 1st Priority: 2nd Priority: 3rd Priority: 1. Provide for efficient traffic circulation. 2. To provide for excellent air quality. 3. To provide quality water. 4. To effectively manage growth. 5. To maintain and increase open space. 6. To provide quality waste water treatment. 7. To encourage economic development and job creation. 1. To improve the quality of public transportation. 2. To increase regional parks and recreation opportunities. 3. To improve and develop the public infrastructure. 4. Address environmental issues. 1. Improve child care programs/facilities. 2. Address the problem of homelessness. 3. Increase/improve cultural facilities. 4. Increase low/moderate income housing opportunities. B. To improve the quality of public~ services in Western Riverside County. 1st Priority: 1. 2nd Priority: 3rd Priority: Improve the quality of waste water treatment facilities. 2. Improve the quality of water supply. 1. Improve law enforcement. 2. Improve drug enforcement. 3. Improve fire protection in urban areas. 4. Improve fire protection in .wild land areas. 1. Improve public health services. 2. Improve the quality of jails. 3. Improve the quality of courts/ Administration of Justice. 4. Improve the~quality of disaster preparedness programs. 5. To improve governance. To improve the coordination and cooperation between local governments. 1st Priority: 1. To establish effective growth management. Increase coordination on inter- governmental issues and problems. To clarify and increase cooperation between county and cities in spheres on influence. To work together to develop revenue enhancement measures. To provide uniform representation for Western Riverside Governments in lobbying state and federal governments. To establish cooperation and coordination with school districts to address the need for quality public education and to establish effective regional governance. 2nd Priority: 1. To establish cooperative/noncompetitive efforts between Western Riverside local ~governments. To coordinate programs of airports in Western Riverside County. To establish effective informational exchange programs. 3rd Priority: 1. To establish effective public utilities coordination. 2. To develop a revenue sharing program. To conduct joint efforts to increase international trade. GOALS AND PRIORITIES WORKSHEET The following areas were not included in the Draft Goals and Mission Statement, but should be added: 2. 3. 4. I would like to see the following areas changed in their placement on the priority list. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. PRIORITY PROPOSED ISSUE ON LIST PRIORITY 10. A G~NDA TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT A REGULAR MEETING JANUARY ~, f99f 8:00 PM CALL TO ORDER: ROLL CALL: PRESENTATIONS/ PROCLAMATIONS Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Mur~oz PUBLIC COMMENTS CSD BUSINESS Minutes RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Approve the minutes of January 8, 1990, as mailed. Mid-year Budget Review RECOMMENDATION: 2.1 Adopt a resolution to amend the annual operating budget of the Temecula Community Services ~)istrict for the Year 1990-91 entitled: RESOLUTION NO. CSD 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1990-91 ANNUAL BUDGET FOR CHANGES IN ESTIMA TED REVENUES AND APPROPRIATIONS. CSD Agenda 1/22/91 I Sports Park Restroom/Snack Bar Project RECOMMENDATION: 3.1 3.2 3.3 Approve the Sports Park Restroom/Snack Bar Project; Authorize RBA Architects to prepare plans and specifications; Authorize staff to advertise for formal bids on this project. Award Contract for Sports Park Ballfield Liehtine Project - Phase One RECOMMENDATION: 4.1 That the Board of Directors award construction contract for Phase One of the Sports Park Ballfield Lighting project to Assured Electrical, Inc. o La Serena Park RECOMMENDATION: 5.1 Accept donation of this 13.2 acre property (2.5 acres developed) on La Serena Way and approve development improvements to park area. Improvements include installing concrete, split-rail perimeter fencing, creating two sand areas, and installing playground equipment to those sand areas. COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT BOARD OF D/RECTORS REPORTS ADJOURNMENT Next meeting: February 12, 1991,8:00 PM, Temporary Temecula Community Center, 27475 Commerce Center Drive, Temecula, California CSD Agenda 1/22/91 2 ITEM NO. 1 MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT HELD JANUARY 8, 1990 A regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 8:15 PM, President Mu~oz presiding. PRESENT: 5 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Lindemans, Moore, Parks, Mu5oz ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None Also present were City Attorney Scott F. Field and June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk. PRESENTATIONS/ PRO CLA MA TIONS Shawn Nelson, Director of Community Services, introduced Herman Parker who will serve as the TCSD's Recreation Superintendent. President Mu~oz presented the Temecula Valley Soccer Association with a Certificate of Achievement, for their outstanding accomplishments during the 1990 Season. Mr. Steve Ford presented the members of the Board with Temecula Valley Soccer Association T-Shirts, and each of the youth soccer members shook hands with members of the Board. PUBLIC COMMENTS David Michael, 30300 Churchill Court, asked the status of discussions with the County of Riverside regarding uncollected fees fqr development of Parks in this area. Mr. Nelson reported that City Manager Dixon is actively involved in these negotiations. Mary Jane Henry, Chief Financial Officer, stated that in regards to the Quimby Fees, and Development Impact Fees, a letter has been directed to Gary Cotrell of the County of Riverside, but at the present time the City has received no indication of a willingness on the part of the County to work out this problem. 4\CSDMIN\010891 -1- 01/14/91 CSD Minutes January 8, 1991 CSD BUSINESS 1. Minutes It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Director Birdsall to approve the minutes of December 11, 1990, and December 18, 1990 as mailed. Director Lindemans stated he would abstain from the minutes of December 18, 1990 because he was not present. The motion was unanimously carried with Director Linderoans abstaining on the minutes of December 18, 1990. COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR REPORT Shawn Nelson, Director of Community Services, reported the bid opening date for the Phase One Ballfield Lighting Project is January 10, 1991 at 4:30 PM, after which these bids will be brought to the Board for award of contract. Mr. Nelson stated that a proposal for restroom and snack bar facilities at Sports Park will be on the next CSD Agenda on January 22, 1991, and the Master Plan for Sports Park should be ready for Board action in the next 30 to 45 days. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT None given. D/RECTORS REPORTS Director Parks requested an update on the progress being made on land acquisition for parks. ADJOURNMENT It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Director Moore to adjourn at 8:35 PM to a meeting on January 22, 1991 at 8:00 'PM, at the Temporary Temecula Community Center. The motion was unanimously carried. ATTEST: Sal Mu~oz, President June S. Greek, Deputy City Clerk 4\CSDMIN\010891 -2- 01/14/91 ITEM NO. 3 TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY ( ~_~ ^ FINANCE OFFICER ~[ ~_~ CITY MANAGER ~~ CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT BOARD OF DIRECTORS DAVID F. DIXON, CITY MANAGER JANUARY 22, 1991 SPORTS PARK RESTROOM/SNACK BAR PROJECT PREPARED BY: SHAWN D. NELSON, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: Approve the Sports Park Restroom/Snack Bar Project; authorize RBA Architects to prepare plans and specifications; and authorize staff to advertise for formal bids on this project. FISCAL IMPACT: Estimated cost of construction is $135,000.00. The development of plans and specifications for the formal bid process is $1,650.00. Monies are budgeted in the Capital Outlay section of the TCSD Operating Budget in account #5804 for the construction costs, and account #5802 for the development of plans and specifications. DISCUSSION Currently, there are no restroom facilities in the Rancho Vista fields of Sports Park to service the thousands of recreation participants that use this facility. This has created the need to use chemical toilets in the parking lot area to provide restroom needs. Also, a temporary snack bar was built by Little League in a parking space to provide that service. The construction of a block wall restroom/snack bar facility will provide a permanent, sanitary environment to enhance the recreation experience in Sports Park. Further, the TCSD will build the shell of the snack bar facility, and then allow the Temecula Sports Council to solicit community support to finish the inside requirements of the snack bar area. A site plan of the proposed restroom/snack bar facility is enclosed for your review. TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINm CE OFFICER CITY MANAGER CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT BOARD OF DIRECTORS DAVID F. DIXON, CITY MANAGER JANUARY 22, 1991 SPORTS PARK RESTROOM/SNACK BAR PROJECT PREPARED BY: SHAWN D. NELSON, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR RECOMMENDA T/ON: That the Board of Directors: Approve the Sports Park Restroom/Snack Bar Project; authorize RBA Architects to prepare plans and specifications; and authorize staff to advertise for formal bids on this project. FISCAL IMPACT.' Estimated cost of construction is $135,000.00. The development of plans and specifications for the formal bid process is $1,650.00. Monies are budgeted in the Capital Outlay section of the TCSD Operating Budget in account #5804 for the construction costs, and account #5802 for the development of plans and specifications. DISCUSSION Currently, there are no restroom facilities in the Rancho Vista fields of Sports Park to service the thousands of recreation participants that use this facility. This has created the need to use chemical toilets in the parking lot area to provide restroom needs. Also, a temporary snack bar was built by Little League in a parking space to provide that service. The construction of a block wall restroom/snack bar facility will provide a permanent, sanitary environment to enhance the recreation experience in Sports Park. Further, the TCSD will build the shell of the snack bar facility, and then allow the Temecula Sports Council to solicit community support to finish the inside requirements of the snack bar area. A site plan of the proposed restroom/snack bar facility is enclosed for your review. ITEM NO. 4 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER~~ CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT BOARD OF DIRECTORS DAVID F. DIXON, CITY MANAGER JANUARY 22, 1991 AWARD CONTRACT FOR SPORTS LIGHTING PROJECT- PHASE I PARK BALL FIELD PREPARED BY: SHAWN D. NELSON, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR RECOMMENDA T/ON: That the Board of Directors: Award construction contract for Phase I of the Sports Park Ball Field Lighting Project to Assured Electrical, Inc. FISCAL IMPACT: $182,000.00 was the lowest, qualified bid. Monies are budgeted for this project in the Capital Outlay section of the TCSD Operating Budget, account #5804. DISCUSSION: Phase I of the Sports Park Ball Field Lighting Project will install ball field lights to three (3) fields on the Rancho Vista fields in Sports Park. Bids were advertised in accordance with the City of Temecula's bid procedures and policies. The following bids were submitted: 1. Assured Electrical Contractors, Inc. - $182,000.00 2. A.M. La Salle Electrical, Inc. - $187,517.00 3. Power Distributors, Inc. - $203,150.00 Bid bonds and Contractor's Licenses were verified by TCSD Staff; and therefore, the low bid is in compliance with the City's requirements. No subcontractors will be used for this project. A copy of the bid opening log sheet and a plan of the fields involved in Phase I is enclosed for your review. BID OPENING DATE: PROJECT DESCRIFrlON: BIDDER: CITY OF TEMECULA BID OPENING LOG SHEET BID AMOUNT SERVICES BOND e 10. CC: B-010 City Clerk's Staff (3) Initiating Department (1) City Manager (1) Signed: Dated: , @ , ITEM NO. 5 APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY FINANCE OFFICER CITY MANAGER TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT BOARD OF DIRECTORS DAVID F. DIXON, CITY MANAGER JANUARY 22, 1991 DONATION OF PARK ON LA SERENA WAY PREPARED B~ SHAWN D. NELSON, COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors: Accept donation of this 13.2 acre property (2.5 acres developed) on La Serena Way and approve development improvememts to the park area. Improvements include installing concrete, split-rail perimeter fencing, creating two (2) sand areas, and installing playground equipment to those sand areas. FISCAL IMPACT: The $60,000.00 is budgeted in the Capital Outlay section of the TCSD Operating Budget, in account #5804. DISCUSSION: This 13.2 acre park property on La Serena Way is in the Margarita Village Specific Plan. This park was required by the County as a condition of approval, and NO credit was given to the developer towards development agreement fees for this park. Further, in any future Quimby requirements associated with the Margarita Village Specific Plan, staff will recommend that NO credit be given for this park towards any Quimby requirements. However, since this park area is strictly a donation, it is staff's opinion that renovations to the park can enhance the safety and usefulness of the site. There are two main problems with the park in its current form: a) its narrow shape sloped towards a busy street; and, b) its lack of recreation amenities to attract residents to use the facility. These problems can be mitigated by installing perimeter fencing and playground equipment. These improvements would provide a higher level of safety and would attract families to the park facility. CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT Park at La Serena Way Page 2 Staff recommends a concrete, split-rail perimeter fence to prevent children from running onto La Serena Way, while preserving the aesthetic and rural theme of the site. The concrete, split-rail fencing would be installed at a height where a soccer ball could not roll under or go through the fencing. The playground equipment will have a minimum of 12" of soft sand, and a standard of care safety inspection program will be implemented to insure a high level of safety. There is a serious need to provide neighborhood park facilities in the City of Temecula. If the TCSD were to acquire and develop a 2.5 acre neighborhood park, the estimated costs would be $500,000.00. Although the site has some flaws in terms of shape and traffic issues, the mitigation measures can reduce those concerns, and provide a 2.5 acre neighborhood park to the TCSD for $60,000.00. I have enclosed an illustration of the concrete, split-rail perimeter fencing and a copy of the grant deed for your review. Features a rugged woodgrain texture on all sides of the posts and rails, including the distinctive post tops. The traditional beauty of the system makes it ideal for estates and ranches, bridle trails, homes, golf courses, parks and livestock corrals. Although uniform integral color is standard, once installed, the fence can be easilv painted. Steel reinforced rails and posts will not deteriorate and the system is safe from horse chewing and termites. The Woodcrete Rail System is available in two, three or four rail heights. Rccordcd nl rcquc,'~t of n.d rcturml Depnr{mel~t o1' Buikli.§ Scrvice.~ Real Properly M,'lna~ement [)ivlsion ..31.33 7th Strcct Riverside, California 92507 FREE I~,ECOP, DIN(} This in.~trumcnt i.~ for the bc,efit or the County of Rivcrsidc and is cnlitlcd to be recorded without roe. (Govt. Code 6103). i'arccl: Parcel Map 23890 l'rojcct:La Serena Park (~05122) FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDF_,RA'FION, receipt of which is hc[eby acknowledged, Bedford Development Company ("GRANTOR") hereby grants and conveys to the City of Temecula Community Service District ("GRANTEE"), together with the right to further grant or transfer the same to others, a fee simple estate for the purpose of maintaining, operating, altering, repairing, and replacing equipment and landscaping over and within the boundaries of, all that certain real property located in the County of Riverside, State of California, more particularly described in "Exhibit A" attached hereto, which is in6orporated .herein by this reference (tile "Maintenance Area") . If GRANTEE, or its governmental entity, successors or assigns, determines it is unable, incapable, or unwilling to maintain said Maintenance Area, then maintenance shall, after notice, become the responsibility of GRANTOR, with all covenants and agreements of this conveyance extending to and becoming obligated of all heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of the GRANTOR. State of California County of Contra Costa On November 7, 1990, before me the undersigned, a Notary Public in for said county and state, personally appeared Peter B. Bedford personally known to me to be the person~ who executed the within instrument as President on behalf of Bedford Development Company, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the within instrument pursuant to its by-laws or a resolution of its board of directors. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature My commission expires on March 29, 1991. Pete~ B. Bedford - P e~nt DATED STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. i.' COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) On , 1990, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Peter B. Bedford, known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged that he executed the same. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the within deed to the CITY OF TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICE DISTRICT, a political corporation and/orni~nmental agency, is hereby accepted by order of the Board of-~'~g~f~s~rs-on the date below and the grantee consents to the recordation thereof by its dully authorized officer. Date TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT PRESIDENT ROBERT BEIN, WILLIAM FROST AND ASSOCIATES 28765 Single Oak Drive, Suite 250 Temecula, California 92390 EXHIBIT 'A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARK SITE FOR CITY OF TEMECULA Revised December 28, 1990 June 20, 1990 JN 400056-M2 Page 1 of 4 That certain parcel of land situated in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, being Parcel B of that certain lot line adjustment recorded November 7, 1990 as Instrument No. 409474 of Official Records in the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County and being more particularly described as Parcel 2 together with that portion of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 23890 as shown on a map thereof filed in Book 162, Pages 44 through 46 of Parcel Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County, described as follows: BEGINNING at the southwesterly corner of said Parcel 1; thence along the westerly line of said parcel North 5'09~00" West 227.02 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve in said westerly line concave easterly and having a radius of 806.00 feet; thence along said curve and westerly line northerly 120.04 feet through a central angle of 8'32~00" to the northwesterly corner of said parcel; thence radially from said curve, along the northerly line of said parcel South 86°37~00" East 114.27 feet; thence South 31'42~29" West 91.92 feet; thence South 29'29~40" East 62.68 feet; thence South 70'20~00" East 64.70 feet; thence South 3~45'03" East 211.95 feet to the southerly line of said Parcel 1; thence along said southerly line North 79°50'00" West 151.56 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates Park Site For City of Temecula Revised December 28, 1990 June 20, 1990 JN 400056-M2 Page 2 of 4 RESERVING THEREFROM, an easement for underground utility purposes over a strip of land 20.00 feet in width, the centerline of which is described as follows: BEGINNING at the intersection of the westerly line of said Parcel 1 with a line parallel with and 10.00 feet northerly from the southerly line of said parcel. thence along said parallel line South 79'50'00" East 151.82 feet to the POINT OF T£P, I4INATION in the hereinbefore described course having a bearing and length of "South 3'45~03" East 211.95 feet" Said strip of land shall be lengthened or shortened so as to terminate westerly in said westerly line of Parcel 1 and easterly in said course. ALSO RESERVING THEREFROM, an easement for underground utility purposes over a strip of land 20.00 feet in width, the centerline of which is described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the southerly line of said Parcel 2 distant thereon South 59'45'38" East 43.73 feet from the southwesterly corner thereof; thence North 27'25~33" East 66.66 feet; thence North 27'02'55" East 84.25 feet; thence North 11'35'34" East 72.05 feet; thence North 0°57'26" East 74.40 feet; thence North 8°13'29" West 78.88 feet; thence North 1°07'57" West 67.26 feet; thence North 6°57'53" East 56.52 feet; thence North 73'33'25" East 23.22 feet; thence North 24'44'19" East 78.44 feet; thence North 23'19'31' East 65.40 feet to the POINT OF TEP~MINATION in said hereinbefore described course having a bearing and length of "South 3'45'03" East 211.95 feet" distant thereon North 3'45'03" West 17.66 feet from the southerly terminus thereof. Said strip shall be lengthened or shortened so as to terminate southerly in said southerly line of Parcel 2 and northerly in the boundary line of subject parcel of land. Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates ' Park Site For City of Temecula Revised December 28, 1990 June 20, 1990 JN 400056-M2 Page 3 of 4 ALSO RESERVING THEREFROM an easement for underground utilities and drainage purposes over a strip of land 20.00 feet in width, the centerline of which is described as follows: CO~4ENCING at the northwesterly corner of said Parcel 1 being a point on a curve in the westerly line of said Parcel 2 concave easterly and having a radius of 806.00 feet, a radial line of said curve from said corner bears South 86°37~00" East; thence along said curve and westerly line, northerly 23.87 feet through a central angle of 1'41~49" to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence non-tangent from said curve South 52'20~55" East 112.20 feet to the point of termination in the hereinbefore described course having a bearing and length of "South 31'42'29" West 91.92 feet". Said strip of land shall be lengthened or shortened so as to terminate westerly in.said westerly line-of Parcel 2 and easterly in said course. CONTAINING: 13.10 Acres, more or less. SUBJECT TO an easement for ingress, egress and cablevision purposes per document recorded March 18, 1988, as Instrument No. 71715 of Official Records in said Office of the Riverside County Recorder, being a strip of land 20.00 feet in width, the centerline of which is described as follows: BEGINNING at a point in the southwesterly line of said Parcel 2 being the southeasterly terminus of that certain course shown as "North 59°45'38" West 404.05 feet"; thence North 2°56~21" East 25.00 feet; thence North 25°00'00" West 140.00 feet; thence North 10°00'00" West 98.00 feet; thence North 0'05~00" East 240.00 feet; thence North 5'25~00" East 115.00 feet; thence North 20'50'00" East 40.00 feet; thence North 16°00'00" West 35.00 feet; thence North 0°45'00" East 198.00 feet; Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates ' Park Site For City of Temecula Revised December 28, 1990 June 20, 1990 JN 400056-M2 Page 4 of 4 thence North 64'40'00" West 50.96 feet to the westerly line of the easement to the United States of America per document recorded October 27, 1949 as Instrument No. 3113 of Official Records in said Office of the Riverside County Recorder. Said strip of land shall be lengthened or shortened southerly so as to terminate in said southerly line of Parcel 2 and northerly so as to terminate in said westerly line of the easement to the United States of America. ALSO, SUBJECT TO all Covenants, Rights, Rights-of-Way and Easements of Record. EXHIBIT 'B' attached and by this reference made a part hereof. Lawrence L. Bacon, L.S. 3527 TABLE OF COURSES R- 894.00' 359.02' R= ~O~.OO' 89~93' 761.~' R'115~.00' 404.05' 21.22' 76.02' R'14iO.OQ' L- L- 161.i2' L- ~8.32' 114.40' R- SOS.00' 227.02' 132.00' gl.g2' 64.70' 211.95' 49.B$' 255.29' 92.B1' EXHIBIT ~'- ,KI'TCN "~~~ TO ACCOIll, ANY LEGAL, ,.~',~'~'Z' / ~ / PROFESSIONAL. ENGINEERS. P1.ANNERS & SURVEYORS FIELD BOOK I JOB NO