HomeMy WebLinkAbout091394 CC AgendaAGENDA
TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
A REGULAR MEETING
COMMUNITY RECREATION CENTER - 30875 RANCHO VISTA ROAD
SEPTEMBER 13, 1994- 7:00 PM
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special
assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact, the office of the City Clerk
(909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to
make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting [28 CFR
35. 102.35. 104ADA Title II]
At approximately 9:45 PM, the City Council will determine which of the remaining
agenda items can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00 PM and may
continue all other items on which additional time is required until a future meeting.
All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 PM.
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. 94-26
Resolution: No. 94-90
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Ron Roberts presiding
Invocation: Pastor Dan Hoekstra, Discovery Christian Church
Flag Salute: Mayor Pro Tem Stone
ROLL CALL: Birdsall, Mu~oz, Parks, Stone, Roberrs
PRESENTATIONS/ Swearing in Ceremony for Planning Commissioners
PROCLAMATIONS Government Finance Officers Association CAFR Award - Certificate of
Achievement
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council on
items that are not listed on the Agenda or on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited
to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council on an item not listed on the
Agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out
and filed with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
R:%Agendl%091394 1
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.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made at
this time. A total, not to exceed, ten (10) minutes will be devoted to these reports.
CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
All matters listed under Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be
enacted by one roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members
of the City Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for
separate action.
1 Standard Ordinance Adootion Procedure
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in
the agenda.
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of August 9, 1994.
3 Resolution AoDrovina List of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING
CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
4
5
6
7
8
9
City Treasurer's Reoort as of July 31.1994
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's report as of July 31, 1994.
Record's DestructiOn ADDrOVal
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Approve scheduled destruction of certain records as provided under the City of
Temecula approved Records Retention Policy.
Memorandum of Understandina Concernina Plannina Area No. 7, Specific Plan No. 164,
Rorioaugh, Model Home Aareement for Coscan Homes
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Approve the Memorandum of Understanding concerning Planning Area No. 7 of
Specific Plan No. 164, Roripaugh, authorizing the payment of development fees at a
specified level and directing the Mayor to execute the Agreement on behalf of the
City and the City Clerk to attest thereto.
Consideration of Reaulations for Newsracks in Public Riaht-of-Wav
(Continued from the meeting of 8/23/94)
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Continue this item to the meeting of September 27, 1994.
Award of Vehicle Purchase Bid No. 94-20
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Award the purchase of the vehicle to Paradise Chevrolet. The purchase price is
$12,633.79,excluding tax.
ProPertY Insurance Renewal
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1 Authorize staff to cancel the current property insurance coverage.
9.2 Authorize participation in the Public Entity Property Insurance Program (PEPIP).
9.3 Authorize staff to obtain insurance coverage through PEPIP, in accordance with the
schedule carriers who underwriter the coverage.
10 Authorization to Execute Supplemental Aareement for the Use of 20th Year Community
Development Block Grant Funds
RECOMMENDATION:
10. 1 Authorize the Mayor to execute the Supplemental Agreement for the 20th Year
Community Development Block Grant Funds.
11
12
13
14
ADDrOVal Of Contract Award for Plan Review Services
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1
Approve an award of contract to Esgil Corporation, Vandorpe Chou Associates, Ray
Grage and Associates and Robert Bein, William Frost and Associates, to provide
building plan review services on an as needed basis, to the Building and Safety
Department.
Release Warranty Security for Tract No. 21675-1
RECOMMENDATION:
12.1
Authorize the release of the Faithful Performance Improvement Warranty Security
for Tract No. 21675-1, and direct the City Clerk to so advise the Riverside County
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, the Developer and the Surety.
Release Warranty Security for Tract No. 21675-2
RECOMMENDATION:
13.1
Authorize the release of the Faithful Performance Improvement Warranty Security
for Tract No. 21675-2, and direct the City Clerk to so advise the Riverside County
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, the Developer and the Surety,
Release Warranty Security for Tract No. 21675-3
RECOMMENDATION:
14.1
Authorize the release of the Faithful Performance Improvement Warranty Security
for Tract No. 21675-3, and Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Riverside County
Clerk of the board of Supervisors, the Developer and the Surety.
15
Release Warranty Security for Tract No. 21675-4
RECOMMENDATION:
15.1 Authorize the release of the Faithful Performance Improvement Warranty Security
for Tract No. 21675-4, and Direct the City Clerk to so advise the Riverside County
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, the Developer and the Surety.
16
17
18
19
Acceotance of Public Streets into the City-Maintained Street Svstem (Within Tracts No,
21675-1, -2. -3 and -4)
RECOMMENDATION:
16.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS INTO THE CITY-MAINTAINED STREET
SYSTEM (WITHIN TRACTS NO. 21675-1,-2, -3 AND
Acknowledae Comoletion of Certain Imorovements in Tract No. 26861-2
RECOMMENDATION:
17.1 Acknowledge completion of certain improvements in Tract No. 26861-2, authorize
the reduction in Faithful Performance Bond amounts for the improvement of private
streets, accept the Faithful Performance Warranty Bond Rider in the reduced amount
and direct the City Clerk to so notify the Developer and surety.
Final Parcel MaD No. 26232-1 (Located East of Winchester Road at Nicolas Road)
RECOMMENDATION:
18.1 Approve Final Parcel map No. 26232-1, subject to the Conditions of Approval.
Solicitation of Bids for the Acauisition of Street StrioinQ Contract (Project No. PW94-17)
RECOMMENDATION:
19.1 Authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit public bids for the annual street
striping contract (Project No. PW94-17).
20
Comoletion and Acceptance of the Solana Way Street Improvements, Proiect No. PW93-12
RECOMMENDATION:
20.1 Accept the Solana Way Street Improvements, Project No. PW93-12, as complete.
21
22
20.2 Direct the City Clerk to file the Notice of completion, release the Performance Bond,
and accept a one (1) year Maintenance Bond !n the amount of 10% of the contract.
20.3 Direct the City Clerk to release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after
the filing of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed.
Contract for the Construction of an Interim Traffic Sional at Winchester (Hw¥. 79N) and
Nicolas Roads, Project No. PW93-11
RECOMMENDATION:
21.1 Authorize payment to the State of California for an encroachment permit fee in the
amount of $6,720.
"No Parkin~l" Zone on Diaz Road from Rancho California Road to 160 Feet North of
Avenida Alvarado
RECOMMENDATION:
22.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ESTABLISHING A "NO PARKING" ZONE ON DIAZ ROAD FROM RANCHO
CALIFORNIA ROAD TO 160 FEET NORTH OF AVENIDA ALVARADO
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public
hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval of
the project(s) at the time of hearing. If you challenge any of the projects in court,
you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the
public hearing or in written correspondences delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior
to, the public hearing.
23 Specific Plan No. 263 (Reoional Center) and Change of Zone No. 5589
RECOMMENDATION:
23.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 94°
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING
THE ADDENDUM TO FEIR NO. 340;'T0 ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO FEIR NO. 340
INCLUDING A NEW MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND DETERMINING NO
ADDITIONAL IMPACTS AS A RESULT OF CHANGING THE CIRCULATION
MITIGATION MEASURES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE
INTERSECTION OF YNEZ ROAD AND WINCHESTER ROAD
23.2 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 94-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE
CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION CONTAINED IN CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5589,
CHANGING THE ZONE FROM RoR {RURAL RESIDENTIAL) AND A-2-20 (HEAVY
AGRICULTURE, 20 ACRE MINIMUM) TO SP (SPECIFIC PLAN) ON PROPERTY
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF YNEZ ROAD
AND WINCHESTER ROAD
23.3 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 94-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING
LAND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 263 (REGIONAL
CENTER) LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF
YNEZ ROAD AND WINCHESTER ROAD
23.4 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING
SPECIFIC PLAN 2634 PROPOSING A 1,375,000 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL
CORE, 810,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE-INSTITUTIONAL WITH POSSIBLE
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND AN ADDITIONAL 298,000 SQUARE FEET OF
RETAIL COMMERCIAL LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE
INTERSECTION OF YNEZ AND WINCHESTER ROADS
24 Specific Plan No. 1 (CamDOS Verdes). Environmental Impact RePort 348. and Chanoe of
Zone No. 5617
RECOMMENDATION:
24.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA CERTIFYING
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 348 ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
STATEMENTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION AND APPROVING THE
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND THE ADDENDA TO THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 348 ON PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF
WINCHESTER ROAD AND EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD
24.2 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 94-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING
LAND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN NO. I (CAMPOS
VERDES) LOCATED SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD AND EAST OF MARGARITA
ROAD
24.3 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 94-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE
CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION CONTAINED IN CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5617
CHANGING THE ZONING FROM R-R (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) AND A-2-20 (HEAVY
AGRICULTURE, 20 ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE) TO SP (SPECIFIC PLAN) ON
PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD AND EAST OF MARGARITA
ROAD
24.4 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. I (CAMPOS VERDES) PROPOSING 308 SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 19.8 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL\OFFICE\CHURCH USES, A
5.8 ACRE DETENTION BASIN, A 10.8 ACRE PARK, A 10.7 ACRE ELEMENTARY
SCHOOL, AND 13.0 ACRES OF ON-SITE ROADWAYS, LOCATED SOUTH OF
WINCHESTER ROAD AND EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD
COUNCIL BUSINESS
25 Non-Profit Loan Program Policy
(Continued from 8/9/94)
RECOMMENDATION:
26
27
28
29
30
25.1 Review and approve the Non-Profit Loan Program criteria with revisions aS
appropriate.
City Council Meetinq Schedule - November and December 1994
RECOMMENDATION:
26.1 Direct the City Clerk to cancel and/or re-schedule meetings in November and
December, 1994, and to perform all the appropriate postings and noticing
requirements of the Government Code.
Consideration of Traffic Sianalization - Pala Road, La Paz and Marearita at Hiahwav 79-
South
(Requested by Mayor Pro Tem Stone - Oral Report)
Transient and Road Side Vendino Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION:
28. I Direct staff to prepare an Ordinance regulating vendors in the City of Temecula.
Discussion of Timelines for Winchester Road Improvements
(Requested by Mayor Roberrs)
Cable Television Rate Reaulation Procedures
RECOMMENDATION:
30.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES TO REGULATE CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES
AND EQUIPMENT RATES AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 93-74
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next meeting: September 27, 1994, 7:00 PM, Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho
Vista Road, Temecula, California.
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING - (To be held at 8:00)
CALL TO ORDER: President Jeffrey E. Stone
ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Mur'ioz, Parks, Roberts, Stone
PUBLIC COMMENT: Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors, should present a
completed pink "Request to Speak" to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come
forward and state your name and address for the record.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of August 9, 1994.
1.2 Approve the minutes of August 23, 1994.
GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT - Bradley
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT - Nelson
BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT: Next meeting September 27, 1994, 8:00 PM, Community Recreation Center,
30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California.
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Ronald J. Parks presiding
ROLL CALL: AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Mu~oz., Roberrs, Stone, Parks
PUBLIC COMMENT: Anyone wishing to address the Agency, should present a completed pink
"Request to Speak" to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please
come forward and state your name and address for the record.
AGENCY BUSINESS
1
2
MinUteS
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of August 9, 1994.
1.2 Approve the minutes of August 23, 1994.
RDA Commercial Rehabilitation Loan Criteria
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Amend the Redevelopment Agency Loan Program for Commercial Rehabilitation
(RDA Loan) criteria to allow for exceptions on a case-by-case basis to allow loans
that exceed the $100,000 limit when appropriate.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
AGENCY MEMBER'S REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT: Next Meeting: September 27, 1994, 8:00 PM, Community Recreation Center,
30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California.
PROCLAMATIONS/
PRESENTATIONS
ITEM i
ITEM 2
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, 1994
A regular meeting of the Temecula City Council was called to order on Tuesday, August 9,
1994, 7:00 P.M., at the Temecula Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road,
Temecula, California, Mayor Ron Roberrs presiding.
PRESENT: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Parks, Stone, Roberts
ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz
Also present were City Manager Ronald E. Bradley, City Attorney Peter Thorson, Assistant
City Manager. Harwood Edvalson, and City Clerk June S. Greek.
INVOCATION
The invocation was given by Assistant City Manager Harwood Edvalson.
PRESENTATIONS
Mayor Ron Roberrs proclaimed the week of August 7, 1994 "Temecula Volunteer Firefighters
Week".
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Marvin Zeldin, 38027 Via Del Largo, Murrieta, representing the Old Town Temecula Merchants
Association, presented the City Council a petition containing 73 signatures representing the
Old Town businesses supporting the Zev Buffman proposal.
Mike Thesing, 28636 Front Street, Temecula, read from an editorial he will be forwarding to
the newspaper expressing his support of the Zev Buffman proposal.
Therese McLeod, 42200 Main Street, Temecula, expressed her opposition to the Zev Buffman
proposal.
Stacey Tescier, 40595 Eyota Court, Murrieta, expressed her opposition to the Zev Buffman
proposal and asked the Council to place the issue on the November ballot for a vote by the
general public.
Evelyn Harker, 31130 - 85 South General Kearny, Temecula, complemented the City for
working on the Old Town Specific Plan and asked the City Council to wait for all the reports
and studies come back on the Zev Buffman proposal before any money is expended for an
election on this matter.
Larry Markham, 41750 Winchester Road, Temecula, requested an appeal be set for Classic
Shotz Billards. He said the applicant has agreed to give up their application for a liquor
license.
CCMIN08109194 I W16194
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 9, 1994
Councilmember Birdsall said she would like e public hearing to be scheduled to hear an alepeal
of the Planning Commission decision regarding Classic Shotz Billards.
Jerry Geller, 42450 Wilson Valley Road, Aguanga, advised the Council the Owl Rock project
will be presented to the County Board of Supervisors on August 23, 1994, which was
unanimously denied by the County Planning Commission. Mr. Geller advised there are
currently 70 years of sand mining permits in effect, or 30 years if there were to be a
significant boom in construction such as in the 1980's.
Allan Packler, 43495 Golden Hill Drive, Aguanga, said he is concerned about an already
abundant supply of sand should the project be approved. Mr. Packler said the concern of the
opposition is that the applicant has promised to give $18,000,000 to $20,000,000 to this
project CountY, however, with the existing permits in effect, the opposition feel there will be
no benefit to the County from Owl Rock. Mr. Packler added that Owl Rock is owned 100%
by Mitsubishi and most of thq net profits will go directly to Japan.
COUNCIL REPORTS
Mayor Pro Tem Stone advised that the City of Los Angeles is now requiring automatic shut-off
valves for gas meters on all new developments. He explained that in the event of an
earthquake of 5.5 magnitude or greater, the valve would automatically shut off the gas. He
suggested the City consider this as an ordinance that would apply to all new projects.
Mayor Pro Tern Stone said, pursuant to a request at a previous meeting, he and Mayor Roberts
met with Cal Trans Manager Ken Steele and discussed the issue of placing a historical
Temecula freeway sign on I-15.
Mayor Pro Tem Stone said he and Mayor Roberts were invited to attend a rally by Governor
Wilson supporting the bills going to the legislature regarding victims of violent crimes.
He presented the City Clerk with literature regarding the legislative bills for the public's
reference.
Councilmember Parks reported on the recent SCAG meeting where there was heated
discussions regarding traffic control measures.
CONSENT CALENDAR
City Clerk June Greek advised the Council one member of the public requests to speak on
Consent Calendar Item No. 5.
Councilmember Birdsall pulled Item No. 7 for discussion and stated she would be abstaining
on Item No. 3.
Mayor Pro Tem Stone abstained on Items No. 2.2 end No. 5 and removed Items No. 9, 10 and
13 for discussion.
CCMIN081Oe194 2 8/16194
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 9, 1994
Mayor Roberrs removed Items No. 5, 10, and 11 for discussion.
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Stone, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to approve
Consent Calendar Items No. I - 4, 6, 8, 12 and 14.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Parks, Stone, Roberrs
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Mur~oz
Standard Ordinance Adoorion Procedure
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions
included in the agenda.
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of July 19, 1994.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS:
2.2 Approve the minutes of July 26, 1994.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 3
NOES: 0
ABSTAIN: 1
ABSENT: 1
CCMINOB/Og/94
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Parks, Stone, Roberrs
None
Mur~oz
Birdsall, Parks, Robe~s
None
Stone
Mu~oz
8/16/94
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
3. Resolution ADorovino List of Demands
AUGUST 9.1994
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 94-80
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Parks, Stone, Roberts
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall
ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Mur~oz
City Treasurer's Reoort as of June 30.1994
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1
Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of June 30, 1994.
Out-of-State Travel Plans
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Authorize certain out-of-state travel plans.
Council Suooort for SB 302 - Graffiti Abatement
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Authorize the Mayor to execute the attached letter to local legislators on behalf
of the Council and in support of SB 302 - Graffiti Abatement.
CCMIN08/09194 4. 8/16/94
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
12.
AUGUST 9. 1994
Acceotance of Public Streets into the City-Maintained Street System (Within Tracts
22715-1 end 22716-1)
RECOMMENDATION:
12.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 94-92
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC STREETS INTO THE CITY-
MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM (WITHIN TRACTS 22715-1 AND 22716-1 )
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
14. Second ReadinQ of Ordinance No. 94-23
RECOMMENDATION:
14.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 94-23
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
AMENDING PORTIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 348, 92-16 AND 93-12
PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF TEMPORARY SIGNS
5. FY 1995-99 Capital Improvement ProQram
Therese McLeod, 42200 Main Street, Temecula, asked the Council to consider moving
the Western Bypass Corridor to the bottom of the priority list and the bridges at First
and Sixth Streets to the top of the priority list.
Councilmember Parks said the Western Bypass Corridor would occur if the Zev
Buffman proposal were approved however, it would not take precedence over the
bridge. He confirmed the Western Bypass Corridor has already been placed at the
bottom of the priority list at this time.
It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Parks to
approve staff recommendation as follows:
5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 94-81
CCMIN08/09194 5 8118194
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
AUGUST 9,1994
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FOR FY 1995-99 AND
ADOPTING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET FOR FY 1994-95
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
NOES':
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Parks, Roberts
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Stone
1 COUNCILMEMBERS: MuAoz
Community Service Fundine3 Loan Criteria
Councilmember Birdsall said she is concerned that the various types of non-profit
organizations are clearly defined and asked the City Attorney to review the policy.
Councilmember Parks'asked the City Attorney to provide examples of organizations
that would qualify as non profit.
It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Stone to
continue this item to the meeting of August 23, 1994 with direction to staff to clarify
concerns regarding definition of Non-profit organizations and need for a Federal I.D.
number.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Parks, Stone, Robarts
NOES: 0 · ~30UNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mur~oz
Contract ChanQe Order No. 2 for Proiect No. PW93-12, Solana Way Street
Imorovements
Mayor Pro Tem Stone asked if the signal was part of the original project.
Public Works Director* Tim Serlet explained the signal was not a part of the original
project however, staff found a majority of the equipment necessary to install the signal
available in the City's surplus supplies.
CCMIN08/09194 6 8/16/94
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 9. 1994
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tam Stone, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to
approve staff recommendation as follows:
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1
9.2
Approve Contract Change Order No. 2 with Yeager Construction Company, Inc.
increasing the' contract amount $43,855.00 to widen the intersection of
Margarita Road and Solana Way. '
Transfer $43,855.00 from the Development Impact Fund/Traffic Signal
Mitigation and appropriate in Capital Projects Account No. 210-165-651-5804.
The m~tion carried as follows:
AYES: 4
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 1
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Parks, Stone, Roberrs
None
Mu~oz
10.
Award of Contract for the Construction of an Interim Traffic Sional at Winchester
(Hwv. 79N) and Nicolas Roads, Project No. PW93-11
Mayor Roberrs advised he has met with Cal Trans District Director Ken Steele regarding
this item and Mr. Steele said he will follow-up on the matter. Mayor Roberrs said he
would like to approve. the project with the understanding the City does not pay the
$10,500 until they hear from Mr. Steele.
It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stone to
approve staff recommendation as follows:
10.1
Award a contract for the construction of an interim traffic signal on Winchester
(Hwy. 79N) and Nicolas Roads, Project No. PW93-11 to Paul Gardner
Corporation for $64,822.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract.
10.2
Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the
contingency amount of $6,482.20 which is equal to 10% of the contract
amount.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
4 COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Parks, Stone, Roberrs
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
CCMIN08/09/94 7 8/16194
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
ABSENT: I
COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz
AUGUST 9, 1994
11.
Award of Professional Services Contracts for Civil Enaineerina to NBS/Lowrv for Proiect
No. PW93-09. Perkview Site
Mayor Roberrs expressed concern that he keeps seeing the same names come up in
the award of contract services.
Public Works Director Tim Serlet said staff is in the process of establishing a new
I~olicy on the selection of consultants. The proposed policy will go before the
Coordinating Committee in September.
was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stone to
al~prove staff recommendation as follows:
11.1
Award Professional Services Contractors to provide services for the design of
the Parkview Site and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the
following contract:
NBS/Lowry for civil engineering and land surveying services in the
amount of $19,945.00 with a $1,994.50(10%) contingency amount.
11.2
Approve an operating transfer from the General Fund to the Cal~ital
Improvement Fund in the amount of $21,939.50(including 10% contingency),
and appropriate $21,939.50in the Capital Improvement Fund for the design of
the Parkview Site, Project Number PW93-09.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
3 COUNCILMEMBERS:
Birdsall, Stone, Roberts
NOES:
0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Parks
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mur~oz
13. Reoetitive Plan Review Compensation
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Stone, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to
approve staff recommendation as follows:
13.1
Approve an appropriation in the amount of $105,140to Account No. 001-162-
999-5248 for repetitive plan review performed by VanDorpe Chou Associates
and the Esgil Corporation during fiscal years 1992-1993, and 1994.
CCMINOa/09194 8 8/16/~4
AUGUST 9, 1994
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Parks, Stone, Roberrs
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz
Mayor Ron Roberts declared a recess at 8:25 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 8:43 P.M.
following the Redevelopment Agency meeting.
Mayor Ron R0berts reordered the agenda and moved Items No. 20 and 22 ahead of Item No.
15.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
20. Temecula Town Association Assistance
Councilmember Birdsall stepped down due to a conflict of interest.
Ralph Schmidt, 30221 Via Corsica, Murrieta, representing the Lions Club of Temecula,
expressed support of the Temecula Town Association. Mr. Schmidt said the Lions
Club uses the facility to hold their monthly meetings.
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tam Stone, seconded by Councilmember Parks to approve
staff recommendation as follows:
20.1 Consider providing a loan of $68,000 to the Temecula Town Association based
on a "Value-in-Use" Appraisal.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Parks, Stone, Roberrs
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall
ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz
22.
Consideration of Financial Support for the Economic Development CorPoration
Finance Director Mary Jane McLarney presented the staff report. She said staff
recommends Funding Level B.
CCMTN08/09/94 9 8/I 8/94
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
AUGUST 9,1994
Gary Plantz, 4909 Murphy Canyon Road, San Diego, Managing Director of Pacific
Region Publishing and a member of the EDC, spoke in support of the request by the
EDC. Mr. Plantz says that it has been his experience that the communities with a
professional executive director have attained very positive results.
It was moved by Cduncilmember Parks, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to
approve staff recommendation for Funding Level "B".
CounCilmember Birdsall asked if the City was able to find a rent free location for the
EDC. City Manager Bradley said staff has found the EDC a location.
Councilmember Birdsall asked if the applicant could utilize volunteers in place of the
position for a part-time secretary.
Doug Davies, representing the EDC, explained the position of secretary was an addition
to the budget. He said the EDC is willing to cut this position.
Councilmember Parks said he would like the EDC called "Temecula Valley EDC".
Mayor Roberrs said he met with Murrieta Mayor VanHaaster and advised him of the
Temecula City Council workshop. Mayor Roberts said the City of Murrieta is
supportive of the name change to Temecula Valley EDC,
Mayor Pro Tem Stone said he supports the request by the EDC however, he is
concerned there is not an Economic Development policy in place. Mayor Pro Tern
Stone said he is opposed to using City of Temecula tax dollars to promote another city
and would like the name changed to the Temecula EDC. Mayor Pro Tem Stone asked
the Council to consider a loan of $10,000 to the EDC, changing the name to Temeoula
EDC and having the EDC help the City to develop a policy. Once the policy is in place
the City could then provide the funding that is needed.
Mayor Roberrs agreed the City should have a policy in place. He asked Mr. Davies if
the EDC would agree to changing the name to the Temecula Valley EDC, including
commercial development in the focus and asked Mr. Davies to explain the request for
a full time Executive Director.
Doug Davies said he would have to present the proposal for the name change and the
expanded focus to the EDC Board. Mr. Davies said he has received several job
descriptions from across the United States and the proposed salary is in line with the
position. He feels an Executive Director could help the City in establishing their policy.
Mayor Pro Tern Stone said he supports funding $55,000 after the City has their policy
in place and set a deadline of three months.
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to amend
the motion to approve funding of the EDC at level "B" in the amount of $55,000, and
CCMIN08/09194 10 8/16/94
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Mayor
15.
AUGUST 9, 1994
subject to a request to the EDC Board of Directors to consider a name change for the
organization to the Temecula Valley Economic Development Corporation.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 3 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Parks, Roberts
NOES: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Stone
ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Muf~oz
Roberts declared a recess at 9:45 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 9:50 P.M.
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stone to extend
the meeting to 10:30 P.M. The motion was unanimously carried with Councilmember
Mur~oz absent.
Planning ADolication No. PA94-0022, Specific Plan No, 219, Amendment No. 4,
Paloma Del Sol
Planning Director Gary Thornhill presented the staff report.
Mayor Ron Roberts opened the public hearing at 9:55 P.M.
Barry Burnell, T & B Planning Consultant, 3242 Halladay Street, Santa Ana,
representing Kemper Real Estate Development Company, stated he was present to
answer any questions by the Council.
Mayor Roberts closed the public hearing at 9:55 P.M.
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tem Stone, seconded by Councilmember Parks to approve
staff recommendation as follows:
15.1 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 94-24
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
ADOPTING LAND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR PLANNING APPLICATION
NO. PA94-0022,SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219, AMENDMENT NO. 4, PALOMA DEL
SOL, LOCATED SOUTH OF PAUBA ROAD, EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD,
NORTH OF STATE HIGHWAY 79 AND WEST OF BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD
15.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
CCMIN08/091~4 11 8/16194
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
16.
AUGUST 9, 1994
RESOLUTION NO. 94-83
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 94-0022,SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 219,
AMENDMENT NO. 4; LOCATED SOUTH OF PAUBA ROAD, EAST OF
MARGARITA ROAD, NORTH OF STATE HIGHWAY 79 AND WEST OF
BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Parks, Stone, Roberts
NOES:' 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz
Variance No. 10 - A Fifty-Five (55) Foot Hioh Freeway Oriented Sion for Creekside
Tex. aco
Planning Director Gary Thornhill presented the staff report.
Mayor Ron Roberts opened the public hearing at 10:00 P.M.
Lou Kashmere, 29115 Front Street, Temecula, said he feels his sign does not represent
blight in the City. Mr. Kashmere said he needs the sign to attract business. He said
the sign as it stands is 18' below the roadway.
Jim Allan, 27195 Rainbow Canyon Road, Temecula, said he supports the applicant's
request. Mr. Allan said he feels Mr. Kashmere's station is a very positive element of
the community and a quality development.
Therese McLeod, 42200 Main Street, Temecula, said she feels all gas stations should
have signs visible from the freeway as a courtesy to travelers.
Evelyn Harker, 31130-35 South General Kearny, Temecula, expressed support for the
applicant's request. Ms. Harker said Mr. Kashmere is a strong supporter of the
community's non-profit organizations.
Mayor Robarts closed .the public hearing at 10:08.
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stone to approve
staff recommendation 16.1 as follows:
16.1 Approve Variance No. 10 with no additional requirement for extensions of time.
CCMIN08/09194 12 8116/94
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
The motion carried as follows:
AUGUST 9,1994
AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Parks, Stone, Roberts
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz
COUNCIL BUSINESS
17.
Plannine Commission AoDointments
City Cderk June S. Greek presented the staff report.
Mayor Pro Tern Stone said he would like to appoint Marcia Slavin and Andrew
Webster.
Councilmember Parks said he would like to appoint Marcia Slavin and re-appoint John
Hoagland.
It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stone to
appoint Marcia Slavin to a three-year term on the City of Temecula Planning
Commission.
The motion carried as.follows:
AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Parks, Stone, Roberts
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mur~oz
Councilmember Parks suggested the Council consider reappointing Commissioner John
Hoagland because he has been a Planning Commission for four years and the
appointment of two new commissioners at this time might create a disruption of
performance by the Commission.
Councilmember Birdsall said she feels the Council should provide an opportunity for
other members of the community who are interested in serving on the Commissions.
Mayor Pro Tern Stone said he agrees with Councilmember Birdsall. He said he spoke
with Andrew Webster and he seemed very enthusiastic. Mayor Pro Tem Stone said
Mr. Webster has a lot of experience with the Rancho California Water District and is
very familiar with the City's General Plan.
CCMIN08109194 13 8116194
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
18.
19.
AUGUST 9, 1994
Mayor Robarts said he feels John Hoagland has done an outstanding job however, Mr.
Webster appears to have the background necessary for the position and he supports
his appointment.
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tern Stone, seconded by Councilmember Birdsall to
appoint Andrew Webster to a three-year term on the City of Temecula Planning
Commission.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Parks, Stone, Roberts
NOES:' 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mur~oz
Councilmember Parks asked staff to ensure appropriate recognition be given to
Commissioner John Hoagland for his four years of service.
Community Services Fundine RePresentative
Finance Director Mary Jane McLarney presented the staff report.
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tam Stone, seconded by Councilmember Parks to appoint
Councilmember Birdsall to serve as Council representative.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Parks, Stone, Robarts
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz
ProDosed Keep Temecula Clean "Adoot-A-Street" ProQram
Public Works Director Tim Serlet presented the staff report.
Councilmember Parks said he supports the program however, he is concerned about
the clutter of signs and he feels the proposed sign is too large.
Councilmember Birdsall said she feels this is an important program and she agrees with
reducing the size of the sign.
Councilmember Parks asked staff to bring back alternatives to the sign program.
CCMINO~09194
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
21.
AUGUST 9, 1994
It was moved by Councilmember Parks, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Stone to approve
staff recommendation and direct staff to present alternatives to the sign portion of the
program:
19.1 Approve the Keep Temecula Clean "Adopt-A-Street" program.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Parks, Stone, Roberts
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 1 COUNCILMEMBERS: Mur~oz
DiSD0Sal of Surolus EouiDment end SupPlieS
Assistant City Manager Harwood Edvalson presented the staff report.
It was moved by Mayor Pro Tern Stone, seconded by Councilmember Parks to approve
staff recommendation as follows:
21.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 94-85
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ALLOWING FOR
THE DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT THROUGH DONATION TO
CHARITABLE NON-PROFIT CORPORATIONS OR CITY SPONSORED NON-PROFIT
ORGANIZATIONS
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 COUNCILMEMBERS: Birdsall, Parks, Stone, Roberts
NOES: 0 COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: I COUNCILMEMBERS: Mu~oz
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
None
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
None
CCMIN08/09194 15 8/16/94
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AUGUST 9, 1994
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Councilmember Birdsall, seconded by Councilmember Parks to adjourn at
10:30 P.M. The motion was unanimously carried with Councilmember Muf%oz absent.
The next regular meeting of the Temecula City Council will be held on Tuesday, August 23,
1994, 7:00 P.M., Temecula Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road,
Temecula, California.
Mayor Ron Roberrs
ATTEST:
City Clerk June S, Greek
CCMIN08/09194 16 8/16194
ITEM 3
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THF~ 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 amount of
$1,166,088.45.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTEr), this 13th day of September, 1994.
ATTEST:
Ron Roberrs, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
Resos 38 I
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, hereby do certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. 94- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Temecula on the 13th day of September, 1994 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: 0
NOES:' 0
ABSENT: 0
COUNCIJ.,lvm~MBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILME~MBERS: None
June S. Greek, City Clerk
Relol 38 2
CITY OF TEMECULA
LIST OF DEMANDS
08/19/94 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
O8/25/94 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
09/01/94 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
09/13/94 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
08/25/94 TOTAL PAyROLL:
TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 09/13./94 COUNCIL MEETING:
$ 180,450.87
136,660.15
419,316.06
118,724.27
$ 1,166,088.45
DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND:
CHECKS:
001 GENERAL
100 GAS TAX
120 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FUND
140 COMMUNITY DEV BLOCK GRANT
165 RDA-LOW/MOD
190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A
192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B
193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C
194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D
210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ (CIP)
220 MARGARITA ROAD REIMB. DIST.
300 SELF-INSURANCE
310 VEHICLES
320 INFORMATIONS SYSTEMS
330 COPY CENTER
340 FACILITIES
380 RDA-DEBT SERVICE
390 TCSD DEBT SERVICE
511,102.65
59,071,42
0.00
0.00
264.78
60,336.47
8,959.53
19,787.14
44,408.71
0.00
45,305.49
134,171.29
85,739.34
46,437.27
0.00
8,275.89
8,156.50
14,347.70
0.00
O. OO
$ 1,047,364.18
PAYROLL:
001 GENERAL
100 GAB TAX
165 RDA-LOW/MOD
190 TCSD
191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A
192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B
193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C
280 RDA-CIP
300 SELF-INSURANCE
320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS
330 COPY CENTER
340 FACILJTIES
70,149.43
13,647.70
575.24
26,406.49
447.86
862.61
1,783.25
355.50
642.88
1,308.92
678.82
118,724.27
TOTAL BY FUND:
PRE~PAR Y RETA W :STO~
I'RONALD'E. BRADLEY, C/['I'Y~NAGER / 'f' '''f
, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
VOUCHRE2
08/10-'''~ 15:06
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK
NUMBER DATE
16133 08/12/94
16134 08/12/94
16135 08/12/94
16136 08/12/94
16216 08/15/94
13005 08/19/94
13006 08/19/94
13007 08/19/94
13007 08/19/94
13007 08/19/94
13008 08/19/94
13C~ 08/!9/94
1~ 08/19/94
130u~ 08/19/94
13009 08/19/94
13009 08/19/94
13010 08/19/94
13010 08/19/94
13011 08/19/94
13012 08/19/94
13013 08/19/94
13014 08/19/94
13015 08/19/94
13015 08/19/94
13015 08/19/94
13015 08/19/94
13016 08/19/94
13017 08/19/94
13018 08/19/94
162Z~ 08/19/94
VENDO~ VENDOR
NUMBER NAME
001569 CREEMERS, AD
0014/.4 EMERALD LANDSCAPE SERVI
001544 E L YEAGER CONSTRUCTION
000202 J F DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES
80R~ERS~ KIN
001570 STATE NET
000310 TENECULA CREEK iNN
000825 TEMECULA CYCLES
000825 TEMECULA CYCLES
000825 TENECULA CYCLES
000306 TENECULA VALLEY PiPE &
000642 TENECULA, CITY OF ' FLE
0006~2 TENECULA~ CITY OF " FLE
000642 TEMECULA, CITY OF ' FLE
000642 TEMECULA, CITY OF ' FLE
000642 TEMECULA, CITY OF - FLE
001487 TIERRA MECHANICAL, INC.
001487 TIERRA MECHANICAL, iNC.
000668 TINNY D. PROOUCTIONS
TON GENTRY CALiFORNiA C
000320 TONNE CENTER STATiONERS
TRAPP, RUTH
000326 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE
000326 UNffOG RENTAL SERVICE
000326 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE
000326 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE
001112 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNI
001509 VALLEY WINDS CO~n~ CONCE
001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY
000105 A E I SECURITY, iNC.
162,~ 08/19/94 000680 A M S - T M S
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
ITEM ACCOUNT
DESCRIPTION NUMBER
NAYON'S TRAVEL-NETHERLA 001-100-~9-5258
REIMBURSE W/RE TRANSFER 001-2220
REIMBURSE MiRE TRANSFER 001-2220
REIMBURSE M%RE TRANSFER 001-2220
REINB/DAY CAMP 190-183-4984
ADDITIONAL LOGIN 001-110-~-5226
ACCT 001173 12/28/93"3/ 001-110-~9~-5260
BL LIGHTS,KICKSTANDtOIL 001-170-~-5214
BATTERY
2 FRONT/2 REAR TIRES
HAINTENACE PARKS/REC
001-170-~-5214
001-170-~-5214
190-180-~-5212
REIMB FOR P/R 08/11/94 001-1020
REINB FOR P/R 08/11/94 1~0-1020
REINB FOR P/R 08/11/~ IO0*1020
REZMB FON P/R 08/11/94 300-1020
REINB FOR P/R 08/11/94 330-1020
H.V.A.C. NA[NT i CRC
190-182-9~-5212
H.V.A.C. HAINT a SR CTR 190-181-~-5212
ADDwL MICROPHONES 190-180-9~9'5301
REFUND/DEPOSiT 001-2650
OFFICE SUPPLIES ' PUBLI 100-16/.-60/.'5220
TCSD CANCELLED CLASS
UNIFORMS TCSD
RATS AT CITY HALL
RATS FOR CRC
MATS AT SR CENTER
190-183-4982
190-180-~g~-5243
340-1~-~-5250
190-182-~-5250
190-181-~-5250
TURFGRASS/LANDSCPE COtIF 190-180-~-5261
CRC BAND CONCERT JULY 9 190-18]-~-5301
BLDG MAINTENANCE SUPPLi 190-182-~-5212
CiTY HALL JULY/AUG/SEPT ~0-1~-9~-5250
POSTAGE METER REIMB 001-100-~-52]0
ITEM
ANOUNT
1,295.00
134,967.83
17,008.20
7,515.00
125.00
10.00
50.72
177.29
66.2~
835.81
96.97
3,597.39
506.66
30.25
12.50
11.11
250.00
89.00
150.00
212.00
28.80
23.00
18.85
30.75
69.39
16.75
50.00
400.00
70.52
105.00
5.91
PAGE I
CHECK
AMOUNT
1,295.00
134,967.83
17,008.20
7,515.00
125.00
10.00
50.72
1,07~.37
96.97
4,157.91
339.00
150.00
212.00
28.80
25.00
135.74
50.00
400.00
70.52
105.00
V~UCHRE2
08/19/94 15:06
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR
NUMBER DATE NUMBER
16250 08/19/94 000680
16250 08/19/94 000680
16250 08/19/94 000680
16250 08/19/94 000680
16250 08/19/94 000680
16250 08/19/94 000680
16250 08/19/94 000680
16250 08/19/94 000680
16250 08/19/94 000680
16251 08/19/94
16252 08/19/94
16253 08/19/94
16253 08/19/94
16253 08/19/94
16253 08/19/94
16254 08/19/94
16255 08/19/94
16256 08/19/94
16257 08/19/94
16258 08/19/94 001193
16259 08/19/94 001275
16260 08/19/94 001535
16261 08/19/94 000155
16261 08/19/94 000155
16261 08/19/94 000155
16262 08/19/94 000518
16263 08/19/94 000946
1626~ 08/19/94 001572
16265 08/19/94 000643
16266 08/19/94 000993
16267 08/19/94 001103
16267 08/19/94 001103
16268 08/19/94 000177
CTTY OF TENECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGXSTER
FOR ALL PERIOOS
VENDOR
NAME
AMS TMB
ANS TMS
ANS TMS
ANS TMS
A'NS TNS
ANS TMS
ANS TNS
AM5 TNS
AMS-TMS
ALVARADO, JOHN
BELL, JEANETTE
000129 CAL ~EST RENTAL CENTER
000129 CAL ~EST RENTAL CENTER
000129 CAL ~EST RENTAL CENTER
000129 CAL ~EST RENTAL CENTER
000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE HA
000597 CALIFORNIA MATER RESOUR
001195 CENTRAL SECURITY SERVIC
CHRISTENSEN, RICHARD
CUMP USA, INC.
CUMPUSERV, INC.
CREEKSIDE TEXACO
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
POSTAGE METER REIMB
POSTAGE METER REIMB
POSTAGE METER REINB
POSTAGE METER REIMB
POSTAGE METER REIMB
POSTAGE METER REIMB
POSTAGE METER REIMB
POSTAGE METER REIMB
POSTAGE METER REIMB
TCSD CANCELLED CLASS
TCSD CANCELLED CLASS
PARK MAINT RENTAL EQUIP
PARK HAINT RENTAL EQUIP
LAWN ROLLER RENTAL
PARK HAINT RENTAL EQUIP
ANNUALS COLOR - INSTALL
~ATER QUALITY CERT
CRC SEC & FIRE ALARN
REFUND-CLASSES CANCELLE
MISC COMPUTER SUPPLIES
JULY USAGE CHARGES
VEHICLE NAINT. FOR PUBL
DAVLIN PLANNING MTG 07/18
DAVLIN PLANNING MTG 08-01
DAVLIN 08/09 COUNCIL MTG
DEL RIO CARE ANINAL HOS MEDICAL CARE/POLICE DOG
DISCOUNT FEED & TACK
EMPLOYERS GROUP, THE
FORTNER HARDUARE
FREEDOM COFFEE, INC.
FREEDUM MATERIALS
FREEDUM MATERIALS
FOOl) FOR POLICE DOG
ANNUAL DUES 07/94-06/95
NISC SUPPLIES AND EQUIP
COFFEE SUPPLIES FY94-95
100 LB. BAGS SILICA SAN
TAX
GLENNIES OFFICE PROOUCT OFFICE SUPPLIES
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
001-110-999-5230
001-120-999-5230
001-140-999-5230
001-150-999-5230
001-161-999-5230
001-1990
100-164-604-5230
190-180-999-5230
320-199-999-5230
190-183-4982
190-183-4982
190-180-999-5238
190-180-999-5238
190-180-999-5238
190-180-999-5238
191-180-999-5415
001-1280
190-182-999-5250
190-183-4982
320-199-999-5221
320-199-999-5228
100-164-601-5214
001-161-999-5250
001-161-999-5250
001-100-999-5250
001-170-999-5327
001-170-999-5327
001-150-999-5226
190-180-999-5212
340-199-999~5250
100-164-601-5218
100-164-601-5218
190-180-999-5220
ITEM
AMOUNT
47.69
157.28
416.57
80.52
563.57
103.89
173.87
224.82
2.66
40.00
25.00
38.79
7.00
8.62
73.27
728.00
250.00
53.00
38.00
404.~7
19.72
26.95
150.00
150.00
700.00
33.00
80.78
720.00
201.88
98.19
220.50
17.09
137.70
PAGE 2
CHECK
AMOUNT
1,776.78
40.00
25.00
127.68
728.00
250.
53.00
38.00
19.72
26.95
1,000.00
33.00
720. O0
201
98.19
Z]7.59---~
137.?,,
VOUCHRE2 CiTY OF TEMECULA PAGE 3
08/lg-~ 15:06 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERInnS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK
NUMBER DATE
16269 08/19/94
16270 08/19/94
16271 08/19/94
16272 08/19/94
16273 08/19/94
16274 08/19/94
16275 08/19/94
16276 08/19/94
16277 08/19/94
16278 08/19/94
1627~z 08/19/94
ld 08/19/94
16217 08/19/94
16279 08/19/94
16280 08/19/94
16280 08/19/94
16280 08/19/94
16281 08/19/94
16281 08/19/94
16281 08/19/94
16281 08/19/94
16282 08/19/94
16283 08/19/94
16284 08/19/94
16285 08/19/94
16286 08/19/94
16286 08/19/94
16287 08/19/94
16288 08/19/94
ld 08/19/94
162~," 08/19/94
VENDOR VENDOR
NUMBER NAME
GREEN, SALLY
HOLL, WANDA
000806 HC/aARDo BORBY
HUNPHRIES, SUSAN
iTEM
DESCRIPTION
TCSO CANCELLED CLASS
TCSD CANCELLED CLASS
PAYMENT TO INSTRUCTOR
TCSD CANCELLED CLASS
000388 I C B 0
ANNUAL CORF/ELMO, ANTHO
00157'5 iNLAND EMPIRE TOURISN C DAVE HOGAN/SEMiNAR 08/9
001407 INTER VALLEY POQL SUPPL MISC POOL SUPPLIES OPEN
001186 IRWIN, JOHN
000204 J R FREEMAN CO., ]NC.
000488 KNOTT'S BERRY FARM
PAYMENT TO/NSTRUCTOR
REPAIR OF TYPEWRITER
DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP
001123 KNOX INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIE
001123 KNOX INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIE
001123 KNOX INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIE
001123 KNOX INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIE
MAINTENANCE SHALL TOOLS
TAX
HAINTEHANCE SUPPLIES -
TAX
001406 KUSTOR SIGNALS, INC. LEATHER RADAR HOLSTER
001406 IdJSTON SIGNALS, INC, FREIGHT
001406 KUSTON SIGNALS, INC. TAX
001553 LAWN TECH EQUIPMENT CON EQUIPMENT REPAIRS
001553 LAWN TECH EQUIPMENT COM PRUNER/C/RCLE SAW
001553 LAWN TECH EQUIPMENT CON TAX
001553 LAWN TECH EQUIPMENT CON REPAIRS TO EQUIPMENT
000653 LUCKY STORE DAY CAMP SNACKS
MARTINI, DONA
MCKEE, PATRICIA
001526 MiCHAELS STORES, INC.
TCSD CANCELLED CLASS
TCSD CANCELLED CLASS
CRAFT SUPPLIES
000239 OLSTEN TEMPORARY SERV/C TEMP SERVICES/VICI(Y GRA
000239 OLSTEN TEMPORARY SERVIC TEMP SERVICES/VICKY GRA
PAED, ARNI
000248 PETROLANE
TCSD CANCELLED CLASS
PROPANE B&S VEHICLE
000249 PETTY CASH
000249 PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
ACCOUNT
NONHER
190-183-4982
190-183-4982
190-183-999-5301
190-183-4982
001-162-999-5258
001-161-999-5261
190-182-999-5212
190-18~-999-5301
001-162-999-5242
190-183-999-5301
100-16/.-601-5242
100-164-601-5242
100-16/,-601-5218
100-164-601-5218
001-170-~-5215
001-170-~99-5215
001-170-99~-5215
100-164-601-5215
100-164-601-5610
.100-164-601-5610
100-164-601-5215
190-183-999-5301
190-183-4982
190-183-4982
190-180-999-5301
001-162-999-5118
001-162-99~-5118
190-183-4982
001-162-999-5263
190-183-999-5301
190-183-999-5301
ITEM
AMOUNT
35.00
40.00
160.00
55.00
355,00
?5.00
142.23
246.40
101.00
636,30
7'28.14
56.43
777.00
60.28
24.82
4.15
1.92
124.29
699.00
54.17
76.21
100.00
25.00
14.00
19.35
374.40
468.00
30,00
254.38
53.06
16.15
CHECK
AMOUNT
35.00
40.00
160.00
55.00
355.00
?5.00
142.~
246,40
101.00
636.30
1,622.65
30.8~
953.67
100.00
25.00
14.00
19.35
842.40
30.00
254.38
VQUCHRE2 CITY OF TENEC1JLA PAGE 4
08/19/94 15:06 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIQOS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VEMDOR
NLk~BER DATE Nt. AqBER MANE
16289 08/19/94 000249 PETTY CASH
16289 08/19/94 000249 PETTY CASH
16E89 08/19/94 000249 PETTY CASH
16289 08/19/94 000249 PETTY CASH
16289 08/19/94 000249 PETTY CASH
16289 08/19/94 000249 PETTY CASH
16289 08/19/94 000249 PETTY CASH
16Z89 08/19/94 000249 PETTY CASH
16290 08/19/94 000580 PHbTOMORKS
16291 08/19/94 000740 PICCA DELl
16292 08/19/94 001046 REXON, FREEDMAN, KLEPET
16293 08/19/94 RISCH, VICKI
16294 08/19/94 001527 RYKOFF-SEXTON, INC.
16294 08/19/94 001527 RYKOFF-SEXTOM, INC.
16294 08/19/94 001527 RYKOFF-SEXTON~ INC.
16295 08/19/94 000285 SIR SPEEDY
16295 08/19/94 000285 SIR SPEEDY
16296 08/19/94 000374 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
16296 08/19/94 000374 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
16296 08/19/94 000374 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
16296 08/19/94 000374 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
16296 08/19/94 000374 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
PETTY CASH
FILM & SLIDE SUPPLIES
EAP NGMT TRAINING LUNCH
ACCT 200513'00ON JULY 1
TCSD CANCELLED CLASS
CRC DISHWASHER SERVICE
CRC DISHMASHER SERV%CE
CRC DISHWASHER SERVICE
LETTERHEAD FOIL
TAX
06/02-07/01/94
07/01/94-08/02/94
07/01-08/02/94
06/02-07/01/94
07/01-08/02/94
ACCOUNT
MI/qBER
001-150-999-5260
190-180-999-5250
320-199-999-52~0
190-180-999-5230
001-100-999-5260
100-164-602-5260
001-161-999-5220
001-161-999-5260
190-180-999-5301
001-150-999-5260
001-130-999-5247
190-18~-4982
190-182-999-5212
190-182-999-5212
190-182-999-5212
001-110-999-5220
001-110-999-5220
190-180-999-5240
190-180-999-5240
193-180-999-5240
193-180-999-5240
193-180-999-5240
ITEM
AMOUNT
3.99
4.31
15.70
5.75
2.13
15.00
12.02
14.00
13.46
87.55
272.00
40.00
198.75
15.68-
15.68
33.00
2.56
16.13
18.07
15.36
25.11
27.70
CHECK
AMOUNT
142.11
13.46
87.55
272.00
40.00
198.715
35.~
102.37
TOTAL CHECKS
180,450.87
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 9
08/;>"'% 11:28 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
FUND TITLE
001 GENERAL FUND
100 GAS TAX FUND
165 RDA DEV- LO~/NOD SET ASIDE
190 CCIqI4UNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A
192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B
193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C
210 CAPITAL INPROVEHENT PROJ FUND
220 RARGARITA ROAD REINB DIST
280 REDEVELOPNENT AGENCY - CIP
300 INSURANCE FUND
320 INFORHATION SYSTEHS
330 SUPPORT SERVICES
3/*0 FACILITIES
TOTAL
AKOUNT
/,1,115.93
10,35~,,~,6
2~4.78
23,234.53
7,7~6.56
19,787.1/*
9,803.22
860. O0
13Z,,171.29
45,416.48
321.57
5,407 · 39
11,~8.07
310,93~.10
VQUCHREZ C]TY OF TENECULA PAGE
08/26194 11:28 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PER[OO$
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
DATE NUMBER NAME
iTEM
DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
13019 08/22/94
13019 08/22/94
13019 08/22/94
13019 08/22/94
13020 08/25/94
]20211 08/25/94
320Zll 08/25/94
320211 08/25/94
320211 08/25/94
320211 08/25/94
320211 08/25/94
320211 08/25/94
320211 08/25/94
320211 08/25/94
320211 08/25/94
]20211 08/25/94
]20211 08/25/94
320211 08/25/94
320211 08/25/94
320211 08/25/94
320211 08/25/94
]20211 08/25/94
320211 08/25/94
320211 08/25/94
]20211 08/25/94
320211 08/25/94
320211 08/25/94
320211 08/25/94
320211 08/25/94
369008 08/25/94
369008 08/25/94
369008 08/Z5/94
369008 08/25/94
]69008 08/25/94
369008 08/25/94
369008 08/25/94
369008 08/25/94
369008 08/25/94
]69008 08/25/94
369008 08/25/94
369008 08/25/94
369008 08/25/94
369008 08/25/94
369008 08/25/94
369008 08/25/94
]69008 08/25/94
369008 08/25/94
]69008 08/25/94
000430 GROUP AMERICA - VOLUNTA
000430 GROUP AMERICA - VOLUNTA
000430 GROUP AMERICA - VOLUNTA
000430 .GROUP AMERICA - VOLUNTA
000515 TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER
000444 FIRSTAX (EDD)
0004/~ FIRSTAX (EDD)
000/,44 FIRSTAX (EDD)
000444 FIRSTAX (EDD)
000444 FIRSTAX (EDD)
000444 FIRSTAX (EDD)
000444 FIRSTAX (EDD)
000444 FIRSTAX (EDD)
000444 FIRSTAX (EDD)
000444 FIRSTAX (EDD)
000444 FIRSTAX (EDD)
000444 FIRSTAX (EDD)
000444 FIRSTAX (EDD)
000444 FIRSTAX (EDD)
000444 FIRSTAX (EDD)
000444 FIRSTAX (EDD)
000444 FIRSTAX (EDD)
000444 FIRSTAX (EDD)
000444 FIRSTAX (EDD)
000444 FIRSTAX (EDD)
000444 FIRSTAX (EDD)
000444 FIRSTAX (EDD)
000444 FIRSTAX (EDD)
000444 FIRSTAX (EDD)
000283 F4RSTAX {IRS)
000283 FIRSTAX (iRS) ·
00028~ FIRSTAX (]RS)
000283 FIRSTAX (IRS)
000283 FIRSTAX (IRS)
000283 FIRSTAX (IRS)
000283 FIRSTAX (IRS)
000283 FIRSTAX ([RS)
000283 FIRSTAX (IRS)
000283 FIRSTAX (%RS)
000283 FIRSTAX (IRS)
00028] FIRSTAX (IRS)
000283 FIRSTAX (IRS)
00028] FIRSTAX CIRS)
000283 FIRSTAX (IRS)
000283 FXRSTAX (iRS)
000283 FIRSTAX (IRS)
000283 FiRSTAX (IRS)
00028~ FIRSTAX (IRS)
AUGUST PAYMENT
AUGUST PAYMENT
AUGUST PAYMENT
AUGLIST PAYMENT
RDA PROMOTIONAL FUNDS
000~,4
000444
000444 ~)I
O00,V~
O00z~,
000444 SDI
000444 SDI
000/+/,4 SDI
000444 STATE
O00z~-~+ STATE
000444 STATE
000444 STATE
000444 STATE
000444 STATE
000444 STATE
000444 STATE
000444 STATE
000444 STATE
0004/~ STATE
000283 FEDERAL
00028~ FEDERAL
000283 FEDERAL
0002Rx FEDERAL
000283 FEDERAL
000283 FEDERAL
00028~ FEDERAL
000283 FEDERAL
00028~ FEDERAL
00028~ FEDERAL
000283 FEDERAL
0002Rx FEDERAL
000283 MEDICARE
000283 MEDICARE
000283] MEDICARE
000283 MEDICARE
000283 MEDICARE
000283 MEDICARE
000283 MEDiCARE
001-1990
100-1990
190-1990
~40-1990
280-199-999-5270
001-2070
100-2070
165-2070
190-2070
191-2070
192-2070
193-2070
280-2070
300-2070
320-2070
330-2070
340-2070
001-2070
100-2070
165-2070
190-2070
191-2070
192-2070
193-2070
280-2070
300-2070
320-2070
330-2070
340-2070
001-2070
100-2070
165-2070
190-2070
191-2070
192-2070
193-2070
280-2070
300-2070
320-2070
330-2070
340-2070
001-2070
100-2070
165-2070
190-2070
191-2070
192-2070
19]-2070
32,09
3.77
10,54
,10
45,000.00
728.55
155.12
9.36
365.90
7.82
12.19
28.46
.61
9.09
17.83
10.54
27.14
2,871.48
804.02
22.08
586.41
15.40
1.71
44.26
8.48
35.61
6~.13
17.05
15.26
10,827.94
2,359.83
103.25
3,269.81
46.88
47.46
210.57
30.24
97.96
27~.83
92.63
130.04
2,610.90
509.03
20.88
938.94
17.44
27.18
63.48
46.50
45,000.00
5,658.50
VOUCHRE2
08/2-'~'~ 11: 28
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
369008
369008
369008
369008
369008
13026
13026
13026
13027
13027
13027
13027
13028
13028
13020
13020
13030
13031
13032
13033
13033
13033
13033
13034
13035
13036
13037
13030
13039
13040
CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
DATE NUMBER NAME
C]TY OF TENECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERI~OS
ITEM ACCOUNT
DESCRIPT%ON NUMBER
08/25/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 0002A'x REDICARE 280-2070
08/25/94 00028~ FIRSTAX (%RSI 000283 MED%CARE 300-2070
08/25/94 00028~ FIRSTAX (%RS) 0002Rx MEDICARE 320-2070
08/25/94 000283 FIRSTAX (IRS) 00028~ NEDICARE 330-2070
08/25/94 00028~ FiRSTAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 340-2070
08/25/94 000745 A T & T 909-20~-1200-0 320-199-999-5208
08/25/94 0O0745 A T & T 909-204-1200-0 MJM 001-140-999-5208
08/25/94 000745 A T & T 619-987-1828-1 001-140-999-5208
08/25/94 001086 ADCO EQU]PMENT SALES
08/25/94 001086 ADCO EGUIM4ENT SALES
08/25/94 001086 ADCO EGUIPMENT SALES
08/25/94 001086 ADCO EQUIPMENT SALES
2 - 50255 CABLE ASSEMBL 100-164-601-5218
4 - 50067 CUTTER SHAFT 100-16~-601-5218
FREIGHT 100-164-601-5218
TAX 100-164-601-5218
08/25/94 001502 ADVANCE BUSINESS GRAPH[ PARKING CITATION FORMS
08/25/94 001502 ADVANCE BUSINESS GRAPHI ARTWORK
08/25/94 001502 ADVANCE BUSINESS GRAPNI PROOFS
08/25/94 001502 ADVANCE BUSINESS GRAPHI TAX
08/25/94 001425 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR CORP.
08/25/94 001425 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR CORP.
08/25/94 001281 ALHAMBRA GROUP
08/25/94 000110 AMERICAN BUSINESS SYSTE
08/25/94 000102 AMERICAN FENCE CO. OF C
001-170-999-5222
001-170-999-5222
001-170-999-5222
001-170-999-5222
909 204-1200 TH
SO 1075255081594 MJM
320-199-999-5208
001-140-999-5208
LO~A LINDA PARK JULY 210-190-134-5802
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT 330-199-999-5217
TEMPORARY FENCE RENTAL 190-180-999-5238
08/25/94 000101 APPLE ONE TEMP HELP W/E 08/06/94 001-140-999-5118
08/25/94 000101 APPLE ONE TEMP HELP W/E 08/06/94 280-199-999-5250
08/25/94 000101 APPLE ORE TEMP HELP W/E 08/13/94 001-140-999-5118
08/25/94 000101 APPLE ONE TENP HELP W/E 08/13/94 280-199-999-5250
08/25/94 000622 BANTA ELECTRIC-REFRIGER
08/25/94 001551 BRyANfS DOG TRAINING
08/25/94 001006 BURTRONICS BUSINESS SYS
08/25/94 000603 CABLE & WIRELESS COMMUN
08/25/94 001580 CAL STATE L.A.
08/25/94 001578 CALIFORNIA DEPT OF PARK
08/25/94 000502 CAL]FORNIA MUNICIPAL ST
08/25/94 000152 CALIFORNIA PARKS & RECR
08/25/94 000152 CALIFORNIA PARKS & RECR
REPAIR OF C.R.C. SIGN D 190-182-999-5212
PMT FOR TCSD INSTRUCTOR 190-183-999-5301
MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT 330-199-999-5217
SERVICE 7/16 -8/15 320-199-999-5208
PLANNING & RECOVERY tats 320-199-999-5258
ACCESS TO PARKS GUIDEL[ 190-180-999-5228
1993-94 ASSESSED VALUAT 001-140-999-5250
MEMBERSHIP FOR J. CRONE 190-180-999-5226
MEMBERSHIP FOR B. HARTL 190-180-999-5226
ITEM
AMOUNT
11.64
24.37
58.36
23.52
62.30
.65
.65
14.08
27.50
24.00
17.05
4.98
769.60
25.00
15,00
62.74
68.22
109.87
300.00
145.00
145,00
352.17
103.20
362.33
51.60
86.80
272.00
38.41
894.06
195.00
50.00
350.00
125.00
120.00
PAGE 2
CHECK
AMOUNT
21,86~.48
15.38
7'3.53
872
178.09
300.00
145.00
145.00
869.30
86.80
272.00
38.41
894.06
195.00
50.00
350.00
245.00
VOUCHRE2
08/26/94 11:28
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK
NUMBER DATE
130~2 08/25/94
13042 08/25/94
130/,3 08/25/94
13043 08/25/94
13043 08/25/94
13043 08/25/94
13044 08/25/94
13045 08/25/94
13045 08/25/94
130/+6 08/25/94
13047 08/25/94
13048 08/25/94
13049 08/25/94
13049 08/25/94
13050 08/25/94
13051 08/25/94
13052 08/25/94
13053 08/25/94
13054 08/25/94
13054 08/25794
13055 08/25/94
13056 08/25/94
13056 08/25/94
13056 08/25/94
13057 08/25/94
13058 08/25/94
13058 08/25/94
13058 08/25/94
13058 08/25/94
13058 08/25/94
13059 08/25/94
13060 08/25/94
13060 08/25/94
VENDOR VENDOR
NUMBER NAME
00012? CALIFORNIAN.- LEGAL
000127 CALIFORNIAN - LEGAL
000135 CENTRAL CITIES SIGN SER
000135 Ci:HTRAL CITIES SIGN SER
000135 CENTRAL CITIES SIGN SER
000135 CENTRAL CITIES SIGN SER
000429 CH~SHER, RUTH
000137 CHEVRON U S A INC,
000137 CHEVRON U S A INC.
O00~J,? CORTRORIX OF HEMET
001577 CORP. FOR ENTERPRISE DE
COX, ROSE
001535 CREEKSIDE TEXACO
001535 CREEKSIDE TEXACO
001233 DAN'S FEED & SEED, INC.
001029 DATAGUICK
000155 DAVLIN
000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS
001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK C
001002 FIRST INTERSTATE BANK'C
000949 G K N RENTALS '
00018~ G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM
000184 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM
000184 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYN
GAITAN, TANYA
000177 GLENHIES OFFICE PRODUCT
00017'7 GLENHIES OFFICE PRODUCT
000177 GLENHIES OFFICE PRODUCT
000177 GLENHIES OFFICE PRODUCT
00017'7 GLENHIES OFFICE PRODUCT
GRAVES, ROXANNE
000186 HANKS NARDWARE
000186 HANKS NARDWARE
CITY OF TENECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
PUBLIC NOTICES CALlFORM
SUBSCRIPTION-52 ~EEKS
HARDWARE FOR SIGN INSTA
TAX
HARDUARE FOR SIGN INSTA
TAX
REIHB FOR CITY ~ATCHES
789-819-697-2
789-819-697-2
HANO RADIO REPROGRANED
PUBLICATIONS FOR FINANC
REFUND FOR TCSD REFUND
VEHICLE MAINT. FOR PURL
VEHICLE NAINT. FOR PUBL
PROPANE GAS FOR P~
NTLY CD RI CHARGE
VIDEO TAPE COPY FLD DAN
EXPRESS RAIL
547~ 666~ 0391 O07~-RP
5473 6664 0391 O0?3-RP
FORKLIFT RENTAL
909 181-112~ GEM
909 694-1993 GEM
909 699-8632 GEM
REFUND FOR TC$O CLASS
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
MISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES F
RETURNED SUPPLIES CREDI
REFUND FOR TCSO CLASS
SUPPLIES FOR PARK NAINT
SPORTS SUPPLIES
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
001-120-999-5256
001-161-999-5226
100-16~-601-52~
100-16~-601-5244
100-16~-601-524~
100-164-601-522~
001-1170
001-170-999-5262
001-110-999-5263
001-162-999-5242
001-140-999-5228
190-183-4982
100-164-601-5214
100-16~-601-5216
100-16~-601-5218
320-199-999-5250
001-163-999-5250
320-199-999-5730
001-100-999-5258
001-100-999-5226
340-199-999-5250
320-199-999-5208
320-199-999-5208
320-199-999-5208
190-183-4975
190-182-999-5220
001-150-999-5220
190-182-999-5220
001-140-999-5220
190-180*999-5220
190-18~-6982
190-180-999-5212
190-183-999-5301
ITEM
AMOUNT
611.01
56.03
117.76
9.13
120.80
9.36
96.97
85.04
53.06
35.00
35.00
30.83
26.95
13.91
62.81
16.16
9.00
259.73
40.00
186,10
588.27
1,192.16
16.86
25. O0
32.00
61.74
42.30
24.66
16.47-
20.00
505.25
209.29
PAGE 3
CHECK
AMOUNT
667.0~
257.03
96.97
138.10
35. O0
2~.90
35.00
57.7L,,
13.,,,
62.81
16.16
9.00
2~.~
186.10
1,797.29
25. O0
20, O0
714,b,,.
VOUCHRE2
08/2""
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
13061
13062
13063
13063
13063
13063
13063
130~3
13063
13064
13065
13066
13067
13~
13b~,
13070
13071
13072
13072
13072
13073
13073
13073
13074
13075
13076
13076
13077
13078
13079
1
11:28
CHECK
DATE
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/Z5/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
CiTY OF TENECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT
NUMBER NAME DESCRIPT;ON NUMBER
001517
000194
000194
000194
000194
000194
000194
000194
HARRIS, VIRGINIA REFUND FOR TCSD CLASS
HEALTH & HUMAN RESOURCE EMPLOYEE ASSIST PROG AU
RETIREMENT TRUS 00019~ DEF COIIP
RETZREMENT TRUS 00019/, DEF CONP
RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF CONP
RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF CONP
RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF CONP
RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF CONP
RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF CONP
190-183-4982
001-150-999-5250
001-2080
100-2080
190-2080
191-2080
193-2080
300-2080
3/,0-2080
001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPL MISC. POOL SUPPLIES
001349 IC~NE, BALLHER & BERIO4AN JULY SERVICES
001553 LAWN TECH EQUIPMENT CON REPAIRS TO CHAIN SAW, U
000596 LEAGUE OF CAL. CITIES ANNUAL CONF. 10/2]-25
190-182-999-5212
280-199-999-5246
100-164-601-5215
001-100-999-5258
001579 MAIN PHOTO
LAW ENFONE IBAGING SEPT 001-170-999-5261
001574
MALHERBE, SUZANNE REFUND FOR TCSD CLASS
NARAIA, LAURA REFUND FOR TCSD CLASS
MARGARITA VILLAGE RET C NARGARITA RD WIDENING
190-183-4982
190-183-4975
220-165-610-580~
000219 BARTIN 1-HOUR PHOTO
000219 MARTIN 1-HOUR PHOTO
000219 MARTIN 1-HOUR PHOTO
PHOTO DEVEL FOR PW
PHOTO DEVEL FOR PW
PHOTO DEVEL FOR PW
001-163-999-5250
001-165-9q9-5250
100-164-601-5250
000228 MOBIL 88~ 930 379 2 AUGUST I00-16~-601-526~
000228 MOBIL 883 930 379 2 AUGUST 001-161-999-5262
000228 MOBIL 88~ 930 379 2 AUGUST 001-110-999-5263
00088~ NONTELEONE EXCAVATING WEED ABATEMENT YNEZ RD 100-164-601-5402
NUNN, TERESA
001007 N P G CORP.
001007 N P G CONP.
REFUND FOR TCSD CLASS
6" ASPHALT BERM
OVERLAY NANHOLE
190-183-4982
100-164-601-5A02
100-164-601-5A02
000930 NATIONAL EMBLENo INC. VOLUNTEER PATCHES 001-170-999'5243
000727 NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTIO 94 SPRINKLER CODE RDBK 001"162'999'5228
000232 NEET, JOHN P., NAI APPRAISAL OF COMM CNTR 190-180-999-5250
000881 OAKRIDGE LANDSCAPE/IRRI SHRUBS-VANDALS PO 15777 100-164-601-5401
ITEM
AMOUNT
70.00
325.00
1,187.87
248.6~
436.50
74.52
91.09
37.49
29.10
213.35
148.75
25.8~
195.00
250.00
35.00
25.00
1:~,171.29
34.72
15.37
25.4,4
18.85
30.93
30.~
250.00
18.00
550.00
968.00
302.96
57.11
600,00
525,00
PAGE
CHECK
ANGUNT
70.00
325.00
2,105.20
213.35
148.75
25.86
195.00
250.00
35.00
25.00
134,171.29
75.53
80.22
250.00
18.00
1,518.00
302.96
57.11
600.00
525.00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TENECULA PAGE 5
08/26/94 11:25 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER ~,
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK
NUMBER DATE
13081 08/25/94
13082 08/25/94
13083 08/25/94
VENDOR
NUMBER
000239
001354
13084 08/25/94 000525
13085 08/25/94 000246
13085 08/25/94 000246
13085 08/25/94 000246
13085 08/25/94 000246
13085 08/25/94 000246
13085 08/25/94 000246
13085 08/25/94 000246
13085 08/25/94 000246
13085 08/25/94 000246
13085 08/25/94 000246
13085 08/25/94 000246
13085 08/25/94 000246
13085 08/25/94 000246
13085 08/25/94 000246
13085 08/25/94 000246
13085 08/25/94 000246
13085 08/25/94 000246
13085 08/25/94 000246
13085 08/25/94 000246
13085 08/25/94 000246
13085 08/25/94 000246
13085 08/25/94 000246
13085 08/25/94 000246
13085 08/25/94 000246
11085 08/25/94 000246
13085 08/25/94 000246
VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT
NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER
OLSTEN TEMPORARY SERVIC
P C MAGAZINE
PALMER, SUSAN
PARK~ RONALD J.
PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEES# RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEES# RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEES# RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEESf RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEES# RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEES# RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEES# RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE
PERS ~MPLOYEESI RETIRE
PRRS EMPLOYEES~ RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEESt RETIRE
13086 08/25/94 000249 PETTY CASH
13086 08/25/94 000249 PETTY CASH
1108(> 08/25/94 000249 PETTY CASH
13086 08/25/94 000249 PETTY CASH
13086 08/25/94 000249 PETTY CASH
13086 08/25/94 000249 PETTY CASH
13087 08/25/94 000580 PHOTO~ORKS
13088 08/25/94 000253 POSTMASTER
13088 08/25/94 000253 POSTHASTER
13088 08/25/94 000253 POSTMASTER
1308~ 08/25/94 000253 POSTMASTER
13089 08/25/94 000516 PRENTICE HALL, INC.
TENP HELP W/E 08/07 001-162-999-5118
PC MAGAZINE SUBSCIPTIOR 320-199-999-5228
SWIM LESSON REFUND 190-18~-4975
LEAGUE OF CC JULY 27-29 001-I00-99q-5258
000246 PER REDE 001-2130
000246 PER REDE 100-2130
000246 PERS RET 001-2J90
000246 PERS RET 100-2390
000246 PERS RET 165-2390
000246 PERS RET 190-2390
000246 PERS RET 191-2390
000246 PERS RET 192-2390
000246 PERS RET 19]-2390
000246 PERS RET 280-2390
000246 PERS RET ]00-2390
000246 PERS RET ]20-2390
000246 PERS RET 330-2390
000246 PERS RET 340-Z]90
000246 SURVIVOR 001-2,]90
000246 SURVIVOR 100-2390
000246 SURVIVOR 165-2390
000246 SURVIVOR 190-2390
000246 SURVIVOR 191-2390
000246 SURVIVOR 192-2390
000246 SURVIVOR 193-2390
000246 SURVIVOR 280-Z$90
000246 SURVIVOR 300-2390
000246 SURVIVOR 320-2390
000246 SURVIVOR 330-2390
000246 SURVIVOR 340-2390
PETTY CASH REIMB.
PETTY CASH REINB,
PETTY CASH RE]MB.
PETTY CASH REINS,
PETTY CASH REINS,
PETTY CASH REINS,
190-18~-999-5301
001-100-999-5258
190-180-999-5220
190-181-999-5301
001-161-999-5220
001-161-999-5260
PICTURE DEVELOPING 001-161-999-5224
EXPRESS MAIL SERVICE
EXPRESS MAIL SERV]CE
EXPRESS MAIL SERVICE
EXPRESS MAIL SERVICE
190-180-999-5230
001-120-999-5230
001-161-999-5230
001-110-999-5230
THE COMPLETE ~IORD BOOK 190-180-999-5228
ITEM
AMOUNT
468.00
59.95
25.00
30.00
128.52
85.88
12,306.50
2,364.84
108.84
2,475.14
87.47
105.56
313.55
61.17
111.59
268.21
114.60
287.20
49.11
10.69
12.51
.42
.93
1.44
.19
.46
2.00
28.11
20.00
5.39
35.46
14.00
20.00
20.01
23.90
45.85
13.95
9.95
75.22
CHECK
AMOUNT
468.00
59.95
25.00
30.00
18,897.65
122.96
20.01
93.65
75.
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEECULA PAGE 6
08/3""'~ 11:28 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIOOS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR iTEM ACCOUNT
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
ANESJNT
13090 08/25/94 000894 PRESENTATION PRODUCTS, SUPPLIES 001o161-999-5220
13091 08/25/94 000254 PRESS-ENTERPRISE CORPAN
13091 08/25/94 000254 PRESS-ENTERPRISE COMPAN
13091 08/25/94 000254 PRESS-ENTERPRISE COHPAN
COMM SERV FUNDING PRO6 001-140-999-5254
DISPLAY AD PLAN COle4 TU 001-120-999-5254
DISPLAY AD PLAN COIq4 SU 001-120-999-5254
218.21
116.55
28.00
29.60
218.21
174.15
13092 08/25/94 000992 RAHONA TIRE, INC. REPAIR OR B&S V~HICLES 001-162-999-5214
281.49
281.49
13093 08/25/94 000262 RANCNO CALIFORNIA WATER WATER SERVICE FROR 6/8- 190-182-999-5240
13093 08/25/94 000262 RANCNO CALIFORNIA MATER MATER SERVICE FROM 6/8- 190-180-999-5240
13093 08/25/94 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER WATER SERVICE FROM 6/8- 191-180-999-5240
13093 08/25/94 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER WATER SERVICE FROM 6/8- 193-180-999-5240
13093 08/25/94 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER WATER SERVICE FROM 6/8- 190-181-999-5240
13093 08/25/94 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER MATER SERVICE FROM 6/8- 100-164-601-5240
13093 08/25/94 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER WATER SERVICE FROM 6/21 190-180-999-5240
13093 08/25/94 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER WATER SERVICE FROM 6/21 191-180-999-5240
13093 08/25/94 000262 RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER WATER SERVICE FROM 6/21 19~-180-999-5240
13094 08/25/94 000426 RANCHO INDUSTRIAL SUPPL
13094 08/25/94 000426 RANCHO INDUSTRIAL SUPPL
1 08/25/94 000]52 RIVERSIDE CO. ASSESSOR
MISCELLANEOUS JANITORIA 3~0-199-999-5212
MISCELLANEOUS JANITORIA 340-199-999-5212
ASSESSOR#S PARCEL NAPS 190-180-999'5370
799.60
4,887.65
122.94
1,557.15
80.95
21.82
],026.02
137.68
7,492.92
29.33
177.83
13.50
18,126.T3
207.16
13.50
13096 08/25/94 000353 RIVERSIDE CO. AUOITOR
13096 08/25/94 000353 RIVERSIDE CO, AUDITOR
PARKING CITATION ASSESS 001-2265
PARKING CITATION ASSESS 001~2260
50.00
60.00
110.00
13097 08/25/94 000275 ROMERO, LUCI
MUN MGMT CONF 8/17/94 001-140-999-5258
149.30
149.30
13098 08/25/94 000704 S K S# INC/INLAND OIL
13098 08/25/94 000704 S K S, INC/INLAND OIL
13098 08/25/94 000704 S K S, INC/INLANO OIL
13098 08/25/94 000704 S K S, ]NC/INLAND OIL '
13098 08/25/94 000704 S'K S, INC/INLANO OIL
13098 08/25/94 000704 S K S# INC/INLANO OIL
13099 08/25/94 000278 SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE
1058017 AUGUST SERVICES 100-16~-601-526]
1058017 AUGUST SERVICES 001-110-999-5263
1058017 AUGUST SERVICES 001-165-999-5263
1058017 AUGUST SERVICES 001-163-999-5263
1058017 AUGUST SERVICES 001-162-999-526]
1058017 AUGUST SERVICES 190-180-999-5263
ENG RECRUITMENT AD 001-150-999-5254
452.21
47.52
56.35
86.47
48.T'~
167.62
183.00
858.90
183.00
13100 08/25/94 0004~4 SIERRA COMPUTER SYSTEMS SIERRA SYSTEM MOOIFICAT 320-199-999-5248
272. O0
272.00
13101 08/25/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON -
13101 08/25/94 000537 SOUTHERN CAL]F EDISON -
13101 08/25/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EOISOR -
13101 08/25/94 000537 SOUTHERN CALIF EDISON -
STREET LIGHTS 6/30-7/~1
SERVICE ENDING 7/31/94
SERVICE PERIUD 07/08 -
SERVICE 07/08 - 08/05
13102 08/25/94 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPNOR 904) 202-420~ WE
13102 08/25/94 000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPROR 9092024751-TS
13102 08/25/94 000375 SOUTHERN ORLIF TELEPNOR 909 202-4756 ICRTM
13102 08/25/94 000]75 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON 9092024757-J6
13~- 08/25/94 000375 -SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPROR 909 202-4758 RR
1 08/25/94 00037~ SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON 909 202-4759 TE
1~..~ 08/25/94 00037~ SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHOR 9092024760-JH
191-180-999-5319
192-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
001-110-999-5208
100-16~-60~-5208
320-199-999-5208
001-120-999-5208
001-100-999-5208
001-162-999-5208
100-164'-603-5208
6,988.88
19,592.11
210.25
46.86
39.24
52.92
36.34
62.92
81.21
55.86
80.90
26,838.10
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE
08/26/94 11:28 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR
NUMBER DATE NUMBER
13102 08/25/94
13102 08/25/94
13102 08/25/94
13102 08/25/94
13102 08/25/94
13102 08/25/94
13102 08/25/94
13102 08/25/94
13102 08/25/94
13102 08/25/94
13102 08/25/94
13102 08/25/94
13103 08/25/94
13104 08/25/94
13104 08/25/94
13105 08/25/94
13105 08/25/94
13106 08/25/94
13106 08/25/94
13107 08/25/94
13108 08/25/94
13108 08/25/94
13108 08/25/94
13108 08/25/94
13108 08/25/94
13108 08/25/94
13100 08/25/94
13108 08/25/94
13108 08/25/94
13108 08/25/94
13108 08/Z3/94
13108 08/25/94
13109 08/25/94
13110 08/25/94
13110 08/25/94
13111 08/25/94
13111 08/25/94
13111 08/25/94
13111 08/25/94
13111 08/25/94
13111 08/25/94
VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHOR
000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHOR
000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHOR
000375 ~O~JTHERN CALIF TELEPHOR
000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON
000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHOR
000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPNOR
000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON
000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON
000375 SOUTHERN CAL]F TELEPHOR
000375 SOUTHERN CAL/F TELEPHOR
000375 SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON
000291 SPEE DEE OIL CHANGE & T
001546 STRAIGHT LINE GLASS
001546 STRAIGHT LINE GLASS
000302 SYSTEM SOURCE, INC.
000302 SYSTEM SOURCE, INC.
000307 TEMECULA TROPHY CO.
000307 TEMECULA TROPHY CO,
THORAS, LORRI
001545 TIME MOTION TOOLS
001545 TIME MOTION TOOLS
001545 TIME NOTION TOOLS
001545 TIME MOTION TOOLS
001545 TIME MOTIOR TOOLS
001545 TIME MOTION TOOLS
001545 TiME MOTION TOOLS
001545 TIME MOTION TOOLS
001545 TIME MOTION TOOLS
001545 TIME MOTION TOOLS
001545 TIME MOTION TOOLS
001545 TIME MOTION TOOLS
001560 TOTAL HEALTH NUTR/TIOR&
000320 TCNNE CENTER STATIONERS
000320 TOIJNE CENTER STATIONERS
909 202-4761SM
909 202-4762 RP
909202476~-88
9092024765-GB
909 202-4769 JS
909 202-4770 RB
909 202-5153 GY
909 202-4753 BH
909 202-4754 KH
6/29 - 7/28/9(.
9092054070-MJM
909 205-7826 EOC
001-100-999-5208
001-100-999-5208
100-16~-601-5208
100~164-601-5208
001-100-999-5208
001-110-999-5208
001-150-999-5208
190-180-999-5208
190-180-999*5208
190-180-99~-5208
001-140-999-5208
320-199-999-5208
NAINT FOR OR VEHICLE 001-110-999-5214
SCREEN FAB/MINDOU IMSTA 190-180-999-5212
RR DAMAGE WINDO~ AT CRC 190-182-999-5212
PW OFFICE FURNISHINGS ]Z,0-199-999-5219
TAX 340-199-999-5219
TROPHIES 190-182-999-5301
PARENT/TEEN TROPNYS 190-182-999-5301
REFUND FOR TCSD CLASS 190-183-4980
TMT-620 LAN CABLEMETER 320-1970
FREIGHT 320-1970
FREIGHT REFUND INV OVER 320-1970
TAX 320-1970
TMT-A~/45 MULTI-PURPOSE 320-199-999-5242
TMT-700C CORDURA CARRY[ 320-199-999-5242
TMT-E91525 CRIMPING TOO 320-199-999-5242
TMT-323KT CABLE SPLICER 320-199-999-5242
TMT-S21N SCISSOR W/NOTC 320-199-999-5242
TMT-CK-IO PHILLIPS #13 320-199-999-5242
FREIGHT 320-199-999-5242
TAX 320-199-999-5242
FAT LOSS TCSD CLASS 190-18]-999-5301
OFFICE SUPPLIES - PUBLI 100-164-604-5220
OFFICE SUPPLIES - PUBLI 100-164-604-5220
001065 U S C M/PEBSCO IDEF. C 001065 DEF COHP
001065 U S C M/PEGSCO (DEF. C 001065 OEF CORP
001065 U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF CORP
001065 U S C N/PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF CORP
001065 U S C N/PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF CORP
001065 U S C M/PEBSCO (DEF. C 001065 DEF CORP
001-2080
100-2080
190-2080
300-2080
320-2080
340-2080
174.95
92.77
67.78
43.40
42.57
48.30
61,10
46.97
105.51
49.83
132.54
36.34
20.99
349.40
794. O0
96. O0
7.44
25.86
16.17
15.00
795.00
4.80
4.80-
61.61
15.95
15.00
2] .95
29.95
10.75
8.95
8.10
140.00
255.96
127.99-
2,518.52
188.45
275.09
5.00
312.50
50.00
1,311.45
20.99
1,143.40
103.~.
42.0~
15.00
97'5.94
140.00
127.97
3,349.
VOUCHRE2 CiTY OF TEMECULA PAGE 8
08/2/"'"" 11:28 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK
HLIMBER
13112
13112
13113
13113
13113
13113
13114
13114
13114
13115
13116
13117
13117
13118
13~
1:
13119
13119
13119
CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
DATE NUMBER NAME
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
00/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
08/25/94
iTEM ACCOUNT iTEM
DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT
000389 U S C M/PEBSCO (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR
000389 U S C M/PEBSCQ (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR
000325 UNITED WAY OF THE INLAN 000325 UW
000325 UNITED MAY OF THE INLAN 000325 IN
000325 UNITED gAY OF THE INLAN 000325 IN
000325 UNITED WAY OF THE iNLAN 000325 IN
000326 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE
000326 UN/TOG RERTAL SERVICE
000326 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE
VOLIVITCHo JUDZ
0003?9 W DEAN DAVIDSON CO.
001342 MAXZE SANITARY SUPPLY
001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY
000342 WINDSOR PARTNERS - RANC
000342 WINDSOR PARTNERS - RANC
000342 WINDSOR PARTNERS - RANC
000347 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE
000347 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE
000347 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE
001-2160
190-2160
001-2120
100-2120
190-2120
280-2120
UNIFORMS PW
UNIFORM MAINTENANCE FOR
RENTAL AND CLEANING OF
100-164-601-5243
190-180-999-5243
340-199-999-5250
REFUND FOR TCSD CLASS 190-183-4982
NH PARK iMPROVEMENT PRO 210-190-136-5802
BLDG MAINTENANCE SUPPLI 190-182-999-5212
BLDG MAINTENANCE SUPPLI 190-182-999-5212
CREDIT FOR CAM
SEPT RENT
CAM FOR AUGUST
340-199-999-5234
340-199-999-5234
3~,0-199-999-5234
FIRST AiD REFILLS & SUP 001-165-999-5242
TAX 001-165-999-5242
F]RST AiD REFILLS & SUP 100-164-601-5218
258.78
1,137.70
65.85
10.05
17.00
.60
24.08
18.85
30.75
36.00
560.00
178.72
153.74
610.07-
8,803.60
2,6'}'3.95
49.95
3.87
177.67
CHECK
AHOUNT
1,396.48
93.50
73.68
36. O0
560.00
332.46
10,867.48
231.49
TOTAL CHECKS
310,934.10
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEHECULA PAGE 6
08/]1/94 16:03 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER "'--,
FOR ALL PERIODS
FUND TITLE
001 GENERAL FUND
100 GAS TAX FUND
190 CONNUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C
210 CAPITAL IHPROVENENT PROJ FUND
280 REDEVELOPNENT AGENCY -
300 INSURANCE FUND
320 1NFORNATION SYSTENS
SUPPORT SERVICES
FACILITIES
TOTAL
ANQUNT
106,8252.40
11,351.68
7,778.24
705.97
165.00
417.06
882,0/,
3,425.95
2,986.12
2,115.6~
136,660.15
VOUCHRE2 CiTY OF TEMECULA PAGE 1
08/.t""'~ 16:03 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
EOR ALL PERInnS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAJlE
13123 09/01/94 001586 A C C R A
13124 09/01/94 001587 A P W A
13125 09/01/94 000558 ADVANCED NOBILECONN
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
COST OF LIVING INDEX 94
~KSHP FOR CLEAN WATER &
NOiILE COVERAGE
13126 09/01/94 000102 AMERICAN FENCE CO. OF C FENCE INSTALLATION/CITY
13127 09/01/94 001323 ARRONHEAD WATER
13127 09/01/94 001323 ARRONHEAD WATER
13128 09/01/94
13129 09/01/94 001590
13130 09/01/94 000129
13131 09/01/94 001004
13132 09/01/94 000126
1 09/01/94 000127
13~J 09/01/94 000127
13134 09/01/94 000365
13135 09/01/94 000138
13135 09/01/94 000138
13136 09/01/94 000571
13137 09/01/94
13138 09/01/94
13139 09/01/94
13140 09/01/94
13141 09/01/94
13142 09/01/94
13142 09/01/94
13143 09/01/94
15144 09/01/94
1:~5 09/01/94
13,~o 09/01/94
BAILEY, VERONICA
CRA
CAL WEST RENTAL CENTER
WATER FOR PW YARD
7/25 - 8/17/94 WATER
REFUND FOR TCSD CLASS
CRA RDA WKSHP NOV 14-16
PARX MAINTENANCE RENTAL
CALIFORNIA DEPT OF FISH 92 ANN REPT/WILD HERITA
CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE HA IRRIGATION SYSTEM FOR M
CALIFORNIAN - LEGAL
CALIFORNIAN - LEGAL
CASSIERE, KATHLEEN
CITICORP NORTH AMERICA
CITICORP NORTH AMERICA
DISPLAY ADS
DISPLAY ADS
REFUND FOR GOLF TOURAME
SEPT 94 iNSTALLMENT
SEPT 94 INSTALLMENT
CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEERIN gXSNP FOR CDNNISSIONERS
CLARK, LORI
000442 COMPUTER ALERT'SYSTEMS
000447 CORTRONIX OF HEMET
001535 CREEKSIDE TEXACO
REFUND FOR TCSO CLASS
FIRE ALARM MONITORING A
ANTENNA FOR HAND RADIO
VEHICLE HA/NT. PUBLIC W
001233 DAN'S FEED & SEED, INC, PROPANE GAS FOR FIELD T
000155 DAVLIN VIDEO DUPLICATION OF CC
000155 DAVLIN COPIES OF VIDEO TAPES
001542 DEFABIIS, SEAN PAUL PNT FOR TCSD INSTRUCTOR
001245
000164
001056
ACCOUNT
NUI~BER
001'140'~-5228
001-163-~9-5261
320-1~'~'5209
~0-1~'~'5219
100'16/+'601'5240
~40'1~'~'5240
lq0'18~'4975
001-140-~-5258
190'180'~'5238
001'161'~9'5228
190'180'~'5212
280-1~9-~9~-5264
190'180'~'5254
001'2172
320-2800
320-1~-~qq-5391
100'164'602'5261
190-18~-4975
340-1~-~-5250
100-164-601-5242
001-16~-~9~-5214
100-164-601-5218
001-120-~-5250
001-100-~-5250
190-18~-~-5301
DISPOSAL CONTROL SERVIC NAZ-HAT STOPJ~GE & DISPO 100-164-601-5430
ESGIL CORPORATION PLAN REVIEW FOR FY 92,9 001-2030
EXCEL LANDSCAPE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE F 1~-180-~-5415
ITEM
AMOUNT
110.00
85.00
738.00
985.00
22.00
139.86
25.00
290.00
20.56
29.45
401.54
417.06
208,54
55.00
1,185.69
241,88
200,00
25.00
135.00
28.56
Z~.5,05
12.47
53.88
700.00
408.00
314,87
91,640.94
405.97
CHECK
AMOUNT
110.00
85.00
T38.00
985.00
161.86
25.00
290.00
20.56
29.45
401.54
625.60
55.00
1,427.57
200.00
'25.00
135.00
28.56
/~,5.05
12.47
753.88
408.00
314.87
91,640.96
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TENECULA PAGE
08/~1/94 16:03 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME
[TEN
DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
13146 09/01/94 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
13147 09/01/94 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS
13148 09/01/94 000993 FREEDOM COFFEE, INC.
13149 09/01/94 000184 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM
13149 09/01/94 000184 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM
13149 09/01/94 00018/. G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM
13149 09/01/94 00018~ G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM
LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS
EXPRESS HAIL
COFFEE SUPPLIES FY94-95
909 695-356~ GEN
909 699-6267 GEN
193-180-999-5415
001-162-999-5230
340-199-999-5250
320-199-999-5208
100-164-601-5208
320-199-999-5208
320-199-999-5208
13150 09/01/94 001164 GABRIEL, RICHARD SEPT 94 RENT 190'180'999-52~
13150 09/01/94 001164 GABRIEL, RICHARD SEPT 94 REHT 100-164-601-5234
13151 09/01/94 GANIRO, ROBIN REFUND FOR TCSD CLASS 190-18~-4975
13152 09/01/94 000481 GEOTECHNICAL & ENVIROBM PROF SERVICES FOR PALA 210-190-120-5802
13153 09/01/94 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PROBUCT NISC. OFFICE SUPPLIES F 001-140-999-5220
13153 09/01/94 OOO177 GLENHIES OFFICE PRCOUCT OFFICE SUPPLIES 001-120-9~9-5220
13154 09/01/94 000175 GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL OF 94 COVfT ACCT, AUDIT & 001-140-999-5228
13155 09/01/94 001292 GRAPHIC EMBROIDERY OF T HAINT. INSPECTOR SHIRTS 190-180-999-524]
13155 09/01/94 001292 GRAPHIC ENBROIDERY OF T HAINT. CUSTOOIAL SHIRTS 190-180-999-5243
13155 09/01/94 001292 GRAPHIC EMBROIDERY OF T TAX 190-180-999-5243
13156 09/01/94 001348 HANK NOHLE & ASSOCIATES i4ESTERN BY-PASS ENG SER 100-164-603-5248
13157 09/01/94 001566 HCOGES BADGE CORPANY,
13157 09/01/94 001566 HODGES BADGE COMPANY,
13158 09/01/94 001582 HEE)SON SAFE-T-LITE RENT
13158 09/01/94 001582 HUDSON SAFE-T-rITE RENT
13158 09/01/94 001582 HUDSON SAFE-T-LITE RENT
R]BBORS FOR SUIM MEET: 190-18]-999-5301
FREIGHT 190-18]-999-5301
EMERGENCY RENTAL OF SOL 300-199-999-5207
EMERGENCY RENTAL OF SOL 300-199-999-5207
EHERGENCY RENTAL OF SOL 300-199-999-5207
13159 09/01/94 001429 [MACON %NFORNATIOB SYST SYNOPTICS 2813-05 lOBAS 320-1970
13159 09/01/94 001429 INACON INFORHATIOR SYST TAX 320-1970
13160 09/01/94 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPL
13160 09/01/94 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPL
13160 09/01/94 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPL
NISC POOL SUPPLIES
NISC POOL SUPPLIES
MISC POOL SUPPLIES
190-182-999-5212
190-182-999-5212
190-182-999-5212
13161 09/01/94 JENN]NGS, SUSAN REFUND FOB TCSD CLASS 190-183-4975
13162 09/01/94 001282 KNORR POOL SYSTEMS, INC MZSC POOL SUPPLIES FOR 190-182-999-5212
13162 09/01/94 001282 KNORR POOL SYSTEMS, INC N[SC POOL SUPPLIES FOR 190-182-999-3212
13163 09/01/94 001123 KNOX INDUSTRIAL SUPPL[E HAINTENANCE SHALL TOOLS 100-164-601-5242
13163 09/01/94 001123 KNOX INDUSTRIAL SUPPLIE TAX 100-16l.-601-5242
iTEM
AMOUNT
300.00
13.50
94.20
33.44
38.53
208.51
42.34
392.00
308.00
25.00
165.00
76.13
65.95
· 280.00
160.00
34.10
262.50
912.00
72.96
325.00
497.0~
60.00
855.00
71.99
237.05
188.96
165.94
30.00
19.95
85.70
80.68
6.25
CHECK
AMOUNT
705.97
13.50
94.20
322.82
700.00
25.00
165.00
210.66
65j
474.10
262.50
984.96
882.04
926.99
,591.95
30.00
105.65
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 3
08/31~ 16:03 VOUCHER/CHECX REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIOOS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTICI
13164 09/01/94 001329 KOHLHAAS, JEANNETTE
13165 09/01/94 000]80 LAIDLAW TRANSIT
13166 09/01/94 001574
13166 09/01/94 001574
13167 09/01/94 000220 MAURICE PRINTERS, INC.
13168 09/01/94 MILLS, TERRY
13168 09/01/94 MILLS, TERRY
PMT FOR TCSD INSTRUCTOR
DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP TRA
NARGARITA VILLAGE RET C F/NANCING & CORSTRUCT]O
NARGARITA VILLAGE RET C RETENTION
DIV/DERS FOR OPER BUDGT
OVER CHARGE FOR BUILDIN
OVER CHARGE FOR GUILD|N
13169 09/01/94 00097'5 NIRACLE RECREATION EQUX MOOEL 2990 C360" TOT SE
13169 09/01/94 00097'5 MIRACLE RECREATION EQUI FREIGHT
13169 09/01/94 000973 MIRACLE RECREATION EQUI TAX
13170 09/01/94 0004]7 MORELAND & ASSOCIATES
13170 09/01/94 000437 MORELAND & ASSOCIATES
13170 09/01/94 0004]7 MORELAND & ASSOCIATES
131'~''' 09/01/94
1317{ 09/01/94
13172 09/01/94
TOT AUDIT SERVICES
CITY AUDIT FY 93°94
HAVE NOT RECD FINAL TOT
001189 MURRIETA DEVELOPMENT CO EMERG FIRE SYS REPAIR C
001591 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP TCSO
001591 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP TCSD
13173 09/01/94 001225 0 P R
13174 09/01/94
STATE PLANfZONING & DEV
0002]90LSTEN TEMPORARY SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 8/14/94
13175 09/01/94 00124] PALMQUZSTo MARY
PMT FOR TCSD INSTRUCTOR
13176 09/01/94 000248 PETROLANE PROPANE SERVICE
13176 09/01/94 000248 PETROLANE PROPANE USE
13177 09/01/94 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMB.
13177 09/01/94 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH RE]MB.
13177 09/01/94 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMB.
13177 09/01/94 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMB.
13177 09/01/94 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMB.
13177 09/01/94 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMB.
13178 09/01/94 000580 PHOTO ~)RKS
13179 09/01/94 000253 POSTMASTER
13179 09/01/94 000253 POSTMASTER
15179 09/01/94 00025] POSTMASTER
13179 09/01/94 000253 POSTMASTER
131~~ 09/01/94
13 ~9/01/94
FILM, SLIDES AND PICTUR
EXPRESS NAIL 7/23-8/19
EXPRESS MAIL 7/23-8/19
EXPRESS MAIL 7/23-8/19
EXPRESS MAIL 7/23-8/19
000546 RADIO SHACK/BUTTERFIELD POWER ADAPTER
000546 RADIO SHACK/BUTTERF/ELD PO~ER ADAPTER
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
190-183-999-5]01
190-183-999-5301
100-164-602-5405
100-2035
001-140-999-5222
001-162-4200
001-162-4285
190-180-999-5212
190-180-999-5212
190-180-999-5212
001-140-999-5248
001-140-999-5248
001-140-999-5248
190-182-999-5212
190-180-999-5226
190-180-999-5228
001-161-999-5228
001-162-999-5118
190-183-999-5301
· 001-162-999-5263
190-180-999-526]
001-100-999-5258
001-162-999-5220
001-162-999-5260
001-163-999-5261
190-183-999-5301
320-199-999-5220
190-180-999-5301
001-120-999-5230
001-150-999-5230
001-161-999-5230
001-140-999-5230
100-164-604-5220
100-16~-60~-5220
ITEM
AMOONT
168.00
535.15
9,771.50
977.15-
491
26.25
]5.00
666.00
39.12
51.62
4Q9.11
426,98
499.11-
435.00
18.00
12.00
18.00
468. O0
321.60
272.42
48.44
38.00
9.59
32.00
38.76
22.16
5.38
45.85
9.95
1] .95
5.38
8.61
CHECK
AMOUNT
168.00
533.15
8,7~4.35
491.34
61.25
756.74
426.98
435.00
30.00
18.00
468.00
321.60
320,86
175,15
5.38
13.99
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE
08/31/94 16:03 VCUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK
NUMBER DATE
13181 09/01/94
13181 09/01/94
13181 09/01/94
13182 09/01194
13183 09101194
13184 09/01/94
13184 09/01/94
13184 09/01/94
13184 09/01/94
13184 09/01194
13184 09/01/94
13185 09101194
13186 09/01/94
13187 09/01/94
13107 09/01/94
13188 09/01/94
13189 09/01/94
13190 09/01/94
13191 09/01/94
13192 09/01/94
13192 09/01/94
13193 09/01/94
13194 09/01/94
13195 09/01/94
13196 09/01/94
13196 09/01/94
13196 09/01/94
13196 09/01/94
13196 09/01/94
13196 09/01/94
13196 09/01/94
13196 09/01/94
13196 09/01/94
VENDOR
NUMBER
000/,26
000/,26
000426
000266
000357
000704
000704
000704
000704
000704
000704
000285
000988
000375
000375
001589
000291
VENDOR
NAME
RANCHO INDUSTRIAL SUPPL
RANCHO INDUSTRIAL SUPPL
RANCHO INDUSTRIAL SUPPL
RIGHT~AY
RIVERSIDE CO. TRANSPORT
S F S# INC/INLAND OIL
S K S~ INC/INLAND OIL
S K S# INC/INLAND OIL
S K S, INC/INLAND OIL
S K S, INC/INLAND OIL
S K S, INC/INLAND OIL
SIR SPEEDY
SOLANO PRESS BOOKS
SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON
SOUTHERN CALI~ TELEPHON
SOUTHERN CALIF TELEPHON
SPEE DEE OIl CHANGE & T
STARLIGHT FARM
STEAK RANCH RESTAURANT
000302 SYSTEM SOURCE, INC.
000302 SYSTEM SOURCE# INC.
000]09 TEMECULA COPIERS
000307 TEMECULA TROPHY CO.
TERREAULT-SHEVLOFF, SAR
000320 TOWHE CENTER STATIONERS
000320 TOWNE CENTER STATIONERS
000320 TOWNE CENTER STATIONERS
000]20 TOf~NE CENTER STATIONERS
000]20 TOt4NE CENTER STATIONERS
000]20 TQt4NE CENTER STATIONERS
000]20 TOWNE CENTER STATIONERS
000320 TOWNE CENTER STATIONERS
000320 TO~NE CENTER STATIONERS
[TEN
DESCRIPTION
MISC SUPPLIES FOR SR CT
MISCELLANEOUS JANITORIA
MISCELLANEOUS JANITONIA
PONTABLE TOILET FOR CIT
ENG SERICES CORSTR TRAF
FUEL EXPENSE
FUEL EXPENSE
FUEL EXPENSE
FUEL EXPERSE
FUEL EXPENSE
FUEL EXPENSE
BUS LIC APPLICATIONS
CAL LAND USE & PLAN LAW
909 202-4763 PB
909 202-4752 SN
C[G LIGHTER ADAPTER
PW V~H NAXNT.
BUSINESS LICENCE REFUND
OVERPA]D FOR BUSINESS L
2 DRAUER~ 3 SHELF FILE
REPAIR LAMINATE ON MAIN
COPIER SERVICE AT FIRE
KENT HINTERGARDT BRONZE
REFUND FOR TCSD CLASS
OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR FY9
OFFICE SUPPLIES - PUBLI
OFFICE SUPPLIES * PW PR
OFFICE SUPPLIES - PW PR
OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR FY9
OFFICE SUPPLIES.
OFFICE SUPPLIES.
OFFICE SUPPLIES.
OFFICE SUPPLIES FOR FY9
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
190-181-999-5212
190-180-999-5212
190-180-999-5212
100-164-601-5238
100-164-602-5405
100-164-601-526]
001-110-999-5263
190-180-999-5263
001-165-999-5263
001-163-999-5263
001-162-999-5263
001-140-999-5220
001-161-999-5228
001-100-999-5208
190-180-999-5208
320-199-999-5208
001-163-999-5214
001-199-4056
001-199-4056
001-163-999-5601
340-199-999-5212
001-171-999-5217
190-180-999-52/~
190-183-4984
001-16~-999-5220
100-164-604-5220
001-165-999-5220
001-165-999-5220
001~16~-999-5220
190-180-999-5220
190-180-999-5220
190-180-999-5220
001-16~-999-5220
[TEN
AMOUNT
121.30
38.73
15.37
57.39
93.33
436.93
80.67
118.6]
53.27
86.17
7~.35
149.35
48.05
37.8~
101,87
26.94
64.94
35.00
5.00
657.27
161.63
7~.00
380.00
95.00
322.46
650.21
116.09
35.56
6.23
40.18
25.27
6.03
15.05-
CHECK
AMOUNT
175.40
57.39
93.33
855.02
149,35
48,05
139.'/~..~
26. ,~.,
64.94
35.00
5.00
818.90
75.00
380.00
9~.00
1,186.98
13197 09/01/94 000326 UNXTOG RENTAL SERVICE UNIFORMS - FY94-95 FOR 100-164-601-5243 31.62
13197 09/01/94 000326 UN[TOG RENTAL SERVICE UNIFORM MAINTENANCE FOR 190-180-999-5243 16.35
VOUCHRE2
08/3'~
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
13197
13197
13198
13199
13200
13201
13202
13203
13204
13205
13205
13205
16:03
CHECK
DATE
09/01/94
09/01/94
09/01/94
09/01/94
09/01/94
09/01/94
09/01/94
09/01/94
09/01/94
09/01/94
09/01/94
09/01/94
CITY OF TEMEOULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIOOS
VENDOR VENDOR
NUMBER NAME
000326 UN[TOG RENTAL SERVICE
000326 UNITOG RENTAL SERVICE
000332 VANDORPE CHOU ASSOCIATI
001437 VIRACX, MARYANN
WAGONER, CARRIE REFUND FOR TCSD CLASS
000339 WEST PUBLISHING COI4PANY CALIF CODES VOL ~6'26a
001076 WESTERN WASTEe INC. PORTABLE TOILET RENTAL
000~42 WINDSOR PARTNERS * RANC "D" BLDG 4 DAYS 8/16'8/
000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI 5100 XEROX COPIER MONTH
000347 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE FIRST AID REFILLS & SUP
000347 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE TAX
000347 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE
ITEM ACCOUNT
DESCRIPTION NLIIBER
FLOOR NAT RENTAL AND CL 190-182-999-5250
FL(~3R NAT RENTAL AND CL 190-181-999-5250
PLAN REVIEW FOR FY 92,9 001;2030
PNT FOR TCSI) INSTRUCTOR 190-18]-999-5301
190-18]-497~
001-120-999-5228
190-180-999-5238
340-199-999-5Z~4
330-199-999~5259
001-163-999-5242
001-163-999-5242
TO CORRECT BILL# 37~076 001-163-999-5242
TOTAL CHECKS
ITEM
AMOUNT
69.39
16.75
9,259.82
224. O0
25.00
69.40
455.00
600. O0
2,986.12
35.15
2.7~
3.23-
PAGE 5
AMOUNT
9,259.82
224.00
25.00
69.40
455,00
600.00
34.64
136,660.15
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TENECULA PAGE
08/31/9~ 16:30 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
FUND TITLE
001 GENERAL FUND
100 GAS TAX FUND
190 CONNUNZTY SERVICES DISTRICT
191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A
193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C
210 CAPITAL [NpROVENE~T PROJ FUND
REDEVELOPNENT AGENCY - CIP
300 INSURANCE FUND
330 SUPPORT SERVICES
TOTAL
ANOUNT
191,873.68
3A,276.50
24,738.52
47L97
33,831.35
39~905.80
~5,221.16
4,716.59
~19,319.06
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TENECULA PAGE 1
08/3''~'' 16:30 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERI~OS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
NUNBER DATE NUMBER NAME
13208 09/1]/94 001516 BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIAT
13208 09/13/94 001516 BARTOR*ASCHMAN ASSOCXAT
13208 09/1]/94 001516 BARTOR*ASCHMAN ASSOCIAT
13208 09/13/94 001516 BARTON-ASCHMAN ASSOCIAT
13208 09/1]/94 001516 BARTON-ASCHNAN ASSOCIAT
13208 09/13/94 001516 BARTON-ASCHNAN ASSOCIAT
13208 09/1]/94 001516 BARTON-ASCHHAN ASSOCIAT
13208 09/1]/94 001516 BARTON-ASCRI, t~N ASSOCIAT
ITEM ACCOUNT
DESCRIPTION NUNBER
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
OLD TOWN TRAFFIC STUDy
TRAFFIC INPACT ANALYSIS
TRAFFIC INPACT ANALYSIS
TRAFFIC INPACT ANALYSIS
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
280-199-999-5248
280-1270
280-199-999-5248
280-1270
280-199-999-5248
280-1270
280-199-999-5248
280-1270
13209 09/13/94 00012~ BURKE UXLLIAMS & SORENS DECEHBER SERVICES 190-2030
13209 09/13/94 000123 BURKE WILLJAMS & SORENS DECEMBER SERVICES 001-2030
13209 09/1]/94 000123 BURKE W[LLIAMS & SORENS DECENBER SERVICES 300-2030
13209 09/1]/94 000123 BURKE WILLJAMS & SORENS DECEMBER SERVICES 001-1280
13209 09/1]/94 000123 BURKE WILLJAMS & SORENS JUdE SERVICES 001-2030
13209 09/15/94 000123 BURKE WILLJAMS & SOltENS JUNE SERVICES 001-1280
13209 09/13/94 00012] BURKE W[LLIAMS & SORENS JUNE SERVICES 001-2030
13209 09/1]/94 000123 BURKE WILL[ANS & SORENS JUNE SERVICES 190-2030
13209 09/1]/94 000123 BURKE WILLIANS & SORENS JUNE SERVICES ]00-2030
13209 09/1]/94 000123 BURKE W[LLIAMS & SORENS RDA JUNE SERVICES 280-2030
13209 09/13/94 000125 BURKE W[LLIANS & SORENS CORRECTION FOR INV 1892 280-199-999-5246
13~ 09/13/94 000123 BURKE WILLIANS & SORENS JULY SERVICES GENERAL 001-130-999-5246
12 09/13/94 000123 BURKE WILLIANS & SORENS JULY PROF SERVICES 001-1280
132uy 09/13/94 000123 BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENS JULY PROF SERVICES 001-130-999-5246
13209 09/13/94 00012] BURKE WILL[ANS & SORENS JULY PROF SERVICES 190-180-999-5246
13209 09/1]/94 00012] BURKE W[LLIANS & SORENS JULY PROF SERVICES 300-199-999-5207
13209 09/1]/94 000123 BURKE WILL[ANS & SORENS JULY SERVICES 280-199-999-5246
13209 09/1]/94 000123 BURKE WILL[ANS & SORENS JULY SERVICES GENERAL 001-130-999-5246
13209 09/1]/94 00012] BURKE N]LLIANS & SORENS CREDIT NENO FOR INV 189 001-2030
13209 09/1]/94 00012] BURKE WILLIAMS & SORENS CORRECT INV 19112 001-130-999-5246
13210 09/13/94 001006 BURTRONICS BUSXNESS SYS
13210 09/13/94 001006 BURTRONIC$ BUSINESS SYS
13210 09/1]/94 001006 BURTRORICS BUSXNESS SYS
13210 09/1]/94 001006 BURTRONICS BUSXNESS SYS
13211 09/13/94 000126 CALIFORN]A LANDSCAPE HA
15211 09/13/94 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE HA
13211 09/1]/94 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE NA
13211 09/13/94 000126 CALIFORNIA LANDSCAPE HA
13212 09/13/94 000143 COPY-LINE CORPORATION
13213 09/13/94 001009 D B X, INC.
13214 09/13/94 001544 E L YEAGER CONSTRUCTION
13214 09/13/94 001544 E L YEAGER CONSTRUCTION
13214 09/1S/94 001544 E L YEAGER CONSTRUCTION
13214 09/13/94 0015/+4 E L YEAGER CORSTRUCTIOR
1: 09/13/94 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
1]c~ 09/15/94 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
MINOLTA RP609Z READ/PRZ 330-199-999-5217
AFC2 CARD FEED SERVICE 3]0-199-999-5217
ZONE CHARGE FOR XEROX C ]~0-199-999-5217
TAX ]30-199-999-5217
CRC SERVICES AUGUST
NEIGHBORHO00 PK AUGUST
SR CNTR AUGUST
MEDIANS SERVICE AUGUST
190-182-999-5415
190-180-999-5415
190-181-999-5415
191-180-999-5415
SERVICE CONTRACT RICOH 330-199-99q-5217
EMERGENCY STREET REPAIR 100-164-601-5402
SOLANA WAY ST IMPROVEHE
SOLANA WAY ST IMPROVEME
SOLANA WAY ST IMPROVEME
SOLANA RAY ST IMPROVEME
210-165-651-5804
210-2035
210-165-651-5804
210-2035
LANDSCAPE NAINTEMARCE F 19]-180-999-5415
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE F 193-180-999-5415
ITEM
AMOUNT
1,731.46
1,731.46
1,215.13
1,215.14
1,955.01
1,955.01
1,685.00
1,685.00
1,012.66
19,570.35
6,933.18
1,177.43
5,620.77
762.90
12,455.97
430.00
19,985.67
18,73].57
2.60
3,150.00
295.00
14,374.76
792.50
16,902.41
1,501.15
5,591.76
11.20-
7.20-
2,100.00
350.00
25.00
26.59
1,619.00
12,471.36
175.00
474.97
2,215.00
3,350.00
32,891.25
3,Z89.13'
10,963.75
1,096.38-
4,295.00
11,302.24
CHECK
ANOUNT
13,1U.Z1
129,274.28
2,501.59
14,740.33
2,215.00
3,350.00
39,469.49
VOUCHRE2 CITy OF TENECULA PAGE
08/31/94 16:30 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR
NUMBER DATE NUMBER
13215 09/13/94
13215 09/13/94
13215 09/13/94
13215 09/13/94
13215 09/13/94
13215 09/13/94
13216 09/13/94
13217 09113194
13218 09/13/94
13219 09/13/94
13219 09/13/94
13219 09/13/94
13219 09/13/94
13220 09/13/94
13220 09/13/94
13221 09/13/94
13221 09/13/94
13221 09/13/94
13222 09/13/94
13222 09/13/94
13222 09/13/94
13223 09/13/94
13223 09/13/94
13224 09/13/94
13225 09/13/94
13225 09/13/94
13226 09/13/94
13226 0911319¢
13227 09/13/94
13227 09/13/94
13228 09/13/94
VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT
NAME DESCRIPTION NtJMBER
001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
001581 GELLER, MICHAEL
000481 GE~TECHNICAL & ENVIRONM
001142 HARKHAM & ASSOCIATES
000220 NAURICE PRINTERS, iNC.
000220 NAURICE PRINTERS, INC.
000220 NAURICE PRINTERS, INC,
000220 NAURICE PRINTERS, INC.
000883 MONTELEONE EXCAVATING
000883 NONTELEORE EXCAVATING
001521 NORTON TRAFFIC MARKINGS
001521 MORTOR TRAFFIC MARKINGS
001521 MORTON TRAFFIC MARKINGS
000231 N B S/LQ~Y, [NC,
000231 N B S/LOWRY, ]NC,
000231 N B S/LO~RY, INC,
000267 RIVERSIDE CO. FIRE DEPT
000267 RIVERSIDE CO. FIRE DEPT
000357 R~VERSIDE CO. TRANSPORT
001483 TON DODSON & ASSOCIATES
001483 TON DODSOR & ASSOCIATES
001179 TREBOR CORPANY, THE
00117~ TREBOR CORPANY, THE
000332 VANDORPE CHOU ASSOCIATI
000332 VANDORPE CHOU ASSOCIATI
000539 WINI4ER YAMADA ASSOCIATE
LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS 193-180-999-5415
AUGUST SERVICE FOR $PTS 190-180-999-5415
AUGUST SLOPE SERVICES 193-180-999-5415
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE F 193-180-999-5415
SPECIFICATIONS MOT NET 19~-180-999-5415
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE F 193-180-999-54t5
EQUIP FOR RESERVE OFFIC 001-1220
SPTS PX SLOPE REPAIRS 210-16/~-&48-5804
ENG SERVICES FOR SPRTS 190-180-~99-5250
ONERATING BUDGET COVER
INSIDE PAPER FOR TEXT 0
CLEAR COMBS
TAX
001-140-999-5222
001-140-999-5222
001-140-999-5222
001-140-999-5222
CLEAN OUT CHANNEL 100-16~-601-5401
RAIN ST SAFETY RAILINGS 100-164-601-5402
424-151 PQ~RLINER 4000
424-810 DUAL BEA~ DISPE
TAX'
100-164-601-5610
I00-164-601-5610
100-164-601-5610
ENGINEERING SERVICES
ENGINEERING SERVICES
ENGINEERING SERVICES
100-164-603-5248
100-164-603-5248
100-164-603-5248
4TH QTR FIRE PROT SERVI 001-2030
4TH QTR FiRE PROT SERVI 001-171-999-5251
TRAFFIC SIGNAL NAINT. 100-2030
INITIAL STUDY & TECH RP 280-199-999-5248
INITIAL STUDY & TECH RP 280-1270
REPAIRS ON SOLAR ARROI4 300-199-999-5207
ADDITIONAL REPAIRS TO S 300-199-~-5207
PLAN CHECK FOR JUNE SER 001-162-999-5248
PLAN CHECK JULY SERVICE 001-162-999-5248
PALA RD PARK 210-190-120-5802
ITEM
AMOUNT
1,200.00
6,877.81
16,003~21
1,368.05
1,705.20-
1,368.05
1,666.00
3,266.00
1,360.19
982.00
341.00
32.00
105.02
2,000.00
5,181.00
4,105.00
895.00
387.50
5,345.00
1,120.00-
1,725.00-
80,000.00
40,137.13
15,858.00
3,247.64
3,247.6~
1,099.90
300.00
2,568.89
3,061.10
1,545.00
CHECK
AMOUNT
40,709.16
1,666.00
3,266.00
1,360.19
1,460.02
7,181.00
5,387.50
2,500.00
120,137.13
15,858.00
6,495.27
1,399.90
5,629.99
1,545.00
TOTAL CHECKS 419,319.06
ITEM 4
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL ~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Mary Jane McLarney, Finance Officer
September 13, 1994
City Treasurer's Report as of July 31, 1994
PREPARED BY: Tim McDermott, Senior Accountant
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file the City Treasurer's report
as of July 31, 1994.
DISCUSSION: Reports to the City Council regarding the City's investment portfolio and
~eceipts, disbursements and fund balance are required by Government Code Sections 53646
and 41004 respectively. The City's investment portfolio is in compliance with the Code
Sections as of July 31, 1994.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
ATTACHMENTS: 1. City Treasurer's Report as of July 31, 1994
2. Schedule of Fund Balances as of July 31, 1994
City of Temeeula
City Treasurer's Report
As of July 31, 1994
Cash Activity for the Month of July:
Cash and Investments as of July 1, 1994
Cash Receipts
Cash Disbursements
Cash and Investments as of July 31, 1994
46,267,557
1,850,400
(1,477,319)
46,640,638
Cash and Investments Portfolio:
Type of Investment
Petty Cash
General Checking
Benefit Demand Deposits
Local Agency Investment Fund
Deferred Compensation Fund
Deferred Compensation Fund
Defined Contribution Fund
Trust Accounts-TCSD COPs
Trust Accounts-RDA Bonds
Institution Yield Balance
City Hall $ 800
First Interstate 177,960
First Interstate 7, 107
State Treasurer 4.823% 32,673.896
ICMA 214.350
PEBSCO 238,565
PEBSCO 19,979
Bank of America 3.829% 510,447
Bank of America 3.829% 12,797,534
$ 46,640,638
(1)
(1)
(1)-This amount is net of outstanding checks.
Per Government Code Requirements, this Treasurer's Report is in compliance with
the City of Temecula's investment policy and there are adequate funds available
to meet budgeted and actual expenditures of the City of Temecula for the next
thirty days.
City of Temecula
Schedule of Fund Balances
As of July 31, 1994
City
Total Assets $ 28,820,414
Less: Liabilities 3,948,535
Total Fund Balances 24,871,879
Less: Reserved Amounts (1) 3,844,771
Less: Designated Amounts (2) 14,264,914
Unreserved, Undesignated
Fund Balances $ 6,762,194
Community
Services Redevelopment
District Agency Total
$ 2,668,338 $ 21,272,611 $ 52,761,363
600,236 506,334 5,055,105
2,068, 102 20,766,277 47,706,258
1,047,582 8,669,891 13,562,244
1,020,520 12,096,386 27,381,820
$ 0 $ 0 $ 6,762,194
(1) Includes amounts reserved for encumbrances, land held for resale, long-term notes receivable, low/rood housing,
and debt service,
(2) Includes amounts designated for economic uncertainty, debt service, and continuing appropriations,
ITEM 5
APPROVAL 'R~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Manager/City Council
FROM: ' City Clerk
DATE: September 13, 1993
SUBJECT: Records Destruction Approval
RECOMMENDATION: Approve scheduled destruction of certain records as provided
under the City of Temecula approved Records Retention Policy.
BACKGROUND: On March 22, 1992, the City Council spproved Resolution No. 92-17
which authorizes the destruction of certain city records which have become outdated, obsolete
or are excess documents, in compliance with Sections 34090 through 34090.7 of the
Government Code.
The records outlined in the Destruction of Records Request are all Plot Plans which date from
1988 through 1991. The records have been microfilmed in triplicate, with copies of the film
stored in the City Clerk's records vault, with the appropriate department and in off-site
storage.
The City Attorney has reviewed this request and has signed Exhibit "1" of the Annual Review
as provided for in Resolution No. 92-17.
ATTACHMENTS:
Destruction of Records Request
Exhibit "1" (Executed by City Attorney)
JSG
TO: City Clerk
FROM: Gaff Zigler,
Offic~ Specialist
DATE:
August 17, 1994
SUBJECT: Destruction of Records Request
Attached is a print out of Plot Plans (Retention Type 20324) dating from 1988 through 1991.
These records have been microfilmed in triplicate with a copy distributed to the City Clerk's
Records Vault, the Planning Department and a copy to the Vault in San Diego.
The following have reviewed and approved this destruction request.
Pursuant to the requirements of Government Code Section 34090, I hereby give my consent
to the destruction of records under the direction of the City Clerk pursuant to the City of
Temecula's adopted Destruction of Obsolete Records Policy.
D~p~ant ~ead... aT.. '~ ~}.,. ,,. · ~! ~.: . .....~:...:~....Th~~~ .... .'
City Attorney:
RRDESTY...RR061 City of TemecuLa Doc. Ref ......... 161 Page 1
08/26/1994 FiLes Ready for Destructien Retention Code... 20324 13:45:16
Destruction Date.
Doc... item Rat. File Reference # Storage Media
Re Date Ref. Brief Description Code Security Class Storage Location Location Reference
161 08/31/1976 2484 PLot PLan 2~8~ 20324 0011 FiLm 38Z1N1AO001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
161 1Z/09/1976 2706 PLot PLan 2706 20324 0011 FiLm 3821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
161 05/0711979 ~49 Plot PLan 4z,/,9 20324 D011 FiLm ~aZlN1AO001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
1&1 0~17/1979 4~48 PLot PLan 46/,8 20324 0011 FiLm 3821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
161 01/02/1980 48A9 Pto~ PLan 4849 20324 0011 FiLm 3821NIAO001
Gro~ 161/120/The VauLt
161 08/17/1983 7262 PLot plan 7262 20324 0011 FiLm 3821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
161 06/02/1988 10719 PLot PLan 10739 20324 0009 FiLm 3821N1AO001
Grot~ i 161/120/The VauLt
161 08/01/1988 10854 PLot PLan 10854 20324 0009 FiLm 3821NIAO001
Group i 161/120/The VauLt
161 08/23/1988 10745 PLot PLan 10745 20324 0009 FiLm 3821NIAO001
Group i 161/120/The VauLt
161 08/23/1988 10792 PLot PLan 107~2 20324 0009 FiLm 3821N1AO001
Grcx~ 161/120/The VauLt
161 08/23/19B 10800 PLot PLan 10800 20324 0009 FiLm 387. lN1AO001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
161 08/29/198B 10732 PLot PLan 107'S2 20324 0009 FiLm 3821H1AO001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
161 08/29/1988 107~0 PLot PLan 10790 20324 0009 FiLm 3821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
161 09/06/1988 10749 PLot PLan 10749 20324 0009 FiLm 3821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
161 09/0~1988 107~2 PLot PLan 10792 20324 0009 FiLm 3821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
161 09/09/1988 10~3 PLot PLan 10~3 20324 0009 FiLm 3821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
, ,: ...............................................................
16 ~/09/1988 10801 PLot PLan 10801 20324 0009 FiLm ]821NIAO001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
161 09/15/1988 10767 PLot PLan 10767 20324 0009 FiLm 3821X1AO001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
RRDESTY...RR061 City of TemecuLa Page
08/26/1994 Files Ready for Destruction 13:/.5:16
DOCk Item Ret. File Reference # Storage Nedia
R~ Date Ref. Brief Description Code Security CLass Storage Location Location Reference
161 12/01/1988 10928 PLot PLan 10928 20324 000~ Film 3821N1AO001
Group I 161/120/The Vault
161 12/01/1988 10976 Plot PLan 10976 20324 000~ Film 3821H1AO001
Group I 161/lZO/The Vault
161 12/02/1988 10930 PLot PLan 10930 2032~ 000~ Film 3821N1AOO01
Group % 161/120/The Vault
161 12/06/1988 10969 Plot PLan 10969 2032/* 0009 Film 3821NIAO001
Group ! 161/120/The Vault
161 12/07/1988 10932 PLot PLan 10932 20324 0009 Film 3821N1AO001
Group | 161/120/The Vault
....................... '. ..........................................
161 12/12/1988 10942 PLot PLan 10942 20324 0009 Film 38211I1AO001
Group Z 161/120/The Vault
161 12/13/1988 10940 PLot PLan 10940 20324 0009 Film 3821N1AO001
Grcx4> I 161/120/The Vault
161 12/21/1988 109/,2 PLot Plan 10~42 20324 0009 Film 3821N1AO001
Group i * 161/120/The Vault
161 12/21/1988 10956 PLot PLan 10956 2032/* 0009 Film 3821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The V~utt
161 IZ/22/1988 10967 PLot PLan 10~67 20324 0009 Film 3821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The Vault
161 01/03/1989 1100/, PLot PLan 1100/, 2032/* 0009 Film 3821N1AOO01
Group 161/120/The Vault
161 01/05/1989 1097~ PLot PLan 10979 20324 0009 Film 38Z1H1AO001
Group 161/120/The Vault
161 01/07/1989 11000 PLot PLan 11000 20324 0009 Film 3821NIAO001
Group 161/lZO/The Vault
161 01/13/1989 1098~ Plot PLan 10~8~ 20324 0009 Film 3821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The Vault
161 01/20/1989 1098~ PLot Plan 10986 20324 0009 Fi Lm 3821141A0001
Group 161/120/The Vault
161 01/23/1989 10~7 PLot PLan 10~<)7 2032/* 000~ Film 3821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The Vault
- -_~ ...............................................................
1~ 11/25/1989 10985 Plot PLan 10~85 20324 000~ Film 3821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The Vault
161 01/25/1989 11002 PLot PLan 11002 20324 0009 FiLm 3821141A0001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
RRDESTY...RR061 City of Telacute Page /*
08/26/199/* Files Ready for Destruction 13:/.5:16
Doc. Item Rat. FiLe Reference # Storage Hedia --~
Ref. Date Ref. Brief Description Code Security CLass Storage Locati~q Location Refere
161 01/Z5/1989 110Z3 PLot Plan 110Z3 2032/, 0009 FiLm 38~1NIAO001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
161 01/Z5/1989 11053 PLot Plan 11053 20324 0010 FiLm 38ZlH1AO001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
161 02/01/1989 11016 PLot Plan 11016 2032/, 0009 FILm 3821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
161 02/0Z/1989 11048 PLot PLan 11048 20324 0009 FiLm 3821N1AO001
Group 161112Bithe VauLt
161 02/09/lg89 11022 PLot PLan 11022 20324 0009 FiLm 3821141A0001
Group 161/120/The vault
161 02/10/1989 10975 PLot Pten 10975 2032/* 0009 Film 3821N1AO001
Groq} 161/120/the VauLt
161 02/16/1989 11040 PLot PLan 110/.0 20324 0009 FiLm 3821H1AO001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
161 02/16/1989 11041 PLot PLan 11041 20324 0009 FiLm 3821141A0001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
161 02/17/1989 110~9 PLot PLan 11049 20324 0009 FiLm ]821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
161 02/23/1989 11065 PLot PLan 11065 20324 0011 FiLm 3821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
161 02/2/*/1989 11050 PLot PLan 11050 20324 0009 FiLm 3821141A0001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
161 02/27/1989 11056 PLot PLan 11056 2032/, 0010 FiLm ]821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
161 02/28/1989 11067 PLot PLan 11067 2032/* 0010 FiLm 3821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
161 0]/06/1989 11076 PLot Plan 11076 20324 0010 FiLm 3821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
161 0]/07/1989 11066 PLot PLan 11066 2032/* 0010 FiLm 3821H1AO001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
161 0]/08/1989 11072 PLot PLan 11072 20]2/* 0010 FiLm 3821141A0001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
161 03/10/1989 11097 PLot PLan 11097 2032/* 0010 FILm 382.1NIAO001
Group 161/120/The Vault
161 03/1/*/1989 11086 PLot PLan 11086 2032/, 0010 FiLm 3821NIAO001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
RRDESTY,,.RR061 City of TemecuLa Page 5
08/26/1994 Files Ready for Destruction 13:45:16
Dock_ Item Ret. File Reference # Storage Nedio
Re ! Date Ref. Brief Description Code Security CLass Storage Locati~ Location Reference
161 03/15/1989 11092 PLot PLan 11092 20324 0010 Film 3821N1AO001
Grou~ 161/120/The Vault
161 03/21/1989 11102 PLot PLan 11102 20324 0010 Film 3821141A0001
Group 161/120/The Vault
....................... : ..........................................
161 0S/23/1989 11101 PLot PLan 11101 20324 0010 Film 3821N1AOOOl
Group 16111201The Vault
161 03/24/1989 11108 PLot PLan 11108 20324 0010 Film 3821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The Vault
161 03/24/1989 11109 PLot PLan 11109 20324 0010 Film 3821N1AO001
Group 16111201The Vault
161 03/24/1989 11117 PLot PLan 11117 20324 0010 Film 3821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The Vault
161 03/2~,/1989 11118 PLot PLan 11118 20324 0010 Film 3821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The Vault
161 03/28/1989 11110 PLot PLan 11110 20324 0010 Film 3821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The Vault
161 03/]0/1989 11115 PLot PLan 11115 20324 0010 Film 3821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The Vault
161 0~,/03/1989 11120 PLot PLan 11120 20324 0010 Film 3821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The Vault
161 04/03/1989 11122 PLot PLan 11122 20324 0010 Film 3821HIAO001
Group 161/120/The Vault
.............................................................. · : _ , ,
161 04/03/1989 11123 PLot PLan 11123 20324 0010 Film 382.1N1AO001
GroL~ 161/120/The Vault
161 02,/0]/1989 11124 PLot PLan 11124 20324 0010 Film 38211(1A0001
Groq~ Z 161/120/The Vault
161 04/03/1989 11128 P{ot PLan 11128 Z0324 0010 Film 3821N1AOO01
Group ] 161/120/The Vault
161 0~,/05/1989 11138 PLot PLan 11138 20324 0010 Film 3821N1AO001
Group I 161/120/The Vault
161 04/06/1989 11130 PLot PLan 11130 20324 0010 Film 3821H1AO001
Group I 161/120/The Vault
1~ '4/06/1989 11132 PLot PLan 11132 20324 0010 Film 3821N1AO001
Group I 161/120/The Vault
161 04/07/1989 11139 PLot PLan 11139 20324 0010 Film 3821N1AO001
Group I 161/120/The Vault
RRDESTY...RR061 City of Temecula Page 6
08/26/1996 Files Ready for Destruction 13:65:16
Doc. %tam Ret. File Reference # Storage 14edia
Ref. Oate Ref. Brief Description Code Security CLass Storage Location Location Refere
161 06/11/1989 11169 Plot PLan 11169 20324 0010 Film 3821N1AO001
Group % 161/120/The Vault
161 0/,/11/1989 11158 Plot PLan 11158 20324 0010 Film 3821H1AO001
Group ! 161/120/The Vault
161 04/12/1989 11061 PLot Ptan 11061 20326.0010 FILm 3821141A0001
Group i 161/120/The Vault
161 06/12/1989 11150 PLot PLan 11150 20326 0010 Film 3821N1AO001
Group Z 161/120/The Vault
161 04/12/1989 11151 PLot PLan 11151 20x26 0010 Film X821N1A0001
Group I 16111201The Vault
161 04/12/1989 11152 PLot PLan 11152 20;S26 0010 Film 3821H1AO001
Group I 161/120/The Vault
161 04/20/1989 11169 Plot PLan 11169 20x26 0010 Film ~[821NIAO001
Group I 161/120/The Vault
161 04/20/1989 11171 PLot PLan 11171 20326 0010 Film 3821NIAO001
Group I 161/120/The Vault
161 04/20/1989 11183 PLot PLan 1118~ 20326 0010 Film 3821H1A0001
Group 161/120/The Vault
161 04/21/1989 11167 PLot PLan 11167 20326 0010 Film 3821HIAO001
Gro~p 161/120/The Vault
161 04/24/1989 11176 Plot PLan 11176 20326 0010 Film 3821H1AO001
Group 161/120/The Vault
161 04/26/1989 11180 PLot PLan 11180 20326 0010 Film 3821H1AO001
Group 161/120/The Vault
161 04/26/1989 11193 PLot PLan 11193 20326 0010 Film 3821NIAO001
Group 161/120/The Vault
161 04/27/1989 11121 PLot Plan 11121 20324 0010 Film 3821NIAO001
Group 161/120/The Vault
161 04/27/1989 11191 PLot Plan 11191 20324 0010 Film 3821NIAO001
Group 161/120/The Vault
161 05/01/1989 11194 PLot PLan 11196 20326 0010 Film 3821M1AO001
Group 161/120/The Vault
161 05/02/1989 11199 PLot Plan 11199 20326 0010 Film 3821M1AO001
Group 161/120/The Vault
161 05/03/1989 11201 PLot PLan 11201 20324 0010 Film 3821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The Vault
RROESTY...RR061 City of TemecuLa Page 7
08/26/1994 FiLes Ready for Destruction 13:/.5:16
Doc~ [te~ Ret. FiLe Reference # Storage Nedia
Re Date Ref. Brief Descr¶ptton Code Security CLass Storage Location Location Reference
161 05/03/1989 11202 PLot PLan 11202 2032/* 0010 FiLm 3821HtAO001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
161 05/05/1989 11219 PLot PLan 11219 2032/*, 0010 FiLm 3821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
161 05/05/1989 11228 PLot PLan 11228 2032/* 0010 FiLm 3821141A0001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
161 05/08/1989 11208 PLot PLan 11208 2032/* 0010 FiLm 3821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
161 05/08/1989 11209 PLot PLan 11209 2032/* 0010 FiLm 3821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
161 05/10/1989 11222 PLot PLan 11222 2032/* 0010 Fits 3821N1AO001
GPO~ 161/120/The VauLt
161 05/12/1989 11220 PLot PLan 11220 2032/* 0010 Fits 3821NIAO001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
161 05/15/1989 11227 PLot PLan 11227 2032/* 0010 FiLm 3821M1AO001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
161 05/19/1989 1123/* PLot PLan 11234 2032/* 0010 FiLm 3821141A0001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
161 05/19/1989 11259 PLot PLan 11259 2052/* 0011 Fits 3821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
161 05/22/1989 11229 PLot PLan 11229 2032/* 0010 FiLm 3821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
161 05/22/1989 11240 PLot PLan 112/.0 2032/* 0011 FiLm 3821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
161 05/22/1989 112/.2 PLot PLan 112/.2 2032/* 0011 FiLm 3821NIAO001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
161 05/22/1989 112/.3 PLot PLan 11243 2032/* 0011 FiLm 3821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
161 05/22/1989 112/*/* PLot PLan 112/*~ 2032/* 0011 FiLm 3821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
161 05/22/1989 11245 PLot PLan 112/.5 2032/* 0011 FiLm 3821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
1~ 15/22/1989 112/.6 PLot PLan 112/.6 2032/, 0011 Film 3821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The VauLt
161 05/23/1989 11251 PLot PLan 11251 2032/* 0011 FiLm 3821NIAO001
Group 161/120/The vault
RRDESTY...RR061 City of Te~necuta Page 8
08/26/19~4 Files Ready for Destruction 13:45:16
Doc. Item Rat. File Reference # Storage Neclia
Ref. Date Ref. Brief Description Code Security CLass Storage Location Locati~ Referes
161 05/25/1989 11255 PLot PLan 11255 2032/, 0011 Film 3821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The Vault
161 05/25/1989 11256 Plot PLan 11256 20x2/, 0011 Film 3821N1A0001
Group 161/120/The Vault
161 05/25/1989 11257 PLot Plan 11257 2032/, 0011 Film 38ZlMIAO001
Groq~ 161/120/The Vault
161 05/Sl/1989 11267 PLot PLan 11267 2032/, 0011 Film 3821M1AO001
Group 16111201The Vault
161 05/31/1989 11269 PLot PLan 11269 2032/, 0011 Film )821MIAO001
Group 161/120/The Vault
161 05/31/1989 11270 PLot PLan 11270 2032/, 0010 Film 3821M1AO001
Group 16111201The Vault
161 05/31/1989 11272 Plot PLan 11272 2032/, 0011 Film 3821M1AO001
Group 16111201The Vault
161 05/31/1989 11273 Plot PLan 11273 2032/, 0011 Film 3821MIAO001
Group 1611120/The Vault '
161 06/01/1989 11301 PLot PLan 11301 2032/, 0011 Film 3821M1AO001
Group 16111201The V;utt
161 06/05/1989 11291 Plot PLan 11291 2032/, 0011 Film 3821H1AO001
Group 161/120/The Vault
161 06/05/1989 113/.0 Plot PLan 113/.0 2032/, 0011 Film 3821MIAO001
Grou~ 16111201The Vault
........................ · . .........................................
161 0610c)11989 11293 Plot PLan 112inJ 2032/, 0011 Film 3821M1AO001
Group 16111201The Vault
161 06/09/1989 11311 Plot PLan 11311 2032/, 0011 Film 3821M1AO001
Group 16111201The Vault
161 06/13/1989 11299 PLot PLan 112~ 2032/, 0011 Film 3821M1AO001
Group 16111201The Vault
161 06/1:~11989 11300 PLot Plan 11300 2032/, 0011 Film 3821M1AO001
Groq~ 16111201The Vault
161 0611611989 1137/, PLot PLan 1137/, 2032/, 0011 Film 3821M1AO001
Group 16011201The Vault
161 0611911989 11]/*/, PLot PLan 115/*/, 2032/, 0011 Film 3821M1AO001
Group 16111201The Vault
161 0612111989 11315 PLot PLan 11315 2032/, 0011 Film 3821M1AO001
Group 161/120/The Vault
RROESTY...RR061 City of T~ula Pege 9
08/26/1~/* FiLes Rea~ for D~truotion 13:/.5:16
Doe.- Ztem Ret. FiLe Reference # Storage Nedia
R( ' Date Ref. Brief Description Code Security CLass Storage Locatiofi Location Reference
161 06/22/1989 11320 PLot PLan 11320 2032/* 0011 Film 3821kI1AO001
Gro~4) i 161/120/The Vault
161 06/22/1989 11322 Plot Plan 11322 2032/, 0011 Film ]821N1AO001
Group i 161/120/The Vault
161 06/2211989 11338 PLot Plan 11338 2032/*.0011 Film 3821141A0001
Group I 161/120/The Vault
161 06/23/1989 11328 Plot PLan 11328 2032/* 0011 Film 3821NIAO001
Group 161/120/The Vault
161 06/23/1989 11377 PLot PLan 11377 2032/, 0011 Film ]821HIAO001
Group 161/120/The Vault
161 06/30/1989 113/.5 Plot PLan 11]/.5 2032/* 0011 Film 3821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The Vault
161 06/30/1989 11376 Plot Plan 11376 2032/, 0011 Film 3821141A0001
Group 161/120/The Vault
161 07/03/1989 11350 PLot Plan 11350 2032/, 0011 Film 3821~41A0001
Groq~ 161/120/The Vault
161 07/06/1989 1135/* PLot Plan 1135/, 2032/, 0011 Film 3821141A0001
Oroup 161/120/the vault
161 07/06/1989 11355 Plot Plan 11355 2032/* 0011 Film 3821H1AO001
Group 161/120/The Vault
161 07/06/1989 11356 Plot Plan 11356 2032/, 0011 Film 3821NIAO001
Group 161/120/The Vault
161 07/06/1989 11357 Plot Plan 11357 2032/, 0011 Film 3821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The Vault
161 07/07/1989 11360 PLot Plan 11360 2032/, 0011 Film 3821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The Vault
161 07/12/1989 11364 Plot PLan 11364 2032/* 0011 Film 3821N1AO001
Group 161/120/The Vault
161 07/17/1989 11370 Plot PLan 11370 2032~ 0011 Film 3821X1AO001
Group 161/120/The Vault
161 07/21/1989 11383 PLot Plan 11383 2032/, 0011 Film 3821H1AO001
Group 161/120/The Vault
1,~ )7/21/1989 1138~ PLot PLan 1138~ 2032/* 0011 Film 3821N1AO001
Grou~ 161/120/The Vault
161 07/21/1989 11385 PLot PLan 11385 2032/* 0011 Film 3821HIAO001
Group 161/120/The Vault
RRDESTY...RR061 City of Teemcute Page 10
08/26/1996 Files Ready for Destruction 13:/.5:16
Doc. Item Rat. File Reference # Storage Nedia _
Ref. Date Ref. grief Description Code Security CLass Storage Locatio~ Location Refere
161 07/21/1989 11~86 PLot PLan 11~86 20324 0011 Film 3821N1AO001
Group I 161/120/The Vault
161 07/25/1989 11387 PLot PLan 11387 20324 0011 File 3821N1AO001
Group L 161/120/The Vault
161 07/25/1989 11611 PLot PLan 11611 20326 0011 Film 3821N1AO001
Group ! 161/120/The Vault
161 07/27/1989 11391 PLot PLan 11391 20326 0011 Film 3821N1AO001
Group I 161/120/The Vault
161 07/28/1989 11392 Pt~t PLan 11392 20326 0011 Film 3821N1AO001
Group L 161/120/The Vault
161 08/01/1989 11225 PLot PLan 11225 20326 0010 Film 3821N1AO001
Group I 161/120/The VauLt
161 08/02/1989 11396 Plot PLan 11396 20326 0011 Film 3821NIAO001
Group I 1761/120/The Vault
161 08/06/1989 1160~ Plot PLan 11606 20326 0011 Film 3821N1AO001
Group I 161/120/The Vault
161 08/09/1989 11616 PLot PLan 11616 20326 0011 Film 3821NIAO001
Group I 161/120/The Vault
161 08/09/1989 11618 PLot PLan 11618 20326 0011 Film 3821N1AO001
Group I 161/120/The Vault
161 08/10/1989 11625 PLot PLan 11&25 20326 0011 Film 3821N1AO001
Group I 161/120/The Vault
161 08/10/1989 11627 PLot PLan 11627 20326 0011 Film 3821N1AO001
Group 1 161/120/The Vault
161 08/10/1989 11628 PLot PLan 11628 20326 0011 Film 3821N1AO001
Group I 161/120/The Vault
161 08/11/1989 11617 PLot PLan 11617 20326 0011 Film 3821N1AO001
Group I 161/120/The Vault
161 08/14/1989 11626 Plot PLan 11/,26 20326 0011 Film 3821N1AO001
Group I 161/120/The Vault
161 12/06/1989 11001 PLot PLan 11001 20326 0009 Film 3821H1AO001
Group I 161/120/The Vault
161 12/16/1989 11236 PLot PLan 1123/, 20326 0010 Film 3821N1AO001
Group I 161/120/The Vault
161 01103/1990 11310 PLot PLan 11310 20326 0011 Film 3821N1AO001
Group I 161/120/The Vault
RRDESTY...RR061 City of Tamerule Page 11
08/26/1994` Files Ready for Destruction 13:4`5:16
Doc_ item Ret. File Reference # Storage Nedie
R{ Date Ref. Brief Description Code Security CLass Storage Location Location Reference
161 01/05/1990 11060 PLot PLan 11060 20324, 0010 Film 3821N1AO001
Group % 161/120/The Vault
161 01/24`/1990 10863 PLot PLan 10863 20;$24` 0009 Fitm ;$821N1AO001
Group % 161/120/The Vault
161 02/07/1990 11259 Plot PLan 11259-L 20324` 0011 Film ;$aZ1N1AO001
Group I 161/120/The Vault
161 07/27/t990 11319 PLot PLan 11;$19 20324` 0011 Film ;$821N1AO001
Group ! 161/1ZO/The Vault
161 11/Z5/1991 88;$9 PLot PLan 20;$24` 0004` Film ;$821H1AO001
Group i 161/120/The Vault
185 Records Processed
ITEM 6
APPROV
CITY ATTORNEY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Peter Thorson, City Attorney~
September 13, 1994
Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Planning Area No. 7,
Specific Plan #164, Roripaugh, Model Home Agreement for Coscan
Homes
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Memorandum of Understanding
concerning Planning Area No. 7 of Specific Plan No. 164, Roripaugh, authorizing the
payment of development fees at a specified level and directing the Mayor to execute the
Agreement on behalf of the City and the City Clerk to attest thereto.
BACKGROUND: City Staff is negotiating a Draft Development Agreement with Coscan
Homes which would amend in full the existing Development Agreement and reduce the
Public Facilities Fees to $3,000'per dwelling unit. The reduction is based upon (1) the
excessive level at which the County originally calculated the Development Fee, (2) the high
level of assessment district tax existing on the Project, and (3) the entry level nature of
homes to be built in the Project. The higher existing fees, particularly during the present
recession, unduly discourage and delay development and thereby prevent the City from
ever receiving Fees.
The attached Memorandum of Understanding sets the Interim Public Facilities Fee at
$3,000 per dwelling unit and authorizes Coscan Homes to pull building permits for model
homes and Phase I of their development, approximately 24 units, without payment of the
Public Facilities Fees until such time as the first production home obtains its Certificate of
Occupancy. This Memorandum of Understanding is consistent with previous approvals
granted to similar projects in the City. It is also consistent with the draft of a Development
Agreement being negotiated between the City and Coscan for this project.
Approval of this Memorandum of Understanding does not mean that the City Council
must approve the draft Development Agreement. In the event the City Council denies the
draft Development Agreement, the Memorandum of Understanding provides that Coscan
will then pay the Public Facilities Fees as provided in the existing Development Agreement
No. 37.
The Planning Commission and City Council will be presented in the near future with
the draft Development Agreement. The terms of the draft Development Agreement have
been subject to extensive negotiations between the staff and the developer.
FISCAL IMPACT: Slight delay in initial receipt of Interim Public Facilities Fees as they
are delayed until the first Certificate of Occupancy for the production units. Full amount
of fees would be paid in the event the City Council denies the draft Development
Agreement within thirty days of the City's demand.
ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum of Understanding.
r:\~itya~ty~vor~paugh -2-
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING CONCERNING
PLANNING AREA NO. 7 OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 164
THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, (the "Memorandum") is made and entered
into as of , 1994 by and between the City of Temecula (the "City") and
Coscan Homes California, Inc., a California corporation dba Coscan Davidson Homes
("Owner").
RECITALS
A. The City Council of the City of Temecula is reviewing and considering, as provided
by law, an Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement between City and Owner,
(the "Draft Agreement").
B. Owner is developing a residential project in what is known as Planning Area No.
7 of Specific Plan No. 164, Tract No. 27827 (the "Project"). The Project is currently subject
to Development Agreement No. 37 between the County of Riverside (the "County") and Day-
Bar I and others (the "Development Agreement No. 37"), which requires Owner to pay certain
development fees (the "Development Fee").
C. Riverside County Ordinance No. 659, as adopted by the City, establishes public
facilities and services impact fees for residential development within City CRSA Fees"). City
requires these revenues to mitigate the impact of development. City requires RSA Fees from
development of the Project in order to complete capital projects to mitigate the impact of the
development.
D. As the result of meetings between representatives of the City and representatives
of the Owner, the City has agreed that the Project would be eligible for a Development Fee
reduction due to; (i) the excessive level at which the County originally calculated the
Development Fee; (ii) the high level of assessment district tax existing on the Project; and (iii)
the entry level nature of the homes to be built in the Project.
E. The Development Agreement No. 37 provided for public facilities and services
impact fees ("County Impact Fees") higher than the RSA Fees. These higher fees, particularly
during the present recession, unduly discourage and delay development and thereby prevent City
from ever receiving the RSA Fees. Consequently, the City desires to reduce the County Impact
Fees for residential development in the Project to a level comparable to the RSA Fees.
F. The Draft Agreement provides for Owner to pay the sum of Three Thousand
Dollars ($3,000.00) for each residential unit as the Interim Public Facilities Fee. The Draft
Agreement provides for the collection of any Interim Public Facilities Fee to be deferred until
such time as Owner obtains a certificate of occupancy for the first production home built in the
Project.
G. Owner contemplates commencing construction of the model homes and the first
phase of the Project (24 units) prior to acceptance by the City Council of City of the Draft
Agreement.
H. City desires, as an accomodation to Owner, to permit Owner to pay the Interim
Public Facilities Fee contemplated in the Draft Agreement for the model homes and for all
homes in the first phase of the Project, despite the fact that the Draft Agreement providing for
payment of the Interim Public Facilities Fee has not yet been approved by City.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained, City and
Owner agree as follows:
1. In lieu of any fee required by Development Agreement No. 37, RSA Fee
or City Public Facilities Fee, Owner shall pay an Interim Public Facilities Fee in the amount of
Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00) per dwelling unit. If City falls to approve or adopt the
Draft Agreement or if the Interim Public Facilities Fee, as established by City, is some number
other than Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00) per dwelling unit, then the fee paid by Owner
to City shall be adjusted accordingly. Owner shall pay any increase or City shall pay to Owner
any decrease within thirty (30) days from the effective date of City Council's action on the
Amendment and Restatement of Development Agreement.
2. The Interim Public Facilities Fee for all units, including the model home
complex, shall be deferred until such time as a certificate of occupancy has been obtained for
the first production home built in the Project. Thereafter, the Interim Public Facilities Fee shall
be paid at the time of issuance of building permits for each residential unit constructed in the
Project.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties executed this Memorandum as of this
day of , 1994.
CITY OF TEMECULA
By:
Ron Roberts, Mayor
ATTEST:
PROPERTY OWNER
June S. Greek, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
COSCAN HOMES CALIFORNIA, INC.,
a California corporation
~¢'14dhM A. i'~Alnr'Ag'as
/4./~,., ~ , its g..~,o.
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
ITEM 7
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
S U BJ E CT:
APPROVAL:
CITY ATTORNEY ~
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
City Council/City Manager
Anthony Elmo, Chief Building Official
September 13, 1994/~/
Newsrack Ordinance
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council continue this item to the next regularly
scheduled meeting of September 27, 1994.
DISCUSSION: The Chief Building Official who will be responsible for the enforcement
of the provisions of this ordinance is attending the International Conference of Building
Officials Annual Code Development Conference and will not be present,
ITEM 8
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Mary Jane McLarney, Finance Officer
September 13, 1994
Award of Vehicle Purchase Bid No. 94-20
PREPARED BY: ~ Luci Romero, Financial Services Administrator
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council award the purchase of the vehicle to
Paradise Chevrolet. The purchase price is $12,663.79, excluding tax.
DISCUSSION: On July 20, 1994, the City sent out an Invitation to Bid on
the purchase of a two-door extended cab two-wheel drive pick-up truck. The vehicle
will be assigned to the new Landscape Inspector in the Community Services
Department. The bid packets were mailed to 14 vendors. The deadline for submitting
bids was August 25, 1994. Six (6) bids were received, as follows:
1. Fuller Ford (Chula Vista) $12,468.00
2. Paradise Chevrolet (Temecula) $12,663.79'
3. Quality Chevrolet (Escondido) $13,112.00
4. Folsom Lake Ford (Folsom) $14,159.00
5. Schumacher Auto Sales (Temecula) $14,520.59'
6. Norm Reeves Chrysler Jeep Dodge (Temecula) $15,097.50*
* Price reflects 1% sales tax discount for City of Temecula vendors.
Although the lowest bid was submitted by Fuller Ford, it did not meet the bid
specifications. Therefore, the lowest responsible bidder is Paradise Chevrolet of
Temecula.
FISCAL IMPACT: The vehicle will be acquired as a capital asset through the
Vehicle Internal Service Fund. In anticipation of the purchase of this vehicle, it has
been included in the FY 1994-95 depreciation schedule of payments.
ITEM 9
APPROVAL ~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Manager/City Council
Mary Jane McLarney, Finance Officer
September 13, 1994
Property Insurance Renewal
PREPARED BY: Luci Romero, Financial Services Administrator
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Authorize staff to cancel the current property insurance coverage.
2. Authorize participation in the Public Entity Property Insurance Program (PEPIP).
3. Authorize staff to obtain insurance coverage through PEPIP, in accordance with the
schedule carriers who underwrite the coverage.
DISCUSSION: The City's current property insurance policy is provided by Aetna
Insurance Company, through the City insurance broker, Strachota Insurance. The policy
coverage includes all risk and earthquake at various City locations. On February 22, 1994,
the City Council authorized renewal of the policy and directed staff to obtain additional quotes
at mid-policy year.
In accordance with the above, staff prepared and disseminated property insurance
specifications to three insurance brokers. Two proposals were received: 1) Strachota
Insurance Company (Strachota Proposal); and 2) Robert F. Driver Company (Driver Proposal).
Strachota Insurance submitted a proposal (Attachment A} which remains unchanged from the
City's existing coverage, with a premium amount of $23,291. Robert F. Driver Company
submitted a proposal (Attachment B) for the City's participation in a joint insurance purchasing
program. The Public Entity Property Insurance Program (PEPIP) is a combined group purchase
concept with the advantage of group purchase pricing and no risk sharing. Current
participants include cities throughout California, Special Districts, and Joint Powers
Authorities, The quoted premium amount is $23,301.
Exhibit I illustrates a comparison of the coverages in the two proposals. A brief outline of the
proposals follows below:
Strachota Proposal:
Limits of coverage, as specified
Full replacement value
$250 deductible Locations - 3 & 5; $2500 deductible Location 4
Earthquake - 10% (of value, deductible
Driver Proposal:
Uniform limits of coverage, ~.e., $25;000,000valuable papers - all locations
increased limits of coverage at all locations
Added coverages, i.e., Business end Tax Interruption: Architects' and Engineers'
Fees; Course of Construction on Premise or within 1000 ft.
Full replacement value
Flood coverage added
$5000 deductible all locations
Earthquake - 10% (of value) deductible
In summary, the Driver Proposal provides increases in the limits of coverage the City currently
has, as well as the inclusion of new coverages. Additionally, the added coverages afford the
opportunity to consolidate the coverage for vehicles and contractor's equipment under this
policy. These coverages are currently provided under separate policies.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Although the City will be assessed e penalty (approximately $650), by the current insurance
company, for cancellation of the policy, sufficient funds were budgeted in the FY 1994-95
Budget.
EXHIBIT I PAGE 1 OF 3
Insured Locations:
STRACHOTA/DRIVER COMPARISON
Location 1
Location 2
Location 3
Location 4
Location 5
43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590
Margarita & Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, CA 92592
28328 lVlercedes Street, Temecula, CA 92590
30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, CA 92592
28763 Front Street, Temecula, CA 92590
BuUding
Valuable
Papers
EDP
Media
Office
Contents
Property Off
Premises
Extra
Expense
Fire
Department
Charge
Outdoor
Property
Accounts
Receivable
STRACHOTA
LOC. 1 LOC.2 LOC.3 LOC.4 LOC.5
1,000,000
270,000
140,000
460,000
10,000
200,000
5,000
,000
120,000 560,000 3,000,000
100,000 200,000 10,000
5,000 5,000 5,000
9000
5,000 5,000
5,000 5,000
DRIVER
ALL
LOCATIONS
$250,000,000
Per location
$25,000,000
Per location
$250,000,000
Per location
$250,000,000
Per location
$250,000,000
Perlocation
$250,000,000
Per location
$250,000,000
Per location
$250,000,000
Per location
$250,000,000
Per location
$25,000,000
Perlocation
Fine Arts 5,000 5,000 5,000 $1,000,000
Per location
EXHIBIT I PAGE 3 OF 3
Insured Locations:
STRACHO TA/DRIVER COMPARISON
Location
Location
Location
Location
Location
43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 9'2590
Marga~m & Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, CA 92592
28328 Metcedes Street, Temecu]~**, CA 92590
30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, CA 92.592
28763 Front Sweet, Temecula, CA 92590
Course of
Construction
on Premises
Mobil~
Equipment
Service
Interruption-
Uffiides
Interruption
STRACHOTA
Not provided
Not pwvided
Not provided
Not pwvided
Not provided
DRIVER
$5,000,000
Per localion
$5,000,000
Per location
$5,000,000
Per location
Per location
$5,000,000
Per location
ATTACHMENT A
BY
ATTACrli'.IEN~ A PAGE z oz q
COMMERCIAL PROPERTY POLICY
b
Policy Termz
AETNA
86ACE23977561
2-26-94 TO 2-26-95
PREMIUM:. $23,291.00
INSURED LOCATIONS:
LOCATION 1
LOCATION 2
LOCATION 3
LOCATION 4
LOCATION 5
43174 BUISNESS PARK DRIVE TEMECULA, CA 92S90
MARGARITA & RANCHO VISTA RD. TEMECULA, CA 92590
28328 MBI~CEDES TEMECD~A, CA 92S90
30875 RANCHO VISTA RDTEMECULA, CA 92590
28?63 FRONT ST TEMECULA, CA 92590
LOCATION 1
$ 460,000
$ 10,000
$ 200,000
$ 5,000
$ 5,000
$ 5,000
$ 5,000
$ 2,500
$ 2,500
$ 1,000
$ 250
PIOPBRTY
Office Contents (Includes Phone System)
Proper~y Off Premises
Extra Expense
Fire Department ServiCe Charge (no deduct. applies}
Outdoor Property
Accounts Receivable
Fins Arts
Fire Extinguisher Recharge ( no deductible applies)
Lost Key Consequential Lose
LOCATION S
$ 120,000
$ 5,000
$ 5,000
$ 5,000
$ 10,000
$ 5,000
$ 5,000
$ 2,500
$ 2,500
$ 1,000
$ 250
Building (Snack Bar & Restroom)
Fire Department Service Charge (no deduot. applies)
Outdoor Propert
Cost of ResearoK (Valuable Papers & Records)
Computers Hardware & Software
Accounts Receivable
Fins Arts
Exterior Signs
Arson Reward (no deductible applies)
Fire Exinguisher Recharge ( no deductible applies)
Los Key Consequential Loss
ATTAC~ENT A PAGE 3 of 4
LOCAfZON 3
560,000
100,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
10,000
5,000
5,000
2,500
2,500
1,000
250
Building
Contents
Fire Department Service Charge (no deduct. applies)
outdoor Propert v P Records)
Cost of Reseerc{ ( aluable spars &
Computers (Hardware & Software)
Accounts Receivable
Fine Arts
Fire ~.xtinguisher Recharge (no deductible a~lies)
~et Key Co~se~ential ~ss
LOe/TZON 4
$3,000,000
500,000
700,000
200,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
10,000
5,000
5,000
2,500
2,500
1,000
250
$ 10,000
Covers=
Buildings
Swimming Pools
Amphitheater
Contents
Fire Department Service Charge
(no deduct. applies)
outdoor Propert
cost of Resear~ (Valuable Papers & Records)
Computer (Hardware & Software)
Accounts Receivable
Fine Arts
Fire Extinguisher Recharge (no deductible
Lost Key Consequential Lose
applies)
CONTENTS (FENCING & BARACADE MATFRIAL) NO FARTHQUAKi
Special Perils Coverage
Replacement Cost valuation
90 % coinsuranus requirement LOC 1,2,3,5 100% LO0 4
$250 deductible Loc 1, 2, 3, 5' $2.500 ded. Loc 4
Earthquake Coverage 10% Deductible
..,~_~TT~.I~_.E_N_T A PAGE 4 of 4
Looatton 1
$1,000,000
valuable Papers
Special Ferils coverage
Actual Cash Value valuation
$250 deductible each occurrence
LOCAT=ON 1
270,000
140,000
Covefez
Electronic Data Processing
Media
special Perils coverage
Replacement Cost valuation
90 % coinsuranus requirement
$250 deductible each occurrence
Earthquake Coverage 10% Deductible
,Policy does not include Flood Coverage
ATTACHMENT B PAGE
Public Entity Property Insurance Program
(PEPIP)
The PEPIP program was developed by Robert F. Driver Associates, a leading California Pubhc
Entity Broker, to bring joint purchase concepts for Property Insurance Exposures to California
Public Entities. Independent thinking entities will fred that PEPIP offers the flexibility of
individualiTed coverage at very competitive costs due to the joint purchase structure.
As a group purchase program, there is n___o risk iharing and therefore n_.Q possibility of future
assessments. This program has n__o minimum time of participation requirements beyond that
which exists in any standard insurance contract, thus an entity maintains flexibility while taking
advantage of group purchase pricing. Other advantages include:
· Competitive Pricing.
· Physical Damage Coverage for Autos
including Collision.
· Tax Interruption Coverage.
· Municipal Bond Revenue Interruption
Coverage.
· Coverage no__!t confmed to Schedule of
Locations.
· Blanket Fine Arts Coverage
Service Interruption Coverage for all
Public and Private Utilities from
premises to originating Source of
Service.
· Manuscript "Public Entity" Form.
Enclosed you'll fred summary information about the program as well as a list of current
participants.
We invite your inquiry of further information and proposal.
ROBERT F. DRIVER ASSOCIATES
Thomas W. Corbett
President
Ralph S. Hurst
Vice President
Phone (714) 756-0271
Fax (714) 756-2713
ATTACHMENT B PAGE 2 of 9
PUBLIC ENTITY PROPERTY INSURANCE PROGRAM
CURRENT PARTICIPANTS
NAI~F,D INSUREDS:
Bay Cities Joint Powers Insurance Authority
(and its Members Consisting of: Albany, Emeryville, Hayward,
Monte Sereno, Pleasanton, Piedmont, Redwood City, Union City and
San Francisco Redevelopmerit Agency)
City of Burbank
City of Cathedral City
Central San Joaquin Valley Risk Management Authority CCSJVRMA")
(and its Members Consisting of the Cities of: Angels Camp, Arvin,
Atwater, Avenal, Ceres, Clovis, Corcoran, Delano, Dos Palos, Exeter,
Farmersville, Firebaugh, FowleL Kerman, Kingsburg, Lathtop,
Lemoore, Lindsay, Madere, Maricopa, McFarland, Mendora, Oakdale,
Orange Grove, Parlier, Patterson, Reedley, Ripon, Riverbank, San
Joaquin, SangeL Selma, ShafteL Taft, Tehachapi, Tracy, Tulare,
Wasco, Waterford)
Community Development Commission
City of Corona
City of Cosha Mesa
City of E1 Cajon
City of El. Segundo
City of Fontaria
City of Fresno
City of Garden Grove
City of Glendale
Ixvine Ranch Water District
July 25, 1994 I
ATTACHMENT B PAGE 3 of 9
City of Long Beach
Marin County Risk Management Authority
(and its Members Consisting of: Town of Cone Madera & Sanitary
District #2 of Marin County, Town of Pairfax, City of Larkspur, City
of Mill Valley, City of Novato, Town of San Anselmo, City of
Sausalim, Twin Cities Police Department)
City of Merced
City of Modesto
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District
City of Pasadena
Public Agency Risk Sharing Authority of California (PARSAC)
(and its Members Consisting of: Blue Lake, Callstoga, Canyon
lake, Carlshad, Highland, Pacific Grove, Placentia, Plymouth, Rancho
Cucamonga, Rialto, Ridgecrest, Tehama, Trinidad, Twentyme Palms,
Wheatland, Yountville, Yucaipa and Yucca Valley)
San Diego Pooled Insurance Program Authority (SANDPIPA), San Diego
County Cities Risk Management Authority (SDCCRMA)
(and its Members Consisting of: Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar,
Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, National City, Oceanside, San
Elijo Joint Powers Authority, Santee, Solana Beach and Vista)
City of San Buenaventum
City of San Mateo
City of Santa Aria
City of Santa Barbara
City of Santa Clara
City of Santa Monica
Sonoma, County of Public Works Sanitation Department, et al
City of Simi Valley
July 25, 1994 2
ATTACHMENT B PAGE 5 of 9
PUBLIC ENTITY PROPERTY INSURANCE PROGRAM
ALL RISK PROPERTY
PROPOSAL FOR
CITY OF TEMECULA
NAMF~D INSLTRI?,D:
PROPOSED
EFFECTIVE DATE:
INSURANCE
CARRIF. RS: ·
COVERAGE:
Public Entity Property Insurance Program including:
City of Temecula
To Be Determined
See Attached Schedule
All Risk of Direct Physical Loss or Damage excluding Earthquake
and Flood
Coverage includes:
1. Real Property and Personal Property
2. Rental Income including Bond Revenue Requirements
3. Business Interruption (If Values Declared)
4. Extra Expense
5. Valuable Papers and Records
6. Accounts Receivable
7. EDP Equipment, Media and Extra Expense
8. Owned/Leased Vehicles - All Risk and Collision Upset and
Overturn on Declared Vehicles
9. Demolition and Increased Cost of Construction
10. Debris Removal
11. Contingent Liability due to Building Codes
12. Transit
13. Architects', Engineers' Fees and Claim Consultant Fees
14. Course of Construction on Premises or within 1,000 ft.
15. Mobile Equipment, Contractor Type Equipment (If Values
Declared)
16. Service Interruption from Public and Private Utilities for
Gas,Electric, Water and Telecommunications (excluding
Power Plant Locations)
17. Tax Interruption (When Rel~orted)
18. Replacement Cost and Agreed Amount
19. 90 Day Notice of Cancellation except 10 days for Non-
Payment
ATTACHMENT B PAGE 6 of 9
PEPIPPropos~
Page - 2 -
COVERAGE
CONTINUED:
LIMITS:
20. Coverage not Confined to Schedule (Except Licensed Vehicles,
l~rthquake and Flood)
21. Automatic Coverage - 120 Days
22. Expediting Expense
23. Errors and Omissions
24. Fine Arts
25. Fire Department Service Charges
26. Vacancy Clause - Deleted
27. Joint Loss Agreement with Boiler and Machinery Insurance
Company(ies)
$500,000,000 Loss Limit Per Occurrence/S250,000,000 Per
Location all Coverages except as follows:
1. Valuable Papers
2. Accounts Receivable
3. Transit
4. Architects, Engineers and
Claim Consultant Fees
5. Mobile and Contractor type
Equipment
6. Fine Arts (Unscheduled)
7. Service Interruption
8. Expediting Expense
9. Newly Acquired Locations
(except l:~rthquake must be
reported)
10. Earthquake/per Occurrence
and Annual Aggregate
11. Flood/per Occurrence
and Annual Aggregate
25,000,000
25,000,000
5,000,000
5,000,000
5,000,000
1,000,000
5,()00,000
500,000
5,000,000
Not Covered
Not Covered
DEDUCTIBLE:
TOTAL INSURED
VALUE:
ANNUAL COST:
(Includes premium,
estimated taxes & fees
where applicable
and surplus lines
brokerage fees)
$ 5,000 All Other Perils
$ 6,145,000
$ 3,001
ATTACHMENT B PAGE 7 of 9
PUBLIC ENTITY PROPERTY INSURANCE PROGRAM (PEPIP)
ALL RISK
SCHEDULE OF COMPANIES
$2.500.000 PRIMARY/ALL RISK EXCLUDING EARTHOUAKE AND FLOOD
COMPANY BEST RATING CA STATUS
Lexington Ins. Co A+ +;XV Non-Admitted
$2,500,000 EXCESS OF $2,500,000/ALL RISK EXCLUDING EARTHOUAKE AND FLOOD
RLI Ins~ Co. A;VII Admitted
$2.500.000 EXCESS OF $5.000.000/ALL RISK EXCLUDING EARTHOUAKE AND FLOOD
Royal Indemnity A-;X] Admitted
$7,500,000 EXCESS OF $7,500,000/ALL RISK EXCLUDING EARTHQUAKE AND FLOOD
Allianz A; VIII Admitted
$10,000,0OO EXCESS OF $15,000,0O0/ALL RISK EXCLUDING EARTHOUAKE AND FLOOD
Westchester Fire A-;XV Admitted
$25,000,000 EXCESS OF $25,000,000/ALL RISK EXCLUDING EARTHOUAKE AND FLOOD
Essex A;VI Non-Admitted
Firemang Fund A;XIV Admitted
Agricultural A;XI AdmiRed
$50,000,000 EXCESS OF $50,000,000/ALL RISK EXCLUDING EARTHOUAKE AND FLOOD
U.S. rim A-;XV Admitted
$100,000,000 EXCESS OF $100,000,000/ALL RISK EXCLUDING EARTHOUAKE AND FLOOD
Royal Indemnity A-;XI AdmiRed
U.S. Fire A-;XV Admitted
Travelers A-;XV Admitted
$50,000,000 EXCESS OF $200,000,000/ALL RISK EXCLUDING EARTFIOUAKE AND FLOOD
Travelers A-;XV Admitted
U. S. Fire A-:XV Admitted
$250,000,000 EXCESS OF $250,000,000/ALL RISK EXCLUDING EARTHOUAKE AND FLOOD
Federal (Chubb) A+ +;XIV Admitted
Fireman's Fund A;XIV Admitted
revised 5117194
ATTACHMENT B PAGE 8 OF 9
Ms. Luci Romero
City of Temecula
August 11, 1994
Page -2-
In regard to the Earthquake and Flood coverage:
Company:
Limit:
Deductibles:
Agricultural Insurance Co.
(Best's Guide rating: &Excellent; XI,Policyholders' Surplus of
$750,000,000 to $1,000,000,000)
$ 5,000,000
Annual Premium:
All Risk Premium:
Total:
10%
$ 200,000
$ 25,000
$ 22,500
$ 3.001
$ 25,501
Loss Limit Per Occurrence and Annual
Aggregate
of Total Insurance to Value Per Location
as respects Earthquake
As respects Flood ar~ ~O;~c~v_~,~e-c_-
As respects All Other Perils
We hope this will be of assistance to you and if we can provide additional information,
please let us know.
Sincerely,
ROBERT F. DRIER ASSOCIATES
Executive Vice President
SWN/msy
*See finalized premium on Page 9.
ROBERT F. I)RIVER ASSOCIATES
a Divi.~iml ,Jfiobet7 F. Dr~ver ~;..
FA~IM~E TRANS~SSION
~L PAO~ NOT REC~BD, PL~$E TRI,EpHO~ O~ FAX ~IMEDIA~LY
ATTACHMENT B PAGE 9 OF 9
DATE:
TO;
September 1, 1994
City of Temecula
ATTENTION: h.ci Romero
FAX NO.:
909-694-1999
FROM:
Robin Wcstlund
ORIGINAL TO,FOLLOW IN MAIL? YES X NO__
RE: PEPIP Property Proposal
Dear Luci:
Per your conversations with Ralph Hunt and myself, I am plcascd to confirm the following
finalizrxl pricing for entry .into the captioned program:
*All Risk Annual Preenlure $ 2,458
,Earthquake/Flood Annual Premium 20.843
,Total Annual Premium $ 23,301
This pricing is based on tim City purchasing both All Risk and Earthquake/Flood coverage.
All coverages am to remain as previously quoted to you. There is essentially no charge for
Hood coverage so it would not save you any money to delete this coverage.
The Earthquake/Flood coverages would be issued on a separate policy for an anuual policy t~rm.
The All risk coverages Would be added to our Public Entity Propert), Insurance Program policies
and the premium would be pro-riled based on when you join with an expiration da~ of May 15,
1995. Per Ralph, Ihe all risk pricing could remain as is for the May 15, 1995-96 renewal.
Sh{~uld you have any questions, please do not hesiUue U~ call. Thank you for this oppo~.mity
anti look forward to hearing back from you soon.
Since y,
Robin L. estlund'
.t6.t6 BIRCH ,'~'l'Rt"t"l; $urlE 2jO, NE WI'ORT 13FACIL CALIFORNIA 92660-26]9
(7J4) 7.56-0271 · I./,X 1714J 7.~6-271.~
ITEM 10
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Mary Jane McLarney, Finance Officer
September 13, 1994
Authorization To Execute Supplemental Agreement For The Use of
20th Year Community Development Block Grant Funds
PREPARED BY: ~//C~Luci Romero, Financial Services Administrator
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council authorize the Mayor to execute the
Supplemental Agreement for the 20th Year Community Development Block Grant
· Funds.
DISCUSSION: The City entered into a Cooperation Agreement with the
County of Riverside (dated June 29, 1993), for the purpose of receiving Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. The City, in conjunction with the County,
is now participating in the 20th Year CDBG entitlement.
On March 22, 1994, the City Council approved the funding for the 20th Year CDBG
projects, as follows:
Alternatives to Domestic Violence
Emergency Food Program
Handicapped Access Ramp Program
Sam Hicks Park Improvements
Operation School Bell
TOTAL
$ 10,000
$ 10,000
$ 30,000
$149,521
$ 7,250
$206,771
Execution of the attached Supplemental Agreement to the Cooperation Agreement
authorizes the use of 20th Year CDBG funding for the above projects.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.7
28
File No: 1.TM017, 018, 019,
0. 104, 0. 108
SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE USE OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS
COUNTY OF RI~za{SIDE of the State of California, herein
called, "COUNTY," and the City of Temecula, herein called "CITY,"
mutually agree as follows:
1. G~ERAL. COUNTY and CITY have executed a Cooperation
Agreement ~dated June 29, 1993, whereby CITY elected to participate
with COUNTY, which has qualified as an "Urban County" for purposes
of receiving Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, and to
assist and undertake essential community development and housing
assistance activities pursuant to the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974, as amended, hereinafter referred to as
"Act". Said Cooperation Agreement dated June 29, 1993., is
incorporated herein by reference and made a part of this Agreement
as if each and every provision was set forth herein.
2. PURPOSE. CITY promises and agrees to undertake and
assist with the community development activities, within its
jurisdiction, by.utilizing the sum of $206.771, CDBG Entitlement
Funds, as specifically identified in Exhibits "A", "B", "C", "D",
"E" respectively, which are attached hereto and consist(s) of 3
pages (each), and by this reference are incorporated herein, for
the projects:
1.TMO17 Rmergency Food Program. $10,000
1.TMO18 Sam Hicks Park Improvements, $149.521
1.TMO19 Handic~ped Access Ram~ Project. S30,000
0.104 Alternatives to Domestic Violence. S10,000
1 0.108 Operation School Bell. S7,250.
2 CITY shall obtain COUNTY's approval, through its Economic
3 Development Agency, of the project plans and specifications prior
4 to CITY's construction of same. CITY promises and agrees to
5 utilize and maintain the projects for a minimum period of five (5)
6 years or.the life of the project, whichever is less.
7 3. TERM OF AGR~N~NT. The term of this Agreement for the
8 projects shall be for a period of one (1) year commencing upon the
9 date of the execution of this Agreement and proceed consistent with
10 the completion schedule set forth in Exhibits "A", "B", "C", "D",
11 and "E". In the event that the project is not substantially
12 completed by the time set forth in the completion schedule due to
13 unforeseen or uncontrollable causes, the schedule for the
14 completion of the project may be extended by the period of the
15 enforced delay. Times of performance may also be extended in
16 writing by the mutual agreement of CITY and COUNTY. If substantial
17 progress toward completion in conformance with the completion
18 schedule, as determined by COUNTY of the projects is not made
19 during the term of the Supplemental Agreement, COUNTY may suspend
20 or terminate this agreement by the procedures set forth in the
21 Section titled "Termination", of this agreement and the entitlement
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
funds associated with the projects
after appropriate notice is given.
4. DISPOSITION OF FUNDS.
may be reprogrammed by COUNTY
COUNTY's Board of Supervisors
shall determine the final disposition and distribution of all funds
received by COUNTY under the Act consistent with the provisions of
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Agreement. COUNTY, through its Economic
Development Agency, shall:
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.~7
28
(1) make payment of the grant funds to CITY as
designated in Exhibits "A", "B", "C", "D", and "E", and (2)
monitor the project activity to ensure compliance with applicable
federal regulations and the terms of this Agreement. City shall
comply with timely drawdownof funds by submitting monthly requests
for reimbursement. All disbursements of grant funds will be on a
reimbursement basis and made within thirty '(30) days after the CITY
has submitted its letter identifying payments made and requesting
reimbursement.
5. COOPERATION WITH HOUSING ASSISTANCE ACTIVITIES. CITY
shall cooperate with COUNTY in undertaking essential community
development and housing assistance activities, specifically urban
renewal and public assistance housing, and shall assist COUNTY in
carrying out its housing assistance plans Comprehensive Housing
Affordability Strategy and other requirements of the Community
Development Block Grant Program.
6. LRAD AGRNCY FOR
RNVIRONMRNTAI. OUALITY ACT (CEOA].
COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
Pursuant to Section 15051(d) of
Title 14 of the California Administrative Code,
as the lead agency for the projects that are the
this Agreement.
7. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDRMNIFICATION.
CITY is designated
subject matter of
CITY shall comply
with all applicable laws, rules and regulations, and shall
indemnify, save and hold harmless COUNTY and its agency members and
their respective agents, servants and employees of and from any and
all liabilities, claims, debt, damages, demands, suits, actions and
causes of action of whatsoever kind, nature or sort including, but
not by way of limitation, wrongful death, expenses of the defense
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
.7
28
cited in the above-mentioned Cooperation Agreement.
10. INDRPRNDRNT CONTMACTOR. CITY and its agents, servants
and employees shall act at all times in an independent capacity
during the term of this Agreement, and shall not act as, shall not
be, nor shall they in any manner be construed to be agents,
officers or employees of the COUNTY.
ll. TRRMINATION.
a. CITY. CITY may not terminate this Agreement
except upon express Written consent of COUNTY.
b. COUNTY. Notwithstanding the provisions of
Paragraph lla, COUNTY may suspend or terminate this Agreement upon
written notice to CITY of action being taken and the reason for
such action:
(1) In the event CITY fails to perform the
covenants herein contained at such times and in such manner as
federal, state
rendering any
untenable; or
provided in this Agreement; and
(2) In the event CITY fails to perform the
covenants herein contained at such times and in such manner
as provided in this Agreement; and
(3) In the event there is a conflict with any
or local law, ordinance, regulation or rule
of the provisions of this Agreement invalid or
(4) In the event the funding from the Department
of Housing and Urban Development referred to in Paragraphs 1 and 2
above is terminated or otherwise becomes unavailable.
c. Upon suspension of this Agreement, CITY agrees to
return any unencumbered funds which it has been provided by COUNTY.
5
1 In accepting said funds, COUNTY does not waive any claim or cause
2 of action it may have against CITY for breach of this Agreement.
3 d. Upon suspension of this Agreement, CITY agrees not
4 to incur any additional cost with regard to the projects that are
5 cited in the written notice as necessitating the suspensions.
6 12. NONDISCRIMINATION. CITY shall abide by Sections
7 570.601 and 570.602 of Title 24 of the Federal Code of Regulations
8 which requires that no person in the United States shall on the
9 grounds of race, color, national origin, or sex, be excluded from
10 participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
11 discrimination under any program or activity funded in whole or in
12 part with Community Development funds.
13 13. PROHIBITION AGAINST CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
14 a. CITY and its assigns, employees, agents,
15 consultants, officers and elected and appointed officials shall
16 become familiar with and shall comply with the CDBG regulations
17 prohibiting conflicts of interest contained in 24 CFR 570.611,
18 attached hereto as Exhibit ,,CI,, and by this reference incorporated
19 herein.
20 b. CITY and its assigns, employees, agents,
21 consultants, officers, and elected and appointed officials shall
22 become familiar with and shall comply with Section A-11 of the
23 County's CDBG Policy manual, attached hereto as Exhibit "CI,, and by
24 this reference incorporated herein.
25 c. CITY understands and agrees that no waiver of
26 exception can be granted to the prohibition against conflict of
27 interest except upon written approval of HUD pursuant to 24 CFR
28 570.611 (d). Any request by CITY for an exception shall first be
6
1 reviewed by COUNTY to determine whether such request is appropriate
2 for submission to HUD. In determining whether such request is
3 appropriate for submission to HUD, COUNTY will consider the factors
4 listed in 24 CFR 570.611 (e).
5 d. Prior to any funding under this Agreement, CITY
6 shall provide COUNTY with a llst of all employees, agents,
7 consultants, officers and elected and appointed officials who
S are in a position to participate in a decision making process,
9 exercise any functions or responsibilities, or gain inside
10 information with respect to the CDBG activities funded under
11 this Agreement. CITY shall also promptly disclose to COUNTY any
12 potential conflict, including even the appearance of conflict,
13 that may arise with respect to the CDBG activities funded under
4 this Agreement.
15 e. Any violation of this section shall be deemed a
16 material breach of this Agreement, and the Agreement shall be
17 immediately terminated by the COUNTY.
18 14. PROJECT ELIGIBILITY. As to CITY or its claimants,
19 COUNTY shall bear no liability for any'later determination by the
20 United States Government, the Department of Housing and Urban
21 Development or any other person or entity that CITY is or is not
22 eligible under 24 CFR Part 570 to receive CDBG funds.
23 15. RMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES TO BE CAUSED BY PROJECT.
24 Sponsor City agrees to notify and to require any lessee or assignee
25 to notify Riverside County JTPD (Jobs Training Partnerships
26 Department) and GAIN - Department of Public Social Services of any
.7 and all job openings that are caused by this project.
28 16. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. It is expressly agreed that this
7
I Agreement together with the cooperation Agreement between the
2 parties, embodies the entire agreement of the parties in relation
3 to the subject matter thereof, and that no other Agreement or
4 understanding, verbal or otherwise, relative to this subject
5 matter, exists between the parties at the time of execution.
6 17. MINISTERI~T. ACTS. The Executive Director of the
7 COUNTYIS Economic Development Agency or his or her designee(s) are
8 authorized to take such ministerial actions as may be necessary or
9 appropriate to implement the terms, provisions, and conditions of
10 this Agreement as it may be amended from time to time by COUNTY.
n III
12 ///
13 III
14 ///
15 III
16 ///
III
III
III
III
III
22 ///
///
III
III
III
III
III
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
~7
28
modified or amended only by a writing signed by the duly
authorized and empowered representative of COUNTY and
respectively.
MODIFICATION OF AGRRRMRNT. This Agreement may be
CITY
DATED:
ATTEST:
GERALD A. MALONEY
Clerk of the Board
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
By:
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
By:
Deputy
(Seal)
DATED:
ATTEST:
CITY OF TRMECUT.A
~.~.:mds
(ls~tm\suppagr.017)
By:
Mayor
9
EXHIBIT A FILE: 1.TM017
Page 1
SUPPLRMRNTAT. AGRRRMENT
Sponsor: City of Temecula/Senior Citizens Service Center
Address: 43174 Business Park Drive. Temecula. CA 92590
PrOject Title: 'Rmergency Food Program
Location: 40250 Winchester Road. Temecula. CA
Description: Senior Citizens Service Center of Temecula is a non-profit
organization that provides emergency food to seniors and low income persons.
CDBG funds will be used to purchase food to be distributed in the form of food
baskets for needy individuals.
This project serves limited clientele; therefore, the attached document for
Direct Benefits needs to be filled out and submitted to the County of Riverside
EDA on a monthly basis.
indicating NO SERVICE.
Project Budget:
Should there be no services rendered, submit a form
Cost
CDBG Approved
1) Architect/Engineer Design Costs $ S
2) Administration Costs
3) Planning Cos. ts
4) Acquisition Costs
5) Construction Costs
6) Relocation Costs
7) Equipment Costs
8) Other Costs
9) Operation/Maintenance 10,000
10) Contingency
TOTAL S $ 10.000
EX]{IBIT A FILE: 1.TM017
Page 2
T_ ~table Implementation Schedule
Milestone
Begin Project
Start Date
7/~/94
Co~letion Date
6/30/95
EXHIBIT A FILE: 1.TM017
Page 3
U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
ANNUAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT SUMMARY
PERIOD OF APPLICABILITY
FROM TO 4. X Original (each year)
Revision, Date
July 1, 1994 June 30. 1995 . Amendment, Date
1. NAME OF APPLICANT
County of Riverside
2. APPLICATION/GRANT NUMBEP --
B-94-UC-06-0506
5. NAME OF PROJECT 6. PROJECT NUMBER 7. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS
Emergency Food Program 1.TM017 Exempt
8. ENTITY WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR CARRYING OUT THE PROJECT 9. TELEPHONE NUMBER
City of Temecula (909) 694-6480
10. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
Senior Citizens Service Center of Temecula is a non-profit organization that
provides emergency food to seniors and low income persons. CDBG funds will
be used to purchase food to be distributed in the form of food baskets for
needy individuals.
ELIGIBILITY: 570.201 (e) BENEFIT: 570.208 (a)(2)(i)
11. CENSUS TRACT(S)/ENUMERATION DISTRICT(S)
100% L/M
12. ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Continued service to seniors and low income families, 5,000 individuals.
13. CDBG COMPONENT ACTIVITIES PROGRAM YEAR FUNDS(in thousands of $)
(List component activities using names CDBG OTHER
of activities shown in Part A, COST Low/Mod Other Amount Source
SUMMARY, Form PFJD-7067.) Benefit Benefit
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
Public Service
10,000
14. Totals S10.000 $ S
15. Total costs To Be Paid With Community Development Grant Funds
(Sum of Colu~tns b and c) S 10,000
EXHIBIT B FILE: 1.TM018
Page i
SUPPLRMENTAL AGR/RMRNT
Sponsor: City of Temecula
Address: 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula, CA 92590
Project Title: Sam Hicks Park I~rovements
Location: Mercedes and Moreno Street, Temecula. CA
Description: This project will use CDBG funds to renovate and expand the existing
Sam Hicks Park from .83 acres to 2.31 total acres. The proposed improvements will
include improvements to the existing monument, removal of architectural barriers
for handicapped accessibility, to lot improvements, construction of a restroom and
snack bar facility, a rose garden, gazebo bandstand, trellised courtyard,
additional picnic facilities, parking, lighting, landscaping and irrigation.
Project will eliminate a slum and blighting condition as identified in the
Redevelopment Plan.
Project Budget:
Cost
CDBG A~proved
1) Architect/Engineer Design Costs
2) Administration Costs
3) Planning Costs
4) Acquisition Costs
5) Constructio~ Costs
6) Relocation Costs
7) Equipment Costs
8) Other Costs
9) Operation/Maintenance
10) Contingency
TOTAL
149,521
S 149.521
EXHIBIT B FILE: 1.TM018
Page 2
Timetable Implementation Schedule
Milestone
Prepare Plans, Specifications
and Bid Documents
Advertise for Bid
Award Contract
Notice to Proceed
Construction
Start Date
',o/
1/95
2/95
3/95
3/95
Co~letion Date
12/94
2/95
6/30/95
EXHIBIT B FILE: 1.TM018
Page 3
U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
ANNUAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT SUMMARY
PERIOD OF APPLICABILITY
FROM TO 4. ~ Original (each year)
Revision, Date
July 1. 1994 June 30, 1995 Amendment, Date
1. NAME OF APPLICANT
County of Riverside
2. APPLICATION/GRANT NUMBER
B-94-UC-06-0506
5. NAME OF PROJECT 6. PROJECT NUMBER
Sam Hicks Park Improvements 1.TM018
7. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS
Categorically Excluded
8. ENTITY WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR CARRYING OUT THE PROJECT 9. TELEPHONE NUMBER
City of Temecula (909) 694-6480
10.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
This project will use CDBG funds to renovate and expand the existing Sam
Hicks Park from .83 acres to 2.31 total acres. The proposed improvements
will include improvements to the existing monument, removal of architectural
barriers for handicapped accessibility, tot lot improvements, construction
of a restroom and snack bar facility, a rose garden, gazebo bandstand,
trellised courtyard, additional picnic facilities, parking, lighting,
landscaping and irrigation. Project will eliminate a slum and blighting
condition as identified in the Redevelopmerit Plan.
ELIGIBILITY: 570.201 (c)
BENEFIT: 570.208(b)(1)
11. CENSUS TRACT(S)/ENUMERATION DISTRICT(S)
City-wide presumed benefit
12. ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Project will assist the City of Temecula in complying with ADA requirements.
Project will also enhance recreational opportunities for handicapped
residents in the City.
13. CDBG COMPONENT ACTIVITIES PROGRAM YEAR FUNDS(in thousands of $)
(List component activities using names CDBG OTHER
of activities shown in Part A, COST Low/Mod Other Amount Source
SUMMARY, Form HUD-7067.] Benefit Benefit
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
Public Facilities & Improvements
149.521
Totals S149,521 S $
15. Total Costs To Be Paid With Community Development Grant Funds
(Sum of Columns b and c) $ 149.521
EXHIBIT C FILE: 1.TM019
Page I
SUPPLRMRNTAL AGRRRMRNT
Sponsor: ci~3F of Temecula
AddresS: 43174 Business Park Drive. T~mecula, CA 92590
Project Title: Handic~ped Access Ra~ Project
Location: city-wide
Description: CDBG funds will be used to design and construct 22 handicapped ramps
in existing sidewalks at specifically identified sites throughout the City. This
project will remove architectural barriers for handicapped citizens and will
enable the City to conform with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Project Budget:
1) ArChitect/Engineer Design Costs
2) Administration Costs
3) Planning Costs
4) Acquisition Costs
5) Construction Costs
6) Relocation Costs
7) Equipment Costs
8) Other Costs
9) Operation/Maintenance
10) Contingency
TOTAL
Cost
CDBG Approved
30.000
30.000
EXHIBIT C FILE: 1.TM019
Page 2
~ ~table Implementation Schedule
Milestone
Prepare Plan, Specifications
and Bid Documents
AdVertise for Bid
Award Contract
Notice to Proceed
Construction
Start Date
lo/94
11/94
1/95
2/9S
3/95
Completion Date
11/94
12/94
6/30/95
EXHIBIT C FILE: 1.TM019
Page 3
U,Se
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
ANNUAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT S~Y
PERIOD OF APPLICABILITY
FROM TO 4. X Original (each year)
Revision, Date
July 1. 1994 June 30, 1995 Amendment, Date
1. NAME OF APPLICANT
Co-nty of Riverside
2. APPLICATION/GRANT NUMBER'
B-94-UC-06-0506
5. NAME OF PROJECT 6. PROJECT NUMBER 7. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS
Handicapped Access Ramp 1.TM019 Categorically Excluded
Project
8. ENTITY WITH RESPONSIBILITY FOR CARRYING OUT THE PROJECT 9. TELEPHONE NUMBER
City of Temecula (909) 694-6411
10. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT
CDBG funds will be used to design and construct 22 handicapped ramps in
existing sidewalks at specifically identified sites throughout the City.
This project will remove architectural barriers for handicapped citizens and
will enable the City to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA).
ELIGIBILITY: 570.201 (k) BENEFIT: 570.208 (a)(2)
11. CENSUS TRACT(S)/ENUMERATION DISTRICT(S)
City-wide
12. ANTICIPATED ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Project will assist the City of Temecula in complying with ADA requirements.
13. CDBG COMPONENT ACTIVITIES PROGRAM YEAR FUNDS(in thousands of $)
(List component activities using names CDBG OTHER
of activities shown in Part A, COST Low/Mod Other Amount Source
SUMMARY. Form MUD-7067.) Benefit Benefit
(a) (b) (c) (d) (e)
Removal of A~chitectural Barriers
30,000
14. Totals S30.000 $ ~
15. Total Costs To Be Paid With Community Development Grant Funds
(Sum of Columns b and c) S 30,000
EXHIBIT D FILE: 0.104
Page i
SUPPLRMRNTAI. AGRRk~4RNT
S~'.sor: Alternatives to Domestic Violence. Inc.
Address: P.O. Box 910, Riverside, CA 92502
Project Title: Alternatives to Domestic Violence
Location: Riverside County
Description: This agency serves battered spouses who are victims of domestic
violence. CDBG funds will be utilized to offset costs associated with the
operation and administration of the agency's toll free crisis line, three regional
outreach centers which provide advocacy and counseling services, emergency food,
clothing and shelter as well as community education presentations. Respond to
13,000 emergency calls on the 24 hour crisis line, provide emergency shelter to
approximately 85 battered women and 115 children and provide 750 victims with
advocacy services.
This project serves limited clientele; therefore, the attached document for Direct
Benefits needs to be filled out and submitted to the County of Riverside EDA on
a monthly basis. Should there be no services rendered, submit a form indicating
NO SERVICE.
Note:
This project has been funded by:
City of
City of
City of
City of
City of
City of
County of Riverside $50,000
City of Banning 5,000
Beaumont 3,000
Desert Hot Springs 2,000
Indio 4,000
Lake Elsinore 7,000
Perris 5,519
Temecula 10,000
and the County of Riverside Economic Development Agency will directly
administer the project on behalf of the identified cities.
Project Budget:
Cost
CDBG Approved
1) Administration Costs
2) Planning Costs
3) Equipment Costs
4) Other Costs
5) Operation/Maintenance 86,519 10o000
6) Contingency
TOTAL S 86.519 10.000'
,l E: This project is being administered on behalf of the City of Temecula by
the County of Riverside. See Countywide Sponsor's Agreement between the County
of Riverside and Alternatives to Domestic Violence governing the expenditure of
these 20th year CDBG funds (File# 0,104).
EXHIBIT E FILE:
Page i
Sponsor:
SUPpLk~T~NT~L AGRR~RNT
Assistance League of Temecula Valley
0.108
Address: P.O. Box 1212. Murrieta. CA 92590
Project Title: Operation School Bell
Location: 39105. Avenida La Cresta, Murrieta, CA 92562
Description: The Assistance League of Temecula Valley operates the Operation
School Bell program which provides proper school clothing to needy youth from
qualified households attending school in Temecula, Murrieta and Lake Elsinore.
CDBG funds will- be used to purchase enough clothing for approximately 500
children.
This project serves limited clientele; therefore, the attached document for Direct
Benefits needs to be filled out and submitted to the County of Riverside EDA on
a monthly basis. Should there be no services rendered, submit a form indicating
NO SERVICE.
Note: This project has been funded by:
City of Lake Elsinore $5,000
City of Murrieta $3,000
City of Temecula $7,250
and the County of Riverside EDA with directly administer the project.
Project Budget:
Cost
CDBG A~proved
1) Administration Costs
2) Planning Co~ts
3) Acquisition Costs
4) Construction Costs
5) Equipment Costs
6) Other Costs 15,250 7.250
7) Operation/Maintenance
8) Contingency
TOTAL S 15.250 S 7,250.
*NOTE: This project is being administered on behalf of the City of Temecula by
the County of Riverside. See Countywide Sponsor's Agreement between the County
of Riverside and the Assistance League of Temecula Valley governing the
expenditure of these 20th year CDBG funds (File# 0.108).
Prohibition Against Conflicts of Interest
EXHIBIT CI , page 1 of 4
S ,0.611 Conflict of interest.
(a) A~plicability.
(~)
(2)
In the procurement of supplies, equipment, construction, and services by
recipients, and by subrecipients (including those specified at
S 570.204(c)), the conflict of interest provisions in 24 CFR 85.36 and
OMB Circular A 110, respectivelyF shall apply.
In all cases not governed by 24 CFR 85.36 and OMB Circular A-110, the
provisions of this section shall apply. Such cases include the
acquisition and disposition of real property and the provision of
assistance by the recipient, by its subrecipients, or to individuals,
businesses and other private entities under eligible activities which
authorize such assistance (e.g., rehabilitation, preservation, and other
improvements of private properties or facilities pursuant to
S 570.202, or grants, loans and other assistance to businesses,
individuals and other private entities pursuant to § 570.203, ~ 570.204
or ~ 570.455).
(b) Conflicts prohibited. Except for the use of CDBG funds to pay salaries
and other related administrative or personnel costs, the general rule is that no
persons described in paragraph (c) of this section who exercise or have exercised
anu functions or responsibilities with respect to CDBG activities assisted under
t part or who are in a position to participate in a decision making process or
gain inside information with regard to such activities, may obtain a personal or
financial interest or benefit from a CDBG assisted activity, or have an interest
in any contract, subcontract or agreement with respect thereto, or the proceeds
thereunder, either for themselves or those with whom they have family or business
ties, during their tenure or for one year thereafter. For the UDAG program, the
above restrictions shall apply to all activities that are a part of the UDAG
project, and shall cover any such interest or benefit during, or at any time
after, such person's tenure.
(c) Persons =overed. The conflict of interest provisions of paragraph (b) of
this section apply to any person who is an employee, agent, consultant, officer,
or elected official or appointed official of the recipient, or of any designated
public agencies, or subrecipients which are receiving funds under this part.
(d) Exceptions: threshold requirements. Upon the written request of the
recipient, HUDmay grant an exception to the provisions of paragraph (b) of this
section on a case-by-case basis when it determines that such an exception will
serve to further the purposes of the Act and the effective and efficient
administration of the recipient's program or project. An exception may be
considered only after the recipient has provided the following:
(i)
A disclosure of the nature of the conflict, accompanied by an assurance
that there has been public disclosure of the conflict and a description
of how the public disclosure was made; and
Prohibition Against Conflicts of Interest
EXHIBIT CI, page 2 of 4
(e)
An opinion of the recipient's attorney that the interest for which
the exception is sought would not Violate State or local law.
Factors to'be considered for exceptions. In determining whether to grant
a requested exception after the recipient has satisfactorily met the
requirements of paragraph (d) of this section, MIID shall consider the
cumulative effect of the following factors, where applicable:
(i)
Whether the exception would provide a significant cost benefit or an
essential degree of expertise to the program or project which would
otherwise not be available;
(2)
Whether an opportunity was provided for open competitive bidding or
negotiation;
(3)
Whether the person affected is a member of a group or class of low
or moderate income persons intended to be the beneficiaries of the
assisted activity, and the exception will permit such person t2
receive generally the same interests or benefits as are being m
available or provided to the group or class;
(4)
Whether the affected person has withdrawn from his or her functions
or responsibilities, or the decision making process with respect to
the specific assisted activity in question;
(5)
(6)
Whether the interest or benefit was present before the affected
person was in a position as described in paragraph (b) of this
section;
Wh~ther undue hardship will result either to the recipient or the
person affected when weighed against the public interest served by
avoiding the prohibited conflict; and
(7) Any other relevant considerations.
Prohibition Against Conflicts of Interest
Exhibit CI, page 3 of 4
Community Dvlpmt.
Block Grant
Policy Manual
I.D. #A-11
(pg. 1 of 2)
TOPIC:
CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODED
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
DATE: October 1989
This Conflict of Interest Code is written to comply with Federal Regulations (24
CFR Part 85). These Regulations. "Administrative Requirements for Grants and
Cooperative Agreements to State, Local and Federally Recognized Indian Tribal
Governments" require that grantees and sub-grantees will maintain a written code
of standards of conduct governing the performance of their employees engaged in
the award and administration of contracts.
.1~ ,NO employee, officer or agent of the grantee shall participate in the
se~_ction, in the award or in the administration of a contract supported by
Federal Funds if a conflict of interest, real or apparent, would be involved.
2) Such a conflict will arise when:
i) The employee, officer or agent;
ii) Any member Of the immediate family;
iii) His/Her partners, or;
iv) An organization which employs, or is about to employ any of the above
has a financial or other interest in the firm's selection for award.
3) The grantee's or sub-grantee's officers, employees or agents will neither
solicit nor accept gratuities, favors or anything of monetary value from
contractors or parties to sub-agreements except as noted in Section 4.
4) A grantee's or sub-grantee's officers, employees or agents will be presumed
to have a financial interest in a business if their financial interest exceeds the
following:
i) Any business entity in which the official has a direct or indirect
investment worth one thousand dollars ($1,000) or more.
Any real property in which the official has a direct or indirect interest
worth one thousand dollars ($1,000) or more.
Prohibition Against Conflicts of Interest
Exhibit CI, page 4 of 4
TOPIC:
DATE:
iii)
iv)
v)
5)
Community Dvlpmt.
Block Grant
Policy Manual
I.D.#A-11
(pg. 2 of 2)
CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
October 1989
Any source of income, other than gifts and other than loans by a
commercial lending institution in the regular course of business on terms
available to the public without regard to official status, aggregating
two hundred fifty dollars ($250) or more in value provided to, received
by or promised to the official within 12 months prior to the time when
the decision is made.
Any business entity in which the official is a director, officer,
partner, trustee, employee, or holds any position of management.
Any donor of, or any intermediary or agent for a donor of, a gift ~r
gifts aggregating two hundred fifty dollars ($250) or more in va'
provided to, received by, or promised'to the official within 12 mont_~
prior to the time when the decision is made.
For purposes of Section 4, indirect investment or interest means any
investment or interest owned by the spouse or dependent child of an
official, by an agent on behalf of an official, or by a business entity
or trust in which the official, the official's agents, spouse, and
dependent children own directly, indirectly, or beneficially a 10-percent
interest or more.
ITEM 11
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT;
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
City Council/City Manager
Anthony EImo, Chief Building Official~
September 13, 1994
Approval of Contract Award for Plan Review Services
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve an award of contract to Esgil
Corporation, Vandorpe Chou Associates, Ray Grage and Associates and Robert Bein, William
Frost and Associates, to provide building plan review services on an as needed basis, to the
Building and Safety Department.
DISCUSSION: On April 12, 1994, the Building and Safety Department
advertised a Request for Proposals for outside consultant firms to perform complete building
plan review services. The City Clerk's office received responses from six (6) firms. Four (4)
firms are being recommended to provide building plan check services for the City for fiscal
year '94-'95. The four (4) firms include the Esgil Corporation and Vandorpe Chou Associates
who have provided high quality and very responsive service to date. Two (2) local firms are
also being recommended to provide the City with building plan check services. Robert Bein,
William Frost and Associates and Ray Grage and Associates have both assembled staff to
enable them to provide this service. The local firms themselves are inexperienced in the area
of building plan review but the staff they have assembled have the necessary qualifications
and experience to perform this work. Building and Safety staff will be closely evaluating the
service being provided by these four (4) firms over the next twelve (12) months.
Staff is recommending that the City enter into a one (1) year agreement with Esgil
Corporation, Vandorpe Chou Associates, Ray Grage Associates and Robert Bein, William Frost
and Associates, to provide building plan review services on an as needed basis. Staff collects
seventy-five percent (75%) of the established building permit fee for covering the costs of
doing plan review. Typically consulting firms are compensated at a percentage of the building
permit fee collected by the City. The following is a list of the six (6) firms whose proposals
were received along with their respective compensation proposal. Compensation rates are
based upon a percentage of the plan review fees collected by the City.
V:\TONY~AGENDA~PLNCHCK.RNW 9/7/94 tda
Agenda Report
September13,1994
Page 2
Esgil Corporation
9320 Chesapeake Dr., Suite 208
San Diego, CA 92123
Vandorpe Chou Associates, Inc.
295 N. Rampart St
Orange, CA 92668
RBF and Associates
28765 Single Oak Dr Suite 250
Temecula, CA 92590
Ray Grage and Associates
110 N. Main St
Lake Elsinore, CA 92530
Melad & Associates
8907 Warner Ave., Suite 161
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
B.S.I. Consultants, Inc.
16880 West Bernardo Ct., Suite 100
San Diego, CA 92127-1616
52% of the building permit fee
collected by the City
49% of the building permit fee
collected by the City
50% of the building permit fee
collected by the City
52% of the building permit fee
collected by the City
53% of the building permit fee
collected by the City
52% of the building permit fee
collected by the City
FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for plan review services has been incorporated into
the budget for fiscal year '94-'95 in the amount of $63,000in Account No. 001-999-162-42-
5248, "Consulting Services." No additional funds are being requested.
V:\TONY%AGENDA~PLNCHCK.RNW 9/1/94 tda
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Agreement was made and entered into this 13 day of Sentember
by and between the City of Temecula ("City"), a municipal corporation, and
EsQil Cornoration , an individual ("Consultant").
1994,
The parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
Sen/ices. Consultant shall perform the tasks set forth in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule set forth in
Exhibit "A".
Performance. Consultant shall at all times, faithfully, industrially and to the best of
his ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks described herein.
Payment. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, at the hourly rates set forth
in Exhibit "B" attached hereto, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks.
This amount will not exceed $ Exhibit B for the total term of the Agreement
unless additional payment is approved by the City Council; provided that the City
Manager may approve additional payment not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the
Agreement; but in no event more than $10,000.00.
Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices
shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, for services
provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of
receipt of each invoice.
Amendments. This Agreement may be amended so long as such amendment is in
writing and agreed upon by both the City Council and Consultant.
Ownership of Documents. Upon satisfactory completion of or in the event of
termination, suspension or abandonment of this Agreement, all original documents,
designs, drawings, and notes prepared in the course of providing the services to be
performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City
and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the
permission of the Consultant.
Termination. The City may terminate this Agreement without cause so long as
written notice of intent to terminate is given to Consultant at least three (3) days
prior to the termination date. In the event of termination, Consultant shall be paid
for the services performed.
Indemnification. The Consultant agrees to indemnify and save harmless the City,
its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims,
demands, losses, defense cost, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its
officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon
them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of
Consultant's acts or omissions under the terms of this Agreement, excepting only
liability arising out of the sole negligence of the City.
-1 - v:%Tony~Agenda\Agr05-95.Esgil
12.
Entire AGreement. This Agreement and any documents or instrument attached
hereto or referred to herein integrate all terms and conditions mentioned herein or
incidental hereto supersede all negotiations and prior writing in respect to the
subject matter hereof.
In the event of conflict between the terms, conditions, or provisions of this
Agreement and any such document or instrument, the terms and conditions of this
Agreement shall prevail.
13.
Liability. Except as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages,
or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City.
City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury
or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.
Consultant agrees to indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its officers,
agents, employees, and representatives for all claims or losses the City may suffer
resulting from any negligent actions or omissions by Consultant.
Consultant shall secure workers' compensation insurance. Upon request of
Consultant, the City shall add Consultant to the City's workers' compensation
policy and the Consultant to the City's workers' compensation policy and the
Consultant shall reimburse the City for the cost of said insurance premiums.
14.
Licenses. Consultant and subconsultant shall obtain all necessary licenses,
including but not limited to, City Business Licenses.
The parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year above
written.
CONSULTANT
CITY OF TEMECULA
By: Es~lil Corporation
By
Ron Robe~s, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Peter Thorson, City Attorney
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
-3- v:~TonyLa, genda\AgrOS-95.Esgil
EXHIBIT "A"
TASKS TO BE PERFORMED
PLAN CHECKING
Provide a complete plan check service to the City of Temecula including analysis for
compliance with the City's adopted uniform codes as follows:
Building code requirement including:
Requirements based upon type of occupancy;
Requirements based upon type of construction;
Engineering regulations including seismic loads;
Detailed regulations of construction;
Fire resistive standards for fire protection;
Fire and life safety requirements;
Accessibility for the physically handicapped.
National Electrical Code requirements
Uniform Plumbing Code requirements
Title 24 energy conservation compliance
City's amendments to the uniform codes
Repetitive plan checks
Review site plan
Review soils reports
Review foundation plans for conformance with soils report
EXHIBIT "A" v:~Tony%Agenda%AgrOS-95,Esgil
ESGIL CORPORATION'S
FEE SCHEDULE FOR PROPOSED SERVICES IN RESPONSE TO THE
CITY OF TEMECULA RFP DATED APRIL 12, 1994
COMPLETE PLAN REVIEW:
Esgil Corporation's fee shall be 52% of the Permit Fee calculated per Section 304
or the latest published edition of the Uniform Building Code for each building plan
reviewed. The construction valuation shall be based on the most recent valuation
multiplier published by the International Conference of Building Officials in Building
Standards, or on the architects estimated construction cost, or on the Building
Official's cost estimate.
Notwithstanding the above, the minimum contractor fee for a plan review shall be
one hundred ddllars ($100.00).
Plan review fee for repetitive identical buildings shall be 52% of the permit fee as
noted above for the first, or basic building, and 10% of the permit fee as noted
above for each repetitive building,
The single fee includes all rechecks and there are no additional charges for
preliminary plan review conferences at our office, expedited processing, reviewing
plans that are eventually found to be incomplete or for the pick-up and delivery of
plans or for meetings with the Building Official at his/her request,
PARTIAL PLAN REVIEW:
Partial plan reviews are discouraged due to the need to coordinate all disciplines in
a plan review, however, the fees for partial plan review when requested are:
1. Basic minimum for any plan review: 35% of UBC Building Permit fee
2. Structural only 6% additional
3. Fire-Life 6% additional
4. U.P.C. 1% additional
5. N.E.C. 1% additional
6. U.M.C. 1% additional
7. Title 24 Energy and Sound Control 1% additional
B. Title 24 Disabled Access 1% additional
Total: 52% of UBC fee
PLAN REVIEW OF REVISIONS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANS:
Revisions to previously approved plans will be at Esgil Corporation's published
hourly rates shown on the "Labor Rates Schedule," enclosed. We use our preferred
rate schedule in Temecula.
FAtHI, BIT B
ESGIL CORPORATION
9320 CHESAPEAKE DR., SUITE 208
SAN DIEGO, CA 92123
(6191 560-1468
LABOR RNEES SCHKuULg*
(EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 1993)
CLASSIFICATION RATE
Division Manager $157.50
Supervising Structural Engineer 148.43
Structural Engineer, S.E. 129.88
Civil, Electrical, R.C.E. 115.50
Mechanical Engineer, M.E. 115.50
Electrical Engineer, E.E. 115.50
Energy Plans Examiner, C.B.C.I 115.50
I.C.B.O. Plans Examiner 98.70
Supervising Building inspector 105.00
Building inspector 89.25
Permit Specialist 80.85
Word'Processing 55.65
Clerical Support 37.80
Corporate Attorney 280.35
PREFERRRn
RAT5
$'1!8.65
112.00
98.00
87.15
87.15
87.15
87.15
74.55
78.75
67.20
60.90
42.00
28.35
210.00
NOTES: *Hourly
Regular Rates apply where jurisdictions only utilize Esgil
Corporation's services occasionally. Regular Rates will be
increased 100% for expert witness instances, based on an average
estimate of one hour of preparation for each hour of testimony.
Preferred rates apply to the following:
Clients where Esgil Corporation, by contract, performs all
multiple residential, industrial and commercial plan checking or
provides all of the Building Inspection Services or provides
staff on other than a short term intermittent basis.
3. The percentage increase stated in certain existing contracts need
not be applied to the hourly rates.
The rates do not include expenses resulting from transportation,
meals, lodging and similar costs when Esgil Corporation is
providing services outside the greater San Diego County area.
Esgil staff normal work days are Monday thru Friday. Field
inspection or office work on Saturdays, Sundays or City holidays,
will be performed only at the specific request of the Building
Official. Billings for work performed on Saturdays, Sundays or
City holidays shall be at 1-1/2 times the rates shown above and a
minimum of 4 hours if the person worked 4 hours or less and a
minimum of 8 hours if the person worked more than 4 hours.
(Rates are revised each January and July; maximum 5% increase when
rates are revised)
s93
S93
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Agreement was made and entered into this 13 day of September
by and between the City of Temecula ("City"), a municipal corporation, and
VandorDe Chou and Associates , an individual ("Consultam").
1994,
The parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
Services. Consultant shall perform the tasks set forth in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule set forth in
Exhibit "A".
Performance. Consultam shall at all times, faithfully, industrially and to the best of
his ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks described herein.
Payment. The City agrees to pay Consultam monthly, at the hourly rates set forth
in Exhibit "B" attached hereto, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks.
This amount will not exceed $ Exhibit B for the total term of the Agreement
unless additional payment is approved by the City Council; orovided that the City
Manager may approve additional payment not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the
Agreement; but in no event more than 910,000.00.
Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices
shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, for services
provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of
receipt of each invoice.
Amendments. This Agreement may be amended so long as such amendment is in
writing and agreed upon by both the City Council and Consultant.
Ownership of Documents. Upon satisfactory completion of or in the event of
termination, suspension or abandonment of this Agreement, all original documents,
designs, drawings, and notes prepared in the course of providing the services to be
performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City
and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the
permission of the Consultant,
e
Termination. The City may terminate this Agreement without cause so long as
written notice of intent to terminate is given to Consultant at least three (3) days
prior to the termination date. In the event of termination, Consultant shall be paid
for the services performed.
Indemnification. The Consultant agrees to indemnify and save harmless the City,
its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims,
demands, losses, defense cost, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its
officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon
them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of
Consultant's acts or omissions under the terms of this Agreement, excepting only
liability arising out of the sole negligence of the City.
- 1 - v:~Tony\Agenda~Ag~OS-95 .Vandorpe
10.
11.
Status of Consultant. Consultant is an independent contractor in all respects in the
performance of this Agreement and shall not be considered an employee of the City
for any purpose. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in
connection with the performance of this Agreement.
Except as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other
compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall
not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness
arising out of performing services hereunder.
Term. This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 1994 , and shall remain and
continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later
than June 30, 1995 .
Default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this
Agreement, the City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating
Consultant for any work performed after the date of default. Default shall include
not performing the tasks described herein to the reasonable satisfaction of the City
Manager of the City. Failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance
of work hereunder, if such failure arises out of causes beyond his control, and
without fault or negligence of the Consultant, shall not be considered a default.
Any disputes regarding performance, default or other matters in dispute between
the City and the Consultant arising out of this Agreement or breech thereof, shall
be resolved by arbitration. The arbitrator's decision shall be final.
Consultam shall select an arbitrator from a list provided by the City of three retired
judges of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. The arbitration
hearing shall be conducted according to California Code of Civil Procedure Section
1280, et seo. City and Consultant shall share the cost of the arbitration equally.
Notices. Notices shall be given pursuant to this Agreement by personal service on
the party to be notified, or by written notice upon such party deposited in the
custody of the United States Postal Service addressed as follows:
a. City:
Attention: City Manager
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
b. Consultant:
Vandorpe Chou and Associates
295 N. Rampart St.
Orange CA 92668
The notices shall be deemed to have been given as of the date of personal service,
or three (3) days after the date of deposit of the same in the custody of the United
States Postal Service.
-2- v:\Tony\Agenda~AgrOS-95.Vandorpe
12.
Entire AQreement. This Agreement and any documents or instrument attached
hereto or referred to herein integrate all terms and conditions mentioned herein or
incidental hereto supersede all negotiations and prior writing in respect to the
subject matter hereof.
In the event of conflict between the terms, conditions, or provisions of this
Agreement and any such document or instrument, the terms and conditions of this
Agreement shall prevail.
13.
Liability. Except as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages,
or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City.
City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury
or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.
Consultant agrees to indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its officers,
agents, employees, and representatives for all claims or losses the City may suffer
resulting from any negligent actions or omissions by Consultant.
Consultant shall secure workers' compensation insurance. Upon request of
Consultant, the City shall add Consultant to the City's workers' compensation
policy and the Consultant to the City's workers' compensation policy and the
Consultant shall reimburse the City for the cost of said insurance premiums.
14.
License~. Consultant and subconsultant shall obtain all necessary licenses,
including but not limited to, City Business Licenses.
The parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year above
written.
CONSULTANT
CITY OF TEMECULA
By: VandorDe Chou and
Associates
By
Ron Roberrs, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Peter Thorson, City Attorney
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
-3- v:\Tony~Agenda~AgrOS-95 .Vandome
EXHIBIT "A"
TASKS TO BE PERFORMED
PLAN CHECKING
Provide a complete plan check service to the City of Temecula including analysis for
compliance with the City's adopted uniform codes as follows:
Building code requirement including:
Requirements based upon type of occupancy;
Requirements based upon type of construction;
Engineering regulations including seismic loads;
Detailed regulations of construction;
Fire resistive standards for fire protection;
Fire and life safety requirements;
Accessibility for the physically handicapped.
National Electrical Code requirements
Uniform Plumbing Code requirements
Title 24 energy conservation compliance
City's amendments to the uniform codes
Repetitive plan checks
Review site plan
Review soils reports
Review foundation plans for conformance with soils report
EXHIBIT "A' v:\Tony%Agenda%AgrO5-95.Vandorpe
KxHXBIT B
PROPOSED FEES
Individual building plans:
Rechecks:
Partial plan checks:
Preliminary Plan Check:
Repetitive plans:
Revisions:
Deliver:
VanDorpe Chou Associates proposes to provide cede consulting in accordance with the
following fees:
BUILDING PLAN CHECK
65 % of the plan check fee collected by the City.
Re, checks are included in the basic fee.
Partial plan checks are individually negotiated. Generally,
structural plan check only is 40 percent of the basic fee, energy
plan check only is 15 percent of the basic fee. Other partial plan
checks would be similarly charged.
Them is no charge for preliminary plan check; it is included in
our plan check fee.
15 % of the fee charged for the first building type.
Revisions to previously checked plans are performed on an
hourly basis at a rote of $50.00 per hour.
Pick-up and delivery costs are included in our fee, Some
jurisdictions send plans to us by United Parcel Service.
ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL PLAN CHECK
Plan checks are performed at 75 percent of the electrical and mechanical permit fees or on an
hourly basis at a rate of $50.00 per hour.
ADDITIONAL WORK
Any additional work not included in the basic services listed above will be performed at an
hourly rate of $50.00 per hour.
CrTy OF TEMECULA PROPOSED FEES-I
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Agreement was made and entered into this 13 day of Sentember
by and between the City of Temecula ("City"), a municipal corporation, and
Ray GraDe and Associates , an individual ("Consultant").
1994,
The parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
Services. Consultant shall perform the tasks set forth in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule set forth in
Exhibit "A".
Performance. Consultant shall at all times, faithfully, industrially and to the best of
his ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks described herein.
PRiyment. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, at the hourly rates set forth
in Exhibit "B" attached hereto, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks.
This amount will not exceed $ Exhibit B for the total term of the Agreement
unless additional payment is approved by the City Council; prqvided that the City
Manager may approve additional payment not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the
Agreement; but in no event more than $10,000.00.
Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices
shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, for services
provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of
receipt of each invoice.
Amendments. This Agreement may be amended so long as such amendment is in
writing and agreed upon by both the City Council and Consultant.
Ownershin of Documents. Upon satisfactory completion of or in the event of
termination, suspension or abandonment of this Agreement, all original documents,
designs, drawings, and notes prepared in the course of providing the services to be
performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City
and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the
permission of the Consultant.
Termination. The City may terminate this Agreement without cause so long as
written notice of intent to terminate is given to Consultant at least three (3) days
prior to the termination date. In the event of termination, Consultant shall be paid
for the services performed.
Indemnification. The Consultant agrees to indemnify and save harmless the City,
its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims,
demands, losses, defense cost, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its
officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon
them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of
Consultant's acts or omissions under the terms of this Agreement, excepting only
liability arising out of the sole negligence of the City.
-1 * v:%Tony%Agenda\AgrOS-95.RayGrage
10.
11.
Status of Consultant. Consultant is an independent contractor in all respects in the
performance of this Agreement and shall not be considered an employee of the City
for any purpose. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultam in
connection with the performance of this Agreement.
Except as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other
compensation to Consultam for performing services hereunder for City. City shall
not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness
arising out of performing services hereunder.
Term. This Agreement shall commence on July 1. 1994 , and shall remain and
continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later
than June 30, 1995 .
Default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this
Agreement, the City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating
Consultant for any work performed after the date of default. Default shall include
not performing the tasks described herein to the reasonable satisfaction of the City
Manager of the City. Failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance
of work hereunder, if such failure arises out of causes beyond his control, and
without fault or negligence of the Consultam, shall not be considered a default.
Any disputes regarding performance, default or other matters in dispute between
the City and the Consultant arising out of this Agreement or breech thereof, shall
be resolved by arbitration. The arbitrator's decision shall be final.
Consultant shall select an arbitrator from a list provided by the City of three retired
judges of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. The arbitration
hearing shall be conducted according to California Code of Civil Procedure Section
1280, et; see. City and Consultant shall share the cost of the arbitration equally.
Notices. Notices shall be given pursuant to this Agreement by personal service on
the party to be notified, or by written notice upon such party deposited in the
custody of the United States Postal Service addressed as follows:
a. City:
Attention: City Manager
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
b. Consultant:
Ray Grage and Associates
110 N. Main St.
Lake Elsinore CA 92530
The notices shall be deemed to have been given as of the date of personal service,
or three (3) days after the date of deposit of the same in the custody of the United
States Postal Service.
-2- v:\Tony~Agenda~AgrOS-95.RayGrage
12.
Entire Aoreement. This Agreement and any documents or instrument attached
hereto or referred to herein integrate all terms and conditions mentioned heroin or
incidental hereto supersede all negotiations and prior writing in respect to the
subject matter hereof.
In the event of conflict between the terms, conditions, or provisions of this
Agreement and any such document or instrument, the terms and conditions of this
Agreement shall prevail.
13.
Liability. Except as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, 'wages,
or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City.
City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury
or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.
Consultant agrees to indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its officers,
agents, employees, and representatives for all claims or losses the City may suffer
resulting from any negligent actions or omissions by Consultant.
Consultant shall secure workers' compensation insurance. Upon request of
Consultant, the City shall add Consultant to the City's workers' compensation
policy and the Consultant to the City's workers' compensation policy and the
Consultam shall reimburse the City for the cost of said insurance premiums.
14.
Licenses. Consultant and subconsultant shall obtain all necessary licenses,
including but not limited to, City Business Licenses.
The parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year above
written.
CONSULTANT
CITY OF TEMECULA
By: Ray Graoe and Associates
By
Ron Roberts, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Peter Thorson, City Attorney
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
-3- v:~Tony~Agenda\AgrOS-95.RayGrage
EXItlRIT B
Fee Propo
Our fee for providing Stnictural plan Checking Services to the City of Temecula, as
described in our Service Proposal on page 2, will be fifty-two percent (52%) of the building
permit fee as established in Table No. 3-A "Building Permit Fees" in the 1991 Uniform
Building Code (Appendix B). The budding valuation wffi be based on the City of Temecula
Building Valuation Data (Appendix C).
Building plans that have been revised or changed from the original submittal will be required
to be resubmitted to the City of Temecula. The extent of the revisions, and the amount of
time involved~correcting the revisions, will be discussed and mutnally agreed upon by the
building director of the City of Temecula and Ray Grage and Associates.
At the request of the Building Director of the City of Temeeula, Ray Grage and Associates
will be willing to meet with clients to discuss corrections or revisions.
Services other than those shown in Services Proposal, that may be requested by the City of
Temecula, wffi be bffied per attached rate schedule.
Rate Schedule
Principal Engineer ................................... $95.00 Per Hour
Principal Architect ................................... $95.00 Per Hour
Engineer ......................................... $65.00 Per Hour
Architect ......................................... $65.00 Per Hour
Plan Checker ...................................... $50.00 Per Hour
Building Inspector ................................... $50.00 Per Hour
Clerical ......................................... $27.00 Per Hour
Travel ........................................... $.27 Per Mile
Outside Consulting Services .............................. Cost Plus 15 %
Printing and Copies ................................... Cost Plus 15 %
Items not listed axe to be negotiated
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Agreement was made and entered into this 13 day of September
by and between the City of Temecula ("City"), a municipal corporation, and
R B F and Associates , an individual ("Consultant").
1994,
The parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
Services. Consultant shall perform the tasks set forth in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule set forth in
Exhibit "A".
Performance. Consultant shall at all times, faithfully, industrially and to the best of
his ability, experience and talent, perform all tasks described herein.
Payment. The City agrees to pay Consultant monthly, at the hourly rates set forth
in Exhibit "B" attached hereto, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks.
This amount will not exceed $ Exhibit B for the total term of the Agreement
unless additional payment is approved by the City Council; provided that the City
Manager may approve additional payment not to exceed ten percent (10%} of the
Agreement; but in no event more than 910,000.00.
Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed. Invoices
shall be submitted on or about the first business day of each month, for services
provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of
receipt of each invoice.
Amendments. This Agreement may be amended so long as such amendment is in
writing and agreed upon by both the City Council and Consultant.
Ownership of Documents. Upon satisfactory completion of or in the event of
termination, suspension or abandonment of this Agreement, all original documents,
designs, drawings, and notes prepared in the course of providing the services to be
performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City
and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the
permission of the Consultant.
Termination. The City may terminate this Agreement without cause so long as
written notice of intent to terminate is given to Consultant at least three (3) days
prior to the termination date. In the event of termination, Consultant shall be paid
for the services performed.
e
Indemnification. The Consultant agrees to indemnify and save harmless the City,
its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all claims,
demands, losses, defense cost, or liability of any kind or nature which the City, its
officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon
them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of
Consultant's acts or omissions under the terms of this Agreement, excepting only
liability arising out of the sole negligence of the City.
- 1 - v:~Tony\Agenda~Agr05-95.RBF
10.
11.
Status of Consultant. Consultam is an independent contractor in all respects in the
performance of this Agreement and shall not be considered an employee of the City
for any purpose. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in
connection with the performance of this Agreement.
Except as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other
compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall
not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness
arising out of performing services hereunder.
Term. This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 1994 , and shall remain and
continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later
than June 30, 1995 .
Dq~ault. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this
Agreement, the City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating
Consultam for any work performed after the date of default. Default shall include
not performing the tasks described herein to the reasonable satisfaction of the City
Manager of the City. Failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance
of work hereunder, if such failure arises out of causes beyond his control, and
without fault or negligence of the Consultant, shall not be considered a default.
Any disputes regarding performance, default or other matters in dispute between
the City and the Consultant arising out of this Agreement or breech thereof, shall
be resolved by arbitration. The arbitrator's decision shall be final.
Consultant shall select an arbitrator from a list provided by the City of three retired
judges of the Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services, Inc. The arbitration
hearing shall be conducted according to California Code of Civil Procedure Section
1280, et seo. City and Consultant shall share the cost of the arbitration equally.
Notices. Notices shall be given pursuant to this Agreement by personal service on
the party to be notified, or by written notice upon such party deposited in the
custody of the United States Postal Service addressed as follows:
a. City:
Attention: City Manager
City of Temecula
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
b. Consultant:
RBF and Associates
28765 Single Oak Dr #250
Temecula CA 92590
The notices shall be deemed to have been given as of the date of personal service,
or three (3) days after the date of deposit of the same in the custody of the United
States Postal Service.
-2- v:~Tony\Agenda~AgrOS-95.RBF
12.
Entire Aqreement. This Agreement and any documents or instrument attached
hereto or referred to herein integrate all terms and conditions mentioned herein or
incidental hereto supersede all negotiations and prior writing in respect to the
subject matter hereof.
In the event of conflict between the terms, conditions, or provisions of this
Agreement and any such document or instrument, the terms and conditions of this
Agreement shall prevail.
13.
Liability. Except as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages,
or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City.
City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury
or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.
Consultant agrees to indemnify, release and hold harmless the City, its officers,
agents, employees, and representatives for all claims or losses the City may suffer
resulting from any negligent actions or omissions by Consultant.
Consultant shall secure workers' compensation insurance. Upon request of
Consultant, the City shall add Consultam to the City's workers' compensation
policy and the Consultant to the City's workers' compensation policy and the
Consultant shall reimburse the City for the cost of said insurance premiums.
14.
Licenses. Consultant and subconsultant shall obtain all necessary licenses,
including but not limited to, City Business Licenses.
The parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and year above
written.
CONSULTANT
CITY OF TEMECULA
By: RBF and Associates
By
Ron Roberts, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Peter Thorson, City Attorney
ATTEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
-3- v:~Tony\Agenda\Agr05-95.RBF
EXIHRIT B
Ft~ PROPOSAL
FOR
STRUCTURAL PLAN CHH~KING SERVICES
CITY OF TEMECULA
BIJH.r~ING AND SAFETY
J.N. 400670
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates is prepared to undertake the activities outlined in
the "Scope of Services" according to the following proposed method of compensation or as
otherwise negotiated with the Chief Building Official and/or City Manager.
For the performance of services as outlines, RBF proposes to base the professional fees for
the Building and Safety Plan Checking services on fifty percent (50%) of the Building
Permit Fee collected by the Building Department. This will assure the City that no costs will
be incurred for the operation of contract Building Official services.
For the performance of other Consultant Services described in the proposal, RBF pwpeses to
bill based on the aUached Hourly Rate Schedule.
This proposal is for the exclusive benefit of the City of Temecula and represents a proposal
for Scope of Services at the mutually agreed upon compensation.
ROBERT BEIN, WII.IIAM FROST & ASSOCIATP_;S
EXItlBIT B
ROBERT BI~N, WII JJ~[ FROST & ASSOCIATES
HOURLY RATE SCB F:DULE
IULY 1, 1994 - KINE 30, 1996
CITY OF TEMECUILA
Classification
Fee Rate
Building
Chief Building Official
Structural Engineer
Plan Checker Engineer
Plan Examiner
Senior Inspector
Building Technician
Building Inspector
Permit Specialist
$110
$98
$85
$63
$75
$50
$60
$45
· Landscape Architecture
Senior Landscape Architect
Assistant Landscape Architect
$68
$52
Computer Services
Computer Aided Design and Drafting(CADD)
Computer Data Entry
Computer Time
$60
$38
$15
Other
Word Processing $35
Consultation in connection with litigation and court appearances will be quoted separately.
Blueprinting reproduction and other direct expenses will be charged at cost.
The above schedule is for straight time. Overtime will chaxged at 1.25 times the standard
hourly rates. Sundays and holidays wffi charged at 1.50 times the standard hourly rates or as
negotiated.
The foregoing wage rates are effective through June 30, 1996. The rates may be adjusted
after that date to compensate for labor adjustments and other increases in other costs.
V:\TONY1CONTRACT/I~XH-B.RBF 911194 tda
ITEM 12
APPROVAL ~
CITY ATTORNEY ·
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AOENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
City Council/City Manager
Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
September 13, 1994
SUBJECT: Release Warranty Security for Tract No. 21675-1
PREPARED BY: Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council AUTHORIZE the release of the Faithful Performance Improvement
Warranty security for Tract No. 21675-1 and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Riverside
County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, the developer, and the surety.
BACKGROUND:
On February 21, 1989, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision
agreements with:
Mesa Homes, (now Kemper Community Development Co.)
27555 Ynez Road, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92591
for the improvement of streets, the installation of sewer and water systems, and survey
monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by
Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company and a cashiers check for monumentation.
On June 25, 1991, the City Council accepted the public improvements, and reduced the
security amounts for street improvements, water system, and sewer system to provide the
required guarantee and warranty securities for the one (1) year maintenance period. Butterfield
Financial Corporation delivered an Instrument of Credit as the Faithful Performance
Improvement Warranty security in the amount of $28,400.
The City Council authorized the release of the Material and Labor Bonds on October 8, 1991.
-1- pwOS\egdmt~93%0112%21675-1 122992
On January 12, 1993 the City Council authorized the release of the Survey Monumentation
security in the form of cashiers check for $3,000 as posted with the County of Riverside.
The one-year warranty having been exceeded, the developer and City Staff have inspected the
subject site. Any required maintenance and repairs have been satisfactorily completed and the
Public Works Staff recommends release of the Faithful Performance Improvement Warranty
security as posted by Butterfield Financial Corporation in the amount of $28,400.
The affected streets are being accepted into the City maintained street system by City Council
Resolution No. 94--- at this time. The streets within the subdivision are Corte Camarillo, and
portions of Rancho Vista Road end Via El Greco.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
Attachment
Location Map
-2- pwO5%agdrpt%93%0112\21675-1 122992
L_.
[lOT T'~F~C--AL-e
;
v/C//~/rY M~P f
TRACT NO. 21675-1
l,ocation Map
ITEM 13
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council/City Manager
Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
September 13, 1994
Release Warranty Security for Tract No. 21675-2
PREPARED BYJ~,lbert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council AUTHORIZE the release of the Faithful Performance Improvement
Warranty security for Tract No. 21675-2and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Riverside
County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, the developer and the surety.
BACKGROUND:
On February 21, 1989, the Riverside County Board Of Supervisors entered into subdivision
agreements with:
Mesa Homes, (now Kemper Community Development Co.)
27555 Ynez Road, Suite 200
Temacula, CA 92591
for the improvement of streets, the installation of sewer and water systems, and survey
monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by
Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company.
On June 11, 1991, the City Council accepted the public improvements, and reduced the
security amounts for street improvements, water system, and sewer system to provide the
required guarantee and warranty securities for the one (1) year maintenance period. Butterfield
Financial Corporation delivered an Instrument of Credit as the Faithful Performance
Improvement Warranty security in the amount of $65,900.
The City Council authorized the release of the Material and Labor Bonds on October 8, 1991.
-1- pwO5\aOdrpt~94\O913\tr216752.ecc 0822
On January 12, 1993, the City Council authorized the release of the Survey Monumentation
bond in the amount of $10,500.
The one-year warranty period having been exceeded, the developer and City Staff have
inspected the subject site. Any required maintenance and repairs have been satisfactorily
completed, and the Public Works Staff recommends release of the Faithful Performance
Improvement Warranty security as posted by Butterfield Financial Corporation in the amount
of $65,900.
The affected streets are being accepted into the City maintained street system by City Council
Resolution Nd. 9~__ at this time. The streets within the subdivision are Corte San Leandro,
Corte Pacheco, Corte Mallorca, Corte Madera, and portions of Via El Greco and Rancho Vista
Road.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
Attachment
Location Map
-2- pwO5%agdrpt%94\O913\tr216752.ecc 0822
/
NO ~C4LE
TRACT NO. 21675-2
Location Map
ITEM 14
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Council/City Manager
FROM:
DATE:
Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
September 13, 1994
SUBJECT: Release Warranty Security for Tract No. 21675-3
PREPARED BY:~'~ Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council AUTHORIZE the release of Faithful Performance Improvement Warranty
security for Tract No. 21675-3 and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Riverside County
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, the developer and the surety.
BACKGROUND:
On June 13, 1989, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision
agreements with:
Mesa Homes, (now Kernper Community Devlopment Co.)
27555 Ynez Road, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92591
for the improvement of streets, the installation of sewer and water systems, and survey
monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by
Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company.
On June 11, 1991, the City Council accepted the public improvements, and reduced the
security amounts for street improvements, water system, and sewer system to provide the
required guarantee and warranty securities for the one (1) year maintenance period.Butterfield
Financial Corporation delivered an Instrument of Credit as the Faithful Performance
improvement Warranty security in the amount of $78,700.
The City Council authorized the release of the Material and Labor Bonds on October 8, 1991.
%egdrpt\94%0913%tr216753 .fnl
On January 12, 1993 the City Council authorized the release of the Survey Monumentation
bond in the amount of 810,300.
The one-year warranty period having been exceeded, the developer and City Staff have
inspected the subject site. Any required maintenance and repairs have been satisfactorily
completed, and the Public Works Staff recommends release of the Faithful Performance
Improvement Warranty security as posted by Butterfield Financial Corporation in the amount
of $78,700.
The affected streets are being accepted into the City maintained street system by City Council
Resolution No. 94-__ at this time. The streets within the subdivision are Corte Sonora and
portions of Paseo Goleta, Via El Greco, Rancho Vista Road, and Via Lomas Vista.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
Attachment
Location Map
~egdrpt~94\0913~tr216753.fnl
t~,
'I
~ ~! ~o~ j~o
VICINITY MAP r
NO ~C~LE
TRACT NO. 21675-3
Location Map
ITEM 15
APPROVAL ~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council/City Manager
Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
September 13, 1994
Release Warranty Security for Tract No. 21675-4
~'AI K. Permit Engineer
PREPARED BY: bert Crisp,
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council AUTHORIZE the release of the Faithful Performance Improvement
Warranty security for Tract No. 21675-4and DIRECT the City Clerk to so advise the Riverside
County Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, the developer and the surety.
BACKGROUND:
On June 13, 1989, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors entered into subdivision
agreements with:
Mesa Homes, (now Kemper Community Development Co.)
27555 Ynez Road, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92591
for the improvement of streets, the installation of sewer and water systems, and survey
monumentation. Accompanying the subdivision agreements were surety bonds issued by
Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company.
On June 11, 1991, the City Council accepted the public improvements, and reduced the
security amounts for street improvements, water system, and sewer system to provide the
required guarantee and warranty securities for the one (1) year maintenance period. Butterfield
Financial Corporation delivered an Instrument of Credit as the Faithful Performance
Improvement Warranty security in the amount of ~37,400.
The City Council authorized the release of the Material and Labor Bonds on October 8, 1991.
%agdept%94%0913%tr216754.fnl
On January 12, 1993 the City Council authorized the release of the Survey Monumentation
Bond in the amount of $12,500.
The one-year warranty period having been exceeded, the developer and City Staff have
inspected the subject site. Any required maintenance and repairs have been satisfactorily
completed, and the Public Works Staff recommends release of the Faithful Performance
Improvement Warranty security as posted by Butterfield Financial Corporation in the amount
of $37,400.
The affected streets are being accepted into the City maintained street system by City Council
Resolution No~ 94-_ at this time. The streets within the sudivision are Corte Montiel and
Corte Tunas.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
Attachment
Location Map
%egdrpt%94\0913%tr216754.fnl
L_
~OT
~ 0
V/C/N/ P
NO ,~C,~LE
TRACT NO. 21675-4
Location Map
ITEM 16
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL ~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
l
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
September 13, 1994
Acceptance of Public Streets into the City-Maintained Street System
(Within Tracts No. 21675-1,-2, -3, & -4).
PREPARED BY: 0u~Albert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 94---
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING CERTAIN PUBLIC
STREETS INTO THE CITY-MAINTAINED STREET SYSTEM
(WITHIN TRACTS NO.21675-1,-2, -3, AND 4).
BACKGROUND:
The Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved Tracts No. 21675-1 and -2, on February
21, 1989, and Tracts No. 21675-3 and -4, on June 13, 1989, and entered into subdivision
agreements for the improvement of streets and drainage, sewer and water systems, and
survey monumentation with:
Mesa Homes (Now Kemper Community Development Co.)
27555 Ynez Road, Suite 200
Temecula, CA 92591
The developer has improved, to City standards, the public improvements in accord with the
subdivision agreements. The City Council previously accepted the public improvements, and
released the Labor and Material and the Survey monumentation Bonds. The Public Works
Department recommends release of the Faithful Performance Improvement Warranty securities
as all required maintenance and repairs have been satisfactorily completed.
r:%agdrpt\94%0809\tr22715 .acc
Under provisions of the Streets and Highways Code (Section 1806), public streets offered by
the subdivider must be accepted by City Council resolution in order to be included in the
public-street maintained system.
The streets so affected ere Corte Camarillo, Corte San Leandro, Corte Pacheco, Corte
Mallorca, Corte Madera, Corte Sonora, Corte Montiel, Corte Tunes, Via El Greco, and a portion
of Rancho Vista Road, Paseo Goleta, and Via Lomas Vista.
Inasmuch as certain state funds are earmarked for maintenance of these publicly-maintained
streets, the process will make these streets eligible for those funds.
FISCAL IMPACT:
These streets will be integrated into the City's Pavement Management System and will receive
periodic surface and/or structural maintenance efforts. The new pavement condition of these
streets should necessitate only limited surface or structural treatments for 7 to 10 years.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution No. 94-
with Exhibits "A-B", inclusive.
cc: Brad Buron, Maintenance Superintendent
r:%agdrpt%94\O809\tr22715 .aco
R~-~OLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, ACC~G CERTAIN
STRF.~-TS INTO THE CITY-MAINTAINED STREET
SYSTEM (WITHIN TRACTS NO. 21675-1, -2, -3 AND -4)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE
AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Wnl~I?.AS, Mesa Homes (Now Kernper Community Development Co.) offered for
dedication to the County of Riverside certain streets within Tracts No. 21675-1, -2, -3, and -4
for public street and public utility purposes, and said County of Riverside accepted said offers
of dedication by Board of Supervisors lielion on February 21, 1989 erract No. 21675-1, and -2),
and June 13, 1989 (Tract No. 21675-3, and -4).
~, The City of Temecula became successors-in-interest to the County of
Riverside upon incorporation, effective December 1, 1989.
WRRREAS, Mesa Homes (Now Kernper Community Development Co.) has improved
to City standards, public improvements within the several streets offered for dedication within
Tracts No. 21675-1, -2, -3, and -4, the legal descriptions of which are set forth in Exhibit 'A'
and are depicted in Exhibit "B" .
WHEREAS, the City desires to accept into the City-maintained street system the public
improvements within all or portions of the public streets offered to and accepted by the County
of Riverside as depicted in Exhibit "B" ;
NOW, THF-REFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Temecula
as follows:
Section 1. That the City of Temeeula accept into the City-maintained street system
those streets or portions of public streets offered to and accepted by the County of Riverside
described in Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall cerdfy the adoption of this resolution and accept the
streets and portions thereof, offered to and accepted by the County of Riverside, into the City-
maintained street system as described in Exhibits "A" and "B" attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula
at a regular meeting held on the 13th day of September, 1994.
Ron Roberts, Mayor
r:Xagdrpt\94\OBO9Xtr22715.ace
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF TEMECULA
ee
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution No. 94- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the
City of Temecula at e regular meeting thereof held on the 13th day of September, 1994, by
the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
EXHIBIT "A" TO RESOLUTION NO. 94-
Accepting the public streets offered to and
accepted by the County of Riverside as indicated
on Tracts No. 21675-1, -2, -3, and -4, and
accepting subject public meets into the City-
maintained street system as described below:
A. Those lots described as Lots "A' through 'C" inclusive,
as shown on Tract No. 21675-1,filed 23 February 1989, in
Book 198 of Maps, Pgs 82-84, further described as follows:
(Lot 'A')
(Lot 'B')
(Lot 'C")
Portion of Rancho Vista Road
Portion of Via B Greco
Corte Camarillo
B. Those lots described as Lots 'A' through "F' inclusive,
as shown on Tract 21675-2, filed 23 February 1989, in Book 196 of
Maps, Pgs 85-90, further described as follows:
(Lot 'A")
{Lot 'B")
(Lot "C')
(Lot 'D')
(Lot 'E")
(Lot "F")
Portion of Rancho Vista Road
Pordon of Via El Greco
Corte San Leandro
Corte Madera
Corte Mallorca
Corte Pacheco
C. Those lots described as Lots "A" through 'E" inclusive,
as shown on Tract No. 21675-3, filed 19 June 1989, in Book 202 of
Maps, Pgs 69-74, further described as follows:
(Lot 'A')'
(Lot 'B')
(Lot "C")
(Lot 'D")
(Lot 'E')
Portion of Rencho Vista Road
Portion of Paseo Goleta
Portion of Via El Greco
Corte Sonora
Portion of Via Lomas Vista
D. Those lots described as Lots "A' and 'B', as shown on Tract No.
216754, filed 19 June 1989, in Book 202 of Maps, Pgs 75-78, further
described as follows:
(Lot "A") Corte Montiel
(Lot "B") Corte Tunas
EXHIBIT 'B' TO RESOLUTION N0.94-__
SUBJECT ACCEPTANCE- PUBLIC STREETS INTO THE CITY-MAINTAINED
STREET SYSTEM AS INDICATED BELOW:
VICINITY MiIP
NO ,.,,<C,4LE
ITEM 17
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL. R.~~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
'City Council/City Manager
Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
September 13, 1994
Acknowledge Completion of certain Improvements in Tract No. 26861-2
PREPARED BY: :;~fAIbert K. Crisp, Permit Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council ACKNOWLEDGE completion of certain improvements in Tract No.
26861-2, AUTHORIZE the reduction in Faithful Performance Bond amounts for the
improvement of private streets, ACCEPT the Faithful Performance warranty bond rider in the
reduced amount, and DIRECT the City Clerk to so notify the Developer and SUrety.
BACKGROUND:
On February 26, 1992, the City Council entered into subdivision agreements with:
The Presley Companies
15010 Avenue of Science, Suite 201
San Diego, CA 92128
for the improvement of private streets, and subdivision monumentation in Tract No. 26861-2.
The bonds were posted by The American Insurance Company as follows:
Bond No. 111 2716 3647 in the amount of $61,000 for the improvement of private
streets.
Bond No, 111 2716 9925 in the amount of $880 for subdivision monumentation.
The following item has been completed by the developer in accordance with the approved
plans:
Private street improvements within Tract No. 26861-2
1 ~egdrpt%g4%0913%TR26861-2 0830
Public Works Staff has inspected and verified the several improvements. The Public Works
Department therefore recommends recognition of the completion of the private street
improvements, reduction in Faithful Performance bond amounts to the ten percent warranty
level, and initiation of the one-year warranty period.
Therefore it is appropriate to reduce the Faithful Performance Bond amount as follows:
Private Streets.
$54,900
The subdivider is submitting a rider to the Faithful Performanoe Warranty Bond in the following
amount:
Private Streets.
Bond No. 111 2716 3647
$6,100
The developer was required to post a Labor and Material bond to ensure payment to suppliers
end workers. This bond is maintained in effect for a period of time determined by the
Subdivision Improvement Agreement after the City Council has "accepted" the required
improvements. The Subdivision Monument Bond will be recommended for release following
final inspection and approval of the Monuments and related work.
The affected streets are private streets and will not be accepted into the City maintained street
system. The private streets within this condominium subdivision are a portion of "Briarwood
Place" and "Ashbury Race'.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
Attachments:
Location Map
Warranty Rider to Faithful Performance Bond (On file)
2 %egdrpt\94%O913%TR26861-2 0830
VICIk/I';'Y' FAAP
I jOT 'I'G SCALE
TRACT NO. 26861-2
Location Map
ITEM 18
APPROVAL R~
CITY
ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICE
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
City Council/City Manager
Tim D. Sealer, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
September 13, 1994
SUBJECT:
Final Parcel Map No. 26232-1 (Located East of Winchester Road at
Nicolas Rd.)
PREPARED BY: Raymond A. Casey, Principal Engineer - Land Development
~"~Jim D. Faul, Assistant Engineer - Land Development
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council approve Final Parcel Map No. 26232-1 subject to the Conditions of
Approval.
BACKGROUND:
Tentative Parcel Map No. 26232, Amendment No. 1, was approved by the City of Temecula
Planning Director, Gary Thornhill, on December 22, 1993. A minor change to the Conditions
of Approval was approved by the City Council of the City of Temecula on May 10, 1994.
The Developer has met all of the associated Conditions of Approval.
Final Parcel Map No. 26232-1 is a thirteen (13) parcel commercial subdivision of 21.48 acres
located on the southerly side of Winchester Road (Hwy 79 North) at the intersection of Nicolas
Road. The site currently is vacant. Surrounding land uses include vacant land and residential
development. The site is zoned Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S). The established zoning
on the property conforms with the land use designation on the General Plan for the City of
Temecula.
The following fees have been deferred for Final Parcel Map No. 26232-1:
Area Drainage Fees
Stephen's K-Rat Mitigation Fees
Public Facilities Fee
Traffic Signal Mitigation Fees
Due prior to grading permit (Cond. No. 65)
Due prior to grading permit (Cond. No. 8)
Due prior to building permit (Cond. No. 76)
Due prior to building permit (Cond. No. 37)
The following bonds have been posted by "Insurance Company of the West" for Final Parcel
Map No. 26232-1.
Faithful Labor & Subdivision
Performance Material Monument
Street and Drainage $50,500.00 $25,250.00
Water N/A N/A
Sewer N/A N/A,
Survey Monuments
~6,500.00
FISCAL IMPACT:
Nor~e.
ATTACHMENTS:
2.
3.
4.
Development Fee Checklist
Project Location Map
Copy of Sht. 3, Parcel Map No. 26232-1
Fees & Securities Report
r.%agdrpt~94~0913~rn262321.egn skg
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
CASE NO.: Parcel MaD No, 26232-1
The following fees were reviewed by Staff relative to their applicability to this project.
FEE
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Habitat Conservation Plan (K-Rat)
Due prior to grading permit
(Cond. No. 8)
Flood Control (ADP)
Due prior to grading permit
(Cond, No, 65)
Public Facility
Due prior to building permit
(Cond. No, 76)
Traffic Signal Mitigation
Due prior to building permit
(Cond. No. 37)
Fire Mitigation N/A
Quimby N/A
r.%agdrpt%94%O913~pm262321.egn
5COT[ t~OA O ~
~ITE
VICINITY AAA?
~0 ~CAL~
ZO0~ OlllS ~TR O~g Blg~ LZ:gT
CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
FEES AND SECURITIES REPORT
PARCEL MAP NO. 26232-1
IMPROVEMENTS FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE
SECURITY *
Street and Drainage $ 50,500.00 $
Water 0.00
Sewer 0.00
TOTAL $ 50,500.00 $
DATE: Sept. 13, 1994
MATERIAL & LABOR
SECURITY *
25,250.00
0.00
· 0.00
25,250.00
Maintenance Retention $ 0.00
Monument Security $ 6,500.00
DEVELOPMENT FEES
City Traffic Signing and Striping Costs
Flood Control (ADP) Fee
Fire Mitigation Fee
Signal Mitigation Fee
Road and Bridge Benefit Fee
Other Development Fees
$ 0.00
$ T.B.D.*
$ N/A
$ T.B.D.*
$ N/A
$ T.B.D.*
SERVICE FEES
Planning Fee
Comprehensive TranSportation Plan
Plan Check Fee
Inspection Fee
Monument Inspection Fee
Letter of Map Revision (Lomar) Review
Fees Paid To Date
Balance of Fees Due
120.00
8.00
1,130.00
N/A
350.00
1,000.00
2,608.00
0.00
· T.B.D. - To Be Deten~ined
~%agdrpt%94%O913~l)rn262321.Bgn
ITEM 19
APPROVAL~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
City Manager/City Council
Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE:
September 13, 1994
SUBJECT:
Solicitation of Bids for the Acquisition of Street Striping Contract
(Project No. PW94-17)
PREPARED BY: ~3~f~ Brad Buron, Maintenance Superintendent
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit public bids for the
annual street striping contract (Project No. PW94-17).
BACKGROUND:
The 1994-1995 program of services for the Public Works Maintenance Division includes the
re-painting of street striping twice per year in order to insure visibility and refiectiveness of
street striping. The contract for the re-painting and painting of street striping is large enough
that the request for bid proposals must be advertised and sealed bids received in order to
determine the lowest (esponsible bidder.
FISCAL IMPACT:
$50,000 is included in the Fiscal Year 1994-95 budget in the Public Works Maintenance
Account No. 100-164-601-5410for street striping.
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" Scope of Work
r:~agdrpt\94\Og13~pw94=lT.bid/ajp
CITY OF TEMECULA, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PROJECT: PW 94-17~FY94-95 be r/.ET STRIPING PROGRAM
RATE SCHEDULE PER CYCLE
Estimated Quantities:
The qpantities given in the proposal and contract form are approximate, being given as a
basis for the comparison of bids only, and the City does not expressly or by implication,
agree that the actual amount of work will correspond therewith, but reserves the right to
increase or decrease the amount of any class or portion of the work, or to omit any portion
of the ,,work, as may be deemed advisable or necessary by the City Engineer.
Reflective Centerfine and Lane Lines
4" Broken Lines, 150,000 L.F. (single
traffic stripe), and shall include all solid
lane lines approximately 50' from all
intersections. Detail I and Detail 8, State
of California Traffic Manual.
4" Solid Line 75,000L.F. (edge markings-
lane delineation). Detail 24 and Details
27A and 27B, State of California Traffic
Manual
Two 4" Double Solid 150,000 L.F. lines
w/3" Black Separation (2-way barrier
stripe). Detail 21, State of California
Traffic Manual
UNIT PRICE TOTAL
$ /LF $
$ /LF $
$ /LF $
8" Solid Lines 25,000 L.F. Detail 38A,
State of California Traffic Manual
One-way barrier 75,000 L.F. Stripe (for
no-passing in one direction or another).
Detail 15, State of California Traffic
Manual
$ /LF $
$ /LF $
PROPOSAL F-2 r:\cip~projects%pw94-17~bidkg
PROJECT: PW 94-17~FY94-95 STREET STRIPING PROGRAM -RATE SCHEDULE PER CYCLE
Continued
f. 6" white solid lane, 90,000 L.F.
(Bike Lane) Figure 6-33, State of California
Traffic Manual
g. 6" white dashed lane, 5,000 L.F.
(Bike Lane) Figure 6-33, State of California
Traffic Manual
h. Two-way left turn lane 125,000 L.F.,
Detail 31, State of California Traffic Manual
Markind Removal:
a. Wet Sandblasting 15,000 S.F.
Blackout:
a. Square Foot: 5,000 S.F.
prq-Lininq:
a. Including layout, assignment & spotting,
75,000 L.F.
Raise Pavement Markers:
a. Removals: 5,000 each.
b. Placements (Reflective): 5,000 each.
/LF
/LF
/LF $
/SF $
/SF $
/LF
/EA :$
/EA $
GRAND TOTAL:
PROPOSAL P-3 r:%eip%projects~ow94-17~bidkg
ITEM 20
APPROVAL
CITY ATJ'ORNEY
FINANCE OI~/~ICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council/City Manager
Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
September 13, 1994
Completion and Acceptance of the Solana Way Street Improvements,
Project No. PW93-12
PREPARED BY: ~, Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council accept the Solana Way Street Improvements, Project No. PW93-12, as
complete and direct the City Clerk to:
File the Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one
(1) year Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract, and
Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after the filing of the
Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed.
BACKGROUND:
On February 8, 1994, the City Council awarded a contract for the Solana Way Street
Improvements, Project No. PW93-12, to E.L Yeager Construction Company for $149,570.00.
The project included installation of curb and gutter, sidewalk, pavement and storm drain
facilities on both sides of Solana Way from Motor Car Parkway to Margarita Road.
The Contractor has completed the work in accordance with the approved plans and
specifications and within the allotted contract time to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
The construction retention for this project will be released thirty-five (35) days after the Notice
of Completion has been recorded.
r:~agd~t~94~09 13~p~,93-12.acdlh
FISCAL IMPACT:
The contract amount for this project was $149,570.00. Contract Change Orders No. I & 2
were approved for a total amount of $48,871.15. Contract Change Order No. 2 for
$41,655.00, involved work that was necessitated by the future traffic signal at the
intersection of Solana Way and Margarita Road. The total construction cost is $191,171.67.
This project is a Capital Improvement Project and is being funded from the first series of bonds
which have been sold for Community Facilities District 88-12and from Signal Mitigation funds
(C.O. No. 2).
Attachment: Notice of Completion
Maintenance Bond
Contractor's Affidavit
r:~a~pt~94%0913~pw93-12.acdeh
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND RETURN TO:
SPACE
ABOVE THIS LINE FOR
RECORDER'S USE
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT:
1. The City of Temecula is the owner of the property hereinafter described.
2. The full address of the City of Temecula is 43174 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
California 92590.
3. A Contract was awarded by the City of Temecula to E.L. Yeager Construction Company
to perform the following work of improvement:
PW93-12, Solana Way Street Improvements.
4. Said work was completed by said company according to plans and specifications and
to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works of the City of Temecula and that said work was
accepted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on September
13, 1994. That upon said contract the General Accident Insurance Company of America was surety
for the bond given by the said company as required by law.
5. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of
Temecula, County of Riverside, State of Californla, and is described as follows: PROJ£CT PW93-12.
6, The street address of said property is: YNEZ ROAD FROM RANCHO CALIFORNIA
ROAD TO WINCHESTER ROAD.
Dated at Temecula, CalifOrnia, this _ day of
· 1994.
JUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California and do hereby certify under penalty of
perjury, that the foregoing NOTICE OF COMPLETION is true and correct, and that said NOTICE OF
COMPLETION was duly and regularly ordered to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of
Riverside by said City Council.
Dated at Temecula, California, this day of
· 1994.
JUNE S. GREEK, City Clerk
Fonm/CI]>-001 R~v, 12-S-91 pw04~ow93-12~ompletn.not 081694
Signed and sealed this Jgth day of AuFust ,19J4.
(Seal)
GEMEP'jd, ~~
ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMP RICA
:
D. J. PICARD
(Neme)
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
(Tit~e)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Scott F. Field, City Attorney
Douglas J. Aadland
(Name)
Vice President
(Title)
L. YEAGER CONSTRUCTION C0., INC-
/
By:
(Name)
(Title)
MAINTENANCE BOND IA-2 ' pwOS%cip%peojectl%,~wB3-12V~klpk6
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of CALIFORNIA
County of RIVERSXDE
On 8/19/94 before me, HA,HIE COOLEY
personally appeared DOUGLAS J. AADLAND
~' personally known to me - OR - [] prowled fn me on the b~sis of sat)sfactory ovidonoo
to be the person(s) whose name(sl(~a;e
subscribed to the within instrument and ac-
knowledged to m ha~ executed
the same in~~ thorized
capacity(4es), and that by~,~r/tha~r
signature(s) on the instrument the persorKs)T,
or the entity upon behalf of which the
person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
I Y
OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent
fraudulent reattachment of this form.
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER
[] INDIVIDUAL
/~ CORPORATE OFRCER:
VICE PRESIDENT
[] PARTNER(S) [] LIMITED
[] GENERAL
[] A'FFORNEYolN-FACT
[] TRUSTEE(S)
[] GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
[] OTHER:
DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
MAINTENANCE BOND
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
8/Z9/94
NUMBER OF PAGES
DATE OF DOCUMENT
SGNER l REPRESENTING:
NN,~msoN~s~em'n,~Es~ D.J. PICARD
E. L. YEAGER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
S|GNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
01993 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION · 8236 Reinmet Ave., P.O. Box 7184 · C~ Park, CA 91309-7184
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of CALZ_FORNL~ )
County of OP, JUQGE
On 8/19/94 before me, BEATA A. ARGUELLO, NOTARY PUBLI,C
personaily appeared D.J. PICARD
2L~X personsally known to me OR
proved to me on the bas..is of satisfactory evidence to be the person.~ whose
name(s) is/ere subscribed to the within insbument and acknowledged to me that
he/shc/th.y executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity~es'f, and that
by his/t'~r/thc!r signature(~on the insi~ument the personS, or the entity upon
behalf of which the person(p)' acted, executed the instrument.
ORANGE CQUNTy
WITNESS my hand and offidal seal.
of Not~a~-y'~
OPTIONAL SECTION
caPacITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER:
Though statute does not require the Notary to fill in the data below, doing so may
prove Invaluable to persons relying on the document,
INDIVIDUAL
~ CORPORATE OFFICER(S)
Titles
__ PARTNER(S) __ LIMITED __ GENERAL
xxxx A'FI'ORNEY-IN-FACT
__ TRUSTEE(S)
GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
OTHER
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING: (name of pcGor~(s) u, entity)
GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
THIS CERTIFICATE MUST BE ATFACHED TO THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENT:
TITLE OF TYPE OF DOCUMENT: ~ZNTENk~CF. BOND
NUMBER OF PAGES: 02 DATE OF DOCUMENT: 8/19/94
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE:
CD - 7(a~
POwer of
Attorney GA 0032797
436 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a Pennsylvania corl)oration
having its pdncipal office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania does hereby make, constitute and appoint (~- J- Gzanger, Jr., Robert. J.
cl
Hanna, Toct M. Rohm, D. J. 9icard, a11 of the City of Ariahelm, State of CaZifornia ...........
each individually if there be more than one named, its true and lawful Attorney-in-Fact, to make, execute, seal and deliver as surety for and on its
behalf, and as its act and deed any and all bonds and undermkinSs of suretyship, and to bind the GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY
OF AMERICA hereby as fully and to the same extent as if such bonds and 'undertakings and other writings obligatory in the nature thereof were
sig~ed by an Executive Offic~er of the GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and sealed and attested by one other of such
officers, and hereby ratifies and confirms all that ~ said Attomey(s)-in-Fact may do in pursuance hereof;, provided that no bond or uncleraking of
suretyship executed under this authority shall exceed in the amount the sum of: Fifty Million .............................
................................................ Dollars ($50,000,000) .........................
This power of attorney is 8rar~ed under and by authodty of Subsection 5.1(b) of Article V of the by-laws of GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA which became effemve Febman/20, 1992 and which provisions are in full force and effect, readin8 as follows:
This power of attorney is signed and seaBed by facsimile under and by authority of the following resolution adolxed by the board of directors of
GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, at a meeting held on the 20th day of February, 1992, at which a quorum was
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA has causC-d these presents to be signed by Dennir-c
Perler, its Vice President, and its corl3o~ate seal to be hereto affixed, this 31 day of January
19 94
Commonweaith of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia County
On this 31 day of January
GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
Dennis S. Perier, Vice President
· 19 94 , personally appeared Dennis S. Perler to me known to be
the Vice President of the GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, and acknowledged that he executed and artested the
foregoing ~vtfmew,,N2. d affixed the seal of said corporation thereto and that the seal affixed to said instrument is the corporate seal of said
Comp.~" lilt fOl~o~ate seal and his signature were duly affixed pursuant to the by-I and the resolution of t.he board of directors of said
I USA EDUNG. Notary PuDjic
: i OF :' I~ ! City of I~mla~etphia. Ph~ia. Count~
· '. :' ~ for the ea d~ of Pt~nsyIvama
, ] n'~ ~/ rmi~.:' ~ Secretary of the GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, do hereby certi6/that the above and
orego, %ru. : r. copy of. of ..o ey executed by ENERA ACC,DE .NS NCE COMPANY AMER.CA. w,..h ,,
still in full r,51'de,IM6"~ffect, and that Article V, S~bsec-'lion 5.1(b) of the by-laws of the Company and the resolution set forth above are still in full
force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Company this ]. 9TB day
of AUGUST ,19 94 .
James E. Ca~oll, A~iJ~.ant 5ecrm-~
This Power of A~orney may not be used to execute any bond with an inception date after January 31, 1996
5B-0025 ].92
This document is primed on a red backEround
For verificaiion a~ the authentic~W o~ this Power of Anorney you may call, 1-800-288-2360 and ask for the Power of Anornev supervisor. Please refer to the Power of
Artorne~ number, the above named individual(s1 and details of the bond to which the power is artached. in Pennsylvania. Dial 215-625-3081.
5B-0027 3.92
CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT AND FINAL RELEASE
PROJECT NO. PW93-12
$OLANA WAY STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Thisistocertifythat E. L. YEAGER CONSTRUCTION CO., I,I~ereinafterthe"undersigned")
declares to the City of Temecula, under oath, that it has paid in full for all materials, supplies,
labor, services, tools, equipment, and all other bills contracted for by the undersigned or by any
of the undersigned's agents, employees or subcontractors used or in contribution to the execution
of its contract with the City of Temecule with regard to the building, erection, construction, or
repair of that certain work of improvement known as P!!OJEC]' NO. PW93-12, SOI.ANA WAY
STRM: i IMPROVEliPqiTS situated in the City of Temecula, State of California, more particularly
described as follows:
PROJECT NO. PW93-12 - SOLANA I~AY STREET IMPROVEMENTS
INSERT TITLE OF WORK HERE
The undersigned declares that it knows of no unpaid debts or claims arising out of said
Contract which would constitute grounds for any third party to claim a stop notice of any unpaid
sums owing to the undersigned.
Further, for valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the
undersigned does hereby fully release and acquit the City of Temecula and all agents and
employees of the City, and each of them, from any and all claims, debts, demands, or causes of
action which exist or might exist in favor of the undersigned by reason of the Contract executed
between the undersigned and the City of Temecula or which relate in any way to the work
performed by the undersigned with regard to the above-referenced construction project.
Further, the undersigned expressly acknowledges its awareness of, and waives the benefits
of, Section 1542 of the Civil Code of the State of California which provides: "A general release
does not extend to claims which the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the
time of executing the release, which if known by him must have materially eftacted his settlement
with the debtor."
This release is intended to be a full and general release of any and all claims which the
undersigned now has or may, in the future, have against the City of Temecula and/or its agents
and employees with regard to any matter arising from the construction of the above-referenced
project or the Contract between the City of Temecula and the Contractor with respect thereto,
whether such claims are now known or unknown or are suspected or unsuspected.
Dated:
8/18/94
::-':Z~,.. ~:~, /
DouGi,As J. AADLAND. VICE PRESIDENT
Print Name and Title
RELEASE R-1 pwOS~cip%;~rojectl~ow93-12%bklpkg
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT ,~..~
State of CALIFORNIA
COUnty Of RIVERSIDE
On 8/i8/94
OATE
personally appeared
~ personally known to me
before me, HANIE COOLEY
DOUGLAS J. AADLAND
- OR - [] prorod to me on tho b'~ds of =atisfactory 6vidonao
to be the person(s} whose narne(,s-)-~afe-
subscribed to the within instrument and ac-
knowledged to me that ~s~ executed
the same in ~~ authorized
capacity(4et), and that by
signature(syon the instrument the person(z);
or the entity upon behalf of which the
person(,r~Facted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
OPTIONAL
'Fnough the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent
fraudulent reattachment of this form.
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER
[] INDIVIDUAL
]~CORPORATE OFFICER .
VICE PRESIDENT
~m_E(S)
[] PARTHER(S) [] UMITED
[] GENERAL
[] AI'rORNEY-IN-FACT
[] TRUSTEE(S)
[] GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
[] OTHER:
DESCRIPTION OF AI'rACHED DOCUMENT
CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT & FINAL RELEASE
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
8/Z8/94
NUMBER OF PAGES
DATE OF DOCUMENT
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
E. L. YEAGER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.
NONE
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
¢1993 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION * 8236 Reinmet Ave., P.O. Box 7184 · Cartoga Pie'f., CA 91309-7184
ITEM 2 1
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL ~R~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
September 13, 1994
Construction of an Interim Traffic Signal at Winchester (Hwy. 79N) and
Nicolas Roads, Project No. PW93-11
PREPARED BY: Don Spagnolo, Principal Engineer - Capital Projects
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council authorize payment to the State of California for an encroachment permit
fee in the amount of $6,720.
BACKGROUND:
Caltrans was contacted regarding the encroachment permit fee for the proposed~signal project.
After further discussions with Caltrans, the encroachment permit fee was reduced from
$10,500 to $6,720 due to a re-calculation of the required amount of work hours estimated
to perform the various inspection tasks.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The total project cost has been reduced by $3,780 from $81,804.20to $78,024.20.
r:%egdq~t~94%0809~pwS3-11 .e2
ITEM 22
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAE~LEY.~
crrY ATrOP, NEY
FINANCE OFFI
CITY MANAG
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Tim D. Serlet, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
September 13, 1994
"No Parking" Zone on Diaz Road from Rancho California Road to 160
Feet North of Avertida Alvarado
PREPARED BY: Martin C. Lauber, Traffic Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
The Public/Traffic Safety Commission recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution
entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ESTABLISHING "NO PARKING' ZONE ON DIAZ
ROAD FROM RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD TO 160 FEET NORTH
OF AVENIDA ALVARADO
BACKGROUND:
The Traffic Division has received several requests from the public and business community to
create a protected left ~urn lane to increase safety on Diaz Road and to facilitate traffic flow.
This portion of Diaz Road is 37 feet wide, partially improved and lies west of Murrieta Creek
between Rancho California Road and Winchester Road. The roadway between Rancho
California Road and Avenida Alvarado is currently striped for one (1) 14 foot wide northbound
lane and one (1) 23 foot wide southbound lane. The east side of this roadway is not improved
and does not facilitate parking due to insufficient roadway width. Currently, parking is
permitted on the west side of the roadway. Staff has witnessed vehicles stopping in the
northbound lanes waiting to turn left with other northbound vehicles passing on the dirt
shoulder. Any cars parked adjacent to existing driveways limit sight distance for exiting
vehicles.
On July 28, 1994 the Public/Traffic Safety Commission supported the staff recommendation
to establish a "No Parking" zone and install a protected left turn lane on Diaz Road from
Rancho California Road to Avenida Alvarado.
FISCAL IMPACT:
8" White solid line
4" White solid edgeline
10 Arrow legends
Double yellow
Left turn lane
"No Parking" Signs
250' @ $.95/1.f. = e 23.75
5,860' @ $.55/I.f. = 322.30
10 @ ~7.00 -- 70.00
850' @ $.125/I.f. = 106.25
5,650' @ $.12/I.f. -- 678.00
18 @ $125ea. = 2,250.00
TOTAL $3,450.00
Funds are available in the Public Works Department Striping/Stenciling Account No.
100-164-602-5410 and Signs 100-164o601-5244.
Attachments:
Resolution No. 94-
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A ]~F-qOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY
OF TEMECULA ESTABLLqF!ING "NO PARKING" ZONE
ON DIAZ ROAD FROM RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD TO
160 FEET NORTH OF AVENIDA ALVARADO
The City Council of the City of Temecula does resolve, determine and order as follows:
Section 1. Pursuant to Section 10.16.160, of the Temecula Municipal Code, "No
Parking" zone is hereby established in the City of Temecula on Diaz Road from Rancho
California Road to 160 feet north of Avenida Alvarado.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula
at a regular meeting held on the 13th day of September, 1994.
Ron Roberrs, Mayor
ArrEST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
r:Xsgd~tX94\0913Xdiazaopr.qn/ajp
ITEM 23
MlqMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBjeCT:
Honorable Mayor Ron Roberrs
Mayor Pro Tern Jeff Stone
Councilmember Pat Birdsall
Councilmember Sal MunoZ
Councilmember Ron Parks
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning'q:;?/
September 7, 1994.
Urban Core Projects
The Urban Core Projects (The Regional Center and Campos Verdes Specific Plans) have been
scheduled for the September 13, 1994 City Council Meeting. Due W the complexity of these
projects, they were forwarded to you, under separate cover, on September 2, 1994. Please
remin all documents until after a final decision on the projects has been made.
As always, should you have questions regarding these projects, please do not hesitate to'call me.
CITY ATTOR~'~RO~
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Council/City Manager
FROM:
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
DATE:
September 13, 1994
SUBJECT: Specific Plan No. 263 (Regional Center) and Change of Zone No. 5589
Prepared By: Debbie Ubnoslce, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council:
Adopt a Resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 94-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ADOPTING THE ADDENDUM TO FEIR NO. 340; TO
ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO FEIR NO. 340 INCLUDING A NEW
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND DETERMINING NO
ADDITIONAL IMPACTS AS A RESULT OF CHANGING THE
CIRCULATION MITIGATION MEASURES LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF YNEZ ROAD
AND WINCHESTER ROAD
Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. ~
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING
MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION
CONTAINED IN CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5589, CHANGING THE
ZONE FROM R-R (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) AND A-2-20 (HEAVY
AGRICULTURE, 20 ACRE MINIMUM) TO SP (SPECIFIC PLAN) ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE
INTERSECTION OF YNEZ ROAD AND WINCHESTER ROAD
Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 94-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ADOPTING LAND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 263 (REGIONAL CENTER) LOCATED AT
THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF YNEZ
ROAD AND WINCHESTER ROAD
Adopt a Resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
~A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN 263 PROPOSING A
1,375,000 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL CORE, 810,000
SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE~ INSTITUTIONAL WITH POSSIBLE
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND AN ADDITIONAL 298,000
SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL COMMERCIAL LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF YNEZ AND
WINCHESTER ROADS.
BACKGROUND
Specific Plan 263 and Change of Zone 5589 were approved unanimously by the Planning
Commission at their meeting on July 18, 1994. The Specific Plan is proposing a 1,375,000
square foot commercial core, 810,000 square feet of Office\Institutional with possible Multi-
Family Residential and an additional 298,000 square feet of Retail Commercial. The Specific
Plan is accompanied by Change of Zone 5589 which is a proposal to change the zoning on
the property from R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20 (Heavy Agriculture, 20 acre minimum lot
size) to SP {Specific Plan).
DISCUSSION
Specific Plan 263 is located in an area which has a General Plan Overlay designation of Village
Center. Under the General Plan, the intent of the Village Center Overlay is to develop centers
which will help to provide a sense of place, as well as, a focal point for activity. These Village
Centers are intended to contain a concentration and mixture of compatible uses including
retail, housing, and institutional. Each Village Center should have design guidelines and
development standards. Specific Plan 263 is consistent with the General Plan Overlay
designation of Village Center. The applicant has provided both language and illustratives that
will facilitate implementation of the Village Center concept.
The applicant has worked with the Public Works staff on the timing and funding of both on-
site and off-site traffic improvements. The Public Works staff has conditioned the project
appropriately.
Environmental Impact Report 340 was prepared for this project and certified by the City
Council on July 13, 1993. Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Considerations for
Noise, Air Quality, Agriculture, Wildlife and Vegetation, Circulation, and Libraries, as well as,
a Mitigation Monitoring Program were adopted at the same time. Subsequent to this adoption,
the apl01icant met with staff to discuss circulation improvements. As a result of this
discussion, some mitigation measures have changed. As a result, the applicant has prepared
an Addendum to Environmental Impact Report 340 to set forth these different mitigation
measures. The Mitigation Monitoring Program was also changed accordingly.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
Attachments:~
1. Ordinance No. 94- - Page 4
2. Ordinance No. 94- - Page 7
3. Resolution No. 94-__ - Page 10
4. Resolution No. 94~ - Page 14
5. Conditions of Approval - Page 17
6. Village Center Concept - Page 28
7. Planning Commission Staff Report, July 18, 1994 - Page 29
8. Draft Planning Commission Minutes, July 18, 1994 - Page 30
9. Addendure to FEIR 340 Containing Mitigation Monitoring Report - Page 31
10. Regional Center Specific Plan/EIR - Page 32
11. Campos Verdes and Regional Center, Composite Land Use Plan - Page 33
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
ORDINANCE NO. 94-
R:'~STAFFR.PT~63SP, CC 9/7194 k~b 4
ATTA~.NT NO. 1
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF T~. un'xr COUNCIL OF ~ CITY
OF TIi~IE~, CAt .IPORNIA, A_MRNI)ING TifF.
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SArB CITY IN TFIR. CHANGE
OF ZONE APPLICATION CONTAINED IN CHANGE OF
ZONE NO. 5589, CHANGING Tm~. ZONE PROM R-R
(RURAL RESIDENTIAL) AND A-2-20 (HEAVY
AGRICULTURE, 20 ACRE MINIMUM) TO SP (SPECIFIC
PLAN) ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THY. SOUTI~AST
CORNER OF ~ INTERSECTION OF YNEZ ROAD AND
WINCI:IF. STER ROAD
Tlq'F. CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Public hearings have been held before the Planrung Commission and City
Council of the City of Temecula, State of California, pursuant to the Planning and Zoning law
of the State of California, and the City Code of the City of Temecula. The application land use
district as shown on the attached exhibit is hereby approved and ratified as part of the Official
Land Use map for the City of Temecula as adopted by the City and as many be amended
hereafter from time to time by the City Council of the City of Temecula, and the City of
Temecula Official Zoning Map is mended by plac'mg in affect the zone or zones as described
in Change of Zone No. 5589 and in the above rifle, and as shown on zoning map attached hereto
and incorporated herein.
Section 2. This Ordinance shah be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
passage. The City Clerk shah certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall
publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall
be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of this
Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shah publish a
summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and
against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk.
R:~STAFFRFI~263SP.CC 9r7/9~. k~ 5
Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED ,his 13th day of September,
1994.
RON ROBERTS
MAYOR
A'rr~.'.ST:
June S. Greel~, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALr~ORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TP__,NIECIIA
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, Cnllfornia, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Ordinance No. 9 __ was duly introduced and placed upon its fast reading at
a regular meeting of the City Council on the __ day of , 199__, and that
thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Temecula on the __ day of , by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILNIEMBERS
COUNCILMEVlBERS
COUNCILNn~vIBERS
JUNE S.
CITY CL~
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5589
EXHIBIT - A
CITY COUNCIL DATE - SEPTEMBER 13, 1994
ZONING: SPECIFIC PLAN
R:\STAFFRPT\263SP.CC 9/1/94 ktb
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
ORDINANCE NO. 94-
7
A~rAC~ NO. 2
ORDINANCE NO. 94_
AN ORDINANCE OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF TFFF. CITY
OF TElVlECULA ADOPTING LAND DEVELO~
STANDARDS FOR SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 263 (REGIONAL
CENTER) LOCATw AT 'rH~: SOUTHI~AST CORNER OF
· . ~ INTERSECTION OF YNEZ ROAD AND WINCH ~:~TER
ROAD
~ CITY COUNCII. OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The official zoning map of the City of Temecula, entitled "Temecula/Rancho
California Area" as adopted pursuant to Section 34 of Ordinance No. 90-04, iS amended as
shown which map is made a pan of this ordinance.
Section 2. The City of Temecula hereby adopts those Land Use standards set forth in
that certain document entitled "Temecula Regional Center Draft Specific Plan/EIR" dated
February 1, 1994 on f~e in the office of the City Clerk.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
passage. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall
publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall
be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of this
Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a
summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and
against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk.
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 13th day of September,
1994.
ATi't~ST:
RON ROBERTS
MAYOR
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CAI ,rFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Ordinance No. 9 -__ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at
a regular meeting of the City Council on the __ day of , 199__, and that
thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Temecula on the __ day of , by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCMERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCMERS
JUNE S. GRI:.I:~K
CITY' CY ,~.RK
A'I'FACHMENT NO. 3
RESOLUTION N0.94-
R:',STAFFRPT~63SP.CC 9r'//94 kJb 10
ATTACHMEANT NO. 3
I~FsOLUTION NO. 94.-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF TWE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING SPECWIC PLAN 263
PROPOSING A 1,375,000 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL
CORE, 810,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE\
INSTITUTIONAL WITH POSSIBLE MULTI-FAlU'H .Y
RESIDENTIAL AND AN ADDITIONAL 298,000 SQUARE
FEET OF RETArL COMMI~.RCIAL LOCATED AT ~
SOUTI~.AST CORNER OF ~ INTERSECTION OF YNEZ
'lAND WINCI~.STER ROADS.
W'~EREAS, KRDC, Inc. fried Specific Plan No. 263 in accordance with the Riverside
County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted
by reference;
WHEREAS, said Specific Plan application was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WItF, REAS, the Planning Commission considered said Specific Plan on July 18, 1994
at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
WItY, REAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said Specific Plan;
W1TEREAS, the City Council conducted public hearings pertaining to said Specific Plan
on September 13, 1994, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in
support or opposition to said Specific Plan;
WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff
Report regarding the Specific Plan;
NOW, TFIER.EFORE, TFIE CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERIVIINE AND ORDER AS FOLIOWS:
Section 1. Findin2s. The City Council in approving the proposed Specific Plan, makes
the following findings: '.
1. Specific Plan 263 is consistent with the City's General Plan. General Plan
designations for the site are Community Commercial, Professional Office, Business Park, Public
Institutional, Specific Plan Overhy, and Village Center Overhy.
2. Specific Plan 263 is compatible with surrounding land uses of Commercial
to the north (Costco) and west (palm plan).
3. Specific Plan 263 will not have an adverse effe~"t on surrounding property,
because it does not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the axea.
Environmental Impact Report 340 was p~-pared for the Specific Plan, and was oertified by the
City Council July 13, 1993. An Addendure to FEIR 340 along with a new Mitigation
Monitoring Program have been prepared which wffi be adopted for this project. No immediate
impacts to the environment wffi result from the. adoption. of the Specific plan Impacts from
future development can be mitigated to a level less than significant. Statements of Overriding
Considerations were adopted by the City Council on ~uly 13; 1993 for the following: Noise,
Air Quality, Agriculture, Wildlife and Vegetation, Circulation and Libraries.
:4. Specific Plan 263 is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation
programs contained in the General Plan_ The key objective in the General Plan that relates to
this Specific Plan calls for the development of a Village Center with mixed uses, pedestrian
oriented design, and linkages to surrounding projects. In addition, the Village Center is intended
to be a community focal point with high quality site and building design which provides for the
incorporation of transit facilities.
5. Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental
documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference.
Section 2. Environmental Comnliance. Previously certified Environmental Impact
Report No. 340 analyzed the significant impacts of Specific Plaz} No. 263 and proposed
mitigation measures to reduce these impacts. Since the circulation mitigation measures have
changed, an Addendum to this FEIR has been prepared which determined no additional impacts
as a result of these changes. With this Addendum, a new Mitigation Monitoring Program will
be adopted.
Section 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves
Specific Plan No. 263 which is attached as Atlachment No. 10, located at the southwest comer
of the intersection of Ynez Road and Winchester Road subject to the following conditions:
A. Attachment No. 5, attached hereto.
Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of September, 1994.
RON ROBERTS
MAYOR
ATf~ST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMF_,C~)
I H EREBY 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
, 199__ by the following vote of the Council:
CITY COUNCu,MEMBERS:
NOES:
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY COUNCII,MEMBIERS:
/UNE S. GI~h"K
CITY CI.RRK
R:\STAFFRFVa63SP.CC 9/7/9~ k~ ~ 3
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF Tn'F~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY
OF TEMECULA ADOPTING Tnv, ADDENDUM TO FI~XR
NO. 340; TO ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO ln~lR NO. 340
INCLUDING A NEW MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM AND DETERMINING NO ADDITIONAL
IMPACTS AS A RESULT OF CHANGING ~
CIRCULATION MITIGATION MI~,ASURES LOCATED AT
Tn'E SOUTheAST CORNER OF ~ INT~atSECTION OF
:yNF, Z ROAD AND WINCheSTER ROAD
WItF~REAS, KRDC fried a request for an Addendum to l~'t~tt< No. 340 in accordance
with Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, which the City has adopted by reference;
~, said Addendum application was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WItEREAS, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public heating pertaining to said
Addendure on September 13, 1994, at which time interested persons had opportunity to testify
either in support or opposition to said Addendum; and
NOW, 'rHFREFORE, THF~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findines. That the Temecula City Council hereby makes the following
findings:
A. The City Council in appmving the proposed Addendum, makes the foilowing
findings, to wit: :
1. The Addendum was prepared since the proposed project does not change
any of the impacts identified in F~i K No. 340.
2. None of the conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines
ca/ling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
3. Only minor technical changes or additions axe necessax~ to make FEIR No.
340 adequate under CEQA.
4. The changes to the ~ made by the Addendure do not raise important new
issues about the significant effects on the environment.
Section 2. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby adopts the
Addendure for FEIR No.340 and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Specific Plan
No.263 and Change of Zone No. 5589 which provisions are set forth in that cel~ain document
entitled "Addendure ]~R g2 Regional Center Specific Plan," on fie in the office of the City
Clerk and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full.
Section 3. The City Clerk shall cextify the adoption of thi.~ Resolution.
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of September, 1994.
A',t-rt~,.ST:
RON ROBERTS
MAYOR
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALmORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I FfEREBY 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 13th day of
September, 1994 by the following vote of the City Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CO~C~ERS:
CO~CILM]EMBERS:
CO~CILMEMBERS:
JUNE S. GRI~3~K
CITY Ct,RRK
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:',STAFFP. P'L'~63SP.CC 9FII94 klb 17
· CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Specific Plan No. 263 (Regional Center)
Project Description: A Specific Plan proposing a 1,375,000 square foot commercial
core, 810,O00square feet of OfficerInstitutional with possible Multi-Family Residential,
and an additional 298,000 square feet of Retail Commercial with an accompanying
Change of Zone request changing the zoning from R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20
(Heavy Agriculture, 20 acre minimum) to SP (Specific Plan).
Assessor's Parcel No.: 910-130-046and 047, 921-090-005,006 and 007
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General Conditions
The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, it
agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City
of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning
Specific Plan No. 263, which action is brought within the time period provided for in
California Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of Temecula will promptly
notify the applicant 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 applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the
defense, the applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold
harmless the City of Temecula.
All development within this site shall be in accordance with the requirements of all City
ordinances, except as expressly modified herein, and State laws, and shall conform
with the approved Spedific Plan. Regulations or procedures not covered by the Specific
Plan or appurtenant documents shall be subject to the City ordinances in effect at the
time entitlement is required.
This project and all subsequent projects within the site shall comply with all mitigation
measures identified within EIR No. 340 and the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program.
10.
Prior to issuance of grading permits, approval of development permits, recordation of
final maps, issuance of building permits and issuance of occupancy permits for any
subsequent projects or activities within the site the applicant/developer shall
demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in
the Mitigation Monitoring Program within EIR No. 348 have been satisfied for the stage
of development that permits are being issued for.
11.
Prior to the City Council hearing, Planning Area 3 shall be changed to Business Park
and the appropriate zoning and development standards shall be established for Business
Park designation.
R:~TAFFRPT~63Sp. CC 9/7/94
12.
The Landscape Development Zone (LDZ), which includes the Transportation Corridor,
along Winchester Road shall be thirty-seven feet (37') in width and shall be shown on
all subsequent development proposal site plans and tentative maps.
13.
Prior to approval of any map or development proposal within Each Planning Area within
the Specific Plan, a detailed design manual for each Planning Area shall be submitted
for review and approval by the Planning Commission.
14. Within thirty (30) days of the final approval of the project by City Council, the Specific
Plan and the Final Environmental Impact Report shall be submitted to the Planning
Department in final form for review and approval. The final form shall include all
conditions of approval and all modifications made by the Planing Commission and City
Council. A master print copy (8 '~" X 11 ") and four (4) copies of the documents shall
be submitted.
15. Prior to approval of any development plans, all subsequent projects shall receive
appropriate clearances, conditions and approvals from all agencies with jurisdiction on
project review. These agencies shall be determined by the Planning Director and the
City Engineer.
16.
The developer or the developer's successor-in-interest shall be responsible for
maintaining the undeveloped portion of the site including weed abatement and litter
removal.
17.
The applicant shall deposit sufficient funds with the City of Temecula to retain the
services of a qualified consultant to administer and implement The Mitigation Monitoring
Program approved for this project as part of Environmental Impact Report 340 in
compliance with Assembly Bill 3180.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
18.
Prior to issuance of any occupancy permits for residential units thc projoot, the project
applicant shall enter into a binding mitigation agreement the with the Temecula Valley
Unified School District to ensure the mitigation of the new students generated by this
Specific Plan. (Amended by Planning CommissiOn on July 18, 1994)
19.
If any of these conditions of approval differ from the commitment by the Developer
made in the Specific Plan text or map exhibits or any other documents, the conditions
enumerated herein shall take precedence.
20.
Any proposed amendment to this Specific Plan shall require public hearings and review
by the Planning Commission and City Council, and/or shall be reviewed in accordance
with such rules and regulations for the review of Specific Plan Amendments as may
have been adopted by the City and which are in effect at the time of any proposed
amendment is submitted.
21. The developer shall satisfy all the Quimby Act requirements for the project.
R:\STAFFRFI'~63SP.CC 9/'//94 kl~ I 9
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this project, and
shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true
meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff person of the Department
of Public Works.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
22.
All utility systems such as electric, including those which provide direct service to the
proiect site and/or currently exist along public rights-of-ways adjacent to the site
(except electrical lines rated 33 kv or greater), gas, telephone, water, sewer, and cable
TV shall be placed underground, with easements provided a~' required, and designed
and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utilir_y provider.
23.
Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, as deemed necessary by the Department
of Public Works, the Developer shall consult with the State of California Department
of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
to determine if permits or approvals are necessary from such agencies for any action
contemplated by this proposal. Such consultation shall be in writing, and copies of said
correspondence, including responses from agencies, shall be submitted to the City.
Where appropriate, the terms, conditions, and recommendations of the noted agencies
shall be incorporated as Conditions of Approval into the areas of development.
24.
Prior to issuance of building permits for the various phases of development, the
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. The fee to be paid shall be
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
the Developer requests its building permit for the project or any phase thereof, the
Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility Fee.
Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, the Developer shall post a bond to secure
payment of the Public Facility Fee. The amount of the bond shall be $2.00 per square
foot, not to exceed $10,000. The 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). By execution of this Agreement, the Developer will
waive any right to protest the provisions of this condition, of this Agreement, the
formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any
traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; orovided that the Developer is not
waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the
amount thereof.
25.
Landscaping and permanent irrigation facilities shall be installed with street
improvements. Perimeter walls if constructed shall be treated with graffiti-resistant
coating and shall be installed adjacent to street improvements within each phase.
R:~STA~RPT~263SP.CC 9/7/94 klb
26.
A phasing plan addressing the schedule of necessary infrastructure requirements shall
be approved by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Director prior to
approval of :.~;' for each subsequent development application. (Amended by Planning
Commission on July 19, 1994)
CIRCULATION
27.
As a condition of approval for any subsequent development application associated with
this Specific Plan, the Developer must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip
Reduction Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-O1.
28.
Adequate primary and secondary access shall be provided for each phase of
development as approved by the Department of Public Works. Access to office and
commercial areas shall be reviewed by the Department of Public Works at the time of
submittal of individual development applications.
29.
All street sections shall correspond with Typical Roadway Cross Sections and
requirements of the Circulation Element of City's General Plan, City ordinances and
standards.
30.
All intersections intervals shall comply with City and Caltrans standards and
requirements. Accesses shown from Winchester Road to the site are conditional upon
Caltrans' approval. Approval for accesses not currenth.~ shown on the City's
Memorandum of Understanding with Caltrans will be required prior to subsequent
discretionary approvals or any permits being issued by the City.
31.
The Developer shall provide bus bays and shelters within the Specific Plan. Location
and number of bus bays shall be subject to approval of the City and Riverside
Transportation Agency (RTA). If required additional rights-of-way dedications
associated with bus bays shall be provided by the Developer.
32.
Necessary improvements have been/will be conditioned based on the project traffic
studies and the conceptual phasing plan shown on Section III. A. 7. of the Specific
Plan. Any substantive rephasing of the development must be approved by the Planning
Commission through a rephasing application. A rephasing of the development
considered to be minor or in substantial conformance with t~,e construction phasing
plan approved with the adoption of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan, as
determined by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Director, may be
approved administratively through applicable City procedures. Prior to the issuance of
occupancy permits within any phase, all on and offsite improvements as referred to in
the Traffic Reports and subsequent addenda along with additional requirements set
herein, or as set by conditions on individual tracts, must be constructed and/or bonded
as required by the Department of Public Works.
33.
Ensuing Traffic Reports, analyzing traffic impacts associated with subsequent
development stages of the Specific Plan, shall be submitted to identify implementation
and timing of the necessary improvements to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts.
34. The following infrastructure improvements/reimbursements shall be completed prior to
issuance of any occupancy:
35.
Winchester Road parkway improvements, adjacent to Phase One, including
sidewalks, landscaping, and street lights shall be completed by the Developer.
Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer is
responsible to bond for the traffic signals at the project's accesses from
Overland Drive, Ynez Road, and Winchester Road, as required, including the
associated street improvements, based"on traffic signal warrants analysis
relative to subsequent development applications.
Dedicate all necessary right-of-way for the construction of the Winchester Road
overpass at Interstate 15 (I-15) and the interchange ramps along with
associated additional right-of-way necessary for the widening and improvements
to Winchester Road from Ynez Road to the interchange. The Developer, the
City, and CFD 88-12 shall enter into an agreement that provides for the
reimbursement of acquisition cost of the required right-of-way. (Added by
Planning Commission on July 18, 1994)
A reimbursement agreement shall be executed between the Developer and the
City to reimburse the City the cost of the existing improvements along
Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road.
The following infrastructure improvements/reimbursements shall be completed prior to
issuance of occupancy for any development above a cumulative total of 750,000 SF.
The Developer shall support the Community Facilities District (CFD) 88-12
supplemental bond sales necessary for the construction of Overland Drive, from
Ynez Road to Jefferson Avenue (including the 1-15 overpass), in accordance
with the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's General Plan classifying
Overland Drive as a Secondary Highway with 88 fool full width right-of-way,
and including the traffic signals at the intersections of Overland Drive and Ynez
Road, Jefferson Avenue, and Margarita Road.
Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit Developer shall
bond for the improvements to Margarita Road, from Solana Way to Winchester
Road, including a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median, in accordance with
the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's General Plan classifying Margarita
Road as an Arterial Highway with 110 foot full width right-of-way with a
reimbursement agreement.
Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer shall
bond for full street improvements to Overland Drive, from Margarita Road to
Ynez Road, including a 12 foot wide raised landscaped median, in accordance
with the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's General Plan classifying
Overland Drive as a Major Highway with 100 foot full width right-of-way with
a reimbursement agreement.
R:~STAFFRF~263SP.CC 9/7194 klb 22
36°
The Developer is responsible to bond for pr~=r and constru~ ~he traffic signals at the
intersections listed below. The Developer shall analyze the traffic signal warrants and
shall install the traffic signals accordingly and/or as directed by the Department of
Public Works at the following intersections: (Amended by Planning Commission on July
18, 1994)
Margarita Road and Winchester Road (upgrade the existing signal}
Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road
Drainage
37.
Drainage and flood control facilities shall be previded in accordance with the
requirements of the City and/or Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District (RCFC&WCD).
38.
Prior to approval of any subsequent development applications, the Developer shall
submit the master drainage plan to the City and RCFC&WCD to review the adequacy
of the proposed and existing downstream drainage facilities.
39.
Drainage facilities within each phase shall be constructed immediately after the
completion of the site grading and prior to or concurrendy with the initial site
development within that phase.
40.
All drainage facilities shall be designed to carry 100 year storm flows, subject to the
approval of the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable.
41.
The Developer shall construct the proposed on and offsite drainage facility
improvements and the offsite detention basin provision as recommended in the Specific
Plan and Drainage Study documents and/or as directed by the Department of Public
Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable.
42.
As required by the Department of Public Works, additional Hydrology and Hydraulic
Reports shall be submitted with subsequent development applications to study the
drainage impacts and analyze necessary measures to mitigate the runoff created as
part of the development of this project.
43.
The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto
or through the site.
44.
The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration
of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of slow. Protection shall be
provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing
facilities or by securing drainage easements.
Water and Sewer
45.
Water and sewer facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and
specifications of the City, Rancho California Water District (RCWD), and Eastern
Municipal Water District (EMWD). Such requirements shall be applied at the subdivision
or plot plan stages of the development.
23
46.
Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall
submit the master water plan to RCWD to check for adequacy of the proposed water
facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the water system from
RCWD.
47.
Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall
submit the master sewer plan to EMWD to check for adequacy of the proposed sewer
facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the sewer system from
EMWD.
48.
Prior to the recordation of any tract map, commercial parcel map, or approval of any
plot plan application, the Developer shall provide the City with evidence that adequate
wastewater treatment facilities are being provided to meet the needs of the Temecula
Regional Center Specific Plan development.
Grading
49.
No grading shall be permitted for any development area prior to tentative map or plot
plan approval and issuance of grading permits for the specific area of development
unless approved by the Director of Public Works for street purposes. (Added by
Planning Commission on July 18, 1994)
50.
Grading plans and operations shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code,
City Grading Standards, the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report,
or any subsequent reports prepared for the project, the conditions of the grading
permit, and accepted grading construction practices and the recommendations and
standards specified in the Specific Plan and Environmental Impac~ Report (EIR)
document.
51.
Prior to issuance of any grading permit, Erosion Control plans shall be prepared in
conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to a!~proval by the Department
of Public Works. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement
guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements.
52.
The Developer shall comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulated by the State Water Resources Control
Board, and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) implemented by the San
Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board.
53.
Each subsequent application for a phase of development shall include a conceptual
grading plan to indicate at a minimum:
· Preliminary quantity estimates for grading.
Techniques and methods which will be used to prevent erosion and
sedimentation during and after the grading process in compliance with the City
Standards and NPDES requirements.
· Preliminary pad and roadway elevations.
· Designation of the borrow or stockpile site location for import/export material.
Approximate time frames for development including the identification of areas
which will be graded during the rainy months.
· Hydrology and hydraulic concerns and mitigations.
54.
Major grading activities shall be scheduled during the dry season wherever possible,
or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works.
55.
Soils stabilization, which may include revegetation of graded areas, shall occur within
30 days of final grading activities as directed by the Department of Public Works.
56. The site shall be watered during grading operations to contro~ dust.
%
57° Temporary drainage and sediment control devices shall be installed as directed by the
Department of Public Works.
58.
An import/export route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to
issuance of any grading permit. The plan shall include limitation to the duration of the
grading operation and construction activities, a Traffic Control Plan, and a daily time
schedule of operations.
59.
Prior to issuance of any grading permit, a soils reports shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works for review and approval, to address engineering, geologic,
seismic, and soils engineering concerns for each tentative map or commercial parcel
map for each phase of proposed development.
60.
All public streets shall be maintained and cleaned if necessary on a daily basis during
grading operation and construction activities. Cash deposit, letter of credit or posting
of bond to guarantee maintenance of all public rights-of-way affected by the grading
operations and construction activities, shall be posted prior to issuance of grading
permits.
61.
If subsequent Geotechnical and Soils Reports determine that Oewatering of the site is
necessary during construction, necessary permits (i.e. in compliance with NPDES
permit) shall be obtained from appropriate agencies prior to approval of the grading
plans.
Phasing
62.
Construction of the development permitted by the Specific PI an, including recordation
of final subdivision maps, may be carried out in stages provided that, adequate
vehicular access is constructed for all dwelling units in each stage of development and
further provided that such development conforms substantially with the intent and
purpose of the Specific Plan Phasing Plan.
63.
Development applications shall be submitted for each planning unit in each phase. Total
acreage and land uses within each phase shall be substantially in accordance with the
specifications of the Specific Plan.
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
The Temecula Community Regional Center Specific Plan was originally presented to staff as
a mixed-use commercial development combining retail, office, hotel, ~nstitutional, and regional
mall facilities. However, the possibility exists that multi-family residential development could
occur within Planning Area 1. In the event that residential development is approved, the
Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) provides additional conditions for the Temecula
Regional Center, as follows:
General Requirements
64.
The developer, his successor or assignee, shall satisfy the park land dedication
requirements in accordance with City Ordinance No. 460.93 (Quimby). Upon
determination of the actual park land dedication requirement, the City of Temecula shall
have the final decision of requiring the developer to dedicate land for public park
purposes, or pay the equivalent "in-lieu" fee.
65.
Exterior slopes contiguous to public streets that are adjacent to commercial/industrial
development and multi-family residential development shall be maintained by a private
property owner's association.
66.
All perimeter walls, interior slopes and open space in residential areas shall be
maintained by the individual property owner or an established property owner's
association. (Amended by Planning Commission on July 18, 1994)
67.
Class II bike lanes shall be designed in conformity with the City's Park and Recreation
Master Plan and constructed in concurrence with the street improvements.
68.
The landscaped medians shall be improved in conformance with the City of Temecula
Landscape Plan Guidelines and Specifications,
69.
The developer, his successor or assignee, shall maintain the landscaping and medians
until such time as those responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD.
70.
Construction of..all proposed TCSD maintenance areas shall commence pursuant to a
pre-job meeting with the developer and City Maintenance Superintendent, Failure to
comply with the TCSD review and inspection process may preclude acceptance of
these areas into the TCSD maintenance program,
Prior to Recordation of the Final Map
71. All proposed TCSD maintenance areas (medians) shall be identified and offered for
dedication on the final map.
72. Prior to recordation of the respective final map, construction drawings for proposed
landscape medians shall be reviewed and approved by TCSD staff.
73.
Prior to recordation of the respective final map, the subdivider shall post security and
enter into an agreement to improve all proposed TCSD maintenance areas.
26
Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy
74.
Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within each phased map, the
developer or his assignee shall submit, in a format directed by TCSD staff, the most
current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to the final project.
75,
Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within each phased map, the
developer or his assignee shall file an application with the TCSD and pay the
appropriate fees for the dedication of arterial and residential lights into the TCSD
maintenance program.
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
VILLAGE CENTER CONCEPT
R:\STAFFRFfX263SP,CC 9/7194 kib 28
T0 I cjecj6cJ,9,e:~7'/ P. e2
~ IL~_~IOI~L
p!annin~ ~ 1
L ' Nannln~ Area-1
Descriptive Su-,mar7
Pisnhing Area 1, as cl=piacd in Pigurc 12A, co,,d~s of 71.~/groas acres, dc~otocl prlmarm/t~
mlx~ci uses including retail, office, hotel, institutional, ~ ~qd~atial uses. T!z commezciaL
residents, whi!~ m.qints;nlng cs~npatl'b'flity with a rcsideatial en~ A ~ of 300
multi-family dwelling units shah be pcnnil/ed in Planning Ar, a 1. These dlV~-ll;n~S I~ay citbe. r
commercial m
1) ~ of Uses
It is the intent of the mixed us~ dcvelopnznt in planning Area I of tt~ T~a
Regional Ccnlef to allow for a mixlm'e of c~mmadal/officcfmstimdonal and resi~ntiiI
uses. TI~ mixed use development is cksign~d to encourage active sU~t fxont~g~s and
a com/ortabl6, hnman-scal~! ~nvi~nment that creates a fully functioning shopping strut
complex (i.e., a "Mah Strc~"). This Main Sm:ct will be integrmai into ttz ovaall
mixed use clcvdopmcnt in Planning Azez I and will bc connectai by both strecU and
pe. xl~triau walkways to the planned retail cl~vclolmment in pJ.nnin3 Ar, a 2.
Street will be an easy and quick walk away from offices and w. sidcnccs in ttz Tanecuh
Regional Center, allowing both works and residents to take advanla~ of the convcnienl,
locally availablc shopping oppommific& A conceptual Dlu~advc siz plan dcpiaing
Main Strict concell in planning Area 1 is shown in Fi~rc 12B. A dora;led view of tins
Main Strcct is illustrated in Figurc 12C.
Wtdlc x~tai] developn~nt may be the ,ndm~y land use in Phnn;ng ~ 1, it iS
envisioned that this pI-n-inl~ arcs wi/1 also include additional empl~ uppommifi~
such as offices and personal sexyice shops and busin~,ses. In~hnional and hoWl uses
may be inKgrated physically into mixed us~ structnms or constmct~l as scpazns
buildings.
Rcsidentisl rises may be integrated into the s~n~- structu~ as non-residential
Residential uses and antties should consflints not morn than 30% of the gnxmd floor of
any of ~ buildings, In ar~as which do not dir~tly face onto the sln.JFping
frccstanding xP,,sid~ntial buildings may bs consh-ucted, It is also antlclpatfl that some
fme-sumcling x~ja,mtial s~acmrcs will also bc crgctcd in Planning Area L
m-31
2)
In planning for mixed use development, consideration shall be given to joint use of
parking, common areas, landscaping,
specific types of uses, housing types
and sizes of units, and overall
architectural design.
Planning Area 1 development is
proposed as a logical extension of the
central commercial core activity in
Planning Area 2, and a transition
between Planning Area 2 and the
adjacent residential property to the
east. Institutional uses to be
encouraged within Planning Area 1
include local, state or federal level
services (i.e., postal service, economic
development, social service, library,
museum, etc.), if there is a need or
demand for such uses.
Buildin~ Scale and Planning Area
Desi,~n
Development in Planning Area 1
should not resemble a typical
suburban shopping center or strip
commercial plaza. The retail and
office uses in Planning Area 1 may be
arranged in a "U"-shaped
configuration around a public green
similar to traditional public greens, or
in a linear fashion to form a "Main
Street" with shops and offices oriented
directly onto the street.
Internal roadway cimulation (which
may be implemented by a perimeter
ring road or other similar roadway
configuration) will be provided around
the Main Street area to facilitate
traffic flow in and through Planning
Area I. The internal roadway system
will distribute traffic to and from
principal access points on the site
Pedestrian connection to adjacent
Temecula Regional Center uses and
to nearby pedesuqan s
---parallel parking (optional)
-- 4 - lane capacity (typ.)
Conceptual Internal Roadway
III-35
3)
rather than on nearby arterial streets. This ring road may also connect Planning Area 1
with Planning Area 2.
Limited on-street parking may be provided on portions of the internal roadway system,
but in areas where the roadways cwss parking areas, no on-street parking shall be
allowed. The primary internal access roadway system will most likely be four lanes in
width. The Main Street, on the other hand, will be limited to two through lanes (one in
each direction) in order to foster a pedestrian scale.
Individual buildings within Plab. ning Area 1: may range in height up to 120 feet, provided
that building setbacks and configurations for all structures in excess of 50 feet in height
shall be determined by the City during Development Plan Review to ensure that adequate
light. access and air is available to adjacent structures. Typically, buildings should
maintain :a pedestrian scale adjacent to the shopping street. For example, the portion(s)
of a building that abuts a public street may be two or three stories in height. Additional
building stories could progressively step back as the building height and number of stories
increases. Not only will such architectural design permit light and air access to
surrounding areas and ensure a pedestrian scale near ground level, but the massiveness
of the building will be substantially reduced.
Separate building entrances shall be required for commercial/office/institutional and
residential uses when occupying the same structure; provided that this provision does not
preclude internal connections between residential and non-residential uses.
Intensification
In order for the concept of a "Main Street" to truly function, development of a certain
density and intensity is necessary. Greater intensification of land use in this planning area
provides the opportunity for innovative architectural design and landscaping. The higher
concentrations of people will also increase the feasibility of mass transit to serve the site.
Residential uses will be limited to free-standing buildings containing single family
attached or multi-family homes or vertically integrated buildings containing residential
units over office and/or commercial uses. Because of the increased residential density in
this area, it is important that recreational amenities be provided for residents.
Freestanding residential structures, in particular, should contain recreational facilities such
as spas, swimming pools, basketball courts, and weight room. These facilities may be
provided within buildings or, ff provided outside, may be arranged in interior cormyards
or in walled-in enclosures in interior parking lots. Special consideration should be given
to locating facilities with respect to the noise, activity, and light that they will generate.
111-36
3Uq-e3-1994 lIB: 14 FRI:]E *P/B Pl./q,H~l,~ TO 1~-JEg~59464"~ P,I]3
fnmcs~ldingmuld'f"rrn~lY i ~
commada]/o~cc, rmstimdon=l i~
uses (typ) with opdonal i .
:Frees~ain~ asidenUad Builah,~ & Vert~.-.my Iutegnt~ B,iidings
(RestdenUal Over Commercial/Office Uses) with Recresfionsl Facilities
4) ., Pm-~dn~ Desira
Lim}tr, d cn-sm:ct parking may be l=oddcd in l~-,~;,~g Ar, a 1, p~d~y Mong ~
: "Mn;n S~L" ~ p~g ~ m ~ f~ ~le ~mn;nS ~,~ ~d ~
'~on-~" ~ ~m~~m~c~~~n~
~ f~ long~ ~ n ho~ ~ ~o, ~g l~ ~o~d ~ ~ h ~ ~m d
~d~ p~h ~ ~ ~ ~ of ~ ~vel~ ~ ~ ~ ~ of
~p ~d ~-~, not ~ 1~ (~ ~ 1~). ~ ~ p~ lore ~
~mn~ for ~ong ~" ~g.
~ ~n3 f~lifi~ ~d n~ ~ ~ do~hsn~ ~ ImsZ~ of ~ pzo~ V~
e~ of pang for ~ wi~o~ ~ ~ ~f ~ ~~ ~ ~
~o~ ]~t-~g ~m ~ ~ o~ ~ ~o~
~velop~t ~ avoid pinion of ~in~ lo~ ~ ~m~on, ~l~ly ~
~g ~ ~o~d ~ .~ for n~.
Incentives for Innovalive Desin
Up to 300 mukl-fnm;ly dw~11ings ca~ be ~ in this p:lnn.;n~ area I0 lan:lvjdc ho~dng
,~vl~ornmides for employ_~s__ of the various businesses Within the TezDea~a R~iona]
Center Specific Plan. Convertely, the planned comnndal uses will enable y:q;--~--
x~sidents to do their shopping by foot. The mixtur~ of r~sidential and non-x~sidenfial land
uses a:~ deaign~l to deermiss ths traffle gcnP,,_,'at~l by project &vdoinncnt
m-37
6)
The pedestrian scale of the project will be enhanced by pleas, courtyards, sidewalk cares,
public g-parks, pedestrian easements, and overall project landscaping. Pedestrian
linkages will be provided between uses within Planning Area 1 and between Planning
Area 1 and the larger retail uses in Planning Area 2.
Retail and service commercial uses could predominate on the first floor of the buildings,
with offices and/or residential uses concentrated on the upper floors or behind the
commercial uses. Verrically-integrated buildings offer the opportunity to provide
affordable housing.
Pedestrian-Oriented Desitrn
The small size of Pl~nnlng Area 1 will encourage pedestrian movement between uses,
while de-emphasizing automobile use. Retail uses are encouraged on street level to
provided streetscape contiguity and visual interest for pedestrians. Continuous expanses
of blank walls or sharp unbroken vertical surfaces create an uncomfortable atmosphere
for the pedestrian. The mixed use area should incorporate the following elements of good
pedestrian-oriented design:
Pedestrian Circulation: Link interior parking areas and lots to city streets, city-
wide open spaces (e.g., plazas, g-parks, pedestrian mails, etc.) and the City's
trail system to facilitate travel by wig, biking, or other non-mot0rized means.
Building Facades: The design of building facades, particularly those facades that
face public streets, should be architecturally interesting and in scale with the
pedestrian. Storefront windows are encouraged in retail shops and, in most cases,
should begin within 18" tO 24" Of the pavement. Typically, storefront windows
help to entice customers into stores, stimulate visual interest, create "defensible
space" by enhancing public views of store interiors and streets, and establish a
predictable rhythm for passers-by. The scale and width of each storefront should
be limited to establish an intimate scale that is more conducive to the pedestrian
and cyclist than to the automobile. In general, storefront widths should relate to
a human scale. Where storefronts must be large to accommodate specific uses,
the building facades could be articulated with windows, insets, pillars, column. s,
arcades or other decorative architectural features to maintain the overall intimacy
of the shopping street.
Signage: A coordinated signage plan for development can facilitate pedestrian
and vehicular movement throughout the planning area, without "visually
assaulting" the senses. Signage should be designed at a scale that is not
overpowering from the pedestrian's perspective. For exaxnple, small signs with a
unique texture, shape, or interesting features can be more effective than large,
massive, or glaring signs. This Temecula Regional Center Zoning Ordinance
111-38
7)
8)
contains comprehensive signage criteria for uses within Planning Area 1 (see
Section I/I.C. 1. in this Specific Plan).
Streetscape Design: To encourage human activity and movement, streets should
be designed with the pedestrian in mind. Continuity in landscape design,
placement of street furniture, sitting areas, covered arcades for shelter against the
sun and inclement weather, lighting, and paving patterns all contribute to creating
a rich, functional, and aesthetically pleasing environment for pedestrians.
Pedestrian Plazas: All areas of'Planning Area 1, and the Main Street in
particular, should be designed with pedestrian gathering spots and should include
plazas and pocket parks for resting, eating, conversing, and people watching.
Pedestrian plazas that are effectively placed within retail and office districts can
b'e pleasant spaces for resting or having lunch between shopping trips or errands.
Placement of pedestrian plazas must be carefully planned to assure their most
effective use. For this reason, consideration must be given to the location of
plazas relative to the pedestrian circulation patterns, sunfight conditions, wind
paRems, and the selection of building and landscape materials.
Organization of Activities: The most important element in creating viable
pedestrian spaces has little to do with the actual physical design of the space; if
a space is to be conducive to pedestrian activity, there must be opportunities for
pedestrian events and activities. Therefore, efforts to planning and organizing
festivals, events, special sidewalk sales, entertainment, and cultural displays should
be made to help create desized pedestrian activity. Private marketing efforts
should be encouraged to promote these types of community events.
SiEnaEe
This Specific Plan includes a comprehensive signage program for the mixed use
development. The program includes retail commercial entry monumentalion, building
identification signage, marquee signage, and directional signage. Although the signage
criteria contained in the Zoning Ordinance in this Specific Plan includes maximum
permitted sign sizes, the individual sign that identifies a given use should be consistent
with the scale and mass of the building on which it is located or which it identifies.
Specific signage materials should be uniform throughout each individual development
within Planning Area I.
Transit Alternatives/Options
One of the primary objectives of establishing mixed use development within the Temecula
Regional Center Specific Plan is the creation of a density threshold and a mixture of uses
that is capable of supporting transit alternatives to the automobile. Bus turnouts shall be
provided at appropriate locations within Planning Area 1, subject to approval by the City
III-39
,,R.Iq-ff~-1994 12:19 P,,:I3H ~ PU:It4II,~ TO 19e96946477 P.~2
of Temecuh and. if nece~. the Riverside Transit Age~y. Aaaition,T ~ran,;t conidor
right-of-way adjammt to W'mche~u:r Road on th~ westam edge of the plmming
allow space for developm,~t of ~ rn,~ ~rnndt syslem (e.g., light rail, era.) should ~uch
9) Vill,-e Center/Mn~n Strut Development Area
b.
The Vm.~o~ Center/Main 5u~ concept shall ~ply to ~ 10 to 15 ~ ~
~ U~ ~opmmt S~
Plea.~. tufa to Zone Ordinance No...
1)
in Section KLC of this Specific Plau.
In complianc~ with the goa]s and policies of the City's General Plan, VHlage Centt~
Overlay and V~nd Use Element ~ 5 - Poficics 53 through 5.10, it is impommt tn
create a qua/iv/environment which e~abai.he~ a sense of plac~ thwugh c~eful
consideration and integration of the following deign elexnents:
b)
· c) Nan~w streets and driveways with pedestrian pase~ and wide sidewalks.
d)
Fe. atu~s such as pnseo~ arm. a.-~. phza.s, courtyards, ~ua~s, galleries ~nd oredoor
ca~es to encourage gathering.
e)
f)
Cra~.hedng places such as pavilions, paxis and ~m~ Festivals,
merit, st:P~t vendor, outdoor mnrl~t5 and other ~ events should be
Incorporation of fou~tsln~ and w~t~r bo~es.
· g) Uniqu~ archit~mmd and landscape schitecttwal them~ for identity.
· h) C_~r~ful parking oxi~ntnfion.
IH-40
iuH:L P.82
Friday June 3, 19~6 12~*10~m:Page 3j
~J4-e3-199d 11:B9 ~ TBJa PL~H41H~ TO 1~agG94~d?? P,K3
2)
3)
4)
7)
8)
· It iS i,n~Ortnnt tO no~c thnt DOt nil t3sg$ a]lov/~i i9 Planning Area I ar~ necessarily
expected to occur. For this reason, some of the above design feamRr~ ,~y not be
appropzimc nor cconomic~y female. For thin l~as(311, only the con_Px~3t of a 'Main
Sueet* is discussca in. &-pth above, Additional options for possible developat in
l:q~--;-g Az~ I ale discuslied in Secliou W. Design Guide~, in this Specific plnn_
Access into Planning Area I will be pzovided from Margadta Road, Apricot Avenue antl
WinctP_sU~ Road.
corlidor illlx) pm, nnning ~ 1. ~ m~w~:x' x:a,o~,-'~ would lmmvide right-un'n-ouly ~
into thl, IFaxed Ug Planning Azea (see Rgu~ 12A). This ~ shall comply with
the cuu~nt Memorandum of Undtramnding (MOLD between the City d Temecula and
Caltrn-~ as to the location and spacing of m~or access points along W'mchestcr Roa&
Special madway land._~nps tre~-n,=mts, as those depicted in Figures 14, lg, and
I -nndscape .A_rchitectll~ (3gide, liDe8 (See. I'V'.E..) _~hnll be piovided along Winchestea' Road,
Ma~adta Road and Apricot Avenue.
Major Entry Monumentafion as depicted in Eguxe 7,3, Landscape Archit:ctnra]
Guide, lines, shall be provided at the inta'sections of Winchester Road and Margax~ta Roa~,
and Margarita Road and Aln'icot Avenue, and along MaC, m-ira Road and W'mchester
Road.
Minor Entry Monum~ntation, as depicted in Figu~ :25, Landsca~ An:hitccUnl
Cmldcl~nes, shall be provided along Win~hes~r Road, lVI~r~aita Road mud Apricot
Avenuc.
Ple~.se gfer to 3cc. IV. for Spccific Design Guide-lines and other x~l,,,.d design
Please x~fe~ to Sec. IH,A. fo~ the following Dcvelopmcnt pi,,~ and Standants that axe1~
site-wide:
m-~l - Specific Land Use Plaa
I'if_A_?. - Circ,,hfion Flan
Tff-A,3 - Drainage Plan
IILA.4 - Wa~r and Sewer Plans
tIT &_5 -Pmjcct phn~ing
r!T A.6 - Grading Plan :
TIT_~.7 - T~ndscaping PlaU
fit &.8 - Malnten~nre Plan
11141
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT, JULY 18, 1994
R:~STAFFP, Z~63SP.CC 9r7/94 Idb 29
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING *
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 18, 1994
Specific Plan No. 263 (Regional Center)
Change of Zone No. 5589
Prepared By: Debbie Ubnoske.
RECOMMENDATION:
RECOMMEND Adoption of Resolution No. 94-__ recommending
approval for Specific Plan 263 and Change of Zone 5589 based
on the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff Report and
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
KRDC Inc.
REPRESENTATIVE:
T & B Planning Consultants
PROPOSAL:
Specific Plan proposing a 1,375,000 square foot commercial
core, 810,000 square feet of Office/Institutional with possible
Multi-Family Residential and an additional 298,000square feet of
Retail Commercial with an accompanying Change of Zone request
changing the zoning from R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20
(Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre minimum lot size) to SP (Specific
Plan No. 263).
LOCATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
Southeast corner of the intersection of Ynez and Winchester
Roads
R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre
minimum lot size)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
PROPOSED ZONING:
North: C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
South: M-SC (Manufacturing Service Commercial)
East: A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre minimum lot
size)
West: C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial)
SP (Specific Plan No. 263)
R:~,STAFFRFr~63SP.I~C5 7115194 vgw
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS:
CC (Community Commercial)
O (Professional Office)
BP (Business Park)
P (Public/Institutional)
Specific Plan Overlay
Village Center Overlay
EXISTING LAND USE:
VacBnt
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
PROJECT STATISTICS
North:
South:
East:
West:
'Commercial Development (Costco)
vacant
vacant
Commercial Development (Palm Plaza)
Plannine Area 1
Total Area
Possible Residential
Retail/Office Building Area
72 Acres
300 Units
810,000 Square Feet
Plannine Area 2
Total Area
Commercial Retail Building Area
97.8 Acres
1,555,000 Square Feet
Planninq Area 3
Total Area
Retail/Office Building Area
5.5 Acres
118,000 Square Feet
BACKGROUND
Specific Plan 263 and Change of Zone 5589 were continued from the May 23, 1994 and June
6, 1994 Planning Commission meetings. At the May 23 Planning Commission meeting, the
Commission directed the applicant to provide more detailed information on the Village Center
concept proposed for Planning Area 1. At the June 6 Planning Commission meeting, the
applicant requested a continuance to the July 18, 1994 Planning Commission meeting to
enable them to meet with staff to discuss the conditions of approval.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project proposal is a Specific Plan with an accompanying Change of Zone request on
201.3 acres. The project site is located along the south side of Winchester Road between
Ynez and Margarita Roads. The City's General Plan designates the site as Specific Plan and
Village Center overlay areas. The underlying land use designations of the General Plan consist
of Community Commercial, Professional Office, Business Park and Public Institutional. The
Specific Plan document contains the zoning, development standards and architectural
guidelines for the project site. The proposed zoning and development standards contained
within the Specific Plan document will govern development for this site over the City's
Development Code unless it is not addressed in the Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance.
ANALYSIS
Villaoe Center Concept
Planning Area 1 located within the Regional Center Specific Plan has a General Plan Overlay
designation of Village Center. Under the General Plan, the intent of the Village Center Overlay
is to develop centers which will help to provide a sense of place, as well as, focal points for
community activity. These Village Centers are intended to contain a concentration and
mixture of compatible uses including retail, housing, and institutional. Additionally, each
Village Center should have design guidelines and development standards.
While the applicant has provided language relative to the Regional Center's Village Center, this
language has been deemed inadequate by staff. At the May 23, 1994 Planning Commission
meeting, the Commission directed the applicant to provide stronger language in the Specific
Plan which would ensure the development of a Village Center in Planning Area 1. In addition,
staff has requested the applicant provide design guidelines and development standards in the
Specific Plan.
Pursuant to the Commission's direction at the May 23, 1994 Planning Commission meeting,
the applicant has provided new language relative to the Village Center Concept, as well as,
a number of illustratives (reference Attachment 3). Both the language and illustratives will be
included in the Final Specific Plan.
Circulation
At the May 23, 1994 Planning Commission meeting, staff requested the Commission provide
direction on the timing and funding of both on-site and off-site improvements. The Public
Works Department proposes the following:
That this Specific Plan be required to bond for and construct certain regional
improvements for the project implementation responsibility for regional facilities.
That this Specific Plan be required to support either supplemental bond sales or district
restructuring and supplemental bond sales which provide for certain regional facilities
listed in Attachment "A" to the Mitigation Monitoring Program (refer to Attachment No.
5).
That this Specific Plan be required to bond for and construct certain facilities within
and adjacent to the project as detailed in the Conditions of Approval.
The timing for these facility requirements may be further defined through the
conditioning of subsequent development applications and the requisite phasing
application.
A typical section be added to the Specific Plan for the primary onsite circulation
road(s).
Landscape Development Zone (LDZ)
The provision for a 37 foot Landscape Development Zone along Winchester Road was
discussed at the May 23, 1994Planning Commission meeting. The applicant stated he would
provide this 37 foot LDZ. The Final Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan will contain an
exhibit that illustrates this LDZ.
School Mitioation
The Temecula Unified School District is requesting the developer sign a mitigation agreement
with the District prior to Specific Plan approval. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 340
certified for the site on July 13, 1993 states that "the project applicant shall enter into a
binding agreement with the Temecula Unified School District to insure the provision of
adequate facilities at the time of project occupancy." Staff has conditioned the Specific Plan
to comply wi{h the mitigation proposed in the previously certified EIR.
ENVIRONMENTAL DE'I'ERMINATION
Environmental Impact Report No. 340 was prepared for the project and certified by the City
Council on July 13, 1993. Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding Consideration for
Noise, Air Quality, Agriculture, Wildlife and Vegetation, Circulation, and Libraries and a
Mitigation Monitoring Program were adopted at that time.
GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING CONSISTENCY
Specific Plan 263 is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan designations of
Community Commercial, Professional Office, Business Park, Public\Institutional, Specific Plan
Overlay, and Village Center Overlay. Upon adoption by the City Council, Change of Zone
5589 which proposes to change the zoning on the site from Rural Residential (R-R) and Heavy
Agriculture, 20 acre minimum (A-2-20) to Specific Plan (SP) will render the Specific Plan
consistent with the zoning on the site.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
At the May 23, 1994 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission directed the applicant
to better define the Village Center Concept, Subsequent to this meeting, the applicant has
provided staff with new language and illustratives which better defines the Village Center
Concept. This new language and the illustratives will be provided in the Final Temecula
Regional Center Specific Plan. The Commission also provided information to the Public Works
staff on the timing and funding of both on-site and off-site traffic improvements.
FINDINGS
Specific Plan 263
Specific Plan 263 is consistent with the City's General Plan, General Plan designations
for the site are Community Commercial, Professional Office, Business Park, Public
Institutional, Specific Plan Overlay, and Village Center Overlay.
R:\STAFFRPTX263SP.FC5 7/15/94 vg~v 4
Specific Plan 263 is compatible with surrounding land uses of Commercial to the north
(Costco) and west (Palm Plaza).
Specific Plan 263 will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because it
does not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area.
Environmental Impact Report 340 was prepared for the Specific Plan, and was certified
by the City Council July 13, 1993. No immediate impacts to the environment will
result from the adoption of the Specific Plan. Impacts from future development can be
mitigated to a level less than significant. Statements of Overriding Considerations were
adoplied by the City Council on July 13, 1993 for the following: Noise, Air Quality,
Agriculture, Wildlife and Vegetation, Circulation and Libraries.
Specific Plan 263 is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation programs
contained in the General Plan. The key objective in the General Plan that relates to this
Specific Plan calls for the development of a Village Center with mixed uses, pedestrian
oriented design, and linkages to surrounding projects. In addition, the Village Center
is intended to be a community focal point with high quality site and building design
which provides for the incorporation of transit facilities.
Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference.
Chanae of Zone 5589
Change of Zone 5589 will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment as
determined in Environmental Impact Report 340 prepared for the project. No
immediate impacts to the environment will result from the Change of Zone from Rural
Residential (R-R) and Heavy Agriculture, 20 acre minimum (A-2-20) to Specific Plan
(SP). Impacts from future development can be mitigated to a level less than
significant. Statements of Overriding Considerations were adopted by the City Council
on July 13, 1993 for the following: Noise, Air Quality, Agriculture, Wildlife and
Vegetation, Circulation and Libraries.
Change of Zone 5589 is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan. General
Plan designations for the site are Community Commercial, Professional Office, Business
Park, Public\Institutional, Specific Plan Overlay, and Village Center Overlay.
Change of Zone 5589 is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation
programs contained in the General Plan.
The site of the proposed Change of Zone is suitable to accommodate all the land uses
currently permitted in the proposed zoning district due to the fact that the parcel is of
adequate size and shape for any proposed use. Landscaping, parking and lot coverage
requirements will be met upon ultimate submittal of a development proposal.
Adequate access exists to the proposed Change of Zone site. Proposed potential
access points to the site will be from Ynez and Margarita Roads. Additional internal
access and required road improvements to the site will be designed and constructed
in conformance with City of Temecula standards.
6. Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
PC Resolution No. 94- - Blue Page 7
Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 11
Revised "Village Center Concept" Language - Blue Page 22
Conceptual Circulation System Phasing Plan - Blue Page 23
Attachment "A", Mitigation Monitoring Program for EIR No. 340 - Blue Page 24
Temecula Valley Unified School District Letter, April 18, 1994 - Blue Page 25
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 94-
ATTACHIMI~,NT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF Tn~. CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC PLAN NO.
263 PROPOSING A 1,375,000 SQUARE FOOT CONIMI~RCIAL CORE,
810,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE/INSTITUTIONAL WITH POSSIBLE
MULTI-FAMII .Y RESIDENTIAL AND AN ADDITIONAL 298,000 SQUARE
F~.I~.T OF RETAIL COiVI1WF~RCIAL; APPROVAL OF CHANGE OF ZONE
NO. 5589 TO CHANGE ~ ZONING FROM RURAL RESIDENTIAL (R-
R) AND HEAVY AGRICULTURE, 20 ACRE MINIMUM (A-2-20) TO
SPECIFIC PLAN (SP). ~ PROJECT IS LOCATED AT TtIE
SOUTWEAST CORNER OF TI~F~ INTERSECTION OF YNEZ AND
'~qNCHFSTER ROADS AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. 910-
130'046 AND 047, 921-090'005, 006 AND 007.
WtrFREAS, KRDC, Inc. fried Specific Plan No. 263 in accordance with the Riverside
County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted
by reference;
WHEREAS, said application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by State
and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said application on July 18, 1994 at
which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
WIrEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing, the Commission
recommended approval of said application;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. FindingS. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the
following fmdings:
A. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of said application makes
the following findings, to wit:
Specific Plan 263
1. Specific Plan 263 is consistent with the City's General Plan. General Plan
designations for the site are Community Commercial, Professional Offace, Business Park, Public
Institutional, Specific Plan Overlay, and Village Center Overlay.
2. Specific Plan 263 is compatible with surrounding land uses of Commercial
to the north (Costco) and west (Palm Plaza).
3. Specific Plan 263 will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property,
because it does not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area.
Environmental Impact Report 340 was prepared for the Specific Plan, and was certified by the
City Council July 13,. 1993. No immediate impacts to the environment wffi result from the
adoption of the Specific Plan. Impacts from funam development can be mitigated to a level less
than significant. Statements of Overriding Considerations were adopted by the City Council on
July 13, 1993 for the following: Noise, Air Quality, Agriculture, Wildlife and Vegetation,
Circulation and Libraries.
4. Specific Plan 263 is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation
programs conhined in the General Plan. The key objective in the General Plan that relates to
this Specific Plan calls for the development of a Village Center with mixed uses, pedestrian
oriented design, and linkages to surrounding projects. In addition, the Village Center is intended
to be a community focal point with high quality site and building design which provides for the
incorporation of transit facilities.
5. Said fmdings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental
documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference.
Change of Zone 5589
1. Change of Zone 5589 will not have a significant adverse effect on the
environment as determined in Environmental Impact Report 340 prepared for the project. No
immediate impacts to the environment will result from the Change of Zone from Rural
Residential (R-R) and Heavy Agriculture, 20 acre minimum (A-2-20) to Specific Plan (SP).
Impacts from funare development can be mitigated to a level less than significant. Statements
of Overriding Considerations were adopted by the City Council on July 13, 1993 for the
following: Noise, Air Quality,-Agriculture, Wildlife and Vegetation, Circutation and Uthra~es.
2. Change of Zone 5589 is consistent with the City of Temecula General
Plan. General Plan designations for the site are Community Commercial, Professional Office,
Business Park, PublicXlnstitutional, Specific Plan Overlay, and Village Center Overlay.
3. Change of Zone 5589 is consistent with the goals, policies, and
implementation programs contained in the General Plan.
4. The site of the proposed Change of Zone is suitable to accommodate all
the land uses currently permitted in the proposed zoning district due to the fact that the parcel
is of adequate size and shape for any proposed use. Landscaping, parking and lot coverage
requirements will be met upon ultimate submittal of a development proposal.
5. Adequate access exists to the proposed Change of Zone site. Proposed
potential access points to the site will be from Ynez and Margarita Roads. Additional internal
access and required road improvements to the site will be designed and constructed in
conformance with City of Temecula standards.
6. Said fmdings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental
documents associated with this application and heroin incorporated by reference.
B. As conditioned pursuant to Section 3,
Section 2. Environmental Compliance. Previously certified Environmental Impact
Report No. 340 analyzed the significant impacts of Specific Plan No. 263 and proposed
mitigation m~sures to reduce these impacts.
Section 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
recommends approval of Specific Plan No. 263 located southwest corner of Ynez and
Winchester Roads.
A. Attachment No. 2, attached hereto.
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of July, 1994.
STEVEN J. FORD
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 18th day of July
1994 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNHILL
SECRETARY
R:\STAFFRPTX263Sp. PC5 7115/94 vgw 10
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\STAFFRPT\263SP.PC5 7/15/94 vgw 11
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Specific Plan No. 263 (Regional Center)
Project Description: A Specific Plan proposing a 1,375,000 square foot commercial
core, 810,000square feet of Office\Institutional with possible Multi-Family Residential,
and an additional 298,000 square feet of Retail Commercial with an accompanying
Change of Zone request changing the zoning from R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20
{Heavy Agriculture, 20 acre minimum) to SP (Specific Plan).
Assessor's Parcel No.: 910-130-046and 047,921-090-005,006 and 007
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General Conditions
The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, it
agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City
of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning
Specific Plan No. 263, which action is brought within the time period provided for in
California Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of Temecula will promptly
notify the applicant 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 applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the
defense, the applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold
harmless the City of Temecula.
All development within this site shall be in accordance with the requirements of all City
ordinances, except as expressly modified herein, and State laws, and shall conform
with the approved Specific Plan. Regulations or p. rocedures not covered bythe Specific
Plan or appurtenant documents shall be subject to the City ordinances in effect at the
time entitlement is required.
This project and all subsequent projects within the site shall comply with all mitigation
measures identified within EIR No. 340 and the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program.
Prior to issuance of grading permits, approval of development permits, recordation of
final maps, issuance of building permits and issuance of occupancy permits for any
subsequent projects or activities within the site the applicant/developer shall
demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in
the Mitigation Monitoring Program within EIR No. 348 have been satisfied for the stage
of development that permits are being issued for.
Prior to the City Council hearing, Planning Area 3 shall be changed to Business Park
and the appropriate zoning and development standards shall be established for Business
Park designation.
R:\STAFFRFFX263SP,PC5 7115194 vgw 12
The Landscape Development Zone (LDZ), which includes the Transportation Corridor,
along Winchester Road shall be thirty-seven feet (37') in width and shall be shown on
all subsequent development proposal site plans and tentative maps.
Prior to approval of any map or development proposal within each Planning Area within
the Specific Plan, a detailed design manual for each Planning Area shall be submitted
for review and approval by the Planning Commission.
Within thirty (30) days of the final approval of the project by City Council, the Specific
Plan and the Final Environmental ImpaCt Report shall be submitted to the Planning
Department in final form for review and approval.. The final form shall include all
conditions of approval and all modifications made by the Planing Commission and City
Council. A master print copy (8 ~" X 11 ") and four (4) copies of the documents shall
be submitted.
Prior to approval of any development plans, all subsequent projects shall receive
appropriate clearances, conditions and approvals from all agencies with jurisdiction on
project review. These agencies shall be determined by the Planning Director and the
City Engineer.
10.
The developer or the developer's successor-in-interest shall be responsible for
maintaining the undeveloped portion of the site including weed abatement and litter
removal.
11.
The applicant shall deposit sufficient funds with the City of Temecula to retain the
services of a qualified consultant to administer and implementthe Mitigation Monitoring
Program approved for this project as part of Environmental Impact Report 340 in
compliance with Assembly Bill 3180.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
12.
Prior to issuance of any occupancy permits for the project, the project applicant shall
enter into a binding mitigation agreement the with the Temecula Valley Unified School
District to ensure the mitigation of the new students generated by this Specific Plan.
13.
If any of these conditions of approval differ from the commitment by the Developer
made in the Specific Plan text or map exhibits or any other documents, the conditions
enumerated herein shall take precedence.
14.
Any proposed amendment to this Specific Plan shall require public hearings and review
by the Planning Commission and City Council, and/or shall be reviewed in accordance
with such rules and regulations for the review of Specific Plan Amendments as may
have been adopted by the City and which are in effect at the time of any proposed
amendment is submitted.
15. The developer shall satisfy all the Quimby Act requirements for the project.
R:\STAFFR~T\263SP.PC5 7115194 vF 13
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this project, and
shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true
meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff person of the Department
of Public Works.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
16.
All u~ility systems such as electric, inclu'ding those which provide direct service to the
project site and/or currently exist along public rights-of-ways adjacent to the site
(except electrical lines rated 33 kv or greater), gas, telephone, water, sewer, and cable
TV shall be placed underground, with easements provided as required, and designed
and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider.
17.
Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, as deemed necessary by the Department
of Public Works, the Developer shall consult with the State of California Department
of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
to determine if permits or approvals are necessary from such agencies for any action
contemplated by this proposal. Such consultation shall be in writing, and copies of said
correspondence, including responses from agencies, shall be submitted to the City.
Where appropriate, the terms, conditions, and recommendations of the noted agencies
shall be incorporated as Conditions of Approval into the areas of development.
18.
Prior to issuance of building permits for the various phases of development, the
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. The fee to be paid shall be
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
the Developer requests its building permit for the project or any phase thereof, the
Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility Fee.
Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, the Developer shall post a bond to secure
payment of the Public Facility Fee. The amount of the bond shall be ~2.00 per square
foot, not to exceed $10,000. The 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). By execution of this Agreement, the Developer will
waive any right to protest the provisions of this condition, of this Agreement, the
formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any
traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; provided that the Developer is not
waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the
amount thereof.
19.
Landscaping and permanent irrigation facilities shall be installed with street
improvements. Perimeter walls if constructed shall be treated with graffiti-resistant
coating and shall be installed adjacent to street improvements within each phase.
20.
A phasing plan addressing the schedule of necessary infrastructure requirements shall
be approved by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Director prior to
approval of any subsequent development application.
R:\STAFFRPT~263SP.PC5 7/15/94 vgw 14
29.
30.
Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer is
responsible to bond for the traffic signals at the project's accesses from
Overland Drive, Ynez Road, end Winchester Road, as required, including the
associated street improvements, based on traffic signal warrants analysis
relative to subsequent development applications.
Dedicate all necessary right-of-way for the construction of the Winchester Road
overpass at Interstate 15 (I-15) and the interchange ramps along with
associated additional right-of-way necessary for the widening and improvements
to Winchester Road from Ynez Road to the interchange.
A reimbursement agreement shall be executed between the Developer and the
City to reimburse the City the cost of the existing improvements along
,Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road.
The following infrastructure improvements/reimbursements shall be completed prior to
issuance of occupancy for any development above a cumulative total of 750,000 SF.
The Developer shall support the Community Facilities District (CFD) 88-12
supplemental bond sales necessary for the construction of Overland Drive, from
Ynez Road to Jefferson Avenue (including the I-15 overpass), in accordance
with the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's General Plan ctassifying
Overland Drive as a Secondary Highway with 88 foot full width right-of-way,
and including the traffic signals at the intersections of Overland Drive and Ynez
Road, Jefferson Avenue, and Margarita Road.
Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit Developer shall
bond for the improvements to Margarita Road, from Solaria Way to Winchester
Road, including a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median, in accordance with
the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's General Plan classifying Margarita
Road as an Arterial Highway with 110 foot full width right-of-way with a
reimbursement agreement.
Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer shall
bond for full street improvements to Overland Drive, from Margarita Road to
Ynez Road, including a 12 foot wide raised landscaped median, in accordance
with the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's General Plan classifying
Overland Drive as a Major Highway with 1 O0 foot full width right-of-way with
a reimbursement agreement.
The Developer is responsible to bond for prior and construct the traffic signals at the
intersections listed below, The Developer shall analyze the traffic signal warrants and
shall install the traffic signals accordingly and/or as directed by the Department of
Public Works at the following intersections:
Margarita Road and Winchester Road (upgrade the existing signal)
Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road
R:\STAFFRPT\263SP.PC5 7115194 vgw 16
Drainage
31.
Drainage and flood control facilities shall be provided in accordance with the
requirements of the City and/or Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District (RCFC&WCD).
32.
Prior to approval of any subsequent development applications, the Developer shall
submit the master drainage plan to the City and RCFC&WCD to review the adequacy
of the proposed and existing downstream drainage facilities.
33.
Drain~3ge facilities within each phase shall be constructed immediately after the
completion of the site grading and prior to or concurrently with the initial site
development within that phase.
34.
All drainage facilities shall be designed to carry 100 year storm flows, subject to the
approval of the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable.
35.
The Developer shall construct the proposed on and offsite drainage facility
improvements and the offsite detention basin provision as recommended in the Specific
Plan and Drainage Study documents and/or as directed by the Department of Public
Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable.
36.
As required by the Department of Public Works, additional Hydrology and Hydraulic
Reports shall be submitted with subsequent development applications to study the
drainage impacts and analyze necessary measures to mitigate the runoff created as
part of the development of this project.
37.
The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto
or through the site,
38.
The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration
of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be
provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing
facilities or by securing drainage easements.
Water and Sewer
39.
Water and sewer facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and
specifications of the City, Rancho California Water District (RCWD), and Eastern
Municipal Water District (EMWD). Such requirements shall be applied atthe subdivision
or plot plan stages of the development.
40.
Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall
submit the master water plan to RCWD to check for adequacy of the proposed water
facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the water system from
RCWD.
41.
Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall
submit the master sewer plan to EMWD to check for adequacy of the proposed sewer
facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the sewer system from
EMWD,
42.
Prior to the recordation of any tract map, commercial parcel map, or approval of any
plot plan application, the Developer shall provide the City with evidence that adequate
wastewater treatment facilities are being provided to meet the needs of the Temecula
Regional Center Specific Plan development.
Grading
43.
No grading shall be permitted for any development area prior to tentative map or plot
plan approval and issuance of grading permits for the specific area of development.
44.
Grading plans and operations shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code,
City Grading Standards, the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report,
or any subsequent reports prepared for the project, the conditions of the grading
permit, and accepted grading construction practices and the recommendations and
standards specified in the Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
document.
45.
Prior to issuance of any grading permit, Erosion Control plans shall be prepared in
conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department
of Public Works. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement
guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements.
46.
The Developer shall comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulated by the State Water Resources Control
Board, and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) implemented by the San
Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board.
47.
Each subsequent application for a phase of development shall include a conceptual
grading plan to indicate at a minimum:
· Preliminary quantity estimates for grading.
Techniques and methods which will be used to prevent erosion and
sedimentation during and after the grading process in compliance with the City
Standards and NPDES requirements.
· Preliminary pad and roadway elevations.
· Designation of the borrow or stockpile site location for import/export material.
Approximate time frames for development including the identification of areas
which will be graded during the rainy months.
· Hydrology and hydraulic concerns and mitigations.
R:\STAFFRPT\263SP.PC5 7115194 vF 1 B
48. Major grading activities shall be scheduled during the dry season wherever possible,
or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works.
49.
Soils stabilization, which may include revegetation of graded areas, shall occur within
30 days of final grading activities as directed by the Department of Public Works.
50. The site shall be watered during grading operations to control dust.
51.
Temporary drainage and sediment control devices shall be installed as directed by the
Department of Public Works.
52.
An import/export route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to
issuance of any grading permit. The plan shall include limitation to the duration of the
grading operation and construction activities, a Traffic Control Plan, and a daily time
schedule of operations.
53.
Prior to issuance of any grading permit, a soils reports shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works for review and approval, to address engineering, geologic,
seismic, and soils engineering concerns for each tentative map or commercial parcel
map for each phase of proposed development.
54.
All public streets shall be maintained and cleaned if necessary on a daily basis during
grading operation and construction activities. Cash deposit, letter of credit or posting
of bond to guarantee maintenance of all public rights-of-way affected by the grading
operations and construction activities, shall be posted prior to issuance of grading
permits.
55.
If subsequent Geotechnical and Soils Reports determine that dewatering of the site is
necessary during construction, necessary permits (ie. in compliance with NPDES
permit) shall be obtained from appropriate agencies prior to approval of the grading
plans.
Phasing
56.
Construction of the development permitted by the Specific Plan, including recordation
of final subdivision maps, may be carried out in stages provided that, adequate
vehicular access is constructed for all dwelling units in each stage of development and
further provided that such development conforms substantially with the intent and
purpose of the Specific Plan Phasing Plan.
57.
Development applications shall be submitted for each planning unit in each phase. Total
acreage and land uses within each phase shall be substantially in accordance with the
specifications of the Specific Plan.
R:\STAFFRPT\26.?,Sp. PC5 7/15194 vgw 19
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
The Temecula Community Regional Center Specific Plan was originally presented to staff as
a mixed-use commercial development combining retail, office, hotel, institutional, and regional
mall facilities. However, the possibility exists that multi-family residential development could
occur within Planning Area 1. In the event that residential development is approved, the
Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) provides additional conditions for the Temecula
Regional Center, as follows:
General Requirements
58.
The developer, his successor or assignee, shall satisfy the park land dedication
requirements in accordance with City Ordinance No. 460.93 (Quimby). Upon
determination of the actual park land dedication requirement, the City of Temecula shall
have the final decision of requiring the developer to dedicate land for public park
purposes, or pay the equivalent "in-lieu" fee.
59.
Exterior slopes contiguous to public streets that are adjacent to commercial/industrial
development and multi-family residential development shall be maintained by a private
property owner's association.
60.
All perimeter walls, interior slopes and open space shall be maintained by the individual
property owner or an established property owner's association.
61.
Class II bike lanes shall be designed in conformity with the City's Park and Recreation
Master Plan and constructed in concurrence with the street improvements.
62.
The landscaped medians shall be improved in conformance with the City of Temecula
Landscape Plan Guidelines and Specifications.
63.
The developer, his successor or assignee, shall maintain the landscaping and medians
until such time as those responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD.
64.
Construction of all proposed TCSD maintenance areas shall commence pursuant to a
pre-job meeting with the developer and City Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to
comply with the TCSD review and inspection process may preclude acceptance of
these areas into the TCSD maintenance program.
Prior to Recordation of the Final Map
65.
All proposed TCSD maintenance areas (medians) shall be identified and offered for
dedication on the final map.
66.
Prior to recordation of the respective final map, construction drawings for proposed
landscape medians shall be reviewed and approved by TCSD staff.
67.
Prior to recordation of the respective final map, the subdivider shall post security and
enter into an agreement to improve all proposed TCSD maintenance areas.
R:\STAFFRPT\263SP.PC5 7/15/94 vgw 20
Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy
68.
Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within each phased map, the
developer or his assignee shall submit, in a format directed by TCSD staff, the most
current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to the final project.
69.
Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within each phased map, the
developer or his assignee shall file an application with the TCSD and pay the
appropriate fees for the dedication of arterial and residential lights into the TCSD
maintenance program.
~:\STAFFRPT\263SP. I~C5 7/15/94 vgw 21
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
REVISED "VILLAGE CENTER CONCEPT" LANGUAGE
R:\STAFFPJ>T\263SP.PC5 7/15/94 vg~v 22
10:13 Fal]q ~ R2~4'IIN5
TO 19896946477 P. 82
~ RF, CIO~ CKlvrk:x
planning ~ 1
Plmmim, Ares 1
a, Descriptive Summary
p1,,,{qg Area 1. as dcpiotcd in Figzue 12A, co~,i-~s of 71.97 gross m=es. d:vot~l pr;m,r;ty to
mixed uses including zr. iai], office, hotel, institutional, and re~Mential uses. Thc comrnexcial,
of Fxce~ 8rid inb~t~iollal de~e~oplne~t W~Fnin ~ p]snning a_r~a m4]l $~ th~ ~ of area
FesideUts, W]li~ nm~intn{ning CompaU'bilit~ WiTh a l~s~lcl]rial C~ViR III]IeDL A ~ of ~
multi-family dwelfing units shall be pcrmitIed in Planning A~a 1. These dwellings may either
1) Ivfixture of Uses
It is the intent of the mixed use development in Planning Arcs I of tl~ Temccula
Regional Cente~ to allow for a mixm of commcrcial/officefmstitu~onal and residential
uses. The nixed use devalopnEnt is designed to elmcourage active sln~et frontages nnd
a comfortable, human-scaled environment that creates a fully functioning shopping street
colnp]cx (i.e., a "Riain StllCt"]. This ]vinin Stllct will bc integrated into the OVCfai]
mixed use &veloprnent in Planning Area I and wiI1 be connected by both st]'eets am:i
pede. Striall walkways to th~ planned ~ d~vclopEtlellt in Plallllhlg A,w.a 2. ~ ~
Street will be an e, Ey and quick walk away from offices and residences in th~ Tem~ula
P,~gional Centex, allowing both workers and residents to take advantage of the convenient.
locally available shopping opportunities. A conceptual illustrative site plan d~picting th~
~ Stl~.~t COnCept in planning Area 1 ig showll in Figure 12B. A delailed view of
Main Str~A is illustratM in Figuz 12C.
V/hilt xetail development may be the p~mn~y land us~ in plnnning Area l, it is
envisioned that this p|nnnln_a 8fe, a wi~ also include additional employment opporhmifies
such as offices and personal service shops and businesses. Instltational and hotel uses
rnny be integrated physically into mixed use structures or constnscted as ~
buildings.
Residential uses may be integrated into the ~m~ slnmtum ns non-midential usr~.
Residential uses and entries should COnstitute not more than 30% of the ground floor of
any of these buildings. In an:as which do not dLr~tly face onto the shopping strips),
fr~standing residential buildings may be constructed. It is also anticipated that some
free-standing residential structures wffi also be erected in Planning Area 1.
HI-31
2)
In planning for mixed use development, consideration shall be given to joint use of
parking, common areas, landscaping,
specific types of uses, housing types Pedestrian connection to adjacent
and sizes of units, and overall Temecula Regional Center uses and
architectural design. to nearby pedestrian syste
'
Planning Area 1 development is ~_A[ '~l I.,
proposed as a logical extension of the
central commercial core activity in
Planning Area 2, and a transition
between Planning Area 2 and the
adjacent residential property to the
east. . Institutional uses to be -- I
encouraged within Planning Area 1 ' i I 1
include local, state or federal level
services (i.e., postal service, economic _
development, social service, library,
museum, etc.), if there is a need or
demand for such uses.
Buildin~ Scale and Planning Area
Design
Development in Planning Area 1
should not resemble a typical
suburban shopping center or strip
commercial plaza. The retail and
office uses in Planning Area 1 may be
arranged in a "U"-shaped
configuration around a public green
similar to traditional public greens, or
in a linear fashion to form a "Main
Street" with shops and offices oriented
directly onto the street.
Intemat roadway circulation (which
may be implemented by a perimeter
ring road or other similar roadway
configuration) will be provided around
the Main Street area to facilitate
traffic flow in and through Planning
Area 1. The internal roadway system
will distribute traffic to and from
principal access points on the site
--parallel parking (optional)
4 - lane capacity (typ.)
Conceptual Internal Roadway
III-35
3)
rather than on nearby arterial streets. This ring road may also connect Planning Area 1
with Planning Area 2.
Limited on-street parking may be provided on portions of the internal roadway system,
but in areas where the roadways cross parking areas, no on-street parking shall be
allowed. The primary internal access roadway system will most likely be four lanes in
width. The Main Street, on the other hand, will be limited to two through lanes (one in
each direction) in order to foster a pedestrian scale.
Individual buildings within Planning Area 1 may range in height up to 120 feet, provided
that building setbacks and configurations for all structures in excess of 50 feet in height
shall be determined by the City during Development Plan Review to ensure that adequate
light access and air is available to adjacent structures. Typically, buildings should
maintain a pedestrian scale adjacent to the shopping street. For example, the portion(s)
of a building that abuts a public street may be two or three stories in height. Additional
building stories could progressively step back as the building height and number of stories
increases. Not only will such architectural design permit light and air access to
surrounding areas and ensure a pedestrian scale near ground level, but the massiveness
of the building will be substantially reduced.
Separate building entrances shall be required for commerciaFoffice/institutionai and
residential uses when occupying the same structure; provided that this provision does not
preclude internal connections between residential and non-residential uses.
Intensification
In order for the concept of a "Main Street" to truly function, development of a certain
density and intensity is necessary. Greater intensification of land use in this planning area
provides the opportunity for innovative architectural design and landscaping. The higher
concentrations of people will also increase the feasibility of mass transit to serve the site.
Residential uses will be limited to free-standing buildings containing single family
attached or multi-family homes or vertically integrated buildings containing residential
units over office and/or commercial uses. Because of the increased residential density in
this area, it is important that recreational amenities be provided for residents.
Freestanding residential structures, in particular, should contain recreational facilities such
as spas, swimming pools, basketball courts, and weight rooms. These facilities may be
provided within buildings or, if provided outside, may be arranged in interior courtyards
or in walled-in enclosures in interior parking lots. Special consideration should be given
to locating facilities with respect to the noise, activity, and light that they will generate.
Ili-36
4)
fi~-cstandingmttld-fsmITy
with parking
l~reestanding Residential BaHcllngs & Vertically Integral~ ]~ildings
(]tesideDfla] Over Comnterrinl_/Ol~ce Uses) ldth Rl~l~,mflongl Facilities
Pnddnl~ Desiim
IJmlte~i on-stl~el parld-S may be provided ~ P~g ~ 1, p~d,~y ~g ~
~ f~ long~ ~ n ho~ ~ ~o. ~g 1~ s~ ~ p~ ~ ~ ~ of
~vid~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ of ~ ~l~ ~m ~ ~ ~ of
~ for ~ong ~ ~n~
The parking facilities should not be the dominsnt visual imsLJe of Ihe project. Vns~
expanses of paving for paxking, without the visual relief of landscaping, are highly
discouraged. Joint-parking azrangements between co~,,~-~zial, offSee, and institutionnl
I/Se.q at~ ~}ul"aged [0 mlnimiT.~ the number of paxking spaces z~luired to serve the
d~velopmcnt and avoid pro]ifgration of parking lots. In ndai~on, completely scparate
paticing m'cas should be .provided for n~siclences.
Incentives for Innovative Design
Up to 300 mulfi-fnm;ly dwellings can be exected h this plnnn;ng area to provide housing
upyollunities for employees of the various businesses within the Temecula Regionnl
Center Specific Plan. Conversely, the planned conmm~al uses will enable F~uject
residents to do their shopping by foot. The milDJl~ Of IP..~idel~a] ned non-residential land
uses aze dcsignr, d to decrease the Inffic genent~ by project development.
m-37
6)
The pedestrian scale of the project will be enhanced by plazas, courtyards, sidewalk cafes,
public mini-parks, pedestrian easements, and overall project landscaping. Pedestrian
linkages will be provided between uses within Planning Area 1 and between Planning
Area 1 and the larger retail uses in Planning Area 2.
Retail and service commercial uses could predominate on the first floor of the buildings,
with offices and/or residential uses concentrated on the upper floors or behind the
commercial uses. Vertically-integrated buildings offer the opportunity to provide
affordable housing.
Pedestrian-Oriented Design
The small size of Planning Area 1 will encourage pedestrian movement between uses,
while de-emphasizing automobile use. Retail uses are encouraged on street level to
provided streetscape contiguity and visual interest for pedestrians. Continuous expanses
of blank walls or sharp unbroken vertical surfaces create an uncomfortable atmosphere
for the pedestrian. The mixed use area should incorporate the following elements of good
pedestrian-oriented design:
Pedestrian Circulation: Link interior parking areas and lots to city streets, city-
wide open spaces (e.g., plazas, mini-parks, pedestrian malls, etc.) and the City's
trail system to facilitate travel by walking, biking, or other non-motorized means.
Building Facades: The design of building facades, particularly those facades that
face public streets, should be architecturally interesting and in Scale with the
pedestrian. Storefront windows are encouraged in retail shops and, in most cases,
should begin within 18" to 24" of the pavement. Typically, storefront windows
help to entice customers into stores, stimulate visual interest, create "defensible
space" by enhancing public views of store interiors and streets, and establish a
predictable rhythm for passers-by. The scale and width of each storefront should
be limited to establish an intimate scale that is more conducive to the pedestrian
and cyclis~ than to the automobile. In general, storefront widths should relate to
a human scale. Where storefronts must be large to accommodate specific uses,
the building facades could be articulated with windows, insets, pillars, colunms,
arcades or other decorative architectural features to maintain the overall intimacy
of the shopping street.
Signage: A coordinated signage plan for development can facilitate pedestrian
and vehicular movement throughout the planning area, without "visually
assaulting" the senses. Signage should be designed at a scale that is not
overpowering from the pedestrian's perspective. For example, small signs with a
unique texture, shape, or interesting features can be more effective than large,
massive, or glaring signs. This Temecula Regional Center Zoning Ordinance
111-38
7)
8)
contains comprehensive signage criteria for uses within Planning Area 1 (see
Section III.C.1. in this Specific Plan).
Streetscape Design: To encourage human activity and movement, streets should
be designed with the pedestrian in mind. Continuity in landscape design,
placement of street furniture, sitting areas, covered arcades for shelter against the
sun and inclement weather, lighting, and paving patterns all contribute to creating
a rich, functional, and aesthetically pleasing environment for pedestrians.
Pedestrian Plazas: All areas of Planning Area 1, and the Main Street in
particular, should be designed with pedestrian gathering spots and should include
plazas and pocket parks for resting, eating, conversing, and people watching.
Pedestrian plazas that are effectively placed within retail and office districts can
be pleasant spaces for resting or having lunch between shopping trips or errands.
Placement of pedestrian plazas must be carefully planned to assure their most
effective use. For this reason, consideration must be given to the location of
plazas relative to the pedestrian circulation patterns, sunlight conditions, wind
patterns, and the selection of building and landscape materials.
Organization of Activities: The most important element in creating viable
pedestrian spaces has little to do with the actual physical design of the space; if
a space is to be conducive to pedestrian activity, there must be opportunities for
pedestrian events and activities. Therefore, efforts to planning and organizing
festivals, events, special sidewalk sales, entertainment, and cultural displays should
be made to help create desired pedestrian activity. Private marketing efforts
should be encouraged to promote these types of community events.
Signage
This Specific Plan includes a comprehensive signage program for the mixed use
development. The program includes retail commemial entry monumentation, building
identification signage, marquee signage, and directional signage. Although the signage
criteria contained in the Zoning Ordinance in this Specific Plan includes maximum
permitted sign sizes, the individual sign that identifies a given use should be consistent
with the scale and mass of the building on which it is located or which it identifies.
Specific signage materials should be uniform throughout each individual development
within Planning Area 1.
Transit Alternatives/Options
One of the primary objectives of establishing mixed use development within the Temecula
Regional Center Specific Plan is the creation of a density threshold and a mixture of uses
that is capable of supporting transit alternatives to the automobile. Bus turnouts shall be
provided at appropriate locations within Planning Area 1, subject to approval by the City
III-39
~Friday June 3, 199~ 1:22ps -- Page 2I
J~ ~-19~ 1~:19 FROM
o[ Temecula and, if necessary, the Riv~ide- Trnneil: Agi~'y. Adc[itioBa] Wansit coniclor
right-of-way adjacent to Winchester Road on the western edge of tl~ planning area will
allow space fcr development of a mass U'ansit sysw-m (e.g., figt~ rail, el=.) should such
a s~s~cm cvc~ 10c ~onstn~cd.
9) . ViI!-~ Centcr/l~nln Street Dcvclopment Arcs
The Village Centex/Main Street concept shall spply to between 10 to 15 ac~s withi.
Planning Area l. Blocks within the Main Street area shall be defined by a public st~t
grid system- The reminder of the planning area could be developed in a oonventionsl
fashion tRffr, uas~ to matet demand if a contln,,tlon of tiffs concclX is dcte. rn~incd to be
l-qnd Use Devdopment Standards
Please refer to Zone Ordinance No.
c. : Planning Simahrds
in Section ]H.C of this Specific Plan.
1)
In compliance with th~ goals and policies of ltz City's General Plan, Villag~ Center
Overlay and Land Us~ Element Goal 5 - Policies 5.5 through 5.10, it is impoxunt to
crcate a quality environment which establishes a sense of place thtough cal~ftfl
consideration and integration of th~ following dcsign ekaents:
b) Pedestrian
c) Narrow struts and driveways with pedestrian paseos and wide sick:walks.
d)
Fcatums such as pascos, arcades, plazas, courtyaK!s, sqm, galldes and ommtoor
cafes to encourage gathe. dng.
Gathering places such as pavilions. parks and bandstand~ Festivals, cntw~i,~-
meat, sUcct vendors. outdoor markets and other spccial events should be
cncouragcd. ~
Incorporation of fotlDtgin{ and wstex bodies.
g) Uniquc architectural and landscape architectural themes for identity.
h) C. ar~ful parlclng orientation.
HIJA)
iFri~ay June 3, 1~94 12:101:m -- Page 3~
3UN--8:1-1994 11:89 FR0rl Tg,B Pl_~l~IN[i TO l'~r-J69,:16,f'fi P.83
2)
3)
7)
S)
It is i.mponant to not~ that not aH uses allowed in Planning Area I are neo~ssmily
expected to occur. For thl, t~son. some of the above design f,~h,,'CS may not he
~paup, iatc nor cconomically feasible. Foz this reason, only the concept of a ~%tmin
Street' is discussc4i in dcpd3 above. Additional options for lxnsible clevelol~ent in
plnnnln~ Area I axe discussed in Section IV. Design Guidelines, in thll Specific PhiL.
Acc~s into Planning Area 1 will be [n-c,~ic!~d from Margatita Road, Apricot Avcnu~ nna
Winchesw~ Road.
One (1) minor e~try ~oe~in~ is p.~uposed through lhe ViFmc. hest~ Road ll'ans~:~nficm
coHidor into plnnning ~ 1. ~ minor Ci~)g~in~ would pmvicle ril~t-tnr~-oniy acc~s
into t.i~ lvF_umd Us~ Phnnin~ Ax~a (~ Figure I~A). This prolmsal shall ~omply with
· e cu.~:nt M~r~n of U~r~/n8 (MOU) be~'w~n ~ CRy of Tem~ula and
Caltrans as to the location and spacing of mln,x access points along Winchester Road,
Special roadway landscape tre~t~-ats. as those depicted in Figures 14, lg, and 20,
w -.nch:ap~ Amhitecnm:Guidclincs (Sec. IV.E,) ~ be paovided along W~mchest~r Road,
Mnrgnrits Rind and Apricot Avenue.
Major F~try Monumentallon as depict~l in Figure 23, Landscape Architr. cUn'al
G-uicl~ines, Shrill be pmvidexl at the intersections of Winchester Road and Maxgarita Road,
and Margarita Road and Apricot Avenue, and along Margntita Road and W'mchester
Road.
Minor Entry Monumentation, as depicted in Figur~ 25, Landscape An:hit~ctural
Guidelines, shall be provided along Winehearer Road. Mm'garita Road and Apricot
Avenue.
Please refer to Sec. IV. for Specific Dcsign C-uid~lincs and other mlsled design criteria,
Please refer to Sec. Ill.A. for the following Development Plans and Stand,~ds that apply
sit~-wid~:
rnA. l - Specific Land Use Plan
ITI'.A.2 - Ciwulation Plan
IXA,3 - Drainage Plan
HLA.4 - Water and Sewer Plans
m A.s -Pmject Pinsin H~:
m ~.6 - Grading Hart
m-&7 - ~-dscaping Plan
m-A.8 - Maintenance Plan
11141
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
CONCEPTUAL CIRCULATION SYSTEM PHASING PLAN
ADDENDUM EIR
CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1
EIR NO. 348
DRAFT
RECEIVED
dAN 0 8 ]995
gift OF TEMECULA
il
Lead Agency:
CITY OF TEMECULA
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula~ CA 92590
(714) 694-6400
Prepared By:
Douglas Wood & Associates
567 San Nicolas Drive, Suite 301
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(714) 644-7977
Conceptual Circulation System Phasing Plan
F'mdings of the traffic analysis indicate that, at projected build-out of the three Kemper/'Bedford
projects substantial roadway improvements will be needed in the study area. It is important to
recognize that principal roadway improvements which comprise the planned City of Temecula
Circulation Element will be needed in the future whether or not the proposed projects are
implemented. Although these new and improved roadway facilities would be serving the immediate
access needs of these proposed projects and other numerous planned development projects within
the study area, most of the improvements would also play an important role in serving the general
circulation needs of the Temecula commercial core area which straddles the 1-15 corridor. Some of
the improvements (e.g. Winchester Road - S.R. 79 widening and 1-15/W'inchester Road interchange
reconstruction) would even serve future regional circulation needs.
The intent of the "conceptual circulation system phasing plan" developed in this study is to present
a logical implementation sequence for the construction of needed area-wide roadway improvements
which also considers the proposed phasing plan for the proposed Kernper/Bedford projects. It should
be noted that project build-out (assumed Year 2000) roadway needs have essentially been based on
full development (build-out) of all land uses within the immediate study area.
The market driven implementation rate of major development projects in the area will have very
strong influence on the timing of future roadway improvement needs. As these area development
projects are implemented, they will require acetry. Many of the phased roadway improvements
suggested in this plan are intended to provide for those local access needs and at the same time work
towards completing the ultimate area-wide circulation network. In some cases, the phased
improvement is over-designed for the anticipated local development access needs but considers
ultimate needs and the desire to minimize future construction impacts related to phased widenings
(e.g., initially building two lanes and the widening to four lanes at the later date). The assessment
of financing/implementation respons~ilities for area-wide roadway improvements should consider that
the key elements of the planned cixculation system (including the Overland overpass, Data Street
overpass, and Winchester' Interchange improvements) will be needed even if proposed
Kernper/Bedford development projects are not implemented.
Since it ls more difficult to predict the rate and pattern of long-ten (5 to 10 years) development
than short-term (1 to 5 years) development, it should be recognized that the actual roadway needs
for implementation periods beyond 5 years could vary significantly from the conceptual plan
presented in this study. It is also important to consider that many of the roadway improvements
identified would involve a multi-jurisdiction/agency review and coordination proce,~ which could
impact the conceptual implementation plan presented herein.
9
Anticipated Project Development Phasing - Project phasing assumed ha this analysis is based on the
Project Phasing Plan presented in the individual Specific Plan documents. Sue to changing market
strategies, these phasing plans have been developed as a 'guideline' only for City review and
monitoring. Future market demands may dictate varying approaches to phasing which could alter the
currently expected rate and/or sequence of project implementation. Project Phasing Plan assumptions
are illustrated ha Figures 4, 11, and 18 for the Temecula Regional center, Winchester Hills, and
Camps Verdes projects respectively. A more detailed breakdown of project phasing assumptions
including anticipated development status and corresponding trip generation (both incremental and
cumulative) by six analysis time periods is presented for each Kernper/Bedford project in Tables 1
through 3.
Anticipated Background Development - In order to analyze roadway system implementation phasing
needs, it was nece~ary to make general assumptions regarding the rate and location of other area
development. For the purposes of this aases,sment it was assumed that other area development would
build-out at a constant rate over the next eight years and in a manner which would evenly distribute
the new development throughout the study area.
Conceptual Circulation System Phasing - Results of the circulation system phasing assessment are
presented in Figures 5 through 10 (Teme~ula Regional Center), Figures 12 through 17 (V/inchester
Hills), and Figures 19 through 24 (Campos Verdes). It should be noted that the Conceptual
Circulation System Phasing Plan is identical for each of the three projects. The individual phasing
plans differ only in terms of the specific project development status and the corresponding cumulative
project trip generation given for each implementation period.
Our approach in preparing the Conceptual Circulation System Phasing Plan included planning level
asse,~sments which focused on the immediate access needs of each project as well as capacity of key
congestion ~0ottle necks" such as the Winchester Road/Ynez Road intersection and Winchester
Road/I-15 interchange. The proposed roadway improvement implementation sequence has been
formulated to provide incremental stages of relief to these congestion prone areas. Additionally,
Assessment District 161 and Comanunity Facilities District 88-12 have been considered in the
development of the Phasing Plan.
It is important to recognize that the Conceptual Circulation system Phasing Plan presented herein
does not imply that the individual Kernper/Bedford projects would be respons~le for implementing
the roadway improvement needs identified in the Conceptual Phasing Plan. At the same time, it also
need~ to be recognized that the rate at which projects in the study area are permitted to develop
should be correlated to the circulation systems' ability to adequately aciommodate the traffic which
these projects will generate.
!
g
[
I
12
I
l
I
10
I
I
A~ part of our roadway phasing assessment, we have identified a number of improvements which are
currently anticipated to be critical (either directly or indirectly) to the development of the individual
Kemper/Betlford projects. This does not suggest that the identified improvement,' but rather the
timely implementation of the identified improvement would influence the status of traffic congestion
in the area. The resulting congestion levels could influence the City's ability to ~ue building permits.
Temecula Regional Center (Refer to Figure 5 through 10)
Projected 1993-1994 Implementation Period:
Two-lane interim improvement of Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester
Road.
Ynez Road widening from project boundary south to Rancho California Road.
Winchester Road widening from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
New signal installations on Winchester Road to Margafita Road, Nicolas Road, and
Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
Projected 1994 to 1995 Implementation Period:
Extension of Overland Drive [rom Jefferson Avenue to Margafita Road.
Four-lane w~dening of M~rgafita Road from Solana Way to WiOchester Road.
New signal installations on Overland Drive at Jefferson Avenue, Ynez Road, and
Marga~ta Road.
New signal installations on Winchester Road at Temecula Regional Center access
roads.
On-site circulation system improvements/access connections.
Projected 1995 to 1996 Implementation Period WSnchester Road interchange ramp improvements.
Two-lane interim Ynez Road/Jackson Avenue extension to Murrieta Hot Springs
Road.
Projected 1996 to 1998 Implementation Period: Winchester Road interchange overpass widening.
New signal installations on Ynez Road at County Center Drive and Sate Street.
new signal installation on Margafita Road at Date Street
Two-lane extension of General Keamey Road easterly to Nicolas Road.
· Projected 1998 to 1999 Implementation Period:
Date Street overpass improvements.
11
Projected 1999 to 2000 Implementation Period:
Winchester Road widening between 1-15 and Ynez Road.
Jack,son Avenue widening from the Temecula City limit to Murrieta Hot Springs
Road.
Winchester Hills (Refer to Figures 12 through 17)
Projected 1993-1994 Implementation Period:
Four-lane widening of Margarita Road from Winchester Road to Mun'ieta Hot
Springs Road.
· Two-lane interim improvement of Margarita Road from Solaria Way to Winchester
Road.
Four-lane extension of Ynez Road to Date Street alignment
On-site loop street and connector street improvements ~s depicted in Figure 12.
Widening of Jefferson Avenue Erom Date Street to Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
Ynez Road widening from Overland Drive alignment to Rancho California Road.
New signal installation on Winchester Road at Margarita and Murrieta Hot Springs
Road intersections.
Projected 1994-1995 Implementation Period:
Two-lane interim improvement of Date Street west of Ynez Road.
Four-lane improvement of Date Street from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs
Road.
Extension of Overland Drive from Jefferson Avenue to Margarita Road.
Widening of Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road.
Projected 1995-1996 Implementation Period:
Six-lane and two-lane interim improvement on Date Street as depicted n Figure 14.
Four-lane on-site and two-lane interim off-site ·improvement of Ynez Road/Jackson
Avenue to Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
On-site loop street and connector street improvements as illustrated in Figure 14.
Four-way stop control at Date Street/Margarita Road, Ynez Road/Project Connector
Street, and Date Street/Ynez Road intersections.
New signal installations at Date Street/Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Margarita
Road/Project Connector Street intersections.
Winchester Road interchange ramp improvements.
12
Projected 1996-1998 Implementation Period:
Winchester Road interchange 9vetpass widening.
Date Street widening from Lincoln to Margarita Road.
New signal installations on Date Street at Ynez Road, Lincoln and Margarita Road
intersections.
New signal installations on Ynez Road at County Canter Drive and the Project
Connector Street intersections.
Projected 1998-1999 Implementation Period:
Construction of the Date Street overpass and installation of new signals on Date
Street at Madison Avenue and the Business Park access street.
New signal installation at Jackson Avenue/North Business Park access street. ' '
Projected 199%2000 Implementation Period:
Widening of Jackson Avenue between the City limit and Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
Campos Verdes
Projected 1993-1994 ImplemEntation Period:
Two-lane interim improvement of Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester
Road.
Four-lane improvement of General keamey Road from the new Margarita Road
alignment to the easterly project limits.
Solana Way widening between Ynez Road and Margarita Road.
Ynez Road widening from the Overland Drive alignment to Rancho California Road.
Winchester Road widening from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
New signal installations on Margarita Road at Winchester Road and Solana .Way.
Projected 1994-~995 Implementation Period:
Four-lane widening of Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road.
Extension of Overland Drive from Jefferson Avenue to Margarita Road.
New signal installations on Overland Drive at Jefferson Avenue, Ynez Road, and
Margarita.
New signal installation at intersection of Margarita Road and General Kearney Road.
Projected 1995-1996 Implementation Period: Winchester Road interchang~ ramp improvements.
New signal installation at intersection of Margarita Road and Campos Verdes access
mad.
13
Projected 1996-1998 Implementation Period: Winchester Road interchange overpass widening.
Two-lane General Kearney Road extension from easterly project limits to Nicolas
Road.
Projected 1998-2000 Implementation Period:
(No system improvements assessed to be critical to the development of Campos
Verdes.
Recommended Mitigation Measures
The formulation of recommended mitigation measures for the three Kcmper,tBedford urban core
projects has been based on a number factors including:
1. Findings of the original traffic impact studies prepared for the projects;
2. Findings of the project-related traffic utilization analysis of planned area roadway system
capacity; and
3. Findings of the conceptual circulation system phasing analysis.
Asse..~sments of area roadway capacity utilization reveal that cumulative project traffic impacts are
wide-spread but vary significantly in terms of magnitude. Furthermore this analysis also reveals that
project trips are comprised of a combination of new trips and diverted trips. New trips consist of
those project trips which would clearly be added to roadway network such as those vehicle trips which
would have one end of the trip within the project and one end outside of the study area. Diverted
trips de.scribe those project-related trips on area roadways which result from the interaction of land
uses within the projects and other local area land uses (both existing and planned). With diverted
tripS, the associated traffic impacts can not be defined as the responsibility of the projects under study
since the opposite end of these trips, in effect, is being generated by other area land uses. At best
the impacts of these trips could be assessed as the responsibility of the land use which is closest to
the location where the impact occurs. It would not be equitable for the Kernper/Bedford projects
to a~sume full respons~ility for the impact of these diverted trips since elimination of the
Kemper/Bedford projects would not eliminate the land uses which are generating the opposite ends
of the~e trips. Without the Kernper/Bedford projects these trips would essentially be redistributed
to interact with other local or regional development. ..
14
In terms of the dispersion of project related traffic impacts (e.g. roadway capacity utilization), it is
not practical to assess wide.spread roadway implementation cost responsibilities when "fair share'
assessments represent very small portions of the cost to implement individual roadway improvements.
The approach taken in this assessment is one which recogvS--'.~ the cumulative impacts over a
widespread area and concentrates an equivalent mitigation effort in a strategic and more effective
manner.
Recommended mitigation measures for cumulative traffic impacts identified for the Kernper/Bedford
projects are summarized below:
.1. 50 percent implementation responsibility for Jackson Avenue from the Temecula/Murrieta
City limits to Murrieta Hot Spring~ Road.
· winchester Hills is assessed 90 percent of the mitigation.
Temecula Regional Center is assess 10 percent of the Mitigation.
2. 16.6 percent or 1/6th implementation responsibility for the Date Street overpass.
· Winchester HilLs is assessed 100 percent of the mitigation.
28 percent implementation resl:~nsibility for the Winchester Road interchange overpass
widening and currently planned ramp widenings.
Winchester Hills is assessed 17 percent of the mitigation.
Temecula Regional Center is assessed 80 percent of the mitigation.
Campos Verdes is assessed 3 percent of the mitigation.
5 percent implementation responsibility for the Overland Drive overpass improvement
(Jefferson Avenue to Ynez Road).
Temecula Regional Center is assessed 60 percent of the mitigation.
Campos Verdes is assessed 40 percent of the mitigation.
15 percent implementation responsibility for the Ynez Road widening from Overland Drive
to Rancho California Road.
Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 70 percent of the mitigation.
· Winchester Hills is assessed with 15 percent of the mitigation.
Campos Verdes is assessed with 15 percent of the mitigation.
16.6 percent implementation responsibility for the Winchester' Road widening from Margarita
Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 90 percent of the mitigation.
Winchester HilLs is assessed with 5 percent of the mitigation.
Campos Verdes is assessed with 5 percent of the mitigation.
E
i
E
I
I
I
g
15
25 percent implementation responsibility for the four-lane MargaHta Road improvement from
Solana Way to Winchester Road.
Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 65 percent of the mitigation.
· Winchester I-Iills is assessed with 15 percent of the mitigation.
Campos Vetdes is assessed with 20 percent of the mitigation.
15 percent implementation responsibility for the four-lane Margarita Road improvement from
Winchester Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
· Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 35 percent of the mitigation..
· Winchester Hills is assessed with 60 percent of the mitigation.
· Campos Verdes is assessed with 5 percent of the mitigation.
25 percent of the implementation respon~ility for the four-lane Ynez Road improvement
from its present terminus at Equity Drive to the Temecula/Murrieta City limits.
· Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 20 percent of the mitigation.
Winchester Hills ls assessed with 80 percent of the mitigation.
10. 16.6 percent of the implementation responsibility for the six-lane Date Street improvement
from the 1-15 overpass structure to Margafita Road.
Winchester Hills is assessed with 100 percent of the mitigation.
11.13 percent of the implementation responsibility for the four-lane Date Street improvement
from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
Winchester Hills is assessed with 100 percent of the mitigation.
12.
25 percent of the implementation responsibility for the four-lane improvement of Overland
Drive from Ynez Road to Margafita Road.
· Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 80 percent of the mitigation.
· Winchester Hills is asse,s,sed with 10 percent of the mitigation.
· Campos Vetdes is assessed with I0 percent of the mitigation.
13.
30 percent of the implementation responsibility for four-lane improvements responsibility for
four-lane improvement of General Kearney Road from Margafita Road to the easterly
Campos Verdes project boundary.
· Teme. eula Regional Center is assessed with 30 percent of the mitigation.
· Campos Verdes is assessed with 70 percent of the mitigation.
14.
15 percent of the implementation respons~ility for the four-lane improvement of General
Kearney Road from the easterly project limit to Nicolas Road.
· Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 85 percent of the mitigation.
· Campos Verdes is assessed with 15 percent of the mitigation.
16
15. 10 percent of the implementation responsibility for the widening of Solana Way from Ynez
Road to Margarita Road.
· Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 45 percent of the mitigation.
Winchester Hills is assessed with 10 percent of the mitigation.
· Campos Verdes is assessed with 45 percent of the mitigation.
16. 5 percent of the implementation responsibility for the widening of Murrieta Hot Springs Road
from Date Street to Canyon Drive.
· Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 30 percent of the mitigation.
· Winchester Hills is assessed with 70 percent of the mitigation.
17. Signal system implementation responsibilities would be as indication below.
a) ~~~percentresp~nsibi~ityf~r~n~sitesignalswithintheWinchesterH~~lspr~jectinc~uding:
· Date Street signals at Business Park Acc, e:~ Street, Ynez Road, Lincoln, and
Margarita Road;
Ynez Road signals at Business Park Am Street, and Loop Road Connector Street
(near Equity Drive); and
Margarita Road signal at southerly Loop Road Connector Street.
b) 100 percent responsibility for Temecula Regional Center project perimeter access signals
including:
· Winchester Road signal at westerly Regional Center Access Road;
Overland Drive signal at Regional Center Access Road; and
Existing regional modification cosks at Palm Plaza Am and Costco Center Access.
c) 100 percent respons~ility for Campos Verdes Access signals on Margarita Road at
General Kearney Road and Campos Verdes Access Street.
d) 50 percent responsibility for signals located at the following intersections:
· Margarita Road/Winchester Road;
Margafita Road/Overland Drive; and
Ynez Road/Overland Drive.
~) 25 percent responsibility for the signal installations at: · Jackson Avenue/Murrieta Hot Springs Road; and
· Margafita Road/Solana Way.
17
It is important to note that the implementation responsibilities detailed herein do not take into
account Kemper/Bedforcls contributions toward Assessment District 161 and Community Facilities
District 88-12 which together address many of the improvements included in the refined
recommended mitigation measures. Kemper/Bedford should be given credit where appropriate for
assessments involving the project properties and roadway improvements included in the 161 and 88-12
districts. Credits should also be considered for right-of-way dedications involving the recommended
street improvemenu.
In addition to the above listed mitigation measures, the individual Kemper/Bedford projects would
be respons~le for implementing all on-Site project street improvements which have not already been
discussed. IndMdual project mitigation would also include preparation of Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) Programs which meet the requirements of the City's 'soon to be adopted" TDM
ordinance. Please not that the Winchester Hills project, as part of its' mitigation program, has
reserved an easement along the 1-15 property frontage for a potential future collector-distributor
road/interchange system involving Date Street.
18
m,
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
ATTACHMENT "A", MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR EIR NO. 340
R:\STAFFRPT\263SP,PC5 71151o,4 v~w 24
ATrACI1MENT "A"
Mitigation Monitoring Program
EIR No. 340, Specific Plan No. 263
The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan has been assigned by the Traffic Engineer the
following percentage utilization of a percentage implementation responsib'dity for the off-site
circulation improvements noted below. This implementation responsibility for the provision of
off-site roadway improvements is intended to mitigate the project's portion of cumulative traffic
impacts. These improvements and the project's implementation responsib'~ity are listed below:
Improvement
1. Construction of Jackson Avenue from the
TemeculaIMurrieta City Limits to Muraleta Hot
Springs Road
2. Winchester Road interchange overpass
widening and curren~y planned ramp widenings
3. Ove~and Drive overpass improvement
(lefferson Avenue to Ynez Road)
4. Ynez Road widening from Overland Drive to
Rancho California Road
Implementation
Responsibility Assigned to
Temecula Regional Center
5.00%
22.40%
3.00%
10.50%
5. Winchester Road widening from Margarita
Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road
6. Four-lane Margarita Road improvement from
Solana Way to Winchester Road
7. Four-lane Margarita Road improvement from
Winchester Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road
8. Four-lane Ynez Road improvement from its
present terminus at Equity Drive to the
TemeculaIMurrieta City limits
9. Four-lane Overland Drive improvement from
Ynez Road to Margarita Road
10 Four-lane improvement of General Kearny
Road from Margarita Road to the easterly
Campos Verdes project bounda~
11 General Keamy from easterly project limit to
Nicolas Road
16.94%
16.25 %
5.25 %
5.130%
20.00%
9.00%
12.75%
Improvement
12 Widening of Solana Way from Ynez Road to
Margarita Road
13 Widening of Murrieta Hot Springs Road from
Date Street to Canyon Drive
14 Proje~ perimeter access signals on Winchester
Road, Overland Drive, the Palm PbT~ access
and Costco Center access
Implementation
Responsibility Assigned to
Temecula Regional Center
4.50%
1.50%
100.00%
15
Signals'at the intersections of: Margarita
Road/Winchester Road, Margarita
Road/Overland Drive and Ynez Road/Overland
Drive
50.OO%*
16
Signals at the intersections of Jackson 25.O0%*
Avenue/Murrieta Hot Springs Road and
Margarita Road/Solana Road
This percentage implementation responsibility relates to all three Urban Core projects.
Specific percentage responsibility by project is not available.
R:',~',STAFFRPT~d3PP.ME,M 6/2/94 vgw 79
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT LE: I I ER, APRIL 18, 1994
R:\STAFFRPTX263SP.i~C5 7/15/94 vgw 25
Apri118,1994
TEMECULA VALLEY
Unified School District
SUPERINTENDENT
Patbcia B. Novotney, Ed.D.
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Barbara Tooke,
APR 2 I/994
Steve Jiannino
City of Temecula Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
SUBJECT: Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan Conditions
Dear Mr. Jiannino:
The Temecula Valley Unified School District provides the following information from our review of the proposed Specific
Plan presented to the Planning Commission March 21, 1994.
· School Facilities Mitigation Agreement
The proposed development includes the potential for 300 multi-family residential units, generating
approximately 192 students, as follows:
# of students
Elementary School: 84
Middle School: 57
High School: 51
Total 192
This number is lower than the number of 240 students included in the February 1,1994 Draft Temecula Regional Center
EIR.
Prior to Specific Plan approval, a signed mitigation agreement will be required between the developer and the School
District to ensure adequate facilities for these new students, based on the Public Facilities Element of the City General
Plan and the General Plan Implementation Program.
Section V D.5 of the Draft Specific Plan/EIR should be revised to reflect General Plan Policies and updated School
District information as indicated in the attachment.
If you have any questions, please call me at 695-7340,
Dave Gallaher
Director of Facilities Development
CC:
Patricia B. Novotney, Ed.D., Superintendent
John Brooks, Assistant Superintendent Business Services
Lettie Boggs, Coordinator of Facilities Planning
Janet Dixon, Facilities Planning Analyst
Dennis Chiniaeff, KRDC, Inc.
(I'ACCOM%TRCSpECP,LANI
31350 Rancho Vista Road / Temecula. CA 92592 / (909) 676-2661
April 18, 1994
T.R.C. Specific Plan Conditions
Section V D.5
(TVUSD requested update for General Plan consistency - 4/18/94)
SCHOOLS
a. Existino ConditiOns
The proposed project lies within the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) for educational services and facilities. The
District currently operates six elementary (grades K-E) schools, two middle (grades 6-9} schools and two high (grades 9-12) schools.
The attached Table, provided by the District's Facilities Development Department, indicates the current enrollment, permanent
building capacity, and interim (portable classrooms) capacity of each school. As the Table indicates, most District schools are
operating above their permanent building capacity. The portable classrooms are temporary buildings utilized to accommodate the
overflow of students as new permanent facilities are constructed.
b. Project Iml~acts/General Plan Relationship
The Temecula Valley UnZfied School District utilizes the following criteria to calculate student generation.
· Attached Dweilinc~ Units:
Grades K-5 - 0.28 students per unit; Grades 6-8 - 0.19 students per unit;
Grades 9-12 - 0.17 students per unit
Detached Dwellinn Units:
Grades K-5 - 0.39; students per unit; Grades 6-8 - 0.24 students per unit;
Grades 9-12 - 0.25 students per unit
The proposed 300 multi-family residential units located within the "mixed-use" commercial area on-site could potentially gener~
approximately 192 students (utilizing the TVUSD criteria mentioned above). As no school facilities are proposed within the project
boundaries, the estimated 192 students generated by the Temecula Regional Center would require a~commodation off-site. As
previously mentioned, most District schools are currently operating above permanent building capacity. The additional students
generated by this project will place an increased demand upon District facilities which are already impacted.
It should be noted that the 300 multi-family residential units are intended to be located over commercial and office uses as
residential flats. Generally, this type of housing does not attract as many families with school aged children as is reflected in the
student generation data from other types of attached dwelling units. The estimated 192 students associates with the project
portray a "worst-case" scenario. It is anticipated that the number of students generated by the project may be lower than the 192
total.
GENERAL PLAN RELATIONSHIP
The Ternecula Regional Center project site lies within the boundaries of the newly incorpurated City of Temecula. The City General
Plan adopted in October 1993, requires the following mitigation measures with regard to school facilities impacts.
c. General Plan Iml~lementation Procram
In accordance with the Public Facilities Element of the City General Plan and the General Plan Implementation Program, the impact
of the new students from this project shall be mitigated through a mitigation agreement signed by the developer and the District,
prior to Specific Plan approvals. The developer and District may agree to use one or more of the following financing mechanisms:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Payment of school fees
Dedication of land and/or facilities
Establishment of or annexation to a Community Facilities District
Levying of a special tax
Other alternatives agreed upon by the Developer and the District
d. Level of Si(~nificance After Miti~tation
Upon completion of the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to Schools will be reduced to an
~nsignificant level.
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
DRAFT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, JULY !8, 1994
R:%STAFFRPT~63SP.CC 9t'7/94 klb ~0
Chairman Ford declared a recess at 7:17 P.M.
7:29 P.M.
The meeting was reconvened
9. Specific Plan No. 263 and Chance of Zone No. 5589
Specific Plan proposing a 1,375,000 square foot Commercial Core, 810,000
square feet of Office/institutional and Mixed Use Residential with 298,000
square feet of retail with an accompanying Change of Zone request changing
the zone from R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural 20 acre
minimum lot size) to SP (Specific Plan). Located south of Winchester Road
between Ynez and Margarita Roads,
Senior Planner Debbie Ubnoske presented the staff report stating the
proposed project had been continued from the June 6, 1994 Planning
Commission meeting.
Commissioner Fahey stated that Condition No. 58 of the Conditions of
Approval should more clearly state that it applied specifically to residential
development in the Specific Plan.
Planner Ubnoske stated the primary issue for the Regional Center is the
Village Center Concept which was carried over from the May 23, 1994
meeting,
Chairman Ford opened the public hearing at 7:30 P,M.
Dennis Chiniaeff, representative for Kernper Community Development
Company, 27555 Ynez Road, inquired as to the conditions which allow some
community development to occur which interest both the City and Kernper.
Mr. Chiniaeff also said the conditions should be balanced in terms of
property improvements and area improvements. He also questioned whether
Condition No. 12 of the Conditions of Approval applied to the residential
portions of the proposed project. Mr. Chiniaeff asked about Condition No.
18 and the Developer Fee for commercial, office and residential; his
understanding is that these were Facilities fees.
Director Thornhill stated that Condition No, 12 relating to School District
fees does apply to the residential portion of the project.
Assistant City Attorney, Greg Diaz added legal comments relating to the
School Mitigation issue and the impact fee both of which have not been
resolved by the City Council and is under State Law.
Dennis Chiniaeff asked about the payment of $10,000.00 for Community
Facility Fees and whether the fee could be prepaid.
Assistant City Attorney Diaz stated that the $10,000.00 fee could not be
prepaid.
Condition No. 20 to be changed from "of any subsequent development
application" to "for each subsequent development application."
Mr. Chiniaeff, the applicant, inquired about Condition No. 28, Bullet No. 3
regarding the infrastructure being in place prior to issuance of occupancy
permits and the dedication of the right-of-way for the construction of
Winchester Road. Mr. Chiniaeff stated that the Right-of-Way was intended
to be purchased under CFD 88-12. He requested that a provision be made
stating that the acquisition cost be reimbursed for the required right-of-way.
Condition No. 30 states "the developer is responsible to bond and construct
traffic signals..." The word prior should be struck from the condition.
Condition No. 43 should include "unless approved by the Director of Public
Works for street purposes."
Commissioner Hoagland asked about Condition No. 30 and the method of
reimbursement when improving property other than own and that the
improvements are also part of Campos Verdes.
Tim Serlet, Director of Public Works stated that the Right-of-Way
reimbursement money went to the City for expended funds.
Planning Director Thornhill stated that Condition No. 60 should read "...open
space in residential areas shall be maintained..."
It was moved by CommiSsioner Hoagiand, seconded by Commissioner Fahey
to close the Public Hearing at 7:45 P.M. and Adopt Resolution No. 94-__
recommending approval of Specific Plan No. 263 and Change of Zone No.
5589 based on Staff's recommendations subject to the Conditions of
Approval including modifications to Condition No(s) 12, 20, 28, 30, 43, 58,
and 60 as discussed, seconded by Commissioner Fahey.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Fahey, Hoagland, Salyer, Ford
NOES: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMISSIONERS: None
Commissioner Hoagland moved to re-order the remaining Agenda items so that
Item 10 follow the Planning Director's Report and other Commission business,
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Director ThOrnhill stated that the Johnson Ranch hearing needed to be reschedulec
"~e to noticing.
PLAI~, elNG COMMISSION DISCUSSION
None
OTHER BUSINL,'q
None
10.
Specific Plan No. 1, C,-. ~noe of Zone No. 56
Reoort No. 348
Environmental linDact
Specific Plan proposing 308 :-,W residential units, 12 acres of
Commercial, approximately 13~ ~s of Office/Commercial/Church/
Detention, 10.8 acres of Park E - q.7 acre Elementary School Site with an
accompanying Change of Z u~_ * changing the zoning from R-R (Rural
Residential) and A-2-20 Agricul'L 'al, 20 acre minimum lot size) to SP
(Specific Plan).
Commissioners and Fahey excused tl .~ inselves from the meeting at
7:55 P.M. conflict of interest.
Senior PI Debbie Ubnoske presented the staff red t and stated that the
pro' originally heard at the June 6, 1994 Planning 'oremission
me Planner Ubnoske stated that the opening of Sandc, ';ng Way and/or
Street needed to be discussed by the Commission.
AT'I'ACHMENT NO. 9
ADDENDUM TO FEIR 340 CONTAINING MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT
.T+e ~,~ 44 2-3
-~
ADDENDUM EIR #2
TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 263
EIR NO. 340
Lead Agency:
CITY OF TEMECULA
43174 Business Park Drive
Temeculs, CA 92590
(714) 694-6400
Prepared By:
Douglas Wood & Associates, Inc.
567 San Nicolas Drive, Suite 106
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(714) 644-7977
September, 1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction and Purpose
A. Background .......................................... 1
B. Purpose .............................................
C. Sxlmmary Analysis ..................................... 3
II. Environmental Analysis ....................................... 3
At~chme~s
A. Planning Commission Recommended Circulation Conditions of Approval
B. Mitigation Monitoring Program
ADDENDUM EIR
TEMECULA REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN
I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
A. Backmound
The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact
Report (EIR No. 340) was circulated for public review by the City of Temecula
between June 21, 1991 and August 4, 1991. This circulation was in conformance with
Section 15086, et.seq. of the State CEQA Guidelines which state that the Lead Agency
(City of Temecuia) shall consuit with and request comments on the Draft EIR from:
responsible agencies, trustee or other State, Federal or local agencies as well as
consulting directly with any person who has special expertise with respect to any
environmental impact involved.
In February, 1993, an Addendum to the Draft EIR for the Temecula Regional
Center Specific Plan was prepared. The purpose of this first Addendum EIR was
three-fold: 1) to respond to various comments made by the City of Temecula as a
result of their review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Temecula
Regional Center Specific Plan; 2) incorporate subsequently-prepared technical
analyses (in the areas of traffic/circulation and drainage/flooding) into the Final
Environmental Impact Report; and 3) integrate any additional or revised mitigation
measures resulting from the concerns raised by the City or as a result of the
subsequently-prepared techn/cal studies into the Mitigation Monitoring Program for
the project.
In July, 1993, the City of Temecula considered and approved a development
application for a proposed Wal-Mart Store (Plot Plan 243) within the 201.2 acre
Temecula Regional Center site. The Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR No.
340) was certified as complete by the City of Temecula at that time. The certified
Final EIR imposed certain mitigation measures on the Wal-Mart proposal which were
intended to respond to and mitigate impacts associated with that project. At that
time, it was decided to delay consideration of the remainder of the Temecula Regional
Center to a future date.
In the course of reviewing the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan, the City
of Temecula Planning Commission and City staff focussed on certain mitigation
measures identified in the Temecula Regional Center Final EIR with the intent of
identifying those mitigations that have already been accomplished through developor
participation in Assessment District No. 161 and Community Facilities District No.
88-12 and to maximi~e the benefit to the City of other mitigation requirements. This
second Addend,,m to the Final EIR analyzes the mitigation requirements for the
Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan as contained in the Planning Commission's
Recommended Conditions of Approval as compared to the mitigations specified in the
1
Fins] EIR including the changes analyzed in fwst Addendum to the Draft EIR.
The information contained herein is intended to provide decision-makers with
clarification regarding the potential environmental impacts of and mitigation
measures for the proposed project. This environmental information is considered to
be an Addendnm to the Temecula Regional Center Final EIR in accordance with
Section 15164 of the State CEQA Guidelines which states:
(a)
The Lead Agency or a Responsible Agency shall prepare an
Addendure to an EIR if:
(1)
None of the conditions described in Section
15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent
EIR have occurred (i.e. substantial project
revisions, changes in circumstances
surrounding the project, or additional project
impacts, mitigations or alternatives becoming
feasible or available);
(2)
Only minor technical changes or additions are
necessary to make the EIR under
consideration adequate under CEQA; and
(3)
The changes to the EIR made by the
Addendum do not raise important new issues
about the significant effects on the
environment.
An Addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be
included in or attached to the Final EIR.
This Addendum EIR in combination with the previously-certffied Final EIR,
which includes the Response to Comments package, the previously-prepared first
Addendum to the Draft EIR, Staff Report and any other attachments and technical
reports, constitute the revised Fina| EIR for the Temecula Regional Center Specific
Plan.
This Addendum to the Temecula Regional Specific Plan Final Environmental
Impact Report has been prepared for the City of Temecula in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended, and City Guidelines for
the Implementation of CEQA. More specffically, the City has relied on Section
15064(d)(3) of the State Guidelines which allow acceptance of drafts prepared by the
applicant, consultant retained by the applicant, or any other person. The City of
Temecula, as Lead Agency, has reviewed and edited as necessary the submitted
"screencheck" copies of the Draft EIR, the Response to Comments package, the
previously-prepared Addendure EIR which comprised the previously-certified Final
EIR, and this Addendure to the Final EIR to reflect their own independent judgemerit
2
to the extent of their ability.
In accordance with Section 15021 of the State EIR Guidelines, this Addendure
to the Final EIR is intended to enable the City of Temecula, as Lead Agency, to
evaluate environmental effects associated with the proposed Temecula Regional
Center Specific Plan and to further analyze measures to reduce the magnitude of any
adverse effects. The Lead Agency has an obligation to balance possible adverse effects
of the project against a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental
and social factors, in determining whether the project is acceptable and approved for
development.
Snmma.ry Allal.y~$
Based upon the analyses and discussions contained in Section II.,
Environmental Analysis of this Addendure to the Final EIR, the currently-proposed
traffic and circulation-related Conditions of Approval relates to and conforms with
similar mitigation requirements and implementation responsibilities contained within
the Temecula Regional Center Mitigation Monitoring Program. These Conditions of
Approval refine and assist in the implementation of Mitigation Measures contained
in the Final Environmental Impact Report.
H. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Temecula Regional
Center Specific Plan and the first Addendure to the Draft EIR identified various
roadways, intersections, freeway interchanges and other traffic control devices to be
impacted, either directly or cumulatively, by the Temecula Regional Center project.
The extent of implementation responsibility of the Temecula Regional Center project
to mitigate these project-related impacts was assigned through analyses contained in
the first Addendure to the Draft EIR (pages 18 through 20 of the text and in more
detail on pages 10 through 18 of Attachment C of the first Addendum).
In considering the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan in light of the
analyses and changas noted above, the City Staff analyzed the current status of
roadway and intersection improvements which have been completed or are committed
to under Assessment District No. 161 and Community Facilities District No. 88-12
against the mitigation responsibility requirements previously assigned to the
Temecula Regional Center project.
As a result of all of these above considerations, the City Staff has formulated
and the Planning Commission has recommended a total of ten Conditions of Approval
related to circulation. (A complete listing of these circulation-related Conditions is
included as Attachment A to this Addendum.) These Conditions of Approval require
a variety of traffic plans, reports and physical circulation improvements which are
either attributed partially or solely to the Temecula Regional Center project. These
Conditions are intended to mitigate impacts generated by or otherwise associated with
the Temecula Regional Center project.
3
Provided below is a summarized listing of these recommended circulation-
related Conditions of Approval followed by an indication of the related Final EIR
mitigation measure (as listed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, a copy of which
is included as Attachment B to this Addendure.) Also noted below is the respective
Responsible Monitoring Party and the milestone in the development process at which
point the Condition would be implemented (pursuant to the Mitigation Monitoring
Program and/or recommended Conditions of Approval).
CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Developer must enter into an agreement with
the City for a "Trip Reduction Plan" per Ordinance No. 93-01 (see recon~mended
Conditions of Approval included as Attachment A).
Related Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 27 (see Mitigation Monitoring
Program included as Attachment B) requires preparation of a Transportation Demand
Management Plan prior to any subsequent development applications in accordance
with Ordinance No. 93-01.
Responsible Monitoring Parties: City of Temecula, Planning Department.
Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires
implementation of this Condition prior to the approval of Development Plans or the
issuance of Building Permits. This conforms with the requirement in the
recommended Condition of Approval for inclusion of a Plan as a condition with "any
subsequent Development Application".
CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Adequate primary and secondary access will be
provided for each development phase.
Related MitiEation Measure: Mitigation Measure 24 requires the developer be
responsible for direct project access improvements along the site boundaries and other
off-site improvements.
Responsible Monitorin2 Party: City of Temecula, Public Works Department
Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires
implementation of this Condition prior to the issuance of Grading Permits,
Development Plan approval, and at Final Inspection. This conforms with the
requirement within the Condition of Approval for review of access plans at the time
of submittal of individual development applications.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: All street sections shall correspond with
Typical Roadway Cross Sections and requirements of the Circulation Element of the
City General Plan, City ordinances and standards. All intersection intervals shall
comply with City and Caltrans approvals.
4
Related Mitigation Measure: While no mitigation measures in the Final EIR
relate directly to these Conditions, all of the environmental analyses and traffic
studies prepared for the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan assume conformance
with City General Plan requirements, City standards and ordinances and Caltrans
requirements in effect at the time of project development.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The Developer shall provide bus bays and
shelters and any associated rights-of-way within the Specific Plan, the location and
number of which are subject to approval by the City of Temecula and the Riverside
Transportation Department.
Related Miti2ation Measure: Mitigation Measure 27 requires "promotion of
future public transit through the adoption of appropriate planning ordinances which
would require special transit-oriented design features".
Responsible Monitorin2 Parties: City of Temecula, Planning Department.
Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires
implementation of this Condition prior to the issuance of Grading Permits,
Development Plan approval, and at Final Inspection.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL: All improvements have been or will be
Conditions based on project traffic studies and phasing plans from Section III.A.7. of
the Specific Plan. Any substantive rephasing of the project must be approved by the
Planning Commission. All on- and off-site circulation improvements must be
constructed and/or bonded as required by the Department of Public Works.
Related Mitigation Measure: While no Mitigation Measures in the Final EIR
relate directly to this Condition, all of the environmental analyses and traffic studies
prepared for the Temeeula Regional Center Specific Plan assume development of
roadway improvements pursuant to the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Traffic reports analyzing traffic impacts
associated with subsequent development stages of the Specific Plan shall identify
implementation and timing of the necessary improvements to mitigate cumulative
traffic impacts.
Related Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 29 requires preparation of
Supplemental Traffic Analyses prior to approval of any individual projects (i.e. plot
plan applications, etc.).
Resnonsible Monitorin2 Parties: City of Temecula, Planning Department.
Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires
implementation of this Condition prior to the approval of Development Plans. This
5
conforms with the requirement in the recommended Condition of Approval for
submittal of studies with subsequent development applications.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The following infrastructure
improvements/reimbursements shall be completed by the Developer prior to the
issuance of occupancy permits (unless otherwise noted):
- Winchester Read parkway improvements adjacent to Phase One of the project
including sidewalks, landscaping and street lights.
- Bonding for traffic signals and any associated street improvements at the
project accesses from Overland Drive, Ynez Road, and Winchester Read prior
to recordation of Final Subdivision Maps or issuance of Grading Permits.
Signals wffi be installed in accordance with subsequent traffic signal warrant
analyses.
- Dedication of all necessary right-of-way for the construction of the Winchester
Read overpass at Interstate 15 and interchange ramps and additional right-of-
way necessm7 for widening of Winchester Read from Ynez Road to the
interchange. The developer, the City and CFD 88-12 shall enter into a
reimbursement agreement for costs of right-of-way acquisition.
- Execution of a reimbursement agreement between the City and the Developer
to reimburse the City for the cost of the existing improvements along Margarita
Road from Solana Way to Winchester Read.
Related Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 24 requires the developer be
responsible for direct project access improvements along the site boundaries and other
off-site improvements. Mitigation Measure 25 requires that the property
owner/developer be a principal participant in the Ynez Corridor Community Facilities
District 88-12 and the Winchester Assessment District 161.
Resnonsible Monitoring Party: City of Temecula, Public Works Department
Miti2ation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires
implementation of this Condition prior to the issuance of Grading Permits,
Development Plan approval, and at Final Inspection. This conforms to the
requirement within the Condition of Approval for submittal of studies with
subsequent development applications and provision of improvements prior to issuance
of any Occupancy Permits, Final Subdivision Map recordation, or the issuance of
Grading Permits.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The following infrastructure
improvements/reimbursements shall be completed by the Developer prior to the
issuance of Occupancy Permits for any development above a cumulative total of
750,000 square feet:
- Support the Community Facilities District 88-12 Supplemental Bond Sales
necessexy for the construction of Overland Drive, from Ynez Read to Jefferson
6
Avenue (including the 1-15 overpass) in sccordance with the City General Plan
which will include traffic signals at the intersections of Overland Drive with
Ynez Road, Jefferson Avenue, and Margarita Road.
- Bonding for improvements to Margarita Read from Solana Way to Winchester
Road in accordance with the City General Plan prior to Final Map recordation
or issuance of Grading Permits.
- Bonding for full street improvements to Overland Drive from Margarita Read
to Ynez Read in accordance with the City General Plan prior to Final
Subdivision Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permits.
Related Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 24 requires the Developer be
responsible for access improvements along the project boundaries. Mitigation
Measure 25 requires that the property owner/developer be a principal participant in
the Ynez Corridor Community Facilities District 88-12 and the Winchester
Assessment District 161.
Resnonsible Monitoring Party: City of Temecula, Public Works Department.
Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires
implementation of this Condition prior to the issuance of Grading Permits,
Development Plan approval, and at Final Inspection. This conforms to the
requirements in the Condition of Approval for bonding of improvements prior to
recordation of the Final Subdivision Maps or issuance of Grading Permits and
completion of these improvements prior to issuance of Occupancy Permits for any
development above a cumulative total of 750,000 square feet.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The Developer shall bond for and construct
traffic signals at the following intersections. The Developor shall analyze traffic signal
warrants and install the signals accordingly:
-Margarita Read at Winchester Read (upgrade existing signal)
-Margarita Read at North General Kearny Read
Related Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 24 requires the developor be
responsible for access improvements along the project boundaries.
Resnonsible Monitorin~ Party: City of Temecula, Pubhc Works Department
Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires
implementation of the Condition prior to the issuance of Grading Permits,
Development Plan approval, and at Final Inspection. Bonding of improvements occur
prior to recordation of Final Subdivision Maps or issuance of Grading Permits which
is consistent 'with the intent of the Mitigation Measure.
CONCLUSION: Based upon the analyses contained within this Addendam to
the Final EIR, the proposed .circulation-related Conditions of Approval refine and
assist in the implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained within the certified
Final Environmental Impact Report.
7
A~'rACHMENT A
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
D AFT
Specific Plan No. 263 (Regional Center)
Project Description: A Specific Plan proposing a 1,375,000 square foot commercial
core, 810,000square feet of Office\Institutional with possible Multi-Family Residential,
and an additional 298,000 square feet of Retail Commercial with an accompanying
Change of Zone request changing the zoning from R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20
(Heavy Agriculture, 20 acre minimum) to SP (Specific Plan).
Assessor's Parcel No.: 910-130o046and 047,921-090-005,006 and 007
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
General Conditions
The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, it
agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City
of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning
Specific Plan No. 263, which action is brought within the time period provided for in
California Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of Temecula will promptly
notify the applicant 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 applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the
defense, the applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold
harmless the City of Temecula.
All development within this site shall be in accordance with the requirements of all City
ordinances, except as expressly modified herein, and State laws, and shall conform
with the approved Specific Plan. Regulations or procedures not covered by the Specific
Plan or appurtenant documents shall be subject to the City ordinances in effect at the
time entitlement is required.
This project and all subsequent projects within the site shall comply with all mitigation
measures identified within EIR No. 340 and the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program.
Prior to issuance of grading permits, approval of development permits, recordation of
final maps, issuance of building permits and issuance of occupancy permits for any
subsequent projects or activities within the site the applicant/developer shall
demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in
the Mitigation Monitoring Program within EIR No. 348 have been satisfied for the stage
of development that permits are being issued for.
Prior to the City Council hearing, Planning Area 3 shall be changed to Business Park
and the appropriate zoning and development standards shall be established for Business
Park designation.
The Landscape Development Zone (LDZ), which includes the Transportation Corridor,
along Winchester Road shall be thirty-seven feet (37') in width and shall be shown on
all subsequent development proposal site plans and tentative maps.
Prior to approval of any map or development proposal within each Planning Area within
the Specific Plan, a detailed design manual for each Planning Area shall be submitted
for review and approval by the Planning Commission.
Within thirty (30) days of the final approval of the project by City Council, the Specific
Plan and the Final Environmental Impact Report shall be submitted to the Planning
Department in final form for review and approval. The final form shall include all
conditions of approval and all modifications made by the Planing Commission and City
Council. A master print copy (8~" X 11 ") and four (4) copies of the documents shall
be submitted.
Prior to approval of any development plans, all subsequent projects shall receive
appropriate clearances, conditions and approvals from all agencies with jurisdiction on
project review. These agencies shall be determined by the Planning Director and the
City Engineer.
10.
The developer or the developer's successor-in-interest shall be responsible for
maintaining the undeveloped portion of the site including weed abatement and litter
removal.
11.
The applicant shall deposit sufficient funds with the City o,'Temecula to retain the
services of a qualified consultant to administer and implemem: the Mitigation Monitoring
Program approved for this project as part of Environmental Impact Report 340 in
compliance with Assembly Bill 3180.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
12.
Prior to issuance of any occupancy permits for the project, the project applicant shall
enter into a binding mitigation agreement the with the Temecula Valley Unified School
District to ensure the mitigation of the new students generated by this Specific Plan.
13.
If any of these conditions of approval differ from the commitment by the Developer
made in the Specific Plan text or map exhibits or any other documents, the conditions
enumerated herein shall take precedence.
14.
Any proposed amendment to this Specific Plan shall require public hearings and review
by the Planning Commission and City Council, and/or shall be reviewed in accordance
with such rules and regulations for the review of Specific Plan Amendments as may
have been adopted by the City and which are in effect at the time of any proposed
amendment is submitted.
15. The developer shall satisfy all the Quimby Act requirements for the project.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this project, and
shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true
meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff person of the Department
of Public Works.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
16.
All utility systems such as electric, including those which provide direct service to the
project site and/or currently exist along public rights-of-ways adjacent to the site
(except electrical lines rated 33 kv or greater), gas, telephone, water, sewer, and cable
TV shall be placed underground, with easements provided as required, and designed
and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider.
17.
Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, as deemed necessary by the Department
of Public Works, the Developer shall consult with the State of California Department
of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
to determine if permits or approvals are necessary from such agencies for any action
contemplated by this proposal. Such consultation shall be in writing, and copies of said
correspondence, including responses from agencies, shall be submitted to the City.
Where appropriate, the terms, conditions, and recommendations of the noted agencies
shall be incorporated as Conditions of Approval into the areas of development.
18.
Prior to issuance of building permits for the various phases of development, the
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. The fee to be paid shall be
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
the Developer requests its building permit for the project or any phase thereof, the
Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment of Public Facility Fee.
Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, the Developer shall post a bond to secure
payment of the Public Facility Fee. The amount of the bond shall be 82.00 per square
foot, not to exceed 810,000. The 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). By execution of this Agreement, the Developer will
waive any right to protest the provisions of this condition, of this Agreement, the
formation of any traffic impact fee district, or the process, levy, or collection of any
traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project; provided. that the Developer is not
waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the
amount thereof.
19.
Landscaping and permanent irrigation facilities shall be installed with street
improvements. Perimeter walls if constructed shall be treated with graffiti-resistant
coating and shall be installed adjacent to street improvements within each phase.
20.
A phasing plan addressing the schedule of necessary infrastructure requirements shall
be approved by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Director prior to
approval cf ~' for each subsequent development application. (Amended by Planning
Commission on July 18, 1994)
CIRCULATION
21.
As a condition of approval for any subsequent development application associated with
this Specific Plan, the Developer must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip
Reduction Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01.
22.
Adequate primary and secondary access shall be provided for each phase of
development as approved by the Departmerit of Public Works. Access to office and
commercial areas shall be reviewed by the Department of Public Works at the time of
submittal of individual development applications.
23.
All street sections shall correspond with Typical Roadway Cross Sections and
requirements of the Circulation Element of City's General Plan, City ordinances and
standards.
24.
All intersections intervals shall comply with City and Caltrans standards and
requirements. Accesses shown from Winchester Road to the site are conditional upon
Caltrans' approval. Approval for accesses not currently shown on the City's
Memorandum of Understanding with Caltrans will be required prior to subsequent
discretionary approvals or any permits being issued by the Ci~/.-.
25.
The Developer shall provide bus bays and shelters within The Specific Plan. Location
and number of bus bays shall be subject to approval of the City and Riverside
Transportation Agency (RTA). If required additional rights-of-way dedications
associated with bus bays shall be provided by the Developer.
26.
Necessary improvements have been/will be conditioned based on the project traffic
studies and the conceptual phasing plan shown on Section III. A. 7. of the Specific
Plan. Any substantive rephasing of the development must be approved by the Planning
Commission through a rephasing application. A rephasing of the development
considered to be minor or in substantial conformance with the construction phasing
plan approved with the adoption of the Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan, as
determined by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Director, may be
approved administratively through applicable City procedures. Prior to the issuance of
occupancy permits within any phase, all on and offsite improvements as referred to in
the Traffic Reports and subsequent addenda along with additional requirements set
herein, or as set by conditions on individual tracts, must be constructed and/or bonded
as required by the Department of Public Works.
27.
Ensuing Traffic Reports, analyzing traffic impacts associated with subsequent
development stages of the Specific Plan, shall be submitted to identify implementation
and timing of the necessary improvements to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts.
28. The following infrastructure improvements/reimbursements shall be completed prior to
issuance of any occupancy:
29.
Winchester Road parkway improvements, adjacent to Phase One, including
sidewalks, landscaping, and street lights shall be completed by the Developer.
Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer is
responsible to bond for the traffic signals at the project's accesses from
Overland Drive, Ynez Road, and Winchester Road, as required, including the
associated street improvements, based on traffic signal warrants analysis
relative to subsequent develol~ment applioations.
Dedicate all necessary right-of-way for the construction of the Winchester Road
overpass at Interstate 15 (I-15) and the interchange ramps atong with
associated additional right-of-way necessary forthe widening and improvements
to Winchester Road from Ynez Road to the interchange. The Developer, the
City, and CFD 88-12 shall enter into an agreement that provides for the
reimbursement of acquisition cost of the required right-of-way. (Added by
Planning Commission on July 18, 1994)
A reimbursement agreement shall be executed between the Developer and the
City to reimburse the City the cost of the existing improvements along
Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road.
The following infrastructure improvements/reimbursementsshall be completed prior to
issuance of occupancy for any development above a cumulative total of 750,000 SF.
The Developer shall support the Community Facilit;es District (CFD) 88-12
supplemental bond sales necessary for the construction of Overland Drive, from
Ynez Road to Jefferson Avenue (including the I-15 overpass), in accordance
with the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's General Plan classifying
Overland Drive as a Secondary Highway with 88 foot full width right-of-way,
and including the traffic signals at the intersections of Overland Drive and Ynez
Road, Jefferson Avenue, and Margarita Road.
Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit Developer shall
bond for the improvements to Margarita Road, from Solana Way to Winchester
Road, including a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median, in accordance with
the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's General Plan classifying Margarita
Road as an Arterial Highway with 110 foot full width right-of-way with a
reimbursement agreement.
Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer shall
bond for full street improvements to Overland Drive, from Margarita Road to
Ynez Road, including a 12 foot wide raised landscaped median, in accordance
with the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's General Plan classifying
Overland Drive as a Major Highway with 100 foot full width right-of-way with
a reimbursement agreement.
30.
Drainage
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38,
Water
39.
The Developer is responsible to bond for F, ricr and construct the traffic signals at the
intersections listed below. The Developer shall analyze the traffic signal warrants and
shall install the traffic signals accordingly and/or as directed by the Department of
Public Works at the following intersections: (Amended by Planning Commission on July
18, 1994)
Margarita Road and Winchester Road (upgrade the existing signal)
Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road
Drainage and flood control facilities shall be provided in accordance with the
requirements of the City and/or Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District (RCFC&WCD).
Prior to approval of any subsequent development applications, the Developer shall
submit the master drainage plan to the City and RCFC&WCD to review the adequacy
of the proposed and existing downstream drainage facilities.
Drainage facilities within each phase shall be constructed immediately after the
completion of the site grading and prior to or concurrently with the initial site
development within that phase.
All drainage facilities shall be designed to carry 100 year storm flows, subject to the
approval of the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCL'),,as applicable.
The Developer shall construct the proposed on and affsite drainage facility
improvements and the offsite detention basin provision as recommended in the Specific
Plan and Drainage Study documents and/or as directed by the Department of Public
Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable.
As required by the Department of Public Works, additional Hydrology and Hydraulic
Reports shall be submitted with subsequent development applications to study the
drainage impacts and analyze necessary measures to mitigate the runoff created as
part of the development of this project.
The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto
or through the site.
The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration
of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be
provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing
facilities or by securing drainage easements.
and Sewer
Water and sewer facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and
specifications of the City, Rancho California Water District (RCWD), and Eastern
Municipal Water District (EMWD). Such requirements shall be applied at the subdivision
or plot plan stages of the development.
R:~STA~63SP.PC~ 911194 vru 17
40.
Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall
submit the mas~er water plan to RCWD to check for adequacy of the proposed water
facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the water system from
RCWD.
41.
Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall
submit the master sewer plan to EMWD to check for adequacy of the proposed sewer
facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the sewer system from
EMWD.
42.
Prior to the recordation of any tract map, commercial parcel map, or appro~/al of any
plot plan application, the Developer shall provide the City with evidence that adequate
wastewater treatment facilities are being provided to meet the needs of the Temecula
Regional Center Specific Ran development.
Grading
43.
No grading shall be permitted for any development area prior to tentative map or plot
plan approval and issuance of grading permits for the specific area of development
unless approved by the Director of Public Works for street purposes. (Added by
Planning Commission on July 18, 1994)
44.
Grading plans and operations shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code,
City Grading Standards, the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report,
or any subsequent reports prepared for the project, the c~nditions of the grading
permit, and accepted grading construction practices and the recommendations and
standards specified in the Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
document.
45.
Prior to issuance of any grading permit, Erosion Control plans shall be prepared in
conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department
of Public Works. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement
guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements.
The Developer shall comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulated by the State Water Resources Control
Board, and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) implemented by the San
Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board.
47.
Each subsequent application for a phase of development shall include a conceptual
grading plan to indicate at a minimum:
· Preliminary quantity estimates for grading.
Techniques and methods which will be used to prevent eFosion and
sedimentation during and after the grading process in compliance with the City
Standards and NPDES requirements.
· Preliminary pad and roadway elevations.
· Designation of the borrow or stockpile site location for import/export material.
Approximate time frames for development including the identification of areas
which will be graded during the rainy months.
· Hydrology and hydraulic concerns and mitigations.
48.
Major grading activities shall be scheduled during the dry season wherever possible.
or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works.
49.
Soils stabilization, which may include revegetation of graded areas, shall occur within
30 days of final grading activities as directed by the Department of Public Works.
50. The site shall be watered during grading operations to control dust.
51.
Temporary drainage and sediment control devices shall be installed as directed by the
Department of Public Works.
52.
An import/export route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to
issuance of any grading permit. The plan shall include limitation to the duration of the
grading operation and construction activities, a Traffic Control Plan, and a daily time
schedule of operations.
53.
Prior to issuance of any grading permit, a soils reports sl',:~ll be submitted to the
Department of Public Works for review and approval, to address engineering, geologic,
seismic, and soils engineering concerns for each tentative map or commercial parcel
map for each phase of proposed development.
54.
All public streets shall be maintained and cleaned if necessary on a daily basis during
grading operation and construction activities. Cash deposit, letter of credit or posting
of bond to guarantee maintenance of all public rights-of-way affected by the grading
operations and construction activities, shall be posted prior to issuance of grading
permits.
55.
If subsequent Geotechnical and Soils Reports determine that dewatering of the site is
necessary during construction, necessary permits (ie. in compliance with NPDES
permit) shall be obtained from appropriate agencies prior to approval of the grading
plans.
Phasing
56.
Construction of the development permitted by the Specific Plan, including recordation
of final subdivision maps, may be carried out in stages provided that, adequate
vehicular access is constructed for all dwelling units in each stage of development and
further provided that such development conforms substantially with the intent and
purpose of the Specific Plan Phasing Plan.
57.
Development applications shall be submitted for each planning unit in each phase. Total
acreage and land uses within each phase shall be substantially in accordance with the
specifications of the Specific Plan.
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
The Temecula Community Regional Center Specific Plan was originally presented to staff as
a mixed-use commercial development combining retail, office, hotel, institutional, and regional
mall facilities. However, the possibility exists that multi-family residential development could
occur within Ranning Area 1. In the event that residential development is approved, the
Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) provides additional conditions for the Temecula
Regional Center, as follows:
General Requirements
58.
The developer, his successor or assignee, shall satisfy the park land dedication
requirements in accordance with City Ordinance No. 460.93 (Quimby). Upon
determination of the actual park land dedication requirement, the City of Temecula shall
have the final decision of requiring the developer to dedicate land for public park
purposes, or pay the equivalent "in-~ieu" fee,
59.
Exterior slopes contiguous to public streets that are adjacent to commercial/industrial
development and multi-family residential development shall be maintained by a private
property owner's association.
60°
All perimeter walls, interior slopes and open space shall be maintained by the individual
property owner or an established property owner's association.
61.
Class II bike lanes shall be designed in conformity with the Ci~y's Park and Recreation
Master Plan and constructed in concurrence with the street improvements.
62. ' The landscaped medians shall be improved in conformance with the City of Temecula
Landscape Plan Guidelines and Specifications.
63.
The developer, his successor or assignee, shall maintain the landscaping and medians
until such time as those responsibilities are accepted by the TCSD.
64.
Construction of all proposed TCSD maintenance areas shall commence pursuant to a
pre-job meeting with the developer and City Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to
comply with the TCSD review and inspection process may preclude acceptance of
these areas into the TCSD maintenance program.
Prior to Recordation of the Final Map
65.
All proposed TCSD maintenance areas (medians) shall be identified and offered for
dedication on the final map.
66.
Prior to recordation of the respective final map, construction drawings for proposed
landscape medians shall be reviewed and approved by TCSD staff.
67.
Prior to recordation of the respective final map, the subdivider shall post security and
enter into an agreement to improve all proposed TCSD maintenance areas.
R:~STAFPP. PT~263Sp. PC5 9/1/94 vgw 20
ATTACHMENT B
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
F!
WINCHESTER HILLS
,C
COMPOSITE LAND USE PLAN
CAMPOS VERDES
I'EMECULA REGIONAL CENTER
KCDC Inc 2755s Ynez Roall Suite 2~2 Temecuta CA g2591
ATTACHMENT NO. 10
REGIONAL CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN/EIR
SUBMITTED UNDER SEPARATE COVER
ATTACHMENT NO. 11
CAMPO$ VERDES AND REGIONAL CENTER
COMPOSITE LAND USE PLAN
R:~STAFFIL~T~263SP.CC 9r'//~ IrJb 3~
ITEM 24
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBIECT:
Honorable Mayor Ron Roberrs
Mayor Pro Tem Jeff Stone
Councilmember Pat Bird~n
Councilmember Sal Munoz
Councilmember Ron Parks
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning'~;~'~
September 7, 1994
Urban Core Projects
The Urban Core Projects (The Regional Center and Campos Verdes Specific Plans) have been
scheduled for the September 13, 1994 City Council Meeting. Due to the complexity of these
projects, they were forwarded to you, under separate cover, on September 2, 1994. Please
retain all documents until after a final decision on the projects has been made.
As always, should you have questions regarding these projects, please do not hesitate to'call me.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPRO~,/~
CITY
ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Gary Thornhill, Director of Planning
September 13, 1994
Specific Plan No. 1 (Campos Verdes), Environmental Impact Report 348, and
Change of Zone No, 5617
Prepared By: Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council:
Adopt a Resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA CERTIFYING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
NO.348 ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENTS OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION AND APPROVING THE
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM AND THE ADDENDA TO
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 348 ON
PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD AND
EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD.
Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 94-___
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ADOPTING LAND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. I |CAMPOS VERDES) LOCATED SOUTH OF
WINCHESTER ROAD AND EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD.
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/94 ktb 1
Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 94-.__
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING
MAP OF SAID CITY IN THE CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION
CONTAINED IN CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5617 CHANGING THE
ZONING FROM R-R (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) AND A-2-20 (HEAVY
AGRICULTURE, 20 ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE) TO SP (SPECIFIC
PLAN) ON PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD
AND EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD
Adopt a Resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA APPROVING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. I (CAMPOS
VERDES) PROPOSING 308 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS,
19.8 ACRES OF COMMERCIAL\OFFICE~CHURCH USES, A 5.8
ACRE DETENTION BASIN, A 10.8 ACRE PARK, A 10.7 ACRE
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, AND 13.0 ACRES OF ON-SITE
ROADWAYS, LOCATED SOUTH OF WINCHESTER ROAD AND
EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD.
BACKGROUND
Specific Plan No. 1, Change of Zone 5617, and Environmental Impact Report 348 were
approved by the Planning Commission at their meeting on July 18, 1994. The Specific Plan
is proposing 308 single family residential units, 19.8 acres of commercial\office\church uses,
a 5.8 acre detention basin, a 10.8 acre park, a 10.7 acre elementary school, and 13.0 acres
of on-site roadways. The Change of Zone proposes to change the existing R-R (Rural
Residential) and A-2-20 (Heavy Agriculture, 20 acre minimum) to SP (Specific Plan).
Environmental Impact Report 348 has been prepared for the project and discusses the
potential impacts of the project.
DISCUSSION
Specific Plan No, 1 has a General Plan designation of Specific Plan Overlay. The underlying
land use designations are Community Commercial, Professional Office, High Density
Residential, Medium Density Residential, Low Medium Density Residential, and Open
Space\Recreation.
The Specific Plan, as originally submitted, contained multi-family residential. As a result of
public controversy, the applicant chose to remove this designation, This resulted in the need
for a General Plan Amendment to remove the High Density Residential land use designation.
Additional issues relative to this Specific Plan were the size of the lots adjacent to the
Meadowview development and the extension of Sanderling Way and Starling Street,
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/94 kl.b 2
The applicant proposes to create lots approximately one acre in size adjacent to the
Meadowview development located to the east of the project (reference Exhibit ). This will
serve to mitigate any potential land use incompatibilities. With respect to the extensions of
Sanderling Way and Starling Street, the Planning Department received approximately 154
"Referendum Ballots" from the Roripaugh Homeowner's Association expressing their opinions
on the extension of these streets. Of the 154 ballots receive(l, 130 homeowners were
opposed to the streets being opened, but if one street needed to be opened for public safety
reasons, 90 homeowners favored opening Starling Street and 40 favored opening Starling
Way. The Planning Commission recommended that both Sanderling Way and Starling Street
be opened. They felt this was necessary for improved emergency response time to the
Roripaugh development, as well as to improve local traffic circulation and discourage an
increase in the number of Average Daily Trips on Winchester Road (reference Exhibit ).
The Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project proposed mitigation measures which
will reduce all impacts to an insignificant level with the exception of the following: Seismic
Safety, Noise, Climate and Air Quality, Agriculture, Wildlife and Vegetation, Circulation, and
Utilities and Services. Statements of Overriding Considerations have been prepared for these
impacts. Three Addendures to the original Environmental Impact Report have been prepared
for this project. The first addendure analyzed new technical information on traffic\circulation
and drainage\flooding which resulted in additional mitigation measures. The second addendure
analyzed the impacts of the revision in the Specific Plan Land Use Plan which reduced the
density of the project. And, lastly, the third addendure analyzed proposed new mitigation
measures for traffic and circulation improvements.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
Attachments:
1. Ordinance No. 94-__ - Page 4
2. Ordinance No. 94-__ - Page 7
3. Resolution No. 94-__ - Page 10
4. Resolution No. 94-__ - Page 13
5. Conditions of Approval - Page 17
6. Meadowview Buffer Exhibit - Page 28
7. Extension of Sanderling Way and Starling Street Exhibit - Page 29
8. Planning Commission Staff Report, July 18, 1994- Page 30
9. Planning Commission Minutes, July 18, 1994 - Page 31
10. Campos Verdes Specific Plan/EIR - Page 32
11. Campos Verdes Technical Appendices - Page 33
12. Campos Verdes First Addendure EIR - Page 34
13. Campos Verdes Second Addendum EIR - Page 35
14. Campos Verdes Third Addendure Containing Mitigation Monitoring Report - Page 36
15. Campos Verdes FEIR Response to Comments - Page 37
16. Campos Verdes Findings, Facts and Statement of Overriding Consideration - Page 38
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/94 ktb 9
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
ORDINANCE NO.
R:\STAFFRPT\lSP.CC 9/7/9~ ktb 4
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF TFr~ CITY
OF TEMECULA ADOPTING LAND DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS FOR SPECWIC PLAN NO. I (CAMPOS
VERDES) LOCATED SOUTH OF WINC~WSTER ROAD
AND EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD.
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF
CALIFORNLA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOIJ~)WS:
Section 1. The official zoning map of the City of Temecula, enfified "TemeculaJRancho
California Area" as adopted pursuant to Section 34 of Ordinance No. 90-04, is amended as
shown which map is made a part of this ordinance.
Section 2. The City of Temecula hereby adopts those Land Use Standards herein
contained in that certain document entitled "Campos Verdes Specific Plan No. 1/EIR 348" dated
March 5, 1993 on f~e with the office of the City Clerk.
Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its
passage. The City Clerk shah certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shah
publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shah
be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of this
Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shah publish a
summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and
against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk.
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/9~ ktb 5
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 13th day of September,
1994.
ATf/~ST:
RON ROBERTS
MAYOR
hne S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Ordinance No. 9 __ was duly introduced and placed upon its fn'st reading at
a regular meeting of the City Council on the __ day of , 199__, and that
thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Temecula on the __ day of , by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCH ,MEMBERS
COUNCH ,MEMBERS
COUNCH ,MEMBERS
JUNE S.
CITY C~
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/94 ktb 6
A'I'rACHMENT NO. 2
ORDINANCE NO. 94-__
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/94 ktb 7
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
ORDINANCE NO. 94-
AN ORDINANCE OF THR. CITY COUNCIL OF THY~ CITY
OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AIVIENDING THF~
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF SAID CITY IN TFIY~ CHANGE
OF ZONE APPLICATION CONTAINED IN CHANGE OF
ZONE NO. 5617 CHANGING THE ZONING PROM R-R
(RURAL RESIDENTIAL) AND A-2-20 (HEAVY
AGRICULTURE, 20 ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE) TO SP
'(SPECIFIC PLAN) ON PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF
WINCHF~TER ROAD AND EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD
TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF T1TF. CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF
CALWORNIA, DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Public hearings have been held before the Planning Commission and City
Council of the City of Temecula, State of California, pursuant to the Planning and Zoning law
of the State of California, and the City Code of the City of Temecula. The application land use
district as shown on the attached exhibit is hereby appmved and ratified as part of the Official
Land Use map for the City of Temecula as adopted by the City and as many be mended
hereafter from time to time by the City Council of the City of Temecula, and the City of
Temecula Official Zoning Map is mended by placing in affect the zone or zones as described
in Change of Zone No. 5617 and in the above title, and as shown on zoning map attached hereto
and incorporated herein.
Section 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thixty (30) days after its
passage. The City Clerk shah certify to the adoption of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall
publish a summary of this Ordinance and a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shah
be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five days prior to the adoption of this
Ordinance. Within 15 days from adoption of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a
summary of this Ordinance, together with the names of the Councilmembers voting for and
against the Ordinance, and post the same in the office of the City Clerk.
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/9~ ktb 8
Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOFrED this 13th day of September,
1994.
RON ROBERTS
MAYOR
A'ITI:~ST:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
STATE OF CAI,FFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Ordinance No. 9 __ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at
a regular meeting of the City Council on the __ day of , 199__, and that
thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council
of the City of Temecula on the __ day of , by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCI/_NIEMBERS
COUNCIIJVlIEMBERS
JUNE S. GP~.h"K
CITY C~ ,FRK
R:\STAFFRPT\lSP.CC 9/7/94 ktb 9
../ \
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5617
CITY COUNCIL DATE - SEPTEMBER 13, 1994
ZONING: SPECIFIC PLAN
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP,CC 9/1/94 ktb
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
RESOLUTION NO. 94-__
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/94 ktb 10
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA CERTWYING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT NO.348 ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND
STATEM~.NTS OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION AND
APPROVING THE MITIGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM AND THE ADDENDA TO THE
ENVIRONIVIV~NTAL IMPACT RF~PORT NO. 348 ON
PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF WINCm~STER ROAD
'AND EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD.
WItEREAS, Douglas Woods and Associates completed Environmental Impact Report
No. 348 and its three Addenda in accordance with the Riverside County, City of Temecula and
State CEQA Guidelines;
WHER.EAS, said EIR application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by
State and local law;
WItEREAS, the City Council considered said ~ and the three addenda on September
13, 1994, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to comment on the environmental
documents and testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the City Council hearing, pursuant to this resolution
the City Council Certified said EIR, Adopted its three Addenda, Adopted the Findings of Fact
and Statements of Overriding Consideration and Approved the Mitigation Monitoring Program;
NOW, TffEREFORE, TIlE CITY OF TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findinzs. That the City of Temecuh City Council in Certifying the
proposed Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and adopting its Addenda, makes the
following findings as set forth in that certain document entitled" Findings of Fact and Statement
of Overriding Considerations Regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report No. 348 (State
Clearing House Number 89020139) for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan No. 1," which is on
file in the office of the City Clerk and is incorporated herein by this reference as though set
forth in full.
Section 2. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby certifies FEIR
No. 348, adopts its three Addenda, adopts Findings of Fact and Statements of Overriding
Consideration and approves the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Specific Plan No. 1 and
Chance of Zone 5617, located south of Winchester Road and east of Margarita Road.
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/94 ktb 11
Section 3. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of September,
1994.
RON ROBERTS
MAYOR
June S. Greel~, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CAI.IFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEIVIECULA)
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 ---, 1994
by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNC]IAIEMBERS
JUNE S. GRF. I=K
CITY CT.RRK
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/94 ktb 12
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
RESOLUTION NO. 94-,__
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/94 ktb 13
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF TIt'F. CITY COUNCIl. OF ~ CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING SPECWIC PLAN NO. 1
(CA1VIPOS VERDES) PROPOSING 308 SINGLE FA.MILY
RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 19.8 ACRES OF
· COMMI~RCIAL\OFFICE\CHURCH USES, A 5.8 ACRE
DETENTION BASIN, A 10.8 ACRE PARK, A 10.7 ACRE
ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, AND 13.0 ACRES OF ON-SITE
ROADWAYS, LOCATED SOUTH OF WINCltli',qTER ROAD
AND EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD.
Wlc!EREAS, KRDC, Inc. fried Specific Plan No. 1 in accordance with the Riverside
County I-and Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted
by reference;
Wh'F. REAS, said Specific Plan application was processed in the time and manner
prescribed by State and local law;
WItEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said Specific Plan on July 18, 1994
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 Specific Plan;
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted public hearings pertaining to said Specific Plan
on September 13, 1994, at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in
support or opposition to said Specific Plan;
WItEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff
Report regarding the Specific Plan;
NOW, TItF. REFORE, ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF TE1VIECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findiw, s. The City Council in approving the proposed Specific Plan, makes
the following findings:
1. Specific Plan No. 1 will be consistent with the City's General Plan upon
adoption of a City initiated General Plan Amendment, and upon Council certification of
Environmental Impact Report 348.
2. Specific Plan No. 1 is compatible with surrounding land uses which axe
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/94 ktb 14
residential and commercial. The Specific Plan pwvides for 1/2 acre lots adjacent to the
Meadowview development which provides for an adequate transition.
3. Specific Plan No. 1 will not have an adverse effect on surrounding
property, because it does not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area.
Environmental Impact Report 348 was prepared for the Specific Plan. No immediate impacts
to the environment will result from the adoption of the Specific Plan. Impacts from future
development can be mitigated to a level less than significant. Statements of Overriding
Considerations have been prepared for the following: Seismic Safety, Noise, Climate and Air
Quality, Agriculture, Wildlife\Vegetation, Circulation, and Utilities and Services.
4. Specific Plan No. 1 is consistent with the goals, policies, and
implementation programs contained in the General Plan.
5. Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental
documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference.
Section 2. Environmental Compliance. Environmental Impact Report No. 348 and its
subsequent Addenda analyzed the significant impacts of Specific Plan No. 1 and proposed
mitigation measures to reduce these impacts.
Section 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby approves
Specific Plan No. 1 which is attached as Attachment No. 10, located south of Winchester Road
and east of Margarita Road at subject to the following conditions:
A. Attachment No. 10, attached hereto.
Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/9~ ktb 15
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOFrED this 13th day of September, 1994.
ATTEST:
RON ROBERTS
MAYOR
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CAI ,II~ORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF 'rF_iIvlECULA)
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
, 199__ by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CITY COUNCI~ERS:
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS:
JUNE S. GpIu, I~:K
CITY CT,I=-RK
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/9~ ktb
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:\STAFFRPT\lSP.CC 9/7/94 ktb 17
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Specific Plan No. I (Campos Verdes)
Project Description:
A Specific Plan proposing 308 single-family residential
units, 19.8 acres of commercial\office\church uses, a 5.8
acre detention basin, a.10.8 acre park, a 10.7 acre
elementary school, and 13.0 acres of on-site roadways
Assessor's Parcel No,:
ApproVal Date:
Expiration Date:
921-090-001 through 004, 921-090-017, 910-130-046,
911-170o004and 910-170-005
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Nine Hundred Twenty-
Eight Dollars (9928.00) which includes the Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollar (9850.00)
fee, in comoliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3)
plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars (978.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City
to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section
21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15094. If within said forty-eight
(48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department
the check as required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void
by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
General Conditions
The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hoid harmless the City of Temecula, it
agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City
of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning
Specific Plan No. 1, which action is brought within the time period provided for in
California Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of Temecula will promptly
notify the applicant 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 applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the
defense, the applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold
harmless the City of Temecula.
All development within this site shall be in accordance with the requirements of all City
ordinances, except as expressly modified herein, and State laws, and shall conform
with the approved Specific Plan. Regulations or procedures not covered by the Specific
Plan or appurtenant documents shall be subject to the City ordinances in effect at the
time entitlement is required.
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/94 ktb 18
10.
11.
12.
13.
Approval of Specific Plan No. 1, Campas Verdes, is contingent upon and shall not
become effective nor shall it vest until a General Plan Amendment (GPA) is approved
by the City Council and an Environmental Impact Report or any other environmental
review under the provisions of the California Quality Act are certified by the City
Council.
This project and all subsequent projects within the site shall comply with all mitigation
measures identified within EIR No. 348 and the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program.
Prior to issuance of grading permits, approval of development permits, recordation of
final maps, issuance of building permits and issuance of occupancy permits for any
subsequent projects or activities within the site the applicant/developer shall
demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in
the Mitigation Monitoring Program within EIR No. 348 have been satisfied for the stage
of devi~lopment that permits are being issued for.
Prior to issuance of any subsequent grading permits, all permit requirements necessary
for altering the existing on-site blue line stream shall be completed.
The Landscape Development Zone (LDZ), which includes the Transportation Corridor,
along Winchester Road shall be thirty-seven feet (37') in width and shall be shown on
all subsequent development proposal site plans and tentative maps.
Prior to approval of any map or development proposal within the site, a detailed design
manual for any commercial area within the Specific Plan shall be submitted for review
and approval by the Planning Commission.
Within thirty (30) days of the final approval of the project by City Council, the Specific
Plan and the Final Environmental Impact Report shall be submitted to the Planning
Department in final form for review and approval. The final form shall include all
conditions of approval and all modifications made by the Planing Commission and City
Council. A master print copy (8 '~" X 11 ") and four (4) copies of the documents shall
be submitted.
Prior to approval of any development plans, all subsequent projects shall receive
appropriate clearances, conditions and approvals from all agencies with jurisdiction on
project review. These agencies shall be determined by the Planning Director and the
City Engineer.
The developer or the developer's successor-in-interest shall be responsible for
maintaining the undeveloped portion of the site including weed abatement and litter
removal.
Thc dcvclopcr shall providc pcdcstrian acccss to thc Commcrcial sitc (Planning Arca
4) from thc rcsidcntial arca to thc cast (Planning Arca 5). (Deleted by Planning
Commission on July 18, 1994)
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/9~ ktb 19
14.
The applicant shall deposit sufficient funds with the City of Temecula to retain the
services of a qualified consultant to administer and implement the Mitigation Monitoring
Program approved for this project as part of Environmental Impact Report 340 in
compliance with Assembly Bill 3180.
15.
Prior to City Council approval the Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be updated to
reflect all current conditions of approval.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
16,
Prior to issuance of any building permits for commercial and office projects and prior
to recordation of the final map for residential projects, the project applicant shall enter
into a binding mitigation agreement with the Temecula Valley Unified School District
to ensure the mitigation of the new students generated by this Specific Plan,
17.
if any of these conditions of approval differ from the commitment by the Developer
made in the Specific Plan text or map exhibits or any other documents, the conditions
enumerated herein shall take precedence.
18.
Any proposed amendment to this Specific Plan shall require public hearings and review
by the Planning Commission and City Council, and/or shall be reviewed in accordance
with such rules and regulations for the review of Specific Plan Amendments as may
have been adopted by the City and which are in effect at the time of any proposed
amendment is submitted.
19. The developer shall satisfy all the Quimby Act requirements for the project.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this project, and
shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true
meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff person of the Department
of Public Works.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
20.
All utility systems such as electric, including those which provide direct service to the
project site and/or currently exist along public rights-of-ways adjacent to the site
(except electrical lines rated 33 kv or greater), gas, telephone water, sewer, and cable
TV shall be placed underground, with easements provided as required, and designed
and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider.
21.
Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, as deemed necessary by the Department
of Public Works, the Developer shall consult with the State of California Department
of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
to determine if permits or approvals are necessary from such agencies for any action
contemplated by this proposal. Such consultation shall be in writing, and copies of said
correspondence, including responses from agencies, shall be submitted to the City.
Where appropriate, the terms, conditions, and recommendations of the noted agencies
shall be incorporated as Conditions of Approval into the areas of development.
R:\STAFFRPT\lSP.CC 9/7/94 ktb 20
22.
Prior to issuance of building permits for the non ro~idcntial (commercial and officcs)
various phases of development, the 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. The fee to be paid shall be 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 the Developer requests its building permit
for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for
payment of Public Facility Fee. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, the
Developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility Fee. The amount
of rife bond shall be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed ~10,000. The 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). By
execution of this Agreement, the Developer will waive any right to protest the
provisibns of this condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee
district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee
for this project; provided that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the
reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. (Amended by
Planning Commission on July 18. 1994)
23.
Landscaping and permanent irrigation facilities shall be installed with street
improvements. Perimeter walls shall be treated with graffiti-resistant coating and shall
be installed adjacent to street improvements within each phase.
24.
A phasing plan addressing the schedule of necessary infrastructure requirements shall
be approved by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Director prior to
approval cf sn;' for each subsequent development application. (Amended by Planning
Commission on July 18, 1994)
CIRCULATION
25.
As a condition of approval for any subsequent development application associated with
this Specific Plan, the Developer must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip
Reduction Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01.
26.
Adequate primary and secondary access shall be provided for each phase of
development as approved by the Department of Public Works. Access to residential,
office, and commercial areas shall be reviewed by the Department of Public Works at
the time of submittal of individual development applications. Additional rights-of-way
at entries to the aforementioned sites may be required to provide for turning lanes as
directed by the Department of Public Works.
27.
All street sections shall correspond with Typical Roadway Cross Sections and
requirements of the Circulation Element of City's General Plan, City ordinances and
standards.
28. All intersections intervals shall comply with City and Caltrans standards and
requirements,
R=\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 917194 kLb
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
The Developer shall provide bus bays and shelters within the Specific Plan. Location
and number of bus bays shall be subject to approval of the City and Riverside
Transportation Agency (RTA). If required, additional rights-of-way dedications
associated with bus bays shall be provided by the Developer.
Necessary improvements have been/will be conditioned based on the project traffic
studies and the conceptual phasing plan shown on Section III. A. 7. of the Specific
Plan. Any substantive rephasing of the development must be approved by the Running
Commission through a rephasing application. A rephasing of the development
considered to be minor or in substantial conformance with the construction phasing
plan approved with the adoption of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan, as determined
by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Director, may be approved
administratively through applicable City procedures. Prior to the issuance of occupancy
permits within any phase, all on and offsite improvements as referred to in the Traffic
Reports and subsequent addenda along with additional requirements set herein, or as
set by conditions on individual tracts, must be constructed and/or bonded as required
by the Department of Public Works.
Ensuing Traffic Reports, analyzing traffic impacts associated with subsequent
development stages of the Specific Plan, shall be submitted to identify implementation
and timing of the necessary improvements to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts.
The traffic signals at the phase one accesses from Margarita Road and North General
Kearny Road, as required, based on traffic signal warrants analysis relative to
subsequent development applications shall be completed prior to issuance of any
occupancy.
The following infrastructure improvements/reimbursements shall be completed by the
2O0th 235th equivalent dwelling unit (EDU). The improvements shall be constructed
prior to issuance of occupancy for the 2OOth 235th EDU. (Amended by Planning
Commission on July 18, 1994)
Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer shall
bond for full width improvements to Margarita Road, along the entire frontage,
including a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median, in accordance with the
Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's General Plan classifying Margarita
Road as an Arterial Highway with 110 foot full width right-of-way.
Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer shall
bond for reconstruction of the existing two lanes on Margarita Road, from
Solana Way to southerly project boundary.
Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer shall bond
for the improvements to North General Kearny Road, from Margarita Road to easterly
project limit in accordance with the approved Phasing Plan of the Specific Plan. The
cross section shall be in accordance with the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's
General Plan classification for a Secondary Highway with 88 foot full width right-of-
way or as required by the Director of Public Works. (Added by Planning Commission
on July 18, 1994)
R:\STAFFRPT\lSP.CC 9/7/9~ ktb 22
35.
Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer is
responsible to bond for the traffic signals at the intersections listed below. The
Developer shall construct the traffic signals, as required, based on traffic signal
warrants analysis relative to subsequent development applications at the following
intersections:
Margarita Road and Winchester Road (upgrade the existing signal)
Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road
Margarita Road and Campos Verdes Lane
North General Kearny Road and Camino Campos Verdes
36.
Sanderling Way and Starling Street shall be extended to accommodate through traffic
into the Roripaugh Hills development. (Added by Planning Commission on July 18,
1994)
Drainage
37.
Drainage and flood control facilities shall be provided in accordance with the
requirements of the City and/or Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District (RCFC&WCD).
38.
Prior to approval of any subsequent development applications, the Developer shall
submit the master drainage plan to the City and RCFC&WCD to review the adequacy
of the proposed and existing downstream drainage facilities.
39.
Drainage facilities within each phase shall be constructed immediately after the
completion of the site grading and prior to or concurrently with the initial site
development within that phase.
40.
All drainage facilities shall be designed to carry 100 year storm flows, subject to the
approval of the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable.
41.
The Developer shall construct the proposed on and offsite drainage facility
improvements and the onsite detention basin provision as recommended in the Specific
Plan and Drainage Study documents and/or as directed by the Department of Public
Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable.
42.
As required by the Department of Public Works, additional Hydrology and Hydraulic
Reports shall be submitted with subsequent development applications to study the
drainage impacts and analyze necessary measures to mitigate the runoff created as
part of the development of this project.
43.
The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto
or through the site.
44.
The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration
of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be
provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing
facilities or by securing drainage easements.
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/94 kl.b 23
Water and Sewer
45.
Water and sewer facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and
specifications of the City, Rancho California Water District (RCWD), and Eastern
Municipal Water District (EMWD). Such requirements shall be applied at the subdivision
or plot plan stages of the development.
46.
Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall
submit the master water plan to RCWD to check for adequacy of the proposed water
facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the water system from
RCWD.
47.
Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall
submit the master sewer plan to EMWD to check for adequacy of the proposed sewer
facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the sewer system from
EMWD.
48.
Prior to the recordation of any tract map, commercial parcel map, or approval of any
plot plan application, the Developer shall provide the City with evidence that adequate
wastewater treatment facilities are being provided to meet the needs of the Campos
Verdes Specific Plan development.
Grading
49.
No grading shall be permitted for any development area prior to tentative map or plot
plan approval and issuance of grading permits for the specific area of development.
50.
Grading plans and operations shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code,
City Grading Standards, the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report,
or any subsequent reports prepared for the project, the conditions of the grading
permit, and accepted grading construction practices and the recommendations and
standards specified in the Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR}
document.
51.
Prior to issuance of any grading permit, Erosion Control plans shall be prepared in
conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department
of Public Works. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement
guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements.
52.
The Developer shall comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulated by the State Water Resources Control
Board, and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) implemented by the San
Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board.
53.
Each subsequent application for a phase of development shall include a conceptual
grading plan to indicate at a minimum:
· Preliminary quantity estimates for grading.
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 917194 ktb 24
· Techniques and methods which will be used to prevent erosion and
sedimentation during and after the grading process in compliance with the City
Standards and NPDES requirements.
· Preliminary pad and roadway elevations.
· Designation of the borrow or stockpile site location for import/export material.
· Approximate time frames for development including the identification of areas
which will be graded during the rainy months.
· Hydrology and hydraulic concerns and mitigations.
54. Major grading activities shall be scheduled during the dry season wherever possible,
or as dtherwise approved by the Department of Public Works.
55. Soils stabilization, which may include revegetation of graded areas, shall occur within
30 days of final grading activities as directed by the Department of Public Works.
56. The site shall be watered during grading operations to control dust.
57. Temporary drainage and sediment control devices shall be installed as directed by the
Department of Public Works.
58. An import/export route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to
issuance of any grading permit. The plan shall include limitation to the duration of the
grading operation and construction activities, a Traffic Control Plan, ai~d a daily time
schedule of operations.
59. Prior to issuance of any grading permit, a soils reports shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works for review and approval, to address engineering, geologic,
seismic, and soils engineering concerns for each tentative map or commercial parcel
map for each phase of proposed development.
60. All public streets shall be maintained and cleaned if necessary on a daily basis during
grading operation and construction activities. Cash deposit, letter of credit or posting
of bond to guarantee masntenance of all public rights-of-way affected by the grading
operations and construction activities, shall be posted prior to issuance of grading
permits.
61. If subsequent Geotechnical and Soils Reports determine that dewaterin9 of the site is
ne:'~=sary during construction, necessary permits (i.e. in compliance with NPDES
pe m~t) shall be obtained from appropriate agencies prior to approval of the grading
plans.
R:\STAFFRPT\lSP.CC 9/7/94 ktb 25
Phasing
62.
Construction of the development permitted by the Specific Plan, including recordation
of final subdivision maps, may be carried out in stages provided that, adequate
vehicular access is constructed for all dwelling units in each stage of development and
further provided that such development conforms substantially with the intent and
purpose of the Specific Plan Phasing Plan.
63.
Development applications shall be submitted for each planning unit in each phase. Total
acreage, dwelling units, and land uses within each phase shall be in accordance with
the specifications of the Specific Plan.
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
The Temecul~ Community Services Department (TCSD) provides the following conditions for
Campos Verdes Specific Plan:
General Requirements
64.
All park facilities, slope areas, park way landscaping, trails and medians shall be
improved in conformance with the City of Temecula Landscape Development Plan
Guidelines and Specifications.
65.
Construction of the public park site, landscaping, trails and medians proposed for
dedication to the TCSD shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the
developer and the City Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD
review and inspection process may preclude acceptance of these areas into the TCSD
maintenance program.
66.
The developer, or the developer's successors or assignees, shall maintain the park site,
landscaping, trails and medians until such time as those responsibilities are accepted
by the TCSD.
67.
All park facilities, and/or other recreational areas, intended for transfer to the City "in-
fee" shall be dedicated free and clear of any liens, assessments, or easements that
would preclude the City from using the property for public park and/or recreational
purposes. A policy of title insurance and a soils assessment report shall also be
provided with the dedication of the property.
68.
All perimeter walls, interior slopes and open space shall be maintained by the individual
property owners or an established Home Owner's Association (HOA).
69.
Bike lanes and recreational trails shall be provided on site and designed to intercept
with the City's Park and Recreation Master Plan. Class II bike lanes shall be
constructed in concurrence with the street improvements.
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/9& ktb 26
70.
All exterior slopes contiguous to public streets that are adjacent to single family
residential development shall be offered for dedication to the TCSD for maintenance
purposes following compliance to existing City standards and completion of the
application process. All other slopes and open space shall be maintained by and
established Home Owner's Association (HOA).
Prior to Recordation of the Final Map
71.
Prior to recordation of the respective final map, the developer or his assignee shall
enter into an agreement and post security to improve the 10.8 acre park facility located
in Planning Area I and the detention basin in Planning Area 2.
72.
Prior to recordation of the respective final map, the subdivider shall post security and
enter into an agreement to improve the parkway landscaping, medians, and multi-
purpose trail identified in Planning Area 9.
73.
All parks, slope areas, parkway landscaping, trails and medians identified as TCSD
maintenance areas shall be offered for dedication on the final map.
74.
Landscape construction drawings for all project areas (project areas may consist of
slopes, streetscape, medians, turf areas, recreational trails, and parks) identified as
TCSD maintenance areas shall be shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of
Community Services prior to recordation of the final map,
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
75.
The Park shall be improved and dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of the 78th
residential building permit for the overall project or within two (2) years of map
recordation for the first phased lots, whichever comes first.
Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy
76.
Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within each phased map, the
developer or his assignee shall submit, in a format as directed by TCSD staff, the most
current list of ASsessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to the final project.
77.
Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within each phased map, the
developer or his assignee shall file an application with the TCSD and pay the
appropriate fees for the dedication of arterial and residential lights into the maintenance
program.
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/94 ktb 27
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
MEADOWVIEW BUFFER EXHIBIT
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP,CC 9/7/9~ ktb 28
CITY OF TEMECULA
~ampos Verdes g~
CASE NO. - SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
CITY COUNCIL DATE - SEPTEMBER 13, 1994
MEADOWVIEW BUFFER EXHIBIT
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/1/94 ktb
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
EXTENSION OF SANDERLING WAY AND STARLING STREET EXHIBIT
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/9A ktb 29
A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 8
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT, JULY 18, 1994
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/94 ktb 30
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
July 18, 1994
Specific Plan No. I (Campos Verdes)
Environmental Impact Report No. 348
Change of Zone No. 56~17
Prepared By: Debbie Ubnoske
RECOMMENDATION: 1.
RECOMMEND Adoption of Resolution No. 94-
certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report No. 348
for Specific Plan No. 1 and Change of Zone No. 5617
and;
APPLICATION INFORMATION
RECOMMEND Adoption of Resolution No. 94-
approving Specific Plan No. 1 and Change of Zone No.
5617, based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in
the Staff Report and subject to the attached Conditions of
Approval.
APPLICANT:
KRDC, Inc.
REPRESENTATIVE:
T&B Planning Consultants
PROPOSAL:
A Specific Plan consisting of: 308 single-family residential units,
19.8 acres of commercial\office\church uses, a 5.8 acre
detention basin, a 10.8 acre park, a 10.7 acre elementary
school, and 13.0 acres of on-site roadways with an
accompanying Change of Zone request from R-R (Rural
Residential) and A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre minimum lot
size) to SP (Specific Plan No. 1 ). Environmental Impact Report
No. 348 has been prepared for the project and discusses the
potential impacts of the project.
LOCATION:
South of Winchester Road and east of Margarita Road
EXISTING ZONING:
R-R (Rural Residential), A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre
minimum lot size)
R:\STAFFRPT~ISP.PC5 7115194 vg, w
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North:
South:
East:
West:
C-P-S (Scenic Highway Commercial) and R-
R (Rural Residential)
A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre
minimum lot size)
SP (Specific Plan No. 164, Roripaugh Hills)
A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre
minimum lot size), R-R (Rural Residential)
PROPOSED ZONING:
SP (Specific Plan No. 1)
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
CC (Community Commercial)
O (Professional Office)
H (High Density, 13-20 du/ac)
M (Medium Density, 7-12 du/ac)
LM (Low Medium Density, 3-6 du/ac)
OS (Open Space/Recreation)
Specific Plan Overlay
EXISTING LAND USE:
VBcBnt
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
North: Winchester Road, Vacant
South: Vacant
East: Residential
West: Vacant
PROJECT STATISTICS
Gross Acreage:
Single-Family Residential
132.9 Acres
308 Units
Commercial\Office\Church 19.8 Acres
Detention Basin 5.8 Acres
Park 10.8 Acres
Elementary School
On-Site Roadways
10.7 Acres
13.0 Acres
BACKGROUND
Specific Plan No. 1, Change of Zone No. 5617, and Environmental Impact Report No. 348
were continued from the May 23, 1994 and June 6, 1994 Planning Commission meetings.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project proposes a Specific Plan with an accompanying Change of Zone request on 132.9
acres. The project site is located south of Winchester Road and east of Margarita Road. The
General Plan designates the area as a Specific Plan overlay area. The underlying land use
designations of the General Plan consist of Community Commercial, Professional Office, High
Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Low Medium Density, and Open
Space/Recreation. The Specific Plan document contains the zoning design standards for each
area. The proposed zoning and development standards contained within the Specific Plan
document will govern development for this site over the City's Development Code unless it
is not addressed in the Specific Plan Zoning Ordinance.
The Specific Plan was amended for the May 23, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. The
Plan now being proposed for the site is shown in Table 1.
LAND USE DESIGNATION
RESIDENTIAl-
TABLE 1
PROJECT LAND USE SUMMARY
PLANNING DENSITY DWELLING
AREA (DU/AC) UNITS
ACRES
Low 9 1.1 18 16.0
(.5 to 2 DU/AC)
Low Medium 3 6.3 76 12.0
(3 to 6 DU/AC) 5 5.2 86 16.5
6 5.9 72 12.3
8 3.5 56 15.9
SUBTOTAL 4.2 308 72.7
NON-RESIDENTIAL
Commercial 4 12.0
Commercial/Office/Church 2 13.7
and Detention~
Elementary School 7 10.7
Park 1 10.8
Roads 13.0
SUBTOTAL 60.2
PROJECT TOTAL 2.3 308 132.9
~ Approximately 7.8 acres in Planning Area 2 shall be utilized for commercial/office uses
adjacent to North General Kearny Road. The remaining 5.9 acres shall include a landscaped
detention basin. No park credits will be given for the detention basin by the City.
ANALYSIS
Circulation
At the May 23, 1994 Planning Commission meeting it was the consensus of the Commission
to recommend the extension of either Sanderling Way, Starling Street or both. Staff has
received approximately 154 "Referendum Ballots" from the Roripaugh Homeowner's
Association expressing their opinions on the potential extension of Sanderling Way and
Starling Street. Of the 154 ballots received, 130 homeowners were opposed to the streets
being opened, but if one street needed to be opened for public safety reasons, 90
homeowners favored opening Starling Street and forty (40) favored opening Sanderling Way.
Of these 40 homeowners, 17 live on Starling Street. Of the total number of homeowners
responding, 22 were opposed to any street being opened and 2 favored the streets being
opened. It is staff's opinion that at least one street should be opened to provide for a better
emergency response time to the Roripaugh development, as well as improve local traffic
circulation and discourage an increase in the number of Average Daily Trips on WinChester
Road. Staff supports the opening of Starling Street.
Landscape Develooment Zone (LDZ)
The provision' for a 37 foot Landscape Development Zone along Winchester Road was
discussed at the May 23, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. The applicant stated he would
provide this 37 foot LDZ. The Final Campos Verdes Specific Plan will contain an exhibit that
illustrates this LDZ.
Traffic Improvements
At the May 23, 1994 Planning Commission, staff requested Commission direction on a
number of traffic improvements. The Public Works Department proposes the following:
That this Specific Plan be required to bond for and construct certain regional
improvements for the project implementation responsibility for regional facilities.
That this Specific Plan be required to support either supplemental bond sales or district
restructuring and supplemental bond sales which provide for certain regional facilities
listed in the EIR.
That this Specific Plan be required to bond for and construct certain facilities within
and adjacent to the project as detailed in the Conditions of Approval.
The timing for ,these facility requirements may be further defined through the
conditioning of subsequent development applications and the requisite phasing
application.
A typical section be added to the Specific Plan for the primary onsite circulation
road(s).
School Mitiqation
The Temecula Unified School District is requesting the developer sign a mitigation agreement
with the District prior to Specific Plan approval. The mitigation proposed in the Mitigation
Monitoring Program prepared for the project states, "the project applicant shall enter into a
binding agreement with the Temecula Unified School District to insure the provision of
adequate facilities prior to issuance of any building permits for commercial and office projects
and prior to recordation of the final map for residential projects." This continues to be an
issue with the School District. Staff has conditioned the Specific Plan to comply with the
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP, PC5 7115194 vgw 4
mitigation proposed in the EIR prepared for the project.
General Plan Consistency
Staff has discussed the need for a General Plan Amendment with the applicant. Staff will
proceed with initiating this amendment. The City Attorney has recommended a condition of
approval that states that approval of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan is contingent upon the
General Plan Amendment being approved by the City Council, and the Environmental Impact
Report being certified by the City Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An initial study was completed for the project which indicated that there would be potentially
significant impacts associated with the development of the project. Consequently, it was
determined that an Environmental Impact Report would be necessary for the project.
Environmental Impact Report No. 348 was prepared by the applicant's consultant, Douglas
Wood and Associates, Inc. and was reviewed by City staff. The Environmental Impact Report
analyzed the significance of all the impacts and proposed mitigation measures included in the
Final EIR that reduced these impacts to an insignificant level with the exception of the
following: Seismic Safety, Noise, Climate and Air Quality, Agriculture, Wildlife and
Vegetation, Circulation, and Utilities and Services. Statements of Overriding Considerations
have been prepared for these impacts. Subsequent to preparation of the EIR, two addenda
were prepared for the project. The first addendure analyzed new technical information on
traffic/circulation and drainage/flooding which resulted in additional mitigation measures which
were incorporated into the Final EIR. The second addendure analyzed the impacts of the
revision in the Specific Plan Land Use Plan which resulted from the public hearing process and
reduced the density and intensity of the project. These two addenda did not raise important
new issues about the significance of the impacts of the project. Therefore, staff recommends
Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report No. 348 which includes the Draft EIR,
the Response to Comments, the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings of Fact and
Statements of Overriding Considerations.
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
As a result of changes to the conditions of approval, the Mitigation Monitoring Program will
need to be updated prior to the city Council approval. A condition of approval has been added
which will ensure that the Mitigation Monitoring Program accurately reflects the new
conditions of approval.
GENERAL PLAN\ZONING CONSISTENCY
As a result of public controversy, the applicant has removed all multiple family residential from
the project. This has resulted in an inconsistency with the City's General Plan. The City will
initiate a General Plan Amendment to bring the Specific Plan into conformance with the
General Plan. The Specific Plan's approval is contingent upon the approval of both the General
Plan Amendment and the Certification of the Environmental Impact Report. Change of Zone
No. 5617 proposes to change the zoning on the site from R-R (Rural Residential) and A-2-20
(Heavy Agriculture, 20 acre minimum) to S-P (Specific Plan). Upon City Council adoption of
this Change of Zone, the project will be consistent with the zoning on the site.
R:\STAFFRPT%1SP.PC5 7/15/94 vgv/ S
SUMMARY\CONCLUSIONS
The Campos Verdes Specific Plan has been revised to address resident, staff, and Commission
concerns relative to the project. Concerns relative to buffering have been addressed through
the following: the elimination of all high density residential on the site and the creation of a
forty (40) foot buffer between the project and the Meadowview development. This reduction
in overall density has resulted in the need for an Addendum to the EIR which has been
prepared. Impacts associated with the revised Specific Plan are less or the same as those
associated with the original project.
FINDINGS
Specific Plan No. 1
Specifi~ Plan No. 1 will be consistent with the City's General Plan upon adoption of a
City initiated General Plan Amendment, and upon Council certification of Environmental
Impact Report 348.
Specific Plan No. 1 is compatible with surrounding land uses which are residential and
commercial. The Specific Plan provides for 1\2 acre lots adjacent to the Meadowview
development which provides for an adequate transition.
m
Specific Plan No. 1 will not have an adverse effect on surrounding property, because
it does not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area.
Environmental Impact Report 348 was prepared for the Specific Plan. No immediate
impacts to the environment will result from the adoption of the Specific Plan. Impacts
from future development can be mitigated to a level less than significant. Statements
of Overriding Considerations have been prepared for the following: Seismic Safety,
Noise, Climate and Air Quality, Agriculture, Wildlife\Vegetation, Circulation, and
Utilities and Services.
Specific Plan No. 1 is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation programs
contained in the General Plan.
Said findings are .supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference.
Chancle of Zone 5617
Change of Zone 5617 will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment as
determined in Environmental Impact Report 348 prepared for the project. No
immediate impacts to the environment will result from the Change of Zone from Rural
Residential (R-R) and Heavy Agriculture, 20 acre minimum (A-2-20) to Specific Plan
(SP). Impacts from future development can be mitigated to a level less than
significant. Statements of Overriding Considerations have been prepared for the
following: Seismic Safety, Noise, Climate and Air Quality, Agriculture,
Wildlife\Vegetation, Circulation, and Utilities and Services.
2. Change of Zone 5617 is consistent with the City of Temecula General Plan.
R:\STAFFRFI~ISP.PC5 7115194 vg~ 6
Change of Zone 5617 is consistent with the goals, policies, and implementation
programs contained in the General Plan.
The site of the proposed Change of Zone is suitable to accommodate all the land uses
currently permitted in the proposed zoning district due to the fact that the parcel is of
adequate size and shape for any proposed use. Landscaping, parking and lot coverage
requirements will be met upon ultimate submittal of a development proposal.
Adequate access exists to the proposed Change of Zone site. Proposed potential
access points to the site will be from Winchester and Margarita Roads. Additional
internal access and required road improvements to the site will be designed and
constructed in conformance with City of Temecula standards.
Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental documents
associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference.
Environmental Impact Report
Reference Attachment No. 9.
Attachments:
1. PC Resolution No. 94- - Blue Page 8
2. PC Resolution No. 94- * Blue Page 13
3. Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 16
4. Exhibits - Blue Page 27
A. Figure IV - 26A - Meadowview Buffer Exhibit
5. Revised Campos Verdes Specific Plan - Summary of Changes - Blue Page 28
6. First Addendum to EIR - Blue Page 29
7. Second Addendum to EIR - Blue Page 30
8. Responses to Public Comments - Blue Page 31
9. Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - Blue Page 32
10. Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 33
11. Conceptual Circulation System Phasing Plan - Blue Page 34
12. Temecula Valley Unified School District Letter, April 18, 1994 - Blue Page 35
13. Temecula Valley Unified School District Letter, June 29, 1994- Blue Page 36
14. Meadowview Letter of Support - Blue Page 37
R:\STAFFIL~T\ISP.PC~ 7115194 vg~' 7
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 94-
R:\STAFFRjrf\ISP.PC5 7115/94 vgw 8
ATTACItlVI~.NT NO, 1
PC RESOLUTION NO, 94-
A RESOLUTION OF ~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF TFW.. CITY OF
TEMECULA RECOMM!;'.NDING APPROVAL OF SPECIlq'IC PLAN NO. 1
PROPOSING 308 SINGLE-FAMrI.Y RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 19.8 ACRES
OF CO1VIM~RCIAL\OFFICE\CHURCH USES, A 5.8 ACRE DETENTION.
BASIN, A 10.8 ACRE PARK, A 10.7 ACRE ELEMF. NTARY SCHOOL,
13.0 ACRES OF ON-SITE ROADWAYS, DEVELOPMF. NT PLANS AND
STANDARDS, PLANNING AREA DEVI~.LOPMENT STANDARDS,
DESIGN GUIDELINES AND ZONING ORDINANCE; APPROVAL OF
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5617 TO CHANGE THE ZONING PROM R-R
(RURAL RESIDENTIAL) AND A-2-20 (]~.AVY AGRICULTURAL, 20
ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE) TO SP (SPECIFIC PLAN); PROJECT IS
LOCATED SOUTH OF WINCFrFSTER ROAD AND EAST OF
MARGARITA ROAD.
WHEREAS, KRDC, Inc. fried Specific Plan No. 1 and Change of Zone No. 5617 in
accordance with the Riverside County Land Use, Zoning, Planning and Subdivision Ordinances,
which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, said applications were processed in the time and manner prescribed by State
and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said applications on July 18, 1994 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 applications;
NOW, THEREFORE, TH'F. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
TENIECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission hereby makes the
following findings:
A. The Planning Commission in recommending approval of said application makes
the foBowing fmdings, to wit:
Specific Plan No. 1
1. Specific Plan No. 1 will be consistent with the City's General Plan upon
adoption of a City initiated General Plan Amendment, and upon Council certification of
Environmental Impact Report 348.
R:\STAFFIL~T\ISP.PC5 7/15/94 vgw 9
2. Specific Plan No. 1 is compatible with surrounding land uses which are
residential and commercial. The Specific Plan provides for I\2 acre lots adjacent to the
Meadowview development which provides for a consistent transition.
3. Specific Plan No. 1 will not have an adverse effect on surrounding
property, because it does not represent a significant change to the planned land use of the area.
Environmental Impact Report 348 was prepared for the Specific Plan. No immediate impacts
to the environment wffi result from the adoption of the Specific Plan. Impacts from future
development can be mitigated to a level less-than significant. Statements of Overriding
Considerations have been prepared for the following: Seismic Safety, Noise, Climate and Air
Quality, Agriculture, Wildlife\Vegetation, Circulation, and Utilities and Services.
4. Specific Plan No. 1 is consistent with the goals, policies, and
implementatioia programs contained in the General Plan.
5. Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental
documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference.
Change of Zone 5617
1. Change of Zone 5617 will not have a significant adverse effect on the
environment as determined in Environmental Impact Report 348 prepared for the project. No
immediate impacts to the environment will result from the Change of Zone from Rural
Residential (R-R) and Heavy Agriculture, 20 acre minimum (A-2-20) to Specific Plan (SP).
Impacts from future development can be mitigated to a level less than significant. Statements
of Overriding Considerations have been prepared for the foliowing: Seismic Safety, Noise,
Climate and Air Quality, Agriculture, Wildlife\Vegetation, Circulation, and Utilities and
Services.
Change of Zone 5617 is consistent with the City of Temecula General
Plan.
3. Change of Zone 5617 is consistent with the goals, policies, and
implementation programs contained in the General Plan.
4. The site of the proposed Change of Zone is suitable to accommodate all
the land uses currently permitted in the proposed zoning district due to the fact that the parcel
is of adequate size and shape for any proposed use. l~ndscaping, parking and lot coverage
requirements will be met upon ultimate submittal of a development proposal.
5. Adequate access exists to the proposed Change of Zone site. Proposed
potential access points to the site will be from Winchester and Margarita Roads. Additional
internal access and required road improvements to the site will be designed and constructed in
conformance with City of Temecula standards.
6. Said findings are supported by analysis, maps, exhibits, and environmental
documents associated with this application and herein incorporated by reference.
R:XSTAFFRFF~lSP.PC5 7/15/94 vgw 'l 0
B. As conditioned pursuant to Section 3,
Section 2. Environmental Compliance. An initial study was completed for the said
applications which indicated that them would be potentially signifmant impacts with the
development of the project. Consequen~y, it was determined that an Environmental Impact
Report would be necessary for the project. Env'~ronmental Impact Report No. 348 was prepared
by the applicant's consultant, Douglas Wood and Associates, Inc. and was reviewed by City
staff. The Environmental Impact Report analyzed the signifxcance of all the impacts and
proposed mitigation measures included in the final k"TR that reduced these impacts to an
insignificant level with the exception of Seismic Safety, Noise, Climate and Air Quality, Wildlife
and Vegetation, Circulation and Utilities and Service for which Findings of Fact and Statement
of Overriding Considerations have been included within the fmal ELR. Subsequent to
preparation of the EIR two addenda were prepared for the project. The first, analyzed new
technical infoi~nation on traffic/circulation and drainage/flooding which resulted in additional
mitigation measures which were incorporated into the FEIR. The second addendure was
prepared to analyze the impacts of the a revision in the specific plan Land Use Plan which
resulted from the public hearing process and reduced the density and intensity of the project.
These two addenda did not raise important new issues about the significance of the impacts of
the project. Therefore, staff recommends Certification of the Final Environmental Impact
Report No. 348 which includes the Draft EIR , the Response to Comments, the Mitigation
Monitoring Program, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations, the Staff
Report and any associated attachments, and finds that it has been completed in compliance with
the California Quality Act (CEQA).
Section 3. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
recommends approval of Specific Plan No. 1 and Change of Zone 5617 located south of
Winchester Road and east of Margarita Road.
A. Attachment No. 3, attached hereto.
R:\$TAFFRPTXISp.!aC5 7115194 vgw ~[ 1
Section 4. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of July, 1994.
STEVEN I. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I HRREBY 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 18th day of July
1994 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNI411L
SECRETLY
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
PC RESOLUTION NO. 94-
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 94-
A RESOLUTION OF TI:IF, PLANNING COMMISSION OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA CERTIFYING ~ FINAL FANVIRONMENTAL INIPACT
REPORT NO. 348 ALONG WITH ITS TWO SUBSEQUENT ADDENDA,
ADOPTING HNDINGS OF FACT AND STATEI~.NTS OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVING ~ MrEiGATION MONITORING
PROGRAM ON PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF WINCHF~STER ROAD
AND EAST OF MARGARITA ROAD. AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NO. 921-090-001 THROUGH 004, 921-090-017, 910-130-046, 911-
170-004 AND 910-170-00S.
WHEREAS, Douglas Woods and Associates completed Environmental Impact Report
No. 348 in accordance with the City of Temecula and State CEQA Guidelines;
WHEREAS, said EIR application was processed in the time and manner prescribed by
State and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered said EIR on July 18, 1994, at which
time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing~ the Planning
Commission recommended Certification of the said EIR, Adopted the Findings of Fact and
Statements of Overriding Consideration and Approved the Mitigation Monitoring Program;
NOW, THEREFORE, TFrE CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING COMMISSION
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission in recommending
Certification of the proposed Ft!l~, makes the following fmdings, to wit:
A. Attachment 9 of the Staff Report, Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
Section 2. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
recommends certification of l. FAu No. 348 and its subsequent addenda, adopts Findings of Fact
and Statements of Overriding Consideration and approves of the Mitigation Monitoring Program
for Specific Plan No. 1, located south of Winchester Road and east of Margarita Road and
known as Assessor's Parcel No. 921-090-001 through 004, 921-090-017,910-130-046, 911-170-
004 and 910-170-005.
R:\STAFFRIq~ISP.PC5 7115194 vgw 14
Section 3. PASSED, AlPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of July, 1994.
STEVEN J. FORD
CHAIRMAN
I FfEREBY CERTWY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Planning
Commission of the City of Temecula at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 18th day of July,
1994 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
GARY THORNHILL
SECRETARY
R:~STAFFRPT',ISP.PC5 7/15/94 vgw 15
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
R:~STAFFRPT\ISP.PC5 7115/'~4 vgw 16
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Specific Plan No. I (Campos Verdes)
Project Description:
A Specific Plan proposing 308 single-family residential
units, 19.B acres of commercial\office\churchuses, a 5.8
acre detention basin, a 10.8 acre park, a 10.7 acre
elementary school, and jl 3.0 acres of on-site roadways
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Appro~/al Date:
Expiration Date:
921-090-001 through 004, 921-090-017, 910-130-046,
911-170-004and 910-170-005
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Nine Hundred Twenty-
Eight Dollars (9928.00) which includes the Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollar (9850.00)
fee, in comDliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3)
plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars (978.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City
to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section
21152 and California Code of Regulations Section 15094. If within said forty-eight
(48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department
the check as required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void
by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
General Conditions
The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, it
agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City
of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning
Specific Plan No. 1, which action is brought within the time period provided for in
California Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of Temecula will promptly
notify the applicant 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 applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the
defense, the applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold
harmless the City of Temecula.
All development within this site shall be in accordance with the requirements of all City
ordinances, except as expressly modified herein, and State laws, and shall conform
with the approved Specific Plan. Regulations or procedures not covered bythe Specific
Plan or appurtenant documents shall be subject to the City ordinances in effect at the
time entitlement is required.
R:%STAFFP, PT~ISP.I~C5 7115194 vgw 17
10.
11.
12.
13.
1~.
Approval of Specific Plan No. 1, Campos Verdes, is contingent upon and shall not
become effective nor shall it vest until a General Plan Amendment (GPA) is approved
by the City Council and an Environmental Impact Report or any other environmental
review under the provisions of the California Quality Act are certified by the City
Council.
This project and all subsequent projects within the site shall comply with all mitigation
measures identified within EIR No. 348 and the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program.
Prior to issuance of grading permits, approval of ~levelopment permits, recordation of
final maps, issuance of building permits and issuance of occupancy permits for any
subsequent projects or activities within the site the applicant/developer shall
demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in
the Mitigation Monitoring Program within EIR No. 348 have been satisfied for the stage
of development that permits are being issued for.
Prior to issuance of any subsequent grading permits, all permit requirements necessary
for altering the existing on-site blue line stream shall be completed.
The Landscape Development Zone (LDZ), which includes the Transportation Corridor,
along Winchester Road shall be thirty-seven feet (37') in width and shall be shown on
all subsequent development proposal site plans and tentative maps.
Prior to approval of any map or development proposal within the site, a detailed design
manual for any commercial area within the Specific Plan shall be submitted for review
and approval by the Planning Commission.
Within thirty (30) days of the final approval of the project by City Council, the Specific
Plan and the Final Environmental Impact Report shall be submitted to the Planning
Department in final form for review and approval, The final form shall include all
conditions of approval and all modifications made by the Planing Commission and City
Council. A master print copy (8'/2" X 11 ") and four (4) copies of the documents shall
be submitted.
Prior to approval of any development plans, all subsequent projects shall receive
appropriate clearances, conditions and approvals from all agencies with jurisdiction on
project review. These agencies shall be determined by the Planning Director and the
City Engineer.
The developer or the developer's successor-in-interest shall be responsible for
maintaining the undeveloped portion of the site including weed abatement and litter
removal,
The developer shall provide pedestrian access to the Commercial site (Planning Area
4) from the residential area to the east (Planning Area 5).
The applicant shall deposit sufficient funds with the City of Temecula to retain the
services of a qualified consultant to administer and implementthe Mitigation Monitoring
Program approved for this project as part of Environmental Impact Report 340 in
compliance with Assembly Bill 3180.
R:~STAFFRFr',ISP.PC5 7115194 vgw 18
'" 15, Prior to City Council approval the Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be updated to
reflect all current conditions of approval.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
16.
Prior to issuance of any building permits for commercial and office projects and prior
to recordation of the final map for residential projects, the project applicant shall enter
into a binding mitigation agreement with the Temecula Valley Unified School District
to ensure the mitigation of the new students generated by this Specific Plan..
17.
If any of these conditions of approval differ from the commitment by the Developer
made in the Specific Plan text or map exhibits or any other documents, the conditions
enumerated herein shall take precedence.
18.
Any proposed amendment to this Specific Plan shall require public hearings and review
by the Planning Commission and City Council, and/or shall be reviewed in accordance
with such rules and regulations for the review of Specific Plan Amendments as may
have been adopted by the City and which are in effect at the time of any proposed
amendment is submitted.
19. The developer shall satisfy all the Quimby Act requirements for the project.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Approval for this project, and
shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true
meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff person of the Department
of Public Works.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
20.
All utility systems such as electric, including those which provide direct service to the
project site and/or currently exist along public rights-of-ways adjacent to the site
(except electrical lines rated 33 kv or greater), gas, telephone, water, sewer, and cable
TV shall be placed underground, with easements provided as required, and designed
and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility prorider.
21.
Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, as deemed necessary by the Department
of Public Works, the Developer shall consult with the State of California Department
of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
to determine if permits or approvals are necessary from such agencies for any action
contemplated by this proposal. Such consultation shall be in writing, and copies of said
correspondence, including responses from agencies, shall be submitted to the City.
Where appropriate, the terms, conditions, and recommendations of the noted agencies
shall be incorporated as Conditions of Approval into the areas of development.
22.
Prior to issuance of building permits for the non residential (commercial and offices)
phases of development, the 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.
The fee to be paid shall be 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 the Developer requests its building permit for the
project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for payment
of Public Facility Fee. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, the Developer shall
post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility Fee. The amount of the bond shall
be $2.00 per square foot, not to exceed ~ 10,000. The 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). By execution of this
Agreement, the Developer will waive 'any riglit to protest the provisions of this
condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any ~raffic impact fee district~ or the
process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee for this project;
provided that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the reasonableness of
any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof.
23.
Landscaping and permanent irrigation facilities shall be installed with street
improvements. Perimeter walls shall be treated with graffiti-resistant coating and shall
be installed adjacent to street improvements within each phase.
24.
A phasing plan addressing the schedule of necessary infrastructure requirements shall
be approved by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Director prior to
approval of any subsequent development application.
CIRCULATION
25.
As a condition of approval for any subsequent development application associated with
this Specific Plan, the Developer must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip
Reduction Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01.
26.
Adequate primary and secondary access shall be provided for each phase of
development as approved by the Department of Public Works. Access to residential,
office, and commercial areas shall be reviewed by the Department of Public Works at
the time of submittal of individual development applications. Additional rights-of-way
at entries to the aforementioned sites may be required to provide for turning lanes as
directed by the Department of Public Works,
27.
All street sections shall correspond with Typical Roadway Cross Sections and
requirements of the Circulation Element of City's General Plan, City ordinances and
standards.
28.
All intersections intervals shall comply with City and Caltrans standards and
requirements.
29.
The Developer shall provide bus bays and shelters within the Specific Plan. Location
and number of bus bays shall be subject to approval of the City and Riverside
Transportation Agency (RTA). If required, additional rights-of-way dedications
associated with bus bays shall be provided by the Developer.
R:\STAFFRPTXlSP.PC5 7/15/94 vgw 20
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
Necessary improvements have been/will be conditioned based on the project traffic
studies and the conceptual phasing plan shown on Section III. A. 7. of the Specific
Plan. Any substantive rephasing of the development must be approved by the Planning
Commission through a rephasing application, A rephasing of the development
considered to be minor or in substantial conformante with the construction phasing
plan approved with the adoption of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan, as determined
by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Director, may be approved
administratively through applicable City procedures, Prior to the issuance of occupancy
permits within any phase, all on and offsite improvements as referred to in the Traffic
Repor.ts and subsequent addenda along with additional requirements set herein, or as
set by conditions on individual tracts, must be constructed and/or bonded as required
by the Department of Public Works.
Ensuing Traffic Reports, analyzing traffic impacts associated with subsequent
development stages of the Specific Plan, shall be submitted to identify implementation
and timing of the necessary improvements to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts.
The traffic signals at the phase one accesses from Margarita Road and North General
Kearny Road, as required, based on traffic signal warrants analysis relative to
subsequent development applications shall be completed prior to issuance of any
occupancy.
The following infrastructure improvements/reimbursements shall be completed by the
200th equivalent dwelling unit (EDU). The improvements shall be constructed prior to
issuance of occupancy for the 200th EDU.
Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer shall
bond for full width improvements to Margarita Road, along the entire frontage,
including a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median, in accordance with the
Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's General Plan classifying Margarita
Road as an Arterial Highway with 110 foot full width right-of-way.
Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer shall
bond for reconstruction of the existing.two lanes on Margarita Road, from
Solana Way to southerly project boundary,
Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer shall bond
for the improvements to North General Kearny Road, from Margarita Road to easterly
project limit in accordance with the approved Phasing Plan of the Specific Plan. The
cross section shall be in accordance with the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's
General Plan classification for a Secondary Highway with 88 foot full width right-of-
way,
Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer is
responsible to bond for the traffic signals at the intersections listed below. The
Developer shall construct the traffic signals, as required, based on traffic signal
warrants analysis relative to subsequent development applications at the following
intersections:
Margarita Road and Winchester Road (upgrade the existing signal)
R;\STAFFRIq~ISP, PC, S 7115194 vgw
Drainage
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
Water
44.
45.
Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road
Margarita Road and Campos Verdes Lane
North General Kearny Road and Camino Campos Verdes
Drainage and flood control facilities shall be provided in accordance with the
requirements of the City and/or Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District (RCFC&WCD).
Prior to approval of any subsequent development applications, the Developer shall
submit the master drainage plan to the City and RCFC&WCD to review the adequacy
of the proposed and existing downstream drainage facilities.
Drainabe facilities within each phase shall be constructed immediately after the
completion of the site grading and prior to or concurrently with the initial site
development within that phase.
All drainage facilities shall be designed to carry 100 year storm flows, subject to the
approval of the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable.
The Developer shall construct the proposed on and offsite drainage facility
improvements and the onsite detention basin provision as recommended in the Specific
Plan and Drainage Study documents and/or as directed by the Department of Public
Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable.
As required by the Department of Public Works, additional Hydrology' and Hydraulic
Reports shall be submitted with subsequent development applications to study the
drainage impacts and analyze necessary measures to mitigate the runoff created as
part of the development of this project.
The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto
or through the site.
The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration
of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be
provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing
facilities or by securing drainage easements.
and Sewer
Water and sewer facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and
specifications of the City, Rancho California Water District (RCWD), and Eastern
Municipal Water District (EMWD). Such requirements shall be applied at the subdivision
or plot plan stages of the development.
Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall
submit the master water plan to RCWD to check for adequacy of the proposed water
facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the water system from
RCWD.
R:\STAFFRFI~lSP. PC5 7115/c~4 vgw 22
46.
Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall
submit the master sewer plan to EMWD to check for adequacy of the proposed sewer
facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the sewer system from
EMWD.
47,
Prior to the recordation of any tract map, commercial parcel map, or approval of any
plot plan application, the Developer shall provide the City with evidence that adequate
wastewater treatment facilities are being provided to meet the needs of the Campos
Verdes Specific Plan development.
Grading
48.
No grading shall be permitted for any development area prior to tentative map or plot
plan approval and issuance of grading permits for the specific area of development.
49.
Grading plans and operations shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code,
City Grading Standards, the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report,
or any subsequent reports prepared for the project, the conditions of the grading
permit, and accepted grading construction practices and the recommendations and
standards specified in the Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
document.
50.
Prior to issuance of any grading permit, Erosion Control plans shall be prepared in
conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department
of Public Works. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement
guaranteeing the grading and erosion control improvements.
51.
The Developer shall comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulated by the State Water Resources Control
Board, and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) implemented by the San
Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board,
52.
Each subsequent application for a phase of development shall include a conceptual
grading plan to indicate at a minimum:
· Preliminary quantity estimates for grading.
Techniques and methods which will be used to prevent erosion and
sedimentation during and after the grading process in compliance with the City
Standards and NPDES requirements.
· Preliminary pad and roadway elevations.
· Designation of the borrow or stockpile site location for import/export material.
Approximate time frames for development including the identification of areas
which will be graded during the rainy months.
· Hydrology and hydraulic concerns and mitigations.
23
53. Major grading activities shall be scheduled during the dry season wherever possible,
or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works.
54.
Soils stabilization, which may include revegetation of graded areas, shall occur within
30 days of final grading activities as directed by the Department of Public Works,
55. The site shall be watered during grading operations to control dust.
56.
Temporary drainage and sediment control devices shall be installed as directed by the
Department of Public Works.
57.
An import/export route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to
issuance of any grading permit. The plan shall include limitation to the duration of the
grading operation and construction activities, a Traffic Control Plan, and a daily time
scheddle of operations.
58.
Prior to issuance of any grading permit, a soils reports shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works for review and approval, to address engineering, geologic,
seismic, and soils engineering concerns for each tentative map or commercial parcel
map for each phase of proposed development.
59.
All public streets shall be maintained and cleaned if necessary on a daily basis during
grading operation and construction activities. Cash deposit, letter of credit or posting
of bond to guarantee maintenance of all public rights-of-way affected by the grading
operations and construction activities, shall be posted prior to issuance of grading
permits.
60.
If subsequent Geotechnical and Soils Reports determine that dewatering of the site is
necessary during construction, necessary permits (ie. in compliance with NPDES
permit) shall be obtained from appropriate agencies prior to approval of the grading
plans.
Phasing
61.
Construction of the development permitted by the Specific Plan, including recordation
of final subdivision maps, may be carried out in stages provided that, adequate
vehicular access is constructed for all dwelling units in each stage of development and
further provided that such development conforms substantially with the intent and
purpose of the Specific Plan Phasing Plan.
62.
Development applications shall be submitted for each planning unit in each phase. Total
acreage, dwelling units, and land uses within each phase shall be in accordance with
the specifications of the Specific Plan.
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
The Temecula Community Services Department (TCSD) provides the following conditions for
Campos Verdes Specific Plan:
R:~STAFFRPT\ISP.PC5 7115194 vgw 24
General Requirements
63.
All park facilities, slope areas, park way landscaping, trails and medians shall be
improved in conformance with the City of Temecula Landscape Development Plan
Guidelines and Specifications.
64.
Construction of the public park site, landscaping, trails and medians proposed for
dedication to the TCSD shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the
developer and the City Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD
review and inspection process may preclude acceptance of these areas into the TCSD
maintenance program.
65.
The developer, or the developer's successors or assignees, shall maintain the park site,
landscaping, trails and medians until such time as those responsibilities are accepted
by the'TCSD.
66.
All park facilities, and/or other recreational areas, intended for transfer to the City "in-
fee" shall be dedicated free and clear of any liens, assessments, or easements that
would preclude the City from using the property for public park and/or recreational
purposes. A policy of title insurance and a soils assessment report shall also be
provided with the dedication of the property.
67.
All perimeter walls, interior slopes and open space shall be maintained by the individual
property owners or an established Home Owner's Association (HOA).
68.
Bike lanes and recreational trails shall be provided on site and designed to intercept
with the City's Park and Recreation Master Plan. Class II bike lanes shall be
constructed in concurrence with the street improvements.
69.
All exterior slopes contiguous to public streets that are adjacent to single family
residential development shall be offered for dedication to the TCSD for maintenance
purposes following compliance to existing City standards and completion of the
application process. All other slopes and open space shall be maintained by and
established Home Ownar's Association (HOA).
Prior to Recordation of the Final Map
70.
Prior to recordation of the respective final map, the developer or his assignee shall
enter into an agreement and post security to improve the 10.8 acre park facility located
in Planning Area 1 and the detention basin in Planning Area 2.
71.
Prior to recordation of the respective final map, the subdivider shall post security and
enter into an agreement to improve the parkway landscaping, medians, and multi-
purpose trail identified in Planning Area 9.
72.
All parks, slope areas, parkway landscaping, trails and medians identified as TCSD
maintenance areas shall be offered for dedication on the final map.
73.
Landscape construction drawings for all project areas (project areas may consist of
slopes, streetscape, medians, turf areas, recreational trails, and parks) identified as
TCSD maintenance areas shall be shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of
Community Services prior to recordation of the final map.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
74,
The Park shall be improved and dedicated to the City prior to the issuance of the 78th
residential building permit for the overall project or within two (2) years of map
recordation for the first phased lots, whichever Comes first.
Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy
75,
Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within each phased map, the
developer or his assignee shall submit, in a format as directed by TCSD staff, the most
current list of Assessor's Parcel Numbers assigned to the final project.
76.
Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy within each phased map, the
developer or his assignee shall file an application with the TCSD and pay the
appropriate fees for the dedication of arterial and residential lights into the maintenance
program.
R:~STAFFIL~T\iSP.PC5 7115194
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
R:\STAFFRPT'xlSp. PC5 7/15194 vg~v 27
CITY OF TEMECULA
BOUNDARYB:X~81att~
CASE NO. - SP NO. I (CAMPOS VERDES), EIR NO. 348, CZ NO. 5617
EXHIBIT - A FIGURE IV - 26A MEADOWVIEW BUFFER EXHIBIT
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - JUNE 6, 1994
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
REVISED CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN
SUMMARY OF CHANGES
I T & B Planning Consultants
· ~ Santa Ana · San Diego
May 18, 1994
RECEIVED
MAY 19 199zl
............
JN 168-044
Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner
Planning Department
CITY OF TEMECULA
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: 'CHANGES TO CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN DOCUMENT
Dear Ms. Ubnoske:
I am providing you this letter to facilitate review of the latest draft version of the Campos Verdes
Specific Plan (updated May 2, 1994) by City staff and the Planning Commission. Many changes
to the Land Use Plan and the Specific Plan document have occurred since the previous draft was
prepared in March 1993. A sununary of the key changes follows:
I. LAND USE PLAN CHANGES
Figure III-1 on page HI-3 has been revised to reflect the new Land Use Plan. This
exhibit was formerly in black & white and is now in full color.
Residential Densities. The land use categories in the Campos Verdes Specific Plan
have been modified. Previously, the Specific Plan proposed medium low density
(3.0 du/ac), medium density (5.2 du/ac), and very high density (17.0 du/ac)
residential uses. These categories have been replaced by low density (0.5 - 2.0
du/ac) and low medium density (3.0 - 6.0 du/ac) residential uses.
Total Residences. The number of residences on-site has been reduced from 850 du
at an average residential density of 9.9 du/ac to 308 du at an average density of
4.2 du/ac (a reduction of 542 dwellings).
Meadowview Buffer. All lots which abut the Meadowview development shall have
a minimum permitted lot size of 20,000 square feet in response to input and
concerns expressed by Meadowview residents. Additionally, a minimum six foot
(6') high solid wall shall be erected on the property boundary between the
residential lots in Planning Area 9 and the adjacent forty foot (40') wide open
space/paseo buffer.
Open Space/Paseo Buffer. A forty foot (40') wide buffer will be created between
the on-site residential uses in Planning Area 9 and the adjoining off-site
Meadowview development. An eight foot (8') wide minimum multi-purpose trail
· I ~ Debbie Ubnoske
CITY OF TEMECULA
Page 2
will meander through the entire length of the paseo. The paseo area and multi-
purpose trail will be maintained by the Temecula Community Services District
(TCSD).
Commercial/Office Uses. The commercial/office uses in Planning Area 2, located
next to the comer of Margarita Road/North General Kearny Road, have been
increased from 4.6 acres to 7.8 acres. In addition, all or portions of the
commercial/office site may be developed with church/religious uses.
Commercial Center. The commercial center at the intersection of Winchester
Road/Margarita Road (e.g., Planning Area 4) has been reduced in size from 13.5
acres to 12.0 acres. Primary access to the commercial center will still be provided
from Campos Verdes Lane, with right-in/right-out only access available from
Margarita Road.
Elementary School Site. A 10.7 acre (gross) elementary school site is proposed
adjacent to North General Kearny Road (in Planning Area 7). The school site shall
be a minimum of 10.0 usable acres in size. The following text has been inserted
on page Ili-57 of the Specific Plan: "If the project developer and the Temecula
Unified School District do not elect this option, then the total number of dwelling
units permitted in Planning Area 7 shall not exceed 64 single family homes with a
minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet."
Park Site. The park site in Planning Area 1 has been reduced in size from 13.5
acres to 10.8 acres. This reduction has been made because the number of dwellings
planned in Campos Verdes has been reduced from 850 du (March 1993) to 308 du
(May 1994). The developer is requesting to receive full park credits from the City
for 4.0 acres of parkland and 75% credit for the remaining 3.5 acres of parkland in
Planning Area 1. The remaining 3.3 acres in Planning Area 1 shall be used for
drainage and detention purposes. The developer shall not receive any park credits
for those portions of the park devoted primarily to drainage/detention uses.
IL CIRCULATION PLAN CHANGES
The locations of both Campos Verdes Lane and Caminn Campos Verdes have
remained unchanged. However, the entire network of interior streets within the
project site has been revised to accommodate the proposed changes in the Land Use
Plan.
The proposed extensions of Sandealing Way and Starling Street into the Campos
Verdes project from the adjacent Roripaugh Estates development have been deleted
from the proposed Circulation Plan at the request of Roripaugh Estates residents.
No vehicular connection is planned between Campos Verdes and Roripaugh Estates.
DebbieUbnoske
· ICITY OF TEMECULA
.,,~ Page 3
OPEN SPACFJRECREATION AND LANDSCAPING PLAN CHANGES
Section III.A.6 of the Specific Plan on page I11-31 has been expanded from "Landscaping Plan"
(March 1993) to "Open Space/Recreation and Landscaping Plan" (May 1994). In addition to
discussing landscape requirements, this section now also discusses City park requirements.
Besides the park site in Planning Area 1, a 2.0-acre open space/paseo buffer is
planned in Planning Area 9 as a buffer to-the existing Meadowview development.
A 5.9-acre detention basin is planned in Planning Area 2 next to the
commercial/office uses. "The detention basin, although it will serve a detention
function during winter storms, will contain a turfed-covered bottom that will be
suitable for passive recreational activities and impromptu ball games for much of
the year. The sides of the basin will be planted with turf and trees" (see p. 111-31).
Additionally, the following text has been inserted on page III-31 of the Specific
Plan:
"KCDC's proposal to provide park land in Campos Verdes in excess of the
4.0 acres required by TCSD standards will prove mutually beneficial for
both the TCSD and KCDC. The TCSD will receive an additional 3.5 acres
of developed park (suitable for both active and passive purposes), plus 5. 9
acres of landscape detention basin and a 2.0-acre landscaped buffer paseo
containing a multi-purpose trail. In return, TCSD will: 1) accept
ownership and maintenance responsibility for the detention basin and
landscape buffer paseo in Campos Verdes, and 2) allocate KCDC 75% park
credit for the 3. 5 acres of developed park land that KCDC is providing in
Campos Verdes in excess of TCSD requirements which shall be counted
toward the park and recreation requirements of other projects within the
City of Temecula that KCDC is developing."
IV. PROJECT PHASING PLANS
The Development Phasing Plan for Campos Verdes, as depicted in Table II on page
Ili-36, has been revised to reflect the new Land Use Plan. The park site is planned
for constraction in Phase I and will be completed prior to issuance of the 781h
building permit for the project or within two (2) years of Map Recordation for the
first phase lots. Phasing of the elementary school site will ultimately be decided
by the School District. The detention basin in Planning Area 2 is planned for
development in Phase II, but may be developed earlier or later depending upon the
phasing of the adjacent Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan. The
commercial/office and commercial uses will be constructed in Phase II.
Debbie Ubnoske
CITY OF TEMECULA
May 18, 1994
Page 5
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or comments regarding this letter
or the Campos Verdes Specific Plan.
Sincerely,
T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS, INC.
Mark T. Hickner
Project -Manager
cc: Dennis Chiniaeff
Barry Bumell
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
FIRST ADDENDUM TO EIR
UNDER SEPARATE CO VER
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
SECOND ADDENDUM TO EIR
R:\STAFFRPT~ISP. PC5 7/15/94 vg~ ~0
ADDENDUM EIR
CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PlAN
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1
EIR NO. 348
Lead Agency:
CITY OF TEMECULA
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
(714) 694-6400
Prepared By:
Douglas Wood & Associates, Inc.
567 San Nicolas Drive, Suite 106
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(714) 644-7977
June, 1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction and Purpose
A. Background .......................................... 1
B. Purpose ............................................. 1
C. Snmmary Analysis ..................................... 3
II.
Project Description
A. Objectives ............................................ 5
B. "'Revised" Project Plan ................................... 5
C. "Original" Project Plan ............. ..................... 9
D. Comparative Analysis .................................. 12
III. Envirdnmental Analysis
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
O.
P.
Q.
R.
Seismic Safety ....................................... 14
Slopes and Erosion .................................... 17
Wind Erosion and Blowsand ............................. 19
Flooding ............................................ 20
Noise .............................................. 22
Climate and Air Quality ................................ 24
Water Quality ........................................ 26
Toxic Substances ..................................... 27
Agriculture ......................................... 28
Open Space and Conservation ............................ 29
W~dlife/Vegetation .................................... 30
Energy Resources ..................................... 32
Scenic Highways ...................................... 33
Cultural and Scientific Resources ......................... 34
Circulation .......................................... 36
Utilities and Services .................................. 42
Light and Glare ...................................... 44
Disaster Preparedness .................................. 45
Mandatory CEQA Topics
A. Cumulative Impact Analysis ............................. 46
B. Summary of Unavoidable Adverse Impacts .................. 46
C. Alternatives to the Proposed Project ....................... 46
D. Growth Inducing Impacts, the Relationship Between
Local Short-Term Use of Man's Environment and the
Maintenance of Long-Term Productivity, and Irreversible/
Irretrievable Commitment of Energy Supplies and Other
Resources Should the Project Be Implemented ............... 47
Attachments
A - Supplemental Traffic Analysis
B - Correspondence from the Temecula Valley Unified School District
LIST OF FIGURES
"Revised" Project Land Use Plan ................................ 7
"Original" Project Land Use Plan .............................. 10
LIST OF TABLES
1. Comparative Analysis of Impacts and Mitigations ................... 3
2. "Revised" Project Land Use Summaxy ............................ 6
3. Development Phasing Plan .................................... 9
4. "Orig~nn!" Project Land Use Summary ........................... 11
5. Land Use Comparative Summary .............................. 13
6. Air Quality Analysis ........................................ 25
7. Vehicle Trip Generation, "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan ....... 38
8. Vehicle Trip Generation, "Original" Campos Verdes Specific Plan ....... 39
9. Comparison of Traffic Impacts ................................ 40
10. Utility Agencies ........................................... 42
11. Public Services and Utilities Comparison of Impacts ................ 43
ADDENDUM
CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN
I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
A. Back2round
The Campos Verdes Specific Plan Dryaft. Environmental Impact Report (EIR No.
348) was circulated for public review by the City of Temecula between July 10, 1992
and August 24, 1992. This circulation was in conformance with Section 15086, et.seq.
of the State CF, QA Guidelines which state that the Lead Agency (City of Temecula)
shall consult with and request comments on the Draft EIR from: responsible
agencies, trustee or other State, Federal or local agencies as well as consulting directly
with any person who has special expertise with respect to any environmental impact
involved.
In February, 1993, an Addendum EIR to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan was
prepared. The purpose of this fwst Addendure EIR was three-fold: 1) to respond to
various comments made by the City of Temecula as a result of their review of the
Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan; 2)
incorporate subsequently-prepared technical analyses (in the areas of
traffic/circulation and drainage/flooding) into the Final Environmental Impact Report;
and 3) integrate any additional or revised mitigation measures resulting from the
concerns raised by the City or as a result of the subsequently-prepared technical
studies into the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project.
Purpose
Most recently, revisions were made to the land use plan for the proposed
Carnpos Verdes Specific Plan which reduce the number of proposed dwelling units and
changes the size of other proposed on-site land uses. It is the intent of this
Addendum to the Draft Environmental Impact Report to identify and discuss the
revisions made to the C3mpos Verdes Specific Plan (see Section II., Project
Description) followed by an analysis of the changes in project impacts and provision
of any additional mitigation measures (see Section III., Environmental Analysis).
Technical analyses specifically prepared in response to these project revisions (in the
area of traffic) are referred to within the text of Section III and are included in their
entirely as Attachments to this Addendure to the Draft EIR.
The information contained herein is intended to provide decision-makers with
clarification regarding the potential environmental impacts of and mitigation
measures for the proposed project. This environmental information is considered to
be an Addendure to the Campos Verdes Draft EIR in accordance with Section 15164
of the State CEQA Guidelines which states:
(a)
The Lead Agency or a Responsible Agency shall prepare an
Addendum to an EIR if:
(1)
None of the conditions described in Section
15162 c~lling for preparation of a subsequent
EIR have occurred (i.e. substantial project
revisions, changes in circumstances
surrounding the project, or additional project
impacts, mitigations or alternatives becoming
feasible or available);
(2)
Only minor technical changes or additions are
necessary to make the EIR under
consideration adequate under CEQA;and
(3)
The changes to the EIR made by the
Addendum do not raise important new issues
about the significant effects on the
environment.
(b)
An Addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be
included in or attached to the Final EIR.
(c)
The derision-making body shall consider the Addendure
with the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the
project.
This Addendure EIR in combination with the Draft EIR, Response to
Comments package, the previously-prepared Addendure EIR, Staff Report and any
other attachments and technical reports constitute the Final EIR for the Campos
Verdes Specific Plan.
This Addendum to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan Draft Environmental
Impact Report has been prepared for the City of Temecula in accordance with the
C3]ifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as ~mended, and City Guidelines for
the Implementation of CEQA. More specffically, the City has relied on Section
15084(d)(3) of the State Guidelines which allow acceptance of drafts prepared by the
applicant, consultant retained by the applicant, or any other person. The City of
Temecula, as Lead Agency, has reviewed and edited as necessary the submitted
"screencheck" copies of the Draft EIR, the Response to Comments package, the
previously-prepared Addendure EIR, and this Addendum to the Draft EIR to reflect
their own independent judgemerit to the extent of their ability.
In accordance with Section 15021 of the State EIR Guidelines, this Addendum
to the Draft EIR is intended to enable the City of Temecul~, as Lead Agency, to
evaluate environmental effects associated with the proposed Csmpos Verdes Specific
Plan and to further analyze measures to reduce the magnitude of any adverse effects.
The Lead Agency has an obligation to balance possible adverse effects of the project
against a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental and social
factors, in determining whether the project is acceptable and approved for
development.
2
C. SnmmarV Allsl,VJi~$
The following tabular summary lists the environmental issues discussed within
both the Draft Environmental Impact Report and this Addendure to the Draft EIR.
This summary table indicates which environmental issues experienced a change in
project-related impacts and/or the provision of additional mitigation measures beyond
those contained in the Draft EIR as a result of the revisions made to the proposed
project land use plan, as discussed in Section II of this Addendum.
TABLE 1
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATIONS
Environmental Issue
Chsnges in
Proiect Impacts
Additional
MitiaationMeasures
A. Seismic Safety* decreased no
B. Slopes and Erosion unchanged no
C. Wind Erosion and Blowsand unchanged no
D. Flooding decreased no
E. Noise* decreased no
F. Climate and Air Quality* decreased no
G. Water Quality decreased no
H. Toxic Substances unchanged no
I. Agriculture* unchanged 'no
J. Open Space and Conservation unchanged no
K. Wildlife/Vegetation* decreased no
L. Energy Resources decreased no
M. Scenic Highways decreased no
N. Cultural and Scientific Resources unchanged no
O. Circulation* decreased no
P. Utilities and Services* decreased no
Q. Light and Glare decreased no
R. Disaster Preparedness decreased no
* Significant Impacts Remain; Statement of Overriding Considerations Required
As shown above, project related impacts in the areas of Seismic Safety,
Flooding, Noise, Climate and Air Quality, Water Quality, Energy Resources, Scenic
Highways, Circulation, Utilities and Services, Light and Glare and Disaster
Preparedness have been reduced as a consequence of revisions made to the Cnrnpos
Verdes Specific Plan.
The nature and extent of the changes in project impacts and additional
mitigation measures are discussed in detail in Section III, Environmental Analysis of
this Addendure to the Draft EIR. None of the net changes in project impacts noted
above result in the creation of new mitigation measures or unavoidable adverse
environmental impacts beyond those already identified in the Campos Verdes Draft
3
Environmental Impact Report. SignificAnt impacts as a result of development of the
"Revised" CAmpos Verdes Specific Plan remain in the areas of Seismic Safety, Noise,
Climate and Air Quality, Agriculture, WiJdlifeNegetation, Circulation and Utilities
and Services libraries).
4
' H. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A, Objectives
The basic objective of the proposed Campos Verdes Specific Plan is to provide
single family detached residential housing accompanied by on-site commercial,
institutional. and recreational uses.
In conformance with the Cnllfornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this
Addendure to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Addendum EIR) has been
prepared to facilitate an objective assessment of the individual and collective
environmental impacts associated with approval and implementation of the revised
Campos Verdes Specific Plan. The project involves the following proposed
discretionary actions by the City of Temeculsz 1) Approval of the Campos Verdes
Specffic Plan; 2) Certffication of the Campos Verdes Final Environmental Impact
Report (State Clearinghouse No. 89020139); 3) Approval of a change of zoning to
Specific Plan (SP); and 4) Approval of the CAmpos Verdes Mitigation Monitoring
Program.
It is the intent of this Section II to provide a detailed discussion of the recently-
revised Cnmpos Verdes Specffic Plan (to be referred to as the "Revised" Campos
Verdes Specific Plan or the "Revised" project plan). This discussion contains the same
level of detail as found in the Project Description within the Draft EIR. As indicated
in Section I., Introduction and Purpose, these revisions to the proposed project
occurred subsequent to the circulation of the Cnmpos Verdes Specific Plan Draft EIR.
This Section next provides a summary of the Original Specific Plan discussed and
analyzed in the Draft EIR (to be referred to as the "Original" Campos Verdes Specific
Plan or the "Original" project plan). In order to maintain the adequacy of the Draft
EIR and to facilitate the evaluation of the impacts of these revisions, a comparative
analysis of the "Revised" and "Original" project plans is also provided in this Section.
B. "Revised" Project Plnn
The "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan is illustrated in Figure 1, "Revised" Project
Land Use Plan and delineated in Table 2, "Revised" Project Land Use Summary. The
"Revised" project plan involves a maximum total of 308 dwelling units on 72.7 acres
(a net density of 4.2 dwelling units per acre) with 19.8 acres of
commercial/office/church uses, a 5.8 acre detention basin, a 10.8 acre park, a 10.7 acre
Elementary School and 13.0 acres of on-site roadways.
5
TABLE 2
"REVISED" PROJECT LAND USE SUMMARY
Land Use
Designation
Residential
Low (.5 to 2
DU/AC)
Low Medium
(3 to 6
DU/AC)
Subtotal
Non-
Residential
Commercial
Commercial/
Office/Church
and Detention
Basin x
Elementary
School
Park 2
Roads
Subtotal
PROJECT
TOTAL
Notes
p)anning Area
9
3
5
6
8
Density Dwelling
(DU/AC) Units
Acres
1.1 18 16.0
6.3 76 12.0
5.2 86 16.5
5.9 72 12.3
3.5 56 15.9
4.2 308 72.7
4
2
12.0
13.7
7
10.7
2.3 308
10.8
13.0
60.2
132.9
Approximately 7.8 acres in Planning Area 2 shall be utilized for
commercial/office uses adjacent to North General Kearny Road. The remaining 5.9
acres shall include a landscaped detention basin. No park credits will be given for the
detention basin by the City.
2 The developer shall receive full park credits from the City for 7.5 acres of
parkland within Planning Area 1. The remaining 3.3 acres in Planning Area i shall
be used for drainage and detention purposes. The developer shall not receive any
park credits for those portions of the park devoted primarily to drainage/detention
uses.
6
The proposed land uses within the Specific Plan include:
Low DensiW Residential: Approximately 18 dwelling units will be developed on 16
acres at a density of 1.1 dwelling units per acre. Those single family detached homes
will be located in Planning Area 9 adjacent to the off-site residential uses.
Low Medium Density Residential: The remaining residential development within the
CArnpos Verdes Specific Plan wffi be developed within a density range of 3.5 to 6.3
dwelling units per acre. Planning Areas 3, 5, 6 and 8 contain a total of 290 residential
dwelling units on a total of 56.7 acres.
Commercial/Office and Detention Basin: Planning Area 4 will be developed with 12.0
acres of commercial property along Margarita and Winchester Reads. Planning Area
2 (13.7 acres total) will be developed with a detention basin on 5.9 acres;
commercial/office uses will be constructed on 7.8 acres of the parcel, adjacent to North
General Kearny Read. The developer shall not receive any park credit for the
detention basin facility in Planning Area 2.
Park: A 10.8 acre park is planned along North General Kearny Road in Planning
Area 1. It is anticipated that this park will contain softball/soccer fields, on-site
parking, tot lots, picnic area, etc. A total of 7.5 acres will count fully toward City park
requirements. A portion of the park (3.3 acres) will be used for drainage/detention
purposes to help protect adjacent land uses from flooding during a 100-year storm.
The 3.3 acres of drainage- and detention-related uses will not count toward City
requirements for park credits.
Elementary School: A 10.7 acre elementary school site shall be provided in Planning
Area 7. This elementary school will be utilized by the Temecula Valley Unified School
District. This site may be used as credit against School Mitigation Fees which may
otherwise be required. If a school is not constructed on this site, then a maximum of
64 single family dwellings may be constructed on 4,500 square foot minimum lots.
Roads: Roadways totalling 13.0 acres will be constructed in conjunction with the
proposed project.
Project-wide development standards have been prepared to manage
implementation of general or unique conditions in each Planning Area. These general
standards are hsted in Section III.A. 1., Specific Land Use Plan of the Campos Verdes
Specific Plan. Specific information regarding the Planning Areas can be found in
Section III.D., Planning Area Development Standards and Section III.C., Zoning
Ordinance within the Campos Verdes Specific Plan.
The "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan will be developed over a five year
period in accordance with the Development Phasing Plan delineated in Table 3 below.
8
TABT,E 3
DEVELOPMENT PHASING PLAN
Phase Use Planning Acres
Area
Units
Phase I
Years 1 and 2
- Park
- Elementary School '
- Low Medium Residential
- Low Medium Residential
- Low Medium Residential
I 10.8 0
7 10.7 0
3 12.0 76
5 16.5 86
6 12.3 72
Subtotal 62.3 234
Phase H
Years 3 to 5 - Low Residential 9 16.0
- Low Medi,,m Residential 8 15.9
- Commercial/Office/
Church and Drainage 2
- Commercial
18
56
2 13.7 0
4 12.0 0
Subtotal 57.6 74
Project 13.0
Roadways
PROJECT 132.9
TOTAL
308
Notes
x Phasing of the elementary school will ultimately be determined by the Temecula
Valley Unified School District. The District may elect to build the school in Phase II,
ff ever. If a school is not constructed on this site, then a maximum of 64 single fam{ly
dwelling may be constructed on 4,500 square foot minimum lots.
2 The detention basin in Planning Area 2 may be developed earlier depending upon
the phasing of the adjacent Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan.
"Ori2inaF Project Plan
The "Original" Compos Verdes Specific Plan involved a maximum total of 850 dwelling
units on 86.0 acres (a net density of 9.9 dwelling units per acre) as ~ustrated in
Figure 2. As noted in Table 4, "Original" Project Land Use Summary, residential
densities range from Medium Low Density (2 to 5 dwelling units per acre on 21.0
acres); Medium Density (5 to 8 dwelling units per acre on 27.1 acres); and Very High
Density (8 to 17 dwelling units per acre on 37.9 acres). In addition, a total of 18.1
acres of commercial/office/church uses, a 5.8 acre detention basin, a 13.5 acre park and
9.5 acres of on-site roadways were also proposed.
9
lO
TABLF, 4
"ORIGINAL" PROJECT LAND USE SUMMARY
Land Use Plsnning Area
Designation
Residential
Medium Low 7
(2 to 5
DU/AC)
Medium (5 to 6
8 DU/AC)
Very High (8 5
to 17 DU/AC) 3
Subtotal
Non-
Residential
Commercial 4
Commercial/ 2
Office/Church
and Detention
Basin ~
Park 2 1
Roads
Subtotal
PROJECT
TOTAL
Notes
Density Dwelling
(DU/AC) Units
Acres
3.0 65 21.0
5.2 141 27.1
17.0 267 15.7
17.0 377 22.2
9.9 850 86.0
13.5
10.4
6.4 850
13.5
9.5
46.9
132.9
~ Approximately 4.6 acres in Planning Area 2 shall be utilized for commercial/office
uses adjacent to North General Kearny Road. The remaining 5.8 acres shall include
a landscaped detention basin. No park credits will be given for the detention basin
by the City.
2 The developer shall receive full park credits from the City for 10.7 acres of parkland
within Planning Area 1. The remaining 2.8 acres in Planning Area I shall be used
for drainage and detention purposes. The developer shall not receive any park credits
for those portions of the park devoted primarily to drainage/detention uses.
11
Comparative Analysis
Provided below is both a qualitative and quantitative comparison of the
"Revised" and "Orj~nsP' project plans (eac~h of which is individually discussed in
Sections II.B. and II.C., respectively of this Addendure to the Draft EIR) and
summarized in Table 5, Land Use Comparative Summary. As previously noted,
revisions to the project land use plan occurred subsequent to the public circulation of
the Compos Verdes Specific Plan Draft EIR. The following list represents the primary
elements of the proposed Campos Verdes Specific Plan which have changed sinco
circulation of the Draft EIR. These revisions are currently reflected within the
"Revised" Project Plan.
1. The proposed maximum dwelling unit total for the Campos Verdes Specific
Plan has be~n reduced from 850 to 308, a reduction of 63.7%. The gross project
density has been reduced to 2.3 dwelling units per gross acre from 6.4 dwelling units
per gross acre. The net density of the project has also been reduced from 9.9 to 4.2
dwelling units per net acre. Net density relates to the number of proposed dwelling
units within actual developed acreage. A reduced total of 72.7. acres is devoted to
residential land uses in the "Revised" project land use plan as compared to 86.0 acres
of residential uses in the "Original" project land use plan.
2. Within the overall dwelling unit total, the densities of proposed residential
uses have been reduced. The "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan contains housing
within the Low Density (0.5 to 2 dwelling units per acre) and Low Medium Density
Residential (2 to 5 dwelling units per acre) categories. The "Original""project plan
provided housing within the Low Medium Density (2 to 5 dwelling units per acre) and
Very High Density (8 to 17 dwelling units per acre) residential density categories.
The "Revised" project plan eliminates all housing within these two higher residential
density categories. In so doing, all attached housing has been eliminated from the
project proposal.
3. The amount of commercial/office/church land use has been expanded to a
total of 19.8 acres from 18.1 acres in the "Original" project plan. An additional 3.2
acres of commercial/office/church use was added to Planning Area 2 while 1.5 acres
of commercial use was taken from Planning Area 4, a net increase of 1.7 acres.
4. The park proposed in Planning Area 1 has been reduced to 10.8 acres in the
"Revised" project plan from 13.5 acres in the "Original" project plan. A total of 7.5
acres (rather than the original proposal of 10.7 acres) wffi be applied toward City park
requirements. The portions of Planning Areas 2 and 4 contain areas which will serve
as a retention basin or will provide drainage/detention functions. These drainage and
detention-related uses apply to areas for which no park credit is being requested.
5. A 10.7 acre Elementary School site has been added to the "Revised" project
land use plan within Planning Area 7 (see Figure 1 "Revised" Project Land Use Plan).
Within the "Original" project land use plan, ten acres was identified within Land Use
Development Standard 18 on page III-8 of the Csmpos Verdes Specific Plan (January,
1993) as a "potential elementary school site". At that time, it was stipulated that if
12
the option of constructing a school was not pursued by the Temecula Valley Unified
School District, a maximum of 64 dwelling units would be constructed at this location.
This stipulation of conversion to residential use of this area remains within the
"Revised" Specific Plan.
The additional environmental impacts assodated with these project revisions are
discussed in detail in the following Section III., Environmental Analysis.
TABLE 5
LAND USE COMPARATIVE SUMMARY
Land Use
Designation
Residential
"Revised" Land Use Plan
Acres Dwelling
Units
"Original" LandUse Plan
Acres Dwelling
Units
Low Density 16.0 18
(0.2 DU/AC)
Low Medium 56.7 290 21.0 65
Density (2 to
5 DU/AC)
Medium 27.1 141
Density (5 to
8 DU/AC)
Very High 37.9 644
Density (8 to
17 DU/AC)
Subtotal 72.7 308 86.0 850
Commerdal 12.0 13.5
Commercial/
Office/Church
and Detention
Basin
13.7 10.4
Park 10.8 13.5
Elementary
School
10.7
Reads 13.0 9.5
PROJECT 132.9 308 132.9
TOTAL
850
13
IH. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
~he following environmental analysis is intended to identify and discuss the changes
~n project impacts and propose any additions and/or revisions to recommended
mitigation measures resulting from the revisions made to the Cnmpos Verdes Specific
Plan (as discussed in Section II, Project Description of this Addendure to the Draft
EIR). This analysis wffi identify the net changes from those impact assessments and
mitigation measures contained in the previously-circulated Cnmpos Verdes Draft
Environmental Impact Report.
This section analyzes these project revisions in terms of the s~me environmental
topics discussed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Each analysis begins
with a summary of "Existing Conditions" and the "Previously-Identffied Project
Impacts" as discussed in the Draft EIR. Following these summaries is an "Analysis
of Changes in Project Impacts" resulting from the revisions to the project land use
plan. Each analysis concludes with a listing of any "Revised Mitigation Measures".
Any "revised" mitigation measures have been included in the proposed Mitigation
Monitoring ProgrRm for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact
Report. Both the Final Environmental Impact Report and the Mitigation Monitoring
ProgrRrn will be the subject of consideration and certification by the City of Temecula
concurrent with final action on the C~mpos Verdes Specific Plan.
SEISMIC SAFETY
Existing Conditions
The site lies within a region of generally high seismicity as does all of Southern
California. During its design life, the site is expected to experience ground motion
from earthquakes on regional and/or local causative faults.
The dominant structural feature in the area is the northwest-striking Elsinore Fault
Zone. This fault zone coinrides with the dominant northwest-southwest structural and
regional tectonic patterns displayed by other fault systems including the San Andteas
and San Jacinto Fault Zone.
A magnitude 7.5 earthquake occurring on the Elsinore Fault (Wildomar Branch) near
the site could produce a peak ground acceleration on the order of 0.70g at the site.
The duration of strong motion is expected to exceed 30 seconds.
No known active faults project toward or extend through the site. The site is not
located within a designated State of California Alqnist-Priolo Special Studies Zone.
Groundwater was encountered on the south-central and southeast section of the
project at a depth as shallow as 23 feet below existing ground surface. Groundwater
does not extend into the relatively shallow alluvium, but is limited to within the late
Pleistocene Age sedimentary bedrock. Based on the type of soils and depth to
groundwater, any liquefaction that might occur on-site is likely to be confined to the
relatively thin zones of deep saturated soils. Therefore, any minor liquefaction
14
occurring on-site is not considered significant.
The proposed project lies within a rlam inundation area and may be subject to
seismically induced flooding from a dam failure at Skinner Reservoir. The project site
is located approximately six miles downstream of Skinner Reservoir within close
proximity of Santa Gertrudis Creek. Skinner Reservoir is utili~.ed for domestic water
storage, not for flood control purposes. According to the Dam Break and Floodway
Inundation Study for Domenigoni Valley Reservoir West Dam and Skinner Reservoir
Dnm~ Riverside County (prepared by the Office of Hydrological Studies, Department
of Civil Engineering, Cal State University, Sacramento, dated September 15, 1993),
the project site wffi not be inundated due to a breach of the Domenigoni Valley
Reservoir West Dam.
Previously-Identified Project Impacts
The Campos Verdes Specific Plan will be impacted by seismic activity along the
Wildomar Fault alignment which is located approximately I mile southwest of the
project. As previously mentioned, this fault zone is presently included within the
Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. The project design has reflected State and local
regulations with respect to the Wildomar Fault.
It is possible that during a Richter magnitude 7.5 earthquake along the F. lsinore Fault
Zone (Wildomar Branch) the site will experience a maximum peak ground acceleration
in bedrock of 0.70g.
Due to the content of on-site soils and the depth of groundwater, secondary seismic
hazards such as liquefaction, if any, that may occur will be confined to the relatively
thin zones of deep saturated soils. Any minor liquefaction occurring on-site is
considered insignificant and is not anticipated to cause damage or collapse of on-site
structures.
A portion of the Campos Verdes site lies within a dam inundation area and may be
subject to seismically induced flooding from a failure of Skinner Dam This is an
unavoidable adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations has
been prepared.
Analysis of Changes ill Project Impacts
The "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan will generate fewer project residents (798
persons based upon a factor of 2.59 persons per dwelling unit) as compared to the
"Original" Spocific Plan (2,201 new residents). This decrease of 1,403 project residents
(63.7% of the previous total) results in fewer persons being exposed to potential
seismic safety hazards as a result of ground shaking expected to occur on the project
site as well as seismically-induced flooding due to failure of Skinner Dam. The extent
of impacts of the project upon existing seismic conditions wffi remain unchanged from
those associated with the "Original" project plan.
15
4. Revised Mitigation Measures
No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained
in the Draft EIR.
16
B. SLOPES AND EROSION
Edsting Conditions
Topography across the site consists of low rollin~ hills and associated southwest-
trending drainages with a madmum relief of about 100 feet. The site is located within
the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province east of the Santa Ana Mountains. The
Peninsular Ranges extend southward from the Los Angeles Basin through Baja
California, and are characterized by large Mesozoic Age intrusive rock masses flRnked
by volcanic metasedimentary and sedimentary rocks. The Peninsular Ranges have a
general northwest-trending structural gain that includes such geologic features as
faults, bedding and foliation trends, and geologic contacts. Site elevations range from
between approximately 1,168 feet and 1,069 feet.
The site is underlain by bedrock materials of the Pauba Formation and alluvium
which are locally manfled by topsoil. Arti~dai fill exists in the perimeter of the
northwest portion of the site.
Previously-Idenfffied Project Impacts
The CRmpos Verdes Specific Plan is considered feasible for the proposed residential
and commercial development, provided that the generalized recommendations found
in the "Geotechnical Investigation," included as Appendix B of the Draft EIR, and
future geotechnical investigations are incorporated into the design and construction
of the proposed project.
Development of the Campos Verdes project will require alteration of the existing
natural landform. Complete removal of all alluvial, topsoff, and loose compressible low
strength older alluvium and/or disturbed bedrock will be necessary prior to placement
of structural fffis. So~s removed during the excavation procedures may be utilized as
compacted fill, provided they have been stripped of organics and other deleterious
materials. Cut and fill slopes will be designed and are anticipated to be stable at a
ratio of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) slope. Slopes of greater height as well as the final
design of all cut and fill slopes will require approval during grading plan review. The
geotechnicai reports indicates that 35 feet of fill slopes and 38 feet of cut slopes are
proposed. According to the Project Engineer, the proposed grading plan results in
2,616,743 cubic yards of cut and 376,123 cubic yards of fffi. With appropriate permits,
the balance of earthwork will be relocated to the Temecula Regional Center proposed
to the west of Campos Verdes.
Due to the content of on-site soils, slope erosion is a significant concern with regard
to surficial stability. To alleviate this impact, it is recommended that slopes be
properly compacted and all cut and fill slopes be planted with erosion resistant
vegetation or other protective devices immediately after grading.
17
Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts
The geotecbnica] feasibility of development of the "Revised" Csmpos Verdes Specific
Plan, given adherence to current and future geotechnical recommendations, remains
unchanged. The "Revised" project plan maintains the same nmount of area (132.9
acres) being disrupted by grading as the "Ori~nal" project plan.
Development of the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan will result in a similar
total of approximately 2.6 million cubic yards of material being moved as that
associated with the "Original" project plan with the balance of earthwork being
relocated, if necessary, to the Temecula Regional Center site to the west. The
potential for erosion-related impacts remain unchanged within the "Revised" project
plan given adherence to mitigation measures contained in the Draft EIR.
Revised Mitigation Measures
No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those centained
in the Draft EIR.
18
C. WIND EROSION AND BLOWSAND
Existing Conditions
The project is not located within the Wind/Erosion or Blowsand Area designated
within the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan.
**
Previously-Identified Project Impacts
Although the project site Hes outside the Wind/Erosion or Blowsand Areas designated
by the County of Riverside, construction activities (primarily site preparation and
grading) will generate fugitive dust. Construction activities for large development
projects are estimated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("Compfiation of
Air Pollutant Emission Factors") to add 1.2 tons of fugitive dust per acre of soft
disturbed per month of activity. If water or other soil stabilizers are used to control
dust as required by SCAQMD Rule 403, the emissions can be reduced by 50 percent.
Applying the above factors to the approximately 132.9 acres of the project, a 6 month
grading cycle completing 25% of the grading, and a 5 year grading duration, an
average of .05 tons (109 pounds) per day of particulate emissions will be released
during grading of the project site. Dust generated by such activities usually becomes
more of a local nuisance than a serious health problem.
Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts
The Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan is expected to involve a similar amount of
landform alteration as the "Original" Specific Plan. A similar amount of area (132.9
acres) and earth being moved (2.6 million cubic yards) is associated with the "Revised"
project plan as was expected with the "Original" Specific Plan. Little change in Wind
and Blowsand impacts is therefore anticipated.
Revised Mitigation Measures
No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained
in the Draft I~.IR.
19
D. FLOODING
E~dsting Conditions
The majority of the project area is located within the Santa Gertrudis Valley, to the
north of the confluence of the Santa Gertrudis and Murrieta Creeks. An existing 100-
year floodplain occupies the southern portion of the project site in the vicinity of an
"un-named dry wash" which traverses the site. This wash discharges through an
existing 10 foot x 5 foot RCB under Margarita Read. The total area tributary to the
basin outlet at Margarita Read is approximately 1,650 acres.
Off-site to the southwest, the site discharges under Ynez Read through an existing
double 10 foot X 5 foot Reinforced Concrete Box (RCB) under Ynez Read, located
approximately 1,200 feet north of Solana Way. This RCB is presently able to convey
the estimated existing 1,250 cubic feet per second of storm water but any additional
development upstream even without the Campes Verdes project will exceed the RCB
capacity.
Portions of the Campes Verdes site drains toward the empty lot of the proposed
Temecula Regional Center, Specific Plan No. 263. The runoff travels via overland
flow to the existing double 7 foot X 5 foot RCB at Palm Plaza.
A small portion of runoff generated on the west slope of the ridge adjacent to
Winchester Road currently drains to an existing 24 inch CMP culvert under
Winchester Road. It is then conveyed through a cut channel to Santa Gertrudis
Creek.
The project site is within the jurisdiction of the Riverside County Flood Control
District and Water Conservation District. The project site is also located within the
Temecula Valley Area of the Murrieta Creek Area Drainage Plan, and there are
drainage fees of $1,970 per acre associated with developments within the site.
Previously-Identified Project Impacts
Approval of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan would result in short-term and long-
term hydrologic impacts. The development and construction phase of the proposed
project would potentially create short-term downstream impacts related to erosion and
sedimentation due to the creation of exposed soils during project grading.
The development phase of the project will result in the creation of impermeable
surfaces on-site that will increase the existing 100 year storm runoff from 1,055 cubic
feet per second to approximately 1,567 cubic feet per second at Margarita Road. The
developed on-site runoff, as well as upstream surface flows, will be adequately
conveyed by the proposed drainage system.
The proposed drainage system incorporates a park/detention basin along the southern
project boundary (Planning Area 1) in order to reduce the flow rate experienced by
the Ynez Read double box drainage facility to 1,250 cubic feet per second.
2O
According to the project engineer, the proposed detention basin will be designed to
convey the 5 year storm runoff directly through the proposed park/retention basin site
allowing full use of the remaining park areas. During storms greater than the 5 year
event, stormwater retention will impact the proposed on-site recreational park area.
Drainage facilities from the project site ultimately discharge downstream into the
Murrieta Creek and without the proposed Campos Vetdes retention basin would
increase the existing 100 year storm of 1,250 cubic feet per second to approximately
1,890 cubic feet per second. This increased flow rate would contribute to cumulative
increased flow rates downstream and the potential for flooding in areas with
undersized facilities. The cumulative drainage impacts in the Rancho California area
are currently being addressed by RCFC & WCD's design studies for improvement of
the Murrieta Creek Channel.
Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts
The "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan involves a similar amount of area being
disrupted during project construction as compared to the "Original" project plan. As
such, similar, short-term potential downstream impacts related to erosion and
sedimentation due to the creation of exposed so~s during project grading is expected
to occur.
The amount of impervious surfaces created by development of the "Revised" Campos
Verdes Specific Plan is expected to be reduced as compared to the "Original" project
plan as a consequence of the significant (63.7%) reduction in the number of proposed
dwelling units. Although an additional 3.5 acres of on-site roadways are proposed as
part of the "Revised" Specific Plan, as compared to the "Original" Specific Plan, this
increase in the amount of impervious roadway surface will be negated by the decrease
in the total number of dwelling units (and associated impervious surfaces, i.e. roofs,
driveways, etc.) proposed. This reduction of 541 dwelling units results in the
reduction of approximately 1,084,000 square feet of impervious surfaces (assuming
2,000 square feet of roofs, driveways, patios, etc. per dwelling unit). The increase of
3.5 acres of on-site roads creates 152,460 square feet of additional impervious surface.
Therefore, the "Revised" Specific Plan results in a net decrease of 931,540 square feet
of impervious surfaces as compared the the "Original" Project plan. Levels of storm
runoff from the "Revised" Specific Plan is therefore expected to be reduced as
compared to the "Original" Specific Plan. In either case, the proposed drainage system
is expected to be capable of handling any increases in storm flows from the developed
Campos Verdes site.
Since the "Revised" Specific Plan wffi generate fewer project residents (a decrease of
1,403 residents) fewer persons will be exposed to potential flooding hazards.
,
Revised Mitigation Measures
No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained
in the Draft EIR.
21
E. NOISE
F,~4sting Conditions
Data provided in the Draft EIR indicates that a major noise corridor exists along
Interstate 15. Noise levels directly adjacent to Interstate 15 exceed 70 CNEL. Other
roadways in the vidnity have low levels of traffic and corresponding low levels of
noise. In the vidnlty of the project site, the 65 CNEL contour extends approximately
73 feet beyond the centerllne of Winchester Road and remains within the right-of-way
of Margarita Road.
Previously-Identified Project Impacts
Constructior~ noise represents a short term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise
generated by construction equipment, including trucks, graders, bulldozers, concrete
mixers and portable generators can reach high levels. Noise levels for equipment
which might be used for the excavation and construction of the proposed project range
from approximately 65 to 105 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. The noise levels decrease
at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of the distance.
The proposed development ofC~mpos Verdes will generate traffic, and as a result will
alter projected noise levels in the surrounding areas. Due to future development
which has already been approved there wffi be an increase in traffic in surrounding
areas with or without the proposed project. The noise levels will increase
substantially over existing noise levels for sensitive land uses along some of the streets
in the vicinity of the project. These increases are primarily due to other projects
planned in the area. The substantial increases are generally due to the relatively low
amount of traffic currently in the area. A maximum change of 12.8 dB exists along
Margarita Road (between B Street and Winchester Road) which will have a noise
exposure just less than 70 CNEL at the edge of the roadway right-of-way off-site.
Areas along 1-15, Diaz Road, Jefferson Avenue, Ynez Road, Margarita Road, Nicolas
Road, Murrieta Hot Springs Road, Winchester Road and Solana Way will also
experience noise increases greater than 3 dB. Those roadways that have noise
increases greater than 3 dB and future noise levels greater than 65 CNEL are
considered significant impacts if existing residential developments are adjacent to the
roadways. Such roadways include Margarita Road, Winchester Road, Murrieta Hot
Springs Road and Nicholas Road. For planned residential areas that are not yet
developed, roadway noise can be mitigated by the developor at the time of
construction.
The future noise increase levels due solely to the project are all less than 3 dB except
for along Margarita Road between B Street and Winchester Road. However, this
segment of Margarita Road is currently undeveloped, and therefore will not experience
signfficant noise impacts due to the project. Therefore, the project will contribute
only slightly to noise increases in the area. However, the impact of cumulative
development upon this roadway segment results in an increase of 12.8 dB over the
existing noise levels. This increase is considered a signfficant off-site noise impact.
22
Limited portions of the project site proposed for residential use may experience traffic
noise levels greater than 65 CNEL without some form of mitigation. Specifically,
residential lots along General Kearny and Margarita Road may experience noise levels
over 65 CNEL without some form of mitigation. Residential areas along Winchester
Read and proposed commercial/office uses adjacent to Margarita Read will experience
noise within acceptable levels.
While the proposed project represents an incremental contribution to this ultimate
noise impact condition, cumulative noise increases- are largely a result of increased
traffic originating outside the project boundaries. These regional (or cumulative)
noise impacts are considered a significant impact to off-site areas surrounding these
roadways for which a Statement of Overriding Conditions has been prepared.
Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts
Since the "Proposed" Csmpos Verdes Specific Plan involves the sRme Rmount of area
being subjected to landform alteration (132.9 acres), short-term noise impacts related
to project grading is expected to remain unchanged from levels associated with the
"Original" project plan. The significant reduction in the number of proposed dwelling
units will result in a similar decrease in short-term noise impacts associated with
construction of structures on the project site.
As noted in the Supplemental Traffic Analysis included as Attachment A to this
Addendum to the Draft EIR, a total of 12,268 motor vehicle trips are associated with
the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan. This represents a 24.2% reduction from
the total number of vehicle trips (16,184 trips) associated with the "Original" Campos
Verdes Specific Plan. This reduction will result in reduced on- and off-site noise
impacts. As such, mitigation measures (barriers, setbacks, etc.) to be provided in
response to these impacts may also be reduced. The extent of these measures will be
determined through acoustical studies prepared prior to grading permit or tract map
approval. However, as previously noted, significant future noise impacts are the
result of increased traffic originating outside the project boundaries. These regional
(or cumulative) noise impacts assedated with the "Revised" Csmpos Verdes Specific
Plan remain as a significant impact to off-site areas and will stiff require a Statement
of Overriding Considerations.
Revised Mitigation Measures
No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained
in the Draft EIR.
23
F. CLrMATE AND AIR QUALITY
Conditions
The project site lies within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The climate of the
basin is classified as Mediterranean, characterized by a pattern of cool, wet winters
and warm, dry snmmers. State standards for oxidnnts and particulates are exceeded
at the Perris Ambient Air Monitoring Station, while State and Federal Standards of
lead and sulfur oxides were not exceeded at this station.
Previously-Identified Project Impacts
Temporary impacts will result from project construction activities. Air pollutants will
be emitted b~ construction equipment and dust wffi be generated during grading and
site preparation.
Construction activities for large development projects are estimated by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency ("Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors")
to add 1.2 tons of fugitive dust per acre of soil disturbed per month of activity. If
water or other soil stabilizers are used to control dust as required by SCAQMD Rule
403, the emissions can be reduced by 50 percent. Applying the above factors to the
approximately 132.9 acres of the project, a 6 month grading cycle completing 25% of
the grading, and a 5 year grading duration, an average of .05 tons per day of
particuiate emissions will be released during grading of the project site in one grading
phase.
Another short term impact will be from the exporting of dirt from Campos Verdes
project site to Temecula Regional Center project site during grading. A total of 2.3
million cubic yards of dirt will be exported during a 6 month grading cycle (26 weeks
assuming a 5 day work week). It should be noted that this estimate of amount of fffi
exported may vary signfficantly as final grading plans are developed. These emissions
are not considered significant due to the fact that they do not reach significant impact
thresholds established by SCAQMD.
The main source of emissions generated by the project will be from motor vehicles.
Other emissions will be generated from the residential combustion of natural gas for
space heating and the use of electricity. Emissions will also be generated by the
commercial use of natural gas and electricity.
Total long-term poHutant generation (due to motor vehicles, power plant emissions
and natural gas emissions) is considered "significant" by the "Air Quality Handbook".
Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts
The "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan is expected to involve a similar amount
of landform alteration as the "Original" Specific Plan. A similar amount of area (132.9
acres) and earth being moved (2.6 million cubic yards) is associated with the "Revised"
project plan as was expected with the "Original" Specific Plan. Little in the way of
changes to these short-term air quality impacts is therefore anticipated.
As noted in the Supplemental Traffic Analysis included as Attachment A to this
Addendum to the Draft EIR, a total of 12,268 motor vehicle trips is associated with
the "Revised" CRmpos Verdes Specific Plan. This represents a 24.2% reduction from
the total number of vehicle trips (16,184 trips) associated with the "Original" Campos
Verdes Specific Plan. This results in a reduced amount of pollutants generated by
motor vehicIe emissions from the proposed project. The reduction of 542 dwelling
units from the "Original" to the "Revised" Specific Plans also results in a 63.7%
decrease in stationary source emissions resulting from electricity and natural gas use.
Provided below is the result of an analysis of the total air po!!utant emissions
associated with the "Revised" project plan. These calculations utilize the s~me
pollutant generation factors as used in the air quality analyses of the "Original"
project plan within the .Draft EIR.
TABLE 6
AIR QUALITY ANALYSIS (lbs/day)
Pollutant Motor Electrical Natural Total SCAQMD
Vehicle Emissions Gas Threshold of
Emissions Emissions Significance
CO 1,167.0 2.8 1.8 1,171.6 550
NOx 226.9 16.0 0.1 243.0 100
SOx 45.4 1.7 47.1 150
Particulates 54.2 0.5 0.1 54.8 150
ROG 92.7 0.1 0.5 93.3 75
Pollutant generation associated with the "Revised" Cs~mpos Verdes Specific Plan
exceed SCAQMD thresholds of signfficance in the generation of carbon monoxide,
nitrogen oxides and reactive organic gases.
In spite of these reductions, air quality impacts associated with the "Revised" Campos
Verdes Specific Plan remains as a significant impact for which a Statement of
Overriding Considerations has been preparecL
Revised Mitigation Measures
No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained
in the Draft EIR.
25
G. WATER QU~,LFFY
E~sting Conditions
The project lies entirely within the Murrieta-Temecula groundwater area This
groundwater area, the largest in the entire San Diego Region, covers a surface area
of about 60,000 acres. The groundwater aquifers are recharged by underflow from the
Lancaster Basin to the east and by surface flows from Warm Springs, Murrieta, Santa
Gertrudis and Temecula Creeks and by direct precipitation within the valley area.
The Murrieta-Temecula Basin is considered to be in an overdraft condition as
evidenced by a long-term decline in water levels. Much of the basin is overlain by a
relatively impervious layer which restricts recharge of the underlying sediments.
According to the "Geotechnicai Investigation", on-site groundwater was encountered
at depths of about 23 feet and 27 feet.
Previously-Identified Project Impacts
Construction of the Csmpos Verdes project will alter the composition of surface runoff
by grading the site surfaces, by construction of impervious streets, roofs and parking
facilities, and by irrigation of landscaped areas. As discussed in detail within Section
III.D., Flooding, the "Revised" Specific Plan results in a net reduction of approximately
93 1,540 square feet of impervious surface as compared to the "Original" Specific Plan.
Runoff entering the storm drain system will contain minor mounts of pollutants
typical of urban use, including pesticides, fertilizers, off and rubber residues,
detergents, hydrocarbon particles and other debris. This runoff, typical of urban use,
wilt contribute to the incremental degradation of water quality downstream in
Murrieta Creek.
Analysis of Cbanges in Project Impacts
The amount of impervious surfaces created by development of the "Revised" Cnmpos
Verdes Specific Plan is expected to be reduced as compared to the "Original" project
plan as a consequence of the significant reduction in the number of proposed dwelling
units. The amount ofpollutants entering the storm drain system and potentially into
groundwater supplies will be similarly reduced due to this reduction in dwelling units
and the generation of fewer project residents.
Revised Mitigation Measures
No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained
in the Draft EIR.
26
H. TOXIC SUBSTANCES
.,
E~ating Conditions
The subject property has been a site of prior agricultural activities, however, no
hazardous waste materials were noted on-site.
There are about 1,200 facilities that generate hazardous waste within the
jurisdictional review of the County of Riverside Health Department. Approximately
25,000 tons of hazardous waste are being generated in Riverside County each year.
Most hazardous waste generated in the County is either shipped to off-site locations
with a significant and growing portion disposed of out of state or managed on-site by
the generator.
Previously-Identified Project Impacts
The Preliminary Environmental Property Investigation indicates that the presence
of hazardous material within a majority of the subject property is i~nlil~ely. However,
due to the past agricultural use of the site, there remains the potential for near
surface soil contamination due to residues from prior pesticide use. Additionally,
located in the northwest area of the site is a fffi area. While no hazardous materials
were observed within the fffi area, there remains an inherent uncertainty as to the
subsurface fffi contents.
Development of the site may include small quantity generators. Small quantity
generators are businesses that produce less than 1,000 kilograms Of hazardous waste
per month (13.2 tons per year). A large majority of the 1,200 hazardous waste
generators under the County's jurisdiction are small quantity generators.
Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts
The potential for near surface soil contamination due to residues from pesticide use
assodated with prior agricultural activities on-site will remain uncbsnged from the
"Original" to the "Revised" project pins. The increase in the nmount of on-site
commercial uses from 18.1 to 19.8 acres may result in an increased potential for the
establishment of small quantity toxic substance generators. However, given
adherence to the mitigation measures contained in the Draft EIR, the levels of
impacts related to toxic substances are anticipated to remain unchanged.
Revised Mitigation Measures
No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained
in the Draft EIR.
27
I. AGRICULTURE
Existing Conditions
The primary crops grown on the Csmpos Verdes site are pasture crops including
barley and oats. The project site contains Class I and Class II soils which are
considered "Prime". The site is designated as "Local Important Farmland" on the
Riverside County Agricultural Resources Map.
Previously-Identified Project Impacts
Implementation of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan wffi remove an estimated 132.9
acres of pasture crops, contributing to the decline of such uses in Riverside County.
Project implementation will result in urban development on "Local Important
Farmland" per the County Agricultural Resources Map. In addition, development will
occur on soils that are classffied as "Prime" (soil capabffity Classes I and II) per the
Soft Survey. Western Riverside Area. According to the Csliforula Department of
Conservation, the loss of any prime agricultural land is considered a significant
environmental impact.
Due to the relatively small acreage of agricultural use which will be impacted, the
commitment of the project site to non-agricultural uses will not adversely affect the
agricultural productivity ofthe area. However, construction of various projects in the
area will continue and possibly accelerate the trend toward development of
agricultural lands in Riverside County.
Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts
Development of the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan will result in the removal
of 132.9 acres of land which contain soils classified as "Prime" per the Soil Survey of
Western Riverside Area. This impact is identical to Agriculture-related impacts
associated with the "Original" Specific Plan. This loss of prime agricultural land
remains as a significant impact for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been prepared. Negligible impacts off-site agricultural land uses due to project
development are stffi anticipated to result.
Revised Mitigation Measures
No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained
in the Draft F. IR.
28
J. OPEN SPACE ANDCONSERVA~ON
Edging Conditions
The project site is currently used for dryland farming, primarily for barley. The
northern portion of the site is zoned R-R (Rural Residential) while the southern
portion is zoned A-2-20 (Heavy Agriculture).
The CAmpos Verdes project site is located in an area which supports many approved
and proposed Specific Plans.
Previously-Identified Project Impacts
Project apprbval will ultimately result in the development of the land uses proposed
by the Campos Verdes project.
Development of the site with the uses proposed will preclude future use of the site for
dryland agriculture and will eliminate the open space and rural atmosphere currently
present on-site.
Project approval would also result in the placement of on-site zoning and General
Plan designations of "Specific Plan". Little in the way of land use conflicts with
adjacent land uses are anticipated to result as a consequence of development of the
Campos Verdes Specific Plan.
Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts
No changes in Open Space and Conservation (land use) impacts related to
development of the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan as compared to the
"Original" Specific Plan are anticipated.
Revised Mitigation Measures
No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained
in the Draft EIR.
29
K. Wn,DLIFE/VEGETATION '
E~ting Conditions
One naturalized biotic community, introduced grassland, is represented on-site. This
comm.nlty derives its name from the predominance Of introduced grass and herb
spedes which have replaced native vegetation as the result of grazing and other past
disturbances. It is a commnnlty which is widespread in Southern California today,
particularly in the Western Riverside County area
Due to their altered conditions, large, open expanses of introduced grassland pasture
and dryland farmed areas generally suppert a limited abundance and diversity of
wildlife and dryland farmed area. Several ground-nesting birds and burrowing
mammals were observed on-site. Other species typical of grassland foraging habitat
were observed on-site as well.
The site is located within the geographical range of one species designated as
"Endangered" by the U.S. Fish and W~dllfe Service, the Stephen's kangaroo rat.
Based on field observations, the site is not believed to contain any habitat areas
suitable for the Stephen's kangaroo rat. The site provides habitat for a number of
wildJife species, however, none of these species are rare or endangered. The area is
considered to be a fairly important raptor wintering area. This determination was
made as a result of the area being a location where raptorial birds (hawks, vultures,
eagles, owls and falcons) concentrate due to a high abundance of roosting sites, a good
supply of prey species (small mammals and birds) and suitable hunting habitat
(generally open brushland and grassland).
Previously-Identified Project Impacts
Construction activities will result in the removal.of physical habitats through cut, fffi
and other grading activities necessary for roads, building pads, utilities, fuel
modification and flood control. The fwst order impacts of habitat loss will be the
direct loss of vegetation and the destruction of less mobile wildlife forms.
The impacts of vegetation loss through direct removal will, in turn, have potential
effects on wi]dllfe. As vegetation is removed or otherwise destroyed, the associated
wildlife will either be destroyed or displaced to adjacent habitat areas where they will
crowd and disrupt local populations. Although increased competition and predation
will act rapidly to return population numbers to habitat carrying capacity levels,
either displaced or local wildlife will be lost.
Causal factors generated during human activities resulting from the construction and
inhabitation of urban land uses may be collectively termed "harassment". Harassment
is defined as those activities of man and his domestic animals which increase the
physiological costs of survival or decrease the probability of successful reproduction
in wi]clllfe populations. The most common form of harassment expected to accompany
development of the site include excessive construction-related noise, background noise,
3O
light and glare and the introduction of feral cats, dogs and children which are
unnatural predators and competitors for wildlife.
Conversion of the on-site introduced grassland biotic community to urban
development is not considered to be an impact of high significance, nor does it contain
the habitat for rare and endangered species and the loss of habitat wffi not be
significantly adverse.
Impacts to streambeds (or 'q~lue-l/ne streams") on-site, regardless of whether they
contain riparian vegetation or sensitive faunal species, will be governed by the
California Department of Fish and Game (1601-1603 permit) and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (404 permit) and their respective streambed alteration permit processes.
As a result, the required amount of replacement habitat shall be provided either on-
or off-site. Based upon these findings, it is cenduded that the proposed project will
not in and of itself result in significant adverse impacts.
Although not significant in itself, the loss of introduced grassland habitat will
contribute on an incremental basis to cumulative impacts to biological resources on
a regional basis. These impacts which are considered significant include an overall
reduction in the native biotic resources of the region and the loss of secondary
foraging habitat for migratory populations of birds of prey which are winter visitors
to the region.
Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts
The "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan maintains the same amount of area being
disrupted by grading as the "Original" project plan. Therefore, the direct impacts
associated to on-site wildlife and vegetation resources with development of the
"Revised" project plan will be similar to those associated with the "Original" project
plan. The loss of on-site grassland habitat on a significant impact to off-site areas.
These cumulative (or regional) wildlife impacts remain as a significant impact to off-
site areas for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared
The reduction of 542 dwelling units will result in a reduction in indirect impacts (such
as "harassment") of project development upon adjacent floral and faunal resources.
No rare or endangered plants or animal species are expected to be impacted by either
the "Revised" or "Original" project plans.
5
Revised Mitigation Measures
No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained
in the Draft EIR.
31
L. ENERGY RESOURCES
~zisting Conditions
In its existing vacant condition, the project site consumes 1/ttle or no energy, except
that needed in assodation with agricultural use.
Previously-Identified Project Trapacts
Development of the Cnmpos Verdes Specific Plan will increase energy consumption
for motor vehicle movement, space and water heating, lighting, cooking, refrigeration
and air conditioning, operation and construction equipment, use of miscellaneous
home appliances, energy required to produce the construction materials and all other
material aspects of the project.
Natural gas demand for the "Original" Campos Verdes Specific Plan is estimated at
4,745,368 cubic feet (c.f.) per month. On-site electricity demand for the "Original"
Specific Plan is estimated at 8,375,385 kilowatts (kwh) per year. Although project
development will increase the consumption of electrical and natural gas resources the
estimated project usage is not considered to be a significant impact.
Analysis of Cbs~nges in Project Impacts
Based upon similar usage factors as applied to energy calculations for the "Original"
Specific Plan, the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan is estimated to utilize
2,781,578 cubic feet per month of natural gas and 5,079,483 kilowatts per year of
electricity. These totals represent a 41.4% reduction in natural gas usage and a 39.4%
reduction in electricity use.
Revised Mitigation Measures
No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained
in the Draft EIR.
32
M. SCENIC HIGHWAYS
Existing Conditions
Interstate 215 is considered both an Ehgible County Scenic Highway and an Eligible
State Scenic Highway. State Route 79 (Winchester Road) is also considered an
Eligible County Scenic Highway. Several policies apply to uses proposed along these
roadway corridors.
Previously-Identified Project Impacts
The "Original" Cnmpos Verdes Specific Plan containa Commercial and Very High
Density Residential (17 dwelling units per acre) land uses along its perimeter with
State HighWay 79. The "Original" Specific Plan contains a 24 foot Landscape
Development Zone and a 25 foot transportation corridor easement along State
Highway 79.
The project site does not contain any outstanding scenic vistas which warrant
preservation. Recreational trails or other public recreation facilities are not
considered compatible with the noise levels and traffic volumes associated with
Winchester Road.
Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts
The "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan involves the snme mount of area being
subject to landform alteration (132.9 acres) as is involved with the "Original" Specific
Plan. Short-term aesthetic impacts associated with construction of the "Revised"
project plan is expected to remain unchanged from those associated with the
"Original" project plan.
The reduction of 542 dwelling units and the elimination of higher density residential
uses from the "Revised" project plan will result in an incremental reduction in long-
term project-related aesthetic and scenic highway impacts. Landscape Development
Zones and required setbacks are included in the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific
Plan.
Revised Mitigation Measures
No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained
in the Draft EIR.
33
N. CULTURAL AND SCIENTIFIC RESOURCES
Existing Conditions
Archaeology
A review of the archaeological site records showed no archaeological sites within the
project boundaries. However, one site (RIV - 1730) is recorded immediately south of
the project, near the 1-15 - Winchester Road intersection. The site, however, has been
previously mitigated and is no longer in existence. An on-site archaeological field
survey, conducted in November, 1988, concluded that no cultural resources were
found on the project site.
Pal~ntology
The project site is primarily composed of recent alluvium with exposures of the Pauba
Formation. The Pauba Formation is exposed mainly along stream channels, g~,llies
and in road cuts. Recent grading monitoring has produced large numbers of fossil
vertebrate animals from this formation within the Rancho California and Murrieta
area. The earliest recorded fossils were exposed northeast of the Ynez Road and
Winchester Road intersection. Over 75 different taxa have been collected from the
Pauba Formation. The Pauba Formation has contained large numbers of significant
vertebrate fossils within the Temecula area contributing to the understanding the
Pleistocene paleontology of Southern California and possibly even North America.
No paleontological resources were noted during on-site surveys conducted in
November, 1988.
Previously-Identified Project Impacts
Archaeology
The absence of any significant archaeological sites or resources on-site eliminates any
potential negative impacts that would be incurred as a result of development.
Paleontology
Project development could expose fossils through grading and other development
activities, but at the same time, can destroy these same remains. Considering its past
history of fossil discovery, the Pauba Formation is considered to have a Moderate to
High paleontological sensitivity. The recent alluvium found on-site is considered to
have a low paleontologic sensitivity. However, the recent alluvium over the project site
could be a thin veneer and grading could expose the underlying Pauba Formation.
Proper mitigation measures are required to reduce the adverse impact of development
and protect the paleontological resources of the project area.
In response to Draft EIR comments received from the San Bernardino County
Museum, an updated Paleontological Assessment (dated December 7, 1992) was
performed on the Campos Verdes site by the firm of ElVIW Paleo Associates. The
complete text of this Assessment is included as Attachment 1 to the Response to
comments pa~,lrage within the Gampos Verdes Final EIR. This revised Paleontological
Assessment includes: 1) an assessment of existing paleontelogic resources unearthed
at the site. This assessment was based upon the original field surveys (performed in
November, 1988) and new ~nflinp resulting from the site's recent use as a borrow
areas; 2) given this additional information concernl.~ existl.E resources, an
assessment of potential project impacts; and 3) an updated Mitigation Program in
response to the proposed Mitigation Program contained withi. the San Bernaraino
County Museum letter. Updated mitigation measures are reflected in the Mitigation
Monitoring Program for this project. This Paleontelogical Assessment provides the
City of Temecula with an updated assessment of paleontological resources, the result
of which are included in the Responses to Comments package within the Campos
Vetdes Final EIR.
Analysis of Changes in Project XmpaCts
The "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan involves the same amount of area being
subject to landform alteration (132.9 acres) as is involved with the "Original" Spedtic
Plan As such, potential impacts to cultural and scientific resources associated with
the "Revised" Specific Plan will remain unchanged from those assodated with the
"Original" project plan.
Revised Mitigation Measures
No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained
in the Draft EIR.
35
O. CH1CULATION
E~i~ing Conditions
The Campos Verdes project site lies a~acent to and is immediately served by
Winchester and Margarita Roads to the north and west of the site, respectively, within
the City of Temecula. The southern pertion of the project site is divided by General
Kearny Road.
The review of 1990/1991 traffic vol-mes and roadway capacities in the project area
indicate that all existing roadway segments in the area are currently operating at a
Level of Service C or better except for the following: Winchester Road between
Margarita Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road (Level of Service D); Ynez Road
between the Town Center Drive and Solaria Way (Level of Service D); and Winchester
Road between Jefferson Avenue and 1-15 (Level of Service D).
Signalized intersection analyses indicated that all but the following intersections
currently operate at Service Level "C" or better during the AM and PM peak hours:
Winchester Road/Jefferson Avenue (Level of Service D during AM and PM peak
hours); Winchester Road/Ynez Road (Borderline Level of Service C/D during PM peak
hour); Rancho C~Jifornia Roadf 1.15 l~mps (Level of Service D during AM peak hour
and Level of Service D/E during PM peak hour); and Rancho Cslifornia Road/Ynez
Road (Level of Service D during AM and PM peak hours).
Previously-Identified Project Impacts
Approximately 16,184 vehicle trips would be generated da~y as a result of
development of the "Original" Campos Verdes Specific Plan. Morning peak hour trip
generation is estimated to be 997 trips while evening peak hour generation for the
project is estimated to be approximately 1,179 vehicle trips.
Volume capacity comparisons were made for all roadways which would provide
primary access to the Campos Verdes project. Findings of the existing plus project
roadway service level analyzes that all of the assumed roadway segments would
operate at Level of Service "B" or better.
Traffic forecasts were developed to assess the cumulative traffic impacts of the
"Original" Campos Verdes Specific Plan and other major development projects. Msjor
intersections expected to provide direct access to the Campos Verdes project along
Margarita Road are projected to operate at Service Level "B" or better during peak
periods in year 2000 development conditions with the project both with and without
development of the adjacent Temecula Regional Center. The Margarita Road/General
Kearny Road intersection would operate at a Level of Service "B" with the Csmpos
Verdes project but without the Regional Center. The five intersections along General
Kearny Road would operate at a Level of Service "A" during peak periods at ultimate
project development.
36
Intersections along C-mpos Verdes Loop Read within the interior of the project site
would also operate at Level of Service "C" or better (using two-way stop sign controls
on the minor streets).
All off-site roadway segments and intersections in the area would operate at Level of
Service "C" or better in the year 2000 assuming the Carnpes Verdes project is not
developed with the exception of the five roadway segments and seven intersections.
Additional intersection capacity utilization calculations were performed for all
intersections found to operate at Service Level "D" or worse with the project: The
analyses indicate that with additional intersections improvements, peak hour service
levels could be maintained or improved to Level of Service "D" or better at all
intersections.
Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts
The following discussion of changes in project impacts as a result of development of
the "Revised" Campes Verdes Specific Plan are based upon additional analyses
performed by the traffic engineer, W~bur Smith Associates. The results of their
analyses are included as Attachment "A" to this Addendure to the Draft EIR. In
addition to the project revisions previously noted within this Addendure EIR, these
additional analyses reflect the closure of Starling Street and Sanderling Way through
the project site. These analyses identify the percentage roadway utilization
contributions of the "Revised" Specific Plan as well as the project's percentage
implementation responsibility for off-site circulation improvements.
Table 7, Vehicle Trip Generation, "Revised" Campes Verdes Specific Plan and Table
8, Vehicle Trip Generation, "Original" Campos Verdes Specific Plan, provide
summaries of the vehicle trip generation totals associated with the "Revised" and
"Original" project plans, respectively. A comparison of the two tables indicates that
the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan generates a total of 12,268 vehicle trips per
day, a reduction of approximately 24.2% from the total vehicle trips (16,184)
associated with the "Original" Specffic Plan. The reduction in morning peak hour
trips is less (12.2% for the AM Peak Hour and 22.7% for the PM Peak Hour) due to
the trip generation characteristics of the newly-proposed elementary school. It should
be noted, however, that most of the morning peak hour trips generated by the school
would be internal to the project and therefore the resulting reduction in off-site trips
during morning peak hour could in fact approach the 24% percent level expected for
the daily period.
According to the Traffic Engineer, the reduction in the intensity of proposed land uses
within the "Revised" Carnpos Verdes Specific Plan and the resultant reductions in
project traffic as noted above will more than compensate for the closure of Starling
Street and Sanderling Way.
37
TABI,E 7
VEmCI ,E TRlP GENERATION
'REVISED' CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN
Planniug Area/
Land Use
Daily Total
AM Peak Hour
PM Peak Hour
Area 2/
Commercial Office
1,560 125 125
Area 3/Single
Family Residential
Area 4/
Neighborho~xl
Retail Center
760 59 55
7,200 360 518
Area 5/Single 860 67 63
Family Residential
Area 6/Single 720 56 53
Family Residential
Area 7/ 428 150 43
Elementary
School
Area 8/Single
Family Residential
Area 9/Single
Family Residential
Project Total
560 44 41
180 14 13
12,268 875 911
Trip distribution for the "Revised" project proposal would not vary significantly from
that associated with 'the "Original" project proposal. In the assessment of off-site
impacts of the "Revised" project proposal, it is assumed that General Kearny Read will
not be extended to the east to Nicolas Read.
38
TABLF.. 8
VEHICLE TRIP GENERATION
"ORIGINAL" CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PlAN
Planning Area/ Daily Total AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Land Use
Area 2/ 1,860 145 146
Commercial Office
Area 3/Multi 2,495 168 177
Family Residential
Area 4/ 8,000 409 574
Neighborho~od
Retail Center
Area 5/Multi 1,769 122 134
Family Residential
Area 6/Single 1,410 110 103
Family Residential
Area 7/Single 650 43 45
Family Residential
Project Total 16,184 997 1,179
The Traffic Engineer has evaluated the implications of the "Revised" project land use
plan (which results in 24.2% fewer vehicle trips) on off-site traffic impacts and
associated mitigation needs. The analysis focuses on those off-site roadway segments
and intersections which were projected in the Traffic Analysis for the "Original"
Campos Verdes Specific Plan to operate at Level of Service "D" or worse (for roadway
segments) or Level of Service "E" or worse (for intersections). All other roadway links
and intersection would continue to operate at Levels of Service "C" and "D" or better,
respectively.
Table 9, Comparison of Traffic Impacts lists the off-site roadway segments and
intersections which were originally projected to operate at Levels of Service "D" and
"E", respectively. This table also lists the Levels of Service on these roadway segments
and intersections resulting from development of the "Revised" project plan.
39
TABLE 9
COMPARISON OF TRAFFIC IMPACTS
Roadway Segment
Winchester Road
(between 1-15 and Ynez
Rd.)
Ynez Road (between
Winchester Rd. and
Santa Gertrudis Creek)
Jefferson Avenue
(between Winchester Rd.
and Santa Gertrudis
Creek)
Date Street (between
Jefferson Ave. and
Jackson Ave.)
Washington Avenue
(between Cherry St. and
Date St.)
Intersections
Ynez Road/Winchester
Road
(without improvements)
(with improvements)
Jefferson
Avenue/Winchester Road
(without improvements)
(with improvements)
"Original" Project Level
of Service
"Revised" Project Level of
Service
F F
D D
D D
D D
D D
AM/PM Peak Hour Level
of Service
AM/PM Peak Hour Level
of Service
D/E D/E
D/D D/D
F/D F/I)
D/D D/D
As noted above, the "Revised" project plan results in the Levels of Service on the
roadway segments and intersections noted above which remain unchanged from those
associated with the "Original" project plan.
Volume to capacity ratios and levels of service on the majority of these roadway
segments were not affected since these roadways are distant from the project and
project-related traffic on these links represent a small portion of the total project
traffic on these roadways.
4O
Revisions to the proposed project land use will result in lower project-related traffic
volumes on all on-site roadways, however, this reduction is small relative to the
cumulative development year 2000 traffic projections. No modifications are suggested
to the previously-identified recommended improvements. A comparison of
intersection service levels with previously recommended improvements is also
presented in Table 9, above.
In response to the City's request to provide general guidelines regarding
implementation schedule needs for area roadway improvements, the following
improvements have been recommended: a) Widen General Kearny Road to its ultimate
cross-section between Margarita Read and Camlno Carapos Verdes prior to occupation
of Planning Areas 3 and 7 of Csmpos Verdes Phase I; b) Install an interim signal on
Margarita Road at Solana Way prior to 50% occupation of Campos Verdes Phase I;
and c) Complete construction of Margarita Read as a 4-lane Arterial section prior to
occupation of Planning Areas 2 and 4 of Csmpos Verdes Phase II.
These guidelines should be reviewed in more detail at the time that building permits
are processed for the project. Readway Capacity Utilization values (fair share
implementation responsibility assessments) identified in the earlier Traffic Studies for
other area roadway improvements should be factored by 75.8% to adjust for the
reduction in Campos Verdes trip generation as noted above.
In spite of these measures, the level of impacts related to circulation and traffic is
considered to represent a sig~ifl. cant adverse impact for which a Statement of
Overriding Considerations has been prepared.
Revised Mitigation Measures
No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained
in the Draft EIR.
41
p. UTILITIES AND SERVICES
1. F.x~ing Conditions
The proposed project is serviced by the utility agencies noted in Table 10, Utility
Agencies.
TABI.i~. 10
UTILITY AGENCIES
Service
Water
Sewer
Fire
Polic~
Schools
Parks and Recreation
Natural Gas
Electricity
Solid Waste
Libraries
Health Services
Agency
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Riverside County Fire Department
City of Temecula, Police Department
Temecula Valley Unified School
District
City of Temecula
Southern California Gas Company
Southern California Edison Company
County of Riverside, Waste
Management Department and private
haulers
Riverside City/County Public Library
Private' Hospitals
Previously-IdentLr, ed Project Impacts
Development of the "Original" Campos Verdes Specific Plan wffi result in an
incremental increase in demand upon all affected public utilities and services. Table
11, Public Services and Utilities, Comparisons of Impacts, indicates the extent of these
increased demands.
42
TABI.E 11
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTII.ITIES, COMPARISONS OF IMPACTS
Service
Water
Sewer
Fire
Police
Schools ~
Parks and Recreation 2
Natural Gas
Electricity
Solid waste
Libraries
Health Services
2
"Original" Specific Plan
1,530,000 gallons
816,000 gallons
2,201 new residents
5.1 sworn officers
.72 civRian personnel
1.7 patrol cars
593 students
11 acres
4,745,368 cubic ft/month
8,375,3875 kwh/yr.
3,854 tons½year
2,201 new residents
2,201 new residents
Based upon recent student generation factors
Valley Unified School District
"Revised" Specific Plan
285,240 gallons
151,800 gallons
798 new residents
1.8 sworn officers
.26 civilian personnel
.6 patrol cars
271 students
3.9 acres
2,781,578 cubic ft./month
5,079,483 kwh/yr.
1,396 tons/yr.
798 new residents
798 new residents
provided by the Temecula
Based on the City Standard of 5.0 acres of parkland per 1,000 population
With the exception of the schools and parks factors noted above, the same generation
factors used in the Draft EIR as applied to the "Original" project plan were utilized
in the above table. Impacts to certain services (fwe, libraries, health services) relate
directly to the number of project residents, the respective totals of which are noted
above. In spite of these decreases, impacts to libraries still remain as a significant
adverse impact for which a Statement of Overriding Consideration has been prepared.
Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts
As noted in Table 11, Public Services and Utilities, Comparison of Impacts, all
affected public service and utility agencies experience a reduction in project-related
impacts as a result of development of the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan as
compared to the "Original" project plan. In spite of these decreases, a significant
impact to library services remain and will still require a Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
Revised Mitigation Measures
No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained
in the Draft EIR.
43
Q. LIGHT AND GLARE
Exdsting Conditions
The project site is currently vacant and emits an insignificant ~mount of light and
glare. The proposed project is located within the 30 mile Specinl Lighting Area of the
Mr. Palomar Observatory.
Previously-Identified Project Impacts
The development of 850 residential ~nits and 23.9 acres of commercial and
commercial/office space within the "Original" Campos Verdes Specific Plan will result
in the placement and installation of street lighting as required by the City of
Temecula. Additionally, entry monumentation and signage as well as parking lot
lighting may also require ~umination. Due to the project's location relative to the
Observatory, the on-site lighting requirements, as well as potential light and glare
caused as a result of reflections off buildings utilizing reflective materials, could
potentially result in a condition known as "skyglow", which interferes with the use of
the telescope at the observatory.
Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts
The reduction of 542 dwelling units and the illumination of higher density residential
uses from the "Revised" project plan wffi result in an incremental reduction in light
and glare impacts.
Revised Mitigation Measures
No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained
in the Draft EIR.
· R. DISASTER PREPAREDNESS
F~ating Conditions
Earthquakes, floods and wildland fires are natural occurrences which cannot be
prevented. In the event of a natural or man-made disaster, the County Office of
Disaster Preparedness is responsible for coordinating the various agencies to assure
preparedness and recovery of such an event.
Previously-Identified Project Impacts
Potential impacts to the "Original" Campos Verdes Center Specific Plan such as
seismic safety, slopes and erosion, wind erosion and blowsand, flooding, and fire
services ar discussed in their respective sections of the Draft EIR.
Analysis of Changes in Project Impacts
The "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan will generate fewer project residents (798
persons) as compared to the "Original" Specific Plan (2,207 new residents). This
decrease of 1,403 project residents (63.7% of the previous total) results in fewer
residents being exposed to potential seismic safety, slopes and erosion, wind erosion
and blowsand, flooding, and fire hazards.
Revised Mitigation Measures
No additional and/or revised mitigation measures are proposed beyond those contained
in the Draft EIR.
45
IV. MANDATORY CEQA TOPICS
Cumulative linDact Analvsls
The Cumulative Impact Analysis as contained on pages V-160 through V-169 of the
Cnrn.uos Verdes Draf~ EIR would remain unchsn~ed with implementation of the
"Revised" C~mpos Verdes Specific Plan.
S,,mmarv of Unavoidable Adverse Ironacts
As noted in Section I.C., Summary Analysis on pages 3 and 4 of this Addendure to the
Draft EIR, signi~nt impacts as a result of development of the "Revised" Campos
Verdes Specific Plan remain in the following impact areas: Seismic Safety, Noise,
Climate and'Air Quality, Agriculture, Wildlife/Vegetation, Circulation and Utilities
and Services (libraries) for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been
prepared. Project revisions as reflected within the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specffic
Plan have resulted in significant reductions in impacts in the impact areas of flooding,
fire services, sheriff services, schools and utilities. The project-related impacts in
these areas were considered significant in the Campes Verdes Draft EIR but with
implementation of the "Revised" Cempos Verdes Specific Plan, they have been reduced
to a non-significant level. None of the net changes in project impacts noted result in
the creation of new unavoidable adverse environmental impacts beyond those already
identified in the C~mpos Verdes Draft EIR.
Alternatives to the Prooosed Project
This d/scussion of Alternatives to the Proposed Project as contained on pages V-173
through V-195 of the Campos Verdes Draft EIR presents several alternatives to the
proposed project. The range of alternatives selected would still apply to the "Revised"
Campos Verdes Specific Plan. The quantified comparisons of impact of each
alternative with the "Original" Specific Plan as contained in the Draft EIR have been
revised and are reflected in the Findings of Fact which wffi become part of the Final
EIR.
It should be acknowledged that the Reduced Density Alternatives No. i and 2 within
the Draft EIR were rejected in favor of the previous proposal, referred to herein as the
"Original" Compes Verdes Specffic Plan. Adoption of the "Revised" Specific Plan is
occurring with the recognition that some of the reasons for rejection of these two
alternatives may be applicable to the currently proposed (or "Revised") project plan.
Although the "Revised" Campos Verdes Specific Plan eliminates the higher density
residential uses, this land use is eliminated with the recognition that the resultant
reduction of impacts is a viable trade-off to the loss of these affordable housing
opportunities. In addition, an available stock of similar housing is available elsewhere
within the City of Temecula and adjoining areas.
46
Growth Inducinff TroDacts. the Relationship Between Local Short-
Tern Use of Man's Environment and the Maintenance of Lonff-Term
Productivit~r. and Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitment of Enertrv
Supplies and Other Resources Should the Project Be Implemented
The discussion of growth inducing impacts, long-term productivity, and irretrievable
commitments of resources as contained on pages V-196 through V-198 of the Draft
EIR would remain unchanged with implementation of the "Revised" CampOe Verdes
Specific Plan.
ATTACHMENT A
SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
WILBUR
SMITH
ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS · PLANNERS
3600 LIME STREET * SUITE 22o · RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 · (909) 274'0566 · FAX (909) 274'9220
April 30, 1994
Mr. Barry Burnell
Principal
Turrini & Brink
3242 Halladay Street, Suite 100
Santa Ana, California 92705
Re: Campos Verdes S.P. No. 1/EIR Addendum
Dear Barry,
RECEIVED
MAY 2 1994
CrTYOF'rBdECULA
ENGINEERING 0EPAR I TM!~V/'
Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) has carefully reviewed the recently proposed
modifications to the Campos Verdes land use plan. The proposed land use modifications
essentially involve the following:
1) All 644 multi-family residential dwelling units have been eliminated;
2) Single family residential dwelling units have increased from 206 to 308;
3) Both the commercial office and commercial retail center have been reduced in size;
and
4) An elementary school has been added to the project.
A copy of the revised land use plan is attached as Exhibit A.
These recent changes in the on-site circulation plan have precipitated the need to prepare
the following addendure material which supplements the current traffic study document.
The following sections discussed the most significant implications which these changes
have on the findings of the earlier study.
ALBANY. NY · ATLANTA. GA , CAIRO. EGYPT · CHARLESTON. SC · COLUMBIA. SC · COLUMBUS. OH · DES MOINES. IA * FALLS CHURCH. VA
HONG KONG, HOUSTON. TX · KNOXVILLE. TN · LEXINGTON. KY · LONDON. ENGLAND * LOS ANGELES. CA , MIAMI. FL · NEENAH. Wt
NEW HAVEN. CT · OAKLAND. CA · ORLANDO. FL · PRTSBURGH. PA · PORTSMOUTH. NH · PROVIDENCE. RI · RALEIGH. NC , RICHMOND. VA
RIVERSIDE. CA * ROSELLE. IL, SAN FRANCISCO. CA · SAN JOSE. CA * SINGAPORE · TAMPA. FL · TORONTO. CANADA * WASHINGTON. DC
EMPLOYEE'OWNED COMPANY
Mr. Barry Burnell
Campos Verdes Modifications
April 30, 1994
Page 2
Project Trip Generation
Presented in Tables A-1 a and A-1 b are summaries of the previous and currently proposed
project trip generation respectively. A comparison of the two indicates that the current
land use plan would generate 3,916 fewer tips per day, a reduction of approximately 24
percent. The reduction in morning peak hour trips is somewhat less due to the trip
generation characteristics of the elementary school. It should be noted however that
most of the morning peak hour trips generated by the school would be internal to the
project and therefor the resulting reduction in off-site trips during morning peak hour
would in fact approach the 2a, percent level expected for the daily period.
Project Trip Distribution
Trip distribution for the modified project land use would not vary significantly from that
for the previous proposal. in the assessment of off-site impact implications of the current
proposal it is assumed that General Kearny Rd. will not be extended to the east to
Nicolas Rd.
Analysis of Traffic Impacts
WSA has evaluated the implications of the currently proposed project land use (which
results in approximately 24 percent fewer vehicle trips) on off-site traffic impacts and
associated mitigation needs. Given the de-intensification proposed for the project, the
analysis focuses only on those off-site roadway segments and intersections which were
projected in the previous study to operate at Level of Service D or worse (for roadways)
or Level of Service E or worse (for intersections). All other roadway links and
intersections would continue to operate at Level of Service C or better.
Off-site roadway segments projected in the earlier traffic study to operate at Level of
Service D or worse for year 2000 conditions with the project include:
· Winchester Rd. between l-15and Ynez Rd. (LOS F-V/C = 1.11);
· Ynez Rd. between Winchester Rd. and Santa Gertrudis Creek (LOS D - V/C = 0.82);
Mr. Barry Burnell
Campos Verdes Modifications
April 30, 1994
Page 3
Jefferson Ave. between Winchester Rd. and Santa Gertrudis Creek (LOS D - V/C =
0.90);
· Date St. between Jefferson Ave. and Jackson Ave. (LOS D - V/C = 0.81 to 0.84);
and
· WashingtOn Ave. between Cherry St. and Date St. (LOS D ~ V/C = 0.90).
With the currently proposed project land use, level of service would remain the same on
all roadway segments, On the Winchester Road segment however, the projected V/C
ratio would drop from 1.11 to 1.09. Volume to capacity ratios and levels of service on
the majority of these roadway segments were not affected since these roadways are
distant from the project and project-related traffic on these links represents such a small
portion of the total projected traffic.
Most of these roadway links are projected to serve less than 200 project trips per day and
a reduction of 48 trips or less per day has little affect on the volume to capacity ratio.
Off-site intersections projected in the earlier study to operate at Level of Service E or
worse for year 2000 conditions with the project include:
· Ynez Rd. & Winchester Rd.-
A.M. ICU = 90, LOS D
P.M. ICU = 94, LOS E
· Jefferson Ave. & Winchester Rd.-
A.M. ICU = 109, LOS F
P.M. ICU --- 89, LOS D
With the currently proposed land use, the reduction in peak hour traffic at the two critical
intersections would result in the following Intersection Capacity Utilization and level of
service values:
· Ynez Rd. & Winchester Rd.-
A.M. ICU = 89, LOS D
P.M. ICU = 93, LOS E
· Jefferson Ave. & Winchester Rd,~
A.M. ICU = 10g, LOS F
P.M. ICU = 89, LOS D
Mr. Barry Burnell
Campos Verdes Modifications
April 30, 1994
Page 4
While a reduction in the ICU value was attained at the Ynez Rd. & Winchester Rd.
intersection, .it was not sufficient to improve the level of service. The reduction in project
traffic at the Jefferson Ave. & Winchester Rd. intersection ranged from approximately 9
vehicles during the morning peak hour to approximately 20 vehicles du~ing the evening
peak hour. This reduction in total traffic was not sufficient to reduce the ICU value or
improve the level of service.
Recommended Improvements
Revisions to the proposed project land use will result in lower project-related traffic
volumes on all on-site and off-site roadways however the reduction is small relative to the
cumulative development year 2000 traffic projections. No modifications are suggested
to the previously identified recommended improvements. A comparison of critical
intersection service levels with previously recommended improvements is presented
below.
With 0rioinal Proiect
With Current Proiect
· Ynez Rd. &
Winchester Rd.
A.M. ICU = 85, LOS D
P.M. ICU = 89, LOS D
A.M. ICU = 84, LOS D
P.M. ICU = 88, LOS D
· Jefferson Ave. & A.M. ICU = 85, LOS D
Winchester Rd. .P.M. ICU = 89, LOS D
A.M. ICU = 84, LOS D
P.M. ICU = 89, LOS D
Roadway Implementation Issues
In response to the City's request to provide general guidelines regarding implementation
schedule needs for area roadway improvements WSA has developed the following
recommendations:
Widen General Kearny Rd. to its ultimate cross-section between Margarita Rd. and
Camino Campos Verdes prior to occupation of Planning Area 3 and 7 portion of
Campos Verdes Phase I.
· Install interim signal on Margarita Road at Solana Way prior to 50 percent occupation
of Campos Verdes Phase I.
Mr. Berry Burnell
Campos Verdes Modifications
April 30, 1994
Page 5
· Complete construction of Margarita Road 4-lane Arterial section prior to occupation
of Planning Area 2 and 4 portions of Campos Verdes Phase II.
These guidelines should be reviewed in more detailed at the time that building permits are
processed for the project.
Please note tF~e following levels of project impact on Margarita Rd. and General Kearny
Rd. are expressed as the percent of the maximum daily traffic capacity (utilized by
Campos Verdes traffic):
Margarita Rd.
Solana Way to General Kearny Road - 6 to 8 percent
General Kearny Road to Winchester Road - 10 to 17 percent
· General Kearny Rd.
Eastern project boundary to Margarita Rd. - 1 to 14 percent
Roadway Capacity Utilization values (fair share implementation responsibility
assessments) identified in the earlier study documents for other area roadway
improvements should be factored by 76 percent to adjust 'for the reduction in Campos
Verdes trip generation.
Wilbur Smith Associates trusts that this addendure analysis will assist City of Temecula
staff in their ongoing review of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan. Please feel free to
contact me at any time if you have questions regarding this material.
Sincerely yours,
Wilbur Smith Associates
Robert A. Davis
Principal Transportation Engineer
ATTACHMENT B
CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE TEMECULA V~kT,T,EY
UNWIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
TEMECULA VALLEY
Unified School District
SUPERINTENDENT
Pathtie B. Novomey, Ed.D.
RECEIVED
APR 2 11S 4
Ans'd ..........
BOARD O= EDUCATIOh
April 18, 1994 (supplements February 28, 1994 and March 8, 1994 comments/
Steve Jia~nino
City of Temecula Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
SUBJECT: . Campo$ Verdes Specific Plan Conditions
Dear Mr. Jiannino:
The Temecula Valley Unified School District provides the following information from our review of the proposed Specific
Plan as presented to the Planning Commission March 21, 1994:
· Elementary School Site
We understand that the developer has included an 11.1 acre school site in an Alternative Land Use Plan. The District
is in favor of this site, which could become a part of the mitigation agreement. (ref 3/7/94 dwg.)
Although the site will need formal State Department of Education (SDE) approvals, many of the SDE areas of concern
(airport proximity, flood plain, dam inundation) are not issues with the proposed site.
The District will require good pedestrian, bus and parent vehicle access to this site.
· School Facilities Mitigation Agreement
The number of new dwelling units is being determined for this development. Through new housing student generation
data, we have determined the following generation rates in the Temecuta Valley Unified School District:
# of students per dwelling unit
Elementary School: ,39
Middle SchooL: ,24
High School: ,25
Total .88
The number of new students is determined by multiplying the new dweiiin9 units by these facto, s, which for a 306-unit
single-family development would be 119 elementary, 73 middle, and 77 new high school students.
Prior to Specific Plan approval, a signed mitigation agreement will be required between the developer and the School
District to ensure adequate facilities for these new students, based on the Public Facilities Element of the City General
Plan and the General Plan Implementation Program.
Section V D.5 of the Draft Specific Plan/EIR should be revised to reflect General Plan Policies and updated School
District information as indicated in the attachments.
If you have any questions, please call me at 695-7340.
Director of Facilities Development '
cc:
Patricia B. Novotney, Ed.D., Superintendent
John Brooks, Assistant Superintendent Business Services
Janet Dixon, Facilities Planning Analyst
Dennis Chiniaeff, KRDC, Inc.
31350 Rancho Vista Road / Ternecula, CA 92592 / (909) 676-2661
\pril 18, 1994
C, ampos Verdes Specific Plan Conditions
Section V
{TVUSD requested update for General Plan consistency - 4/19/94)
SCHOOLS
a. Existing2 Conditions
The proposed project lies within the Temecuia Valley Unified School District FFVUSD) for educational services and facilities. The
District currently operates six elementary (grades K-5) schools, two middle (grades 6-8} schools and two high (gcades 9-12) schools.
· The attached Table, provided by the District's Facilities Development Department, indicates the current enrollment, permanent
building capacity, and interim (portable classrooms) capacity of each school. As the Table indicates, most District schools are
operating above their permanent building capacity. The portable classrooms are temporary buildings utilized to accommodate the
overflow of students as new permanent facilities are constructed.
b. Project Impacts/General Plan Relationship
The Temecula Valley Unified School District utilizes the following criteria to calculate student generation.
· Attached Dwellinn Units:
Grades K-5 - 0.28 students per unit; Grades 6-8 - 0.19 students per unit;
Grades 9-12 - 0.17 students per unit
· Detached Dwellinq Units:
Grades K-5 - 0.39; students per unit; Grades 6-8 - 0.24 students per unit;
Grades 9-12 - 0.25 students per unit
The proposed 306 single-family residential units located in Campos Verdes will generate approximately 269 students (119
elementary, 73 middle, and 77 new high school students utilizing the TVUSD criteria mentioned above). Because a single
elementary site, and no middle or high school site is proposed within the project boundaries, the estimated 119 elementary students
could be accommodated on-site, but the middle and high school students would require accommodation off-site, As previously
mentioned, most District schools are currently operating above permanent building capacity. The additional students generated by
th~s prolect wifi place an increased demand upon District facilities which are already impacted.
GENERAL PLAN RELATIONSHIP
The Campos Verdes project lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. The City General Plan adopted
in October 1993, requires the following mitigation measures with regard to school facilities impacts.
c. General Plan Implementation Proqram
In accordance with the Public Facilities Element of the City General Plan and the General Plan Implementation Program, the impact
of the new students from this project shall be mitigated through a mitigation agreement signed by the developer and the District,
prior to Specific Ran approvals. The developer and District may agree to use one or more of the following financing mechanisms:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Payment of school fees
Dedication of land and/or facilities
Establishment of or annexation to a Community Facilities District
Levying of a special tax
Other alternatives agreed upon by the Developer and the District
d. Level of SiGnificance After Mitioation
Upon completion of the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to Schools will be reduced to an
~nsignificant level.
m.¢:,_
"¢:"r
OC)
>- .¢:
,,,h-
_~w,,
x
L.W
CAMPOS VERDES
.×
ALTERNATIVE LAND USE PLAN
2/2 / ~ ~
MEDIUM OBNSITY
\ / / MEDIUM i ~' j' _~
P,A, 6
12,6 AC
MEADOWVIEW
VERDES
P.A, 6
-'-
,-~
P.A,; \ F.Aa
MULTI-FAMILY ~ . SCHOOL"
17.4 AC
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS
UNDER SEPARATE COVER
ATTACHMENT NO. 9
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.PC5 7/15/94 vg, w ~2
FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATE1MENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING TSE FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 348
(STATE Ct,EARINGHOUSE NUMBER 89020139)
FOR ~ CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1
The City of Temecula (the "City") hereby certifies the CAmpos Verdes Specific
Plan Final Environmental Impact Report,. State Clearinghouse Number 89020139,
which consists of the Draft EIR, a Response to Comments package and an Addendum
EIR (collectively referred to as the "Final EIR" or "FEIR"), and fmds that it has been
completed in comphance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Pubhc
Resource Cede Section 21000, et seq.) CCEQA") and that the City of Temecula has
received, reviewed and considered the information contained in the FEIR, all hearings,
and submissions of testimony from officials and Departments of the City, the
Applicant, the public and other municipalities and agencies.
Having received, reviewed and considered the foregoing information, as well as
any and all information in the record, the City of Temecula hereby makes these
Findings of Fact pursuant to, and in accordance with Section 21081 of the Public
Resource Code as follows:
BACKGROUND
The Campos Verdes Specific Plan (the "proposed project") was originally
submitted to the County of Riverside for screencheck review on May 3, 1989 as a
portion of the "Rancho California Commerce Center Comprehensive General Plan
Amendment 179 and Zone Change 5181 and 5188." The Rancho California Commerce
Center consisted of 1,049 acres generally situated adjacent to and east of Interstate
15 which at the time was in the unincorporated area of Rancho California, within
Riverside County. The 1,049 acre site was situated on both sides of Winchester Read
with the portion of the project south of Winchester Read located on the east side of
Ynez Road. The project involved a Comprehensive General Plan Amendment (#179)
to the Rancho Vffiages Policy Plan, two Zone ChRn~es (5181 and 5188), and the filing
of two subdivision maps (Tentative Tract 23336 and Conceptual Plot Plan) in order
to conform with and accommodate the land uses that were proposed.
Land uses proposed by the Rancho California Commerce Center included three
Villages as described below:
Camnos Verdes - This v~lage encompassed 135 acres located immediately south
of Winchester Read and adjacent to and east of the proposed Regional Center. This
development area was proposed to contain a range of residential densities totaling a
maximum of 1,225 dwelling units as well as 10 acres of neighborhood commercial
uses.
Winchester Hills - This village encompassed 72 1 acres located east of Interstate
15 and north of Winchester Road. This area was proposed for a 646 acre Business
Park and 75 acres of Rotaft Service/Commercial uses which were intended to generally
serve the needs of employees worldng within or customers utilizing the proposed
Business Park.
Remional Center - This area encompassed 193 acres located immediately south
of Winchester Road and east of Ynez Road. The majority of this area was proposed
for a regional shopping center containing a regional mall, a 500 room hotel and
specialty retail, office, limited residential and retail land uses. The Regional Center
was, at that time, intended to provide both local and regional commercial
opportunities to future on-site residents as well as persons residing outside the subject
property.
Subsequently, the Rancho California Commerce Center was split into four
separate projects which included: the Campos Verdes Spocific Plan (the "proposed
project") located east of Margarita Road and north of General Kearny Road; the
Winchester Hills Specific Plan located east of and adjacent to Interstate 15, extending
east to Margarita Road on the north side of Winchester Road; Winchester Meadows
located north of Winchester Road and east of Margarita Road; and the Temecula
Regional Center Specific Plan located between Ynez Road and the proposed alignment
of Margarita Road and south of Santa Gertrudis Creek. A revised Notice of
Preparation for the Campos Verdes project was prepared in February, 1990 by the
County of Riverside.
The Temecula Regional Center Specific Plan currently encompasses 230,8 acres
and proposes 77.56 acres of mixed Retail/Office/Hotel use, 300 dwelling units proposed
as residential fiats over office space, and 97.8 acres of Retail Commercial core use.
The Winchester Hffis Specific Plan encompasses 571.6 acres and proposes 1,948
dwelling units, 10.0 acres of schools, 29.8 acres of parks, and 137.1 acres of
commercial/office/business park uses. No project applications have been submitted for
Winchester Meadows.
Kemper Real Estate Management Company (the "Applicant") proposes the 132.9
acre C~mpos Verdes Specific Plan No. I as a master planned mixed use development.
The current development proposal involves a total of 308 dwelling units, 10.8 acres
of park, 19.8 acres of commercial/office/church uses, a 10.7 acre elementary school, a
5.8 acre detention basin and 13.0 acres of on-site roadways is proposed. In order to
accommodate the proposed land uses, a zone change is also required.
On December 1, 1989 the City of Temecula was incorporated, approximately
seven months after the original applications for the proposed project were fried with
the County of Riverside. The unincorporated area in which the proposed project is
located became part of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. As a result of the
City's incorporation, the application for a General Plan Amendment and associated
approvals through the County of Riverside were no longer applicable.
2
These three projects, Campos Verdes, Winchester Hills and Temecula Regional
Center are being processed concurrently through the City of Temeculs~ These three
projects, in total, are referred to as the "Urban Core" projects.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
An Initial Study for Campos Verdes was prepared by the County of Riverside
on March 12, 1990, which identified potential environmental impacts attributable to
the proposed project. These potential impacts include: Landform and Topography;
Historical Land Use; Geology and Seismicity; Hydrology; Flooding and Drainage; Open
Space and Conservation; Climate and Air Quality; So~s and Agriculture; Noise;
Hazardous Materials and Wastes; Archaeological/Cultural Resources; Biology; Public
Facilities and Services (water and sewer, fire/police service, solid waste, utilities, parks
and recreation, schools, airports, libraries, health services); Circulation and Traffic;
Energy Conservation; Scenic Environment; Trails; Fiscal Impacts; Growth Inducing
Impacts; and, Cumulative Impacts. In addition, the Initial Study identified the
necessity to analyze Project Alternatives and provide a Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program. As a result of the Initial Study, it was determined that the
proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment and an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was required.
The Initial Study was processed through the County of Riverside until June
1990, when it was forwarded to the City of Temecula for processing as a result of the
City's incorporation. A Special Preliminary Development Review Committee Meeting
was held by the City of Temecula in December, 1990 for the proposed project.
The FEIR analyzed both project and cumulative effects on the potential
environmental impacts identified by the Initial Study. The FEIR developed and
identified a variety of mitigation measures to minimize, reduce, avoid or compensate
for the potential adverse effects of the proposed project.
The FEIR also discussed a number of potential alternatives to the proposed
project, including: 1~ the "No Project" Alternative; 2) the Existing Zoning Alternative;
3) the Reduced Density Alternative No. 1; 4) the Reduced Density Alternative No. 2;
5) the Increased Office/Commercial Alternative; 6) the Reduced Office/Commercial
Alternative; and 7) Alternate Project Sites.
The Draft Environmental Impact Report was circulated for public review by the
City of Temecula between July 10, 1992 and August 24, 1992 in conformance with
Section 15086, et.seq. of the State CEQA Guidelines. This 45-day public review period
(per Section 15087 (c) of State CEQA Guidelines) resulted in the receipt of comments
from a variety of governmental agencies and other responsible parties. Responses to
the comments received regarding the proposed project and the Draft EIR were
prepared, and then reviewed and revised by City staff. This Response to Comments
package is included in the FEIR.
3
SECTION 1
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The FEIR identffied and discussed significant effects which will occur as a
result of the proposed project. With the implementation of the mitigation measures
discussed in the FEIR, these effects can be mitigated to levels of insignificance except
for unavoidable significant impacts in the areas of noise, climate and air quality, and
agriculture; as identffied in Section 3 of these findings.
Having reduced the effects of the proposed project by adopting the conditions
of approval and monitored mitigation measures and having balanced the benefits of
the proposed project against the proposed project's potential unavoidable adverse
impacts, the City of Temecula hereby determines that the benefits of the proposed
project outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse impacts, and that the unavoidable
adverse impacts are nonetheless "acceptable," based on the following overriding
considerations:
1. Construction of the proposed project will provide a variety of housing
types and styles as well as on-site commercial, office, church and elementary school
uses.
2. The proposed project provides complimentary land uses (commercial,
office, church, elementary school and residential) within a single mixed use project
thereby reducing traffic, noise and air quality impacts associated with automobile trips
headed for sjrniJar destinations at a further distance.
3. Construction of the proposed project will provide commercial and office
uses that will accommodate a share of the projected community and regional work
force by creating long-term employment opportunities thereby enhancing the
jobs/housing balance for the area. Additional short-term construction-related jobs will
also be created.
4. The proposed on-site commercial and office land uses will serve residents
of the project site and those residing in adjacent areas.
5. The proposed project provides a variety of recreational amenities
including a 10.8 acre pubhc park, a landscaped flood control detention basin, and
Class II bicycle lanes which wffi serve residents of the project site and those residing
in adjacent areas.
6. Provision of traffic mitigation measures will provide overall mitigation
to address the circulation impacts which are directly attributable to the proposed
project and which are indirectly attributable to the proposed project's incremental
contribution to cumulative traffic impacts and will therefore benefit the region by
adding capacity to critical intersections and roadways. The proposed project
5
implements the City's Master Plan of Highways.
7. Drainage fadlities (i.e. a detention basin) will be constructed on-site to
better contain and direct the flow of stormwater runoff through and downstream of
the project site. This facility will minimize flooding hazards both on-site and
downstream of the project.
8. The proposed project will provide funding for various regional
infrastructure elements through the City's Mitigation Fee ProgrAm.
9. Approval of a Specific Plan provides the necessary master planning to
insure provision of necessary infrastructure, desired amenities and common landscape
and design elements which would not be possible if the property were developed using
a "piecemeal" approach.
SECTION 2
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH ARE NOT
SIGNIFICANT OR WHICH HAVE BEEN MITIGATED
TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE
All FEIR mitigation measures (as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring
Program attached as Appendix A to these Findings) have been incorporated by
reference into the conditions of approval for the proposed Campes Verdes Specific
Plan.
The City of Temecula has determined that these mitigation measures and
conditions of approval will result in a substantial mitigation of the following effects
and that thdse effects are not considered significant or they have been mitigated to
a level of insignificance. The mitigation measures referred to below are contained
within the Mitigation Monitoring ProgrAm which is attached as Appendix A to these
Findings.
Slooes nnd Erosion
Potential Impact: Development of the site will require alteration of the existing
landform. Approximately 2,616,743 cubic yards of cut and 376,123 cubic yards of fffi
will be required. With appropriate permits, the balance of the earthwork will be
relocated on the adjacent Temecula Regional Center site. Cut and fffi slopes are
anticipated to be stable at ratios of 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) or flatter to heights often
feet.
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the
FEIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 15 within the Mitigation
Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impact.
Potential Impact: Slope erosion on-site is a signfficant concern regarding surficial
stability.
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design wffi reduce the impact identified in the
FEIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 16 and 17 within the
Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identffied impact.
7
Potential Imnact: The development and construction phase of the project will
potentially create short-term impacts related to erosion and sedimentation of Santa
Gertrudis Creek due to creation of exposed soils during project grading.
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the
FEIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 19 within the Mitigation
Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impacts.
Potential Impact: The development phase of the project will create impermeable on-
site surfaces, thereby increasing on-site runoff. Increased site runoff, as well as
upstream surface flows, will be accommodated by the proposed drainage system. The
increased flow rates from the project will contribute to cumulative increased flow
rates downstream primar~y to Murrieta Creek and the potential for flooding in
downstream areas containing undersized facilities. When channel improvements are
completed, on-site flood hazards associated with the 100-year floodplain adjacent to
Santa Gertrudis Creek will be eliminated.
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the
Ft~IR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 18, 20 and 21 within
the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impacts.
Wind Erosion and Blowsand
Potential Imnact: Although the project site lies outside the Wind/Erosion or Blowsand
Areas designated by the Riverside County General Plan, construction activities
(primarily site preparation and grading) wffi generate fugitive dust. An average of .05
tons per day of particulate emissions is estimated to occur.
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identified in the
FEIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 6 within the Mitigation
Monitoring Progreta will mitigate the identified impact.
Water Qualitw
Potential Imnact: Project development will alter the composition of surface runoffby
grading the site surfaces, construction of impervious streets, roofs and parking
8
facilities, and by irrigation of landscaped areas. Runoff entering the storm drain
system will contain minor amounts of pollutants typical of urban use, including
pesticides, fertilizers, oil and rubber residues, detergents, hydrocarbon particles and
other debris. This rimoff, typical of urban use, will contribute to the increased
degradation of water quality downstream.
Findinn: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the
FEIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 22 and 23 within the
Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impacts:
Toxic Substances
Potential Impact: The presence of hazardous material within the majority of the
project site is unlikely, however, due to the past agriculture use of the site, there
remains the potential for near surface soft contamination due to residues from prior
pesticide use. Also present within the site are several fill areas. Although no
hazardous materials were observed within these fffis, there remains the inherent
uncertainty as to the subsurface fill contents.
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identified in the
FEIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 24 and 25 within the
Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impact.
Potential Impact: Project development could potentially produce small quantity
generators of hazardous waste. Small quantity generators are businesses that produce
less than 1,000 kilograms of hazardous waste per month (such as drycleaners, photo
and c~mera stores, or stores dealing with paints or solvents). However, the exact
businesses to be included on-site are currently unknown.
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identified in the
FEIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 26 within the Mitigation
Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impact.
Ooen Soace and Conservation
Potential Impact: Project development wffi preclude future use of the site for pasture
crops and dryland agriculture as well as eliminate open space and the rural
atmosphere currently present on-site. However, the project is designed to minimize
9
land use conflicts with existing and surrounding land uses as well as the conflicts
between on-site residential and office/commercial uses through extensive use of
Landscape Development Zones.
Findin2s: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design wffi reduce the impact identified in the
FEIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 17 on page II-15 of the
Draft EIR will mitigate the identified impact.
EneraN Resources
Potential Imnact: Project development will increase consumption of energy for motor
vehicle movement, space and water heating, lighting, cooking, refrigeration and air
conditioning, operation and construction equipment, use of miscellaneous home
appliances, and energy required to produce the construction materials and all other
material aspects of the project. On-site natural gas demand is estimated to be
2,781,528 cubic feet per month. On-site electricity consumption is estimated to be
5,079,483 kilowatt hours (kwh) per year.
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the
FEIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 27 and 28 within the
Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impacts.
Scenic Highways
Potential Imnact: Planning Areas 4 and 5 of the proposed project are adjacent to
Winchester Road, an Eligible Scenic Highway.
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the
FEIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 29 within the Mitigation
Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impacts.
Cultural and Scientific Resources
Potential Imnact: Possible adverse impact to the Pauba Formation, of moderate to
high paleontological sensitivity, may occur as a result of project development. No
archaeological sites have been observed with project boundaries, however, potential
impacts to unknown cultural resources may occur.
10
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design wffi reduce the impact identified in the
FEIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 30 and 31 within the
Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impact.
Water And Sewer Service
Potential Imnact: Project development will increase the demand on water service in
the area. The total average day demand for the project is estimated at .816 million
gallons daily. The project will require on-site water lines connecting to existing
Rancho CAlifornia Water District (RCWD) facilities in order to provide water service
to the site. ! The project is estimated to generate .151 million gallons per day of
sewage.
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identified in the
FEIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 32 and 33 within the
Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impacts.
Potential Impact: No reclaimed water lines or facilities in the project area currently
exist. EMWD will require the project to construct reclaimed water lines on-site so that
when the regional system, which is currently in the planning process, is complete, the
project can utilize reclaimed water for specific irrigation purposes.
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identified in the
FEIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 33 within the Mitigation
Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impact.
Fire Service
Potential Imnact: Project development will increase the demand upon existing fire
protection services. These impacts are due to the increase in emergency or public
service calls generated by additional residential and commercial development.
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impacts identified in the
FEIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 34 within the Mitigation
Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impacts.
11
Sheriff Services
Potential Impact: The increase in population as a result of project development will
increase criminal activity such as burglaries, thefts, auto thefts and vandalism. As the
population and use of an area increases, additional manpower needs are required to
meet the increased demand.
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design wffi reduce the impacts identified in the
FEIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above fretting is made in that Mitigation Measure 35 within the Mitigation
Monitoring Program will mitigate the identffied impacts.
School
Potential Imnact: The proposed project will generate an estimated 271 students
requiring accommodation and increasing demand within off-site Temecula Valley
Unified School District facilities.
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design wffi reduce the impacts identified in the
FEIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 36 within the Mitigation
Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impacts.
Utilities
Potential Imnact: Project development will place additional demand on existing
electrical supphes. The project is estimated to utilize 5,079,483 kilowatt hours (kwh)
of electricity per year. The demand for natural gas will also increase with project
development. The project is estimated to consume 2,781,578 cubic feet of natural gas
per month. These demand projections do not exceed the service capabilities of the
respective utility agencies. While the proposed project wffi place additional demand
upon phone service, the phone company has indicated that these demands are well
within the service parameters of the General Telephone Company.
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design wffi reduce the impacts identified in the
FEIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 38 within the Mitigation
Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impacts.
12
Parks and Recreation
Potential Impact: The proposed project will increase demand for park and recreational
facilities. The Quimby Act requirements established by the Temecula Community
Service District will be satisfied by the proposed 10.8 acre park/detention basin on-
site.
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identified in the
FEIR to an insignfficant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measure 37 within the Mitigation
Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impact.
Solid Waste
Potential Imnact: Project development will increase the amount of solid waste
generated on-site, which in turn will increase the demand upon waste haulers serving
the area and will incrementally reduce the lifespan of the affected landfill. The project
is anticipated to generate 1,396 tons of solid waste per year. This increase in sohd
waste will incrementally shorten the lifespan of the Double Butte Landfill.
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identified in the
FEIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 39 through 41 within
the Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impact.
Health Services
Potential Imnact: No adverse impacts are anticipated as a result of project
development. As no' adverse impacts are anticipated, no mitigation measures are
proposed.
Light and Glare
Potential Impact: Project development will result in the installation of street lights
as required by the City of Temecula. Entry monumentation and signage may also
require illumination. These lighting requirements could result in a condition known
as "skyglow," which interferes with the use of the telescope at the Mt. Palomar
Observatory.
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce the impact identified in the
FEIR to an insignificant level.
13
Facts: The above finding is made in that Mitigation Measures 42 and 43 within the '
Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impact.
Disaster Preparedness
Potential Imnact: Potential impacts associated with the proposed project relative to
seismic safety, slopes and erosion, wind and blowsand, flooding and fire services are
discussed in their respective sections of the Draft EIR.
Findings: Conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features
incorporated into the proposed project design wffi reduce the impacts identified in the
FEIR to an insignificant level.
Facts: The' above finding is made in that Mitigation Measures throughout the
Mitigation Monitoring Program will mitigate the identified impacts.
14
SECTION 8
SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH
CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE
The City has determined that certain environmental effects (both project-
related and cumulative) cannot be feasibly or objectively mitigated to a level of
insignffi~nce although the FEIR contains mitigation measures and conditions of
approval imposed on the proposed project will provide a substantial mitigation of
these effects. Consequently, in accordance with SectiOn 15093 of the State CEQA
Guidelines, a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared (See Section
1) to substantiate the City's decision to accept these unavoidable adverse
environmental effects because of the benefits afforded by the proposed project. The
mitigation measures referred to below are contained within the Mitigation Monitoring
Program which is attached as Appendix A to these Findings.
PROJECT-RElATED EFFECTS
Seismic Safety
Potential Imnact: The site will be impacted by seismic activity along the Wildomar
fault alignment running parallel to the western project boundary. Additionally, it is
possible that a 7.0 earthquake along the Elsinore fault zone could create peak ground
acceleration on-site of 0.63g with a maximum repeatable acceleration of 0.41g. The
site may experience secondary impacts related to a seismic event which include
possible liquefaction impacts and possible inundation due to the failure of Skinner
Dam.
Findings: This impact identified in the FEIR cannot be mitigated to a level of
insigm~cance. However, conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and
features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce, to the extent
feasible, the adverse environmental effects.
Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been prepared for the project (see Section 1) and that Mitigation Measures 1
through 3 within the Mitigation Monitoring ProgrAm will partially mitigate the
identified impacts.
Noisel
Potential Impact: Construction noise represents a short-term impact on Ambient
noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment can reach high levels.
Findings: The impact identified in the FEIR cannot be mitigated to a level of
insignificance. However, conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and
features incorporated into the proposed project will reduce, to the extent feasible, the
adverse environmental effect.
15
Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been prepared for the proposed project (See Section 1) and that Mitigation
Measure 4 within the Mitigation Monitoring Program wffi partially mitigate the
identified impact.
Potential Impact: Areas along General Kearny Road and Margarita Road may
experience noise levels over 65 CNEL without some form of mitigation. Future noise
increases due to the project are less than 3 dBa except along an undeveloped portion
of Margarita Road. The cumulative noise impacts are considered significant adverse
environmental impacts.
Findings: The impact identified in the FEIR cannot be mitigated to a level of
insignificance. However, conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and
features incorporated into the proposed project will reduce, to the extent feasible, the
adverse environmental effect.
Facts: The above fLucling is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been prepared for the proposed project (See Section 1) and that Mitigation
Measure 5 within the Mitigation Monitoring Program will partially mitigate the
identified impact.
Climate and Air Quality
Potential Imnact: An estimated .05 tons of particulate emissions will be released per
day as a result of dust generated by construction equipment and winds during the
grading phase and site preparation.
Findings: The impact identified in the FEIR cannot be mitigated to a level of
insignificance. However, conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and
features incorporated into the proposed project will reduce, to the extent feasible, the
adverse environmental effect.
Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been prepared for the proposed project (See Section 1) and that Mitigation
Measure 6 within the Mitigation Monitoring Program will partially mitigate the
identified impacts.
Potential Imnact: The project wffi generate long-term impacts which include mobile
emissions resulting from the estimated 12,268 daily vehicle trips, as well as stationary
emissions resulting from the estimated 5,079,483 kwh of electricity consumed yearly
and the 2,781,578 cubic feet of natural gas consumed monthly. The pollutant
generation associated with the proposed project is considered "significant" by the
SCAQMD Handbook for Preparing EIR's.
Findings: The impacts identified in the FEIR cannot be mitigated to a level of
insignificance. However, conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and
features incorporated into the proposed project wffi reduce, to the extent feasible, the
16
adverse environmental effect.
Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been prepared for the proposed project (See Section 1) and that Mitigation
Measure 7 within the Mitigation Monitoring ProgTAm will partially mitigate the
identified impacts.
A~n~iculture
Potential Imnact: Project development will remove from production existing pasture
crops and dry farmland, as well as resulting in the permanent loss of future
agriculture productivity on "Prime Farmland" which is considered a significant adverse
impact. Development of the proposed urban uses could hasten the conversion of other
agricultural areas to urban uses by creating economic pressures and increasing land
value. However, much of the surrounding land is also being processed for urban
development in accordance with the City of Temecula, General Plan. Therefore, long-
term agricultural use is not envisioned for the project area and no long-term land use
conflicts are anticipated as a result of project development.
Findings: The impact identified in the FEIR cannot be mitigated to a level of
insignificance.
Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been prepared for the proposed project (See Section 1). No mitigation measures
are proposed.
Wildlife and Vegetation
Potential Imnact: Construction activities will remove physical habitats through cut
and fill as well as other grading operations resulting in the direct loss of habitat and
the less mobfie wildlife forms. Impacts resulting from vegetation loss affects the
wildlife associated with that vegetation by either destroying it or displacing it to
adjacent habitat. Additional impacts to wildlife results from increasing harassment
from cats, dogs, children, light and glare, background noise and excessive construction
related noises. Conversion of the on-site introduced grassland community to urban
development will reduce areawide dryland farming foraging habitat for raptors (birds).
Findings: This impact identified in the FEIR cannot be mitigated to a level of
insignificance. However, conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and
features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce to the extent
feasible the adverse environmental effects.
Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been prepared for the project (see Section 1) and that Mitigation Measures 8 and
9 within the Mitigation Monitoring Program will partially mitigate the identified
impacts.
17
Circulation and Traffic
Potential Impact: The project will generate an estimated 12,268 vehicle trips per day
and 85,876 vehicle miles travelled daily. Without mitigation, service levels "D" and ~F'
within the Cumulative Development Scennrio (including the project) could be expected
along segments of Winchester Road, Date Street, Jefferson Avenue, Washington
Avenue and Ynez Road. The Intersection Capacity Utilization analysis indicates that
two intersections CYnez Road/Winchester Road and Jefferson AvenueAVinchester
Road) within the Cumulative Development Scenario (including the project) would
operate at a Levels of Service "D", "E" or "F" during the morning or evening peak
hours. Additional roadway improvements will result in all affected intersections
operating at Level of Service "D" or better.
Findings: This impact as identified in the FEIR cannot be mitigated to a level of
insignificance. However, conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and
features incorporated into the proposed project design will reduce, to the extent
feasible, the adverse environmental effects.
Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been prepared for the project (see Section 1) and that Mitigation Measures 10
through 13 within the Mitigation Monitoring Program wffi partially mitigate the
identified impacts.
Libraries
Potential Ironact: The generation of approximately 798 residents as a result of project
development will increase overall community demand for library services.
Findings: This impact identified in the FEIR cannot be mitigated to a level of
insignfficance. However, conditions of approval, monitored mitigation measures, and
features incorporated into_the proposed project design wffi reduce to the extent
feasible the adverse environmental effects.
Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been prepared for the project (see Section 1) and that Mitigation Measure 14
within the Mitigation Monitoring Program measure will partially mitigate the
identified impact.
16
SECTION 4
GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Section 15126(g) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires considerations of the
ways that the proposed project could be considered growth-inducing.
Development of the proposed project will add 72.7 acres containing 308 low and
medium density residential use, 19.8 acres of commercial/office/church uses, 10.8 acres
of parks, a 5.9 acre detention basin, a 10.7 acre elementary school and 13.0 acres of
roads to the area.
As the proposed project is located in an area undergoing rapid urbAni zation and
is generally Surrounded by future urban uses, significant growth-inducing impacts are
difficult to foresee. With the exception of minor extensions, the necessary public
utility infrastructure is in place. Street improvements will be required to
accommodate projected traffic volumes and utilities that require extension.
The growth in the area represented by the proposed project and surrounding
projects (Winchester Hffis and Temecula Regional Center Specific Plans) is occurring
in accordance with the City of Temecula, Draft General Plan. Several land
development proposals have been prepared for vacant adjacent properties, therefore,
the proposed project is not considered growth-inducing to these surrounding areas.
Growth in an area generally begins with the expansion of residential uses which
ultimately creates the need for commercial and retail facilities as well as employment
needs. The proposed project will provide residents of the City of Temecula with
commercial and office uses which, in turn, will reduce vehicle miles travelled in order
to find similar services.
19
SECTION 5
FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
Alternatives to the proposed project described in the FEIR were considered. The
alternatives discussed in the FEIR constitute a reasonable range of potential options
necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The FEIR identified the "No Project" and
"Existing Zoning' alternatives as the environmentally superior alternatives; however,
the City did not select these alternatives but approved the proposed project with the
FEIR mitigation measures which will provide a substantial mitigation of the potential
environmental effects. Consequently, in accordance with Section 15093 of the State
CEQA Guidelines, a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared (See
Section 1) to substantiate the City's decision to reject the environmentally preferred
alternatives because of the benefits afforded by the proposed project.
Alternative 1 - The "No Project" Alternative
Description of Alternative: The FEIR describes the "No Project" alternative as a
continuation of existing undeveloped conditions supporting passive open space uses
on the project site.
Comnarison of Effects: The "No Project" alternative would eliminate the
environmental effects of the proposed project identified in Sections 2 and 3 herein.
However, the "No Project" alternative would also not provide the beneficial effects that
are associated with the proposed project. The "No Project" alternative would not
provide a range of housing opportunities and proposed commercial, office and
recreational uses in conformance with the City of Temecula, Draft General Plan. The
"No Project" alternative would eliminate employment opport,mities that would
enhance the jobs/housing balance of the Temecula/Rancho California area. In
addition, otlier project benefits lost with the "No Project" alternative include provision
of a 10.8 acre park site and improving the on-site and adjacent roadways. The
participation in the contributing of funds or facilities for public services would also
be lost with the "No Project" alternative.
Finding: The "No Project" alternative is not feasible as this alternative fails to meet
project the objectives identified in the FEIR or to provide any of the benefits set forth
herein.
Facts: The above finding is made in that it has been determined that it is
uneconomical to maintain the property in its current natural state over the long-term.
This rationale is based on the site's location in relation within a developing urban
area. Pressure to develop the land for higher economic uses will continue. Therefore,
the "No Project" alternative may postpone rather than preclude use of the property
for more intensive land uses.
2O
Alternative 2 - l~,x~'ing Zoning Alternative
Descrintion of Alternative: Alternative 2 represents development of the proposed
project site pursuant to the existing R-R (Rural Residential) zoning designation which
provides two dwelling units per acre, and the A-2-20 (Heavy Agriculture) zoning
designation which pexmits one dwelling unit per 20 acres resulting in a total of 79
rural residential units or lots. This alternative would not require a Change of Zone.
Comnarison of Effects: Alternative 2 is identified as being an environmentally
superior alternative. Alternative 2 would have similar impacts to the proposed project,
although several would be incrementally reduced significantly in scope. Grading
would be reduced due to the reduced residential densities proposed. However, grading
could occur without a Master Grading Plan due to uncoordinated construction
occurring o~ different parcels. Fewer project residents and structures would be
exposed to regional seismic hazards. Anticipated runoff generated by this Alternative
is significantly reduced due to the absence of large concrete pads for commercial areas
and parking lots. This Alternative would reduce vehicular trips by 93.5% which would
significantly reduce impacts to the area-wide circulation system. However, some
conflict may occur locally between urban traffic flows found in the area of farm
equipment traffic serving the site. The 93.5% reduction in vehicle trips wffi also
reduce both on- and off-site noise impacts. However, most of the projected noise
impacts in the area are due to other development projects already planned or
approved in the area. The 93.5% reduction in vehicle trips will also reduce air quality
impacts. Alternative 2 reduces impacts to open space and would allow future use of
portions of the site for agriculture. This Alternative would not preclude future
agricultural use of "Prime" soils on-site, therefore, no significant adverse agricultural
impact would occur. Biological impacts would be decreased with this Alternative.
Any additional areas preserved within this Alternative are composed of species not
considered to be of biological significance. Impacts associated with historic and
prehistoric resources will be reduced due to reduction of grading. Public utilities and
services impacts related to fire/police protection, natural gas, electricity, solid waste,
and water and sewer would be reduced. The lower residential densities proposed by
this Alternative could be accommodated by individual septic tsnks and on-site wells
rather than facilities provided by the Rancho Cslifornia Water District and Eastern
Municipal Water District. Alternative 2 would result in incrementally decreased
impacts to school and park facilities as compared to the proposed project. This
Alternative would also result in the reduced ~mount of park and school mitigation fees
as compared to the fees collected from the proposed project.
Findings: After comparing the relative impacts and benefits of the proposed project
and Alternative 2, the City did not select this Alternative. However, conditions of
approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed
project, as described in Sections 2 and 3, will substantially lessen the environmental
effects of the proposed project.
Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been prepared for the proposed project (See Section 1). Alternative 2 was rejected
21
in favor of the proposed project for the following reasons. This Alternative eliminates
provision of a range of residential dwelling unit types, commercial, and office land
uses in an area experien~dnff increasing demand for such uses. Alternative 2
eliminates the improvement of on-site and adjacent roadways. Although Alternative
2 allows agriculture uses on-site, due to the availability of public services in the area,
given the high cost of irrigation water, limited prime soil distribution, and economic
factors associated with development, long-term agriculture use is not considered
feasible for the subject property.
Alternative 3 - Reduced Density Alternative No. 1
Descrintion of Alternative: Alternative 3 proposes 389 dwelling units. Commercial,
commercial/office, and park/detention basin uses associated with this Alternative are
identical to those associated with the project proposal.
Comnarison of Effects: Impacts of Alternative 3 associated with Seismic Safety,
Slopes and Erosion, Hydrology and Water Quality, Open Space and Conservation,
WildlifeNegetation, Agriculture, and Historic and Prehistoric Resources, would be
incrementally increased as compared to impacts associated with the currently
proposed project. This Alternative would increase daily vehicular trips by 26.3%. The
26.3% increase in traffic would increase on- and off-site noise generation. As with
Alternative 2, most of the projected noise impacts in the area are due to other
development projects in the ares. Vehicular emissions relative to air quality would be
increased by approximately 26.3%; these emissions are stffi considered a signfficant
impact by the SCAQMD.
Alternative 3 would also incrementally increase the impacts associated with water and
sewer services, energy consumption and solid waste generation. Impacts to police and
fire protection would also be incrementally increased as compared to the proposed
project. Impacts to school facilities would be increased as a result of the addition of
81 dwelling units proposed by Alternative 3. Alternative 3 would be required to
provide 5.03 acres to satisfy the Quimby Act requixement for park acreage. The 10.8
acre park/detention' basin proposed by this Alternative adequately meets this
requirement.
Findings: After comparing the relative impacts and benefits of the proposed project
and Alternative 3, the City did not select this Alternative. However, conditions of
approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed
project, as described in Sections 2 and 3, will substantially lessen the environmental
effects of the proposed project.
Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been prepared for the proposed project (see Section 1). Alternative 3 was rejected
in favor of the proposed project for the following reasons. This Alternative was not
selected because impacts associated with traffic, noise, sir quality, water, sewer, solid
waste generation and other public services will be increased. No significant
22
environmental impacts associated with the proposed project are reduced with this
Alternative.
Alternative 4- Commercial/Industrial Alternative
Desorintion of Alternative: Alternative 4 proposes 615 dwelling units resulting in an
addition of 307 dwelling units as compared to the proposed project. Commercial,
commercial/office and park/detention basin uses associated with this Alternative are
identical to those associated with the project proposal.
Comnarison of Effects: The impacts associated with Alternative 4 could be potentially
increased as compared to the proposed project in the following areas: Seismic Safety,
Slopes and Erosion, Hydrology and Water Quality, Open Space and Conservation,
W~dlifeNeg~tation, Agriculture, and Historic and Prehistoric Resources. The daily
vehicular trips associated with this Alternative are anticipated to increase
approximately 99.6% as compared to the proposed project. As the traffic would be
increased by 99.6% with this Alternative, the on- and off-site noise associated with
traffic generation will be incrementally increased. Cumulative noise impacts are due
to other development projects in the area. Additionally, the 99.6% increase in traffic
will incrementally increase the impacts to air quality associated with vehicular
emissions. SCAQMD considers the air quality impacts associated with this
Alternative to be significant.
Impacts associated with water and sewer demand, sohd waste, fire and police
protection, schools, electricity and natural gas are also increased as compared to the
proposed project. This Alternative is required to provide 7.9 acres of parks to satisfy
Quimby Act requirements. The 10.8 acre park/detention basin proposed by this
Alternative satisfies this requirement.
Findings: After comparing the relative impacts and benefits of the proposed project
and Alternative 4, the City did not select this Alternative. However, conditions of
approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed
project, as described in Sections 2 and 3, will substantially lessen the environmental
effects of the proposed project.
Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been prepared for the proposed project (see Section 1). Alternative 4 was rejected
in favor of the proposed project for the following reasons. This Alternative was not
selected because impacts assodated with traffic, noise, air quality, water, sewer, solid
waste generation and other public services wffi be increased. No significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed project are reduced with this
Alternative.
Alternative 5 - Residential/Commercial Alternative
Description of Alternative: Alternative 5 proposes an additional 22.2 acres of
Office/Commercial use. Acreage totals associated with proposed Park and Detention
Bssin uses are slm~lar to those associated with the proposed project. This results in
the provision of 473 dwe11ing units, an increase of 165 dwelling units as compared to
the proposed project.
Comparison of Effects: Impacts of Alternative 5 associated with Seismic Safety,
Slopes and Erosion, Hydrology and Water Quality, Open Space and Conservation,
WfldJ~eNegetation, .Agriculture, and Historic and Prehistoric Resources, would be
incrementally greater than those associated with the carrently proposed project. This
Alternative would increase daily vehicular trips by 53.6% as compared to the proposed
project. The 53.6% increase in traffic would significantly increase on- and off-site
noise generation, however, the replacement of residential units with office/commercial
uses proposed by this Alternative adjacent to North General Kearny and Margarita
Reads would expose fewer residents to noise levels exceeding 65 CNEL. As with other
Alternatives; most of the projected noise impacts in the area are due to other
development projects in the ares. Vehicular emissions relative to air quality would
be increased. These emissions are considered a significant impact by the SCAQMD.
Alternative 5 would increase the impacts associated with water and sewer services,
energy consumption and solid waste generation. Impacts to police and fire protection
would be greater than with the proposed project. Impacts to school facilities would
increase as a result of the increase in dwelling units proposed by this Alternative.
Alternative 5 would be required to provide 6.12 acres to satisfy the Qnimby Act
requirement for park acreage. The 10.8 acres of park use proposed by this Alternative
adequately meets this requirement.
Findings: After comparing the relative impacts and benefits of the proposed project
and Alternative 5, the City did not select this Alternative. However, conditions of
approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed
project, as described in Sections 2 and 3, will substantially lessen the environmental
effects of the proposed project.
Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been prepared for the proposed project (see Section 1). Alternative 5 was rejected
in favor of the proposed project for the following reasons. This Alternative was not
selected because several of the environmental impacts will be increased, including
impacts associated with traffic, noise, air quality, water, sewer, solid waste generation
and other public services impacts. No significant environmental impacts associated
with the proposed project are reduced with this Alternative.
Alternative 6 - Reduced Office/Commercial Alternative
Descrintion of Alternative: Alternative 6 eliminates 10.4 acres of Office/Commercial
use and replaces it with medium density residential use. However, the overall
dwelling unit count for this Alternative totals 651, an increase of 343 dwelling nnits
as compared to the project proposal.
24
Comparison of Effects: The impacts associated with Alternative 6 would be increased
as compared to the proposed project in the following areas: Seismic Safety, Slopes and
Erosion, Hydrology and Water Quality, Open Space and Conservation, W~dlife/
Vegetation, Agriculture, and Historic and Prehistoric Resources. The da/ly vehicular
trips associated with this Alternative are anticipated to increase by approximately
6.8% as compared to the proposed project. As the traffic would be increased by 6.8%
with this Alternative, the on- and off-site noise associated with traffic generation will,
thereby, be increased. Cumulative noise impacts are due to other development
projects in the area. Additionally, the 6.8% increase in traffic will increase the
impacts to air quality associated with vehicular emissions. SCAQMD considers the
air quality impacts associated with this Alternative to be significant.
Impacts associated with water and sewer service demand, sohd waste, fire and police
protection, ~chools, electricity and natural gas services are also incrementally
increased as compared to the proposed project. This Alternative requires provision
of 8.4 acres of parks; the 10.8 acre park associated with this Alternative satisfies this
requirement.
Findings: After comparing the relative impacts and benefits of the proposed project
and Alternative 6, the City did not select this Alternative. However, conditions of
approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed
project, as described in Section 2 and 3, will substantially lessen the environmental
effects of the proposed project.
Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been prepared for the proposed project (see Section 1). Alternative 6 was rejected
in favor of the proposed project for the following reasons. Several of the
environmental impacts are increased as compared to the proposed project. In
addition, the number of employment opportunities associated with this Alternative is
decreased as compared to the proposed project due to the reduction of on-site
commercial/office uses.
Alternative 7- Alternative Sites
Description of Alternative: Development of the proposed project in areas located
north and east of the proposed project was given consideration prior to selection of the
current project site. A candidate site within the applicaut's ownership which would
physically accommodate the proposed project is the Paloma del Sol (Vail Meadows
Specific Plan).
Findings: After comparing the relative impacts and benefits of the proposed project
and Alternative 7, the City did not select this Alternative. However, conditions of
approval, monitored mitigation measures, and features incorporated into the proposed
project, as described in Sections 2 and 3, will substantially lessen the environmental
effects of the proposed project.
25
Facts: The above finding is made in that a Statement of Overriding Considerations
has been prepared for the proposed project (see Section 1). Alternative 7 was rejected
in favor of the proposed project for the following reasons. This Alternative was not
selected as development in the areas considered was determined infeasible due to the
fact that the higher density residential uses associated with the proposed project
would be less compatible with surrounding land uses at the Paloma del Sol alternate
site. In addition, the proposed project site's current location provides affordable
housing opportunities for employees of the proposed adjacent projects including the
Industrial Park within Winchester Hffis and Regional Commercial uses within the
Temecula Regional Center. None of the alternate sites can provide this type of
contiguous access to future employment opportnnlties. In so doing, automobile trips
destined for places of employment are reduced in length which reduces air quality,
noise and traffic impacts. In addition, the proposed project at its proposed location
provides a '~ifffer" or "infffi" development between proposed high intensity commercial
uses to the west and existing residential uses to the east.
26
SECTION 6
FINDINGS REGARDING MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires that when a public
agency is matting the findings required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)
(1), cedified as Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code, the public agency shall
adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the proposed project
which it has adopted or made a condition of approval, in order to mitigate or avoid
significant effects on the environment.
The City of Temecula hereby finds that the Mitigation Monitoring ProgrAm,
which is attached as Appendix A to these Findings, meets the requirements of Section
21081.6 of the Public Resources Code by providing for the implementation and
monitoring of project conditions intended to mitigate potential environmental effects.
27
SECTION 7
SECTION 15091 AND 15092 FINDINGS
Based on the foregoing findings and the information contained in the record,
the City of Temecula has made one or more of the following findings with respect to
the significant effects of the proposed project:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
proposed project which mitigate or avoid many of the signfficaut
environmental effects thereef as identified in the FEIR.
Some changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction
'of another public agency and such changes have been adopted by such
other agency, or can and should be adopted by such other agency.
Specific economic, social, or other considerations make feasible the
mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the Final
Environmental Impact Report.
Based on the foregoing findings and the information contained in the record,
and as conditioned by the foregoing findings:
All significant effects on the environment due to the proposed project
have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible (see
Sections 2 and 3).
Any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be
unavoidable are acceptable due to the overriding concorns set forth in
the foregoing Statement of Overriding Considerations (see Section 1).
28
ATTACHMENT NO. 10
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
z8 :agVcl 5rlBd /.98~P1~089 Z:Z :laZ
.j
t98E:PI~889 8T :66 PEET/E:8/96
abed -- ,Z90£995089, iiiojj .. leZt:Ot 9~t '£ ~nr Xep!jjJ
1~0 ~gVd
L96EI~<;989 6T :66
~9 :]gV~ 9fi9(~ L96~I~,SOB~J ~:6 :WE 1~66T/Z:8/96
E9 ]gvcl 9118(I L98El, li089 E8 :cI 1~6G'E/Z:8/g8
~(. ¥mmd -- #ygO('e~.SOe~m moJ~l -- mild~t):Im I'(~l, '~ ~inp Xep~jnr4].~
z
Oz ="
z
S8 ]9~d 91'18(~ -'98E:I~I~5889 E:B :ST 1~66T/~0/98
I~ e6ed -- ,ZgO£~'g;O99, I~oJ:l -- mcl*/O:*/~'661, 'Z aunt Aepsjnql~
Z
.=_ o
Z
ATTACHMENT NO. 11
CONCEPTUAL CIRCULATION SYSTEM PHASING PLAN
DRAFT
RECEIVED
JAN 0 8 1993
CITY OF TENIECULA
ADDENDUM E]R
CAMPOB VERDEB BPECIFIC PLAN
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1
EIR NO. 348
!!
l
!
Lead Agency:
CITY OF TEMECULA
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
(714) 694.6400
Prepared By:
Douglas Wood & Assodates
567 San Nicolas Drive, Suite 301
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(714) 644-7977
Conceptual Circulation System Phasing Plan
Findings of the traffic analysis indicate that, at projected bufid-out of the three Kernper/Bedford
projects substantial roadway improvements will be needed in the study area. It is important to
recognize that principal roadway improvements which comprise the planned City of Temecula
Circulation Element will be needed in the future whether or not the proposed projects are
implemented. Although these new and improved roadway facilities would be serving the immediate
acce~ ne..exls of these proposed projects and other numerou~ planned development projects within
the study area, most of the improvements would also play an important role in serving the general
circulation needs of the Temecula commercial core area which straddles the 1-15 corridor. Some of
the improvements (e.g. Winchester Road - S.R. 79 widening and 1-15f~Vinchester Road interchange
reconstruction) w?uld even serve future regional circulation needs.
The intent of the "conceptual circulation system phasing plan' developed in this study is to present
a logical implementation sequence for the construction of needed area-wide roadway improvements
which also considers the proposed phasing plan for the proposed Kernper/Bedford projects. It should
be noted that project build-out (assumed Year 2000) roadway needs have essentially been based on
full development (build-out) of all land uses within the immediate study area.
' The market driven implementation rate of major development projects in the area will have very
strong influence on the timing of future roadway improvement needs. As these area development
projects are implemented, they will require access. Many of the phased roadway improvements
suggested in this plan are intended to provide for those local access needs and at the same time work
towards completing the ultimate area-wide circulation network. In some cases, the phased
improvement is over-designed for the anticipated local development access needs but considers
ultimate needs and the desire to mivlmiTe future construction impacts related to phased widening
(e.g., initially building two lanes and the widening to four lanes at the later date). The assec~sment
of financing/implementation respons~ilities for area-wide roadway impwvements should consider that
the key elements of the planned circulation system (including the 0vedarid overpass, Data Street
overpa.~, and Winchester Interchange improvements) will be needed even if proposexi
Kernper/Bedford development projects are not implemented.
Sinco it is more difficult to predict the rate and pattern of long-term (5 to 10 years) development
than short-term (1 to 5 years) development, it should be recognized that the actual roadway needs
for implementation periods beyond 5 years could vary significantly from the conceptual plan
presented in this study. It is also important to consider that many of the roadway improvements
identified would involve a multi-jurisdiction/agency review and coordination process which could
impact the conceptual implementation plan presented herein.
9
Anticipated Project Development Phasing - Project phasing assumed in this analysis is based on the
Proiect Phasing Plan presented in the individual Specific Plan documents. Sue to changing market
strategies, these phasing plans have been developed as a 'guideline' only for City review and
monitoring. Future market demands may dictate varying approaches to phasing which could alter the
currently expected rate and/or sequence of project implementation. Project Phasing Plan assumptions
are illustrated in Figures 4, 11, and 18 for the Temecula Regional c~nter, Winchester HilLs, and
Camps Verdes projects respectively. A more detailed breakdown of project phasing assumptions
including anticipated development status and corresponding trip generation (both incremental and
cumulative) by six analysis time periods is presented for each Kernper/Bedford project in Tables 1
through 3.
Anticipated Background Development - In order to analyze roadway system implementation phasing
needs, it was n~?.asary to make general assumptions regarding the rate and location of other area
development. For the purposes of this assessment it was assumed that other area development would
build-out at a constant rate over the next eight years and in a manner which would evenly distribute
the new development throughout the study area.
Conceptual Circulation System Phasing - Results of the circulation system phasing as.sessment are
presented in Figur~ 5 through 10 Cfem~ula Regional Center), Figures 12 through 17 (Winchester
Hills), and Figures 19 through 24 (Campo~ Verdes). It should be noted that the Conceptual
Circulation System Phasing Plan is identical for each of the three projects. The individual phasing
plans differ only in tern~ of the specific project development status and the corresponding cumulative
project trip generation given for each implementation period.
Our approach in preparing the Conceptual Circulation System Phasing Plan included planning level
asse,~ments which focused on the immediate access needs of each project as well as capacity of key
congestion "bottle necks" such as the Winchester Road/Ynez Road intersection and Winchester
Road/L15 interchange. The proposed roadway impWvement implementation sequence has been
formulated to provide incremental stages of relief to these congestion prone areas. Additionally,
Assessment District 161 and Community Facilities District 88-12 have been considered in the
development of the Phasing Plan.
It is important to recognize that the Conceptual Circulation systems Phasing Plan prnsented herein
does not imply that the individual Kernper/Bedford projects would be respons~le for implementing
the roadway improvement neexts identified in the Conceptual Phasing Plan. At the same time, it also
needs to be recognized that the rate at which projects in the study area are permitted to develop
should be correlated to the circulation systems' ability to adequately accommodate the traffic which
these projects w~'ll generate.
!
g
I
[
I
I
I
I
I_
l
I
I
10
1
!
I
I
As pan of our roadway phasing assessment, we have identified a number of improvements which are
currently anticipated to be critical (either directly or indirectly) to the development of the individual
Kernper/Bedford projects. This does not suggest that the identified improvement,' but rather the
timely implementation of the identi~ed improvement would influence the status of traffic congestion
in the area. The resulting congestion levels could influence the City's ability to issue building permits.
Temecula Regional Center (Refer to Figure 5 through 10)
Projected 1993-1994 Implementation Period:
Two-lane interim improvement of Margarita Road from Solann Way to Winchester
Road.
~nez Road widening from project boundavj south to Rancho California Road.
Winchester Road widening from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
New signal installations on Winchester Road to Margarita Road, Nicolas Road, and
Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
Projected 1994 to 1995 Implementation Period:
Extension of Overland Drive from Jefferson Avenue to Margarita Road.
Four-lane widening of Margarita Road from Solaria Way to Wir~chester Road.
New signal installations on Overland DHve at Jefferson Avenue, Ynez Road, and
Margarita Road.
New signal installations on Winchester Road at Temecula Regional Center access
roads.
On-site circulation system improvements/access connections.
Projected 1995 to 1996 Implementation Period Winchester Road interchange ramp improvements.
Two-lane interim Ynez Road/Jackson Avenue extension to Murrieta Hot Springs
Road.
Projected 1996 to 1998 Implementation Period: Winchester Road interchange overpass widening.
New signal installations on Ynez Road at County Center Drive and Sate Street.
new signal installation on Margarita Road at Date Street.
Two-lane extension of General Kearney Road easterly to Nicolas Road.
· Projected 1998 to 1999 Implementation Period:
Date Street overpass improvements.
11
I
I
!
I
I
!
I
I
]
I
I
]
I
I
I
I
]
Projected 1999 to 2000 Implementation Period:
Winchester Road widening between 1-15 and Ynez Road.
Jackson Avenue widening from the Temecula City limit to Murrieta Hot Springs
Road.
Winchester Hills [Refer to Figures 12 through 17)
Projected 1993-1994 Implementation Period:
· Four-lane widening of Margarita Road from Winchester Road to Murrieta Hot
Springs Road.
' Twoqane interim improvement of Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester
Road.
:Four-lane extension of Ynez Road to Date Street alignment
On-site loop street and connector street improvements as depicted in Figure 12.
Widening of Jefferson Avenue from Date Street to Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
Ynez Road widening from Overland Drive alignment to Rancho California Road.
New signal installation on Winchester Road at Margarita and Murrieta Hot Springs
Road intersections.
Projected 1994-1995 Implementation Period:
Two-lane interim improvement of Date Street west of Ynez Road.
Four-lane improvement of Date Street from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs
Road.
Extension of Overland Drive from Jefferson Avenue to Margarita Road.
Widening of Margarita Road from Solaria Way to Winchester Road.
Projected 1995-1996 Implementation Period:
Six-lane and two-lane interim improvement on Date Street as depicted n Figure 1~1.
Four-lane on-site and two-lane interim off.site improvement of Ynez Road/Jackson
Avenue to Mun'ieta Hot Springs Road.
On-site loop street and connector street improvements as illustrated in Figure 14.
Four-way stop control at Date Street/Margafita Road, Ynez Road/Project Connector
Street, and Date Street/Ynez Road intersections.
New signal installations at Date Street/Murrieta Hot Springs Road and Margarita
Road/Project Connector Street intersections.
Winchester Road interchange ramp improvements.
12
Projected 1996-1998 Implementation Period:
Winchester Road interchange 9verpass widening.
Date Street widening from Lincoln to Margarita Road.
New signal installations on Date Street at Ynez Road, Lincoln and Margarita Road
intersections.
New signal installations on Ynez Road at County Center Drive and the Project
Connector Street intersections.
Projected 1998-1999 Implementation Period:
Construction of the Date Street overpass and installation of new signals on Date
Street at Madison Avenue and the Business Park access street,
New signal installation at Jackson Avenue/North Business Park act. e~ street,
· Projected 1999-2000 Implementation Period:
Widening of Jackson Avenue between the City limit and Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
Campos Verdes
Projected 1993-1994 Implementation Period:
Two-lane interim improvement of Margarita Road from Sotana Way to Winchester
Road.
Four-lane improvement of Oeneral kearney Road from the new Margarita Road
alignment to the easterly project limits.
Solana Way widening between Ynez Road and Margarita Road.
Ynez Road widening from the Overland Drive alignment to Rancho California Road.
Winchester Road widening from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
New signal installations on Margarita Road at Winchester Road and Solana .Way.
Projected 1994-1995 Implementation Period:
Four-lane v~dening of Margarita Road from Solana Way to Winchester Road.
Extension of Overland Drive from Jefferson Avenue to Margarita Road.
New signal installations on Overland Drive at Jefferson Avenue, Ynez Road, and
Margarita.
New signal installation at intersection of Margarita Road and General Kearney Road.
Projected 1995-1996 Implementation Period: Winchester Road interchang~ ramp improvements.
New signal installation at intersection of Margarita Road and Campos Verdes
road.
13
Projected 1996-1998 Implementation Period: Winchester Road interchange overpass widening.
Two-lane C~neral Kearney Road enension from easterly project limits to Nicolas
Road.
Projected 1998-2000 Implementation Period:
(No system improvements asser,~d to be critical to the development of Campos
Vetdes.
Recommended Mitigation Measures
The formulation of recommended mitigation measures for the three Kernper/Bedford urban core
projects has been based on a number factors including:
1. Findings of the original traffic impact studies prepared for the projects;
2. Findings of the project-related traffic utilization analysis of planned area roadway system
capacity; and
Findings of the conceptual circulation system phasing analysis.
Assessments of area roadway capacity utilization reveal that cumulative project traffic impacts are
wide-spread but vary significantly in terms of magnitude. Furthermore this analysis also reveals that
project trips are comprised of a combination of new trips and diverted trips. New trips consist of
those project trips which would clearly be added to roadway network such as those vehicle trips which
would have one end of the trip within the project and one end outside of the study area. Diverted
trips des. scribe those project-related trips on area roadways which result from the interaction of land
uses within the projects and other local area land uses (both existing and planned). With diverted
trips, the associated traffic impacts can not be defined as the respons~ility of the projects under study
since the opposite end of these trips, in effect, is being generated by other area land uses. At best
the impacts of these trips could be assessed as the responsibility of the land use which is closest to
the location where the impact occurs. It would not be equitable for the Kernper/Bedford projects
to assume full respons~ility for the impact of these diverted trips since elimination of the
Kernper/Bedford projects would not eliminate the land uses which are generating the opposite ends
of these trips. Without the Kemper/Be. dford projects these trips would essentially be redistn'buted
to interact with other local or regional development
14
In terms of the dispersion of project related traffic impacts (e.g. roadway capacity ut;liT~tion), it is
not practical to assess widespread roadway implementation cost respons~ilities when 'fair share'
assessments represent very small portions of the cost to implement indMdual roadway improvements.
The approach taken in this assessment is one which recognizes the cumulative impacts over a
widespread area and concentrates an equivalent mitigation effort in a strategic and more effective
malL~er.
Recommended mitigation measures for cumulative traffic impacts identified for the Kemper/Baiford
projects are summarized b~lo~.
.1.
50 percent implementation respons~ility for Jackson Avenue from the Temecula/Murrieta
City '.limit~ to Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
· Winchester Hills is assessed 90 percent of the mitigation.
· Temecula Regional Center is assess 10 percent of the Mitigation.
2. 16.6 percent or 1/6th implementation respons~ility for the Date Street overpass.
· Winchester Hills is assessed 100 percent of the mitigation.
28 percent implementation respens~ility for the Winchester Road interchange overpass
widening and currently planned ramp widenings.
· Winchester Hills is assessed 17 percent of the mitigation.
Temecula Regional Center is assessed 80 percent of the mitigation.
Cempos Vetdes is assessed 3 percent of the mitigation.
5 percent implementation respons~ility for the Overland Drive overpass improvement
(Jefferson Avenue to Ynez Road).
· Temecula Regional Center is assessed 60 percent of the mitigation.
· Campos Vetdes is assessed 40 percent of the mitigation.
15 percent implementation responsibility for the Ynez Road widening from Overland Drive
to Rancho California Road.
· Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 70 percent of the mitigation.
· Winchester Hills is assessed with 15 percent of the mitigation.
· C, ampos Vetdes is assessed with 15 percent of the mitigation.
16.6 percent implementation respens~ility for the Wincheste! Road widening from Margarita
Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
· Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 90 percent of the mitigation.
· Winchester Hills is assessed with 5 percent of the mitigation.
· Campos Vetdes is assessed with 5 percent of the mitigation.
15
I
E
l
B
l
g
E
l
E
I
I.
[
]
II
II
]
I1
II
II
1
t
I
I
I
I
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
25 percent implementation responsibility for the four-lane Margarita Road improvement from
Solaria Way to Winchester Road.
· Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 65 percent of the mitigation.
· W'mchester Hills is assessed with 15 percent of the mitigation
· Campos Verdes is assessed with 20 percent of the mitigation
15 percent implementation responsibility for the four-lane Margarita Road improvement from
Winchester Road to MufTieta Hot Springs Road.
· Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 35 percent of the mitigation.,
· Winchester Hills is assessed with 60 percent of the mitigation
· Campos Verdes is assessed with 5 percent of the mitigation.
25 pe;cent of the implementation respons~ility for the four-lane Ynez Road improvement
from its present terminns at Equity Drive to the Teme~ula/Murrieta City limits.
· Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 20 percent of the mitigation.
· Winchester Hills is assessed with 80 percent of the mitigation.
16.6 percent of the implementation responsibility for the six-lane Date Street improvement
from the 1-15 overpass structure to Margarita Road.
· Winchester Hills is messed with 100 percent of the mitigation.
13 percent of the implementation respons~ility for the four-lane Date Street improvement
from Margarita Road to Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
· Winchester Hills is assessed with 100 percent of the mitigation.
25 percent of the implementation responsibility for the four-lane improvement of Overland
Drive from Ynez Road to Margarita Road.
· Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 80 percent of the mitigation.
· Winchester Hills is assessed with 10 percent of the mitigation.
· Campos Verdes is assessed with 10 percent of the mitigation.
30 percent of the implementation respons~ility for four-lane improvements respons~ility for
four-lane improvement of General Keamey Road from Margarita Road to the easterly
Campos Verdes project boundary.
· Temecula Regional Center is messed with 30 percent of the mitigation.
· Campos Verd~ is nss~ssed with 70 percent of the mitigation.
15 percent of the implementation respons~ility for the four-lane improvement of General
Kearney Road from the easterly project limit to Nicolas Road.
· Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 85 percent of the mitigation.
· Campos Verdes is assessed with 15 percent of the mitigation.
16
15. 10 percent of the implementation responsibility for the widening of Solana Way 'from Ynez
Road to Margarita Road.
· Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 45 percent of the mitigation.
· Winchester I--h'lis is assessed with 10 percent of the mitigation.
· Campos Vetdes is assessed with 45 percent of the mitigation.
16. 5 percent of the implementation responsibility for the widening of Murrieta Hot Springs Road
from Date Street to Canyon Drive.
· .Temecula Regional Center is assessed with 30 percent of the mitigation.
· Winchester Hills is assessed with 70 percent of the mitigation.
17. Signa.! system implementation responsibilities would be as indication below.
a) ~rcentresponsibi~ityf~r~n.sitesignaiswithintheWinchesterH/ils~r~jectinc~uding:
· Date Street signais at Business Park Access Street, ¥nez Road, Lincoln, and
Margarita Road;
· Ynez Road signals at Business Park Access Street, and Loop Road Connector Street
(near Equity Drive); and
· Margarita Road siEnal at southerly Loop Road Connector Street.
b) 100 percent responsibility for Temecula Regional Center project perimeter access signals
including:
Winchester Road signal at westerly Regional Center Access Road;
· Overland Drive signal at Regional Center Access Road; and
· Existing regional modification costs at Palm Plaza Access and Costco Canter Access.
c) 100 percent responsibility for Campos Verdes Access signals on Margarita Road at
General Kearney Road and Campos Vetdes Access Street
d) 50 percent respons~ility for signals located at 'the following intersections:
· Margarita Road/Winchester Road;
· Margarita Road/Overland Drive; and
Ynez Road/Overland Drive.
~:) 25 percent responsibility for the signal installations at: · Jackson Avenue/Murrieta Hot Springs Road; and
· Margarita Road/Solana Way.
I
!
[
I
I
[
I
[
I
I
[
I[
[
17
I
i
It is important to note that the implementation responsibilities detailed herein do not take into
account Kemper/Bedfords contn'butions toward Assessment District 161 and Community Facilities
District 88-12 which together address many of the improvements included in the refined
recommended mitigation measures. Kempor/Bedford should be given credit where appropriate for
assessments involving the project properties and madway improvements included in the 161 and 88-12
districts. Credits should also be considered for right-of-way dedications involving the recommended
street improvements.
In addition to :the above listed mitigation measures, the individual Kemper/Bedford pwjects would
be responsible for implementing all on-site project street improvements which have not already been
discu,~sed. Individual project mitigation would also include preparation of Transportation Demand
Management CYDM') Programs which meet the requirements of the City's 'soon to be adopted* TDM
ordinance. Plehse not that the Winchester Hills project, as part of its' mitigation program, has
rc~erved an easement along the 1-15 property frontage for a potential future collector-distn'butor
road/'mterchange system involving Date Street.
18
I
I
I
I
I
]
I
!
I
I
1
I
I_
ATTACHMENT NO. 12
TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Lb, I ER, APRIL 18, 1994
R:~STAFFRPT~lSP.PC5 7115194 vgw 35
TEMECULA VALLEY
Unified School District
SUPERINTENDENT
Patncia B. Novotney, Ed.D.
BOARD OF EDUCATION
April 18, 1994 (supplements February 28, 1994 and March 8, 1994 comments)
Steve Jiannino
City of Temecula Ranning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
SUBJECT: Campo$ Verdes Specific Plan Conditions
Dear Mr. Jiannino:
The Temecula Valley Unified School District provides the following information from our review of the proposed Specific
Plan as presented to the Planning Commission March 21, 1994:
· Elementary School Site
We understand that the developer has included an 11.1 acre school site in an Ahernative Land Use Plan. The District
is in favor of this site, which could become a part of the mitigation agreement. (ref 3/7/94 dwg.)
Although The site will need formal State Department of Education (SDE) approvals, many of the SDE areas of concern
(airport proximity, flood plain, dam inundation) are not issues with the proposed site.
The District will require good pedestrian, bus and parent vehicle access to this site.
· School Facilities Mitigation Agreement
The number of new dwelling units is being determined for this development. Through new housing student generation
data, we have determined the following generation rates in the Ternecula Valley Unified School District:
# of students per dweUing unit
Elementary School: .39
Middle School: .24
High School: .2--5
Total .88
The number of new students is determined by multiplying the new dweliin9 units by th~e factors, which for a 306-unit
single-family development would be 119 elementary, 73 middle, and 77 new high school students.
Prior to Specific Ran approval, a signed mitigation agreement will be required between the developer and the School
District to ensure adequate facilities for these new students, based on the Public Facilities Element of the City General
Plan and the General Plan Implementation Program.
Section V D.5 of the Draft Specific Plan/EIR should be revised to reflect General Plan Policies and updated School
District information as indicated in the attachments.
If you have any questions, please call me at 695-7340.
Director of Facilities Development
cc:
Patricia B. Novotney, Ed.D., Superintendent
John Brooks, Assistant Superintendent Business Services
Janet Dixon, Facilities Planning Analyst
Dennis Chiniaeff, KRDC, Inc.
31350 Rancho Vista Road / Temecula. CA 92592 / (909) 676-2661
April 18, 1994
Campoe Verdes Specific Plan Conditions
Section V D.5
rTVUSD requested update for General Plan consistency - 4/18/94)
SCHOOLS
a. Existing7 Conditions
The proposed project lies within the Temecula Valley Unified School District (TVUSD) for educational services and facilities. The
District currently operates six elementary (grades K-5) schools, two middle (grades 6-8) schoois and two high (grades 9-12) schools.
The attached Table, provided by the District's Facilities Development Department, indicates the current enrollment, permanent
building capacity, and interim (portable classrooms) capacity of each school. As the Table indicates, most District schools are
operating above their permanent building capacity. The portable classrooms are temporary buildings utilized to accommodate the
overflow of students as new permanent facilities are constructed.
b. Proiect Impacts/General Plan Relationship
The Temecula Valley Unified School District utilizes the following criteria to calculate student generation.
· Attached Dwellinq Units:
Grades K-5 - 0.28 students per unit; Grades 6-8 - 0.19 students per unit;
Grades 9-12 - 0.17 students per unit
· Detached Dwellinq Units:
Grades K-5 - 0.38; students per unit; Grades 6-8 - 0.24 students per unit;
Grades 9-12 - 0.25 students per unit
The proposed 306 single-family residential units located in Campos Verdes will generate approximately 269 students (11 ~,
elementary, 73 middle, and 77 new high school students utilizing the TVUSD criteria mentioned ~bove). Because a single
e4ementary site, and no middle or high school site is proposed within the project boundaries, the estimated 119 elementary students
could be accommodated on-site, but the middle and high school students would require accommodation off-site. As previously
mentioned, most District schools are currently operating above permanent building capacity. The additional students generated by
[h~s project will place an increased demand upon District facilities which are already impacted.
GENERAL PLAN RELATIONSHIP
The Campos Verdes project lies within the boundaries of the newly incorporated City of Temecula. The City General Plan adopted
in October 1993, requires the following mitigation measures with regard to school facilities impacts.
c. Genera/Plan Implementation Proorarn
in accordance with the Public Facilities Element of the City General Plan and the General Plan Implementation Program, the impact
of the new students from this project shall be mitigated through a mitigation agreement signed by the developer and the District,
prior to Specific Plan approvals. The developer and District may agree to use one or more of the following financing mechanisms:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Payment of school fees
Dedication of land and/or facilities
Establishment of or annexation to a Community Facilities District
Levying of a special tax
Other alternatives agreed upon by the Developer and the District
d. Level of Si~Tnificance After Mitigation
Upon completion of the mitigation measures proposed above, the level of impacts related to Schools will be reduced to an _
insignificant level.
ATTACHMENT NO. 13
TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Lb I I ER, JUNE 29, 1994
R:~,STAFFILtq'XISP. PCS 7115/94 vg~' 36
TEMECULA VALLEY
Unified School District
SUPERINTENDENT
Paffic~a B. Novomey, Ed.D.
June 29, 1994
Gary Thornhill & Steve Jiannino '-
City of Temecuia Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
SUBJECT: Campos Vetdes Specific Plan
Schod Facilities Mit~qatlon Agreement
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Ro$18 Van0emaak
Dear Mr. Thornhill & Jiannino:
The Temecuta Valley Unified School District is in discussions with Kemper to establish a school facilities mitigation
agreement to address the project's impacts.
The agreement will involve a combination of statutory school fees and dedication of the graded and improved Campos
Verdes elementary school site to the District, specific details to be determined by Kernper and the District.
Our expectation is that the agreement be signed prior to final certification of the EIR and final Specific Plan approvals.
If you have any questions, please call me at 695-7340.
Sincerely,//~/-
Director of Facilities Development
cc:
Patricia B. Novomey, Ed!D., Superintendent
John Brooks, Assistant Superintendent Business Services
Janet Dixon, Facilities Planning Analyst
Dennis Chiniaeff, KRDC, Inc.
31350 Rancho Vista Road / Temecula, CA 92592 / (909) 676-2661
A'i'I'ACHMENT NO. 14
MEADOWVIEW L~- I I ER OF SUPPORT
ADDENDUM EIR #3
CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PlAN
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 1
EIR NO. 348
Lead Agency:
CITY OF TEMECULA
43174 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
(714) 694-6400
Prepared By:
Douglas Wood & Associates, Inc.
567 San Nicolas Drive, Suite 106
Newport Beach, CA 92660
(7!4) 644-7977
September, 1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction and Purpose
A. Background .......................................... 1
B. Purpose ............................................. 1
C. Summary Analysis ..................................... 3
II. Environmental Analysis .................................. , .....3
Attach ment s
A. Planning Commission Recommended Circulation Conditions of Approval
B. Mitigation Monitoring Program
ADDENDUM EIR
CAMPS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN
I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
A. Back2round
The Campos Verdes Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR No.
348) was circulated for public review by the City of Temecula between July 10, 1992
and August 24, 1992. This circulation was in conformance with Section 15086, et.ssq.
of the State CEQA Guidelines which state that the Lead Agency (City of Temecula)
shall consult with and request comments on the Draft EIR from: responsible
agencies, trustee or other State, Federal or local agencies as well as consulting directly
with any person who has special expertise with respect to any environmental impact
involved.
In February, 1993, an Addendum EIR to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan was
prepared. The purpose of this first Addendum EIR was three-fold: 1) to respond to
various comments made by the City of Temecula as a result of their review of the
Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Csm!~os Verdes Specffic Plan; 2)
incorporate subsequently-prepared technical analyses (in the areas of
traffic/circulation and drainage/flooding) into the Final Environmental Impact Report;
and 3) integrate any additional or revised mitigation measures resulting from the
concorns raised by the City or as a result of the subsequently-prepared technical
studies into the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the project.
Subsequently, in June 1994, a second Addendum EIR to the Campos Verdes
Specffic Plan was prepared. The purpose of this second Addendure to the Draft
Environmental Impact Report was to identify and discuss the revisions made to the
Csmpos Verdes Specific Plan which involved a signfficant reduction in the number of
proposed dwelling units and changes in the amount of other proposed on-site land
uses. The resultant changes in project impacts were identified and the need for
additional mitigation measures was assessed. This second Addendure concluded that
environmental impacts in the areas of Seismic Safety, Flooding, Noise, Climate and
Air Quality, Water Quality, Energy Resources, Scenic Highways, Circulation, Utilities
and Services, Light and Glare and Disaster Preparedness were reduced as a
consequence of revisions made to the Cnmpes Verdes Specific Plan. None of the net
changes in project impacts resulted in the creation of new mitigation measures or
unavoidnhle adverse environmental impacts beyond those already identified in the
original Campos Verdes Draft Environmental Impact Report.
In the course of reviewing the Csmpos Verdes Specific Plan, the City of
Temecula Planning Commission and City staff focussed on certain mitigation
measures identified in the Campos Verdes Draft EIR with the intent of identifying
those mitigations that have already been accomplished through developer participation
1
in Assessment District No. 161 and Community Facilities District No. 88-12 and to
maxjmi~.e the benefit to the City of other mitigation requirements. This third
Addendure to the Draft EIR analyzes the mitigation requirements for the Csmpos
Verdes Specific Plan as contained in the planning Commisslon's Recommended
Conditions of Approval as compared to the mitigations specified in the Draft EIR and
the changes analyzed in first and second Addendums to the Draft EIR.
The information contained herein is intended to provide decision-makers with
clarification regarding the potential environmental impacts of and mitigation
measures for the proposed project. This environmental information is considered to
be an Addendure to the Campos Verdes Draft EIR in accordance with Section 15 164
of the State CEQA Guidelines which states:
(a)
The Lead Agency or a Responsible Agency shall prepare an
Addendum to an EIR if'.
(1)
None of the conditions described in Section
15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent
EIR have occurred (i.e. substantial project
revisions, changes in circumstances
surrounding the project, or additional project
impacts, mitigations or alternatives becoming
feasible or available);
(2)
Only minor technical changes or additions are
necessary to make the EIR under
consideration adequate under CEQA; and
(3)
The changes to the EIR made by the
Addendure do not raise important new issues
about the significant effects on the
environment.
(b)
An Addendure need not be circulated for public review but can be
included in or attached to the Final EIR.
(c)
The decision-making body shall consider the Addendum
with the Final EIR prior to making a decision on the
project.
This Addendure EIR in combination with the Draft EIR, Response to
Comments package, the previously-prepared first and second Addendures to the Draft
EIR, Staff Report and any other attachments and technical reports constitute the
Final EIR for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan.
This Addendum to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan Draft Environmental
Impact Report has been prepared for the City of Temecula in accordance with the
C311fornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as ~mended, and City Guidelines for
2
the Implementation of CEQA. More specifically, the City has relied on Section
15084(d)(3) of the State Guidelines which allow acceptance of drafts prepared by the
applicant, consultant retained by the applicant, or any other person. The City of
Temecula, as Lead Agency, has reviewed and edited as necessary the submitted
"screencheck" copies of the Draft EIR, the Response to Comments package, the
previously-prepared Addendure EIR, and this Addendure to the Draft EIR to reflect
their own independent judgement to the extent of their ability.
In accordance with Section 15021 of the State EIR Guidelines, this Addendum
to the Draft EIR is intended to enable the City of Temecula~ as Lead Agency, to
evaluate environmental effects associated with the proposed Campos Verdes Spec'ffic
Plan and to further analyze measures to reduce the magnitude of any adverse effects.
The Lead Agency has an obligation to balance possible adverse effects of the project
against a variety of public objectives, including economic, environmental and social
factors, in determining whether the project is acceptable and approved for
development.
Based upon the analyses and discussions contained in Section II.,
Environmental Analysis of this Addendure to the Draft EIR, the currently-proposed
traffic and circulation-related Conditions of Approval relates to and conforms with
Similar mitigation requirements and implementation responsibilities contained within
the Campos Verdes Mitigation Monitoring Program. These Conditions of Approval
refine and assist in the implementation of Mitigation Measures contained in the Draft
Environmental Impact Report.
H. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Campos Verdes Specific
Plan and the first Addendure to the Draft EIR identified various roadways,
intersections, freeway interchanges and other tralf~c control devices to be impacted,
either directly or cumulatively, by the Campos Verdes project. The extent of
implementation responsibility of the Campos Verdes project to mitigate these project-
related impacts was assigned through analyses contained in the first Addendum to the
Draft EIR (pages 12 and 13 of the text and in more detafi on pages 11 through 18 of
Attachment C of the first Addendure). When the project was revised, the second
Addendure to the Draft EIR assessed the changes in traffic-related impacts and
determined that circulation impacts were reduced by approximately 24% from impact
levels previously identified in the Draft EIR. This second Addendure incorporated the
possible closure of two local streets, Starling Street and Sanderling Way which
connect Campos Verdes with Reripangh Hills development, into its analyses. In
addition, the City's recently-completed Circulation Element of the General Plan,
which deleted the northeasterly extension of North General Kearny Read, was also
reflected in the Traffic Analyses prepared for the second Addendure-
In considering the C~mpos Verdes Specific Plan in light of the analyses and
changes noted above, the City of Temecula Planning Commission, at their public
3
hearing of July 18, 1994, directed City Staff to re-establish Starling Street and
Sanderling Way through the proposed project. In addition, the City Staff has recently
analyzed the current status of roadway and intersection improvements which have
been completed or are committed to under Assessment District No. 161 and
Comnl,Jnlty Facilities District No. 88-12 against the mitigation responsibffity
requirements previously assigned to the Campos Verdes project.
As a result of all of these above considerations, the City Staff has formulated
and the Planning Commission has recommended a total of eleven Conditions of
Approval related to circulation. (A complete listing of these circulation-related
Conditions is included as Attachment A to this Addendum.) These Conditions of
Approval require a variety of traffic plans, reports and physical circulation
improvements which are either attributed partially or solely to the Campos Verdes
project. These Conditions are intended to mitigate impacts generated by or otherwise
associated with the Campos Verdes project.
Provided below is a summarized listing of these recommended circulation-
related Conditions of Approval followed by an indication of the related Draft EIR
mitigation measure (as Hsted in the Mitigation Monitoring Program, a copy of which
is included as Attachment B to this Addendure.) Also noted below is the respective
Responsible Monitoring Party and the milestone in the development process at which
point the Condition would be implemented (pursuant to the Mitigation Monitoring
Progrsrn and/or recommended Conditions of Approval).
CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Developor must enter into an agreement with
the City for a "Trip Reduction Plan" per Ordinance No. 93-01 (see recommended
Conditions of Approval included as Attachment A) .
Related Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 13 (see Mitigation Monitoring
Program included as Attachment B) requires preparation of a Transportation Demand
Management Plan prior to any subsequent development applications in accordance
with Ordinance No. 93-01.
Resnonsible Monitoring Parties: City of Temecula, Planning Department.
Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires
implementation of this Condition prior to the approval of Tentative Subdivision Maps
or the issuance of Building Permits. This conforms with the requirement in the
recommended Condition of Approval for inclusion of a Plan as a condition with "any
subsequent Development Application".
CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Adequate primary and secondary access will be
provided for each development phase including adequate right-of-way at entries for
turning lanes.
4
Related Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 10 requires the developer be
responsible for direct project access improvements along the site boundaries and other
off-site improvements.
Resnonsible Monitoring Party: City of Temecula, Public Works Department
Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires
implementation of this Condition prior to recordation of Final Subdivision Maps or
issuance of Occupancy Permits. This conforms with the requirement within the
Condition of Approval for review of access plans at the time of submittal of individual
development applications.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: All street sections shall cerrespend with
~rpical Roadway Cross Sections and requirements of the Circulation Element of the
City General Plan, City ordinances and standards. All intersection intervals shall
comply with City and Caltrans requirements.
Related Mitigation Measure: While no mitigation measures in the Draft EIR
relate directly to these Conditions, all of the environmental analyses and traffic
studies prepared for the Campes Verdes Specific Plan assume cenformance with City
General Plan requirements, City standards and ordinances and Caltrans requirements
in effect at the time of project development.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The Developer shall provide bus bays and
shelters and any associated rights-of-way within the Specific Plan, the location and
number of which are subject to approval by the City of Temecula and the Riverside
Transportation Department.
Related Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 13 requires "promotion of
future public transit through the adoption of appropriate planning ordinances which
would require special transit-oriented design features".
Resnonsible Monitoring Parties: City of Temecula~ Planning Department.
Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires
implementation of this Condition prior to approval of Tentative Subdivision Maps or
the issuance of Building Permits.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL: All improvements have been or wffi be
Conditions based on project traffic studies and phasing plans from Section III.A. 7. of
the Specific Plan. Any substative rephasing of the project must be approved by the
Planning Commission. All on- and off-site circulation improvements must be
constructed and/or bonded as required by the Department of Public Works.
Related Mitigation Measure: While no Mitigation Measures in the Draft EIR
relate directly to this Condition, all of the environmental analyses and traffic studies
prepared for the Campos Verdes Specific Plan assume development of roadway
improvements pursuant to the Campos Verdes Specific Plan.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Traffic reports analyzing traffic impacts
associated with subsequent development stages of the Specific Plan shall identify
implementation and timing of the necessary improvements to mitigate cumulative
traffic impacts.
Related Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 13 requires preparation of a
Transportation Demand Management Plan prior to any subsequent development
applications in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01. Mitigation Measure 11 requires
that the property owner/developer be a principal participant in Winchester
Assessment District 161 and the Ynez Corridor Commnnity Facilities District 88-12.
Resnonsible Monitoring Parties: City of Temecula, Planning Department.
Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires
implementation of this Condition prior to the approval of Tentative Subdivision Maps
or the issuance of Building or Occupancy Permits. This conforms with the
requirement in the recommended Condition of Approval for submittal of studies with
subsequent development applications.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Traffic signals at phase one accesses along
Margarita and North General Kearny Reads as required wffi be based on traffic signal
warrant analyses.
Related Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 10 requires the developer be
responsible for direct project access improvements along the site boundaries and~ther
off-site improvements.
Responsible Monitoring Party: City of Temecula, Public Works Department
Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires
implementation of this Condition prior to recordation of Final Subdivision Maps or
issuance of Occupancy Permits. This conforms to the requirement within the
Condition of Approval for submittal of studies with subsequent development
applications and provision of improvements prior to issuance of any occupancy
permits.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The Developer shall bond for full width
improvements to Margarita Road along the entire project frontage in accordance with
the Typical Readway Cross-Section of the City's General Plan and shall bond for
reconstruction of the existing two lanes on Margarita Read from Solana Way to the
6
southern project boundary.
Related Miti~ration Measure: Mitigation Measure 10 requires the Developer be
responsible for access improvements along the project boundaries.
Responsible Monitoring Party: City of Temecula, Public Works Department
Mitieation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires
implementation of this Condition prior to the recordation of Final Subdivision Maps
or issuance of Occupancy Permits. This conforms to the requirements in the
Condition of Approval for bonding of improvements prior to recordation of ~he Final
Subdivision Maps or issuance of Grading Permits. These traffic improvements must
be completed by the development of the 235th equivalent dwelling unit.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The Developor shall bond for improvements to
North General Kearny Read from Margarita Reed easterly to the project limit, in
accordance with the Specific Plan and City General Plan requirements or as approved
by the planning Director.
Related Mitigation Measure: Mitigation Measure 10 requires the developor to
be responsible for access improvements along the project boundaries.
Responsible Monitoring Party: City of Temecula, Public Works Department
Miti~ration Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires
implementation of the Condition prior to the recordation of Final Subdivision Maps
or issuance of Occupancy Permits. This conforms to the requirements in the
Condition of Approval for bonding of improvements prior to recordation of Final
Subdivision Maps or issuance of Grading Permits.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL: The Developer shall bond for traffic signals at
the following intersections and shall construct these signals pursuant to traffic signal
warrants:
-Margarita Reed at Winchester Reed (upgrede existing signal)
-Margarita Read at North General Kearny Read
-Margarita Read at Campos Verdes Lane
-North General Kearny Read at Camino Campos Verdes
Related Miti2ation Measure: Mitigation Measure 10 requires the developer be
responsible for access improvements along the project boundaries.
Resnonsible Monitorin2 Party: City of Temecula, Public Works Department
7
Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires
implementation of the Condition prior to the recordation of Final Subdivision Maps
or issuance of Occupancy Permits. This conforms to the requirements in the
Condition of Approval for bonding of improvements prior to recordation of Final
Subdivision Maps or issuance of Grading Permits.
CONDITION OF APPROVAL: Sanderling Way and Starling Street shall be
extended to accommodate through traffic into the Roripaugh Hills development.
Related Miti2ation Measure: Mitigation Measure 12 requires the dev'eloper to
be responsible to on-site circulation improvements.
Responsible Monitorin2 Party: City of Temecula, Public Works Department
Mitigation Milestone: The Mitigation Monitoring Program requires
implementation of the Condition prior to the approval of Tentative Subdivision Maps,
recordation of Final Subdivision Maps, or issuance of Occupancy Permits which
conforms to the intent of the Condition of Approval.
CONCLUSION: Based upon the analyses contained within this Addendum to
the Final EIR, the proposed circulation-related Conditions of Approval refine and
assist in the implementation of the Mitigation Measures contained within the Draft
Environmental Impact Report.
8
ATTACHMENT A
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
DRAFT
Specific Plan No. I (Campoe Verdes)
Project Description:
A Specific Plan proposing 308 single-family residential
units, 19.8 acres of commercial\office\church uses, a 5.8
acre detention basin, a 10,8 acre park, a 10.7 acre
elementary school, and 13.0 acres of on-site roadways
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
921-090~001 through 004, 921-090-017, 910-130-046,
911-170-004 and 910-170-00S
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant/developer shall deliver to the Planning Department a cashier's check or
money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of Nine Hundred Twenty-
Eight Dollars ($928.00) which includes the Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($850.00)
fee, in compliance with AB 3158, required by Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(d)(3)
plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to enable the City
to file the Notice of Determination required under Public Resources Code Section
21162 and California Code of Regulations Section 15094. If within said forty-eight
(48) hour period the applicant/developer has not delivered to the Planning Department
the check as required above, the approval for the project granted herein shall be void
by reason of failure of condition, Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c).
General Conditions
The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Temecula, it
agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City
of Temecula, its advisory agencies, appeal boards or legislative body concerning
Specific Plan No. 1, which action is brought within the time period provided for in
California Government Code Section 66499.37. The City of Temecula will promptly
notify the applicant 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 applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the
defense, the applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold
harmless the City of Temecula.
All development within this site shall be in accordance with the requirements of all City
ordinances, except as expressly modified herein, and State laws, and shall conform
with the approved Specific Plan. Regulations or procedures not covered by the Specific
Plan or appurtenant documents shall be subject to the City ordinances in effect at the
time entitlement is required.
17
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Approval of Specific Plan No. 1, Campoe Verdes, is contingent upon and shall not
become effective nor shall it vest until a General Plan Amendment (GPA) is approved
by the City Council and an Environmental Impact Report or any other environmental
review under the provisions of the California Quality Act are certified by the City
Council.
This project and all subsequent projects within the site shall comply with all mitigation
measures identified within EIR No. 348 and the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program.
Prior to issuance of grading permits, approval of development permits, recordation of
final maps, issuance of building permits and issuance of occupancy permits for any
subsequent projects or activities within the site the applicant/developer shall
demonstrate by submittal of a written report that all mitigation measures identified in
the Mitigation Monitoring Program within EIR No. 348 have been satisfied for the stage
of development that permits are being issued for.
Prior to issuance of any subsequent grading permits, all permit requirements necessary
for altering the existing on-site blue line stream shall be completed.
The Landscape Development Zone (LDZ), which includes the Transportation Corridor,
along Winchester Road shall be thirty-seven feet (37') in width and shall be shown on
all subsequent development proposal site plans and tentati-~e. maps.
Prior to approval of any map or development proposal within l:he~site, a detailed design
manual for any commercial area within the Specific Plan shal~'be submitted for review
and approval by the Planning Commission.
Within thirty (30) days of the final approval of the project by City Council, the Specific
Plan and the Final Environmental Impact Report shall be submitted to the Planning
Department in final form for review and approval. The final form shall include all
conditions of approval and all modifications made by the Planing Commission and City
Council. A master print copy (8 ~" X 11 ") and four (4) copies of the documents shall
be submitted.
Prior to approval of any development plans, all subsequent p;'ojects shall receive
appropriate clearances, conditions and approvals from all agencies with jurisdiction on
project review. These agencies shall be determined by the Planning Director and the
City Engineer.
The developer or the developer's successor-in-interest shall be responsible for
maintaining the undeveloped portion of the site including weed abatement and litter
removal.
The developer shall provide pedestrian access to the Commercial site (Planning Area
4) from the residential area to the east (Planning Area 5).
The applicant shall deposit sufficient funds with the City of Temecula to retain the
services of a qualified consultant to administer and implementthe Mitigation Monitoring
Program approved for this project as part of Environmental Impact Report 340 in
compliance with Assembly Bill 3180.
15. Prior to City Council approval the Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be updated to
reflect all current conditions of approval.
Prior to the Issuance of Building Permits
16.
Prior to issuance of any building permits for commercial and office projects and prior
to recordation of the final map for residential projects, the project applicant shall enter
into a binding mitigation agreement with the Temecula Valley Unified School District
to ensure the mitigation of the new students generated by this Specific Plan.
17.
If any of these conditions of approval differ from the comm:tment by the Developer
made in the Specific Plan text or map exhibits or any other documents, the conditions
enumerated heroin shall take precedence.
18.
Any proposed amendment to this Specific Plan shall require public hearings and review
by the Planning Commission and City Council, and/or shall be reviewed in accordance
with such rules and regulations for the review of Specific Plan Amendments as may
have been adopted by the City and which are in effect at the time of any proposed
amendment is submitted.
19. The developer shall satisfy all the Quimby Act requirements for the project.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
The following are the Department of Public Works Conditions of Appr~val for this project, and
shall be completed at no cost to any Government Agency. All questions regarding the true
meaning of the conditions shall be referred to the appropriate staff person of the Department
of Public Works.
GENERAL CONDITIONS
20.
All utility systems such as electric, including those which provide direct service to the
project site and/or currently exist along public rights-of-ways adjacent to the site
(except electrical lines rated 33 kv or greater), gas, telephone, water, sewer, and cable
TV shall be placed underground, with easements provided as required, and designed
and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider.
21.
Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, as deemed necessary by the Department
of Public Works, the Developer shall consult with the State of California Department
of Fish and Game, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
to determine if permits or approvals are necessary from such agencies for any action
contemplated by this proposal. Such consultation shall be in writing, and copies of said
correspondence, including responses from agencies, shall be submitted to the City.
Where appropriate, the terms, conditions, and recommendations of the noted agencies
shall be incorporated as Conditions of Approval into the areas of development.
22.
Prior to issuance of building permits for the non rcGidcntiol (oommorekal and officca}
various phases of development, the 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. The fee to be paid shall be in the amount m 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 the Developer requests its building permit
for the project or any phase thereof, the Developer shall execute the Agreement for
payment of Public Facility Fee. Concurrently, with executing this Agreement, the
Developer shall post a bond to secure payment of the Public Facility Fee. The amount
of the bond shall be ~2.00 per square foot, not to exceed ~10,000. The 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), By
execution of this Agreement, the Developer will waive any right to protest the
provisions of this condition, of this Agreement, the formation of any traffic impact fee
district, or the process, levy, or collection of any traffic mitigation or traffic impact fee
for this project; orovided that the Developer is not waiving its right to protest the
reasonableness of any traffic impact fee, and the amount thereof. (Amended by
Planning Commission on July 18, 1994)
23.
Landscaping and permanent irrigation facilities shall be installed with street
improvements. Perimeter walls shall be treated with graffiti-resistant coating and shall
be installed adjacent to street improvements within each pi~ese.
A phasing plan addressing the schedule of necessary infrastructure requirements shall
be approved by the Department of Public Works and the P~anning Director prior to
approval cf c~.;- for each subsequent development applicat~en. (Amended by Planning
Commission on July 18, 1994)
CIRCULATION
25.
As a condition of approval for any subsequent development application associated with
this Specific Plan, the Developer must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip
Reduction Plan" in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01.
26.
Adequate primary and secondary access shall be provided for each phase of
development as approved by the Department of Public Works. Access to residential,
office, a~d commercial areas shall be reviewed by the Department of Public Works at
the time of submittal of individual development applications. Additional rights-of-way
at entries to the aforementioned sites may be required to provide for turning lanes as
directed by the Department of Public Works.
27.
All street sections shall correspond with Typical Roadway Cross Sections and
requirements of the Circulation Element of City's General Ran, City ordinances and
standards.
28.
All intersections intervals shall comply with City and Caltrans standards and
requirements.
29.
The Developer shall provide bus bays and shelters Within the Specific Plan. Location
and number of bus bays shall be subject to approval of the City and Riverside
Transportation Agency (RTA). If required, additional rights-of-way dedications
associated with bus bays shall be provided by the Developer.
R:~STAFFRPT~ISp. PC5 9/1194 v~-v 20
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
Necessary improvements have been/will be conditioned based on the project traffic
studies and the conceptual phasing plan shown on Section III. A. 7. of the Specific
Plan. Any substantive rephasing of the development must be approved by the Planning
Commission through a rephasing application, A rephasing of the development
considered to be minor or in substantial conformance with the construction phasing
plan approved with the adoption of the Campos Verdes Specific Plan, as determined
by the Department of Public Works and the Planning Director, may be approved
administratively through applicable City procedures. Prior to the issuance of occupancy
permits within any phase, all on and offsite improvements as referred to in the Traffic
Reports and subsequent addenda along with additional requirements set herein, or as
set by conditions on individual tracts, must be constructed and/or bonded a;s required
by the Department of Public Works.
Ensuing Traffic Reports, analyzing traffic impacts associated with subsequent
development stages of the Specific Plan, shall be submitted to identify implementation
and timing of the necessary improvements to mitigate cumulative traffic impacts.
The traffic signals at the phase one accesses from Margarita Road and North General
Kearny Road, as required, based on traffic signal warrants analysis relative to
subsequent development applications shall be completed prior to issuance of any
occupancy.
The following infrastructure improvements/reimbursements shall be completed by the
200th 235th equivalent dwelling unit (EDU). The improvements shall be constructed
prior to issuance of occupancy for the 200th 235th EDU. (Amended by Planning
Commission on July 18, 1994)
Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Pormit, the Developer shall
bond for full width improvements to Margarita Road, along the entire frontage,
including a 14 foot wide raised landscaped median, in accordance with the
Typical Roadway Cross Section of City'~s General Ran classifying Margarita
Road as an Arterial Highway with 110 foot full width right-of-way.
Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer shall
bond for reconstruction of the existing two lanes on Margarita Road, from
Solana Way to southerly project boundary.
Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer shall bond
for the improvements to North General Kearny Road, from Margarita Road to easterly
project limit in accordance with the approved Phasing Plan of the Specific Plan. The
cross section shall be in accordance with the Typical Roadway Cross Section of City's
General Plan classification for a Secondary Highway with 88 foot full width right-of-
way or as required by the Director of Public Works. (Added by Planning Commission
on July 18, 1994)
Prior to Final Map recordation or issuance of Grading Permit, the Developer is
responsible to bond for the traffic signals at the intersections listed below. The
Developer shall construct the traffic signals, as required, based on traffic signal
warrants analysis relative to subsequent development applications at the following
intersections:
R:~ITAI~RF~ISP. ImC$ 911194 vgw
Margarita Road and Winchester Road (upgrade the existing signal)
Margarita Road and North General Kearny Road
Margarita Road and Campoe Verdes Lane
North General Kearny Road and Camino Campos Verdes
36.
Sanderling Way and Stading Street shall be extended to accommodate through traffic
into the Roripaugh Hills development. (Added by Planning Commisaion on July 18,
1994)
Drainage
37.
Drainage and flood control facilities shall be provided in accordance with the
requirements of the City and/or Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District (RCFC&WCD).
38.
Prior to approval of any subsequent development applications, the Developer shall
submit the master drainage plan to the City and RCFC&WCE) to review the adequacy
of the proposed and existing downstream drainage facilities.
39.
Drainage facilities within each phase shall be constructed immediately after the
completion of the site grading and prior to or concurrently with the initial site
development within that phase.
40.
All drainage facilities shall be designed to carry 1 O0 year storm flows, subject to the
approval of the Department of Public Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable.
41.
The Developer shall construct the proposed on and offsite drainage facility
improvements and the oneire detention basin provision as recommended in the Specific
Plan and Drainage Study documents and/or as directed by the Department of Public
Works and RCFC&WCD, as applicable.
42.
As required by the Department of Public Works, additional Hydrology and Hydraulic
Reports shall be submitted with subsequent development applications to study the
drainage impacts and analyze necessary measures to mitigate the runoff created as
part of the development of this project.
43.
The Developer shall accept and properly dispose of all off-site drainage flowing onto
or through the site.
44.
The Developer shall protect downstream properties from damages caused by alteration
of the drainage patterns; i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be
provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities, including enlarging existing
facilities or by securing drainage easements.
Water and Sewer
45.
Water and sewer facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and
specifications of the City, Rancho California Water District (RCWD), and Eastern
Municipal Water District (EMWD). Such requirements shall be applied at the subdivision
or plot plan stages of the development.
46.
Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall
submit the master water plan to RCWD to check for adequacy of the proposed water
facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the water system from
RCWD.
47.
Prior to the approval of subsequent development applications, the Developer shall
submit the master sewer plan to EMWD to check for adequacy of the proposed sewer
facilities. The Developer shall obtain written approval for the sewer system from
EMWD.
48.
Prior to the recordation of any tract map, commercial parcel map, or approval of any
plot plan application, the Developer shall provide the City with evidence that adequate
wastewater treatment facilities are being provided to meet the needs of the Campos
Verdes Specific Plan development.
Grading
49.
No grading shall be permitted for any development area prior to tentative map or plot
plan approval and issuance of grading permits for the specific area of development.
50.
Grading plans and operations shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code,
City Grading Standards, the recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Report,
or any subsequent reports prepared for the project, the conditions of the grading
permit, and accepted grading construction practices and t~,l,'recommendations and
standards specified in the Specific Plan and Environmennl-lmpact Report (EIR)
document.
51.
Prior to issuance of any grading permit, Erosion Control plans shall be prepared in
conformance with applicable City Standards and subject to approval by the Department
of Public Works. The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement
guaranteeing the grading and erosion'control improvements.
52.
The Developer shall comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulated by the State Water Resources Control
Board, and the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) implemented by the San
Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board.
53.
Each subsequent application for a phase of development shall include a conceptual
grading plan to indicate at a minimum:
· Preliminary quantity estimates for grading.
Techniques and methods which will be used to prevent erosion and
sedimentation during and after the grading process in compliance with the City
Standards and NPDES requirements.
· Preliminary pad and roadway elevations.
· Designation of the borrow or stockpile site location for import/export material.
· Approximate time frames for development including the identification of areas
which will be graded during the rainy months.
· Hydrology and hydraulic concerns and mitigations.
54.
Major grading activities shall be scheduled during the dry season wherever possible,
or as otherwise approved by the Department of Public Works.
55.
Soils stabilization, which may include revegetation of graded areas, shall occur within
30 days of final grading activities as directed by the Department of Public Works.
56. The site shall be watered during grading operations to control dust.
57.
Temporary drainage and sediment control devices shall be installed as directed by the
Department of Public Works.
58.
An import/export route shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to
issuance of any grading permit. The plan shall include limitation to the duration of the
grading operation and construction activities, a Traffic Control Plan, and a daily time
schedule of operations.
59.
Prior to issuance of any grading permit, a soils reports shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works for review and approval, to address engineering, geologic,
seismic, and soils engineering concerns for each tentative map or commercial parcel
map for each phase of proposed development.
60.
All public streets shall be maintained and cleaned if necessary on a daily basis during
grading operation and construction activities. Cash deposit, letter of credit or posting
of bond to guarantee maintenance of all public rights-of-way affected by the grading
operations and construction activities, shall be posted prior to issuance of grading
permits.
61.
If subsequent Geotechnical and Soils Reports determine that dewatering of the site is
necessary during construction, necessary permits lie. in compliance with NPDES
permit) shall be obtained from appropriate agencies prior to approval of the grading
plans.
Phasing
62.
Construction of the development permitted by the Specific Plan, including recordation
of final subdivision maps, may be carried out in stages provided that, adequate
vehicular access is constructed for all dwelling units in each stage of development and
further provided that such development conforms substantially with the intent and
purpose of the Specific Plan Phasing Plan.
63.
Development applications shall be submitted for each planning unit in each phase. Total
acreage, dwelling units, and land uses within each phase shall be in accordance with
the specifications of the Specific Plan.
R:~STAPPR/r~ISP.PC5 911/94 vgw 24
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
The Temecula Community Services Department (TCSD) provides the following conditions for
Campos Verdes Specific Plan:
General Requirements
64.
All park facilities, slope areas, park way landscaping, trails and medians shall be
improved in conformance with the City of Temecula Landscape Development Plan
Guidelines and Specifications.
65.
Construction of the .public park site, landscaping, trails and medians proposed for
dedication to the TCSD shall commence pursuant to a pre-job meeting with the
developer and the City Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD
review and inspection process may preclude acceptance of these areas into the TCSD
maintenance program.
66.
The developer, or the developer's successors or assignees, shall maintain the park site,
landscaping, trails and medians until such time as those responsibilities are accepted
by the TCSD.
67.
All park facilities, and/or other recreational areas, intended f~r transfer to the City "in-
fee" shall be dedicated free and clear of any liens, assessn~ents, or easements that
would preclude the City from using the property for publi.:,.,park and/or recreational
purposes. A policy of title insurance and a soils assess~'rte~eport shall also be
provided with the dedication of the property,
68. All perimeter walls, interior slopes and open space shall be maintained by the individual
property owners or an established Home Owner's Association (HOA).
69.
Bike lanes and recreational trails shall be provided on site and designed to intercept
with the City's Park and Recreation Master Plan. Class II bike lanes shall be
constructed in concurrence with the street improvements.
70.
All exterior slopes contiguous to public streets that are adjacent to single family
residential development shall be offered for dedication to the TCSD for maintenance
purposes following compliance to existing City standards and completion of the
application process. All other slopes and open space shall be maintained by and
established Home Owner's Association (HOA).
Prior to Recordation of the Final Map
71.
Prior to recordation of the respective final map, the developer or his assignee shall
enter into an agreement and post security to improve the 10.8 acre park facility located
in Planning Area I and the detention basin in Planning Area 2.
72.
Prior to recordation of the respective final map, the subdivider shall post security and
enter into an agreement to improve the parkway landscaping, medians, and multi-
purpose trail identified in Planning Area 9.
ATTACHMENT B
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Z
Z
Z
Z
8
8
=' .='E
Z
Z
Z
VICINITY MAP
Meadowview Community Association
May 18, 1994
Planning Commission
City of Temecula
43174 Bus~ness Park Drive
Temecula, California 92591
Attention: Chairman Steven Ford and
Planning Commission
RECEIVED
MAY I 8 199
Ans'd,,,.,,, ......
subject: Campos Verdes Specific Plan
The Meadowview Homeowners Association has no opposition to the
proposed Campos Verdes Specific Plan as we understand the current
proposal. We believe the proposed 1/2 acre lots adjacent to
Meadowview homes separated by a 40 foot buffer zone will provide
adequate inter project transition. The proposed traffic pattern
will reduce adverse impacts at our equestrian facility.
The Meadowview Homeowners Association wishes to acknowledge
Kemper's coordination with the Board of Directors and individual
homeowners. Barry Burnell was very helpful in minimizing traffic
impacts on the HOA by eliminating a street entrance across from
our equestrian facilities. Dennis Chiniaeff gave generc. usly of
his time to meet with individual homeowners along the common area
boundary to hear their concerns and devise a suitable mitigation
plan agreeable to both parties.
Kathy ~and, President
Board of Directors
Meadowview Homeowners Association
KH/gg
cc:'. Gary Thornhill,
City Council
Planning Commission
P.O. Box 788 · Temecula. California 92593 · (909) 676-4429
ATTACHMENT NO. 9
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, JULY 18, 1994
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/94 ktb 31
The mo."-~ carried as follows:
AYES: b '-- COMMISSIONERS: Blair, Fahey,
NOES: 0 LL" 'MISSlONERS: None
ABSENT: 0 COMMIt>. ~)NERS: None
Commissioner Hoagland moved to re-ord~
Item 10 follow the Planning Director's
PLANNING DIRECTOR'S
Director Thdrnhill stated
due to noticing,
PLANNING C
None
BUSINESS
None
'er, Ford
g Agenda items so that
' 'd other Commission business.
Johnson Ranch hearing n, -~ed to be rescheduled
DISCUSSION
10.
Soecific Plan No. 1, Chanae of Zone No. 5617 and Environmental linDact
Report No. 348
Specific Plan proposing 308 single-family residential units, 12 acres of
Commercial, approximately 13.7 acres of Office/Commercial/Church/
Detention, 10.8 acres of Park and 10.7 acre Elementary School Site with an
accompanying Change of Zone request changing the zoning from R-R (Rural
Residential) and A-2-20 (Heavy Agricultural, 20 acre minimum lot size) to SP
(Specific Plan).
Commissioners Hoagland and Fahey excused themselves from the meeting at
7:55 P.M. due to a conflict of interest.
Senior Planner Debbie Ubnoske presented the staff report and stated that the
project was originally heard at the June 6, 1994 Planning Commission
meeting. Planner Ubnoske stated that the opening of Sanderling Way and/or
Starling Street needed to be discussed by the Commission.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
3 COMMISSIONERS:
0 COMMISSIONERS:
2 COMMISSIONERS:
Blair, Salyer, Ford
None
Fahey, Hoagland
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Ford declared the meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M.
The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Planning Commission will be held
on August 1, 1994 at 6:00 P.M. at the Rancho California Water District Board
Room, 42135 Winchester Road, Temecula, California.
Chairman Steve Ford
Secretary
AI'rACHMENT NO. 10
CAMPOS VERDES SPECIFIC PLAN/EIR
SUBMITTED UNDER SEPARATE COVER
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 917/94 ktb 32
A'R'ACHMENT NO. 11
CAMPOS VERDES TECHNICAL APPENDICES
SUBMITTED UNDER SEPARATE COVER
R:\STAFFRPT\lSP.CC 9/7/94 kLb 33
A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 12
CAMPOS VERDES FIRST ADDENDUM EIR
SUBMITTED UNDER SEPARATE COVER
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 91719~ ktb
34
ATTACHMENT NO. 14
CAMPOS VERDES THIRD ADDENDUM
CONTAINING MITIGATION MONITORING REPORT
SUBMITTED UNDER SEPARATE COVER
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/94 ktb 36
ATTACHMENT NO. 15
CAMPOS VERDES FEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
SUBMITTED UNDER SEPARATE COVER
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/96 ktb 37
ATTACHMENT NO. 16
CAMPOS VERDES FINDINGS, FACTS AND
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION
SUBMITTED UNDER SEPARATE COVER
R:\STAFFRPT\lSP.CC 9/7/9& kLb 38
ATTACHMENT NO. 17
CAMPO$ VERDES, VICINITY MAP
R:\STAFFRPT\ISP.CC 9/7/9~ ktb 39
ITEM 25
APPROVAL~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFIC
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Manager/City Council
Mary Jane McLarney, Finance Officer
Shawn Nelson, Community Services Director
September 13, 1994
Non-Profit Loan Program Policy
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council review and approve the Non-Profit Loan
Program criteria with revisions as appropriate.
DISCUSSION: On August 9, 1994 the City Council considered criteria for loans to non-
profit organizations. During the discussion, Council asked for clarification concerning what
type of non-profit organizations (i.e., charitable) are eligible for City funding. Attached for
your information is a memo from Burke, Willjams and Sorensen which states that the City may
loan money to any non-profit so long as there is a public purpose for the loan.
In addition, discussion took place concerning the dollar limit for which it will be necessary to
provide collateral. Currently, the policy includes a ~5,000 limit.
The non-profit loan policy should not be confused with the Community Service Funding
Request Program. The CS Funding Request Program are grants which are allocated one time
for each fiscal year. The Non-Profit Loan Policy only deals with loan requests; can occur any
time during the fiscal year; and provides guidelines to the Council when considering potential
loan requests.
Attachments:
City of Temecula Non-Profit Organization Loan Program Policy
Memo from Burke, Willjams and Sorensen
CITY OF TEMECULA
Non-Profit Organization Loan Program/Policy
Purpose
To establish a process and evaluation criteria for funding potential loan requests received by
the City from non-profit organizations throughout the year.
General Policy
The City receives requests throughout the year for loans from various non-profit organizations
which provide a variety of services within the community. It is the City's policy to subject
such loan req~uests to a review process.
Fundino Philosoohv
It is intended to establish guidelines to assist the City Council in determining when it .would
be appropriate to loan City funds to non-profit organizations that provide community services
or facilities. Although it is the City Council's intention for non-profit organizations to be self-
sufficient, the City Council may consider loan requests that provide expanded economic
development benefits or substantial enhancement in the quality of life for all City residents.
Eliqibility
Applications for a City loan are accepted from tax exempt, non-profit organizations and
individuals for the funding of special projects, community service programs end
activities, or other requests deemed appropriate by the City Council. The non-profit
organization must possess a valid tax exempt I.D. number.
Services or facilities provided by the non-profit organization must benefit the citizens
of the City of Temecula.
Financial statements for a minimum of three (3) years must be included in the
application to demonstrate the organization's ability to function as an effective, non-
profit organization.
Loans will not be approved for longer than a five (5) year period and may not exceed
the useful term of the facility.
Permitted Uses of Loan Funds
1. Construction of capital improvement projects.
2. Special events or major community activities.
Loans in excess of $5,000 must be secured by a trust deed on real estate, or a security
interest in equipment or fixed assets. Value of real estate must be verified by an appraisal
completed by the City and paid for by the applicant. This fee can be paid from loan proceeds
or paid by the applicant.
Rates
Fixed rates are calculated at Prime Rate for the life of the simple interest loan.
Criteria
in making a determination for a loan request, the City Council will consider the following
criteria:
1. Does the loan provide local and regional economic development benefits?
2. Has the organization demonstrated the ability to manage existing financial resources
in an effective manner?
3. Will the loan create a greater awareness on a regional basis of the many benefits of the
City of Temecula?
4. Will the loan promote and expand the promotion of community services and recreation
opportunities throughout the community?
5. How many people will benefit from the intended use of the loan proceeds?
6. What type of security for the loan is being provided by the organization?
7. What risk will the City incur if the loan is not repaid?
8. Will additional sales tax revenues be generated as a result of this loan?
9. Will local businesses benefit as a result of this loan?
10. Based on a review of the organization's financial statements and budget projections,
does the organization have the ability to repay the loan?
Mary Jane McLarney
August 18, 1994
Page 2
I hope the above discussion provides you with the
information necessary to move forward on the policy. Please feel
free to contact me should amy questions remain, or if I may be of
any further assistance.
,58.1
5323-14
1986 Code--Subtitle A, Ch. 1F, Part I
t 1 ) .-~n.~' corporat on urganized under Act of Congress which is an instrumentality of the Unite:[
States hut only if such corporation--
It) under such .-~ct as amended and suppiemenred befor~ ]uty 18. 19~.. or
~B ) ,s described in subsection {1).
t2) Curporatiuns .rganized [or the exclust~*e purpose of holding title to property, collecz. m~
~'hich itself i~ exempt under this section. Ruie~ stmiiar to the rules of subparagraph (G) of para~p~
e 2~ I ~haiJ appb' for purposes o~ this paragraph.
48) providing for the pa.vment of life. sick. accident. or other benefits to the merebend
accident. or othe~ benefit; to the membe;-s of such association or their depen~enu or dssigsste~
bencfictaries. i~ no part of the net earnings of such association inures (other than t~teuP sut~
tA) the net earnings of %~'hich are de,'oted exclusively to religious. chari~bie.
Sec. 501(c) '
Income Tax-Exempt Oti-.,iz. dUonk
5323-15
I 11 ) Teachers' retirement fund uur~atioes of · purely local chariest.
fA) no part of their net e~rmngs inures rother than ~mugh payment of retirement benefits)
to the benefit of any pnvat~ shareholder or individual, and
tO) the income consists solely of a_rnounts received fnmt public ta. xstion, amounts received
from ~ssessments o~ the teaching salaries of merehere. knd incotne in respect of investmenu.
.12~4A) Benevolent life insurance uso~ittio~s of n pu~ly Ioca3 character. mutual ditch or
- ::,_.a,.ion companies, mutual or coup~rgtiv~ telephone companies. or like organizations; but only if
· - !,t. rcent ot more of the income consists of amounts cdlected from members for the sole purpose of
, B) [n the c~se of a mutual or cooperative telephOne company subparagnph (A) shall be
jpplied without takinK into account any income received or accrued--
(i) from a nonmember telephone company, for the pofiormtnce of communication
service~ which involve members of the mutual or cooperative telephone company,
I ii~ from qualified pole rentals,
liii) from the sale of display listings in a directow. furnished to the members of the
liv~ f~om the prepayment of a h~n under ~ection 306A, 3C6R, or 311 of the Rural
Electrification Act of 1936 tan in effect on jaouan/1,
~C) In the c~t~e of a mutual or cooperative electric company, subparagraph ~A) shall he
~ppiied without taking into account any income recegved or accrued-- , H from qualified pole rentals, or
4ii~ from the prepa:vment of n lt~tn under ~ection 306A. 306B. ur 311 of the Rur~I
Electrification Act of 193~ tan in effect on .lanuan/|.
~ D~ For purposes oE this paragraph. the term "qualified pole rentnr' means any rental of a
used b.v such company in providing telephone or electric ~en, ices to its members. and
~ ii ~ is used pursuant to t he rental to s~pport one or more wires I in addition to th~ wires
.1.3~ Cemetery compames owned ~nd operated exclusively for the benefit of their members or
::~ nr~ not operated for profit; and any corpor~tton cha. rtered solely for the purpose o~ th~ disposal
. ! --~rliv Incident to that purpose. nu part uf the net earnings of which inures to the penefit of any
. ~e -hareholder or tndivi~uai.
.14, A~ Credit unlun~ without capital stock orEamzed and operated for rnut~a.t p~rposes and
t B~ Corporauons or assoctations without capital stock organized before September 1.
~nd ~pei'ated ~or motoat purposes and wttho~t profit ~or the purpose of provtciinE reserve funds
I i) domestic huildin~ =nd loan associations,
di~ cooperative banks without capttai stock organized and operated for mutual
purposes and without profit.
t iii~ mutual savings ban~ not having capital stock represented by shares. or
dr) mutual savings banks described in section 591(b).
,C~ Corporations or associations organized before September 1. t9~7. and operated for
mutual purposes and without profit for the pttrpose of prr..idin~ resen~ funds for associations or
~anks described in clause ti). tii). or dii'~ of subparagraph ,B~; but only if 85 percent or more of
~u~Daragraph shall not apply to any corporation or usociation entitled to exemption under
~ubparagraph (B).
R..,..,.e Sec. 501(c)
5323-16
1986 Code--Subtitle A, Ch. 1F, Pan I
(]SNAj insurance companies or a.'~sociations other than life (including interinsurers and
reczprocaJ underwriters) if the net written premiums Ior. if greater. direct written premiums) for the
taxable year do not exceed $3.~0.{300.
(B) For purposes of subparagraph I.-~ ). in determining whether an)' company or usoclatm~
i~ dc.'cribed in subparas~raph I.~.L such company or assoc~atmn shall be treated as rece~vln~
during the taxahlc )'ear amounts described in subparagraph I.-I.i which are received during such
)tar by all other companies or associations which are members of the same controlled group u
thc insurance company or association for which the determination is being made.
ICI 'For purples of suhparaeraph I BI. the germ "controlled slroup' has the meaning given
such tcrm hy sectlon BJllh~(2H BN iil.
i 16~ Corporations orEanized hy an asseciation subject to part iV oi this subchapter or members
tht. rt,~L for the purp~je ,jr financing the ordinal' rrop ,~peratlOns o~ ~uch members or other
pn,lure'r~. anti operDted in ~onjuncnon with such association. Exemptran ~hall not be demed any
-ufh ,,rl,~ratmn betause it has capital stock, if the dividend rate i}f ~uch stock is fixed at not t~
F **
5323-18
1986 Code -SubtR!e A, Ch. 1F, Part
~I) to satisfy, in whole or in part, the liability of such pers~ for. or with reapeel to,
claims for compensatJon for disability or death due to pneumocomnsis under Black
Lung Ac~s.
iII~ to pay premiums for insurance exclusively covering such liability,
iHli to pay administrative and other incidental ea~enses of such trust in
connection with the operation oi the trust and the processing of claims against
person under Black Lung Acts, and
tIX'~ to pay accident or health benefits, for retired miners and their spouses and
dependents tineluding administrative ~nd other incidental expenses of such trust In
and
Iii ~ no part of the assets of the trust may be used for. or diverted to, any purpose other
than--
tit the purposes described in claiise
111 ~ investment Ibut only to the extent that the trustee determines that a portion
of the assets is not currently needed for the purposes described in clause I i )) in qusliiied
III;[~ payment Into the Black Lung Disability Trust Funcl established under
sectran 9501. or Into the general fund of the United States Treasury luther than
sausiaction oi any tax or other civil or criminal liability of the poison who established
IB~ No deduction shall be allon'ed under this chapter for any payment described
,u bpara~ra ph I A u i R IV I from such trust.
iC~ Payments described in subparagraph IAX iI~IV~ may be made from such trust durlne a
taxable year only to the extent t,~at the aggregate amount uf such payments dunng such taxable
11 ) the fair market value t~f the assets of the trust. over
~lh I10 portent oi the present value of the liability described in subparagraph
( I ~ the sum of a s~milar excess determined as of the close of the last taxable year
endimt be/ore the date oi the enactment of this suO~aragraph plus earnings thereon
lib the aetgrexate payments described in subparaaraph IANi~B'~ made from the
trust during all taxable >'ears beginrang after the date oi the enactment oi the,
The determmanons under the preceding sentence shall be made by an independent actuar~
unl~cr ~ecuon 1921c, I)~AII each of which Is reasonable and which are reasonable In
~D~ For purpo,es of this paragraph:
li~ The term "Black Lung Acts" means part C of title I¥ oi the Federal .%$ine Saie~v
and Health Act of 1977. and any State law providing compensatmn for disability or death
(if) The :erm "qualified investmenu" means--
ill public debt securities of ;he United States,
lit) obligations of a State or local government which are not in beiauit ~
principal or roterest. and
(III~ time or demand deposits in a bank lax defined in section .~81) or an in~ur~
credit umon ~ within the meaning of section 10If6) of the Federal Credit Union Act.
U.S.C. 17.~2~6D located in the United States.
402ed) of the Black Lung Beneiiu Act fl0 U.S.C. 902ld}l.
5eC.
sp
,a~
19
Income Tax-Exempt Organizations 5323- Z 9
(iv) T'ne term "incidental ezpenses" includes legal. accounting, actinitiaL and trus:ee
~2.21 A trust cre~ted or mganizccl in the United States and established in writing by the plan
;~n~ors of multiemployer plans
{A) the purpose of such trust is exclusive)y--
(i) to pay any amount described in section 4223fcl or fh) of the Empiu~ee getiremcnt
Income Security Act of 1974, and
establishment and operation o[ the trust and the proces~ng of chtims against the xrustl
IBI no part of the assets of the trust may be used for, or diverted to, any purpose other
than--
~ i~ the purposes described in subparagraph ( .~.~, or
di~ the investment in securities. obligations. or time or demand deposits described In
c!ause Iii} oi pata~rnph {21 }~
~C'~ such .trust meets tl~e requirements o( paragraphs ~Z). (3). and ~4`'~ of section
~223{hl. t~r. i[ applicable. ~ectmn 4223~cl o( the F-mployee Retirement Income S~curtty Act
nux ~ paid other lhan to plans which hav~ participated in the plsn or. in the case o~ ~
~s~ablishcd ondef ,,ection 4~31h) u~ such Acl. to plans with ~espect to which cmployer.~ have
particxpated in the (und.
~23) AnS' association orgnmzed ~e~ore I~0 more than ~5 percent of 1he member., of which oft.
~24.~ A trust described in section 4,049 o[ the !~mplu~'ce Retirement Income $ecuri',y Act o~
d) ~a~ no more t~n ~5 shar~hoidcrb ot beneficiaries.
t ii ~ has only t d~ss o~ stock or ~endicial anl~resL nnd
~ ii~ a governmental plan ~ w~hin the meanin~J of section
Uih the United 5tares. ;my State ot political subdivision ther~o(. or an)' szency or
fiv~ any organization described in paragraph
tD} A corporation or trust shall in no event be treated as described in subparaZnph ~A)
See. 501(c)
5323-20
1986 Code.--SubtiUe A, Ch. 1F, Part I
fii} to terminate their interest in the corporation or trust by either, or both, of the
foliowang alternatives, as determined by the corporation or trust:
{I} by selling or exchanging their stock in the corporation or interest in the trust
tsub~ect to any Federal or State securities law) to any organization described in
subT~ragraph ~C'~ so long as the sale or exchange does not increase the number of
shareholders or beneficiaries in such corporation or t~st above 35. or
~nl by ha~'ing their stock or interest redeemed by the corporation or trust after
the shareholder or beneficiary has provided 90 da.vs notace to such corporatton or trust.
t E's i ) Fur purposes of this title---
I I I a corporation ,'hich is a qualified subsidiary. shall not be treated as a separate
corporation. and
i fI~ all assets. liabilities. and items of income. deduction. and credit of a qualified
subsldiar:,' shall be treated as assets. liabilities. and such items its the case may be~ of
the corporation or trust described in subparagraph
~ For purposes of this subp~raeraph. the term "qualified subsidiary." means any
i*orl~orntson if. at all times durxng the pound such corporation was in extstence. tO0 percent
uf the stock of such torporarson is held by the corporation or trust described in
=ubpur;a~r;zph ~A)-
I iii ~ For purposes of this subtitle. if an.~' corporation which was a qualified subsidiary.
rorpurar~on acquiring all of its assets rand assuming all of its liabilities ) immediatel.,z before
~uch ce>~atxon from the curporatmn or trust described in subparagraph CA) in exchange for
~F~ For purposes of subparagraph ~A). the term "re~l property" includes any personal
pr,tlt. rz~' ~¥hil-h is lea~ed under. or in connection with. a ease of real property but only if the
dcrl~t.d [rorn the holding oi real propert.v.
l ii~ Clause l i) shall not appb' if the amount of gross income described in such clause
Sec. 501(c)
p,/, 1G0447, § lollfc)
Income Tax--Exempt Organizations
5323-23
p3,. 92.,4tL § t(m)~
m!,,merml · peammmm fuad lee temm. bm~ players)"
[Ser_ S01(d)]
,dl RELIGIOUS ~Xb APOSTOUC ORGANII.~.TIONS.'The following organlotions are referred to in
,>r ;he common benefit oi the memUers. but only if the members thereof include tat the time of filing their
ricoroe of the assoclauon or corporanon for such year. Any amount so included in the gross income of a
member shall be treated as a dividend received.
[~. ';Ol(e)]
collection. food. clinical, industrial engineerrag, laboratory., pnnting, communications, record
Internal Revenue Code
· Sec. 501(e)-! ;;,
.........
....
ITEM 26
APPROVAL ~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
June S. Greek, City Clerk
September 13, 1994
City Council Meeting Schedule - November and December 1994
RECOMMENDATION:
Direct the City Clerk to cancel and/or re-schedule meetings in
November and December, 1994, and to perform all the
appropriate posting and noticing requirements of the Government
Code.
BACKGROUND: In previous years the City Council has determined that certain meetings
should be either cancelled or re-scheduled to a more convenient date. During the month of
November, 1994, the regularly scheduled first meeting of the month falls on November 8,
1994, which is the date scheduled for the General Municipal Election. Council may wish to
cancel that meeting to allow Councilmembers and candidates for City Council the opportunity
to be involved in election night activities. The City Council might wish to schedule the
meeting on the first Tuesday, November 1, 1994 or the third Tuesday of the month on
November 15, 1994.
During the month of December, the second regularly scheduled meeting of the month fall on
December 27th. Since this date is between Christmas and Hanukkah and the New Years
holiday it may also not be the best date to hold a meeting. The Council might wish to
consider either cancelling that meeting or re-scheduling it to the third Tuesday of the month
which would be December 20, 1994.
JSG
ITEM 27
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
City Clerk
August 9, 1994
Consideration of Traffic Signalization - Pala Road, La Paz and Margarita
at Highway 79-South
RECOMMENDATION: Discuss the need for signalization at the specified locations and
provide direction to staff.
BACKGROUND: This matter has been placed on the agenda at the request of Mayor Pro
Tem Stone for consideration by the City Council.
ITEM 28
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROV.~~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Gary Thornhill, Director of Plannsng
September 13, 1994
Transient and Road Side Vending Ordinance
Prepared By:
RECOMMENDATION:
Debbie Ubnoske, Senior Planner
Direct Staff to Prepare an Ordinance Regulating Vendors in the
City of Temecuta
BACKGROUND:
At the July 12, 1994 City Council Meeting, during City Council reports, Mayor Pro Tem Jeff
Stone requested staff prepare an Ordinance to address transient and road side vending within
City limits for the purpose of assisting in enforcement. This matter has been agendized to
allow the City Council to provide direction to staff on the preparation of a vending ordinance.
Staff proposes to use similar language as that contained in the Old Town Specific Plan to deal
with this issue (see attached).
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
Attachments
1. Old Town Specific Plan language regulating vendors
ATI'ACHMENT NO. 1
OLD TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN LANGUAGE REGULATING VENDORS
Outdoor Vendors
a. Pro'pose
Outdoor vending on private property promotes public interest by
contributing to an active pedestrian environment. However,
reasonable regulation of outdoor vending is necessary to protect fie
public health, safety, and welfare
The purpose of this section is to set forth the conditions and
requirements under which outdoor vendors may be perm. it~ed to
operate on private property within the Specific Plan area.
Definitions
For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
"Stand" means a pushcar~, wagon or any other wheeled vehicle or
device which may be moved without the assistance of a motor and
is used for the displaying, storing or transporting of articles offered
for sale by a vendor.
"Vendin~," means the sale of food or merchandise from a stand
operating on pr/vate property. within the Specific Plan area.
Vendors License Required
It shall be .unlawfu/to sell, or offer for sale, any food, beverage or
merchandise on any property within the Specific Plan area without
first obtairdng a Vendors License. However, existing businesses
which legally operate outdoor displays of merchandise prior to the
adoption of this Speciec Plan, are not required to obtain a license
for a period of one year from adoption.
Applications
The application for a Vendors License shall be signed by the
applicant and shall include:
1)
The name, home, and business address'of the applicant, and
the name and address of the owner, if other than the
applicant, of the rending stand to be used in the operation of
the vendlug business.
2)
A description of the type of food, beverage, or merchandise
to be sold.
3) A description and photograph (including signage and colors)
of any stand to be used in. the operation of the business.
Issuance and Fees
Not later than 30 days after the filing of a completed application for
a vendor's license, the applicant shall be not/fled of the decision on
the issuance or denial of the license.
1)
2)
3)
Fees shall be determined by Resolution of the City Coundl
and shall be paid prior to issuance of a permit.
4)
Licenses to vend within the Specific Plan area shall be
reviewed and approved by the Director in coniunction with
the Business License Registration Program, Building and
Safety and the Engineering Depart~nent.
5)
6)
There should be at least 200 square feet of useable or
recognizable plaza or courtyard area for each allowed
outdoor rending cart. The rending should be free of all
obstructions within a six foot perimeter.
Locations br vending within the Specific Plan area shall be
approved by the Director. Vending locations shall be
designated based on the ability of the site to safely
accommodate the use by not interfering with pedestrian
circulation and access or veln/de circulation or parking. The
Director may require that the stand be removed from the
location and stored out of public view when not in use.
Vending locations may change only upon wri~en request by
an applicant and approva/by the Director.
All vending locations shall be on privately owned,
developed, corninertial property wit. kin the Specific Plan
area.
Term and Renewal
All licenses are valid for one year unless revoked or suspended
prior to expiration. A_n application to renew a license shall be made
not later than 60 days before the expiration of the current license.
License fees and renewal procedures shall be established in accor-
dance with the Business License Registration Program procedures
outlined in the'M unidpal Code.
Prohibited Conduct and Hours of Operation
It shall be prohibited for any outdoor vendor to operate under any
of the following conditions:
1)
Operate 'between 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. of the following day
unless in conjunction with a spedal event.
2) Leave any vending stand unattended.
3)
Store, park, or leave any vending stand within any public
right-of-way or on any undeveloped or othervise vacant
property.
4) Sell food or beverages for immediate consumption unless
there is a litter receptacle available nearby for public use.
5) Leave any location without first picking up, removing and
disposing of all trash or refuse remaining from sales made
from the stand.
6)
Allow any ite~'~s relating to the operation of the vending
business to be placed anywhere other than in, on or under
the stand.
7)
Set UP, maintain or permit fie use of any additional table,
crate, carton, rack, or any other device to increase the selling
or display capadty of the stand where such additional items
have not been approved in the by the Director.
8) Soiltit or conduct business with persons in motor veiLides.
j. Display o£ License
A/1 licenses shall be displayed in a visible and conspicuous location
at all times during the operation of the vending business.
k. Advertising
No advertising, except the posting of prices, shaill be pertained on
any stand, except to identify the name of the product or the name
of the vendor.
1. Denial, Suspension, and Revocation
Any license may be denied, suspended, or revoked in accordance
with the procedures in the Municipal Code for any of the following
causes:
1)
Fraud or misrepresentation contained in me application for
the license.
2)
Fraud or misrepresentation made in the course of carrying on
the business of vending.
3)
Conduct of the licensed business in such manner as to create
a public nuisance, or constitute a danger to the public health,
safety, welfare, or morals.
4) Conduct which is contrary to the provisions of this section.
Bed and Breakfast Establishments
a. Purpose
The .purpose of this Section is to provide standards for the
development/operation of Bed and Breakfast estab]istunents in Old
Town.
ITEM 29
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council
Ron Roberrs, Mayor~
August 28 1994
J.F. DAVIDSON TIMELINES FOR WINCHEST~ ROAD
IMPROVEMENTS
After not receiving a current status report from J.F. Davidson
regarding their engineering work on Winchester, Overland and
Rancho California Road improvements for several months, I
directed staff to contact them for an update. The next day I
received an u~date without a timeline as has been the case with
the other status reports. I did notice a change order submitted
by Davidson for $129,002 without further explanation in the
report.
I contacted Mr. John canty, president and CEO of J.F. Davidson,
and requested a timeline of the projects of which I received
last Friday. You will notice that the Winchester Road project
construction timeline has been extended from the end of this
year to May of 1995 without an explanation. I find this
unacceptable and hope you also feel the same way. I am asking
for th~s to be put on the next council meeting agenda for
discussion.
c.c. city Manager City Clerk
Public Works Director
J. F. DAVIDSON ASSOCIATES, INC.
ENGINEERIN,G~ Pt. ANNIN.~ SLII~'E'YIN,~ LANDSCAPE A RCffiTECIURE
FACSIMILE TRANSMII'rAL
FAX NO. (909) 686-5954
PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGEfS} TO:
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES (Including cover
IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF THE PAGES, PLEASE CALL US AT (909) 686-0844
AND ASK FOR:
ORIGINAL TO FOLLOW V~, MAIL
ITEM 30
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY A'I'TORNEY. K..R~
FINANCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT'
City Council/City Manager
Harwood T. Edvalson, Assistant City Manager ~
September 13, 1994
Cable Television Rate Regulation Procedures
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council adopt a Resolution entitled:
"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA ADOPTING ADMINISTRATIVE
PROCEDURES TO REGULATE CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT
RATES AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 93-74"
BACKGROUND:
FCC Regulations authorize each city to regulate the rates that the cable operator charges for
cable television services and equipment. In order to engage in such rate regulation, the City
must first certify with the FCC as a rate regulator and, within 120 days of such certification,
adopt minimal rate regulation procedures.
On September 14, 1993, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 93-74, adopting such
minimal procedural requirements for determining maximum cable television rates. Since that
time, the City has had experience with reviewing rates and implementing rate regulation. In
particular, Staff has discovered that the information submitted on the FCC forms for
determining maximum rates needs to be supplemented by additional information so that the
City can fully determine whether the cable operator has correctly completed the form.
Moreover, and as anticipated with the recent implementation of new FCC regulations, the City
has received a new rate form submitted by Inland Valley during the month of August.
In order to expedite the next round of rate review, it is recommended that the City Council
adopt a new resolution establishing administrative procedures for reviewing rates. Very
briefly, this resolution accomplishes the following:
1)
The City Manager, or his designee, is authorized to take all steps necessary to
implement rate regulation. These steps include obtaining FCC certification as
a rate regulator.
2)
The Resolution establishes the minimum information the cable operator shall
submit along with its rate regulation forms. In addition, the City Manager may
request such additional information as he may reasonably determine is
necessary to complete the rate review.
3)
The City Manager is authorized to cause tO be prepared a written report
reviewing the proposed rates of the cable operator and advising whether the
rates comply with FCC regulations. The City Manager will then cause a public
hearing to be noticed before the City Council at which time the City Manager's
report will be considered along with any written or oral comments of the cable
operator or any other interested parties. The City Council may then make the
final rate determination by way of written resolution.
4)
Because the FCC is responsible for determining maximum rates for the cable
programming service tier, the City Manager is authorized to file a Form 329 with
the FCC within 45 days of any increase in the rates charged for this tier of
service. In this manner, the City will be insured that the FCC will review these
rates with the second tier of service.
5)
If the cable operator should choose to justify its rates based upon a cost-of-
service showing rather than the benchmark formula, the City Manager is
authorized to request the FCC to make this determination rather than the City.
(Because a cost-of-service showing requires substantially more effort to review
than a benchmark filing, the FCC has authorized cities to petition the FCC to
review such rates in place of local review).
6)
The Resolution also contains a procedure for enforcing the FCC regulations as
well as any rate orders issued by the City. Briefly, it provides that if the
operator fails to comply with the rate order or fails to submit information as
requested; the City Manager can notify the operator of its failure to comply and
require the operator to cure the default within ten days. Should the operator fail
to comply, the City Manager will cause a public hearing to be held before the
City Council. The City Council may in its discretion then impose fines upon the
Cable Operator for its default.
FISCAL ANALYSIS:
The City received $170,000 in franchise fees from its only cable TV provider, Inland Valley
Cablevision, during FY 1993-94. These revenues support general fund services. Aside from
staff time in the City Manager's Office, the City's expenditures were approximately $600 in
legal fees from Burke, Williams & Sorensen to assist with the implementation of rate regulation
in the last fiscal year.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF ~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF
TEMECULA ADOFrING ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURF-~ TO
REGULATE CABLE T~,L~-VISION SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT
RATES AND REPEALrNG I~E~OLUTION NO. 93-74
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition
Act of 1992 (47 U.S.C. § 521 et. seq.~ (the '1992 Cable Act*), and the regulations of the
Federal Regulations), the City has been certified to regulate the rates charged for cable
television services and equipment;
WHEREAS, the FCC Regulations require the City to adopt procedures for regulating
the basic service tier within 120 days of being certified;
WHEREAS, although the City has previously adopted rate regulation procedures
pursuant to Resolution No. 93-74, it desires to adopt revised procedures;
NOW, Ti~EREFORE, BE IT I~F-qOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Temecula as follows:
Section 1. DEFINII1ONS
1.1
"1992 Cable Act" means the Cable Television Consumer ProtectiOn and
Competition Act of 1992 (47 U.S.C. § 521 et. sea_.~.
1.2
"Cable Operator" means any person or business entity operating a cable
television system within the City and subject to regulation of cable television
services and equipment pursuant to the 1992 Cable Act.
1.3
"FCC Regulations: mean the regulations the FCC has adopted regarding rate
regulation as set forth at Ti~e 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, § 76.900
et. seq.. including any amendments thereto.
1.4 "City Manager" means the City Manager or his designee.
1.5
"FCC Rate Regulation Form: means FCC Form 393, 1200, 1205, 1215, 1220,
1225 or such similar forms as the FCC may adopt for the determination of
maximum permitted rates for regulated cable services and equipment.
1.6
"Subscriber* means any person or entity utilizing or desiring to utiliTe cable
operator provided cable television services for consideration. *Subscriber*
also means "customer(s)" and/or *subscribers" as those terms are used in the
1992 Cable Act and FCC Rate Regulations.
1.7 "FCC" means the Federal Communications Commission.
Section 2. INCORPORATION OF THE FCC RATE REGULATIONS
2.1
Incorporation of FCC REgulations. The City Council hereby incorporates by
reference the FCC REgulations as part of these procedures.
2.2
Compliance with the 1992 Cable Act and FCC REgulations. These procedures
shall at all times be interpreted to comply with the 1992 Cable Act as
amended, and the FCC REgulations. In the event any provision of these
procedures shall be invalidated for any reason or cause, any remaining
portions shall be deemed s~vered and shall remain in full force and effect.
Sectioh 3. CERTIFICATION
3.1
Application for Certification. The City Manager is directed to take all
necessary action to secure FCC certification for the City to regulate rates
charged for cable television services and equipment.
Section 4.
DETERMINATION OF MAXIMUM PERMITFED RATES FOR
CABLE TELEVISION SERVICES AND EOUIPMENT
4.1
Submittal of FCC Rate Regulation Forms. The City Manager is directed to
take all necessary action to secure submittal by the Cable Operator of
completed FCC Rate Regulation Forms.
4.2
Submittal of Additional Information with FCC Rate Regulation Form.
Concurrently, with submitling the applicable FCC Ram Regulation Form
establishing maximum rams for cable television service and equipment, the
Cable Operator shall submit the following information:
A. The name, address and telephone number of the person who prepared the FCC
Rate Regulation Form or the person the Cable Operator othenvise designates to answer any
questions the City may have regarding the Form.
B. Channel Line-ups and rates for each tier and channel, and for equipment and
installation as of (i) the initial date of regulation; (li) the date of the Rate Regulation Form
(ih') September 30, 1992; (iv) April 5, 1993; (v) March 31, 1994; and (vi) July 15, 1994.
C. Subscriber counts as of (i) September 30, 1992; (ii) April 5, 1993; Ctii) the
initial date of regulation; (vi) March 31, 1994; (v) July 15, 1994; and (vi) the date of the
FCC Rate Regulation Form. Counts should be for the basic and cable programming services
tiers, and for all a h carte channels. Subscribers to bnlk rate agreements should be itemized
separately.
D. If any channels are shared between two or more services, identify the services
involved and the approximate percentage of time each service occupied the channels.
E. If any FM services have been removed from the basic or cable pwgramming
service tiers since April 1, 1993, indicate which service and the date removed.
F. The General Ledger and the following subsidiary records:
1. Fixed assets records, including depreciation schedules;
2. Payroll records, including depreciation schedules;
3. Selected supporting documents, including, but not limited to, (i)
invoices supporting equipment purchases, (ii) building leases, (iii) capital equipment leases,
and (iv) truck'maintenance contracts and invoices;
depreciation; and
Schedules indicating differences between book depreciation and tax
5. Schedules supporting all allocation and computations on the FCC Rate
Regulation.
G. Report of gross revenues for purposes of franchise fee payments for two (2)
years preceding the date of FCC Rate Regulation Form.
H. Copies of all bulk rate and special (e.g., senior citizens) rate agreements.
I. State whether a customer may subscribe to basic tier service and purchase a
pay channel or paper-view programming without purchasing an intr.~medlate tier or paying
any additional fee. If answer is no, explain why.
4.3 Additional Information. The Cable Operator shall submit such additional
information as the City Manager may determine is necessary to determine maximum
permitted rates for cable television sexyices and equipment. The Cable Operator shall fully
respond to such requests for additional information within 14 days of receipt of the request.
4.4 City' s Power to Audit Cable Operator. Pursuant to 47 CFR § 76.930, the
City may conduct its own audit of the financial records of the Cable Operator to determine ff
the FCC Rate Regulation Form truly and accurately reflect the actual cost of regulated
equipment.
4.5 Time to Determine Rates. Pursuant to 47 CFR § 76.933, 'the City Manager
may issue such orders as he determines are reasonably necessavj to extend the time to review
the FCC Rate Regulation Form submitted and determine the maximum permitted rates.
4.6 Cost of Service Showing. Upon receipt of a Cost of Service Showing, the
City Manager shall rake all steps necessary, including filing a potition for special relief, to
cause the FCC to evaluate the cost of Service Showing.
4.7 City Manager Rste Report. The City Manager shall review the FCC Rate
Regulation Form and additional information submitted by Cable Opentor, and prepare a
written report to the City Council recommending whether the existing or proposed rates are
within the FCC's p~udtted basic sen, ice tier charge or actual cost of equipment as deftned in
5§ 76.922 and 76.923.
4.8 Public Hearing. Prior to thairing .any detertnination whether the Cable
Operator's existing or proposed rates are within the FCC's permitted basic service tier
charge or actual cost of equipment as defined in 5§ ?6.922 and 76.923, the City Council
shall conduct a noticed public hearing, at which lime, interested parties will be given the
opportunity to submit written and oral testimony. Written notice of the public and oral
testimony. Written notice of the public hearing shall be provided to the Cable Operator at
least ten (10) days prior to the public hearing.
4.9 Rate Determination. At the public heating, Cable Operator shall have the
burden of pwving that its existing or proposed rates for basic service and associated
equipment comply with 47 U.S.C. 543, AND 47 CFR 55 76.922 AND 76.923. If the Cable
Operator does not attempt to demonstrate the reasonableness of its rates, the Council may
find the Operator in default and, using the best information available, enter an order finding
the Cable Operator's rates unreasonable and mandating appropriate relief, as speckfled in 47
CFR 55 76.940, 76.941 and 76.942. The City Council shall malce all rate determinations by
way of written Resolution.
4.10 Submittal of FCC Form 329. The City Manager is directed to submit a FCC
Form 329 within 45 days of any rate increase by the Cable Operator to insure FCC review of
cable programming service rates.
Section 5. REFUNDS TO SUBSCRIBERS
5.1 Refunds to Subscribers. All refunds owing by the Cable Operator to
Subscribers pursuant to 'the FCC Regulations shall be paid by direct or credited to the
Subscriber's bill pursuant to 47 CFR 5 76.942(d)(1) or (2) within thirty (30) days from the
date of the implementation of a pwspective rate reduction.
5.2 Trust Account. If after reasonable and diligent efforts to make payments of
monies refundable to Subscribers, the Operator is unable to effectuate such payments for any
reason, the Operator shall establish a Trust Account and deposit to it the actual payment of
monies refundable to Subscriber who cannot be located and payment effectuated.
5.3 Distributions from Trust Account. Monies from the Trust Account shall be
distributed December 31 of each year to the City for government access television
programming.
Section 6. ENFORCEMENT
6.1 Whenever the City Manager believes there has been a material breach of these
Procedures and/or the FCC Regulation, he shall notify the Cable Operator in writing to cure
the breach. The City Manager shall establish a minimum lime to cul~ the breach, which in
no event shall be less than ten (10) days. The notice shall specify any refund liability, ff
any. The written notice to the Cable Operator shall be by certified mail or other means
providing for certification of receipt.
6.2 "Upon _receiving the City Manager's notice of the breach, the Cable Operator
shall investigate the alleged breach, and within the time period established in the notice,
notify the City Manager in writing of the results of the investigation and its proposed action
or resolution, if any. In the event the City Manager does n6t refer the matter to the City
Council as pr6vided under this Resolution within thirty (30) days of the receipt of the Cable
Operator's response, the Operator's proposed action or resolution shall be final.
6.3 Following a determination of the City Manager that the Cable Openmr has
failed to cure a breach of these procedures and/or the FCC Regulations, the City Manager
may initiate enforcement proceedings with respect to the breach. Such enforcement
proceedings may be initiated by the City Manager providing the Cable Operator notice of a
public hearing before the City Council. Notice shall be provided to the Cable Operator by
certified mail or other means providing for certification of receipt.
6.4 The City Council shall commence the hearing no less than ten (10) days of the
hearing notice.
6.5 Upon the conclusion of the heating, the City Council shall adopt a decision,
which includes findings of fact and conclusions of law.
6.6 If the hearing is conducted by the City Council, upon conclusion of the
hearing, City Council shall adopt a decision which induces findings of fact and conclusions
of law.
6.7 The City Council my impose fines or monetary forfeitures on the Cable
Operator if it fails to comply with these procedures, the FCC Regulations or a rate decision
of the City Council.
6.8 Neither monetary sanctions imposed hereunder nor any order issued by the
City Council related hereto shall be deemed to bar or otherwise limit the fight of the City
Council to obtain judicial enforcement of the Cable Operator's obligations by means of
specific performance, injunctive relief, mandate or other remedies at law or inequity, other
than monetary damages.
Section 7. Resolution No. 93-74 is hereby repealed.
STATE OF CALmORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)ss
CITY OF TEIvlrsCULA)
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do h~.by c~'tify that the foregoing
Resolution No. 94-__ was duly and reg.!~rly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a r~gular meeting thu-eof held on Lhe day of September, 1994, by the
following vote:
AYES: "COUNCILMRMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILM~MBERS:
ABSENT: 'COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILM~MBERS:
June S. Greek, City Clerk
TEMECULA COMMUNITY
SERVICES DISTRICT
ITEM I
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
HELD AUGUST 9, 1994
A regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District was called to order at 8:10
P.M. at the Temecula Community Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California.
President Jeff Stone presiding.
PRESENT: 4 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Parks, Roberrs, Stone
ABSENT: 1 DIRECTORS: Mu~oz
Also present were General Manager Ronald E. Bradley, General Counsel Peter Thorson, and
City Clerk June S. Greek.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
Director Roberts removed Item No. 3 for discussion.
It was moved by Director Birdsall, seconded by Director Parks to approve Consent Calendar
Items 1,2, 4 and 5.
The motion carried as follows:
4 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Parks, Roberts, Stone
0 DIRECTORS: None
1 DIRECTORS: Mu~oz
Minute~
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
1.
CSDMIN08/09/94
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of July 26, 1994.
Amendment to the Construction Contract with Martin J. Jaska for Construction of Pala
Community Park - Proiect No. PW93-03CSD
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve Amendment No. 1, revising the Construction Contract with martin J.
Jaska for the Construction of Pala Community Park, Project No. PW93-03CSD,
by reducing the scope of work and cost associated with completing this work
08/16/94
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MINUTES
CSDMINOB/O9194
AUGUST 9, 1994
to an amount not to exceed 81,714,500.00.
2.2 Authorize the General Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the
contingency amount of 8171,450.00, which is equal to 10% of the contract
amount.
Award of Construction Contract for Lone Valley Wash - Channel Repair, PWO4-O6CSD
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Award a contract for the Long Valley Wash - Channel Repair, PW94-06CSD, to
Trautwein Construction for 831,000.00and authorize the President to execute
the contract.
4.2 Authorize the General Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the
contingency amount of 83,100.00, which is equal to 10% of the contract
amount.
4.3 Transfer 815,397.00 from TCSD Fund Balance in Service Level C and
appropriate this amount to the Capital Improvement Fund.
Acceptance of the Community Recreation Center - Phase II, Project NO, PW92-29B
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Accept the Community Recreation Center - Phase II, Project No. PW92-029B,
as complete.
5.2 Direct the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion, release the Performance
Bond, and accept a one-year Maintenance Bond (10% of contract amount).
5.3 Direct the City Clerk to release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months
after the filing of the Notice of Completion if no liens have been field to that
date.
Contract Chanae Order No. 2, Sports Park Slooe Repair, Project No. PW93-O6CSD
Director Roberrs expressed concern regarding the amount of the change order which
appeared excessive to him.
Community Services Director Shawn Nelson said the engineer who prepared the design
element was not aware that there would be a requirement by MWD to cap over the
water lines.
Director Parks explained the cost of the concrete cap over the water lines was a
significant amount of the change order.
2 08/16194
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MINUTES AUGUST 9, 1994
Pubtic Works Director Tim Serlet explained that each project is not constructed exactly
to the design of the project.
It was moved by Director Roberts, seconded by Director Parks to approve staff
recommendation as follows:
3.1 Approve Contract Change Order No. 2 for the Sports Park Slope Repair, Project
No. PW93-06CSD, for labor, material and equipment in the amount of
$77,977,00.
3.2 Transfer $72,482.54from TCSD Fund Balance and appropriate this amount to
the Capital Improvement Fund.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Parks, Roberts, Stone
NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSENT: 1 DIRECTORS: Mu~oz
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
None
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT
None
BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS
None
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Director Birdsall to adjourn at 8:35 P.M. The
motion was unanimously carried with Director Mu~oz absent.
The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Community Services District will be held on
Tuesday, August 23, 1994, 8:00 P.M., at the Temecula Community Center, 30875 Rancho
Vista Road, Temecula, California.
ATTEST:
City Clerk June S. Greek
President Jeff Stone
CSDMIN08109/94 3 OB/16/94
MINTUES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1994
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Community Services District was calted to order
on Tuesday, August 23, 1994, 8:48 P.M., at the Temecula Community Recreation Center,
30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California, President Jeffrey E. Stone presiding.
PRESENT: 5 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Mu~oz, Parks, Roberrs, Stone
ABSI~NT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
Also present were General Manager Ronald E. Bradley, City Attorney Peter Thorson,
Deputy City Clerk Susan Jones.
CONSENT CALENDAR
It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Director Roberrs to approve Consent
Calendar Items 1 and 2.
The motion was carried as follows:
AYES: 5 DIRECTORS: Birdsall, Mu~oz, Parks, Roberrs, Stone
NOES: 0 DIRECTORS: None
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
1. Combinine Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1994 and the Statement of Revenues,
Expenditures and Chanees in Fund Balance for the Year Ended June 30, 1994
RECOMMENDATrON:
1.1 Receive and file the Combining Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1994 and the
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the
year ended June 30, 1994.
1.2 Appropriate ~7,100to account 191-180-999-5319"Street Lighting"
(Service Level A Fund).
1.3 Appropriate $4,842 to account 250-190-129-5227 "Trustee Administration
Fees" (Capital Projects Fund).
1.4 Appropriate $128,864to account 250-190o129-5802"Design-Community
Recreation Center" (Capital Projects Fund).
CSDMIN08/23/94 I 08/29f94
2. Contract Chanoe Order No. 3, Sports Park Slope Repair, Proiect NO. PW93-06.CSD
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve Contract Change Order No. 3 for the Sports Park Slope Repair,
Project No. PW93-06.CSD, for labor, material and equipment in the amount
of $4,830,.00.
2.2 Transfer $4,830.00 from TCSD Fund Balance and appropriate this amount to
the Capital Improvement Fund.
DEPARTMENTAL REPORT
None
GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT
None
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT
None
BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORTS
Director Parks referred to a letter to the Editor in the Californian regarding the use of Santa
Gertrudis Creek for bike paths. Director Parks asked staff to review a joint use of the
Santa Gertrudis Creek, Temecula Creek and Santiago Trail easements.
Director Nelson advised that a member of the City Staff will be meeting with County
Supervisor Bob Buster to discuss joint use of trails.
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Director Parks, seconded by Director Robarts to adjourn at 8:50 P.M.
The motion was unanimously carried.
The next regular meeting of the Temecula Community Services District will be held on
September 13, 1994, 8:00 PM, Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road,
Temecula, California.
ATTEST:
President Jeffrey E. Stone
City Clerk June S. Greek
CSDMIN08/23/94
O8/29/94
REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
ITEM 1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
HELD AUGUST 9, 1994
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order
Tuesday, August 9, 1994, 8:35 P.M. at the Temecula Community Recreation Center, 30875
Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California. Chairperson Ronald J. Parks presiding.
PRESENT: 4
ABSENT: 1
AGENCY MEMBERS:
AGENCY MEMBERS:
Birdsall, Roberts, Stone, Parks
Mu~oz
Also present were Executive Director Ronald E. Bradley, General Counsel Peter Thorson, and
Agency Secretary June S. Greek.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None
AGENCY BUSINESS
1. Minutes
It was moved by Agency Member Stone, seconded by Agency Member Roberts to
approve staff recommendation as follows:
1.1 Approve the minutes of July 26, 1994.
AYES: 4 AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Roberts, Stone, Parks
NOES: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 1 AGENCY MEMBERS: Mu~oz
Chamber of Commerce Aareement
Finance Director Mary Jane Henry presented the staff report.
It was moved by Agency Member Roberts, seconded by Agency Member Stone to
approve staff recommendation as follows:
2.1
AYES:
NOES:
Approve the FY 1994-95 agreement with the Chamber of Commerce to provide
services and authorize the Executive Director to execute the contract.
4 AGENCY MEMBERS:
Birdsall, Roberts, Stone, Parks
0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
RDA08/09/94 1 08/16/94
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
ABSENT: 1 AGENCY MEMBERS: Mu~oz
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Executive Director Ron Bradley announced that on Wednesday, September 7, 1994, the
representatives of Price Waterhouse will deliver and present to the Redevelopment Agency
their report on the Old Town Entertainment Proposal study. Director Bradley said the direction
by the Agency will most likely be to refer the report to staff for further review.
Agency Member Stone asked staff to increase the advertising of that meeting.
Agency Member Parks asked that the September 7, 1994 meeting be televised.
Agency Member Birdsall said she feels the RDA needs to review the project while the analysis
is being presented before a decision is made whether or not this issue will be placed on the
ballot. Agency Member Birdsall said staff should provide a cost analysis for adding this issue
to the ballot.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
None
AGENCY MEMBER'S REPORTS
None
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Agency Member Birdsall, seconded by Agency Member Stone to adjourn at
8:43 P.M. The motion was unanimously carried with Agency Member Mu~oz absent.
The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency will be held on
Tuesday, August 23, 1994, 8:00 P.M., at the Temecula Community Recreation Center, 30875
Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California.
AUGUST 9,1994
Chairperson Ronald J. Parks
ATTEST:
City Clerk June S. Greek
RDA08/09/94 2 08116/94
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 1994
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order on
Tuesday, August 23, 1994, 8:50 P.M. at the Temecula Community Recreation Center,
30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California, Chairperson Ronald J. Parks presiding.
PRESENT: 5
AGENCY MEMBERS:
Birdsall, MuAoz, Roberts, Stone,
Parks
ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
Also present were Executive .Director Ronald E. Bradley, City Attorney Peter Thorson,
Deputy City Clerk Susan Jones.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Therese McLeod, 42200 Main Street, #F128, Temecula, addressed the view expressed by
Councilmember Parks regarding the benefits to the community from the Zev Buffman
proposal. Ms. McLeod asked the City Council to consider approving a binding vote of the
project by the public.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Agency Member Roberts removed Item No. 2 from the Consent Calendar.
It was moved by Agency Member Birdsall, seconded by Agency Member Stone to approve
Consent Calendar Item No. 1.
The motion was carried as follows:
AYES: 5
AGENCY MEMBERS:
Birdsall, Mu~oz, Roberts, Stone,
Parks
NOES:
0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
Combinina Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1994 and the Statement of Revenues.
Expenditures end Chanoes in Fund Balance for the year ended June 30, 1994
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1
Receive and file the Combining Balance Sheet as of June 30, 1994 and the
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance for the
year ended June 30, 1994.
RDAMINOB/23/94
08/29194
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES AUGUST 23, 1994
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR°S REPORT
Director Bradley advised the Agency the Price Waterhouse Report on the Old Town
Temecula Entertainment project will be presenting during a special meeting to be herd on
Wednesday, September 7, 1994, 7:00 P.M., at the Temecula Community Recreation
Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California.
AGENCY MEMBER'S REPORTS
None
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Agency Member Stone, seconded by Agency Member Roberts to adjourn
at 9:15 P.M. to a special meeting to be held on Wednesday, September 7, 1994, at the
Temecula Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California.
Chairperson Ronald J, Parks
ATTEST:
City Clerk June S. Greek
RDAMINOBI23/94 3 O8/29/94
ITEM 2
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINkNCE OFFICER
CITY MANAGER
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Executive Director/Agency Members
Mary Jane McLarney, Finance Officer
September 13, 1994
RDA Commercial Rehabilitation Loan Criteria
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council amend the Redevelopment Agency
Loan Program for Commercial Rehabilitation (RDA Loan) criteria to allow for exceptions on a
case-by-case basis to allow loans that exceed the $100,000 limit when aDpropriate.
DISCUSSION: On May 11, 1993 the City Council approved, in concept, a small
business loan program and established funding limits of four loans at $100,000 and five loans
at $50,000 for a total pool of $650,000. (Attachment "B")
On January 25, 1994 staff then brought forward to Council the recommended parameters of
the RDA Commercial Rehabilitation Loan Program to comply with AB 1290. In Attachment
"C" are the minutes of that meeting and a copy of the Staff Report with its attachments.
Since the inception of the RDA loan program, the City has processed 10 loan applications,
approved 6 applications and funded 3 of these loans for a total of $109,400. Attachment "D"
summarizes the applications accepted and processed to date.
As noted above, the existing loan criteria limits the maximum loan amount to $100,000. This
limit was to ensure that an adequate amount of loans would be available to applicants in the
program.
Recently, staff received applications for loans in excess of the $1 00,000 1imit. These loans
were to be used in the "Old Town" area of Temecula for rehabilitating a commercial building
and financing equipment and tenant improvements for that building, consistent with the intent
of the Redevelopment Agency. Although the loans for these projects exceeded the authorized
amount, they would have provided rehabilitation for a distressed building in Old Town
Temecula. In order to better facilitate a project such as this, we have had discussions with
other redevelopment professionals and have determined that the Agency's Facade
Improvement Program will be an appropriate tool for a commercial building rehabilitation
project. This program is included in the Capital Improvement Program and is scheduled for
implementation this fiscal year.
In connection with the consideration of the above loan, questions have arisen concerning the
City's process for reviewing applications. Attachment "E" includes the City's procedures for
loan review, including but not limited to review of TRW reports, preparing UCC filings,
recording trust deeds and so forth. It should be noted that the Health and Safety Code
requires that the applicant must not have any other alternatives for loan funding in order to
receive an RDA loan. Therefore, this finding is made at the time the loan is reviewed by the
loan committee (bank executive and CPA).
Attachments:
"A" RDA Commercial Rehabilitation Loan Application/Criteria
"B" May 11,1993 Agenda Report and Minutes
"C" January 25, 1994 Agenda Report and Minutes
"D" RDA Commercial Rehabilitation Loan Applicants
"E" RDA Loan Procedures
S n 90 f909~ 694-198~ · FAX fgO~. 5~=-1c~=
TF_,NIECULA P-k'T}EVFJ~OPMENT AGENCY
Small Business Loan Program
For Rehabilitating Commercial Buildilags and Structures and
F'mancing Manufacturing Facilities and Equipment
I ELIGIBILITY
1. Business must be located within Redevelopment Project Arm.
2. Business shall be organized for profit.
3. New business ventures less than one year old must contribute at least 30% cash to
the total project cost. For existing businesses, the debt/equity ratio must not exceed
4:1 (including amount of proposed loan).
4. Business must establish that it has or can obtain the necessary knowledge to operate
the business profitably.
5. Business must establish the marketability of your product or service.
6. Business must demonstrate the ability to repay the loan from business cash flow.
?. Lo~n must be secured with collateral (unencumbered value or equity) equal to 100 %
of loan amount.
8. Loan amount may not exceed $100,000.
H PERMHTIzD USES OF LOAN FUNDS
1. Construct, expand or convert commercial buildings and structures.
2. Finance manufacturing machinery, fLxtures and capital equipment.
III SECURITY
Trust Deed on business or personal real estate, or security interest in equipment.
Generally variable rams are tied to the Prime Rate + 2% and annual and lifetime rate
caps may be made available. Rates are usually adjusted semi-annually. Fixed rates are
available at Prime Rate + 2% for the life of the loan.
V T~=RMS
Five years amortized over the life of new equipment, but not beyond the term of property
lease. Twenty years is applicable for real estate improvement. There is no prepayment
penalty.
VI FEES
$250 plus actual costs such as UCC fees, title and appraisal, recording, etc.
can be paid from loan proceeds or paid by borrower.
These fees
VII PROHIBITED USE
1. Raw land acquisition, speculative new construction, or real estate purchased for the
purpose of resale by the Borrowers, for their own account, where the prospect of
profit will result from market fluctuations.
2. Account trading in commodity futures.
3. Mineral exploration and development of ventures, such as, but not limited to, "wild
card" petroleum, gas, mineral and other prospecting where profit will result from
the discovery of something of value.
4. Gambling.
5. Proceeds will be used in a business located outside the City of Temecula.
6. Publications of newspapers, magazines and journals of all types.
7. To pay-off creditors who are inadequately secured, which axe past due and/or have
not been properly serviced by the debtor.
CITECKLIST FOR PI~ELIM]NARY APPROVAL
The
following items are necessary to review your loan request for approval.
APPLICATION
FrI~TORY OF BUSINESS
USE OF LOAN PROCEEDS (land, building, equipment)
CURRENT BUSINESS FINANCIAL STATEMF2f5 (within 60 days Of application)
INDEPENDENTLY PREPARP. B TO INCLUDE BALANCE SF/EET, INCOME
STATEMENT, AGING OF ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AND PAYABLE,
SCFrF~ULE OF DEBT.
PROJECTIONS OF INCOME AND EXPENSE (at least 12 months)
BUSINESS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS (balance
sheets and income statement)
BUSI1W. SS INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS fIRS only)
PERSONAL FINANCIAL STATEMRNT (For principals with :20% or more ownership)
PERSONAL INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS fiRS only
for principals with 20% or more ownership)
CREDIT REFORT/S (Obtained by City of Temecula)
Include copy of PROPERTY LEASE {e.g., 3 yr, 3 yr, 10 yr, etc.)
PERSONAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT
As of 19
Complete this form if 1) a sole proprietorship by the proprietor; 2) a parmership by each parmer; 3)
a corporation by each officer and each stockholder with 5% or more ownership; 4) any other person or
entity. providing a guaranty on the loan.
Narfie
Residence Phone
Residence Address
City, State, & Zip
Business Name of Applicant/Borrower
ASSETS
(Omit Cents)
LIABILITIES
(Omit Cents)
Cash on hand & in hnl~ ...................................... $
Savings Accounts ...................................................
N~s hyable (to Bk & Others)
Mo. hymnins S
Total llsbilitlcs ................................................
N~t Wo~h ........................................................
Tolal .................................................
Section 1. Source ofl~cotr~
Salsr~ .........................................................
Net Investment l~comc ....... ~ ..................................
Rcal Estate bcomc .............................. . ..............
Other Income (D~scribc)* .......................................
As Gusrtnlor or Co-Maker ..................................
L~ltl Chims & hdj~rn~nu ................................
Provision for Fed la~ome TEt .............................
Other Special D~bt .......................................
Tertns How S~cured or
(Monthly-etc.) ~ndorlzd - Type of Collat~nl
Address o Type of P~pet~
Section 6, O~er Assets, Nou:s & Accounts R. cceivsblc (D~sc~bc)
So~ial Security No.
Social Security No.
Appheam
CITY OF TEM~ULA
Application for ~u~,~ Loan
Full Add~ss
Full Sn*ec~ Address
Type of Business
County
Bank of Business Account and Address
JS~ ~ Zip
Date Business
Established
Ts, x I.D No
Tel, No. (Inc. A/C)
Number of Employees/Including
subsidiaries and affxha~es)
At Time of Appli~tion
If Loan is Approved
Subsidiaries or Aff~jates
(Sepzr=~c from above)
Use of Proceeds:
(Enter Gross DoL!ar Amounts
Rounded to Nearest Hundreds)
Loan Reque. sted
RDA Use ONLY
$ $ S
L
s s
$ $
THE FOLLOWING EXHIBITS MUST BE COMPLETED WHERE APPLICABLE. ALL QUESTIONS
ANSVv'ERED ARE MADE A PART OF TIlE APPLICATION.
For Guaranty Loans please provide an original and one copy
(Photocopy is Acceptable) of the Application Form, and all
Exhibits to the City..
1. Submit Personal Hi.story Statement for each person e.g.
owners, partners, officers, directors, major stockholders, e~.
2. Furrash a signed current personal balance sheet for each
stockholder (vdth 5 % or greamr ownership), parmer, officer,
and owner. Social Security number should be included on
personal financial statement. Label this Exhibit B.
3. Include the statements listed below: 1, 2, 3 for the last
three years; also 1, 2, 3, 4 dated within 90 days of filing the
applicatiom and statementS, ifapplicable. This is Exhibit C.
All information must be signed and dated.
1. Balance Sheet
2. Profit and Loss Statement
3. Reconciliation of Net Worth
4. Aging of Aecotmts Receivable and Payable
5. Earnings projections for at least one year where
financial statements for the last three years axe
unavailable. ('if Profit and Loss Statement is not
available, explain why and substitute Federal Income Tax
Forms.)
4. Provide a brief history of your company and a paragraph
describing the expect~t benefits it will receive from the loan.
Label it Exhibit D.
5. Provide a brief description of the educational, technical
and business background for all the people listed under
Management. Pleas~ mark it Exhibit E.
6. Do you have any co-signers and/or gnarantors for this
loan? If so, please submit their names, addresses and personal
balance sheet(s) as Exhibit F.
7. A~ you buying machinery or equipment with your loa~
money? If so, you must Include a list of the equipment and
cost as quoted by the seller and his name and address. This
is Exhibit G.
8. Have you or any officers of your company ever been
involved in b~ptcy or insolvency proceedings? Is so,
please provide the details as Exhibit H. If none, check here:
[]Yes []No
9. Are you or your business revolved m any pending
lawsuits? If yes, provide the details m Exhibit I. If none,
check hers: [ ] Yes [ ] No
10. Do you or your spouse or any member of your
household, or anyone who owns, m~nages, or directs your
business or their spouses or members of theix households
work for the City, Agency or TemecuJa Community Services
District? If su, please provide the name and address of the
person and die office where employed. Label this Exhibit J.
If none, check hers: [ ] Yes [ ] No
i1. Does your business, its owns or majority stockholders
own or have a controlling interest in other businesses? If
yes, please provide theix names and die rebRiolBhlp with yottr
company along with a current balance sheet an, operating
statement for each. This should be Exhibit K.
12. Do you buy from, sell to, or use the services of any
concern in which someone in your company has a significant
financial interest? If yes, pwvide details on a separato sheet
of paper labeled Exhibit L.
13. If your business is a franchise, include a copy of the
franchise agreement end a copy of the FfC disclosure
statement supplied to you by the Franchisor. Please include
it as Exhibit M.
14. If you have been denied credit include two bank
decimation letters with your application. These letlers should
include the name and telephone number of the persons
contacted at the banks, the amount and terms of the loall, and
the reason for decline. In cities with 200,000 people or less,
one letter will be sufficient.
AGREEMENTS AND CERTIFICATIONS Certification:
I/We ce~fy: (a) I/We have not paid anyone connected with
the City of Temecula for help m obtaining this loan. I/We
also agree to report to the City of Temecula any city employee
who offers, in remm for any type of compensation, to help get
this loan approved.
(b) All information in this application and die Exhibits are
true and complete to the best of mytour knowledge and are
subraft-,,,4 to the City of Temecula so the Temecula
Redevelopment Agency can decide whether to grant a loan or
participate with a lending institution in a loan to me/us. I/We
agree to pay for or reimburse the Temecula Redevelopmeat
Agency for the cost of any surveys, title or mortgage
eXaminatiOnS, appraisals etc,, perforaled by non-City of
Temecula personnel provided I/we have given my/our consent.
If Applicant is a proprietor or general parmer, sign below:
By:
Date
If Applicant is a Corporation, sign below:
Corporate Name and Seal
Date
CONSTRUCTION LOANS ONLY
15. :include a separate exhibit (Exhibit ND die estimated cost
of the project and a statement of the source of any additional
16. Provide evidence of all necessm-y governmental approvals
(e.g., permits, vanantes, etc.)
17. Provide copies of prsliminary construction plans end
specifications. Include them as Exhibit O. Final plans will
be required prior to disbursement.
EXPORT LOANS
18. Does your business presently engage in Export Trade?
Check here: [ ] Yes [ ] No
19. Do you plan to begin expofling as a result of this loan?
Check here: [ ] Yes [ ] No
By:
Attested by:
Signature of President
Signature of Corporate Secretary
Z
_z
APPROVA("'
CITY ATTOBN,L=-Y-,3r'~_
FINANCE OFFICER~
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Redevelopment Agency
David F. Dixon, Executive Director
May 11, 1993
Small Business Incentive Loan Program
PREPARED BY:
Mary Jane McLarney, Finance Officer
Scott F. Field, General Counsel
RECOMMENDATION: That the Agency review the Small Business Incentive Loan
Program and authorize the Agency to implement the program, subject to Agency approval
of individual loans on a case by case basis.
DISCUSSION: As part of the City's Economic Development Program the City Council
and City Manager have had on-going discussions regarding a Small Business Incentive
Loan Program. Following are key elements of the program for your review.
Tarqet:
Retocation or retention of a business with sixty (60) employees or less.
SC0De:
A program maximum of $1,000,000 of Redevelopment Agency tax increment proceeds
with a maximum loan amount of $150,000. Such money will initially be drawn from the
Redevelopment Revolving Fund.
Review Committee:
A review committee will be assembled and consist of three members of the banking
commumty with expertise in small business lending, one member of the Council Finance
Committee. City Finance Officer and the Executive Director. The committee will also
assist with the preparation of the loan qualification criteria and other operational
guidelines,
Agenda Reoort
Small BusinessIncentive Loan Program
May 11, 1993
Page 2.
Rate Terms:
City's cost of funds plus administration and reserve funding; five year repayment,
amortized over ten years. We are anticipating an initial rate of 5.5%.
Security:
Trust Deed on business or personal real estate, or security interest in equipment.
Permitted Use:
Construct, expand or convert facilities for use in the course of the commercial or industrial
borrower's business. '
Acquire real property for the purpose of starting operations or economically bettering the
existing operations of a small business.
Purchase machinery, fixtures and equipment,
Prohibited Use:
Raw land acquisition, speculative new construction, or real estate purchased for the
purpose of resale by the Borrowers, for their own account, where the prospect of profit
will result ,from market fluctuations.
Account trading in commodity futures.
Mineral exploration and development of ventures, such as, but not limited to, "wild cat"
petroleum, gas, mineral and other prospecting where profit will result from the discovery
of something of value.
Gambling.
Proceeds will be used outside of Temecula.
Publications of newspapers, magazines and journals of all types.
To pay-off creditors who are inadequately secured which are past due and or have not
been properly serviced by the debtor.
Agenda Report
Small BusinessIncentive Loan Program
May 11, 1993
Page 3.
For distribution or payment to owner*partners or shareholders of the applicant, or to
replenish working capital previously used for such purposes.
Leoal Authority
Each redevelopmerit agency has the authority to exercise governmental functions and has
the powers prescribed in Health and Safety Code sections 33000 to 33738. (Health and
Safety Code section 33122.)
According to Health and Safety Code section 33071.
"a fundamental purpose of redevelopment is to expand the supply of low
and moderate income housing, to expand employment opportunities for the
jobless, underemployed, and low-income persons, and to provide an
environment foi' the social, economic, and psychological growth and well-
being of all citizens."
Section 33125(c) states that a redevelopmerit agency may "Ira]eke and execute contracts
and other instruments necessary or convenient to the exercise of its powers."
In Marek v. Naoa Communitv Redevelooment Aoencv (1988) 46 Cal.3d 1070, the court
further explained that: "The purposes of the Communitv Redevelooment Law include (1)
the creation of physical, social, economic, and environmental conditions to remove and
prevent the recurrence of blioht; (2) the creation of lobs and low-to-moderate income
housing; and (3) the attraction of ~>rivate investment towards these ends. The court went
on to suggest that because redevelooment aqencie$ are endowed with broad Dowers to
"[m]ake and execute contracts and other instruments necessary" to complete
redevelopment proiects, this should authorize contracts necessary to achieve the
objectives of redevelopmont.
In addition, the specific objectives of the Temecula Redevelopment Plan (Riverside County
Redevelopment Project No. 1-1988):
"Promote the expansion of the County's industrial basis and local
employment opportunities to provide jobs to unemployed and
underemployed workers in the County.
Encourage investment in the project area by the private sector.
Encourage the cooperation and participation of project area property owners,
public agencies and community organizations in elimination of blighting
conditions and the promotion of new or improved development in each of
the non-contiguous portions of the project area."
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
MAY 11, 1993
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order on
Tuesday, May 11,1993, 9:40 P.M., at the Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street,
Temecula California. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Ronald J. Parks.
AYES: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS: 'Birdsall, Mu~oz, Roberrs, Stone,
Parks
NOES:
0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
Also present were City Manager David Dixon, Assistant City Manager Woody Edvalson, City
Attorney F. Scott Field, City Clerk June S. Greek and Recording Secretary Gall Zigler.
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
AGENCY BUSINESS
Minutes
1.1 Approve the minutes of April 13, 1993.
It was moved by Agency Member Birdsall, seconded by Agency Member Mu~oz to
approve staff recommendation.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Mu~oz
Parks
NOES: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
, Roberts, Stone,
Economics Research Associates (ERA Labor Force Study)
Assistant City Manager Woody Edvalson presented the staff report.
RDAMIN5/11/93 -t- 5117/93
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES MAY 11, 1993
Mayor Mu~oz expressed his disappointment with the staff report and Questioned Mr.
Edvalson's efforts at contacting the resources the Mayor had suggested.
It was moved by Agency Member Birdsall, seconded by Agency Member Parks to
approve staff recommendation.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Roberts, Stone, Parks
NOES: I AGENCY MEMBERS: Mur~oz
ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
Development and Disposition AGreement - Wal Mart Department Store
It was moved by Agency Member Stone, seconded by Agency Member Mu~ioz to
continue this Item to the meeting of June 22, 1993.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Mu~oz , Roberts, Stone,
Parks
NOES: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
Development and Disposition AGreement - Professional HOSPital SUPPLY
City Manager David Dixon presented the staff report.
Agency Member Mu~oz stated that he feels that considering the investment the City
is willing to make, Professional Hospital Supply should be willing to remain in Temecula
for a set period of time.
Agency Member Stone clarified that he is one hundred percent in support of
Professional Hospital Supply remaining in the community.
It was moved by Agency Member Birdsall, seconded by Agency Member Roberts to
approve staff recommendation as follows:
RDAMINSI11/93 -2- 5117193
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES
4.1
MAY 11, 1993
Approve the Development and Disposition Agreement between the
Agency and Professional Hospital Supply, et.al., and authorize the
Agency Chairman to execute the same.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 4 AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Roberrs, Stone, Parks
NOES: 1 AGENCY MEMBERS: Mu~oz
ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
it was moved by Agency Member Stone, seconded by Agency Member Roberts to extend the
meeting to 11:00 P.M.
Loan to Quicksilver Enterprise, InC.
Agency Member Birdsall stepped down due to a potential conflict of interest.
City Manager David Dixon presented the staff report.
It was moved by Agency Member Mu~oz, seconded by Agency Member Stone to
approve staff recommendation as follows:
5.1
Approve a $60,000 loan to Quicksilver Enterprises, Inc., and authorize
the Agency President to execute the attached Agreement in substantially
the form presented, subject to approval of the Agency Executive
Director and General Counsel as to the final form of the Agreement.
The motion carried as follows:
AGENCY MEMBERS:
AGENCY MEMBERS: None
AGENCY MEMBERS: None
AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall
AYES:' 4.
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
ABSTAIN: I
Mu~oz, Roberrs, Stone, Parks
RDAMINS/11/93
Low Interest Loan/Business Incentive Prooram
City Manager David Dixon presented the staff report.
Dan Atwood, Toyota of Temecula, 26631 Ynez Road, Temecula, expressed his support
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES MAY 11, 1993
of the loan program. Mr. Atwood advised that he is currently on the Board of the
Chamber of Commerce and can see the need for this program in the community.
Agency Member Birdsall stated that she would be in favor of a interest only payment
for the first year of the loan to allow the businesses to re-establish themselves.
Agency Member Stone stated that he supports the program and suggested that the
maximum loan amount be lowered from $150,000 to $100,000.
Agency Member Mu~oz stated that he also is in support of the program and the
comments made by Agency Member Stone.
It was moved by Agency Member Stone, seconded by Agency Member Roberts to
approve staff recommendation with specific direction regarding the maximum loan
amounts to be awarded, allowing no more than four loans with a maximum of
$100,000 and five loans with a maximum amount of $50,000.
The motion carried as follows:
AYES: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS:
NOES:
Birdsall, Mu~oz , Roberts, Stone,
Parks
0 AGENCY MEMBERS: None
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
None
AGENCY MEMBER'S REPORTS
Agency Meml~er BirdSall and Agency Member Stone volunteered to participate on the loan
review committee.
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Agency Member Birdsall, seconded by Agency Member Stone to adjourn at
10:30 P.M.
The next regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency will be held on
RDAMINS/11/93 -4- 5117/93
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MINUTES MAY 11, 1993
Tuesday, May 25, 1993, 7:00 P.M., at the Temecula Community Center, 28816 Pujol Street,
Temecula, California.
Ronald J. Parks, Chairperson
June S. Greek, City Clerk
RDAMIN5/11/93 -6- 5117~93
Attachment "C'
FINANCE OFFIdk~<I ~7~
CITY MANAGER ~~
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA REPORT
Executive Director/Agency Members
Mary Jane McLarney, Finance Officer
January 25, 1994
RDA Commercial Rehabilitation Loan Program
RECOMMENDATION: That the Agency Members
1)
Adopt Resolution No. 94-
program, and
establishing a commercial rehabilitation loan
2) Approve loan requests per Attachment A.
DISCUSSION: On May 11, 1993, the City Council approved in concept a small
business loan incentive program. In accordance with AB 1290, staff is recommending that
the Agency establish a Commercial Rehabilitation Loan Program to comply with the new law.
Parameters of the program are included on the sample application attached.
To date, the City has received six loan applications. Currently, staff is recommending
approval of the loans listed on Attachment A. The loans have been reviewed by a committee
consisting of a local bank official and a CPA. Based on their recommendations, and
comments, staff completed the loan files and reviewed them with the council's ad hoc loan
committee, Jeff Stone and Pat Birdsall. The terms of the loans are tied to the useful life of
the asset financed. The existing RDA judgment provides for an interest rate of Prime plus
2%.
Attachments:
Attachment A
Sample Application
Sample Promissory Note
Sample Loan and Security Agreement
RESOLUTION NO. RDA94-
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMKNT AGENCY OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA ESTABLISHING A SMALL
BUSINESS LOAN PROGRAM FOR R~P, ABILITATING
COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES AND
FINANCING MANUFACTURING FACILITIES AND
EQUIP1V[ENT
VfFIEREAS, pursuant to Section 33344.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, the
Temecula Re. development Agency may establish a program under which it loans funds to owners
or tenants for the purpose of rehabilitating commercial buildings or structures within the Project
Area;
WttEREAS, pursuant to Section 33344.6 of the California Health and Safety Code, the
Agency may assist with the financing of manufacturing facilities and capital equipment pursuant
to an agreement that provides for the development and rehabilitation of property that will be
used for industrial or manufacturing purposes;
NOW THEREFORE, the Re. development Agency of the City of Temecula resolves as
follows:
Section 1. The small business loan program for rehabilitating commercial buildings
and structures and financing manufacturing facilities and equipment is hereby established. Loans
shall be reviewed and considered by the Temecula Re, development Loan Committee. The
Committee shall be appointed by the Agency, an consist of two Agency Members, one
representative from a local commercial banIcing institution and one certified public accountant.
The Loan Committee shall meet pursuant to the California Brown Act (Government Code §
54950, el. seq.).
Section 2. In considering of whether to recommend loan applications for approval,
the Committee shall apply the loan criteria set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto.
Section 3. All loans shall be approved by the Re. development Agency of the City of
Temecula. Prior to the approval of any loan for the purpose of financing manufacturing
facilities and equipment, a public hearing shall be conducted. Notice of the public hearing shall
be provided at least 10 days in advance of public hearing by posting notice at the locations
established by City Council Resolution, and by publishing notice in the newspaper established
by City Council Resolution for public notices.
Section 4. No loan may be made at an interest rate less than that established pursuant
to Stipulated Judgment in the case entitled Dawes v. City of Temecula and Temecula
Re. development Agency, Riverside Superior Court Case No. 194468MF (consolidated with Case
No. 194948).
5Xresos.rda\009 1
0 0 0 0
~ o ~ o o
0
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, June S. Greek, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, HEREBY DO CERTIFY that the
foregoing Resolution No. 93-__ was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Temecula on the day of , 1993, by the following roll call
vote:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILNIEAIBERS:
COUNCILIVIEMBERS:
COUNCILMF-MBERS:
June,S. Greek, City Clerk
PASSED APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Re, development
Agency of the City of Temecula on the ... day of ,1994.
ATTEST:
Ronald H. Roberrs, Mayor
June S. Greek, City Clerk
[SEAL]
Ternecul a Re, development Aeencv Minutes
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
None given.
GENERAL COUNSEL'S REPORT
None given.
AGENCY MEMBERS REPORTS
None given.
January25. 1994
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Agency Member Mufioz, seconded by Agency Member Roberrs to adiourn
at 11:15 PM to a meeting on February 8, 1994, 8:00 PM, Temecula Community Center,
28816 Pujol Street, Temecula, California. The motion was unanimously carried.
Ronald J. Parks, Chairperson
ATTEST:
June S. Greek,City Clerk/Agency Secretary
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
HELD JANUARY 25,1994
A regular meeting of the Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 11:15 PM.
PRESENT: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS: Birdsall, Mu~oz, Roberrs,
Stone, Parks
AGENCY MEMBERS:
ABSENT: 0 None
Also present were Executive Director David F. Dixon, General Counsel Scott F. Field and
Agency Secretary June S. Greek.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
None given.
AGENCY BUSINESS
1. MinUtes
It was moved by Agency Member Mu~oz, seconded by Agency Member Stone to
approve the minutes of January 11, 1994. The motion was unanimously carried.
RDA Commercial Rehabilitation Loan Prooram
Finance Officer Mary Jane McLarney presented the staff report.
It was moved by Agency Member Mu~oz, seconded by Agency Member Roberts to
approve staff recommendation as follows:
2.1
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. RDA 94-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ESTABLISHING A SMALL BUSINESS LOAN PROGRAM FOR
REHABILITATING COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES AND
FINANCING MANUFACTURING FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
2.2
Approve loan requests per Attachment A.
The motion was unanimously carried.
I~,~EVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
Temecula, California
LOAN AND SECURITY AGREEMENT
By and Between
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
and
a
Dated
,19
PROYECT AREA 1988-1
Exhibit No. 1
PROMISSORY NOTE SECURED BY A SECURITY
INTEREST IN PERSONAL PROPERTY
$ TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
,19
On ,19__ or before, for value received,
("Borrower") promises to pay to the Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Temecula, ("Holder") or order, at Temecula, California or such other
place as may be designated in writing by Holder to Borrower, the principal sum of $
with interest on the unpaid principal balance from , 19__, until paid at the rate
of __ percent (_%) per annum, all payable as follows:
Principal and interest under this note shall be paid in lawful money of the
United States.
Whether or not a suit is filed, borrower agrees to pay all reasonable
attorneys fees, cost of collection, costs, and expenses incurred by Holder in connection
with the enforcement or collection of this Note. Borrower further agrees to pay all costs
of suit in the sum adjudged as attorneys fees in any action to enforce payment of this
Note or any part of it.
This Note is secured by a security interest in personal property identified as
for which Form UCC-1 's have been filed with the California Secretary of State's Office.
Borrower waives notice and presentment.
By
The "Project Area' is located in the City of Temecula, California (the "City"), the
exact boundaries of which are specifically described in City of Temecula Ordinances 91-11
and 91-15; which ordinances are incorporated herein by this reference.
1.4 The Premises
The "Premises" consist of a commercial business site occupied by Borrower located at
, Temecula, California which is [owned/leased] by
Borrower.
1.5 Parties to the Agreement
A. The Agency
The Agency is a public body, corporate and politic, exercising governmental functions
and powers, and organized and existing under the Community Redevelopment Law of the
State of California (Section 33000, et seq., Health and Safety Code; hereafter "Act").
The principal office of the Agency is located at 43174 Business Park Drive,
Temecula, California 92590.
B. The Borrower
Borrower is a
organized and existing under the laws of the State of __
The mailing address of Borrower for purposes of this Agreement is:
1.6 Prohibition Against Change in Ownership of Borrower
The qualifications and identity of Borrower is of particular concern to the City and
the Agency. It is because of those qualifications and identity that the Agency has entered
into this Agreement with Borrower. Therefore, no voluntary or involuntary successor in
interest of Borrower shall acquire any rights or powers under this Agreement except as
expressly set forth herein.
Borrower shall not a~sign all or any part of this Agreement without the prior written
consent of the Agency, which consent the Agency shall not unreasonably withhold, provided
the Agency determines that the successor is similarly qualified and has specifically agreed in
writing to be bound by the provisions of this Agreement.
All of the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement shall be binding upon
and shall inure to the benefit of the Borrowe~ and the permitted successors and assigns of the
Borrower. Whenever the term "Borrower" is used herein, such term shall include any other
lawful successors in interest of Borrower.
LOAN AND SECURITY AGREEMENT
THIS AGR~=F-M1~NT is entered into and dated as of , 19 __ by and between the
]~F~DEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA (the "Agency") and __
, a ("Borrower"). Agency and Borrower agree
as follows:
RECITALS
A. ' Borrower operates a
Area 1988-1;
business located in Redevelopment
B. It is in the best interest of Agency and Redevelopment Area 1988-1 to ensure
the vitality of Borrower as a functioning business in the Redevelopment area;
C. Agency desires to lend Borrower the sum of dollars
($. ) for on the condition that Borrower provide
adequate security for repayment of said sum;
D. Borrower has unencumbered assets, fixtures and/or inventory worth
__ dollars ($. ). Borrower is willing to pledge said assets, fixtures and/or
inventory as security for Agency's loan.
I. SUBJECT OF AGREEMENT
i. 1 Purpose of the Agreement
The Purpose of this Agreement is to effectuate the Re. development Plan (the "Plan")
for the 1988-1 Redevelopmerit Project Area (the "Project") by providing for the rexlevel-
opment of certain property, hereafter described, located in the Project Area and preservation
of an existing business located in the Redevelopmerit Area, in accordance
with the Plato
1.2 The Redevelopment Plan
The Redevelopment Plan was approved by Ordinance No. 658 of the Board of
Supervisors of Riverside County on July 12, 1988, prior to incorporation of the City of
Temecula. Pursuant to City Ordinance No. 91-11, which became effective May 9, 1992,
and City Ordinance No. 91-15, which became effective April 9, 1991, the City approved the
Plan. Said ordinances had the effect of adopting the Plan and transferring jurisdiction to the
Agency, as of July 1, 1991.
1.3 The Project Area
3.3 Warranties
Borrower warrants:
Said , provided as collateral, axe free of set-off, counterclaim,
defense, allowance, adjustment, dispute, objection, or complaint for any reason whatsoever;
are free of any prior or subsequent assignment, claim, lien, or security interest other than
that of Agency; are not subject to any bankruptcy, moratorium, or insolvency proceeding.
Borrower further waxrants that: no financing statement or other security interest
covering collateral or in any manner affecting or concerning collateral is or will be on file in
any public office except in favor of Agency and Borrower will defend collateral, and
Agency's security interest therein against all other claims and demands.
Unless Agency is otherwise notified in writing, there are no express or implied
warranties to others in connection with collateral.
All financial or credit statements, collateral schedules, collateral statements, invoices,
packing lists, documents of title, letters of credit, negotiable and other instruments for the
payment of money, and any other writings submitted to or relied upon by Agency prior or
subsequent to the execution of this Agreement are and will be true, correct, complete, valid
and genuine. Borrower has authority and obtained all approvals and consents necessary to
incur its obligations and pledge this security and to enter into this Agreement.
3.4 Maintenance of Collateral
Borrower hereby agrees: that it shall maintain individual, accurate, and complete
records of collateral, and upon demand give Agency such information as requested
concerning Borrower's business and permit Agency to inspect and copy records thereof;
indemnify and save Agency harmless from all liability therefore; keep collateral and the
proceeds of any collection separate from Borrower's other property; account fully for and
properly delix~er to Agency the proceeds of all collections as and when received and in such
manner as Agency may direct from time to time; to keep collateral free from all levies,
encumbrances, and other security interests; comply with all laws, statutes, and regulations,
pertaining to it; pay when due all taxes, charges, and other impositions on and promptly,
duly, observe and perform any contract or agreement pertaining to collateral; execute, file,
record, and obtain such statements, notices and agreements and take such action and obtain
such certificates and documents in accordance with all applicable laws, statutes, and
regulations as necessary to perfect, evidence, preserve, and continue Agency's security
interest and collateral.
Borrower will not, without Agency's prior written consent:
a) Exchange, sell, or dispose of collateral or Borrower's rights therein, or
make any compromise, adjustment, amendment, modification, setfiement, substitution, or
termination, of or in connection with it;
1.7 Contract Documents
The Contract Documents which are part of this Agreement, and each of which is
incorporated herein by this reference, are as follows:
Exhibit No. 1
Exhibit No. 2
Extfibit No. 3
Exhibit No. 4
Promissory Note
Property description/Asset list for Collateral
Documents of Title Regarding Collateral
Limitations on Use, of Loan Proceeds
II. LOAN AGREEMENT
2.1 Loan Transaction
Agency shall lend Borrower the sum of $ Said sum shall bear interest
at the rate of the Bank of America Prime Rate prevailing on the date of execution of this
accrued rate plus 2% per annum. Principal and accrued interest shall be payable
[monthly/daily/quarterly] beginning Borrower
may, without penalty, prepay all or any part of said obligation. Said obligation shall be
documented by a Promissory Note, executed by Borrower, in substantially the form of
Exhibit 1.
2.2 Security
Agency's loan to Borrower shall be secured by a security interest upon
Terms of said security shall be as provided for in the Security
Agreement provided hereinafter.
III. SECURITY AGREEMENT
3.1 Security Interest
A. A Security Interest pursuant to the California Uniform Commercial Code is
hereby created and provided for Agency in and attaches to the
("Collateral") described at paragraph 3.2 below to secure payment and performance of
Borrower's obligations as described in Section II above.
3.2 Collateral
The collateral referred to in 3.1 above shall consist of
, a detailed description and list of collateral is set forth in
Exhibit No. 2 attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
3.9 Protection of Collateral
Borrower wi//keep the Collateral in good order and repair and will not waste or
destroy the Collateral or any part of it. Borrower will not use the Collateral in violation of
any statute or ordinance and Agency will have the right to examine and inspect the Collateral
at any reasonable time.
3.10 Ta~es and Assessments
Borrower will pay promptly when due all taxes and assessments on the Collateral, or
any part of the Collateral, or for its use and operation.
3.11 Location and Identification
Borrower will keep the Collateral separate and identifiable and at the address shown
above, and will not remove the Collateral from that address without Agency's written
consent, for as long as this Security Agreement remains in effect.
3.12 Security Interest in Proceeds and Accessions
Borrower grants to the Securext Party a security interest in and to all proceeds,
increases, substitutions, replacements, additions, and accessions to the Collateral and to any
part of the Collateral.
3.13 Decrease in Value of Collateral
Borrower shall, if in Agency's judgment the Collateral has materially decreased in
value of if Agency shall at any time deem that Borrower is financially unstable, either
provide enough additional Collateral to satisfy Agency or reduce the total indebtedness by an
amount sufficient to satisfy Agency.
3.14 . Reimbursement of Expenses
At its option Agency may discharge taxes, Hens, interest, or perform or cause to be
performed for and on behalf of Borrower any actions and conditions, obligations, or
covenants that the Debtor has failed or refused to perform, and may pay for the repair,
maintenance, and preservation of the Collater, ft. The Agency may enter the premises where
the Collateral or any part of it is located and cause to be performed as agent and on the
account of the Borrower any acts that Agency may deem necessary for the proper repair or
maintenance of the Collateral or any part of it. Any and all sums expended by Agency under
this paragraph, including but not limited to, attorneys' fees, court costs, Agency's fees, or
commissions, or any other costs or expenses, shall bear interest from the date of payment at
the same annual rate as the principal sum payable hereunder and shall be payable at the place
designated in the Borrower's note and shall be secured by this Security Agreement.
b) Assign, sell, transfer, or cream a security interest in any account,
contract fight concerning collateral, now or hereafter existing, to or for anyone other than
Agency; or
c) Permit anything to be done that may impair or fail to do anything
necessary or advisable to preserve the value of collateral and the security insurance coverage
and proceeds intended for Agency.
3.5 Title
Except for the .security interest granted by this Security Agreement, the Borrower has,
or on acquisition will have, full title to the Collateral free from any lien, security interest,
encumbrance, or claim, and the Borrower will, at the Borrower's cost and expense, defend
any action that may affect Agency's security interest in, or the Borrower's title to, the
Collateral. Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 are true and correct copies of documents of title for
collateral reflecting full ti~e to collateral in Borrower. Borrower warrants that the title
reflected in said documents is true and accurate.
3.6 Financing Statement
No financing statement covering the Collateral or any part of it or any proceeds other
than the financing statement executed in conjunction with this Security Agreement is on file
in any public office. At the Agency's request, the Borrower will join in executing all
necessary financing statements in forms satisfactory to the Secured Party and will further
execute all other instruments deemed necessary by the Secured Party. [If collateral is
fixtures, add: The Agency will file the financing statement in the real estate records in the
office where the mortgage on the real property described in this Security Agreement is filed
or recorded.]
3.7 Sale. Lease. or Disposition of Collateral
The Borrower will not, :without the written consent of Agency, sell, contract to sell,
lease, encumber, or dispose of the Collateral or any interest in it until this Security
Agreement and all debts secured by it have been fully satisfied.
3.8 Insurance
Until final termination of this Security Agreement, Borrower will, at its own cost and
expense, insure the Collateral with companies acceptable to Agency against the casualties and
in the amounts that Agency shall reasonably require with a loss payable clause in favor of
Borrower and Agency as their interests may appear. Agency shall be named as additional
insured on any such policy. Agency is authorized to collect sums that may become due under
any of the insurance policies and apply them to the obligations secured by this Security
Agreement. A duplicate copy of each such policy shall be delivered by Borrower to Agency.
in this Agreement at least five days before the time of the sale of disposition. Expenses of
retaking, holding, preparing of sale, selling, or the like shall include Agency's reasonable
attorneys' fees and legal expenses.
3.20 General Provisions
Agency is not required to make presentment, demand, or protest, or to give notice
and need not take action to preserve or enforce any fights against prior parties, account
debtors or others in connection with any obligation or evidence of indebtedness held as
collateral or in connection with Borrower's obligations, and Borrower waives, to the fullest
extent permitted by law, the giving and receipt of all demands and notices whatsoever.
Agency, in its own or Borrower's name and at any time without notice may:
a) Enter into any extensions, reorganization, deposit, merger,
consolidation, or other agreement pertaining to, or deposit, surrender, accept, hold, or apply
other property in exchange for, the Collateral;
b) Ensure, process and preserve the Collateral;
c) Transfer the Collateral to its own or any nominee's name;
d) Make any compromise or settlement, and take any action it deems
advisable and exercise all rights, powers, and remedies of an owner, with respect to the
Collateral; and
e) Make any payment and perform any agreement undertaken by Borrower
and expend such sums and incur such expense, including reasonable attorneys fees and legal
expenses, as Agency reasonably deems advisable, and upon demand Borrower will pay the
same to bank together with any deficiency or balance on Borrower's obligations remaining
after any sale or other disposition of the Collateral by Agency.
Acceptance of partial or delinquent payments or failure to exercise any right, power,
or remedy shall not waive any obligation of Borrower or modify this Security Agreement.
Agency, its successors and assigns, have all rights, powers and remedies herein and as
provided by law, including those of a secured party under the Uniform Commercial Code,
and may exercise the same and effect any set-off and proceed against the Collateral or other
security for Borrower's obligations at any time notwithstanding any cessation of Borrower's
liability or running of any statute of limitations, which Borrower hereby waives to the fullest
extent permitted by law. When required, proceeds of collections on the Collateral received
by Borrower shall be directly paid to Agency upon receipt by Borrower and shall be applied
by Agency to the outstanding loan balance.
3.15 Change of Residence or Place of Business
Borrower will promptly notify Agency of any change of the Borrower' s chief place of
business, or place where records concerning the collateral are kept.
3.16 Attorney-in-Fact
Borrower appoints Agency as Borrower's attorney-in-fact to do any and every act that
the Borrower is obligated by this Security Agreement to do, and to exercise all rights of
Borrower in the Collateral and to make collections and to execute any and all papers and
instruments and to do all other things necessary to preserve and protect the Collateral and to
make collections and to protect Agency's security interest in the Collateral.
3.17 Time of Performance and Waiver
In performing any act under this Security Agreement and the note secured by it, time
shall be of the essence. Agency's acceptance of partial or delinquent payments, or the
failure of Agency to exercise any right or remedy, shall not constitute a waiver of any
obligation of Borrower or right of Agency and shall not constitute a waiver of any other
similar default that occurs later.
3.18 Default
Default shall occur upon but shall not be limited to the following events: Failure to
make any payment or performance required by this Security Agreement or the Promissory
Note in timely fashion; if any warranty, representation or statement made hereunder or
otherwise furnished to Agency is false or grossly inaccurate; loss, theft, substantial damage
to, destruction of, sale of, encumbrance of, theft of, levy, seizure or attach~nent of the
Collateral; and, impairment of payment of any indebtedness secured by this Agreement.
3.19 Remedies
On the occurrence of any event of default, and at any later time, Agency may declare
all obligations secured hereunder due and payable immediately and may proceed to enforce
payment and exercise any and all of the rights and remedies provided by the California
Commercial Cede as well as other rights and remedies either at law or in equity possessed
by Agency.
Agency may require Borrower to assemble the Collateral and make it available to
Agency at any place to be designated by Agency that is reasonably convenient to both parties
for purposes of Agency's disposition of Collateral to satisfy the obligations hereunder.
Unless the Collateral is perishable, threatens to decline speedily in value, or is of a type
customarily mid on a recognized market, Agency will give Borrower reasonable notice of the
time and place of any public sale or of the time after which any private sale or any other
intended disposition of the Collateral is to be made. The requirements of reasonable notice
shall be met if the notice is mailed, postage prepaid, to the address of Borrower as provided
A. In deeds: "The granme heroin covenants by and for himself or herself,
his or her heirs, executors, administrators, and assigns, and all persons claiming under or
through them that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of, any person or
group of persons on account of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, religion, marital
status, handicap, or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or
enjoyment of the land herein conveyed, nor shall the grantee himself or herself or any person
claiming under or through him or her, establish or permit any such practice or practices of
discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or
occupancy of ranant% lessees, subtenants, sublessees or vendees in the land herein conveyed.
The foregoing covenants shall run with the land.'
B. In leases: "The lessee herein covenants by and for himself or herself,
his or her heirs, executors, administrators and assigns, and all persons claiming under or
through him or her, and this lease is made and accepted upon and subject to the following
conditions: That there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of any person or
group of persons, on account of race, color, creed, national origin, sex, marital status,
handicap, religion, or ancestry, in the leasing, subleasing, transferring, use, occupancy,
tenure or enjoyment of the premises herein leased nor shall the lessee himself or herself, or
any person claiming under or through him or her, establish or permit any such practice or
practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number,
use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, sublessees, subtenants or vendees in the premises herein
leased."
C. In contracts: "There shall be no discrimination against or segregation
of, any person, or group of persons on account of race, color, creed, national origin, sex,
religion, marital status, handicap, or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use,
occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the premises, nor shall the transferee himself or herself or
any person claiming under or through him or her, establish or permit any inch practice or
practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number,
use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees or vendees of the premises."
5.4 , Effect and Duration of Covenants
The covenants established in this Security Agreement shall, without regard to
technical classification and designation, be binding for the benefit and in favor of the
Agency, its successors and assigns, the City and any successor in interest to the Site or any
part thereof. Any covenants contained in this Security Agreement relating to construction of
improvements shall expire upon the issuance by Agency of a Certificate of Completion or
Certificates of Completion for the entire Site. The covenants contained in this Security
Agreement relating to the use and maintenance of the Site and improvements thereon shall
expire upon repayment of the loan from Agency provided for in Section II herein. The
covenants contained in this Security Agreement against discrimination shall remain in
perpetuity.
IV. USE OF PROCEEDS OF LOAN
4.1 Limits on Use of Loan Proceeds
The funds provided Borrower hereunder shall underwrite or reimburse Borrower for
the purposes described in Exhibit No. 4 attached hemto and incorporated herein by this
reference.
4.2 l[ndemnitv
Borrower shall defend, indemnify, assume all responsibility for and hold the Agency
and the City, and their respective elected and appointed officers and employees, harmless
from all costs (including attorneys' fees and costs), claims, demands or judgments for injury
or damage to property and injuries to persons, including death, which may be caused by any
of Borrower's activities under this Security Agreement, whether such activities or
performance thereof be by Borrower or anyone directly or indirec~y employed or contracted
with by Borrower and whether such damage shall accrue or be discovered before or after
termination of this Secutiry Agreement.
V. CONDUCT OF BUSINESS
5.1 Continued Conduct of Business
Borrower covenants and agrees for itself, its successors, its assigns and successors in
interest that during the term of the loan provided for in Section II herein, Borrower, and its
successors and assignees shall continue to operate a and related
projects and uses incidental thereto, and shall comply with all applicable City ordinances.
5.2 Obligation to Refrain from Discrimination
Borrower covenants and agrees for itself, its successors, its assigns and every
successor in interest to the Site or any part thereof, there shall be no discrimination against
or segregation of any person, or group of persons, on account of race, color, creed, national
origin, sex, marital status, handicap, religion or ancestry in the sale, lease, sublease,
transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the Site nor shall the Borrower itself or any
person claiming under or through it establish or permit any such practice or practices of
discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or
occupancy of tenants, leases, subtenants, sublessees, or vendees of the Site.
5.3 Form of Nondiscrimination and Nonsegregation Clauses
Borrower shall refrain from restricting the rental, sale or lease of the property on the
basis of race, color, creed, ancestry, national origin, sex, marital status, handicap, or
religion of any person. All such deeds, leases or contracts shall contain or be subject to
substantially the following nondiscrimination or nonsegregation clauses:
6.4 Applicable Law
The laws of the State of California shall govern the interpretation and enforcement of
this Agreement.
6.5 Rights and Remedies are Cumulative
Except as otherwise expressly stated in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the
parties axe cumulative, and the exercise by either party of one or more of such rights or
remedies shall not preclude the exercise of it, at the same or different times, of any other
rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other party.
6.6 Inaction Not a Waiver of Default
Any failures or delays by either party in asserting any of its rights and remedies as to
any default shall not operate as a waiver of any default or of any such rights or remedies, or
deprive either party of its right to institute and maintain any actions or proceedings which it
may deem necessary to protect, assert or enforce any such rights or remedies.
6.7 Damages
If a default is not fully cured by the defaulting party as provided in Section VI, the
defaulting party shall be liable to the other party for any damages caused by such default,
and the nondefaulting party may thereafter (but not before) commence an action for damages
against the defaulting party with respect to such default.
VII. GENERAL PROVISIONS
7.1 Nonliability of Agency Officials and Employees
No member, official or employee of the Agency or the City shall be personally liable
to the Borrower, or any successor in interest, for any default or breach by the Agency (or
the City) or for any amount which may become due to the Borrower or successor or on any
obligations under the terms of this Agreement.
7.2 Inspection of Books and Records
Agency has the right to inspect, at reasonable times, the books and records of
Borrower as pertinent to the purposes of this Agreement.
7.3 Conflicts of Interest
Borrower warrants that it has not paid or given and will not pay or give any officer,
employee or agent of the City or Agency any money or other consideration for obtaining this
Agreement.
VI. DEFAULTS. REMEDIES AND TERMINATIONS
6.1 Defaults -- General
Failure or delay by either party to perform any term or provision of this
Agreement constitutes a default under this Agreement. A party claiming a default
('claimant') shall give written notice of default to the other party, specifying the default
complained of.
6.2 ' Institution of Legal Actions
In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may institute legal action to
cure, correct, or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, or to obtain any
other remedy consistent with the purpose of this Agreement.
6.3 Venue of Legal Actions
Any legal actions brought pursuant to this Agreement must be instituted in the
Superior Court of the County of Riverside, State of California, in any other appropriate court
in that County, or in the Federal District Court in the Central District of California.
IN WITNESS WI-IEREOF, the Agency and Borrower have signed this Agreement.
DATED:
ATTEST:
Secretary
TE1VIECULA REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
By
RONALD J. PARKS
Chairman
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SCOTT F. FIELD
General Counsel to the Agency
DATED:
,a
ATTEST:
By
Secretary
7.4 Notices. Demands and Communications Among the Parties
Written notices, demands and communications among the Agency and Borrower shall
be sufficientiy given by personal service or dispatched by registered or certified mail,
postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the principal offices of the Agency and
Developer described in Section 1, Paragraph 1.5. Such written notices, demands and
communications may be sent in the same manner to such other addresses as either party may
from time to time designate as provided in this Section. Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained herein, notice personally served shall .be deemed to have been received as
of the date Of such services.
In addition to any other rights or remedies, either party may institute legal action to
cure, correct, or remedy any default, to recover damages for any default, or to obtain any
other remedy consistent with the purpose of this Agreement.
In the event that any legal action is commenced by the Agency against Borrower,
service of process on Borrower shall be made by personal service or in such other manner as
may be provided by law.
VIII. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. WAIVERS AND AMENDMENTS
8.1 This Agreement shall be executed in four duplicate originals, each of which is
deemed to be an original. This Agreement includes pages 1 through __, and Exhibits 1
through 4, which constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the parties.
8.2 This Agreement integrates all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein or
incidental hereto, and supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements between the parties
or their predecessors in interest with respect to all or any part of the subject matter hereof.
8.3 All waivers of the provisions of this Agreement must be in writing and signed
by the appropriate authorities of the Agency or the Borrower, and all amendments hereto
must be in writing and signed by the appropriate authorities of the Agency and the Borrower.
8.4 In any circumstance where under this Agreement either party is required to
approve or disapprove any matter, approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.
8.5 The parties hereto acknowledge that they were represented by counsel in the
negotiation and preparation of this Agreement, and such counsel have participated in the
drafting of this Agreement.
8.6 This Agreement, when executed by the Agency and delivered to Borrower,
must be authorized, executed and delivered by Borrower within thirty (30) days after the date
of signature by the Agency or this Agreement shall be voidable by notice in writing to the
Borrower.
Exhibit No. 4
Limitations on Use of Loan Proceeds
[To Be Prepared By Agency]
Exhibit No. 2
Property Description of Collamral
[To Be Provided By Borrower]
~< ~ o <z o~ >~ ~z ~ ~
h~ ~<~ ~ ~. ~< ~ z< ~ ~< o
=o < ~ < < ~ < U < =~< ~ <
<ou~ z~ u ~ ~o ho o;
z~u o[ ~D =~ oz~
< ~ o~'~
CITY OF TEMECULA
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
SMALL BUSINESS LOAN MANUAL
Process and Procedures
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
SMALL BUSINESS LOAN MANUAL
PURPOSE
The handbook establishes guidelines to be applied in the loan disbursements of the
Temecula Redevelopmerit Agency funds. The mission of the Finance Department is
to assist small businesses with their financial needs on behalf of the City of
Temecula. Our goal is to lend within the annual allotment to stimulate growth in
the community by means of prudent lending practices.
RELATIONSHIPS WITH 13QRROWERS
Good relations are essential within the City at large and borrowers in particular.
These ongoing relationships are vital to the continued success of the City of
Temecula's loan programs. It is important that the Finance Department and its
liaison promote good communications as a priority to ultimately fund loans in an
efficient and timely manner.
ELIGIBILITY
Borrowers business must be located within the redevelopment area and be
organized for profit. New businesses must contribute a minimum of 30% cash to
the total project cost. Existing businesses must not exceed a debt/equity ratio of
4:1. Borrowers must establish that they have or can obtain the necessary
knowledge to operate a profitable business and deduce the marketability of their
product or service. It is necessary for the loan to be secured with sufficient
collateral and not exceed $100,000. Substantiation of borrowers ability to repay
the loan from business cash flow is essential.
PERMITTED USE QF LOAN PROCEEDS
Borrower may construct, expand or convert facilities for use of their commercial or
industrial business. Eligible purchases are machinery, fixtures, and equipment.
SECURITY
A deed of trust may be required on business or personal real estate and/or a
security interest in equipment.
R:LNORTONIJMANUALS;RDAI. OAN. PRO I 9/2/34
G. To pay off inadequately secured creditors which have not been
properly serviced by the debtor or are past due.
LOAN
1.
11.
REVIEW AND COMPLETION PROCESS
A (complete) loan package is to be submitted by borrower pursuant to the
guidelines set forth in applicant's package.
Credit reports, UCC search and/or Preliminary Title Reports are then ordered
by the Finance Department on prospective borrowers.
The loan package is then reviewed by the Finance Officer and loan
committee for recommendations. The package is then reviewed by the loan
processor to ensure compliance of same.
It is then reviewed by an ad hoc committee of the City Council and
subsequently scheduled for review and approval by the entire council.
Loan packages are then reviewed by the City Council for final approval.
Borrower is notified of the terms and conditions, interest rate, and fees.
Determination is made at that time whether the fees are to be deducted from
loan proceeds or paid by borrower.
Loan documents are then drawn (in triplicate), one (1) for the borrower, one
(1) for the City Finance Department, and one (1) for City record (i,e., note,
security agreement, and/or deed of trust, UCC-1 filing, and vehicle title
recording when applicable).
Loan documents are then signed by City officials at the City Clerk's office
and notarized. Borrower is then notified by the City Clerk's office and an
appointment time is set for them to sign.
Documents are signed by borrower (in triplicate).
The UCC-1 is filed with the state and/or Deed of Trust recorded by the
Administrative Secretary, Linda Norton. UCC filings ar to be monitored and
renewed every five year period (e.g., every four and one-half [4-1/2] years to
refile).
Funds are disbursed by the Finance Department pursuant to the check
request/pay voucher procedure.
R:INORTONL~MANUALS~RD,4LOAN. PRO 3 9/2794
RATES
Both variable and fixed rates are available. Variable rates are generally tied to
Prime Rate + 2% and annual and lifetime rate caps may be made available. Rates
and payments are usually adjusted semi-annually. Fixed rates are generally Prime
Rate + 2% for the full term of the loan.
TERMS
Amortization schedules are from 5 to 10 years based on the life of new equipment
but not beyond the term of the property lease. 20 years is applicable for real
estate based on appraisal. There is no prepayment penalty should the borrower
choose to prepay the loan in whole or in part at any time.
FEES
A $250 loan fee is to be paid by borrower plus other actual costs such as UCC
filing fees, title, appraisal, and recording, etc. These fees can be deducted from
loan proceeds or paid by borrower.
PROHIBITED USE OF FUNDS
The following usage precludes lending by the City of Temecula through the
Redevelopment Agency's small business loan incentive program.
Speculative new construction, raw land acquisition, or real estate
purchased for purposes of resale by borrowers for their own account
whereby the prospect of profit will result from market fluctuations.
B. Commodity futures account trading.
C. Gambling.
Mineral exploration and development of ventures, i.e., petroleum, gas,
mineral, and other prospecting where discovery of something of value
will result in profit.
E. Proceeds used in a business located outside the City of Temecula.
F. Publications of newspapers, magazines, and journals of all types.