HomeMy WebLinkAbout032800 CC AgendaIn 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 a meeting will
enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35.102.35.104
ADA Title II]
AGENDA
TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
A REGULAR MEETING
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
43200 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
MARCH 28, 2000 - 7:00 P.M.
At approximately 9:45 P.M., the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items
can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00 P.M. and may continue all other items on which
additional time is required until a future meeting. All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 P.M.
6:00 P.M. - Closed Session of the City Council pursuant to Government Code
Sections:
1. Conference with City Attorney and legal counsel pursuant to Government
Code Section 54956.9(a) with respect to one matter of existing litigation involving the
City. The following cases/claims will be discussed: 1) Valley Crest Construction
versus the City of Temecula.
2. Conference with real property negotiator pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8 concerning acquiring an interest in real property located at 44501 La
Paz Road. The negotiating parties are the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Temecula and the Rancho Meadows Homeowners. Under negotiation is the
affordability covenants. The Agency/City negotiators are Shawn Nelson, James
O'Grady, and John Meyer.
Public Information concerning existing litigation between the City and various parties
may be acquired by reviewing the public documents held by the City Clerk.
At approximately 9:45 P.M., the City Council will determine which of the remaining agenda items
can be considered and acted upon prior to 10:00 P.M. and may continue all other items on which
additional time is required until a future meeting. All meetings are scheduled to end at 10:00 P.M.
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. 2000-02
Resolution: No. 2000-22
CALL TO ORDER:
Mayor Jeff Stone
Prelude Music:
Eve Craig
Invocation:
R:~Agenda\032800
Pastor William Rench of Calvary Baptist Church
1
Flag Salute: Councilman Roberts
ROLLCALL:
Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Stone
PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
Certificates of Appreciation to Police Officers Carver and Fanene for their efforts associated with
the Every 15 Minutes Proclram
Introduction of County Fire Chief Larry Benson
Proclamation for the Boys and Girls Club of Temecula
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 30 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Council on
items that appear within the Consent Calendar or ones that are not listed on the agenda.
Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council on
an item which is listed on the Consent Calendar or a matter not listed on the agenda, a
pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all Public Hearing or Council Business matters on the agenda, a "Request to
Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk prior to the Council addressing that item.
There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made
at this time. A total, not to exceed, then (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.
Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure
RECOMMENDATON:
1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the
agenda.
R:~Agenda\032800
2
2
3
4
Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of January 18, 2000;
2.2 Approve the minutes of January 25, 2000;
2.3 Approve the minutes of February 8, 2000.
Resolution Approvin.q List of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
Automated Criminal Identification and Information System Settlement and Release
AGreement
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Approve the Settlement and Release Agreement between the City and the County
of Riverside regarding the Automated Criminal Identification and Information
System.
Temecula Creek Line W, StaGe 3, Storm Drain Project No. 7-0-0051 - Tract Mal~ No.
24136 - Cooperative Agreement
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Approve the Temecula Creek Line W, Stage 3, Storm Drain Project No. 7-0-0051,
Tract Map No. 24136 - Cooperative Agreement with the Riverside County Flood
Control and Water Conservation Distdct and the CaI-Paseo Del Sol, LLC;
5.2 Authorize the execution and attestation of such agreement in its final form by the
City Manager and City Clerk.
R:~Agenda\032800
3
6
Parcel Map No. 29510 (located north of State Route 79 South, west of Mar.cladta Road)
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Approve Parcel Map No. 29510 in conformance with the Conditions of Approval;
6.2 Approve the Subdivision Improvement Agreement;
6.3 Approve the Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Faithful
Performance Bond, Labor and Matedal Bond, and Monument Bond as security for
the agreements.
RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF
THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
AND
THE CITY OF TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
R:~Agenda\032800
4
i TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. CSD 2000-01
Resolution: No. CSD 2000-08
CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Comerchero
ROLL CALL:
DIRECTORS:
Naggar, Pratt, Roberrs, Stone, Comerchero
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the Board of
Directors on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar.
Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you decide to speak to the Board of
Directors on an item not on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to
Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk
Prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit
for individual speakers.
Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors should present a completed pink
"Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please
come forward and state vour name and address for the record.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of February 8, 2000.
2
Completion and Acceptance of the Rotan/Park Improvement Project - Project
No. PW98-09CSD - for the Temeoula Community Center
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1
Accept the construction of the Rotary Park Improvement Project - Project
No. PW98-09CSD - as complete;
2.2
File the Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a
one-year Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract;
2.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond and seven months after the filing of
the Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed.
R:~Agenda\032800
5
3 Multi-Use. Non-Motorized Trails Master Plan Contract
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Award a contract in the amount of $68,383 to KTU & Associates for the
preparation of a Multi-Use, Non-Motorized Trails Master Plan;
3.2 Approve a contingency amount of 10% of the contract, or $6,838, for any
additional services deemed necessary for completion of the Master Plan Project.
4 Temecula Valley Museum Update
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Receive and file a report concerning the Temecula Valley Museum.
DEPARTMENTAL REPORT
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next adjourned regular meeting: April 11, 2000, scheduled to follow the City Council Consent
Calendar, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
R:~Agenda\032800
6
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. RDA 2000-01
Resolution: No. RDA 2000-03
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Ron Roberrs
ROLLCALL
AGENCY MEMBERS:
Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Stone, Roberts
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A total of 15 minutes is provided so members of the public may address the
Redevelopment Agency on items that are not listed on the agenda or on the Consent
Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you decide to speak to the
Board of Directors on an item not on the agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink
"Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk.
When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record.
For all other agenda items, a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk
Prior to the Board of Directors addressing that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit
for individual speakers.
Anyone wishing to address the Board of Directors should present a completed pink
"Request to Speak" form to the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please
come forward and state your name and address for the record.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of February 8, 2000.
2 Owner Participation Rules
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1
Adopt the Rules governing Participation and Re-entry Preferences for property
owners, operators of businesses, and tenants in the Redevelopment Project
Area No. 1-1988.
R:~Agenda\032800
7
DEPARTMENTAL REPORT
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next adjourned regular meeting: April 11, 2000, scheduled to follow the Community Services
District Meeting, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
R:~Agenda\032800
8
RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
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.
7
Planning Application No. PA99-0244 (General Plan Amendment), Planning Application
No. PA99-0245 (Zoninq Amendment), and Planning Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative
Tract Map No. 29286)
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE SPECIFIC PLAN OVERLAY MAP
(FIGURE 2-5) OF THE GENERAL PLAN (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA99-0244) FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD AT
THE NORTHERN CITY LIMIT AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S
PARCEL NUMBER 911-640-003
7.2 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO CHANGE THE
ZONING FROM SP (SPECIFIC PLAN) TO LOW MEDIUM (LM)
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON
THE EAST SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD AT THE NORTHERN
CITY LIMIT AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER
911-640-003 (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0245)
7.3 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0243
FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29286 FOR THE SUBDIVISION
OF 9.75 ACRES INTO 38 RESIDENTIAL LOTS FOR THE
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MARGARITA
ROAD AT THE NORTHERN CITY LIMIT AND KNOWN AS
ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 911-640-003
RAAgenda\032800
9
COUNCIL BUSINESS
8 NeiGhborhood Traffic Calming ProGram
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Approve the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program.
9 Evaluation of Traffic Circles on Via Cordoba
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1 Find the temporary traffic calming devices ineffective at reducing overall vehicular
speeds along Via Cordoba;
9.2 Direct Public Works Traffic Division staff to remove the temporary traffic calming
devices along Via Cordoba;
9.3 Direct Public Works Traffic Division staff to work with neighborhood representatives
to implement Stage 1 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program strategies to address
the problem.
10 Discussion of the Namin~l of Pala Brid.qe
(Placed on the agenda at the request of Councilman Roberts)
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1 Oral report will be given by Councilman Roberts.
11 Wild and Exotic Animal Ordinance
(Placed on the agenda at the request of Councilman Roberts)
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA,
ADDING CHAPTER 6.12 TO THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL
CODE PROHIBITING THE DISPLAY OF WILD OR EXOTIC
ANIMALS FOR ENTERTAINMENT OR AMUSEMENT
PURPOSES
R:~Agenda\032800
10
12
PubliciTraffic Safety Commission Appointment
RECOMM EN DATION:
12.1 Appoint one applicant to serve an unexpired term on the Public/Traffic Safety
Commission through October 10, 2000.
13
Consideration of Adoption of Resolution of Necessity for the accluisition in Eminent
Domain of an easement in connection with the Pala Brid.Qe Project - Project No. F~/V97-15
RECOMMENDATION:
13.1
Open and conduct a hearing on the adoption of the proposed Resolution of
Necessity, receive from staff the evidence stated and referred to in this Report, take
testimony from any person wishing to be heard on issues A, B, C, and D below and
consider all the evidence to determine whether to adopt the proposed Resolution,
which requires a unanimous or 4/5ths vote;
13.2
If the City Council finds, based upon the evidence contained in and referred to in
this Report, the testimony and comments received in this headng, that the evidence
warrants the necessary findings with respect to the proposed Resolution of
Necessity, then the staff recommends that the City Council, in the exercise of its
discretion, adopt proposed Resolution No. 2000- (which requires a 4/Sths vote of
the entire Council) and authorize that an eminent domain proceeding be filed to
acquire Certain Property Interests ("Subject Property Interest") in the real property
commonly known as Assessors Parcel No. 961-010-006 and more fully described in
the legal descriptions attached heroto collectively as Exhibit "1 ," which also contains
maps showing the location of the Subject Property Interests in relation to the
proposed Mitigation Site Easement. A map of the Project Area showing roughly the
location of the subject Property Interests is attached hereto as Exhibit "2." Exhibits
"1" and "2" are incorporated in this Report by this reference.
13.3 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA DECLARING CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTY NECESSARY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND
AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION THEREOF IN CONNECTION
WITH THE PROPOSED MITIGATION SITE EASEMENT FOR
THE PALA ROAD BRIDGE CAPTIAL IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT
14
City Council Policy (Staff Time)
(Placed on the agenda at the request of Mayor Stone)
RECOMMENDATION:
14.1 Consider adopting the City Council Policy regarding staff time.
R:~Agenda\032800
11
15 Appointment of two City Councilmembers to participate in the County General Plan
Update Committees
RECOMMENDATION:
15.1 Appoint one Councilmember to attend the County General Plan Update Committee
(RCIP) meetings and appoint one Councilmember to attend the Multi-Species
Habitat Conservation Plan Committee (MSHCP) meetings.
16 Appointment of two City Councilmembers to the City General Plan Update Committee
RECOMMENDATION:
16.1 Appoint two Councilmembers to serve on the City's General Plan Update
Committee.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next adjourned regular meeting: City Council, April 11, 2000, 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers,
43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
R:~Agenda\032800
12
PROCLAMATIONS
AND
PRESENTATIONS
ITEM 1
ITEM 2
MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY 25, 2000
The City Council convened in a regular meeting at 7:00 P.M., on Tuesday, January 25, 2000,
in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
California.
Present: Councilmembers: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, and Stone.
Absent: Councilmember: None.
PRELUDE MUSIC
The prelude music was provided by Kurt Jordan.
INVOCATION
The invocation was given by Rabbi Barnett of Congregation B'Nai Chaim of Murrieta.
ALLEGIANCE
The salute to the Flag was led by Councilman Pratt.
At this time, Mayor Stone introduced those students in attendance from their Government
Class.
PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
Certificate of Achievement for Eaele Scout - TV Turlev-Treio
Congratulating Ty Turley-Trejo on his achievement, Mayor Stone presented a Certificate of
Achievement to him.
Special Enforcement Team (SET) Presentation
Police Chief Domenoe introduced SET Officers Holder and Krikava who, in turn, provided an
overview of the program and its functions.
Councilman Naggar commended the Officers on a job well done.
In response to Mayor Stone, the Officers noted that the City has experienced some use of over-
the-counter drugs in the making of methamphetamines and, therefore, encouraged public
involvement as it relates to any street activity or any suspicion of drugs.
City Manager Nelson as well acknowledged the men and women, in attendance, from the Police
Department and commended each and everyone on a job well done.
R:~Agenda\012500
1
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. Steve Lowe, 30130 Cabrillo, expressed his concern with the potential uncertainty of the
Temecula Speedway, advising that this Speedway is the only one in the County that prohibits the
use of alcohol; that it is a family-oriented environment; and that, therefore, it is being requested
that this use be permitted to continue.
Mr. Dan Ashcraft, 42250 Baldaray Circle, reiterated that the Temecula Speedway is an alcohol-
free environment; that many individuals are expending a great deal of money on building their cars;
and that, therefore, it is being requested that this operation be permitted to continue.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Councilman Pratt advised that he and his wife were invited by the Metropolitan Water
District to tour water facilities in Northern California.
Viewing the upcoming Workshop as beneficial and informative, Mr. Pratt requested that the
consideration of a moratorium be deferred until after the Workshop.
B. Mayor Stone applauded Councilman Pratt's efforts on ways to address the traffic congestion
throughout the City and reiterated that it is the entire Council's goal to address this issue.
C. City Manager Nelson reiterated that a Workshop has been scheduled for Tuesday, February
15, 200, at 6:00 P.M. to discuss different growth management strategies and noted that the public
is invited.
D. Impressed with the attendance of the January 18, 2000 Workshop, Councilman Naggar
encouraged the public to attend in order to provide their input and suggestions.
E. Councilman Naggar advised that on Thursday, January 27, 2000, the first meeting of the
Kitchen's Cabinet, an advisory Committee, has been scheduled and that various issues will be
addressed. He encouraged and invited additional participation.
F. Councilman Roberts thanked Councilman Pratt for deferring discussion of the moratorium
until after the Workshop and advised that at the CETAP meeting, a motion will be put forth
requesting that the County limit their project approvals until the completion of the Strategic Plan.
Having attended the monthly RCTC Budget Implementation Committee meeting,
Councilman Roberts relayed concern with regard to the allocation of Measure A Funds and efforts
being put forth to ensure that these funds are allocated to the Southwestern Region of the County.
G. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero, Councilman Pratt clarified that it would be his
hope to eliminate the need for a moratorium through the Workshop process.
H. Having attended a meeting in the City of Hemet with the Cities of Hemet, San Jacinto,
Murrieta, and Perris in attendance, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero advised that discussion included
the necessity of these cities working together to ensure that appropriate Federal funding for the
planning of the realignment of Winchester Road and Highway 79 is attained. Mr. Comerchero
noted that he would keep the Council apprised.
R:~Agenda\012500
2
Mr. Comerchero as well advised that he has been appointed to the National League of
Cities Community and Economic Development Policy Committee, noting that discussion included
attempts to influence policy concerning Federal issues.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the
agenda.
2 Approval of Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of December 14, 1999.
3 Resolution Approvincl List of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-03
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
4 Tract Map No. 23371 (located south of La Serena Way, east of Temeku Drive, west of
Meadows Parkway in the MarClarita Village Specific Plan No. 199)
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Approve Tract Map No. 23371 in conformance with the conditions of approval;
4.2 Approve Subdivision Improvement Agreement;
4.3 Approve Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Faithful Performance
Bond, Labor and Material Bond and Monument Bond as security for the
agreements.
(Councilman Pratt abstained with regard to this issue.)
R:~Agenda\012500
3
5 Tract Map No. 24182-3 (located south of Campanula Way, east of Meadows Parkway, west of
Butterfield Staae Road, and north of State HiGhwaV 79 South and within Paloma Del Sol
Specific Plan No. 219)
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Approve Tract Map No. 24182-3 in conformance with the conditions of approval;
5,2 Approve Subdivision Improvement Agreement;
5.3 Approve Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Faithful Performance
Bond, Labor and Material Bond and Monument Bond as security for the
agreements.
(Councilman Pratt abstained with regard to this issue.)
6 Tract Map No. 24182-4 (located south of Campanula Way, East of Meadows Parkway, west of
Butterfield StaGe Road, and north of State Hiclhwav 79 South and within Paloma Del Sol
Specific Plan No. 219
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Approve Tract Map No. 24182-4 in conformance with the conditions of approval.
6.2 Approve Subdivision Improvement Agreement.
6.3 Approve Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Faithful Performance
Bond, Labor and Material Bond and Monument Bond as security for the
agreements.
(Councilman Pratt abstained with regard to this issue.)
7 Parcel MaD No. 29431 (located south of De Portola Road, east of Mar<~arita Road, west of
Meadows Parkway and north of State HiGhway 79 South and within Paloma Del Sol Specific
Plan No. 219
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Approve Parcel Map No. 29431 in conformance with the conditions of approval.
7.2 Approve Subdivision Improvement Agreement.
7.3 Approve Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Faithful Performance
Bond, Labor and Material Bond and Monument Bond as security for the
agreements.
(Councilman Pratt abstained with regard to this issue.)
R:~,genda\012500
4
8 Authorize Temporan/Street Closures for Temecula Rod Run 2000 Event in Old Town (located
at Old Town Front Street, and related streets, between Moreno Street and First Street)
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING STREET
CLOSURES FOR TEMECULA ROD RUN 2000 EVENT AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO ISSUE PERMITS FOR
THIS SPECIFIC SPECIAL EVENT
(Mayor Stone abstained with regard to this issue.)
9 Acceptance of Grant Deed for Loncl Canyon Creek Detention Basin
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1 Accept a grant deed from Christ the Vine Lutheran Church (WELS) for the
construction and maintenance of a portion of the Long Canyon Creek Detention
Basin, located easterly of Margarita Road, south of North General Kearny Road;
9.2 Authorize the City Clerk to record the grant deed.
10 Second Amendment to Aqreement with P & D Consultants for Contract Buildinn Inspectors
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1 Approve a Second Amendment to an agreement for consultant services with P & D
Consultants, in an amount not to exceed $20,000, to provide supplemental building
inspection services to the Building and Safety Department.
11 2000 Workers' Compensation Coveraqe Annual Renewal
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1 Approve the agreement with Barney & Barney for Insurance Company of the West
(ICW) to become the City's new Employee Workers' Compensation Insurance,
subject to final approval as to form by the City Attorney.
12 Amendment to LEAF contract for Animal Control Services
RECOMMENDATION:
12.1 Approve a contract amendment with Lake Elsinore Animal Friends (LEAF) to allow
LEAF to begin an education and marketing program aimed at ensuring that all dogs
in the City are licensed and to allow LEAF to retain the entire new license revenue
to offset the City's share of the costs associated with building a new facility.
R:~Agenda\012500
5
13 Old Town Temecula Storefront Police Station
RECOMMENDATION:
13.1 Approve the lease for the Temecula Police Department Storefront Facility in Old
Town Temecula.
(Mayor Stone abstained with regard to issue.)
14 Consideration of Address ChanGe from Ynez Court to Ynez Road
RECOMMENDATION:
14.1 Approve the change of address designation for Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 27714,
Fish House Vera Cruz Restaurant, from Ynez Court to Ynez Road.
15 Citv DeleGation to Nakavama, Japan
RECOMMENDATION:
15.1 Approve an official City delegation to travel to Nakayama, Japan as part of the
Sister City Program.
16 Appropriation of STIP Funds and Transfer of Measure "A" for the Pavement Manaeement
Proeram and the Jefferson Avenue, Winchester Road Rehabilitation Project - Project No.
PW99-16
RECOMMENDATION:
16.1 Appropriate $816,000 in State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Grant
Funds for the Pavement Management Program;
16.2 Transfer $72,675 in Measure "A" funds from the Winchester Road median project to
the Pavement Management Program.
MOTION: Councilman Roberts moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-3, 8-16 (Item
Nos. 4-7 were pulled for separate discussion). The motion was seconded by Councilman
Naggar and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Mayor Stone who abstained with
regard to Item Nos. 8 and 13.
With regard to Consent Calendar Item Nos. 4 - 7, Councilman Pratt advised that he would be
abstaining with regard to these limes.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 4-7.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Roberts and voice vote reflected approval with the
exception of Councilman Pratt who abstained.
In response to Councilman Pratt's abstention, Mayor Stone clarified that Mr. Pratt may note his
abstention at the time action is taken on the Consent Calendar Items and that he does not have
to separately pull the items.
R:~Agenda\012500
6
At 7:34 P.M., Mayor Stone called a brief recess and at 7:45 P.M., the City Council convened as
the Temecula Community Services District and the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. At 7:53
P.M., the City Council resumed with regularly scheduled City Council business.
COUNCIL BUSINESS
17 Public Traffic Safety Awareness
RECOMMENDATION:
17.1 Approve the creation of a committee to develop a Traffic Safety Awareness
Program.
Police Chief Domenoe provided the staff report (as per agenda material), advising that this
program has been designed to discuss traffic safety issues; to educate the public of both cities
(Murrieta and Temecula) with regard to those issues; and to create potential cooperative
measures.
Further referencing this item, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero noted that the intent of this program
is two-pronged - public relations and enforcement.
In conjunction with this program, Councilman Pratt encouraged the discussion of rideshare in an
effort to resolve traffic congestion throughout the cities.
Mayor Stone recommended that a reward system to those obeying the laws be discussed as
well.
MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to approve the staff recommendation. The motion was
seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
18 Request for additional chanqes to the Adult Business Ordinance
(Placed on the agenda at the request of Councilman Naggar)
RECOMMENDATION:
18.1 Direct staff to present this issue to the Planning Commission for a recommendation
to the Council on any needed Ordinance amendments.
Deputy City Manager Thornhill presented the staff report (of record), advising that the proposed
changes to the Ordinance are within Constitutional constraints.
With regard to the proposed changes, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero requested that additional
consideration be given to the placement of adult material in a store and not just the labeling of it.
City Attorney Thorson informed the City Council and the viewing audience that the proposed
language has been taken from the current State statute which has been upheld by the Courts.
In response to Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero's issue regarding placement of items, City Attorney
Thorson noted that he could further address this item as well as it being considered during the
Planning DepartmentJCommission analyses of this issue.
R:~Agenda\012500
7
Mayor Stone requested that additional language be provided with regard to the placement of
visual barriers to further mitigate the viewing of such materials by the youth.
For Councilman Roberrs, it was clarified that the Planning Commission, during its review, will
only readdress this item of the Ordinance not the entire Ordinance.
In response to Councilman Naggar, City Attorney Thorson advised that the proposed changes
in the Ordinance address activities and anatomical areas which may not be displayed and/or
referred.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero moved to approve the staff recommendation. The
motion was seconded by Councilman Roberrs and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
19 Planninq Commission Appointment
RECOMMENDATION:
19.1 Appoint one applicant to serve an unexpired term on the Planning Commission
through June 4, 2001.
City Clerk Jones briefly reviewed the staff report, advising that the Municipal Code does require
a 4/5ths vote for the appointment of a Commissioner.
Mayor Stone and Councilman Roberts, as subcommittee members who reviewed the
applications, relayed their support for Mr. John Telesio.
Although having the respect for Mr. Telesio, Councilman Naggar commented on the public
support Mr. Ross had gained, during the November election, views with regard to traffic,
planning, etc. and, therefore, recommended the appointment of Mr. Carl Ross.
MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to appoint Mr. Carl Ross to the Public/Traffic Safety
Commission. The motion was seconded by Councilman Pratt and roll vote reflected denial of
the motion as follows:
AYES: Councilmembers Naggar and Pratt
NOES: Councilmembers Comerchero, Roberts, and Stone
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Comerchere moved to appoint Mr. John Telesio. The motion was
seconded by Councilman Roberts and roll call vote reflected denial of the motion as follows:
AYES: Councilmembers Naggar and Pratt
NOES: Councilmembers Comerchero, Roberts, and Stone
Discussion ensued with potentially agendizing the changing of City Council policy which
requires a 4/5ths vote.
R:~Agenda\012500
8
MOTION: Mayor Stone moved to appoint Mr. Darrell Connerton. The motion was seconded by
Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero and roll call vote reflected denial of the motion as follows:
AYES: Councilmembers Naggar, Pratt, and Roberrs
NOES: Councilmembers Comerchero and Stone
MOTION: Mayor Stone moved to appoint Mr. Robert Berg, {This motion died for the lack of
a second.)
MOTION: Councilman Roberts moved to agendize the changing of City policy, requiring a
4/5ths vote to appoint a Commissioner. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tern
Comerchero. {This motion was ultimately withdrawn by Councilman Roberts and Mayor
Pro Tern Comerchero.)
Rather than changing the Municipal Code, Councilman Naggar offered the following motion:
MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to appoint Mr. John Telesio to the Planning Commission.
The motion was seconded by Mayor Stone and voice vote reflected unanimous approval,
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
No additional comments.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
No comments,
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
With respect to Closed Session, City Attorney Thorson advised that there were no reportable
actions to report.
ADJOURNMENT
At 8:26 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, February 8, 2000, at
7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
[SEAL]
R:~Agenda\012500
9
Minutes for the January 25, 2000, City Council
meeting will be delivered, under separate cover,
with Monday deliveries.
MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED WORKSHOP MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
JANUARY t8, 2000
The City Council convened in an adjourned workshop meeting at 6:00 P.M., on Tuesday,
January 18, 2000, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park
Drive, Temecula, California.
Present:
Councilmembers: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, and Stone.
Absent: Councilmember: None.
ALLEGIANCE
The salute to the Flag was led by Councilman Naggar.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Having met with Congressmen Calvert and Packard and Congresswoman Bono, Mayor
Stone commented on the city's funding wish list of $10 to $13 million and commended
Congressmen Calvert and Packard and Congresswoman Bono on their representation on
behalf of the City in an effort to achieve this wish list.
COUNCIL BUSINESS
Riverside County InteGrated Plan (RCIP)
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Receive and file.
City Manager Nelson reviewed the staff report (of record), highlighting the County's coordinated
efforts with the City to properly address the impacts of population growth, including traffic
impacts, as well as new construction. Mr. Nelson advised that the County of Riverside has
embarked on the development of the Riverside County Integrated Plan, which encompasses
mass transit, traffic circulation, land use densities, and endangered species and noted that
without the input of all County of Riverside cities, this Plan would be neither functional nor
effective.
Stating that it would be staff's goal, this evening, to provide information to the City Council and
the community on the County's Integrated Plan, City Manager Nelson requested that the City
Council consider the development strategies, between the County and the City, necessary to
ensure the City's concerns/issues are properly addressed within this Plan.
Mayor Stone welcomed and introduced Supervisor Buster.
R:~Agenda\011800
1
In light of the County's recognized high levels of growth and the recognized need to differently
proceed in the future, Mr. Bob Lashbrook, Agency Director, commented on the County's
commitment to the development of the Integrated Plan which will be addressing an overhaul of
the County's General Plan, transportation infrastructure, and the Endangered Species Act. In
closing, Mr. Lashbrook commented on the total budget for this Plan ($20 million), the timeframe
(three years), and the need for partnership among the cities and County.
Mr. Mel Placilla, Project Director, further elaborated on the Integrated Plan process,
commenting on the projected estimates as to population, job growth/creation, commuting
patterns, General Plan challenges, existing entitlements, and open space requirements, density,
and multi-modal corridor needs. Mr. Placilla as well commented on the County's goal of an
outreach program to the cities and its residents and further addressed the scheduled timeframe.
Referencing the County's Vision Statement, Mr. Richard Ramella, General Plan Team Leader,
provided detailed information of the Statement, noting that the County's Vision Statement was
written 20 years in the future, commenting on housing, transportation, conservation, air quality,
etc., and advising that the Vision Statement is responsive to the one adopted by the Board of
Supervisors and Riverside County Transportation Committee (RCTC), and briefly commenting
on identification of corridors/arterials, transportation program budget, working area plans,
outreach programs, development of habitat alternatives, and transportation mitigation fees. Mr.
Ramella reiterated the County's desire for City participation and need to work with City staff in
order to identify projects, action, and ensure compatibility with the Habitat Conservation Plan. In
closing, Mr. Ramella reiterated the importance of City and community involvement in this
process.
Providing an overview of the Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process
(CETAP), Mr. Steve Smith, CETAP Team Leader, addressed transportation and corridors,
noting the following:
· Development of multi-modal corridors
· Circulation Element - arterial highways, trails, transit system, etc.
coordinated with Circulation Elements of other adjoining cities
impact of anticipated population growth on traffic
development of an initial transportation strategy
transportation support strategies (ridesharing)
· Reviewed CETAP Plan schedule
In response to City Council discussion, County representatives provided input as follows:
For Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero, the following was noted with regard to specifically dealing with
problems relative to the Southwestern Riverside County, with regard to the County's ability to
truly implement the Plan once completed and approved, and with regard to the possibility of
reversing the estimated population growth:
that the Southwestern Area Plan has been identified as the No. 1 priority plan for
the County;
R:~Agenda\011800
2
that there is a sense of urgency in completing this Plan; that the existing level of
development (previously approved) and its potential impacts are being reviewed
and monitored;
that the population growth forecast, for the Region, is driven by SCAG which, in
turn, is driven by the Department of Finance at the State level; at the County's
request, SCAG is further reevaluating that population growth forecast;
that part of the upcoming process, a determination will be made as to whether or
not that estimate should change and or be reversed.
In response to Councilman Naggar, the following was noted with regard to road and arterial
relief, freeway system concerns, and implementation and funding of the Plan:
that the Plan should be developed within 24 months and, therefore, should be
completed within the next 15 months; that the public hearing review process,
once developed, will take approximately 12 months with a majority of that
process occurring at the State/Federal level;
that the next two-to- six month period is an extremely critical period for the
development of this Plan and, therefore, reiterated the involvement of cities;
that freeway interchange locations will be reviewed;
that it has been deemed appropriate, by Supervisor Buster, to continue, for the
County, to review projects based on the existing General Plan and existing
policies/problems;
that the General Plan Advisory Committee has been asked to make some formal
recommendation with regard to how to process projects in the interim period.
In response to Councilman Roberts' request, the following was noted:
that the General Plan Advisory Committee may request input from CETAP and
Multi-Species on the issue of not approving any additional projects until the
completion of this Plan.
Commending the City Council on a job well done with regard to this issue, Councilman Pratt
noted that the issue of transportation must be the key issue of concern and unless that is
accomplished, this Plan will not be functional. With regard to the moratorium, he noted that it
would not necessarily be his intent to stop construction but to ensure that the future will provide
proper and adequate transportation.
Commending the County on its proactive approach, Mayor Stone commented on the Circulation
Element and the need for right-of-way acquisitions and associated funding and the County's
need to address public transportation.
Apprising the City Council of staff's efforts associated with the Transportation Uniform Mitigation
Fee, Deputy City Manager Thornhill commented on Federal grants and other alternative funding
sources available to acquire property and associated improvements.
Expressing his appreciation for having been given the opportunity to attend this Workshop,
Supervisor Buster further commented and clarified the Plan and its associated process and the
R:~Agenda\011800
3
need for the cities and County to work together, noting that the City's General Plan should not
necessarily be identical to that of the County's but that it should be integrated and compatible
and as well share similar goals. Commenting on the public's responsibility in the future, Mr.
Buster, as well, encouraged the general public to be involved in this process.
At this time, Mayor Stone invited public input.
Ms. Adrian McGregor, 3455 Madera del Playa, expressed her concerns with regard to future
impacts on water, air congestion, and the impacts of SMART Housing.
Speaking in support of this process, Mr. David Micheal, 30300 Churchill Court, commended the
Board of Supervisors, City Council, and staff on a job well done.
Speaking in opposition to a moratorium, Mr. Karel Lindemans spoke in strong support of public
transportation.
In light of the incredible amount of growth the City has experienced, Ms. Tamra Teig Kjos,
39570 Calle Anita, spoke in support of this process; encouraged the County and City to work
together; expressed concern with regard to transportation; and noted her opposition to a
moratorium.
Deputy City Manager Thornhill advised that over the past 10 years, the City has reduced
development density of previously approved County plans by 8% to 10% and that the City has
only approved a couple of Specific Plans such as Campos Verde for which the density was
reduced from 900 units to 200 units and that the Merdi Ranch project has been deferred
because Pala Road and the bridge has not been completed nor has the widening of SR 79.
In response to public comments, it was noted by County representatives that the desire for
mass transit and the desire for reduced density are two issues that don't necessarily coincide
and that the proposed Plan will require the need for choices.
Ms. Michelle Anderson, 43797 Barletta Street, encouraged Supervisor Buster to stop approvals
of any Specific Plans until the completion of this Integrated Plan.
Mr. Gene Frickman, Citizens Advisory Board, encouraged public participation in this process
and suggested that city staff provide to the public periodic updates as to the Plan process.
Favoring periodic updates, Councilman Roberts noted that he would be providing periodic
updates as a result of his attendance at CETAP meetings. Mr. Roberts requested that the
presentation made, at a recent CETAP meeting, about the clustering of dwelling units around a
transportation center, be presented to the City Council.
Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero strongly emphasized to the County representatives of what the
City could potentially lose if this Plan were not effectively implemented.
Councilman Pratt reiterated his support of mass transportation.
Supporting this Plan process, Councilman Naggar echoed his support for mass transit.
Mayor Stone requested that it be relayed to the Supervisors that the City Council is unanimously
concerned about the increases of density along the City's periphery while the Integrated Plan is
being formulated. Mr. Stone reiterated the City's desire to be a part of this process and echoed
the comments with regard to mass transit.
R:~Agenda\011800
4
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
Commending staff for their efforts associated with the preparation of this meeting and thanking
Supervisor Buster and the public for their attendance, Mr. Nelson informed the City Council and
the public that representatives from the City of Murrieta were invited but because of a City
Council meeting, representation at this meeting was not feasible. He noted that staff will
continue to communicate with the City of Murrieta with regard to the development of this Plan.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
City Attorney Thorson advised that there were no Closed Session items to report.
ADJOURNMENT
At 8:26 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, January 25, 2000, at
7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
[SEAL]
R:~Agenda\011800
5
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
FEBRUARY 8, 2000
CALL TO ORDER
The Open Session of the City Council meeting convened in a regular meeting at 7:01 P.M.,
on Tuesday, February 8, 2000, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ROLL CALL
Present: Councilmembers:
Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, and
Mayor Stone.
Absent: Councilmember: None.
PRELUDE MUSIC
The prelude music was provided by Ms. Loreal Koptich.
INVOCATION
The invocation was given by Mr. Tyler Langness, a member of the youth at Baha'i
Community of Temecula.
ALLEGIANCE
The audience was led in the Flag salute by Councilman Roberts.
PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
Certificate of Appreciation for Eagle Scout
Due to the absence of Mr. Anthony Burg, this Certificate of Appreciation was continued to
the February 22, 2000 City Council meeting.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. Richard H. Parsons, 39617 Via Temprano, representing the Senior Golden Years
Organization, requested the Council to appoint an alternate liaison Councilman for this
particular organization, noting the differential between the thoughts of Councilman Pratt (i.e.,
his recommendation for a building moratorium) and that of the organization.
Mr. Joseph R. Shekuski Jr., 31999 Vineyard Avenue, representing the Senior Golden Years
Organization, requested that the liaison for the organization be thorough in their
investigation of the needs and operational capacity of the facility; and noted that the
organization utilizes alternate facilities for meeting places due to the insufficient size of their
facility.
P,,:\Minutes\020800
Ms. Linda Cole, 28376 Tierra Vista Road, representing the Senior Golden Years
Organization, thanked Director of Community Services Parker, and Recreation Supervisor
Adkisson for their support associated with the organization; and advised that in light of the
onset of the facility's upcoming building expansion project, and Councilman Pratt's
expressed negative views toward building growth, that an alternate liaison be appointed for
their organization.
Mr. Patrick Vesey, 28192 Tierra Vista Road, representing the Temecula Town Association,
thanked the City of Temecula for its support with respect to the Rod Run Event, specifically
commending the placement of the beautiful new banners (denoting a Rod Run motif) in the
City; and presented the Council with gift bags.
Mr. Ed Dooh, 6th Street and Old Town Front Street, relayed the numerous recent
improvements completed in Old Town; and invited the community to visit.
In response to Mr. Dooh's comments, Councilman Naggar relayed that he had visited the
Farmer's Market, which was held in Old Town Temecula every Saturday morning, noting his
enjoyment in Old Town.
The following individuals spoke as proponents of Preposition 22:
n Ms. Stephanie Abbott
a Mr. David Barthel
Ms. Heather Johnson
4288 Via Alhama
45002 Corte Zorita
30702 Calle Pina Colada
The above-mentioned individuals relayed the following comments:
That the traditional family is the foremost foundation of our society, and needs to be
protected.
Requested the City Council to agendize this matter, and support Proposition 22 in
the form of a resolution.
Referencing the California Family Code noted that Proposition 22 would reinforce
the definition of marriage.
Requested that the Council support family values.
Relayed opposition to a redefinition of the term marriage.
In order to demonstrate the vast individuals supporting Proposition 22, requested
the members of the audience who attended this City Council meeting in support of
Proposition 22 to stand.
In response to the previous comments, Mayor Stone requested that the matter of
supporting Proposition 22 in the form of a resolution be agendized for the February 22,
2000 meeting; and thanked all those community members who came to support the
family unit.
Mr. Chuck Washington, no address provided, commended Mayor Stone for his excellent
work as Master of Ceremonies at the Chamber Installation Dinner; with respect to the
~,,:\Minutes\020800 2
issue of a building moratorium, recommended identifying the specific source of the
traffic; relayed the recent improvements in traffic; and while acknowledging that
commercial development traffic contributes to the generation of traffic in the City of
Temecula, relayed that it also brings numerous benefits (i.e., revenues which have been
utilized for infrastructure improvements, provisions for employment).
Ms. Maryann Edwards, 42911 Calle Londe, commented on the building moratorium
issue; requested that the Council appoint two Temecula residents, and that Supervisor
Buster's office appoint two representatives, in order to form an advisory committee to
express concerns regarding traffic and growth, and to seek solutions; and advised that
this would be an important step in uniting the community with respect to this matter.
Mr. John Mize, 32850 Vista Del Monte Road, noted the County Board of Supervisors'
request that the City Council of Temecula provide input regarding development outside
the City limits which would impact the City; recommended that the Roripaugh Ranch
Development and alternate developments be limited to a minimum of two-and-half-acre
homesites in order to maintain the country atmosphere, and to lessen the negative
impact upon traffic and the environment; and requested that after consideration of a
slow-growth moratorium that the City Council forward its comments to the Board of
Supervisors.
Ms. Pamela L. Miod, 31995 Via Saltio, representing Citizens First of Temecula Valley,
relayed her comments as a proponent of the City of Temecula having a trolley as a
mode of transportation, recommending that the trolley be utilized in Old Town, the casino
area, the mall, and that weekdays it be utilized to transport employees in the business
area; noted that Southern California Edison has offered to fund eighty percent (80%) of
the project; and requested that the City Council re-investigate the feasibility of
establishing a trolley system.
With respect to Ms. Miod's comments, Councilman Naggar requested additional
information regarding the Council's previous data regarding the trolley system.
Mr. Chuck Blackledge, 40235 Windsor Road, relaying that he had presented this issue
at a previous Council meeting, noted his opposition regarding the City's Ordinance
restricting balloon advertising over ten feet in height; and presented ordinances from
alternate cities regarding the matter.
For Mr. Blackledge, Mayor Stone advised Mr. Blackledge to contact the City Clerk in
order to schedule a meeting with himself, relaying that they could discuss the restrictions
the Ordinance placed on advertising for businesses in the community, while considering
the aesthetics of the City, as well.
In response to Mr. Blackledge's comments, Councilman Roberts relayed that in the past
the balloons placed at the auto dealerships had gotten caught in the high voltage SCE
lines, noting the dangers and costs associated with the balloons, providing the rationale
for the dealerships no longer utilizing the balloons.
For informational purposes, City Manager Nelson advised that staff had investigated the
matter and had relayed that data to Mr. Blackledge.
P,,:\Minutes\020800 3
Mr. Otto E. Baron, 28681 Pujol Street, relayed his discouragement with respect to the timely
manner of the City processing his requests (i.e., request to replace his dwelling with a 1910
home that was about to be demolished which was ultimately demolished before he received
a response from the City); and relayed his concern regarding Code Enforcement's
aggressive efforts with respect to the Old Town area.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Echoing Mr. Washington's comments, Councilman Roberts commended Mayor
Stone for a job well done with respect to his role as Master of Ceremonies at the
Chamber Installation Dinner.
Councilman Roberts relayed that the Riverside County Transportation Commission
(RCTC) Executive Committee held a Special Meeting on Monday, February 7, 2000,
in order to consider a recommended project in response to the Governor's request
(which had been relayed at 3:00 P.M. in Friday, February 4, 2000) for three traffic
projects from each of the Counties, noting the following parameters with respect to
the project submittals: 1) the project had to be ready for construction in three years,
2) the project had not been funded, 3) the project would be a congestion relief
project, and 4) the recommended project needed to be submitted by 11:00 A.M.,
February 7, 2000; advised that the State funding could potentially be in the amount
of $1 billion in general funds for California and its transportation problems; and
relayed that the Committee submitted The Buy Back of the 91 Freeway Toll Road
Project as the number one priority project, providing additional information regarding
the existing restrictions with respect to adding additional lanes on this particular
freeway.
C=
With respect to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
Executive Board, Councilman Roberts relayed his recent appointment; additionally,
noted that he had been appointed as the Vice Chair of the Transportation Committee
for SCAG; advised that he had been re-appointed to the SCRA Metrolink Board of
Directors, noting that he would continue as Chair of the Operations Committee;
relayed his re-appointment to the National League of Cities Transportation
Infrastructure and Services Steering Committee, noting that he had spent six years
on the Policy Committee, advising that this would be his second year on the Steering
Committee.
D=
Mayor Stone commended Councilman Roberts for his diligent efforts with respect to
the Transportation needs of the City.
With respect to the Senior Golden Years representatives' previous comments,
Councilman Pratt provided a brief history of his involvement with the facility, clarifying
that he had no negative objectives regarding the center.
Regarding the upcoming moratorium discussion, Councilman Pratt advised the
community that whether the City adopts this concept or not, if the residents of the
City do not get involved in ride-sharing and alternate traffic relieving solutions that no
plan would be effective; and requested that staff investigate the feasibility of the
PublicFFreffic Safety Co,rnmission forming a community educational group in
conjunction with PTA and HOA organizations in order to discuss the issues
associated with traffic solutions.
I~:\Minutes\020800 4
With respect to the Western Bypass Project, Councilman Pratt relayed his suppod.
Councilman Pratt requested staff to provide a report by the first Council meeting in
March regarding the viability of the independent traffic consulting firm which the City
utilized for traffic analysis and recommended solutions, noting that he questioned the
results of the data.
With respect to the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) Committee, Mayor Pro
Tem Comerchero relayed the recent concern regarding the implementation of Rule
1190 which is called the Fleet Rule mandating any municipal agency, or any private
business doing business with a municipal agency to convert its fleets (if there are
more than 15 vehicles) to clean-burning engines, noting the aggressive time
schedule and draft rule that had been modified to reflect the concerns of numerous
municipalities and private businesses; and with respect to data regarding clean air,
provided additional information regarding the process of determining an area's air
quality, specifically based on the number of cancer cases produced within a specified
area, noting that the average within the Southern California area was 1400 cancer
cases per million. advising that in the Temecula/Murrieta area the number of cases
was solely 300-400 per million.
Regarding the recently formed Traffic Awareness Committee, Mayor Pro Tem
Comerchero relayed that the Committee had met on February 8, 2000; and provided
additional information regarding the goals of the newly formed Temecula/Murrieta
Committee.
For community informational purposes, noting the numerous public comments
expressed by residents at this meeting. Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero relayed that the
concerns of the community were important to the Council, and had been duly noted.
Councilman Naggar relayed that he had artended the Girl Scouts Cultural Fair which
was held at Vail Ranch Elementary School, noting that various countries were
represented via foods, and native costumes; and encouraged the community to
support the Girl Scouts by purchasing cookies.
With respect to the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Advisory Committee
meeting, Councilman Naggar relayed the recent discussions regarding connectivity
with respect to wildlife corridors within the Riverside General Plan.
Regarding information received from his attendance to a Land Use Conference in
Los Angeles, Councilman Naggar queried whether staff could draft a Resolution for
Council consideration with respect to the proposed House Resolution 2372 which
could affect the local jurisdiction with respect to Land Use.
In response, City Manger Nelson relayed that staff would address the matter.
With respect to recent queries from the Council requiring an arduous amount of staff
work, Mayor Stone requested that the Council consider reinstating the policy
whereby if a Council query required numerous hours of staff time that the request
would come back to the Council for approval.
P,:\Minutes\020800 5
In response, City Manager Nelson advised that staff would agendize the matter for
Council consideration.
CONSENT CALENDAR
At this time the Council heard the public comments with respect to Consent Calendar
Item Nos. 20.2, and 20.3.
Relaying his comments regarding Consent Calendar Item No. 20.2 (Proposition 13), Mr.
John Lynn, 32237 Placer Belair, referencing an article published in the Sacramento Bee
on January 23, 2000, noted the proposal for acquirement of public financing for a joint
venture (between the Metropolitan Water District and the Cadiz Company) to bring water
to Southern California; provided a detailed overview of the issues associated with
Proposition 13 (the Water Bond Act); relayed his opposition to the proposition in light of
Metropolitan Water District having a revenue of approximately $1 billion each year,
noting his opposition to tax payers being asked to fund this joint venture; and requested
that the Council reconsider their support of Proposition 13.
Noting his comments with regard to Consent Calendar Item No. 20.3 (Proposition 14),
Mr. Gary Christmas, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, County Librarian, spoke in support
of Proposition 14; relayed that out of 24 library facilities in the County, the Temecula
Library was the busiest location; noted the need to expand the library services within the
City; relayed the efforts of the Temecula City staff in coordination with the County
Librarian Staff with respect to expansion; commented on Councilman Roberrs'
assiduous efforts regarding this matter; and urged the Council to support Proposition
14.
In response to Mr. Christmas' comments, Mayor Stone relayed that the City had placed
its thirty-five percent (35%) portion of the cost share in the bank in hopes that if this
proposition passed, Temecula would be the recipient of the first grant for the Library
Project.
For Councilman Naggar, Director of Community Services Parker relayed that with
respect to the Library Project the design process would potentially be completed by the
summer of 2000, and subsequently the project would go out to bid, noting that the
project could potentially break ground in the fall of 2000, if the previously mentioned
funds are available.
Councilman Roberts provided an update regarding the Library Design Committee efforts,
noting that the proposed location of the site was at Pauba Road, adjacent to the Fire
Station, overlooking the sports park; and for informational purposes, relayed that there
was provision of literature generated form the Californians for Literacy and Community
Libraries available to the community at the back of the Council Chambers.
Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included
in the agenda.
R:\Minutes\020800 6
2 Resolution Approving List of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-05
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND
DEMANDS AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
3 City Treasurer's Report as of December 31.1999
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of December 31, 1999.
4 Approval of 1999-00 Mid-Year Budget Adjustments
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1999-00
ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET
4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO, 2000-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA REVISING THE
SCHEDULE OF AUTHORIZED POSITIONS
Consent Calendar Item No. 4 was pulled for separate consideration, see page 14.
5 Community Facilities District No. 88-12 (Ynez Corridor) Initiation of Actions
Necessary to Foreclose Delinquent Special Tax Liens
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
R:\Minutes\020800 7
6
7
8
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-08
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA ORDERING ACTION TO TRANSMIT TO
THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DOCUMENTS
NECESSARY TO CREDIT THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
TAX COLLECTOR UPON THE TAX ROLL AND TO
RELIEVE THE TAX COLLECTOR OF FURTHER DUTY
THERETO IN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO.
88-12 AS REQUIRED BY LAW; ORDERING ACTIONS
TO FORECLOSE THE DELINQUENT SPECIAL TAX
LIENS; AND ORDERING THE RECORDATION OF A
NOTICE OF INTENT TO REMOVE DELINQUENT
SPECIAL TAX INSTALLMENTS FROM THE TAX ROLL
Rescheduling of March 14. 2000 City Council Meeting
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1
Direct the City Clerk to reschedule the meeting of March 14, 2000 to March
21, 2000 and to per-Form the appropriate postings and noticing requirements
of the Government Code.
Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Association Financial Audit
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1
Approve the amended Temecula Valley Balloon & Wine Association
Sponsorship Agreement, which provides for a full financial audit of FY99-00
to be received by August 31, 2000.
Tract Map No. 23371-8 (located south of La Serena Way. east of Margarita Road.
west of South General Kearny Road. and north of Metropolitan Water District Fee
Right-of-Way for San Diego Pipelines No. 4 & 5 in the Margarita Village Specific
Plan No. 199
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Approve Tract Map No. 23371-8 in conformance with the conditions of
approval;
8.2 Approve the Subdivision Improvement Agreement;
8.3
Approve the Subdivision Monument Agreement and accept the Faithful
Performance Bond, Labor and Material Bond and Monument Bond as
security for the agreements,
~,.:\Minutes\020800 8
9 Overland Drive Bridge - Project No. PW95-11 - Construction Acceleration/Guidant
Settlement
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1
Authorize the City Manager to approve contract change orders with CC
Myers, Inc. for an amount of $170,000 above the previously approved 10%
contingency for the Overland Drive Bridge - Project No. PW95-11;
9.2
Approve the transfer of $90,000 from the land acquisition funds for the
Date/Cherry Street Overpass/Interchange project to the Overland Drive
Bridge Construction project.
10 Award of Construction Contract for Old Town First Street Bridge over Murrieta
Creek - Project No, PW95-08
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1
Award the construction contract for the First Street Extension - Project No.
PW95-08 - to Riverside Construction Company in the amount of
$4,522,222.00 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 $452,222.20 which is equal to 10% of the contract
amount;
10.3
Appropriate the necessary funds in the amount of $986,621.30 to cover the
reimbursable costs from Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) and
Rancho California Water District (RCWD) for their facilities associated with
the bridge construction contract.
Consent Calendar Item No. 10 was pulled for separate consideration, see page 15,
11
Completion and Acceptance of Construction Contract for Mall Improvements for
Ynez Road - Overland Drive to Winchester Road and Winchester Road - Ynez
Road to Margarita Road - Project No. PW97-06
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1 Accept the project Ynez Road - Overland Drive to Winchester Road and
Winchester Road - Ynez Road to Margarita Road - Project No. PW97-06 as
complete;
11.2 File a Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a
12-month Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract;
11.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond 7 months after filing of the Notice of
Completion if no liens have been filed.
R:\Minutes\020800 9
12 Completion and Acceptance of Construction Contract for Margarita Road.
Overland Drive. and Long Canyon Creek Improvements - Project No. PW97-07
13
RECOMMENDATION:
12.1 Accept the project Margarita Road, Overland Drive, and Long Canyon Creek
Improvements - Project No. PW97-07 as complete;
12.2 File a Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a
12-month Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract;
12.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond 7 months after filing of the Notice of
Completion if no liens have been filed.
Completion of Construction Contract for Category III Immediate Intersection
Improvements for Margarita Road Southbound Lane to De Portola Road
RECOMMENDATION:
13.1 Approve Contract Change Order No. 1 to McLaughlin Engineering & Mining,
Inc. in the amount of $8,190,10;
13.2 Accept the construction improvements for Category III Immediate
Intersection Improvements for Margarita Road Southbound Lane to De
Portola Road as complete.
14
15
Professional Services Agreements - Cozad & Thomsen. Inc and O'Malley
Engineering Corporation - Annual Contract for Survey Services - various CIP
Projects approved for FY 1999-2000
RECOMMENDATION:
14.1 Approve the agreement with Cozad & Thornsen, Inc. in an amount not to
exceed $40,000 to provide as needed survey services;
14.2 Approve the agreement with O'Malley Engineering Corporation in an amount
not to exceed $40,000 to provide as needed survey services;
14.3 Authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement.
Professional Services Agreements - Kleinfelder. Inc. and Converse Consultants -
Annual Contracts for Geotechnical and Material Testing Services - various CIP
Projects approved for FY 1999-2000
RECOMMENDATION:
15.1 Approve the agreement with Kleinfelder, Inc. in an amount not to exceed
$35,000 to provide as needed geotechnical and materials testing services;
P,:\Minutes\020800 10
16
15.2 Approve agreement with Converse Consultants in an amount not to exceed
$35,000 to provide as needed geotechnical and material testing services;
15.3 Authorize the Mayorto execute the agreement.
Professional Services Agreement - Robed Shea Perdue Real Estate Appraisals -
Annual Contract for Appraisal Services - various CIP Projects approved for FY
1999-2000
RECOMMENDATION:
16.1 Approve the agreement with Robed Shea Perdue Real Estate Appraisals to
provide as needed appraisal services in an amount not to exceed $25,000
for the City of Temecula and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement.
17 Local Agency - State Agreement No. 000457 - Supplement No. 242
RECOMMENDATION:
17.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-09
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT
NO. 242 TO THE ADMINISTERING AGENCY/STATE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE CITY
OF TEMECULA FOR STATE PROJECT NUMBER RPL-
5459(011), PAVEMENT REHABILITATION FOR
JEFFERSON AVENUE/FRONT STREET AND
WINCHESTER ROAD
17.2 Approve the agreement between Caltrans and City ofTemecula forfunding
Jefferson Avenue and Winchester Road Rehabilitation Projects in the
amount of $816,000.00.
18
Local Agency - State Agreement No. 08-5459 - Supplement No. M004
RECOMMENDATION:
18.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
R,:\Minutes\020800 11
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-10
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT
NO. M004 TO THE ADMINISTERING AGENCY/STATE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND THE CITY
OF TEMECULA FOR STATE PROJECT NUMBER ITS99-
5459(010), INTERSECTION TRAFFIC MONITORING
SYSTEM ALONG THE INTERSTATE 15 CORRIDOR
18.2 Approve the agreement between Caltrans and City of Temecula for funding
the intersection Traffic Monitoring System Project in the amount of
$197,867.00.
19 Completion and Acceptance for the Traffic Signal and Median Modification at
Rancho California Road and Town Center Drive - Project No. PW99-09
RECOMMENDATION:
19.1 Accept the project Traffic Signal and Median Modification - Rancho
California Road at Town Center Drive - Project No. PW99-9 - as complete;
19.2 File a Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a
12-month Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract;
19.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond 7 months after filing of the Notice of
Completion if no liens have been filed.
20 Resolutions of Support
RECOMMENDATION:
20.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-11
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING PROPOSITION 1A ON
THE MARCH 7, 2000 PRIMARY ELECTION BALLOT TO
AMEND THE CALIFORNIA STATE CONSTITUTION TO
PERMIT AND REGULATE GAMING COMPACTS ON
TRIBAL LANDS
Councilman Naggar abstained with regard to Consent Calendar Item No. 20.1.
20.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
R.:\Minutes\020800 12
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE PASSAGE OF
PROPOSITION 13-SAFE DRINKING WATER, CLEAN
WATER, WATERSHED PROTECTION AND FLOOD
PROTECTION ACT
(Continued to the February 22, 2000, City Council meeting.)
20.3 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-12
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE PASSAGE OF
PROPOSITION 14-CALIFORNIA READING AND
LITERACY IMPROVEMENT AND PUBLIC LIBRARY
CONSTRUCTION AND RENOVATION BOND ACT OF
2000
20.4 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-13
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE PASSAGE OF
PROPOSITION 26oTHE LET'S FIX OUR SCHOOLS
INITIATIVE
20.5 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA SUPPORTING THE NEED TO MEET
REGIONAL NEEDS FOR THE EXPANSION OF
AVIATION FACILITIES
Mayor Stone and Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero registered their no votes with regard to
Consent Calendar Item No. 20.2. Councilman Roberts recommended continuing this
matter to the February 22, 2000 City Council meeting in order to address additional
investigation in light of the previous comments presented by Mr. Lynn.
Mayor Stone provided the rationale for his opposition to Consent Calendar Item No. 20.2
(adopting a resolution supporting Proposition 13), relaying that since there was between
a $5-$8 billion surplus, there was no justification for the additional taxing of the public
with respect to this issue.
R.:\Minutes\020800 | 3
MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-3, 5-9,
11-20.1, and 20.3-20.5, and to continue Item No. 20.2 to the February 22, 2000 City
Council meeting. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero and voice
vote reflected approval with the exception of Councilman Naggar who abstained with
regard to Item No. 20.1 and voted no with regard to Item No. 20.4.
At this time Consent Calendar Item No. 4 was considered.
4 Approval of 1999-00 Mid-Year Budget Adjustments
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-06
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1999-00
ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET
4.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO, 2000-07
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA REVISING THE
SCHEDULE OF AUTHORIZED POSITIONS
In response to Councilman Naggar's queries whether the analyst position matter could
be continued until after the workshop in order to consider additional information, Deputy
City Manger Thornhill advised that since this was pad of the budget, if the matter was
not approved, staff would not be able to hire the additional personnel member; relayed
that the proposal was to fill the position with an employee who has worked for the City as
a project employee for four years, noting that the differential with respect to becoming a
permanent employee would be the provision of benefits.
With respect to Councilman Naggar's concorns, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero
recommended that the matter be approved at this point in time, while requesting
additional information regarding the scope of work for that position during the workshop.
Relaying concurrence with Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero's recommendation, Councilman
Naggar requested that additional information be provided regarding the goals anticipated
to be accomplished with respect to this position.
MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to approve staff recommendation. The motion Was
seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
P,:\Minutes\020800
At this time Consent Calendar Item No. 10 was considered.
10 Award of Construction Contract for Old Town First Street Bridge over Murrieta
Creek - Project No, PW95-08
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1
Award the construction contract for the First Street Extension - Project No.
PW95-08 - to Riverside Construction Company in the amount of
$4,522,222.00 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 $452,222.20 which is equal to 10% of the contract
amount;
10.3
Appropriate the necessary funds in the amount of $986,621.30 to cover the
reimbursable costs from Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD) and
Rancho California Water District (RCWD) for their facilities associated with
the bridge construction contract.
Mayor Stone advised that he would be abstaining with regard to this item, and therefore
left the dais, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero presiding.
Director of Public Works Hughes provided an overview of the staff repod (of record),
relaying the delays associated with the project due to the need to renew the Resource
Agency permits, additionally, noting that numerous utility conflicts that had needed to be
resolved; advised that all the required permits necessary have been secured, and that
the utility conflicts had been resolved; provided additional information regarding the
bidding process and the costs associated with this particular project; noted that the
project was one of the primary goals of the Old Town Specific Plan; and with regard to
safety issues, relayed the flooding issues that this project would address.
For Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero, City Attorney Thorson confirmed that this item was
regarding the award of the contract and that the Bridge Project was already in the
Capital Improvement Plan, which had already been approved by Council; and advised
that the award of the contract would define the exact scope of the work that would be
performed at that location.
Councilman Pratt requested that this matter be continued until the report regarding the
credibility of the traffic engineer who had prepared all the data had been completed,
which would most likely be in March; relayed that in his opinion this project was a bad
investment; noted concern with respect to the safety of children on Pujol Street; and with
respect to the flooding issues, relayed that residents could evacuate via the traffic
routes.
In response to the danger factors regarding children on Pujol Street, for Councilman
Naggar, Director of Public Works Hughes provided additional information with respect to
the existing condition of the area, noting that there were no continuous routes for
pedestrian use; advised that an alternate project had already begun which would fully
improve Pujol S feet from 6th Street to 1st Street, providing curbs and sidewalks
t
throughout the project area; with respect to children, noted that most the residents with
children were residing in multi-family units which had provision of play areas; noted that
R.:\Minutes\020800
the traffic counts on this mad were approximately 2500-3000 trips a day, clarifying for
Councilman Naggar, that this data was based on the City Engineer's estimates of the
existing generation of traffic; relayed that it was not anticipated that the new bridge
would attract a significant amount of traffic due to the configuration of the route,
potentially adding 1000 additional trips a day; noted that the Bridge Project would be
inclusive of sidewalks on both sides for pedestrian crossing, creating a safer condition;
and advised that with respect to future business growth in Old Town, this bridge would
be beneficial.
In response to Councilman Naggar's queries, Councilman Pratt reiterated that this
project was a bad investment, and that it would relieve no traffic congestion; relayed his
preference with respect to the Western Bypass Project which would provide accessibility
to development properties; and advised that he questioned the credibility of the traffic
engineering firm.
In response to Councilman Pratt's comments, Councilman Roberts relayed that with
respect to the Western Bypass Project the Open Space area (which he would like
maintained) would be opened up for development; and relayed that the costs associated
with the Western Bypass Project were approximately five times the cost for this project.
For informational purposes, Mayor Pro Tem Comemhero relayed the numerous past
Council discussions regarding this project; and with respect to safety issues, noted that
in 1993, five people had died in this area due to being unable to evacuate the area
during a flood, clarifying the need for this particular project.
MOTION: Councilman Roberts moved to approve staff recommendation. The motion
was seconded by Councilman Naggar and voice vote reflected approval with the
exception of Mayor Stone and Councilman Pratt who abstained.
At 8:30 P. M., the City Council recessed, and at 8:45 P.M. convened as the Temecula
Community Services District and the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. At 8:51 P.M.,
the City Council resumed with regularly scheduled City Council business.
COUNCIL BUSINESS
21 GST Fiber Optics - Purchase of City-designated conduits
RECOMMENDATION:
21,1
Approve an agreement with GST Telecom in the amount of $120,000 to
purchase 2 one-quarter inch conduits for City use within GST Telecom fiber
optic's trench.
Director of Public Works Hughes relayed that staff was recommending that this matter
be continued of calendar.
MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to continue this matter off calendar. The motion
was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero and voice vote reflected unanimous
approval.
P,:\Minutes\020800 ]6
22
Ordinance No. 2000-01 Prima Facie Speed Limit on Business Park Drive
RECOMMENDATION:
22.1 Introduce and read by title only an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-01
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA AMENDING SECTION 10.28.010(D) OF
THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING
PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMIT ON BUSINESS PARK
DRIVE
Director of Public Works Hughes presented the staff report (per agenda material), noting
that the matter had been brought forward at the request of the Police Department in
order to establish an enforceable speed limit on Business Park Drive; and relayed that
the Traffic Engineering Depadment had conducted a survey, establishing that the
appropriate and enforceable speed limit was 35 MPH.
Due to City Attorney Thorson's laryngitis, Mayor Stone introduced Ordinance No. 2000-
01, reading it by title only.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero moved to approve staff recommendation. The
motion was seconded by Councilman Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous
approval.
23 Wolf Creek Development Agreement Council Ad Hoc Committee Appointment
RECOMMENDATION:
23.1 Appoint an Ad Hoc Committee of the City Council to review the deal points
associated with the Wolf Creek Specific Plan Development Agreement.
MOTION: Councilman Roberrs moved to appoint Councilmen Naggar and Pratt to serve
on this Ad Hoc Committee. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero
and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
City Manager Nelson commended the Public Works Department for their recent
accomplishments, reiterating the completion of the denoted projects on the
Agenda.
With respect to the budget, City Manager Nelson commended the Depadment
Heads, noting that in the mid-year process staff had not requested an increase in
appropriations to the operating budget; and relayed the proper finance
stewardship of the Department Heads with respect to the budgeting process.
With respect to staff budgeting, Councilman Naggar commended the City staff
regarding the conservative approach taken to the budget process.
]~:\Minutes\020800 ] 7
Ce
City Manager Nelson announced that on Thursday, February 17th at 6:00 P.M.
the City would be holding a workshop relating to growth management strategies
in the City of Temecula; and invited the public to attend.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
No comments.
ADJOURNMENT
At 8:56 P.M., Mayor Stone formally adjourned the City Council meeting to the next
adjourned regular meeting: City Council Workshop, Tuesday, February 17, 2000, 7:00
P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
[SEAL]
B,:\Minutes\020800 18
ITEM 3
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AS
SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND
ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the following claims and demands as set forth in Exhibit A, on file in the Office
of the City Clerk, have been audited by the City Manager, and that the same are hereby allowed in the
amount of $1,101,997.21.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 28th day of March 2000.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
[SEAL]
Resos 2000-
1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, hereby do certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. 2000- was duly adopted ata regular meeting ofthe City Council ofthe City
of Temecula on the 28th day of March, 2000 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
CityClerk
Resos 2000-
2
CITY OF TEMECULA
LIST OF DEMANDS
03/16/00 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
03/28/00 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
03/16/00 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN:
TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 03/28100 COUNCIL MEETING:
DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND:
CHECKS:
001
165
190
191
192
193
194
195
210
261
280
300
320
330
340
380
GENERAL FUND
RDA DEV-LOW/MOD SET ASIDE
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL R
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ. FUND
CFD 88-12 ADMIN EXPENSE FUND
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY-CIP
INSURANCE FUND
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
SUPPORT SERVICES
FACILITIES
TCSD DEBT SERVICE
100
165
190
191
193
194
280
300
320
339
340
GENERAL FUND
RDA-LOW/MOD SET ASIDE
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY-CIP
INSURANCE FUND
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
SUPPORT SERVICES
FACILITES
TOTAL BY FUND:
PREPARED BY JADA YONKER, ACCOUNTING SPECIALIST
GENIE ROBERTS, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
$ 342,270.13
575,060.25
184,666.83
$ 1,101,997.21
654,470.45
14,579.99
69,281.48
37,446.29
27,090.63
30,074.05
189.82
4,897.50
39,933.54
1,812.50
9,803.98
7,527.52
14,548.72
2,192.91
2,231.00
130,895.41
3,679.96
32,898.56
70.38
2,859.85
588,49
1,582,26
717.66
5,650.65
1,274,31
4,449.30
$ 917,330.38
184,666,83
$ 1,101,997.21
, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT,
SHAWN NELSON, CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
LIST OF DEMANDS
03/16/00 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
03/28/00 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
03/16/00 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN:
TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 03/28100 COUNCIL MEETING:
DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND:
CHECKS:
001
165
190
191
192
193
194
195
210
261
280
300
320
330
340
380
GENERAL FUND
RDA DEV-LOW/MOD SET ASIDE
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL R
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ. FUND
CFD 88-12 ADMIN EXPENSE FUND
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY-CIP
iNSURANCE FUND
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
SUPPORT SERVICES
FACILITIES
TCSD DEBT SERVICE
$ 654,470.45
14,579.99
69,281.48
37,446.29
27,090.63
30,074.05
189.82
4,897.50
39,933.54
9,803.98
7,527.52
14,548.72
2,192.91
2,231.00
$ 342,270.13
575,060.25
184,666.83
$ 1,101,997.21
$ 917,330.38
100
165
190
191
193
194
280
300
320
330
340
GENERAL FUND
RDA-LOW/MOD SET ASIDE
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY-CIP
INSURANCE FUND
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
SUPPORT SERVICES
FACILITIES
TOTAL BY FUND:
PREPARED BY JADA YONKER, ACCOUNTING SPECIALIST
. EN,E
3,679.96
32,898.56
70.38
2,859.85
588.49
717.66
5,650.65
1,274.31
184,666.83
$ 1,101,997.21
HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
VOUCHRE2 CZTY OF TEMECULA PAGE 13
03/16/00 12:51 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
FUND TZTLE
001 GENERAL FUND
165 RDA DEV- LOW/MOD SET ASIDE
190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A
192 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL B
193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C
194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D
195 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL R
210 CAPITAL IHPROVEHENT PROJ FUND
261 CFD 88-12 ADMIN EXPENSE FUND
280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - DIP
300 INSURANCE FUND
320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS
330 SUPPORT SERVICES
340 FACILITIES
380 RDA - DEBT SERVICE
AMOUNT
165,346.31
14,579.99
30,038.48
37,446.29
27,090.63
7,821.05
189.82
4,897.50
21,610.27
1,812.50
4,228.14
7,527.52
14,548.72
2,192.91
1,690.00
1,250.00
TOTAL 342,270.13
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMBCULA PAGE 1
03/16/00 12:51 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME
61243 03/10/00 LOWE'S
61244 03/13/00 J C PENNEY'S INC.
61244 03/13/00 J C PENNEY'S INC.
61245 03/13/00 004081 BUSINESS FURNITURE SOLU
968864 03/16/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS)
968864 03/16/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS)
968864 03/16/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS)
968864 03/16/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS)
968864 03/16/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS)
968864 03/16/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS)
968864 03/16/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS)
968864 03/16/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS)
968864 03/16/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS)
968864 03/16/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS)
968864 03/16/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS)
968864 03/16/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS)
968864 03/16/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS)
968864 03/16/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS)
968864 03/16/00 000283 INSTATAX (IBS)
968864 03/16/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS)
968864 03/16/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS)
968864 03/16/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS)
968864 03/16/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS)
968864 03/16/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS)
968864 03/16/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS)
968864 03/16/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS)
969001 03/16/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
969001 03/16/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
969001 03/16/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
969001 03/16/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
969001 03/16/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
969001 03/16/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
969001 03/16/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
969001 03/16/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
969001 03/16/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
969001 03/16/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
969001 03/16/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
969001 03/16/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
969001 03/16/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
969001 03/16/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
969001 03/16/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
969001 03/16/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
969001 03/16/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
969001 03/16/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
969001 03/16/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
61249 03/16/00 001523 A M BEST COMPANY, INC.
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
FLOOR MATS FOR THE CRC GYM
2-PORTABLE KAROKE MACHINES
2'PORTABLE KAROKE MACHINES
DEpST:FURNITURE:POLICE/FRONT
000283 FEDERAL
000283 FEDERAL
000283 FEDERAL
000283 FEDERAL
000283 FEDERAL
000283 FEDERAL
000283 FEDERAL
000283 FEDERAL
000283 FEDERAL
000283 FEDERAL
000283 FEDERAL
000283 MEDICARE
000283 MEDICARE
000283 MEDICARE
000283 MEDICARE
000283 MEDICARE
000283 MEDICARE
000283 MEDICARE
000283 MEDICABE
000283 MEDICARE
000283 MEDICARE
000283 MEDICARE
000444 SDI
000444 SDI
000444 SDI
000444 SDI
000444 SDI
000444 SDI
000444 SOl
000444 SDI
000444 STATE
000444 STATE
000444 STATE
000444 STATE
000444 STATE
000444 STATE
000444 STATE
000444 STATE
000444 STATE
000444 STATE
000444 STATE
RENEWAL SUBSCRIPTION:PAPAGOLOS
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
190-183-999-5380
190-184-999-5301
001-170-502-5242
001-2070
165-2070
190-2070
193-2070
194-2070
280-2070
300-2070
320-2070
330-2070
340-2070
001-2070
165-2070
190-2070
191-2070
193-2070
194-2070
280-2070
300-2070
320-2070
330-2070
340-2070
001-2070
165-2070
190-2070
193-2070
280-2070
320-2070
330-2070
340-2070
001-2070
165-2070
190-2070
193-2070
194-2070
280-2070
300-2070
320-2070
330-2070
340-2070
300-199-999-5228
ITEM
AMOUNT
84.48
246.19
246.19
4,213.06
20,953.48
408.05
4,187.57
9.08
390.17
115.55
140.54
49.91
1~196.14
121.63
513.49
5,033.03
143.23
1,191.46
2.50
102.27
22.74
60.55
25.52
233.04
42.44
158.07
42.48
2.53
48.15
1.56
.53
13.63
2.46
5.21
5,588.03
111.21
912.63
1.55
74.53
29.96
42.91
15.18
318.23
23.33
102.39
88.95
CHECK
AMOUNT
84.48
492.38
4,213.06
35,100.46
7,336.50
88.95
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 2
03/16/00 12:51 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
61250 03/16/00 003213 A M S PLANNING RESEARCH FEASIBILITY STUDY - KID MUSEUM 210-190-165-5802
61251 03/16/00 003304 ADAMS ADVERTISING INC BILLBOARD AD:OLD TWN TEMECULA 280-199-999-5362
61252 03/16/00 ALBERTSONS REFRESHMENTS:VOL RECOGNITION 190-183-999-5370
5,000.00
1,751.00
45.00
5,000.00
45.00
61253 03/16/00 001281 ALHAMBRA GROUP
PRGS PYMT FINAL PLANS 1-15/795 001-165-999-5248
807.00
807.00
61254 03/16/00 002877 ALTA LOMA CHARTER LINES CHARTER BUS:TOUR SWIM COMPLEXE 210-190-170-5802
308.54
308.54
61255 03/16/00 003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV
61255 03/16/00 003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV
61255 03/16/00 003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV
61255 03/16/00 003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV
61255 03/16/00 003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV
61255 03/16/00 003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV
61255 03/16/00 003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV
61255 03/16/00 003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV
FEB MAT/TOWEL RENTAL:CITY HALL
FEB MAT/TOWEL RENTAL:MNTC FAC
FEB MAT/TOWEL RENTAL:SR CENTER
FEB MAT/TOWEL RENTAL:CRC
FEB MAT/TOWEL RENTAL: TCC
FEB UNIFORMS RENTAL: TCSD MNTC
FEB UNIFORMS RENTAL: PW MNTC
CREDIT:CHRGED FOR DAWSON TWICE
340-199-701-5250
340-199-702-5250
190-181-999-5250
190-182-999-5250
190-184-999-5250
190-180-999-5243
001-164-601-5243
190-182-999-5250
83.40
34.50
36.96
93.82
51.36
70.00
160.62
10.50-
520.16
61256 03/16/00 000101 APPLE ONE, INC. TEMP HELP W/E 02/26 HOOVER 001-161-999-5118
61257 03/16/00 003266 ARCUS DATA SECURITY FEB MICROFILM STORAGE CHRGE 001-120-999-5277
391.95
852.15
391.95
852.15
61258 03/16/00 000427 ARTESIA IMPLEMENT INC SPARE KEY FOR TCSD TRACTOR 190-180-999-5214
6.68
6.68
61259 03/16/00 003203 ARTISTIC EMBROIDERY EMBROIDERY ON TCSD JACKETS 190-180-999-5243
15.00
15,00
61260 03/16/00 000195 ASCOM HASLER MAILING SY POSTAGE METER RENTAL & RESETS 330-199-999-5239
61261 03/16/00 003842 B F I WASTE SYSTEMS OF MEDICAL WASTE DISPOSAL SERVICE 001-171-999-5242
61262 03/16/00 002541 BECKER, WALTER IC~RL SIDEWALK:RANCHO CA/BUSINESS PK 001-164-601-5402
61263 03/16/00 004035 BEDARD CONSTRUCTION REPAIR STEPS @ 42291 6TH STREE 165-199-823-5700
61264 03/16/00 BESWICK, STEVE REIMB:CALTRANS ACADEMY:2/29-2 001-165-999-5261
61265 03/16/00 000586 BOOK PUBLISHING C(~4PANY BINDERS - MUNICIPAL CODE BOOK 001-120-999-5250
61265 03/16/00 000586 BOOK PUBLISHING COMPANY FREIGHT 001-120-999-5250
61265 03/16/00 000586 BOOK PUBLISHING COMPANY SALES TAX 001-120-999-5250
61266 03/16/00 BOSTIK REFD:GRADING DEPST LD98-O33GR 001-2670
61267 03/16/00 002099 BUTTERFIELD ENTERPRISES MAR RESTROOM FACILITY RENTAL 280-199-999-5234
61268 03/16/00 004038 CAD ZONE INC, THE FIRE ZONE SOFTWARE UPGRD:STN73 001-171-999-5221
61268 03/16/00 004038 CAD ZONE INC, THE SHIPPING 001-171-999-5221
61269 03/16/00 003138 CAL MAT PW PATCH TRUCK MATERIALS 001-164-601-5218
61270 03/16/00 001054 CALIF BUILDING OFFICIAL PURCHASE MEMBERS MAILING LIST 001-162-999-5222
209.57
42.89
4,950.00
1,015.00
72.75
250.00
6.80
19.38
995.00
826.00
796.00
10,00
1,721.21
200.00
209.57
42.89
4,950.00
1,015.00
72.75
276.18
995.00
826.00
806.00
1~721.21
200.00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 3
03/16/00 12:51 VOUCNER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CNECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
61271 03/16/00 000674 CALIF CONTRACT CITIES 415T ANNUAL SEM:5/18-21:JC,RR 001-100-999-5258
61272 03/16/00 000638 CALIF DEPT OF CONSERVAT 4TH QTR PYMT OF STRONG MOTION 001-2280
61272 03/16/00 000638 CALIF DEPT OF CONSERVAT 4TH QTR PYMT OF STRONG MOTION 001-2290
61272 03/16/00 000638 CALIF DEPT OF CONSERVAT 4TH QTR PYMT OF STRONG MOTION 001-162-4229
61273 03/16/00 001655 CAMERON WELDING SUPPLY HELIUM FOR CITY EVENTS 190-180-999-5301
800.00
3,398.20
5,421.83
441.00-
11.90
800.00
8,379,03
11,90
61274 03/16/00 000131 CARL WARREN & COMPANY I FEB CLAIM ADJUSTER SERVICES 300-199-999-5205
140.82
140,82
61275 03/16/00 002534 CATERERS CAFE REFRESHMENTS:AQUATIC SUB-COMMI 210-190-170-5802
61275 03/16/00 002534 CATERERS CAFE SALES TAX 210-190-170-5802
61275 03/16/00 002534 CATERERS CAFE REFRESHMENTS: 3/8 BUDGET MTG 001-140-999-5260
61275 03/16/00 002534 CATERERS CAFE SALES TAX 001-140-999-5260
125,00
9,69
152.15
11.79
298.63
61276 03/16/00 CAVANAUGNS HOTEL
HTL:T.HAFELI:3/26-31:BRAINSHAR 320-199-999-5261
493.73
493.73
61277 03/16/00 001195 CENTRAL SECURITY SERVIC ALARM MONITORING-SR CENTER 190-181-999-5250
45.00
45,00
61278 03/16/00 CHANNELL COMMERCIAL COR REFD:GRADING DEPST LD95-O90GR 001-2670
61279 03/16/00 000137 CHEVRON U S A INC FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-120-999-5262
61279 03/16/00 000137 CHEVRON U S A INC FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-161-999-5263
61279 03/16/00 000137 CHEVRON U S A INC FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-110-999-5263
61279 03/16/00 000137 CHEVRON U S A INC FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-164-601-5263
61279 03/16/00 000137 CHEVRON U S A INC FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-164-604-5263
61279 03/16/00 000137 CHEVRON U S A INC FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-162-999-5263
61279 03/16/00 000137 CHEVRON U S A INC FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-165-999-5263
17,000.00
17.53
16.49
25.10
52.98
15.82
20,76
22.82
17,000.00
171.50
61280 03/16/00 002058 CHRISTIAN YOUTH THEATER ENTERTAINMENT:VOL RECOGNITION 190-183-999-5370
100.00
100.00
61281 03/16/00
CITRUS BELT CHAPTER ICB ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP DUES:A.ELMO 001-162-999-5226
25.00
25.00
61282 03/16/00 CLUGSTON, STEVE
REIMB:EXHIBIT LETTERING DESCRI 190-185-999-5301
33,52
33,52
61283 03/16/00 COLE, TERRY REIMB:SUPPLIES FOR HIGH HOPES 190-183-999-5320
61283 03/16/00 COLE, TERRY REXMB:SUPPLIES FOR SENIOR CTR 190-181-999-5301
61284 03/16/00 004091 COMMUNITY ACCESS CENTER 99-00 COMM SERVICE FUNDING PRM 001-101-999-5267
61.53
130.07
400.00
191.60
400.00
61285 03/16/00 001275 COMPUSERVE INC
SUBSCRIPTION-COMPUTER MAGAZINE 320-199-999-522B
9.95
9.95
61286 03/16/00 000442 COMPUTER ALERT SYSTEMS 200 SECURITY CARDS:CITY HALL 320-199-999-5215
61286 03/16/00 000442 COMPUTER ALERT SYSTEMS SALES TAX 320-199-999-5215
61287 03/16/00 002945 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL REPLACE BALL FIELD LAMPS:PRKS 190-180-999-5212
61287 03/16/00 002945 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL SALES TAX 190-180-999-5212
61287 03/16/00 002945 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL REPLACE BALL FIELD LAMPS:PARKS 190-180-999-5212
61287 03/16/00 002945 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL ELECT REPAIRS:6TH ST RESTROOMS 001-164-603-5212
750.00
58,13
525.00
43.40
35.00
90.51
808.13
693.91
61288 03/16/00 003252 CONTRACT SERVICES CORPO JANITORIAL SUPPLIES-CITY HALL 340-199-701-5212 46.55
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 4
03/16/00 12:51 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
61288 03/16/00 003252 CONTRACT SERVICES CORPO
61288 03/16/00 003252 CONTRACT SERVICES CORPO
61288 03/16/00 003252 CONTRACT SERVICES CORPO
JANITORIAL SUPPLIES-PARKS
JANITORIAL SUPPLIES- CRC
JANITORIAL SUPPLIES-MNTC FAC
190-180-999-5212
340'199-702'5212
46.55
46.55
46.55
186.20
61289 03/16/00 001264 COSTCO WHOLESALE
REFRESHMENTS:VOL RECOGNITION 190-183-999-5370
151.92
151.92
61290 03/16/00 001716 DAMS ROOFING REPAIR LEAKING ROOF: CRC 190-182-999-5212
200.00
200.00
61291 03/16/00
DEKKON DEVELOPMENT, INC REFUND: OVRPMT PERMIT B99-2602 001-2660
696.21
696.21
61292 03/16/00 DEMPSEY, MARLO REFUND: ART/CRAFTS-BEG WATER 190-183-4982
65.00
65.00
61293 03/16/00 001714 DREAM ENGINEERING
61294 03/16/00 DUNCAN, LISA
ELECT ENG SVC:FIELD LGTS R.C. 210-190-174-5802
REFUND:SKYHAWKS-MINI-HAWKS 190-183-4982
4,350.00
70.00
4,350.00
70.00
61295 03/16/00 001669 DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATIO SUPPLIES FOR GRAFFITI REMOVAL 001-164'601'5218
256.99
256.99
61296 03/16/00 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC
61296 03/16/00 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC
61297 03/16/00 000523 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER
TEMP HELP W/E 02/25 GALLARDO
TEMP HELP W/E 02/25 DeGANGE
95366-02 DIEGO DR LDSCP
001-165-999-5118
001-161-999-5118
193-180-999-5240
2,300.53
3,023.51
43.71
5,324.04
43.71
61298 03/16/00 002390 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER DRAWINGS FOR PALA BRIDGE PRJT 210-165-631-5804
15.78
15.78
61299 03/16/00
ELSINORE UNION H.S. ROT REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-2900
100.00
100.00
61300 03/16/00 002939 ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS R
61301 03/16/00 002060 EUROPEAN DELI& CATERIN
USER CF:6/24-30/2000:K.BEAL
REFRESHMENTS:03/06 C[P MTG
001-161-610-5258
001-140-999-5260
61302 03/16/00 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE JAN LDSCP REPAIRS:WINCH CK 193-180-999-5212
61302 03/16/00 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE JAN LDSCP REPAIRS:RIVERTON PRK 190-180-999-5212
61302 03/16/00 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE FEB LDSCP REPAIRS: R.C.SPTS PK 190-180-999-5212
61302 03/16/00 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE FEB LDSCP REPAIRS:DUCK POND 190-180-999-5415
61302 03/16/00 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE FEB LDSCP REPAIRS:VINTAGE HILL 193-180-999-5212
61302 03/16/00 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE FEB LDSCP REPAIRS:VINTAGE HILL 193-180-999-5212
61302 03/16/00 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE FEB LDSCP REPAIRS: WINCH CK 193-180-999-5212
61302 03/16/00 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE FEB LDSCP REPAIRS:RANCHO VISTA 193-180-999-5212
61302 03/16/00 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE FEB LDSCP REPAIRS:RANCHO VISTA 193-180-999-5212
61302 03/16/00 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE FEB LDSCP REPAIRS:RANCHO VISTA 193-180-999-5212
61302 03/16/00 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE FEB LDSCP REPA]RS:RANCHO VISTA 193-180-999-5212
61302 03/16/00 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE FEB LDSCP REPAIRS:RANCHO VISTA 193-180-999-5212
61302 03/16/00 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE FEB LDSCP REPAIRS:CORTE CANTER 193-180-999-5212
61302 03/16/00 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE FEB LDSCP REPAIRS:CORTE CANTER 193-180-999-5212
61302 03/16/00 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE FEB LDSCP REPAIRS:CORTE CANTER 193-180-999-5212
61302 03/16/00 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE FEB LDSCP REPAIRS:CORTE CANTER 193-180-999-5212
61302 03/16/00 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE FEB LDSCP REPAIRS:CORTE CANTER 193-180-999-5212
61302 03/16/00 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE FEB LDSCP REPAIRS:CORTE CANTER 193-180-999-5212
61302 03/16/00 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE FEB LDSCP REPAIRS:CORTE CANTER 193-180-999-5212
61302 03/16/00 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE FEB LDSCP REPAIRS: IA VIDA 193-180-999-5212
1,195.00
91.66
115.36
126.14
500.00
225.00
352.00
52.80
135.46
480.00
140.00
120.00
4O.OO
200.00
240.00
70.00
60.00
20.00
10.00
30.00
100.00
95.40
1,195.00
91.66
3,112.16
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 5
03/16/00 12:51 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
61303 03/16/00 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-111-999-5230
61303 03/16/00 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-162-999-5230
61303 03/16/00 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-120-999-5230
61303 03/16/00 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-165-999-5230
61303 03/16/00 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-110-999-5230
35.96
49.63
12.08
52.68
162.43
61304 03/16/00 002832 FENCE BUILDERS REPAIR SPT PK CHAINLINK FENCE 190-180-999-5212
61304 03/16/00 002832 FENCE BUILDERS DRILL HOLES-VEHICLE BARRIERS 190-180-999-5212
61304 03/16/00 002832 FENCE BUILDERS POST INSTALLATION:TEMEXU HILLS 190-180-999-5212
61305 03/16/00 000166 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE CO
61305 03/16/00 000166 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE CO
LOT BOOK REPT:31180 CAMINO VER
LOT BOOK REPT:30342 LONG VLLY
165-199-813-5804
165-199-813-5804
480.00
560.00
945.00 1,985.00
150.00
150.00 300.00
61306 03/16/00 003271 FORMA SYSTEMS
ARC-VIEW SOFTWARE UPGRADE 001-161-610-5606
650.72 650.72
61307 03/16/00 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD - W 002982 ST DED 001-2140
61308 03/16/00 000170 FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY DAY TIMER SUPPLIES - PLANNING 001-161-999-5220
202.80 202.80
106.89 106.89
61309 03/16/00 000184 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM
61309 03/16/00 000184 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM
61310 03/16/00 001355 G T E CALIFORNIA INC
909 197-5072 GENERAL USAGE
909 506-1941 GENERAL USAGE
MAR ACCESS-CRC OPEN PHONE LINE
320-199-999-5208
320-199-999-5208
320-199-999-5208
5,913.68
56.00
320.00
5,969.68
320.00
61311 03/16/00 004034 GEN-CO GENERATOR AMP FUSES W/HOLDER 340-199-701-5242
61311 03/16/00 004034 GEN-CO GENERATOR AMP FUSES W/HOLDER 190-180-999-5242
61312 03/16/00 GEROW, VICTORIA REFUND: SPORTS-TENNIS-BEG/JR 190-183-4982
70.04
70.04
30,00
140.08
30.00
61313 03/16/00 002528 GLASS BLASTERS CITY MUGS FOR NEW HIRES 001-150-999-5265
61314 03/16/00 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES - C.MGR 001-110-999-5220
61314 03/16/00 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES - MR 001-150-999-5220
61314 03/16/00 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES-COPY CTR 330-199-999-5220
61314 03/16/00 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES-CITY CLRK 001-120-999-5220
61314 03/16/00 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES - FINANCE 001-140-999-5220
61314 03/16/00 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES - MR 001-150-999-5220
61314 03/16/00 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES - B&S 001-162-999-5220
61314 03/16/00 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES-FIRE DEPT 001-171-999-5220
61314 03/16/00 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES-INFO SYS 320-199-999-5221
61314 03/16/00 000177 GLENNIES OFFICE PRODUCT MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES - RECORDS 001-120-999-5277
61315 03/16/00 002659 GOVERNING
61316 03/16/00 000175 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFI
61317 03/16/00 GUARANTY
61318 03/16/00 000520
61319 03/16/00 004092
R D L COREN & CONE INC
H I S INTERNATIONAL TOU
ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION:MIKE BROWN
MBSHP:G.ROBERTS - T.MCDERMOTT
REFUND:BLDG PERMIT:B99-2760
1st QTR PROPERTY TAX CONSULTIN
AIR:JAPAN TR1P:4/4:RR,JS,RG,CF
001-171-999-5228
001-140-999-5226
001-2660
001-140-999-5248
001-101-999-5280
47.41 47.41
2,092.00
95.33
46.05
6.67
53.68
206.38
8.18
23.75
105.13
351,54
72.06 968.77
15.00 15.00
255.00 255.00
32.00 32.00
2,400.00 2,400.00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 6
03/16/00 12:51 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
DATE NUMBER NAME
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
61319 03/16/00
61319 03/16/00
61320 03/16/00
61320 03/16/00
61320 03/16/00
61320 03/16/00
61320 03/16/00
61320 03/16/00
61320 03/16/00
61321 03/16/00
004092 H I S INTERNATIONAL TOU
004092 H I S INTERNATIONAL TOU
000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC
000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC
000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC
000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC
000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC
000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC
000186 HANKS HARDWARE INC
001517 HEALTH & HUMAN RESOURCE
AIR:JAPAN TRIP:4/4-13/O0
FEDERAL EXPRESS CHARGES
BARDWARE SUPPLIES FIRE DEPT
HARDWARE SUPPLIES 6TH STREET
HARDWARE SUPPLIES TCSD
HARDWARE SUPPLIES TCSD
HARDWARE SUPPLIES TCSD
HARDWARE SUPPLIES TCSD
HARDWARE SUPPLIES TCSD MNTC
EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PRGM
001-2174
001-101-999-5280
001-171-999-5212
001-164-603-5212
190-180-999-5242
190-181-999-5242
190-182-999-5242
190-184-999-5242
190-180-999-5212
001-150-999-5248
4,184.00
14.00
9.48
105.47
5.17
5.17
7.76
7.76
912.52
438.00
6,290.00
1,053.33
438.00
61322 03/16/00
61322 03/16/00
61322 03/16/00
61322 03/16/00
000260 HUNTINGTON BEACH RUBBER
000260 HUNTINGTON BEACH RUBBER
000260 HUNTINGTON BEACH RUBBER
000260 HUNTINGTON BEACH RUBBER
APPROVAL STAMP FOR PLAN CHECKS
RECEIVED STAMP FOR OFFICE USE
STAMP PADS FOR OFFICE USE
SALES TAX
001-171-999-5220
001-171-999-5220
001-171-999-5220
47.50
35.00
12.00
7.32
101.82
61323 03/16/00 000194
61323 03/16/00 000194
61323 03/16/00 000194
61323 03/16/00 000194
61323 03/16/00 000194
61323 03/16/00 000194
C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP 001-2080 1,803.12
C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP 165-2080 250.00
C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP 190-2080 325.52
C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP 193-2080 30.00
C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP 194-2080 21.37
C M A RETIREMENT TRUS 000194 DEF COMP 280-2080 83.33
61324 03/16/00 003670 INLAND OVERHEAD DOOR CO REPLACE 2 ELECT DOORS:STB 84 001-171-999-5212
711.00
2,513.34
711.00
61325 03/16/00 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPL CRC POOL SANITIZING CHEMICALS 190-182-999-5212
61325 03/16/00 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPL CRC POUL SANITIZING CHEMICALS 190-182-999-5212
355.58
88.89
444.47
61326 03/16/00 000388 INTL CONFERENCE BLDG OF MEMBERSHIP DUES: ANTHONY ELMO 001-162-999-5226
61327 03/16/00 JRAKK PROPERTIES, LLC REFD:GRADING DEPST LD97-103GR 001-2670
61328 03/16/00 002789 KIMCO STAFFING SERVICES TEMP HELP W/E 02/13 MUELLER 330-199-999-5118
25.00
995.00
153.96
25.00
995.00
153.96
61329 03/16/00 000206 KINKOS INC STATIONERY PAPER/MISC SUPPLIES 330-199-999-5220
61330 03/16/00 001694 KNIGHT PRINTING PERMITS PRINTING:3 PARTS 001-162-999-5222
61330 03/16/00 001694 KNIGHT PRINTING SALES TAX 001-162-999-5222
61331 03/16/00 LARA, THEODORE 001-2290
61331 03/16/00 LARA, THEODORE 001-161-4200
61331 03/16/00 LARA, THEODORE 001-162-4201
61331 03/16/00 LARA, THEODORE 001-162-4201
REFUND: PERMIT B00-0380
REFUND: PERMIT B00-0380
REFUND: PERMIT B00-0380
REFUND: PERMIT B00-0380
FEB SVCS-LIBRARY SYSTEM AGRMT
REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT
REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT
61332 03/16/00 003286 LIBRARY SYSTEMS & SERVI 001-I01-999-5285
61333 03/16/00 LOS ANGELES CHURCH OF C 190-2900
61333 03/16/00 LOS ANGELES CHURCH OF C 190-183-4990
54.95
1#334.48
99.55
4.84
30.00
302.03
3.97
1,061.60
100.00
10.00-
54.95
1,434.03
340.84
1,061.60
90.00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 7
03/16/00 12:51 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
61334 03/16/00 003669 M C SERVICES RES IMPRV PRGM: K.OHLER 165-199-813-5804
61335 03/16/00 001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SERV TEMP HELP W/E 2/27 HUTSON 001-161-999-5118
61335 03/16/00 001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SERV TEMP HELP W/E 3/05 LARKIN-MCCL 001-161-999-5118
1,350.00
371.52
464.40
1,350.00
835.92
61336 03/16/00
MARKHAM & ASSOCIATES REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-2900
100.00
100.00
61337 03/16/00 002011 MARTIN, KATHARINA E. TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330
61338 03/16/00 MASTER FINE PROTECTION REFUND:FIRE PLAN CK:B99-2128 001'171'4036
61338 03/16/00 MASTER FIRE PROTECTION REFUND:FIRE PLAN CK:B99-2128 001-171-4037
272.00
225.00
144.00
272.00
369.00
61339 03/16/00 003163 MINOLTA BUSINESS SYSTEM ANNUAL CRC COPIER MAINT AGRMNT 330-199-999'5217
555.00
555.00
61340 03/16/00 002952 MINOLTA BUSINESS SYSTEM APR LEASE OF COPIER AT CRC 190-182-999-5239
162.70
162.70
61341 03/16/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS LETTERHEAD SUPPLY FOR TCSD 190-180-999-5222
61341 03/16/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS CITY SEAL ENVELOPES FOR TCSD 190-180-999-5222
61341 03/16/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS CITY SEAL ENVELOPES FOR MUSEUM 190-185-999-5222
61341 03/16/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS QTY 2000 ENVELOPES:B&S 001-162-999-5222
61341 03/16/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS CITY SEAL ENVELOPES FOR H.R. 001-150-999-5222
61341 03/16/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS SALES TAX 001-150-999-5222
61341 03/16/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS QTY 3000 CORRECTION NTC:B&S 001-162-999-5222
61341 03/16/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS BUSINESS CARDS: J. TELESIO 001-161-999-5222
61341 03/16/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS SALES TAX 001-161-999-5222
61342 03/16/00 000973 MIRACLE RECREATION EQUI PLAYGROUND SUPPLIES:VAR PARKS 190-180-999-5212
61342 03/16/00 000973 MIRACLE RECREATION EQUI PLAYGROUND SUPPLIES:VAR PARKS 190-180-999-5212
61342 03/16/00 000973'3 MIRACLE RECREATION EQUI PLAYGROUND SUPPLIES:VAR PARKS 190-180-999-5212
61342 03/16/00 000973 MIRACLE RECREATION EQUI PLAYGROUND SUPPLIES:VAR PARKS 190-180-999-5212
61342 03/16/00 000973 MIRACLE RECREATION EQUI CRDT:PANEL RETURNED TO COMPANY 190-180-999-5212
61343 03/16/00 004043 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY ELECT SUPPLIES:VAR PARKS & FAC 190-1B0-999-5212
61343 03/16/00 004043 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY ELECT SUPPLIES:VAR PARKS & FAC 190-181-999-5212
61343 03/16/00 004043 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY ELECT SUPPLIES:VAR PARKS & FAC 190-184-999-5212
61343 03/16/00 004043 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY ELECT SUPPLIES:VAR PARKS & FAC 340-199-701'5212
61343 03/16/00 004043 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY ELECT SUPPLIES:VAR PARKS & FAC 190-185-999-5212
61343 03/16/00 004043 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY SALES TAX 190-180-999-5212
61343 03/16/00 004043 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY SALES TAX 190-181-999-5212
61343 03/16/00 004043 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY SALES TAX 190'184-999-5212
61343 03/16/00 004043 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY SALES TAX 340-199-701-5212
61343 03/16/00 004043 MISSION ELECTRIC SUPPLY SALES TAX 190-185-999-5212
61344 03/16/00 000883 MONTELEONE EXCAVATING STREET CLEAN-UP:MERCEDES/4TH 001-164-601-5402
61344 03/16/00 000883 MONTELEONE EXCAVATING STREET CLEAN-UP:VIA CHAPPARO 001-164-601-5402
61344 03/16/00 000883 MONTELEONE EXCAVATING EROSION CONTROL:JOHN WARNER RD 195-180-999-5402
61344 03/16/00 000883 MONTELEONE EXCAVATING REPAIR VAR RAIN DAMAGED ROADS 195'180-999-5402
61344 03/16/00 000883 MONTELEONE EXCAVATING REPAIR VAR RAIN DAMAGED ROADS 195-180-999-5402
61345 03/16/00 000230 MUNIFINANCIAL ANNUAL ARBITRAGE REBATE SVCS 380-199-999-5248
128.44
190.52
228.82
190.52
357.64
27.72
358.54
102.50
7.94
563.13
21.17
925.45
575.46
96.98-
32.40
32.40
32.40
32.40
32.40
2.51
2.51
2.51
2.51
2.52
471.00
471.00
1,837.50
2,010.00
1,050.00
1,250.00
1,592.64
1,988.23
174.56
5,839.50
1,250.00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 8
03/16/00 12:51 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIOOS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
61346 03/16/00
MCMILLIN PROJECT SERVIC REFUND:ENG DEPOSIT:LD9B-OO2GR 001-2670
995.00
995.00
61347 03/16/00
McMILLINS COMPANIES REFD:SALES TRAILER CASH BOND 001-2650
1,500.00
1,500.00
61348 03/16/00 001584 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEM QTY 4000 CASH RECEIPT FORMS
61348 03/16/00 001584 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEM FREIGHT
61348 03/16/00 001584 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEM SALES TAX
61348 03/16/00 001584 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEM QTY 1100 PAYROLL CHECKS
61348 03/16/00 001584 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEM FREIGHT
61348 03/16/00 001584 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEM SALES TAX
6134B 03/16/00 001584 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEM QTY 3000 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CKS
61348 03/16/00 001584 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEM FREIGHT
61348 03/16/00 001584 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEM SALES TAX
61349 03/16/00 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES - AT
RECRUIT ADS:SENIOR PLANNER
001-140-999-5222
001-140-999-5222
001-140-999-5222
001-140-999-5222
001-140-999-5222
001-140-999-5222
001-140-999-5222
001-140-999-5222
001-140-999-5222
001-150-999-5254
818.40
14.16
63.43
851.49
12.00
65.99
1,165.25
24.00
90.31
70.80
3,105.03
70.80
61350 03/16/00 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT
61350 03/16/00 002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT
190-180-999-5214
168.33
124.87
293.20
61351 03/16/00 002668 OMEGA LAKE SERVICES MAR DUCK POND MAINT SVCS
190-180-999-5212
800.00
800.00
61352 03/16/00 001383 P M ~ ASSOCIATES INC
61352 03/16/00 001383 P M W ASSOCIATES INC
61352 03/16/00 001383 P M W ASSOCIATES INC
FEB CONSULT SVCS FOR LOW/MOD
FEB CONSULT SVCS FOR RDA
FEB CONSULT SVCS FOR ECON DEV
165-199-999-5248
280-199-999-5248
001-111-999-5248
242.35
242.35
85.55
570.25
61353 03/16/00 003762 P M X MEDICAL SPECIALTY SUPPLIES FOR CITY MEDIC SQUAD 001-171-999-5242
61353 03/16/00 003762 P M X MEDICAL SPECIALTY SUPPLIES FOR CITY MEDIC SQUAD 001-171-999-5242
25.25
276.35
301.60
61354 03/16/00 002800 PACIFIC STRIPING INC CITYWIDE STREET STRIPING SVCS 001-164-601-5410
61354 03/16/00 002800 PACIFIC STRIPING INC CITYWIDE STREET STRIPING SVCS 001-164-602-5410
2,618.56
187.04
61355 03/16/00 001958 PERS LONG TERM CARE PRO 001958 PERS L-T 001-2122 154.60
2,805.60
154.60
61356 03/16/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-170-999-5371
61356 03/16/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-170-999-5371
61356 03/16/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-170-999-5371
61356 03/16/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-170-999-5371
61356 03/16/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 210-190-170-5802
61356 03/16/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-183-999-5370
61356 03/16/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-183-999-5310
61356 03/16/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-183-999-5320
61356 03/16/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-111-999-5270
61356 03/16/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-150-999-5265
61356 03/16/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-183-999-5320
61356 03/16/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMGURSEMENT 210-190-170-5802
61356 03/16/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-180-999-5260
61356 03/16/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 210-199-129-5802
61356 03/16/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-183-999-5320
61356 03/16/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMGURSEMEMT 190-180-999-5301
61356 03/16/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-183-999-5370
61356 03/16/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-183-999-5380
55.00
12.26
15.07
27.99
17.22
15.09
5.00
20.83
16.16
50.00
12.23
20.00
38.34
7.88
5.69
22.99
32.49
22.56
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 9
03/16/00 12:51 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
61356 03/16/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-110-999-5260
61356 03/16/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-164-602-5218
61356 03/16/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-164-601-5250
61356 03/16/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-170-999-5371
36.02
27.97
64.00
.06
524.85
61357 03/16/00 000580 PHOTO WORKS
61357 03/16/00 000580 PHOTO WORKS
61357 03/16/00 000580 PHOTO WORKS
FILM/PHOTO DEVELOPING:CIP 001-165-999-5250
FILM/PHOTO DEVELOPIHG:EEON DEV 001-111-999-5270
FILM/PHOTO DEVELOPING:PW 001-164-601-5250
93.57
29.93
33.29
156.79
61358 03/16/00 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN PUBLIC NOTICE: PA98-0389 001-161-999-5256
61358 03/16/00 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN PUBLIC NOTICE: 2000-01 001-120-999-5256
61358 03/16/00 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN PURLIC NOTICE: PA99-0505 001-161-999-5256
61358 03/16/00 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN RECRUIT ADS:PROJ PLANNER I/II 001-150-999-5254
61359 03/16/00 002612 RADIO SHACK INC MISC COMPUTER SUPPLIES 320-199-999-5221
61359 03/16/00 002612 RADIO SHACK INC MISC COMPUTER SUPPLIES 320-199-999-5221
18.00
8.00
16.50
458.74
79.70
17.23
501.24
96.93
61360 03/16/00 000728 RAMSEY BACKFLOW & PLUMB TEST BACKFLOW DEVICES:VAR LOC 190-180-999-5212
169.00
169.00
61361 03/16/00 000947 RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C DUPL BLUEPRINTS:IST ST EXTEN
61361 03/16/00 000947 RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C DUPL BLUEPRINTS:IST ST EXTEN
280-199-807-5804
280-199-807-5804
37.09
162.66
199.75
61362 03/16/00 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST VARIOUS WATER METERS 190-180-999-5240
61362 03/16/00 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST VARIOUS WATER METERS 191-180-999-5240
61362 03/16/00 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST VARIOUS WATER METERS 193-180-999-5240
61363 03/16/00 000907 RANCHO CAR WASH CITY VEHICLE DETAILING 001-162-999-5214
61363 03/16/00 000907 RANCHO CAR WASH CITY VEHICLE DETAILING & GAS 190-180-999-5214
61363 03/16/00 000907 RANCHO CAR WASH CITY VEHICLE DETAILING & GAS 190-180-999-5263
61363 03/16/00 000907 RANCHO CAR WASH CITY VEHICLE DETAILING & GAS 001-1990
61363 03/16/00 000907 RANCHO CAR WASH CITY VEHICLE DETAILING & GAS 001-110-999-5263
61363 03/16/00 000907 RANCHO CAR WASH CITY VEHICLE DETAILING 001-165-999-5214
61363 03/16/00 000907 RAHCHO CAR WASH CITY VEHICLE DETAILING 001-163-999-5214
61363 03/16/00 000907 RAHCHO CAR WASH CITY VEHICLE DETAILING 001-164-601-5214
61364 03/16/00 001428 RANCHO TEMECULA WOMANS FY 99-00 CSF PRGM AWARD 001-101-999-5267
61365 03/16/00 003742 REHAB FINANCIAL CORPORA SET-UP FEE-RES IMPRV PRG LOANS 165-199-813-5804
61365 03/16/00 003742 REHAB FINANCIAL CORPORA SET-UP FEE:RES IMPRV PRG LOANS 165-199-813-5804
61366 03/16/00 002907 REINHART FORTES ASSOCIA BLDG APPRAISAL @ RANCHO MEADOW 165-199-813-5804
61367 03/16/00 003591 RENES COMMERCIAL MANAGE R-O-W WEED SPRAY:PUJOL & 6TH 001-164-601-5402
61368 03/16/00 002412 RICHARDS WATSON & GERSH JAM 2000 LEGAL SERVICES 001-130-999-5246
61368 03/16/00 002412 RICHARDS WATSON & GERSH JAR 2000 LEGAL SERVICES 001-130-999-5246
61368 03/16/00 002412 RICHARDS WATSON & GERSH JAN 2000 LEGAL SERVICES 300-199-999-5246
61368 03/16/00 002412 RICHARDS WATSON & GERSH JAN 2000 LEGAL SERVICES 001-130-999-5246
61368 03/16/00 002412 RICHARDS WATSON & GERSH JAN 2000 LEGAL SERVICES 190-180-999-5246
61368 03/16/00 002412 RICHARDS WATSON & GERSH JAN 2000 LEGAL SERVICES 300-199-999-5246
61368 03/16/00 002412 RICHARDS WATSON & GERSH JAN 2000 LEGAL SERVICES 261-199-999-5246
695.85
86.44
430.15
6.00
6.00
30.40
14.25
34.25
14.00
15.22
24.00
5,000.00
900.OO
900.00
5,000.00
850.00
6,889.25
1,852.10
153.00
10,646.00
414.00
104,00
1,812.50
1,212.44
144.12
5,000.00
1,800.00
5,000,00
850.00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 10
03/16/00 12:51 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
DATE NUMBER NAME
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
61368 03/16/00
61368 03/16/00
61368 03/16/00
61368 03/16/00
61368 03/16/00
6136B 03/16/00
61368 03/16/00
61368 03/16/00
61368 03/16/00
61368 03/16/00
61368 03/16/00
61369 03/16/00
61370 03/16/00
002412 RICHARDS WATSON & GERSH
002412 RICHARDS WATSON & GERSH
002412 RICHARDS WATSON & GERSH
002412 RICHARDS WATSON & GERSH
002412 RICHARDS WATSON & GERSH
002412 RICHARDS WATSON & GERSH
002412 RICHARDS WATSON & GERSH
002412 RICHARDS WATSON & GERSH
002412 RICHARDS WATSON & GERSH
002412 RICHARDS ~ATSON & GERSH
002412 RICHARDS ~ATSON & GERSH
000266 RIGHTWAY
ROSSER~ STEPHANIE
JAN 2000 LEGAL SERVICES
JAN 2000 LEGAL SERVICES
JAN 2000 LEGAL SERVICES
JAN 2000 LEGAL SERVICES
JAN 2000 LEGAL SERVICES
JAN 2000 LEGAL SERVICES
JAN 2000 LEGAL SERVICES
JAR 2000 LEGAL SERVICES
JAR 2000 LEGAL SERVICES
JAN 2000 LEGAL SERVICES
JAN 2000 LEGAL SERVICES
MAR EQUIP RENTAL:RIVERTON PARK
REFUND: TINY TOTS-CREATIVE BEG
210-165-604-5801
210-165-604-5801
210-165-631-5801
300-199-999-5246
300-199-999-5246
300'199-999-5246
300'199-999-5246
300'199'999-5246
300'199'999-5246
280'199'999'5246
165"199'999'5246
190'180'999-5238
190-183-4982
34.00
10,313.76
162.50
161.19
3#985.00
1,333.69
49.35
273.96
1,062.00
696.00
3,570.00
62.89
65.00
43,512.30
62.89
65.00
61371 03/16/00
61372 03/16/00
61372 03/16/00
61372 03/16/00
001942 S C SIGNS
002743 SAFE & SECURE LOCKSMITH
002743 SAFE & SECURE LOCKSMITH
002743 SAFE & SECURE LOCKSMITH
POSTINGS-PUBLIC HEARINGS:D.C.
LOCKSMITH SVCS:HINTERGARDT PK
LOCKSMITH SVCS:HINTERGARDT PK
LOCKSMITH SVCS:VARIOUS PARKS
001-120-999-5244
190-180-999-5212
190-180-999-5212
1,495.00
13.05
36.95
22.00
1,495.00
72.00
61373 03/16/00
SCOTTI MARGARET R. REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT
190-183-4990
100.00
100.00
61374 03/16/00
61375 03/16/00
61375 03/16/00
61376 03/16/00
61377 03/16/00
61378 03/16/00
61378 03/16/00
61378 03/16/00
61378 03/16/00
61378 03/16/00
61378 03/16/00
61378 03/16/00
61378 03/16/00
61378 03/16/00
61378 03/16/00
61378 03/16/00
61378 03/16/00
61378 03/16/00
61378 03/16/00
61378 03/16/00
61378 03/16/00
002384 SECURE BUSINESS CONHURl
002681 SILVER LEGACY RESORT &
002681 SILVER LEGACY RESORT &
SIMAC CONSTRUCTION INC
003804 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
FEB AUDIO/VIDEO MAINTENANCE SV
HTL:SIERRA CF:#365984042009
HTL:SIERRA CF:#365984041933
320-199-999-5250
320-199-999-5258
320-199-999-5258
REFUND:ENG DEPOSIT:LD98-041GR 001-2670
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
MAR:2-17-214-O428:MEADOWS PKWY
MAR:2-O6-105-O654:VAR[OUS MTRS
MAR:2-10-331-1353:STN ~
MAR:2-20-302-1563:JEFFERSON
MAR:2-19-538-2262:VARIOUS MTRS
MAR:2-09-330-3030:WINCH RD
MAR:2-19-683-3255:FRONT ST PED
MAR:2-OO-397-5059:VARIOUS MTRS
MAR:2-O2-351-5281:CRC
MAR:2-10-901-7962:YUKOH
MAR:2-OS-791-8807:VARIOUS MTRS
VARIOUS ELECT METERS
MAR:2-19-524-9867:WINCH RD
VARIOUS ELECT METERS
VARIOUS ELECT METERS
190-183-999-5330
191-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
001-171-999-5240
191-180-999-5319
190-180-999-5240
191-180-999-5319
001-164-603-5319
190-180-999-5240
190-182-999-5240
191-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
191-180-999-5319
192-180-999-5319
1,648.00
246.40
246.40
995.00
112.00
174.13
78.69
1,452.36
738.96
150.28
102.82
183.65
355.90
2,591.31
3,700.28
156.72
23,148.85
485.99
39.09
10,696.96
27,090.63
1,648.00
492.80
995.00
112.00
71,146.62
61379 03/16/00 000519 SOUTH CCUNTY PEST CONTR PEST CONTROL SVCS:WED CHAPEL 190-185-999-5250 32.00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 11
03/16/00 12:51 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
61379 03/16/00 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTR PEST CONTROL SVCS:CITY HALL 340-199-701'5250
61379 03/16/00 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTR PEST CONTROL SVCS:MAINT FAC 340-199-702-5250
61379 08/16/00 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTR PEST CONTROL SVCS:MUSEUM 190-185-999-5250
61379 03/16/00 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTR PEST CONTROL SVCS:SR CENTER 190-181-999'5250
56.00
40.00
42.00
29.00
199.00
61380 03/16/00
BPANOS CORPORATION, THE REFUND:ENG DEPOSIT:LD97-130GR 001-2670
995.00
995.00
61381 03/16/00
ST JEANHE DE LESTONNAC REFUND: STREET LIGHTING FEES 191-180-4390
780.00
780.00
61382 03/16/00 002366 STEAM SUPERIOR CARPET C CLEAN CARPET @ SENIOR CENTER 190-181-999-5212
80.00
80.00
61383 03/16/00 000574 SUPERTONER
HP TONER SUPPLIES
320-199-999-5221
110.97
110.97
61384 03/16/00
61384 03/16/00
61384 03/16/00
61384 03/16/00
61385 03/16/00
61386 03/16/00
61387 03/16/00
003828 TANGRAM INTERIORS
003828 TANGRAM INTERIORS
003828 TANGRAM INTERIORS
003828 TANGRAM INTERIORS
003318 TARTAGLIA, MARIO
003665 TELCO COMMUNICATIONS GR
TEMECULA PLAY AND LEARN
DEC PROF SERVICES
FURNITURE FOR MAINT FACILITY
FURNITURE FOR MAINT FACILITY
SALES TAX
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
DEC LONG DISTANCE PHONE SVCS
REFUND: ROOM RENTAL
210-199-808-5804
210-190-158-5804
210-190-158-5804
210-190-158-5804
190-183-999-5330
320-199-999-5208
190-183-4990
582.16
248.90
385.00
29.84
258.80
1,610.81
95.00
1,245.90
258.80
1,610.81
95.00
61388 03/16/00
61388 03/16/00
61388 03/16/00
61389 03/16/00
003067 TEMECULA R V
003067 TEMECULA R V
003067 TEMECULA R V
000306 TEMECULA VALLEY PIPE &
REPAIRS FOR COMMAND POST TLR
LABOR FOR REPAIRS
SALES TAX
MAINT SUPPLIES FOR PARKS
001-170-999-5214
001-170-999-5214
001-170-999-5214
190-180-999-5212
46.80
266.00
3.63
26.88
316.43
26.88
61390 03/16/00
61391 03/16/00
61391 03/16/00
61392 03/16/00
61392 03/16/00
61392 03/16/00
61393 03/16/00
61393 03/16/00
61393 03/16/00
61394 03/16/00
61395 03/16/00
61396 03/16/00
61397 03/16/00
001687 TEMECULA VALLEY PONY CO
000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED
000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED
TEMEKU HILLS DEVELOPMEN
TEMEKU HILLS DEVELOPMEN
TEMEKU HILLS DEVELOPHEN
004056 THANKS COMPANY, THE
004056 THANKS COMPANY, THE
004056 THANKS COMPANY, THE
003862 THYSSEN DOVER ELEVATOR
TIPPIE, CHARLES L.
002111 TOGOS RESTAURANT
004001 U C REGENTS
FY 99-00 CSF PRGM AWARD
JAN MAINT/REPAIRS TO PATCH TRK
JAN MAINT/REPAIRS TO PATCH TRK
REFUND:ENG DEPOSIT:LD98-OO2GR
REFUND:ENG DEPOSIT:LD97-108GR
REFUND:ENG DEPOSIT:LD98-O11GR
QTY 2000 THANKS SIPPERS
QTY 2000 THANKS BALLOONS
FREIGHT
MAR CITY HALL ELEVATOR SVC
REFUND:ENG DEPOSIT:LD99"201GR
RFRSHMNTS:VOL RECOGN CEREMONY
CHHL FLW/HECRAS PRGM:3/27-31
001-101-999-5267
001-164-601-5214
001-164-601-5214
001-2670
001-2670
001-2670
190-183-999-5370
190-183-999-5370
190-183-999-5370
340-199-701-5212
001-2670
190-183-999-5370
001-163-999-5261
2,500.00
21.41
284.55
995.00
995.00
995.00
487.50
4.60
15.00
214.00
995.00
179.75
375.00
2,500.00
305.96
2,985.00
507.10
214.00
995.00
179.75
375.00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 12
03/16/00 12:51 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
61398
61398
61398
61390
61398
61398
61398
61398
61399
61399
61399
61399
61399
61399
61399
61399
CHECK
DATE
03/16/00
03/16/00
03/16/00
03/16/00
03/16/00
03/16/00
03/16/00
03/16/00
03/16/00
03/16/00
03/16/00
03/16/00
03/16/00
03/16/00
03/16/00
03/16/00
VENDOR
NUMBER
001065
001065
001065
001065
001065
001065
001065
001065
VENDOR
NAME
U S C M/PEBSCO DEF. C
U S C M/PEBSCO DEF, C
U S C M/PEBSCO DEF, C
U S C M/PEBSCO DEF. C
U S C M/PEBSCO DEF, C
U S C M/PEBSCO DEF, C
U S C M/PEBSCO DEF, C
U S C M/PEBSCO DEF. C
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
001065
001065
001065
001065
001065
001065
001065
001065
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
DEF COMP
DEF COMP
DEF COMP
DEF COMP
DEF COMP
DEF COMP
DEF COMP
DEF COMP
000389 U S C M/PEBSCO (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR
000389 U S C M/PEBSCO (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR
000389 U S C M/PEBSCO (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR
000389 U S C M/PEBSCO (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR
000389 U S C M/PEBSCO (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR
000389 U S C M/PEBSCO (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR
000389 U S C M/PEBSCO (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR
000389 U S C M/PEBSCO (OBRA) 000389 PT RETIR
001-2080
165-2080
190-2080
193-2080
280-2080
300-2080
320-2080
340-2080
165-2160
190-2160
193-2160
280-2160
320-2160
330-2160
340-2160
ITEM
AMOUNT
8,204.21
278.66
1,761.48
46.66
153.66
83.33
666.66
180.73
637.28
97.96
762.18
23.38
28.02
204.48
36.96
77.92
61400 03/16/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 001-2120 287.38
61400 03/16/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 165-2120 11.00
61400 03/16/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 190-2120 30.60
61400 03/16/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 193-2120 1.60
61400 03/16/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 194-2120 .20
61400 03/16/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 280-2120 3.50
61400 03/16/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 300-2120 1.62
61400 03/16/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 320-2120 4.00
61400 03/16/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 330-2120 2.50
61400 03/16/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 340-2120 .60
61401
61402
61402
61403
61403
W-H INDUSTRIAL ASSOCIAT
001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY
001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY
003}'30 WEST COAST ARBORISTS IN
003730 WEST COAST ARBORISTS IN
000339 WEST PUBLISHING COMPANY
003785 WESTSIDE CITY I, LLC
003785 WESTSIDE CITY I, LLC
003785 WESTSIDE CITY l, LLC
003785 WESTSIDE CITY I, LLC
000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI
000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI
61404
03/16/00
03/16/00
03/16/00
03/16/00
03/16/00
03/16/00
03/16/00
03/16/00
03/16/00
03/16/00
REFUND:ENG DEPOSIT:LD93-117GR 001-2670
CRD MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 190-182-999-5212
CITY HALL MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 340-199-701-5212
TREE MAINTENANCE SERVICES:TCSD 193-180-999-5415
CTYWD TREE TRIMMING MAINT SVCS 001-164-601-5402
CITY HALL LEGAL PUBLICATIONS 001-120-999-5228
RFND:MAT/LABOR DPST:LD97-OO1MP 001-2670
RFND:MAT/LABOR DPST:LD97-OO1MP 001-199-4065
REFUND:ENG DEPOSIT:LD97-001MP 001-2670
REFUND:ENG DEPOSIT:LD97-OO1MP 001-199-4065
FEB BASE CHRG FOR 5343 COPIER 330-199-999-5217
FEB METER USAGE 5765 COPIER 330-199-999-5239
03/16/00
03/16/00
61405
61405
61405
61405
61406
61406
2,000.00
133.25
25.64
4#416.00
2,792.00
108.56
500.00
59.49
500.00
59.80
242.77
740.67
CHECK
AMOUNT
11,375.39
1,868.18
343.00
2,000.00
158.89
7,208.00
108.56
1,119.29
983.44
TOTAL CHECKS 342,270.13
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 2
03/16/00 14:58 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
FUND TITLE
001 GENERAL FUND
190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C
210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND
280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP
340 FACILITIES
AMOUNT
22,253.00
18,323,27
541.00
TOTAL 575,060.25
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TENECULA PAGE
03116100 14:58 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIOOS
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
61409
61409
61410
61410
61610
61410
61410
61410
61410
61410
61410
61410
61410
61410
61410
61410
61411
61412
61413
61414
61415
61416
CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
DATE NUMBER NAME
03/28/00
03/28/00
03/28/00
03/28/00
03/28/00
03/28/00
03/28/00
03/28/00
03/28/00
03/28/00
03/28/00
03/28/00
03/28/00
03/28/00
03/28/00
03/28/00
03/28/00
03/28/00
03/28/00
03/28/00
03/28/00
03/28700
001544 E L YEAGER CONSTRUCTION
001544 E L YEAGER CONSTRUCTION
001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
002424 KELLEY DISPLAY INC
003286 LIBRARY SYSTEMS & SERVI
003218 PELA
004029 R J M DESIGN GROUP INC
000267 RIVERSIDE CO FIRE DEPAR
000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS D
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
FEB PRGSS:l-15 AUXILIARY LANE
RETENTION FEB PRGSS: P~8-07
FEB LDSCP SVCS:NEIGHBORHOOD PK
FEB LDSCP SVCS: NORTH SLOPES
FEB LDSC SVCS:SOUTH SLOPES
FEB LDSCP SVCS: SPORTS PARK
FEB LDSCP SVCS: CRC
FEB LDSCP SVCS: SR CENTER
FEB LDSCP SVCS: CITY HALL
FEB LDSCP SVCS: TCC
FEB LDSCP SVCS: STN 84
FEB LDSCP SVCS: 6TH STREET
FEB LDSCP SVCS: OLD TOWN PRKG
FEB LDSCP SVCS: STREETSCAPE
FEB LDSCP SVCS: NUSEIJIq
FEB LDSCP SVCS:TEMEKU HILL PK
WESTERN DAY BANNER:OLD TNN
FEB SVCS'LIBRARY SYSTEM AGRMT
FEB PLAN CHECK SERVICES:PLAN
JAN DESIGN SVC:CHPRL AQTC FAC
JUL-SEPT 99 FIRE SERVICES
JAN 2000 BOOKING FEES
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
210-165-697-5804
210-2035
190-180-999~5415
193-180-999-5415
193-180-999-5415
190-180-999-5415
190-182-999-5415
190-181-999~5415
340-199-701-5415
190-184-999-5415
001-171-999-5212
001-164-603-5415
001-164-603-5415
190-180-999-5415
190-185-999-5415
190-180-999-5415
280-199-999-5271
001-101-999-5285
001-161-999-5250
210-190-170-5802
001-171-999-5251
001-170-999-5273
ITEM
AMOUNT
7,940.00
7Q4,00-
11,529.00
8,878.00
13,375.00
21,725.00
1,444.00
361.00
541.00
193.00
400.00
250.00
987,00
106.00
285.00
3,600.00
5,575.84
8,213.56
7,270.00
11,177.27
462,729.98
9,273.60
CHECK
AMOUNT
7,146.00
63,674.00
5,575.84
8,213.56
7,270.00
11,177.27
462,729.98
9,273.60
TOTAL CHECKS 575,060.25
ITEM 4
APPRO~
CITYATTORNEY
DIR. OFFINANCE
CITYMANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager/City Council
FROM:
Genie Roberrs, Director of Finance
DATE: March 28, 2000
SUBJECT:
Automated Criminal Identification and Information System Settlement and
Release Agreement
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Settlement and Release Agreement
between the City and the County of Riverside regarding the Automated Criminal Identification and
Information System.
BACKGROUND: The County of Riverside developed the Automated Criminal Identification and
Information System (ACIIS) in 1993 to connect local law enforcement agencies within the county
through a network that crossed jurisdictional boundaries, The system aimed to improve the ability of
its members to share important law enforcement information. Member agencies paid dues to ACIIS
based on their population and usage of the system,
The City of Temecula became a member of ACIIS in 1993 and was assessed total dues in the amount
of $184,571.60 over the lifetime of ACIIS, of which the City has paid $130,340.72.
DISCUSSION: The County of Riverside decided to terminate ACIIS and established a new
criminal identification and information system known as Records Management Systems (RMS). The
cost associated with RMS will be paid through the City's contract with the County of Riverside. In
order to resolve all remaining issues with respect to ACIIS, the County has prepared a Settlement and
Release Agreement that will return the remaining dues in the ACIIS fund to participating cities. The
County will determine each City's share of the remaining fund balance based on a profeted calculation
of the total amount of dues paid into the ACIIS fund by all cities compared to the amount of dues paid
by each City.
The City of Temecula's prorated share of the total ACIIS fund balance is 4.7839% or approximately
$100,295. The County retained some of the ACIIS funds for pumhasing equipment and systems that
could be utilized with the County's new Records Management System.
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Settlement and Release Agreement between the
City and the County of Riverside regarding the Automated Criminal Identification and Information
System in order to end the City's association with ACIIS and receive the City's profeted share of the
ACIIS fund balance.
FISCAL IMPACT: The County of Riverside will return approximately $100,295 to the City within
60 days after the County finalizes the ACIIS settlement agreement.
ATTACHMENT: Settlement and Release Agreement
SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT
WHEREAS, the County of Riverside (hereinafter referred to as "County"), through its
Sheriff's Department, established an Automated Criminal Identification and Information System
'hereinafter referred to as "ACIlS'); and
WHEREAS, cities (hereinafter referred to as "Cities") within the County of Riverside have
oined ACIIS and were charged certain fees for participation in ACIIS; and
WHEREAS, the City of Temecula (hereinafter referred to as "City") was a member of ACIIS
and paid certain fees into ACIIS; and
WHEREAS, the County has used the ACI1S fees to pay for certain ACIIS expenditures; and
WHEREAS, it is now the desire of the County of Riverside to terminate the ACIIS Program
and to return to Cities, on a prorated share, the balance of fees remaining in the ACIIS Program fund;
and
WHEREAS, it is the desire of County to resolve all and any remaining issues with respect to
ACi1S Program with the Cities by the prorated refund of the fees referred to above.
IT IS THEREFORE AGREED between County and City as follows:
1. County will determine an estimated balance of fees paid into the ACIIS fund as of June
30, 1999. The estimated balance of these funds as of June 30, 1999, is $2,096,514.01.
2. County will determine the total amount of fees paid into the ACIIS fund by Cities as of
June 30, 1999. It is estirnated at this time that the total amount of money paid into the ACIIS
Program by Cities is $2,723,323.34.
3. County will determine each City's share of the remaining balance based on a prorated
calculation of the total amount of fees paid into the fund by all Cities compared to the amount of fees
City paid into the ACIIS fund.
4 City has paid to the ACI1S fund the total amount of $130,340.72 and its prorated share
is 4.7839 %.
share.
5 Cities will receive a refund from the ACIIS fund based on that prorated calculation
6 City and County agree that it may take several months to fully close out the ACIIS
Program and that certain expenditures will continue or will not be received until after June 30, 1999.
7. County shall pay City 100% of its estimated prorated share of the ACIIS fund balance
upon execution of this agreement by both parties.
8. County has finalized the ACIIS fund balance and shall pay City any remaining prorated
share balance within 60 days of this executed agreement.
9. City acknowledges and agrees that this Agreement is a Settlement and Release as to any
and all claims that City may have against County arising out of the ACIIS Program.
10. City and County acknowledge and agree that this Settlement and Release Agreement
does not constitute an admission of liability by either party.
11. City acknowledges and agrees that County is or has established a new criminal
identification and information system, to be known as the Record Management System (hereinafier
referred to as "RMS") and that the County shall establish a fee schedule for participation in RMS that
is separate and apart, and is in no way connected with the ACIIS Program or in any way connected
with the Settlement and Release herein.
CITY OF TEMECULA
Dated:
By:
Title:
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Dated:
By:
Title:
ITEM 5
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City ManagedCity Council
CITY MANAGER
William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
March 28, 2000
Temecula Creek Line W, Stage 3, Storm Drain Project No. 7-0-0051
Tract Map No. 24136 - Cooperative Agreement
PREPARED BY:
Ronald J, Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works
Gerald L. Alegria, Senior Engineer - Land Development
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
Approve the Temecula Creek Line W, Stage 3, Storm Drain Project No. 7-0-0051, Tract Map
No. 24136- Cooperative Agreement with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District and the CaI-Paseo Del Sol, LLC.
Authorize the execution and attestation of such agreement in its final form by the City
Manager and City Clerk.
BACKGROUND: The Riverside County Board of Supervisors approved Tract Map No.
24136 on June 8, 1989. As a condition of approval, the developer must construct certain flood
control storm drain facilities in order to provide flood protection for this planned development. The
required facilities to be constructed include approximately 700 lineal feet of underground concrete
pipe, illustrated on Exhibit "A". This improvement is needed prior to completion of Margarita Road
and De Portola Road intersection.
Pursuant to the Cooperative Agreement, the developer will construct said facilities, and the County
Flood Control Distdct will assume ownership and maintenance responsibility of mainline storm drain
improvements. In conjunction with the cooperative agreement, County Flood Control District will
review and approve all construction plans associated with the storm drain improvements.
Padicipation by the City includes the acceptance and holding of Faithful Performance and Labor and
Material bonds for the storm drain improvements, granting of rights to the County Flood Control
District to operate and maintain flood control facilities within City right-of-way, and City operation and
maintenance of inlets/connector pipes within City right-of-way.
Following City Council adoption of the Cooperative Agreement, it will be sent to the County Flood
Control District for their approval and for County of Riverside Board of Supervisors approval.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
ATTACHMENTS:
Location Map (Exhibit "A")
Cooperative Agreement
r:\agdrpt~000\0328\tr4136rcfcdcoop.agr
VICINITY MAP
NOT TR SCALE
EXHIBIT "A"
I AGREEMENT
2 (Tract Map No. 24136)
3 The RIVERSIDE COLrNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION
4 DISTRICT, hereinafter called "DISTRICT", the CITY OF TEMECULA, hereinafter called "CITY", and
5 CAL-PASEO DEL SOL, LLC, a California limited liability company, hereinafter called "DEVELOPER",
6 hereby agree as follows:
7 RECITALS
8 A. DEVELOPER must construct certain flood control facilities in order to provide
9 flood protection for DEVELOPER'S planned development of Tract Map No. 24136 in the City of
10 Temecula: and
11 B. The required facility includes approximately 700 lineal feet of underground
12
concrete pipe, bereinafter called "PROJECT", as shown in concept in red on Exhibit "A" attached hereto
13
and made a part hereof; and
14
C. DEVELOPER and CITY desire DISTRICT to accept ownership and responsibility
15
for the operation and maintenance of PROJECT, excluding all catch basins and connector pipes.
16
Therefore, DISTRICT must review and approve the plans and specifications and subsequently inspect the
17
construction of PROJECT: and
18
D. DISTRICT is willing to (i) review and approve plans and specifications prepared
19
by DEVELOPER for PROJECT, (ii) inspect the construction of PROJECT, and (iii) accept ownership
20
and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of PROJECT, excluding all catch basins and
21
com~ector pipes, provided DEVELOPER (i) complies with this Agreemeat, (ii) pays DISTRICT the
22
amounts specified hereit~ to cover DISTRICTS plan review and construction inspection costs, (iii) pays
23
DISTRICT the amount specified herein to cover DISTRICTS estimated cost to operate and maintain
24
PROJECT for a period of ten (10) years commencing upon DISTRICTS acceptance of PROJECT as
25
complete t~' ownership. operation and maintenance. (iv) constrncts PROJECT in accordance \xith plans
26
27 and specifications apprt~xcd bv I)ISTRICF and C{'[ Y. (v) obtains all regulatory permits. and (\i} accepts
28
1 ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of PROJECT after completion of
2 PROJECT construction until such time as DISTRICT accepts ownership and responsibility for the
3 operation and maintenance of PROJECT; and
4 E. CITY is willing to (i) review and approve plans and specifications prepared by
5 DEVELOPER for PROJECT, (ii) accept and hold faithful performance and payment bonds submitted by
6 DEVELOPER for PROJECT, (iii) grant DISTRICT the right to inspect, operate and maintain PROJECT
7 within CITY rights of way, and (iv) accept ownership and responsibility for the operation and
8 maintenance of all catch basins and connector pipes within CITY rights of way provided PROJECT is
9 constructed in accordance with plans and specifications approved by DISTRICT and CITY.
10 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
11 SECTION 1
12 DEVELOPER shall:
13
1. Prepare plans and specifications for PROJECT in accordance with DISTRICT and
14
CITY standards, and submit the plans and specifications to DISTRICT for its review and approval.
15
2. Pay DISTRICT, within thirty (30) days after receipt of periodic billings from
16
DISTRICT, any and all such amounts as are deemed masonably necessary by DISTRICT to cover
17
DISTRICT'S costs associated with the review of plans and specifications for PROJECT, aud with the
18
processing and administration of this Agreement.
19
3. Deposit with DISTRICT, at the time of providing written notice to DISTRICT of
20
the start of PROJECT construction as set forth in Section 1.8. herein, the estimated cost of providing
21
construction inspection for PROJECT, in au amonnt as determined and approved by DISTRICT
22
accordance with Ordinance Nos. 671 and 749 of the County of Riverside, including any amendments
23
thereto, based upon the bonded value of PROJECT facilities to be inspected. operated and maintained b)
24
DISTRICT.
25
4 Pay DISTRICI', upon execution of this Agreenlent (Zone 7 Maintenance l'rust
26
Fnnd). tile one time casll sum ol' $13.000.00 (thirteen thousand dollars). the alllotllll agreed upon to cover
27
28
I D1STRICT~S estimated cost to operate and maintain PROJECT for a period of ten (10) years commencing
2 upon DISTRICTS acceptance of PROJECT as complete for ownership, operation and maintenance.
3 5. Secure. pursuant to its sole cost and expense, all necessary licenses, agreements,
4 permits and rights of entry as may be needed for the construction, inspection, operation and maintenance
5 of PROJECT. DEVELOPER shall furnish DISTRICT, at the time of providing written notice to
6 DISTRICT of the start of construction as set forth in Section 1.8. herein, with sufficient evidence of
7 DEVELOPER having secured such necessary licenses, agreements, permits and rights of entry, as
8 determined and approved by DISTRICT.
9 6. Furnish DISTRICT with draft copies of all permits, approvals or agreements
10 required by various resource/regulatory agencies for the construction, operation and maintenance of
11 PROJECT. Such documents include but are not limited to those issued by the U.S. Army Corps of
12 Engineers, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California State Department of Fish
13
and Game.
14
7. Provide CITY, at the time of providing written notice to DISTRICT of the start of
15
construction as set forth in Section 1.8. herein, with faithful performance and payment bonds, each in the
16
amount of 100% of the estimated cost for construction of PROJECT as determined by DISTRICT. The
17
surety, amount and form of the bonds shall be subject to the approval of DISTRICT and CITY. The
18
bonds shall remain in full force and efli:ct until PROJECT is accepted by DISTRICT as complete: at
19
which time the bond amount may be reduced to 10% for a period of one year to guarantee against any
20
defective work, labor or materials.
21
8. Notify DISTRICT in writlug (Attention - Dale V. Anderson), at least twenty (20)
22
days prior to the stall of construction of PROJECT. Constructiou shall not begin ou any elemeut of
23
PROJECT. for any reason xvbatsoever. tmtil alter DISTRICT has issued to DEVELOPER a xvritten
24
Notice to Proceed authorizing DEVELOPER to initiate coustruction.
25
o. Furnish DISTRICT. at the time of providing x~rittcn notice to DISTRICT of tile
26
stall of construction as set fi~rth in Section 1.8 with a complcle list of'all contractors and subcontractors to
27
28
1 be perlbrming work on PROJECT, including the corresponding license number and license classification
2 of each. At such time, DEVELOPER shall further identify in writing its designated superintendent for
3 PROJECT construction.
4 10. Furnish DISTRICT with the final mylar plans for PROJECT and assign their
5 ownership to DISTRICT prior to the start of construction on any element of PROJECT.
6 11. Not permit any change to or modification of the plans and specifications for
7 PROJECT without the prior written permission and consent of DISTRICT.
8 12. Construct, or cause to be constructed, PROJECT at DEVELOPER'S sole cost and
9
expense in accordance with plans and specifications approved by DISTRICT and CITY.
10 13. Accept sole ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of
11 PROJECT, until such time as DISTRICT accepts ownership and responsibility for operation and
12
maintenance of PROJECT, excluding all catch basins and connector pipes. Further, it is mutually
13
understood by the parties hereto that prior to DISTRICT acceptance of ownership and responsibility for
14
the operation and maintenance of PROJECT as set forth herein, PROJECT shall be in a satisfactorily
15
maintained condition as approved at the sole discretion of DISTRICT.
16
14. Pay, if suit is brought upon this Agreement or any bond guaranteeing the
17
completion of PROJECT. all costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable attorneys' fees.
18
and acknowledge that, upon entry of judgment, all such costs, expenses and fees shall be taxed as costs
19
and included in any judgment rendered.
20
15. Upon completion of construction of PROJECT, but prior to DISTRICT acceptance
21
of PROJECT for ownersbip, operation and maintenance. DEVELOPER'S civil engineer of record or
22
constrnction civil engineer of record. duly registered in the State of Calitbrnia. shall provide to
23
DISTRICT redlined "as-builts" of PROjECT. At'let DISTRICT approval of redlined "as-builts". engineer
24
shall schedule with DISTRICT a time to transfer the redlines onto DISTRICT original mylars at
25
DISTRtCT'S or'rice. afler wbicb the engineer shall review, stamp and sigu PRO.IECT plans as "as-bttiW'.
26
27
28
I SECTION I1
2 DISTRICT shall:
3 I. Review and approve plans and specifications prepared by DEVELOPER for
4 PROJECT, prior to the start of construction.
5 2. Provide CITY an opportunity to review PROJECT design plans prior to
6 DISTRICT final approval.
7 3. Upon execution of this Agreement, record or cause to be recorded, a copy of this
8 Agreement in the Official Records of the Riverside County Recorder.
9 4. Inspect the construction of PROJECT.
10 5. Keep an accurate accounting of all DISTRICT costs associated with the review and
11
approval of plans and specifications for PROJECT and in processing and administration of this
12
Agreement.
13
6. Keep an accurate accounting of all DISTRICT construction inspection costs, and
14
within forty-five (45) days after DISTRICT acceptance of PROJECT as being complete, submit a final
15
cost statement to DEVELOPER. If the deposit, as set forth in Section 1.3. exceeds such costs, DISTRICT
16
shall reimburse DEVELOPER the excess amount within sixty (60) days after DISTRICT acceptance of
17
PROJECT as being complete. lfat any time the costs exceed the deposit or are anticipated by DISTRICT
18
to exceed the deposit, DEVELOPER shall pay such additional amount, as deemed reasonably necessary
19
by DISTRICT to complete PROJECT, within thirty (30) days after receipt of billing from DISTRICT.
20
7. Accept ownership and responsibility for the operation and mainteaance of
21
PROJECT, excluding catch basins and connector pipes upon (i) DISTRICT acceptauce of PROJECT
22
construction as being complete, and (ii) acceptance by CITY of all necessar.v street rights of way as
23
deemed necessary by DISTRICT and CITY for the operation and maintenaace of PROJECT.
24
8. Provide CITY reproducible duplicate "as-btfilt" mylar prints liar all PROJECT
25
facllities couslructed x~ilhin CITY rights of way, upou DISTRICT acceptance of PRO.IIECT as being
26
27 clm~Dtcte
28
-5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SECTION Ill
CITY shall:
1. Review and approve plans and specifications prepared by DEVELOPER for those
portions of PROJECT within CITY rights of way, prior to the start of construction of PROJECT.
2. Accept the CITY and DISTRICT approved faithful performance and payment
bonds submitted by DEVELOPER as set forth in Section 1.7. and hold said bonds as provided herein.
3. Grant DISTRICT, by execution of this Agreement, the right to construct, inspect,
operate and maintain PROJECT within CITY rights of way as set forth herein.
4. Upon DISTRICT acceptance of PROJECT as being complete, accept ownership
and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of all catch basins and connector pipes within CITY
rights of way.
5. Upon DISTRICT acceptance of PROJECT as being complete, accept sole
responsibility for the adjustment of all PROJECT manhole rings and covers located within CITY rights of
way, at no cost to DISTRICT, which must be performed at such time that the finished grade along and
above PROJECT is improved, repaired, replaced or changed.
6. Not grant any occupancy permits for any units within any portion of Parcel Map
No. 28384 until construction of PROJECT is complete, unless otherwise approved in writing by
DISTRICT.
SECTION IV
It is further mutually agreed:
I. All work involved with PROJECT shall be inspected by DISTRICT and shall not
be deemed complete uuti[ approved and accepted in writlug as complete by DISTRICT.
2. CITY and DEVELOPER personnel may observe and inspect all work being done
on PROJECT. but shall provide any comments to DISTRICT persounel who shall be responsible l~r all
quality coutrol communicatious xvith the coutractor during the construction of PROJECT.
I 3. DEVELOPER shall complete construction of PROJECT within twelve (12)
2 consecutive monfl~s after execution of this Agreement and within ninety (90) consecutive calendar days
3 after commencing work on PROJECT. It is expressly understood that since time is of the essence in this
4 Agreement, failure of DEVELOPER to perform the work within the agreed upon time shall constitute
5 authority for DISTRICT to perform the remaining work and require DEVELOPER'S surety to pay to
6 CITY the penal sum of any and all bonds. In which case, CITY shall subsequently reimburse DISTRICT
7 for DISTRICT costs incurred.
8 4. DEVELOPER and DISTRICT, knowingly and voluntarily, waive the provisions of
9 Government Code Section 65913.8, relating to fees and charges. Such waiver is accomplished with the
10 understanding that DISTRICT is voluntarily undertaking the obligation to accept ownership and
11 responsibility for the operation and maintenance of PROJECT, and DEVELOPER is not required by
12
DISTRICT to enter into this Agreement.
13
5. DEVELOPER shall, during the construction period of PROJECT, provide
14
Workers' Compensation Insurance in an amount required by law. A certificate of said insurance policy
15
shall be provided to DISTRICT and CITY at the time of providing written notice pursum~t to Section 1.8.
16
6. DEVELOPER shall, commencing on the date notice is given pursuant to Section
17
1.8. and continuing until DISTRICT accepts PROJECT as complete for ownership, operation aud
18
maintenance:
19
(a) Provide and maintain or cause its contractor(s) to provide and maintain
20
comprehensive liability insurance coverage which shall protect
21
DEVELOPER from claim from damages for personal injury, including
22
accidental and wrongtiff death, as well as from claims for property dalnage
23
xvhich may arise fi'om DEVELOPER'S construction of PROJECT or the
24
pertbrmance of its obligations hereunder, whether sucl~ constructiol~ or
25
26 perlbrmance be by DE\zEI,OPER. by any of its contractors. subcontractors.
or b~ anyone employed directly or indirccttx by any o1' them. Sucb
27
28
1 insurance shall name DISTRICT and CITY as additional insured with
2 respect to this Agreement and the obligations of DEVELOPER hereunder.
3 Such insurance shall provide for limits of not less titan two million dollars
4 ($2,000,000.00) per occurrence.
5 (b) Cause its insurance carrier(s) or its contractor's insurance carrier(s), who
6 shall be authorized by the California Departmeut of Insurance to transact
7 business of insurance in the State of California, to furnish DISTRICT and
8 CITY at the time of providing written notice to DISTRICT of the start of
9 construction as set forth in Section 1.8. wit/~ certificate(s) of insurance
10 showing that such insurance is in full force and effect and that DISTRICT
11
and CITY are named as additional insured with respect to this Agreement
12
and the obligations of DEVELOPER hereunder. Further, said certificate(s)
13
shall state that the issuing company shall give DISTRICT and CITY sixty
14
(60) days written notice in the event of any cancellation, termination, non-
15
renewal or reduction in coverage of the policies evidenced by the
16
certificate(s). In the event of any such cancellation. termination, non-
17
renewal or reduction in coverage, DEVELOPER sitall, forthwith, secure
18
replacement insurance meeting the provision of this paragraph.
19
Failure to maintain the insurance required by this paragraph shall be deemed a
20
material breach of this Agreemeut and shall authorize and coustitute authority tbr DISTRICT, at its sole
21
discretion. to proceed to perform the remaining work pursuant to Section IV.3.
22
7. PROJECT construction ~vork sitall be on a five (5) day. f'o~ly (40) hour ~vork week
23
with no xvork oil Saturdays, Stmdays or DISTRICT designated legal holidays, tinless otherwise approved
24
in writing by DISTRICT. If DEVELOPER feels it is necessary to work more than the norntal lbrty (40)
25
hour work week or on holidays. DEVELOPER shall make a written request ti~r permission
26
DISTRICI' to xxork the additional hotn's. fhe request shall be submitted to I)ISTRICT :it least 72 hours
27
28
I prior to the requested additional work hours and state the reasons for the overtime and tile specific time
2 frames required. The decision of granting permission for overtime work shall be made by DISTRiCT at
3 its sole discretion and shall be final. If permission is granted by DISTRICT, DEVELOPER will be
4 charged the cost incurred at the overtime rates for additional inspection time required in connection with
5 the overtime work in accordance with Ordinance Nos. 671 and 749, including any amendments thereto, of
6 the County of Riverside.
7 8. In the event that any claim or legal action is brought against DISTRiCT or CITY
8 in connection with this Agreement because of the actual or alleged acts or omissions by DEVELOPER,
9 DEVELOPER shall defend, indemnify and hold DISTRiCT and CITY harmless therefrom, without cost
I0 to DISTRiCT or CITY. Upon DEVELOPER'S failure to do so, DISTRiCT and CITY shall be entitled to
11
recover from DEVELOPER all of their cost and expenses, including, but not limited to, reasonable
12
attorneys' fees.
13
9. DEVELOPER shall defend, indemnify and hold DISTRICT and CITY, their
14
respective officers, agents, employees and independent contractors free and harmless from any claim or
15
legal action whatsoever, based or asserted, pursuant to Article I, Section 19 of the California Constitution,
16
the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, or any other law or ordinance which seeks to
17
impose ally other liability or damage whatsoever, for the design, construction or failure of PROJECT or
18
froin the diversion of the waters from the natural drainage patterns, save and except claims and litigation
19
arising through the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of DISTRiCT or CITY. DEVELOPER
20
shall defend DISTRICT and CITY without cost to DISTRiCT or CITY, and npon DEVELOPER'S failure
21
to do so. DISTRICT and CITY shall be entitled to recover from DEVELOPER all of their cost and
22
expenditures. including. but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees.
23
i0. DEVELOPER for itself. its successors and assigns hereby releases DISTRICT and
24
CITY. their respective officers. agents. and employees from ally and all claims, demands. actions. or suits
25
26 of any kind arising out of any liability, known or tmkno~n. present or fireIre. including. but not limited to
27 any clailn or liability. based or asserted. pursual~t to Article I. Section 19 of the Calili3rnia Constitution.
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the Fif~l Amendment of the United .States Constitution, or any other law or ordinance which seeks to
impose any other liability or damage, whatsoever, for the design, construction or failure of PROJECT, or
the discharge of drainage within or from PROJECT. Nothing contained herein shall constitute a release
by DEVELOPER of DISTRICT or CITY, their officers, agents and employees from any and all claims,
demands, actions or suits of any kind arising out of any liability, known or unknown, present or future,
for the negligent maintenance of PROJECT, after the acceptance of PROJECT by DISTRICT.
11. Any waiver by DISTRICT or by CITY of any breach of any one or more of the
terms of this Agreement shall not be construed to be a waiver of any subsequent or other breach of the
same or of any other term hereof. Failure on the part of DISTRICT or CITY to require exact, full and
complete compliance with any terms of this Agreement shall not be construed as in any manner changing
the terms hereof, or estopping DISTRICT or CITY from enforcement hereof.
12. If any provision in this Agreement (with the exception of Section IV.4.) is held by
a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will
nevertheless continue in full force without being impaired or invalidated in any way. Should it be held by
a court of competent jurisdiction that any portion of Section IV.4 is invalid, void, or unenforceable, the
provisions of Government Code 65913.8(b) shall apply. It shall, therefore, be determined that this fee is
extended through the year 2011.
13. This Agreement is to be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of
California.
I4. Any and all notices sent or required to be sent to the parties of this Agreement will
be mailed by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the following addresses:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
1995 Market Street
Riverside, CA 92501
CITY OF TEMECULA
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
CAL-PASEO DEL SOL. LLC
27393 Ynez Road. Suite 253
Temecula, CA 92591
Attu: I)ean Meyer
- 10-
1 15. Any action at law or in equity brought by any of the parties hereto for the purpose
2 of enforcing a right or rights provided for by the Agreement, shall be tried in a court of competent
3 jurisdiction in the County of Riverside~ State of California, and the parties hereto waive all provisions of
4 law providing for a change of venue in such proceedings to any other county.
5 16. This Agreement is the result of negotiations bet~veen tile parties hereto, and the
6 advice and assistance of their respective counsel. The fact that this Agreement was prepared as a matter
7 of convenience by DISTRICT shall have no import or significance. Any uncertainty or ambiguity in this
8 Agreement shall not be construed against DISTRICT because DISTRICT prepared this Agreement in its
9 final form.
10 17. The rights and obligations of DEVELOPER shall inure to and be binding upon all
11
heirs, successors and assignees.
12
18. DEVELOPER shall not assign or otherwise transfer any of its rights, duties or
13
obligations hereunder to any person or entity without the written consent of the other parties hereto being
14
first obtained. In the event of any such transfer or assignment, DEVELOPER expressly understands and
15
agrees that it shall remain liable with respect to any and all of the obligations and duties contained in this
16
Agreement.
17
19. This Agreement is intended by the parties hereto as a final expression of their
18
uuderstanding with respect to the subject matter hereof and as a complete and exclusive statement of the
19
terms and conditions thereof and supersedes any and all prior and contemporaneous agreements and
20
understandings, oral or written, in connection therewith. This Agreement may be changed or modified
21
on ly upon the written consent of the parties hereto.
22
//
23
//
24
25
26
27
28
-II-
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on
(to be filled in by Clerk of the Board)
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
By
DAVID P. ZAPPE
General Manager-Chief Engineer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
WILLIAM C. KATZENSTEIN
County Counsel
By
JOE S. RANK
Assistant County Counsel
Dated
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
By
JAMES A. VENABLE, Chairman
Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
GERALD A. MALONEY
Clerk of the Board
By
Deputy
(SEAL)
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
By
William Hughes, Public Works Director
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
CITY OF TEMECULA
By
Shawn D. Nelson, City Manager
ATTEST:
By
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE, City Clerk
(SEAL)
AAM:mcv
PC'/60480
02/02/2000
CAL-PASEO DEL SOL, LLC,
a California limited liability company
By
La Donna K. Monsees
Vice President
(NOTARY)
By
James M. Delhamer
Assistant Secretary
(NOTARY)
-12-
VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT "A"
ITEM 6
APPROVAL;.~
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANC
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
March 28, 2000
Parcel Map No. 29510, Located North of State Route 79 South,
West of Margarita Road
PREPARED BY: Ronald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works
./a'~erald L. Alegria, Senior Engineer- Land Development
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve 1) Parcel Map No. 29510 in
conformance with the Conditions of Approval 2) Subdivision Improvement Agreement 3) Subdivision
Monument Agreement and accept the Faithful Performance Bond, Labor and Material Bond and
Monument Bond as secudty for the agreements.
BACKGROUND: On January 19, 2000, the City of Temecula Planning Commission
approved Tentative Parcel Map No, 29510. The Developer has met all of the Conditions of Approval
for recordation of the parcel map.
Parcel Map No. 29510 is approximately 3.42 Acres and consists of two (2) parcels, located north of
State Route 79 South (SR79S) and West of Margarita Road. The site is currently vacant.
The following fees have been deferred for Parcel Map No. 29510:
Development Impact Fee due prior to issuance of building permit.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
ATTACHMENTS:
2.
3.
4.
Development Fee Checklist
Fees & Securities Repod
Project Vicinity Map
Parcel Map No. 29510
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT FEE CHECKLIST
CASE NO. 29510
Staff has reviewed the following fees relative to their applicability to this project.
FEE
Flood Control (ADP)
Development Impact Fee
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Not In Area Drainage Plan
To be paid pdor to issuance of building
permit
CITY OF TEMECULA ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
FEES AND SECURITIES REPORT
TRACT MAP NO. 23371
IMPROVEMENTS
Street and Drainage
Water
Sewer
Monument
TOTAL
FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE
SECURITY
$ 53,500.00
$ 33,000.00
$ 12,000.00
$
$ 98,500.00
DATE: March 28, 2000
MATERIAL
SECURITY
$
$
$
$
$
& LABOR
26,750.00
16,500.00
6,000.00
1000.00
50,250.00
DEVELOPMENT FEES
City Traffic Signing and Striping Costs
RCFCD (ADP) Fee
Development Impact Fee
SERVICE FEES
Planning Fee
Comprehensive Transportation Plan
Plan Check Fee
Monument Inspection Fee
Fees Paid to Date
Balance of Fees Due
0.00
NA
TBD
$ 103.00
$ 8.00
$ 790.00
$ 250.00
$ 1,151.00
$ 0.00
TEMECULA COMMUNITY
SERVICES DISTRICT
ITEM 1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
FEBRUARY 8, 2000
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Community Services District was called to order at
8:45 P.M., at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Ddve, Temecula, California.
ROLLCALL
PRESENT:
5 DIRECTORS: Naggar Pratt, Roberts, Stone, and
President Comerchero.
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None.
Also present were General Manager Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and Deputy City Clerk
Ballreich.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No input.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Design Services AGreement for Senior Center Expansion
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Award, in substantial form, final form to be approved by City Manager and the
City Attorney, a contract of $44,777 to Davidson + Allen Architects for the
preparation of the design development drawings, construction documents, and
project administration for the Senior Center Expansion Project;
1.2 Approve a 10% contingency in the amount of $4,477 for the design agreement.
Director Stone abstained with regard to Consent Calendar Item No. 1.
2 Completion and Acceptance of Bike Path Si.qnin.q and StdpinG Construction - Project
No. PW99-02CSD
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Accept the project Bike Path Signing and Stdping as complete;
2.2 Authorize the Clerk to file the Notice of Completion, release the Performance
Bond, and accept a 12-month Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of
the contract;
2.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond 7 months after filing of the Notice of
Completion if no liens have been filed.
R:\Minutes\020800
1
3 Completion and Acceptance of Construction Contract for Butterfield Stage Park
Improvements - Project No. PW98-01CSD
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Accept the project Butterfield Stage Park Improvements - Project No.
PW98-01CSD;
3.2 File a Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a 12-month
Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract;
3.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond 7 months after filing of the Notice of
Completion if no liens have been filed.
4 Approval of 1999-00 Mid-Year BudGet Adjustments
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AMENDING
THE FISCAL YEAR 1999-00 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET
MOTION: Director Stone moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos, 1-4. The motion was
seconded by Director Roberrs and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Director
Stone who abstained with regard to Consent Calendar Item No. 1.
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT
Community Services Director Parker relayed that the community workshop regarding the
design of the aquatic facility to be constructed at Chaparral High School would be held
Saturday, February 12th from 9:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. in the Commons Room at Chaparral
High School; and invited the community to attend.
Noting that for the third consecutive year, Temecula would be receiving an Award of
Excellence from the California Park and Recreation Society (CPRS) for the City's
Recreation Brochure, Guide for Leisure Services, Director of Community Services
Parker commended the Recreation Division for their outstanding work.
Director of Community Services Parker relayed, additionally, that at the CPRS Annual
Conference the City would be receiving an Award of Merit for the design of the Museum;
and thanked the Community Services staff and Council for their support regarding both
projects.
R:\Minutes~020800
2
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
General Manager Nelson relayed that the City is looking forward to the Senior Expansion
Project, which would allow the expansion of recreation and human services opportunities for
the seniors in the City of Temecula.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS
Relaying comments that had been expressed from community members, Director Stone
commended Director of Community Services Parker and his staff for the beautiful condition
of the City parks.
In response to Director Stone's comments, General Manager Nelson commended the
community, as well, for their partnership through the special tax, which creates the
resources for the City to be able to provide those services.
Echoing the previous comments, President Comerchero advised that the condition of a
City's parks was one of the benchmarks that sets a community apart; and commended the
Community Services Department for their diligent efforts associated with the maintenance of
the parks.
ADJOURNMENT
At 8:50 P.M., the Temecula Community Services Distdct meeting was formally adjourned to next
adjourned regular meeting: February 17, 2000, scheduled to follow the City Council Workshop, City
Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
Jeff Comerohero, President
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk/District Secretary
[SEAL]
R:\Minutes\020800
3
ITEM 2
APPROVAIR~~
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINAN
GENERAL MANAGE
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
TEMECULACOMMUNITYSERVICES DISTRICT
CITY OFTEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
General Manager/Board of Directors
L.~'Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Services
March 28, 2000
Completion and Acceptance of the Rotary Park Improvement Project,
Project No. PW98-09CSD for the Temecula Community Center
nfJ' illiam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
PREPARED BY: ?~'VScott Harvey, Associate Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Directors:
Accept the construction of the Rotary Park Improvement Project, Project No. PW98-09CSD,
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 April 13, 1999 the Board of Directors awarded a contact for the
construction of the Rotary Park Improvement Project, Project PW98-09CSD, to J.K. Weigle
Engineering Contractor for $22,561.40. This project provided improvements, which includes the
installation of a picnic shade structure, two picnic tables, and split rail fencing in the back of the park
at the top of the creek bank. This project is funded by Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
funds for the Temecula Community Center, which the Rotary Park is located adjacent to the
Temecula Community Center building and occupies the same property.
The Contractor has completed the work in accordance with the approved plans and specifications
to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Services. No contract change orders were issued.
The contractor and the City agreed not to have a 90-day maintenance, therefor the bid item for the
work for an amount of $241.30 will not be paid. The final amount of the contract is $22,320.10. The
construction retention for this project will be released on or about thirty-five (35) days after the Notice
of Completion has been recorded.
FISCAL IMPACT: The Rotary Park Improvement Project was funded through a Community
Development Block Grant. The contract amount for this project was $22,561.40. With the deletion
of the 90-day maintenance, the total amount of the project is $22,320.10. These funds have been
appropriated in Account No. 210-190-162-5804.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Notice of Completion
2. Maintenance Bond
3. Contractor's Affidavit
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND RETURN TO:
CITY CLERK
CITY OF TEMECULA
P.O. Box 9033
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
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 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
California 92590.
3. A Contract was awarded by the City of Temecula to J.K. Weigle Engineering Contractor
to perform the following work of improvement:
Rotary Park Improvement Project
Project No. PW98-09CSD
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 March 28, 2000. That
upon said contract the Far West Insurance Company 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 California, and is described as follows: PROJECT NO. PW 98-
09CSD.
6. The street address of said property is: 28816 Pujol Street.
Dated at Temecula, California, this 28th day of March 2000.
Susan W. Jones CMC/AAE, City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones CMC/AAE, 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 Temecuta, California, this 28e day of March 2000.
Susan W. Jones CMC/AAE, City Clerk
CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MAINTENANCE BOND
PROJECT NO. PWi~-O9
ROTARY PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
AI'I'AClIED TO BOND N0:
405000552
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRF..~ENT THAT:
,1,K, MEltIF BOIllEERING C01fTRACTOR 41827 CORTE LAPA TENECULA, CA 92592
NAME AND ADDRESS CDNTRAC TOR'S
a
INDIVIDUAL
hereinafter called Pddncipll, and
FAR lIEST INSURANCE COleANY 2445-511t AVE. J220 ~ DIEGO, CA 92101
NAME AND ADDRESS Oi= SURETY
herelnafter c,~lled SURiTY, are held and firmly bound unto CiTY OF TEMECULA,
herainafter called OWNER. in the penal sum of *Ttm THOUS~m 're HUllDIED FIFT'f EIGHT
DOLLAR8 end C!Nll
(l .,2?58.0o* ) in lawful money of the UnWed Stltes, slid sum I}eing not IlU thltl ten
(10%} of the Contract value payeli}Is by the slid City of Teme~la under the terml of the
Contract. for ~e payment of which, we bind ourselves, successors, and assigns, jointly end
severally, firmly by these presents.
THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION is such that whereas, the Principal entered into a
certain Contract with the OWNER. dated fie ~ day of Ap., , 19 99, I copy
of which is hereto attached and made a part hereof for the constru¢~On of PROJECT NO, PWa8-
01, ROTARY PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
WHEREAS= said Contract provides mat the Principal Will furnish e bond condit~oned to guarantee
for the peno~ of o,n.e (1) year after approve of the final estimate on said job, by the OWNER,
against all defects in workmanship and materials which may become apparent dudng said paddad;
WHEREAS, the said Contract. has been completed. and was approved on JULY 16,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that if witlqin one year
from the date of epprov~l of ~e said Contract the work done under the terms of said Contract
shell disclose poor workmanship in the execution of said work, and the carn/ing out of the terms
of said Contract. or it snail appear that defective mateddais were furnished thereunder, then this
obligation shall remain in furl force and virtue. otherwise this instrument shall be void.
Bignod ant3 r. ealed this lgTH day of JULY
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Peter M. Tl~orr, on, City Attorney
PRINCIP
(Name)
(Tme)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SAN ])Z,T. GO } S.S.
On AI]G'IST 5, 1999 before me, I,[A~CI~r.I~ P1]'r_.l,ON
AAAAAAAAA~AAAAAAA~ '
, a NotaW Public in and for said County and State, personally
appeared *******AAA~AXA~AA j ~Te,~G[_~AAi,AAAAiAAA,*****************************
personally known to me (or proved to me on
the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be
the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to
the within instrument and acknowledged to me that
he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their
authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their
signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or
the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)
acted, executed the instrument.
FOR NOTARY SEAL OR STAMP
LIMITED POWER OF ATTORNEY
Amwest Surety Insurance Company
Far West Insurance Company
Expiration Date: 03/09/01 POWERNUMBER 0000983407
This document is pnnted on white paper centtuning the anlticial watermarked logo ( ~ ) of Amwest SureW Insurance Company on the front and brown security paper
on the back. Only unaltered originals of the Limited Power of Attorney C'POA"~ are valid. This PeA may not be used in conluncnon ,,,nth any other PeA. No
representations or warranties regarding this PeA may be made by any person. This PeA is gavemeal by the laws of the State of Nebraska and is only valid untd the
expiration date. Arewest Surety insurance Company and Far West Insurance Company ~collectively the "Company") shat[ not be liable on any limited PeA which is
I~audulently produced. lbrged or other, Nlse dismbuted w~thout the permission of the Company. Any party concerned about the validiW of this PeA or an accompanying
Company bond should call your local Arewest branch oilice at (619) 233-5893
KNOW ALL BY THESE PKESENT, that Amwest Surety Insurance Company. a Nebraska corporation and Far West Insurance Company. a Nebraska coq}oratton
(collectively the "Company"), do hereby make, constitute and appoint:
Lawrence M. Nakahara
Pamela Bentley
Corrine Brown
As Employees of Arawest Surety Insurance Co
its ~rue and lawful Attorney-in-facL wRh limited power and authority for and on behalf of the Company as surety to execute, deliver and affix the seal of the company thereto
ira seal ts required on bonds. undertaking. recognizances. remsurance agreement for a MilEer Act or other performance bond or other wn~ten obligauons in the natur~ thereof
as follows:
All Bonds up to $25.000,000.00
and to bind the company thereby. This appointment is made under and by authority of the By-Laws of the Company, which are now in full force and effect.
[, the underSigned secretary of Arewest Surety Insurance Company, a Nebraska corporation and Far West Insurance Company, a Nebraska corporation, DO HEREBY
CERTIFY that this Pov. ero f Aaorncy remains in full force and effect and has not been revoked and furthermore, that the rcsolutions of the Board of Directors of both Arewest
Surety Insurance Compm~y and Far West Insurance Company set forth on this Power of Attorney. and that the relevant prowsions of the By-Laws of each company, a~ now
in full force and effect.
Bond No. 40500053~ Signed &. sealed this 19l~l day of alJ. y 1999 ~ X~. t~ Af~ ..
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * RESOLUTIONS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS * * * * ' * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
This PeA is signed and sealed by facsimi le under and by the authority of the following resolutions adopted by the Board of Directors of Amw~t Surety insurance Company
at a meeting duly held on December 15, 1975 and Far West Insurance Company at a meeting cluly held on July 28, 1983:
RESOLVED FURTHER. that the signature of any authorized officer and the seal of the Company may be affixed by t~csimile Io any PeA or certification thereof
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Arewest Surety Insurance Company and Far West Insurance Company have caused these present to be signed by ic~ proper effects, and its
State of Califomm
On September 25. ~998 betbrc me, Peggy B. Lotlon Notary Public, personally appeared John E. Savage and Karen G. Cohen. personally known to me (or proved to me
executed the instrument
WITNESS my d and official seal
...... V.~ ,,,,"' , ~ .....
....................................... I ~rgenes Road Calabasas. CA 91302
TEL 818 871-2000 [
NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of CALIFORNIA
County of SAN DIEGO
On 7-19-99 before me, COltRINE BROWN (here insert name)
Notary Public, personally appeared
P.QIELA BENTLEY
personally known to me (or proven to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s)
is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their
authorized capacity(los), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf
of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signatur ?'~'% /
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER
[] INDIVIDUALS
[] CORPORATE OFFICERS
(Seal)
[] PARTNERS [] GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
2~] ATTORNEY-IN-FACT [] OTHER
[] TRUSTEE(S)
SIGNER REPRESENTING
NAME OF PERSON(S) ENTITrES
WE&J2 ]LNSURk~',jC~ C, OM, PA,N¥
ATTENTION NOTARY: A~th~ugtHhe inf~rmati~n requested be~wis~pt~na~itc~u~dpreventfraudu~entattachment~fthiscerd~cate.
THIS CERTIFICATE DocumentTitleorType:
MUST BE ATTACHED
Number of Pages: DOCument Date:
TO THE DOCUMENT
DESCRIBED HERE~N: Signer(s) other than named above
BM-FIO04 (8/97)
CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT AND FINAL RELEASE
PROJECT NO. PW98-09
ROTARY PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
This is to certify that J K Weigle Eng. ,C~hereinafter the "CONTRACTOR") declares
to the City of Temecula. under oath. that he/she/it has paid in full for all matenals, supplies, labor,
services. tools, equipment, and all other bills contracted for by the CONTRACTOR or by any of
the CONTRACTOR's agents, employees or subcontractors used or in contribution to the
execution of it's contract with the City of Temecula. with regard to the building, erection.
construction, or repair of that certain wonk of improvement known as PROJECT NO. PW98-09,
ROTARY PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, situated in the City of Temecula, State of
California. more particularly described as follows:
ROTARY PARK IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
The CONTRACTOR 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 against of any
unpaid sums owing to the CONTRACTOR.
Further, in connection with the final payment of the Contract, the CONTRACTOR hereby
disputes the following amounts:
Descnption
Dollar Amount to Dispute
Pursuant to Public Contracts Code {}7200, the CONTRACTOR 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 cause of action which exist or might exist in favor of the
CONTRACTOR by reason of payment by the City of Temecula of any contract amount which the
CONTRACTOR has not disputed above.
CONTRACTOR
Print Name and Title
RELEASE R- 1 R ~ID-DOCS~ASTERS~NEWBID
ITEM 3
CITY ATTORN~"PROVALF~//
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
Board of Directors
.~'~..-~Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Services
March 28, 2000
Multi-Use, Non-Motorized Trails Master Plan Contract
PREPARED BY:
Beryl Yasinosky, Development Services Analyst
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Directors:
Award contract in the amount of $68,383 to KT'U & Assodates for the preparation of a Multi-Use,
Non-Motorized Trails Master Plan.
Approve a contingency amount of 10% of the contract, or $6,838, for any additional services
deemed necessary for COmpletion of the Master Plan project.
DISCUSSION: On December 30, 1999, the City solicited Statements of Qualifications from
engineering and landscape architectural firms for the preparation of a Multi-Use Non-Motorized Trails
Master Plan. The City received eight Statements of Qualifications, which were reviewed and ranked by
a review committee. The four firms judged to be the most qualified were invited to make an oral
presentation to a selection COmmittee COmprised of a Community Services Commissioner, Jack Henz,
and City staff. The selection committee ranked KTU & Associates as the most qualified firm for this
project. Staff has negotiated with KTU & Assodates for a final Scope of Work and a cost proposal of
$68,383.00 for the project.
The purpose of the Trails master Plan will be to guide the City's planning and implementation processes
for development of a safe and efficient trail system by utilizing, in pad, the Santa Gertrudis, Murrieta,
and Temecula Creek Flood Channels. It is envisioned that the City's future network of trails will provide
access for recreation and alternative circulation routes, connecting residential neighborhoOds to parks,
schools, shopping centers, places of employment, and other regional trails.
The preliminary master plan process will explore all of the opportunities and constraints related to the
future trail system, including topography, environmental issues, general plan, park plan, property
ownership, and existing and future trail routes. In addition, community input will be enCOuraged by
holding several public workshops to evaluate the community's overall needs and desired connectivity
to existing and future bike lanes and regional trail systems. The completed master plan will incorporate
the above information into a working document that will include maps and exhibits identifying trail
locations, rest stops, interpretive elements and topics, construction standards, liability issues, and
potential costs and funding sources.
FISCAL IMPACT: Total cost of the Multi-Purpose, Non-Motorized Trails Master Plan is
$68,383. A 10% contingency of $6,838 is also recommended. The project is budgeted and approved
in the City's Capital Improvement Program for FY 1999-00.
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
AGREEMENT
FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
(Preparation of a Multi-Purpose, Non-Motorized Trails Master Plan)
THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of March 28, 2000, between the
Temecula Community Services District, a Community Services District formed pursuant to
Government Code Section 61000, et seq., CTCSD") and KTU&A, a Landscape Architecture and
Planning Firm (Consultant"). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth
herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on March 28, 2000 and shall
remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than
January 1, 2001 unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.
2. SERVICES. Consultant shall perform the services and tasks described and
set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full.
Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance, which is also set
forth in Exhibit A.
3. PERFORMANCE. Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and
to the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein.
Consultant shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by
persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting
its obligations under this Agreement.
4. PAYMENT.
a. The TCSD agrees to pay Consultant monthly, in accordance with the payment
rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B, Payment Rates and
Schedule, attached hereto and incorporated herain by this reference as though set forth in full,
based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. Any terms in Exhibit B other than the payment
rates and schedule of payment are null and void. This amount shall not exceed Sixty-Eklht
Thousand, Three Hundred Eighty Three Dollare 1568,383.00) for the total term of the Agreement
unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement.
b. Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in
connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth herein,
unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City Manager.
Consultant shall be compensated for any additional services in the amounts and in the manner as
agreed to by City Manager and Consultant at the time TCSD's written authorization is given to
Consultant for the performance of said services. The City Manager may approve additional work
not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the amount of the Agreement, but in no event shall such sum
exceed Six Thousand, Eiqht Hundred Thirty-Eight dollars ($6,838.00). Any additional work in
excess of this amount shall be approved by the City Council.
c. Consultant will submit invoices monthly for actual services performed.
Invoices shall be submitted between the first and fifteenth 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 as to all nondisputed fees. If the TCSD disputes any of consultant's fees it shall give wdtten
notice to Consultant within 30 days of receipt of a invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the
invoice.
R:\yasinobk\contracts\KTU&A.Masterplan
5. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE.
a. The TCSD may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend
or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the consultant at least ten (10)
days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all
work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the TCSD suspends or
terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or
invalidate the remainder of this Agreement.
b. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the TCSD
shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination,
provided that the work performed is of value to the TCSD. Upon termination of the Agreement
pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the TCSD pursuant to Section 4.
6. DEFAULT OF CONSULTANT.
a. The Consultant's failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall
constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this
Agreement, TCSD shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any
work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written
notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of
work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant's control, and without fault or
negligence of the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default.
b. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in
default in the performance of any bf the terms or conditions of this Agreement, it shall serve the
Consultant with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have (10) days after service
upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the
event that the Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the TCSD shall have
the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement
without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law,
in equity or under this Agreement.
7. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS.
a. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to
sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by TCSD that relate to the
performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of
services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be
maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identi-
fied and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of TCSD
or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine
and audit said books and records, shall permit TCSD to make transcripts therefrom as necessary,
and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities related to this
Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period
of three (3) years after receipt of final payment.
b. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this
Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing
data generated for the work, surveys, notes, and other documents prepared in the course of
providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property
of the TCSD and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the TCSD without the
permission of the Consultant. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the
work, Consultant shall make available to the TCSD, upon reasonable written request by the TCSD,
R:\yasinobk\contracts\KTU&A.Masterplan
the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring
and printing computer files.
c. With respect to the design of public improvements, the Consultant shall not
be liable for any injuries or property damage resulting from the reuse of the design at a location
other than that specified in Exhibit A without the written consent of the Consultant.
8. INDEMNIFICATION. The Consultant agrees to indemnify, protect and hold
harmless the TCSD, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against any and all
claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, including attorney fees and expert witness
fees, or liability of any kind or nature which the TCSD, 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 negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in
any way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement, excepting only liability
arising out of the negligence of the TCSD.
9. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Consultant shall procure and maintain for
the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property
which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the
Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees.
a. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
(1)
Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form
No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88.
(2)
Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01
06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the
Consultant owns no automobiles, a non-owned auto endorsement
to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable.
(3)
Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of
California and Employer's Liability Insurance. If the Consultant has
no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker's
compensation insurance is not required, but Consultant shall
execute a declaration that it has no employees.
(4)
Professional Liability Insurance shall be written on a policy form
providing professional liability for the Consultant's profession.
b. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less than:
General Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury,
personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General
Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is
used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this
project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the
required occurrence limit.
(2)
Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and
property damage, or a non-owned auto endorsement to the General
Commercial Liability policy.
R:\yasinobk\contracLs\KTU&A. Masterplan
(3)
Workers Compensation as required by the State of California;
Employers Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for
bodily injury or disease.
(4)
Professional Liability coverage: :) One million ($1,000,000) per claim
and in aggregate.
c. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured
retentions must be declared to and approved by the City Manager. At the option of the City
Manager, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions
as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Consultant shall
procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration
and defense expenses.
d. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability
policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
fi)
The TCSD, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be
covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities
performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and
completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied
or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or
borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special
limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the TCSD, its
officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
(2)
For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance
coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the TCSD, its
officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-
insured maintained by the TCSD, its officers, officials, employees or
volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall
not contribute with it.
(3)
Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies
including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided
to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
(4)
The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured
against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect
to the limits of the insurer's liability.
(5)
Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to
state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by
either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30)
days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested,
has been given to the TCSD.
e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a
current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the TCSD. Self
insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements.
f. Verification of Coveracle. Consultant shall furnish the TCSD with original
endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by
a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be
R:\yasinobk\contracts\KTU&A.Masterplan
on forms provided by the TCSD. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City
before work commences. As an alternative to the TCSD's forms, the Consultanrs insurer may
provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements
effecting the coverage required by these specifications.
10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
a. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the TCSD awholly
independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf
of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither TCSD
nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of
Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this
Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers,
employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the TCSD. Consultant
shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against TCSD,
or bind TCSD in any manner.
b. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the
performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the
Agreement, TCSD shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for
performing services hereunder for TCSD. TCSD shall not be liable for compensation or
indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.
11. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. The Consultant shall keep itself informed of
all local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those
employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The
Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations.
The TCSD, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by
failure of the Consultant to comply with this section.
12. RELEASE OF INFORMATION.
a. All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall
be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without TCSD's prior written
authorization. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without
written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily
provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or
other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project
or property located within the City of Temecula. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not
be considered "voluntary" provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.
b. Consultant shall promptly notify TCSD should Consultant, its officers,
employees, agents or subcontractors be served with any summons, complaint, subpoena, notice
of deposition, request for documents, interrogatories, request for admissions or other discovery
request, court order or subpoena from any party regarding this Agreement and the work performed
thereunder or with respect to any project or property located within the City of Temecula. TCSD
retains the right, but has no obligation, to represent Consultant and/or be present at any deposition,
hearing or similar proceeding. Consultant agrees to cooperate fully with TCSD and to provide
TCSD with the opportunity to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant.
However, TCSD's right to review any such response does not imply or mean the right by TCSD to
control, direct, or rewrite said response.
13. NOTICES. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other
party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (I) personal service, (ii)
delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that
R:\yasinobk\contracts\KTU&A.Masterplan
provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail,
certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as
set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be
effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following
deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above.
To City:
To Consultant:
Temecula Community Services District
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
Site Address:
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Attention: City Manager
KTU & Associates
Attention: Mike Singleton ASLA, AICP
3916 Normal Street
San Diego, California 92103-3413
14. ASSIGNMENT. The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this
Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of
the TCSD. Because of the personal nature of the services to be rendered pursuant to this
Agreement, only Mike Singleton and John Holloway shall perform the services described in this
Agreement. Mike Singleton and John Holloway may use assistants, under their direct supervision,
to perform some of the services under this Agreement. Consultant shall provide TCSD fourteen
(14) days' notice prior to the departure of Mike Singleton or John Holloway from Consultant's
employ. Should he or she leave Consultant's employ, the TCSD shall have the option to
immediately terminate this Agreement, within three (3) days of the close of said notice period.
Upon termination of this Agreement, Consultant's sole compensation shall be payment for actual
services performed up to, and including, the date of termination or as may be otherwise agreed to
in writing between the TCSD Board of Directors and the Consultant.
15. LICENSES. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall
have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services
described in this Agreement.
16. GOVERNING LAW. The TCSD and Consultant understand and agree that
the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the
parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement. Any litigation
concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with
geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula. In the event such litigation is filed by one party
against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by
the Court's judgement, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the
relief granted.
17. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire understanding
between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior
or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written,
are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering
into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's
own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material.
R:\yasinobk\contracts\KTU&A.Masterplan
18. AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT. The person or persons
executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he or she has the
authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind
Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed
the day and year first above written.
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES
DISTRICT
Jeff Comerchero, President
Attest:
Approved As to Form:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk/District Secretary
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
CONSULTANT
KTU & Associates, a Landscape Architecture
and Planning Firm
By:
Name: rl~'~-~b'.4 L.
Title:
Ti.e:
(Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations
R:\yasinobk\contracts\KTU&A,Masterplan
EXHIBIT A
TASKS TO BE PERFORMED
R:\yasinobk\contracts\KTU&A.Masterplan
Exhibit "~"
PROPOSED SCHEDULE
& TASKS FOR THE
CITY OF TEMECULA
MULTI-USE TRAILS PLAN
EXHIBIT B
PAYMENT RATES AND SCHEDULE
R:\yasinobk\contracts\KTU&A.Masterplan
CITY OF TEMUCULA
MULTI-USE TRAIL MASTER PLAN
PREPARED BY KTU+A
1.01 Collect & Process Base Map Data
1,0g Collect & Process Land Use Data
1.03 Obtain Aerial ImageP/& Process Exhibit
II f4-'] ;4 rl; { ,] I J ~=, Ik':L, ,- - .1: F.¶ Ik'i-*t k
2.01 Review Typical Developer Easement Requirements
2.02 Collect & Analyze Class 2/3 Bikeway Facilities
2.03 Identity Future Developmerd Areas
2.04 Review Existing Ger~ral Plan
2.05 Review Existing Parks & Open Space Master Plan
2.06 Review Recreation Goals
2.07 Review / Update Recreational Needs Assessment
2.08 Deten*nine Connections Needed for Schools
2.09 Review Local Funding Sources / Propositions
2.10 Research Histodc Elements for Interpretire Potential
2.11 Delermine Connecticns Needed for Parks
2.12 Determine All Possib4e Trail Segment Types
EXHIBIT "B"
Principal Proj. Manag. GIS Manager G~S Analyst Graphics Page I of 2
M. Singleton J. Helloway M. Carpenter B EJliot M. Johnston Matenal MatenaB Material Material
0
$0itD
.... 4 ; . I ~ Aerials . $500.00. $500.00
L i 12 ..... $0+00
4 : 4.. $000
Total Labor & Materials for Task Group~
$440.00 $3,375.00 $0.00 $300.00 $0.00 Subtotal Labor $4,115itO
Total Labor & Materials for Task Group~
2 g ! :. ~ :2 Phutes $tg.oo L
g _ , ~. ,~ ~2 ~ 5 ! Pho,os.$t..~'$1o0,oo
2 ~ , + $0.00
'~'~ ' ; ' 7 ' , ' + $0,00
4 I $0,00
14 32 2 4 0 Subtotal Materials $144.00
$1,540.00 $2,400.00 $150.00 $200.00 $0.00 Subtotal Labor $4,290.00
Total Labor & Materials for Task Group["~"~.~
4.01 DetermineAppropriateTraiITypesperSegment
4.02 Develop Overall Concept Plan
4.03 Identify Conceptual Trasl Ameniges
4.04 Prepare Detail Area Concept Plans
4.05 Revise Concept Plans based on Workshop Results
2
$1,760.00
Total Labor & Materials for Task Group~
5.01 Map Existing Habitat Resources
5.02 Map Trail Constraints
5.03 Review ProposedTrails Using Env. Checklist
5,04 Document Irktiai Environmental Impacts
5.05 Suggest Mitigatiom; & Work into Concepts
5.06 Identity Follow-on Environmental Review/Studies
5.07 Identify Follow-on EP~ineering / Design Studies
4
2
2
22
$2,420.00
CITY OF TEMUCULA
MULTI-USE TRAIL MASTER PLAN
PREPARED BY KTU+A
6,01 OevelopTrailStandardsSections&Texl
6.02 Develop Trail Standard Costs per SQuare Foot
6.03 Identify Trail Landscaping ReOuirements
7.01 Prepare & Submit Dra8 Plan
7.02 Devise Drab Plan According to COmments
7.03 Submit Pre-finaW Plan
7.04 Revise & Submit Fina~ Document
7.05 Submit Final GIS Files
7.06 Submit Electronic Version of the Plan (PDF)
7,07 Submit Camera Originals
EXHIBIT 'B"
Page 2 of 2
...... $0.00
~._6 _ v~ .__~40 , 4 4 20 _Documents $20.00 , $400.00
2 ] 20 2 2 ~ . $0,00
2 I 12 25 , Documents $20.00 ~ $500,00
2, ~._,~' ' ' ~ 23 _Decuments $20.00_ 3300.00
2 4 $0,00
8.01 Meet with Public Works / Flood Control (1)
8.02 Meet with MWD abont Easement lssues (1)
8,03 Meet wdh Long Range Planning (1)
8.04 Meet with WRCOG on Trails COOrdination (2)
8.05 Meet with County Trails COOrdinator (2)
kf,.t: ? tl;DliJ'a~'lhl--,'JIJ:iq[41:l'JIb
9+01 Identify Special Interest / Community Representatives
9.02 Establish a Community Advisory Committee
9+03 Organize Materials for 1 st Public Workshop
9+04 COnduct & Summarize 1st "Goals" Workshop (4)
9+05 OrganizeMaterialsfor2nd"lnitialConcept'Workshop
9.06 COndust & Summarize 2nd 'Concept" Workshop (6)
9.07 Prepare for3rd "Recommended Ran' Presentation
9.08 COndust & DOCument 3rd Workshop Presentation (7)
GRAND TOTAL HOURS 166 407 46 112 60
GRAND TOTAL LABOR COSTS $19,800.00 $32.925.00 $3,600.00 $5,800.00 $3,000.00 GRAND TOTAL MATERIALS~ $3,244.00
GRAND TOTAL LABOR] $65,125.00
GRAND TOTAL LABOR AND MATERIALSI $68,369.00
*Indicates the meeting group number where meetings will be Combin6d, Saving on travel time. The first occurrence Of this humher will include the travel time,
ITEM 4
APPROVA~,,~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE DIRECTOR
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
Board of Directors
r'~Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Services
March 28, 2000
Temecula Valley Museum Update
PREPARED BY:
Phyllis L. Ruse, Deputy Director of Community Services
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors receive and file a report concerning the
Temecula Valley Museum.
BACKGROUND: On November 6, 1999, the Community Services Department (TCSD)
dedicated the Temecula Valley Museum (TVM) to the City of Temecula, with a preview evening the
night before. Both events were well attended with approximately 140 persons present on Friday
evening and 230 persons at the grand opening on Saturday. Staff is still working on perfecting a
visitor count method, but current attendance figures indicate an average monthly attendance of 1,000
persons since the facility opened.
Staff conducted a docent/volunteer-training program in October and November 1999 and is currently
conducting the second such training. The training program consists of six two-hour training
sessions, conducted by Wendell Ott, Museum Services Manager. There were 41 participants in the
first fall session and 27 persons are currently in the spring program. It is staffs intention to continue
offer docent training each fall and spring, The volunteers serve either as museum docents or as gift
shop attendants,
Staff and docents have provided tours for boy scouts, brownies, home school groups, and the
Temecula Chamber Tourism Committee. Temecula Valley Unified School District has scheduled
some tours for this spring for some of the classes at Sparkman Elementary. The school district
typically schedules all field trips and books their transportation by the beginning of the school year.
Since we were not open until November, staff believes we will host many more field trips during the
2000/01 school year.
The TVM also hosts a lecture series of "First Thursday" programs. The first public program was Phil
Brigandi's lecture on the Vail Ranch history with 26 people attending that evening. Other lectures
have or will include "Califomia, the Railroad Period" by Jim Davis from Mt. San Jacinto Community
College, "Mission Digs at San Luis Rey" by archeologist Jack Williams, A Cowhand's Song, film and
discussion, and My Jack London, film and discussion. These events are held on the first Thursday
F:\Depts\CSD\RUSEP',AGENDAS'~museum ulxlate.-cc-3-28-2000.dcc
of each month from 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m.
Mr. Ott has been proactive is contacting civic organizations to notify them that TVM offers speakers
available for presentations on the museum. To date, Mr. Ott has been a guest speaker for two such
engagements, including the Elsinore Rotary Club. He is scheduled to speak at the Anza Baptist
Church later this month.
TVM also offers monthly "Family Day Programs" one weekend each month between 2:00 p.m. and
4:00 p.m. Family Day programs are designed in a two-pad format consisting of a presentation
followed by an activity. Activities are based on an adult/child team partidpation. This gives families
an opportunity to discover and experience history together.
Staff is currently working with the Museum group to produce a full-color brochure highlighting the
museum to be used as a marketing tool. The brochure will be available at all City facilities and we
hope to have them available at other locations, such as the library, Chamber of Commerce, and Old
Town businesses. Staff is looking into the possibility of a reciprocal agreement with other museums
to display each others brochures.
Other marketing efforts have included four feature articles in local newspapers and several program
articles as well as listings in the community calendars. Our facility was included in the Westways
Magazine article (Nov/Dec 99) on Temecula and was featured on the front page of the California
Museum Association Newsletter. Staff has made and distributed posters announcing our programs
which have been placed in the Library, the Little Professor Book Shop, the Book Shack, and selected
Old Town merchants. We have built a direct mailing list of over 500 names and addresses from our
visitor registration. Mr. Ott is currently exploring some ideas to join with Wine Country tours. TVM
also has a good exposure on the City's web site.
Other long-range plans include attracting and offering changing temporary exhibitions. The current
exhibit is a showing of Amos Haines photographs taken between 1910 and 1920 of the California
Missions. This exhibit was provided through the California Museum of Photography and will be
shown at the Temecula Valley Museum until the end of June. The next exhibit will be of artist of the
Hiclh Count~, Ray Mordssey and Ralph Love. It is staffs goal to bring in temporary exhibitions every
two to four months. Each exhibition will present a marketing opportunity for the museum, while
keeping our museum new and interesting, encouraging return visits.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
F:'~DeptS\CSD\RUSEP~AGENDAS~nuseum update-cc-3-28-2000.doc
w
z
w
0
ILl
~-8
~ ~ 1""
I--
0
0
.,.I
.~,
E
1-
0
D
0
rr
LU
7
In
TCSD
DEPARTMENTAL
REPORT
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
CITY MANAGER ~/~7~
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
Board of D~rectors
~,Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Services
March 28, 2000
Departmental Report
PREPARED BY: Gall L. Zigler, Administrative Secretary
On December 1, 1999, staff released a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for a Citywide Multi-
Trail System. Interviews were held on February 14, 2000 and the committee selected KTU&
Associates at the top ranked firm. Approval of the contract is on TCSD consent items on
tonight's agenda.
On January 11, 2000, the City Council awarded a contract to Lighting Contract Services to
make modifications to the lighting at the Margarita Community Park tennis courts and roller
hockey rink. The project includes installing fencing between the park site and the creek. This
project is currently under construction.
Staff released a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for the design of an aquatic facility to be
constructed at Chaparral High School. The Board of Directors approved a Scope of Services
Agreement on December 7, 1999, with the number one ranked firm, RJM Design Group. The
project design committee has held a community workshop and toured aquatic facilities in San
Diego County. The committee continues to meet and discuss design components of the
proposed aquatic facility.
On January 8, 2000, the Board of Directors directed staff to discontinue discussions with Big
League Dreams, Inc., regarding the construction of a Big League Dreams Sports Complex.
However, the Board is committed to constructing a sports complex at the Northwest Sports
Park, and directed staff to release an RFQ to firms for design services. Statements of
Qualifications were received on February 16, 2000 and selection committee will be interviewing
the four top ranked firms on March 28, 2000.
R:\ZIGLERGXXDEEFRFF\0002.doc
March 21. 2000
Staff has negotiated a contract with LPA for the final construction documents and
specifications for the Temecula Library. The project committee is meeting weekly to complete
the design detail elements for the library.
The City Council recently awarded a contract to AMS Planning and Research to prepare the
Children's Museum Feasibility Study. A community workshop is scheduled for March 29, 2000
at 7:00 PM at City Hall, and a sub-committee meeting is scheduled for March 30, 2000. The
consultant continues to conduct interviews within the community.
The Maintenance Division continues to oversee the maintenance of parks and recreation
facilities, as well as all other City owned public buildings and facilities.
The Annual Volunteer Recognition Celebration was held on March 20, 2000, at the Community
Recreation Center. This annual event recognizes volunteers who help support the Police
Department, Fire Department and the Community Services Department throughout the year.
Approximately 150 were in attendance. The event included a light brunch, awards
presentation, and entertainment by the Christian Youth Theater group.
The Community Services Department received a California Parks and Recreation Society Award
of Excellence for the 1999 Summer/Fall Edition of the Guide to Leisure Activities. Mayor Jeff
Stone, Mayor Pro Tern Jeff Comerchero and Community Services Department staff was present
to accept the award, at the annual CPRS Conference.
The Recreation Division continues to program classes, activities and excursions at all City
recreation facilities. The Recreation Division is currently in the planning stages for the Spring
Egg Hunt to be held on April 22, 2000. The Spring Egg Hunts will be held at three locations:
The Rancho California Sports Park, Paloma Del Sol Park and Temeku Hills Park.
R:\ZIGLERGXXDEPTRPT\0002.doc
March 21. 2000
REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
ITEM 1
MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
FEBRUARY 8, 2000
A regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to order at 8:50
P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:
AGENCY MEMBERS:
ABSENT:
Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Stone,
and Chairman Roberts.
0 AGENCY MEMBER: None.
Also present were Executive Director Nelson, City Attomey Thorson, and Deputy City Clerk
Ballreich.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No input.
CONSENT CALENDAR
I Approval of 1999-00 Mid-Year Budaet Adjustments
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1999-00
ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET
MOTION: Agency Member Stone moved to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 1. The motion
was seconded by Agency Member Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
AGENCY BUSINESS
No input.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
Executive Director Nelson announced the Grand Opening of the Mission Village Apartments which
was part of the City's low-to-moderate income housing program; noted that the 76-unit complex
would be opening on Thursday, February 17th at 12:00 noon, relaying that the location was Pujol
t
Street and 6 h Street; and invited the public to attend.
AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS
No comments.
R:\Minutes\020800
1
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:51 P.M., the Temecula Redevelopment Agency meeting was formally adjourned to next
adjourned regular meeting: February 17, 2000, scheduled to follow the Community Services
District Meeting, in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula,
California.
Ron Roberts, Chairman
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk/Agency Secretary
[SEAq
R:\Minutes\020800
2
ITEM 2
APPROVAL ~TO~
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE DIRECTO
CITY MANAGE
TEMECULAREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
Executive Directo~Redevelopment Agency Members
John Meyer, Housing and Redevelopment Manager.~/~/t'~
DATE: March 28, 2000
SUBJECT: Owner Participation Rules
Prepared by:
RECO M M ENDAT|ON:
Joyce Powers, Senior Redevelopment Analyst
That the Agency Board adopt the attached Rules Governing Participation and Re-entry Preferences
for Property Owners, Operators of Businesses, and Tenants in the Redevelopment Project Area No.
1-1988,
BACKGROUND:
Redevelopment agencies partner with private developers by entedng into Disposition and
Development Agreements (DDA's) or Owner Participation Agreements (OPA's). Typically, a DDA
is used when the Agency owns the property to be developed such as the Mission Village project.
An OPA is used when the developer owns or controls the property.
In accordance with Califomia Community Redevelopment Law, our Redevelopment Plan establishes
preferences for property owners, business owners, and tenants for the development of property they
own or control in the Project Area. In anticipation of future projects of this nature and upon
recommendation of the City Attorney, the attached rules have been prepared to provide guidelines
for participants and implement the provisions of the Redevelopment Plan.
DISCUSSION:
The Agency encourages participation in the development of the Project Area by as many property
owners as possible. The attached rules governing owner participation establish priorities and
preferences among qualified parties, provide guidelines for resolving conflicting proposals, and
establish procedures for becoming an owner participant. Those desiring to take advantage of their
owner participation rights and preferences will be required to follow these rules.
FISCALIMPACT:
No fiscal impact.
ATTACHMENT:
Rules Governing Participation and Re-entry Preferences for Property Ownere, Operators of
Businesses, and Tenants in the Redevelopment Project Area No. 1-1988
R:~N/ersj~staff reports\OpA rules
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
OWNER PARTICIPATION RULES FOR
REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NO. 1--1988
(Approved March 28, 2000)
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 93289
PURPOSE AND INTENT
A. California Community Redevelopment Law requires the Redevelopment Agency of
the City of Temecula ("Agency") to establish and make known to property owners, businesses,
and tenants within the Agency's project areas, the Agency' s rules and guidelines for
implementing owner-participation opportunities in connection with the Redevelopment Plan.
These rules and guidelines are based upon the following objectives:
1. The Agency's commitment to afford participation to existing property
owners who will be affected by the Agency' s activities within the Project Area of the
Redevelopment Plan in accordance with law; and
2. The Agency's similar commitment to extend reasonable preferences as set
forth in these rules to existing property owners within the Project Area of the Redevelopment
Plan Area in the development, rental, or ownership of new industrial, commercial, and residential
uses within the Project Area.
B. Because the Project Area includes both vacant parcels of land and areas with
existing improvements, the Agency expects that a number of parcels will be developed or
rehabilitated by property owners through Owner Participation Agreements. An Owner
Participation Agreement is a contractual agreement between the Agency and a property owner
which contains the specific responsibilities and obligations of each party regarding the
implementation of a specific development project.
C. As the Redevelopment Plan indicates, displacement of households and even
businesses may become necessary. If displacement occurs, the Agency will take all reasonable
steps to provide such displacees with opportunities to obtain facilities to be developed within the
Project Area as required by law.
D. These rules set forth a general process for implementing equitable participation and
re-entry opportunities for all property owners, businesses and tenants affected by the Agency's
Project Area.
E. As used in these Rules: "Redevelopment Plan" means the Redevelopment Plan for
Redevelopment Project No. 1--1998 as adopted by the City Council and as implemented through
the Implementation Plan approved by the Agency Board; "Project Area" means the area
described in the Redevelopment Plan which is subject to the requirements of the Redevelopment
Plan; and "Tenant" means either a business tenant within the project area or an individual tenant.
F. These Rules supercede any prior owner participation rules adopted by the Temecula
City Council or the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Temecula.
PARTICIPATION PREFERENCES
A. These Rules have been adopted by the Agency specifically to implement the
provisions of the Agency' s Redevelopment Plan regarding participation and the exercise of re-
entry preferences for property owners and tenants located in the Project Area. Persons desiring to
exercise their owner participation rights and preferences shall abide by these Rules in exercising
their preferences and participation opportunities.
B. The Agency desires and urges participation in the growth and development of each
of the parcels encompassed within the Project Area by as many property owners as possible. In
view of the pattern of land usage end development envisioned by the Redevelopment Plan,
persons owning real property in the Project Area will be encouraged, whenever feasible, to take
advantage of their participation and preference opportunities as described in these Rules, subject
to and limited by factors such as the following:
1. The elimination and/or modification, if any, of existing land uses.
2. The vacation, realignment and/or alteration, if any, of existing streets.
3. The ability of participants to finance and complete proposed development,
consistent with the Redevelopment Plan.
4. The capability and/or experience of the owner-participant necessary, as
determined by the Agency, to implement proposed development.
5. The proposed land uses for redevelopment of the Project Area.
C. The Redevelopment Plan authorizes the Agency to establish reasonable priorities
and preferences among participants; accordingly, the following order of priorities is established
subject to the qualifications end requirements of owner participants set forth in these Rules.
1. Existing property owners and tenants within the Project Area desiring to
participate in their same location in compliance with the Redevelopment Plan and desiring to build
new industrial, commercial, or residential developments.
2, Owner occupants relocating within the Project Area in accordance with
and as a result of Redevelopment Plan implementation which may cause the temporary
displacement of a property owner.
3. Existing tenants relocating within the Project Area in accordance with and
as a result of Redevelopment Plan implementation.
4. Firms and Persons from outside the Project Area,
D. The Agency may in its discretion decline an offer of owner participation, resolve
conflicting proposals between property owners and tenants interested in redeveloping a site, or
resolve conflicting proposals between property owners and tenants and others interested in
redeveloping a site based upon the following considerations:
1. Conformity of proposals with intent and objectives of the Redevelopment
Plan and the Implementation Plan;
2. Conformity of proposals with intent and objectives o/the Old Town
Specific Plan or any other specific plans approved by the City of Temecula within the Project
Area;
3. Service to the community in achieving its goals and objectives;
4. Present occupancy and/or land ownership in the Project Area;
5. Length of occupancy in the Project Area;
6. Amount of sales tax revenue, tax increment revenue, and economic benefit
accruing to the City of Temecula and the Agency from the proposals;
7. Level of employment opportunities and economic benefit accruing to the
community from the proposals;
8. Size and configuration of parcel;
9. Accommodation of as many participants as possible;
10. Ability of persons desiring to redevelop the site to implement the proposed
development project, taking into consideration the developer's financial capability, prior
experience with similar developments, ability to obtain financing, and willingness to abide by
Agency design standards and development controls;
11.
12.
13.
14.
of the Project Area.
Time schedule for completion of the proposed development project;
Ultimate cost of City and Agency services to the proposed site;
Amount and nature of Agency assistance required for the project; and
Ability of the proposed project to contribute to the economic development
PROCEDURES FOR BECOMING A PARTICIPANT
A. Submittal of a Statement of Interest
1. The Agency will cooperate with each property owner and tenant in the
Project Area who expresses interest in the Agency's program. The Agency will make good faith
efforts to determine the desires of each property owner and tenant with respect to their interest in
becoming owner-participants.
2. Every property owner or tenant interested in becoming a participant should
submit to the Agency a completed "Statement of Interest to Participate" (format provided in
Appendix I). The Agency shall proceed to negotiate with each person returning the "Statement
of Interest" as appropriate to each owner's response.
3. Within a reasonable time prior to approval by the Agency of any
redevelopment of a specific site within the Redevelopment Project Area or approval of any
agreement with a party regarding redevelopment of such a site, the Agency shall notify the
property owner and tenants of the site of the potential redevelopment of the site and his or her
opportunities for participation pursuant to these Rules.
4. Participation opportunities shall not be forfeited without a clear and
knowledgeable: (1) waiver in writing; (2) other clear evidence of disinterest; (3) or formal action
of the Agency pursuant to these Rules.
5. Subject to the provisions of these Rules, the Agency will endeavor in good
faith to accommodate any owner or tenant desiring to develop or improve propetty in the Project
Area by expediting the negotiation of participation agreements upon request.
B. Submittal of a Proposal for Owner/Tenant Participation
1. The Agency will notify each person who submits a valid "Statement of
Interest" of the time within which he must submit a proposal for participation, if the desired
participation is such that a proposal for participation is necessary.
2. A reasonable opportunity will be given to discuss proposals with the
Agency's staff and to make necessary adjustments conducive to the parties involved. The Agency
will endeavor to meet the desires of every person desiring to participate in the development of a
site in the Redevelopment Project Area.
3. In addition, if the Agency determines that a property owner or tenant of
real property within the Project Area will be required to enter into an Owner-Participation
Agreement, the Agency shall notify the property owner or tenant in writing of its intention to
require an Owner Participation Agreement, and shall provide the owner with a copy of the
proposed Owner Participation Agreement.
C. Completion of a Participation Agreement
1. Each owner or tenant whose proposal for participation has been accepted
by the Agency shall enter into an Owner Participation Agreement with the Agency.
2. Each agreement shall contain provisions necessary to ensure that the
participation proposal will be carried out, and that the property will be developed and used in
accordance with the conditions, restrictions, rules and regulations of the Agency, the
Redevelopment Plan and the owner participation agreement. Each agreement shall require the
participant to join in the recordation of such documents as the Agency may require in order to
ensure conformante with applicable conditions, restrictions, rules and regulations. The agreement
may also provide that a successor in interest of the original participant may become a participant
with the written approval of the Agency.
3. An owner pa~icipation agreement may provide that if the owner does not
comply with the terms of the agreement, the Agency, in addition to other remedies, may acquire
his property or any interest therein by any lawful means for its fair market value as of the dates for
such remedies stipulated in the owner participation agreement, and the Agency may thereafter
dispose of the property or interest so acquired in accordance with the Redevelopment Plan. All
participation agreements shall become effective only when approved by the Agency.
Appendix 1
THE CITY OF TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
STATEMENT OF INTEREST IN PARTICIPATION IN THE
REDEVELOPMENT PROXECT NO. 1-1988
I hereby express my interest in participating in the Redevelopment Project pursuant
to the Owner Participation Rules and submit the following information:
Name of Property Owner/Tenant
Phone
2. Home Address
3. Address of Property owned or rented in the Project Area
,
Name of Business in the Project Area
Phone
5. I own ( ); am a tenant ( );and wish to rehabilitate ( ); build ( ); sell ( ) my present property.
If tenant, indicate: month-to-month ( ); or lease ( ); expiration date of lease
My present type of business is
Remarks
I understand that submission of this Statement of Interest does not in any way
obligate me to participate in the Redevelopment Plan Project Area. I also understand that the
Agency will evaluate my statement of interest and any proposed project submitted in accordance
with the Owner Participation Rules and is not obligated to approve such project.
Signed
Title
Date
RDA
DEPARTMENTAL
REPORT
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
FINANCE DIRECTOR ~
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA REPORT
Executive Director/Redevelopment Agency Members
John Meyer, Housing & Redevelopment Manager ~
March 28, 2000
Monthly Departmental Report
Attached for your information is the monthly report as of March 28, 2000 for the Redevelopmerit
Depadment.
HOUSING
First Time Homebuyers Proclram
Funding in the amount of $250,000 is available for FY 99-00. Six loans have been dosed for $113,860.
Residential Improvement Proqrams
For FY 99/00, forty-four projects have been completed and three are in process. The program budget
is $250,000 and $187,182 has been funded. The majodty of these projects are roof repairs, repainting
and fence replacement.
Affordable Rental Housin.q Projects
For RDA-assisted rental housing, annual reporting is required to ensure all tenants continue to meet
income criteria out[ined in the Project Regulatory Agreement and that all rents charged are within
established affordable limits. Rancho Creek Apartments on Felix Valdez Road are now being audited
as part of their annual reporting requirements, and will be required to initiate several corrections.
Habitat for Humanity
Habitat has submitted plans to the Building Department. Title to the property will be transferred to
Habitat after construction plans are approved The blitz-build is scheduled for mid-June 2000.
Request for Qualifications - Affordable Housin.q
An RFQ was distributed on March 15. 2000 to identify quafffled developers to develop affordable
housing at three Pujol sites.
\\TEMEC_FSIOI\VOLI\DEPTS~REDEV\SYERSK\MONTHLLY\repOrt. MarchOO.doc
Request for Qualifications - Senior Housinq
An RFQ for Senior Housing has been prepared and will be mailed to prospective developers on
March 30, 2000.
Request for Qualifications - Old Town CommunitV Theater
An RFQ was mailed on February 21 to qualified architects for the design of the Old Town
Community Theater. Three proposals have been received and interviews will be held in April.
Facade Improvement/Non-Conformin.q Sign Program
The following facade improvement/sign projects have recently been completed:
· 41915 4th Street (historic Structure)
Kdeger's General Store
Complete Fa(~ade Renovation
The following facade improvements are underway:
· Second Street Automotive (Second and Metcedes)
Complete Facade Renovation
· Rancon Building (Front Street)
Repaint Trim & Sign
· The Temeku Market and Porch (Front Street)
Fire Sprinklers
· Musician's Workshop
Fa(~ade and Sign
· McLaughlin Engineering -41934 Main Street
Exterior Paint and Signs
· Clock Tower Building
Wood stain and seal
· Palomar Hotel
Plans have been submitted for the rehabilitation of the hotel and its conversion to a Bed and
Breakfast. The Agency will provide financial assistance through the Fa~:ade Improvement
Program.
· Circle K Center in Old Town
The Redevelopment Agency has negotiated assistance for the rehabilitation of the center. Plans,
which include western-style architectural enhancements, are in the design phase.
R:\syersk\monthly\report.May
2
ITEM 7
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY MANAGER ~
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager
March 28, 2000
Planning Application No. PA99-0244 (General Plan Amendment)
Planning Application No. PA99-0245 (Zoning Amendment)
Planning Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29286)
Prepared by:
Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council:
1. Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 00-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE SPECIFIC PLAN OVERLAY MAP
(FIGURE 2-5) OF THE GENERAL PLAN (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA99-0244) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED
ON THE EAST SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD AT THE NORTHERN
CITY LIMIT AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER
911-640-003.
2. Adopt An ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 00-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO CHANGE THE
ZONING FROM SP (SPECIFIC PLAN) TO LOW MEDIUM (LM)
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
EAST SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD AT THE NORTHERN CITY
LIMIT AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 911-
640-003 (PLANNING APPLICATION PA 99-0245)".
F:\Depts\PLANNING\T M\243pa99 (TM 29286)\243pa99cc-A.doc
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 00-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0243 FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29286 FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 9.75
ACRES INTO 38 RESIDENTIAL LOTS FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD AT THE
NORTHERN CITY LIMIT AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NUMBER 911-640-003.
BACKGROUND: On December 8, 1999 the Planning Commission adopted a resolution
recommending that the City Council approve Planning Application No. PA99-0244 (General Plan
Amendment), Planning Application No. PA99-0245 (Zoning Amendment) and Planning Application
No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29286).
ANALYSIS: The subject site was originally a pad of the proposed Sweetwater Specific Plan that
is currently under review by staff. At the December 8, 1999 Planning Commission hearing, the
Planning Commission supported staff's recommendation to remove the 9.75 acre parcel from the
Specific Plan. Staff is supporting this request because the 9.75 acre parcel is an isolated piece,
and not a logical connection to the Specific Plan (see Exhibit "6"). In order to separate this parcel
from the Specific Plan, a zoning amendment and General Plan Amendment are required. These
are simply procedural changes that will not result in an increase in density or land use. The
General Plan Amendment is necessary to remove the subject site from the Specific Plan Overlay
area on Figure 2-5 of the General Plan (see Attachment "7") which currently labels the site as a
Specific Plan area. A Zoning Amendment is also necessary to change the existing zoning map
from SP (Specific Plan). The zoning would revert back to the underlying General Plan Land Use
classification of LM (Low Medium Density). Therefore, no change in land use or density will occur
as a result of these amendments. The proposed thirty eight unit lot is being subdivided in
conformance with the Low Medium (LM) Density Residential standards. The map is below the
General Plan and Development Code target density of 4.5 dwelling units per acre, with a proposed
density of 39 dwelling units per acre. The map was also supported by the Planning Commission
at the December 8, 1999 meeting.
FINDINGS: See Attachment No. 4
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
Attachments:
1. City Council Resolution No. 00-~ approving Planning Application No. PA99-0244 - Page 3
2. City Council Ordinance No. 00-__ approving Planning Application No. PA99-0245 - Page 7
3. City Council Resolution No. 00-__ approving Planning Application No. PA99-0243 - Page 10
4. Findings for General Plan Amendment, Zoning Amendment and Tentative Tract Map Page 15
5. Planning Commission Staff Report dated December 8, 1999 - Page 19
6. City of Temecula Zoning Map
7. Figure 2-5 of the General Plan
F:\Depts\PLANNING\T M\243pa99 (TM 29286)\243pa99cc-A.doc
2
ATTACHMENT 1
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION APPROVING
PA 99-0244 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT)
F:\Depts\PLANNING\T M\243pa99 (TM 29286)\243pa99cc-A.doc
3
ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 00-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE SPECIFIC PLAN OVERLAY MAP
(FIGURE 2-5) OF THE GENERAL PLAN (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA99-0244) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED
ON THE EAST SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD AT THE NORTHERN
CITY LIMIT AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER
911-640-003.
WHEREAS, Lennar Communities submitted Planning Application No. PA99-0244 (General
Plan Amendment), in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA99-0244 (General Plan Amendment) was
processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State
and local law;
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Resolution was posted at City Hall, Temecula Library,
Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA99-0244
(General Plan Amendment) on December 8, 1999, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed
by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify
either in support or opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due
consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Planning
Application No. PA99-0244 (General Plan Amendment);
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to Planning Application
No. PA99-0244 (General Plan Amendment) on March 28, 2000, at which time interested persons
had opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to Planning Application No. PA99-
0244 (General Plan Amendment);
WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff
Report regarding Planning Application No. PA99-0244 (General Plan Amendment);
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
Section 2. Findings The City Council, in approving Planning Application No. PA99-0244
(General Plan Amendment) hereby makes the following findings:
A. The change is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community. The proposed General Plan Amendment is not changing the land use designation,
density or permitted use types which might adversely effect the health, safety and welfare of the
F:\Depts\PLANNING\T M\243pa99 (TM 29286)\243pa99cc-A.doc
4
community. The amendment is simply removing the subject site from Figure 2-5, Specific Plan
Overlay zone, and reverting the zoning back to the existing Land Use Designation of Low Medium
Density Residential to be consistent with the Land Use Map. Therefore, the project will not have
an adverse effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community.
B. The amendment is compatible with existing and surrounding uses. The
subdivision is compatible with the surrounding areas as the project is for single family residential
homes which are similar land uses in the immediate area. Furthermore, the future homes will be
developed pursuant to the General Plan, the Development Code and all of which regulate
residential parcels and development. In addition, the proposed subdivision provides adequate
access and circulation for emergency vehicles and will not impact existing circulation or emergency
vehicle access. The project as conditioned, will comply with the City's Development Code, General
Plan and subdivision requirements upon approval of the corresponding General Plan Amendment
(PA99~0244) and Zoning Amendment (PA99-0245).
C. The amendment will not have an adverse effect on the community and is
consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The proposed subdivision and
future residential development is a permitted use in the existing SP (Specific Plan) and Land Use
Designation of the Low Medium (LM) Density Residential zoning classification. The project is being
developed in conformance with the General Plan Land Use Designation and Development Code
standards of Low Medium (LM) Density Residential. The proposed density is below the target
density of 4.5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) with a proposed density of 3.9 du/ac.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for the project which
indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the
Mitigation Monitoring Program and the Conditions of Approval that have been added to the project.
Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby adopted.
Section 4. Amendment To The Specific Plan Overlay Map of the General Plan. The City
Council hereby amends Figure 2-5, the Specific Plan Overlay Map, of the General Plan on the
following parcel in the manner specified below:
A. For the parcel identified as APN 911-640-003: On Figure 2-5 of the Specific Plan
Overlay Map, change the Land Use Designation from Specific Plan (SP) to the underlying zoning
classification of Low Medium Density Residential (LM) of the Land Use Map of the General Plan
Section 6. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\T M\243pa99 (TM 29286)\243pa99cc-A.doc
5
Section 7. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this day of , .
Jeffery E. Stone, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA)
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
by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
F:\Depcs\PLANNING\T M\243pa99 (TM 29286)\243pa99cc-A.doc
6
ATTACHMENT 2
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE APPROVING
PA 99-0245 (ZONING AMENDMENT)
F:\Depts\PLANNING\T M\243pa99 (TM 29286)\243pa99cc-A.doc
7
ATTACHMENT 2
ORDINANCE NO. 00-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO CHANGE THE
ZONING FROM SP (SPECIFIC PLAN) TO LOW MEDIUM (LM)
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
EAST SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD AT THE NORTHERN CITY
LIMIT AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 911-
640-003 (PLANNING APPLICATION PA 99-0245)".
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares that:
A. Lennar Communities submitted Planning Application No. PA99-0245 in accordance
with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
B. Planning Application No. PA99-0244 Zoning Amendment was processed including,
but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law;
C Notice of the proposed Zoning Amendment was posted at City Hall, Temecula
Library, Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce;
and,
D. The Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA99-0245 on
December 8, 1999, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the
City staff and interested persons had an oppodunity to, and did testify either in support or
opposition to this matter;
E. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration
of the testimony, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Planning Application
No. PA99-0245 Zoning Amendment;
F. The City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing pertaining to Planning
Application No. PA99-0245 Zoning Amendment on March 28, 2000, at which interested
persons had opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to Planning
Application No. PA99-0245 and Zoning Amendment;
G. The City Council received a copy of the Commission proceeding and Staff Report
regarding Planning Application No. PA99~0245 Zoning Amendment;
H. The Zoning Amendment is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community. The proposed Zoning Amendment is not changing the General Plan land use
designation, density or permitted use types which might adversely effect the health, safety
and welfare of the community. The Zoning Amendment is simply reverting the zoning back
to the existing Land Use Designation of Low Medium Density Residential to be consistent
with the Land Use Map. Therefore, the project will not have an adverse effect on the
F:\Depts\PLANNING\T M\243pa99 (TM 29286)\243pa99cc-A,doc
8
health, safety and welfare of the community.
I. The Zoning Amendment is compatible with existing and surrounding uses. The
subdivision is compatible with the surrounding areas as the project is for single family
residential homes which are similar land uses in the immediate area. Furthermore, the
future homes will be developed pusuant to the General Plan, the Development Code and
all of which regulate residential parcels and development. In addition, the proposed
subdivision provides adequate access and circulation for emergenvy vehicles and will not
impact existing circulation or emergency vehicle access. The project as conditioned, will
comply with the City's Development Code, General Pland and subdivision requirements
upon approval of the corresponding General Plan Amendment (PA99-0244) and Zoning
Amendment (PA99-0245).
J. The Zoning Amendment will not have an adverse effect on the community and is
consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The proposed
subdivision and future residential development is a permitted use in the in the existing SP
(Specific Plan) and Land Use Designation of the Low Medium (LM) Density Residential
zoning classification. The project is being developed in conformance with the General Plan
Land Use Designation and Development Code standards of Low Medium (LM) Density
Residential. The proposed density of 3.9 du/ac. Therefore, the amendment will not have
an adverse effect on the community and is consistent with the goals and policies of the
adopted General Plan.
Section 2. Environmental Compliance. An initial Study prepared for the project
which indicates that although the proposed projects could have a significant impact on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program and the Conditions of Approval
that have been added to the project. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby
adopted.
Section 3. The following change to the official zoning map for the City is hereby
approved and ratified for the parcel identified as APN 911-640-003: change the Zoning
Designation from Specific Plan (SP) to Low Medium Density Residential (LM) consistent
with General Plan Land Use Designation of Low Medium Density Residential (LM);
Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and shall
cause it to be published in the manner required by law.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of
F:\Depts\PLANNING\T M\243pa99 (TM 29286)\243pa99cc-A.doc
9
Section 5, PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this __ day of __,
ATTEST:
Jeffery E. Stone, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. __was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular
meeting of the City Council on the day of , ____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:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
F:\DeptsXPLANNING\T M\243pa99 (TM 29286)\243pa99cc-A.doc
10
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION APPROVING PA99-0243
(TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29286)
F:\Depts\PLANNING\T M\243pa99 (TM 29286)\243pa99cc-A.doc
ATTACHMENT 3
RESOLUTION NO. 00-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA FOR PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0243 FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29286 FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 9.75
ACRES INTO 38 RESIDENTIAL LOTS FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD AT THE
NORTHERN CITY LIMIT AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NUMBER 911-640-003.
WHEREAS, Lennar Communities filed Planning Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative
Tract Map No. 29286) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code
and City's Subdivision Ordinance, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29286) was
processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State
and local law;
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Resolution was posted at City Hall, Temecula Library,
Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA99-0243
(Tentative Tract Map No. 29286) on December 8, 1999, at a duly noticed public hearing as
prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and
did testify either in support or opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due
consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Planning
Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29286);
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to Planning Application
No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29286) on March 28, 2000, at a duly noticed public
hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity
to, and did, testify either in support or opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff
Report regarding Planning Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29286);
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. Findings. That the Temecula City Council, in approving Planning Application
No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29286) hereby makes the following findings as required
in Section 16.09.140 of the City of Temecula Subdivision Ordinance.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\T M\243pa99 (TM 29286)\243pa99cc A.doc
A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is
consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, any applicable specific plan and the City of
Temecula Municipal Code. The project is compatible with the existing General Plan Land Use
Designation and zoning standards of Low Medium Density Residential. Tentative Tract Map No.
29286 proposes thirty eight (38) residential lots which comply with the minimum average net lot
size requirement of 7,200 square feet and the unit density of 3-6 units per acre.
B. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract entered
into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a Land
Conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following division of the land will not be too
small to sustain their agricultural use. The subject site is not part of the California Land
Conservation Act of 1965 or any conservation contract. All proposed parcels are for residential
home sites and comply with the Low Medium (LM) Density standards and requirements of the
Development Code and General Plan.
C. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development
proposed by the tentative map. The project is compatible with the existing General Plan Land Use
Designation and zoning standards of Low Medium Density Residential. Tentative Tract Map No.
29286 proposes thirty eight (38) residential lots which comply with the minimum average net lot
size requirement of 7,200 square feet and the unit density of 3-6 units per acre. The proposed
subdivision is being developed below the General Plan and Development Code target density of
4.5 dwelling units per acre, with a density of 3.9 dwelling unit per acre. Thus, the subject site is
suitable to accommodate the proposed density.
D. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of
approval, are either:
Not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; or
An environmental impact report has been propared and a finding has been made,
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) (3), finding that specific
economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report;
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could
have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case
because the mitigation measures described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program and the
Conditions of Approval that have been added to the project. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative
Declaration will be adopted.
E. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements is not likely to
cause serious public health problems. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the
City's General Plan, Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance. The project proposes one
street access from Margarita Road that is restricted to right-in, right-out only. The project is
consistent with these documents and conditions of approval have been placed on the project
accordingly to assure that the development conforms to City Standards. Therefore, serious public
health problems are not likely to occur as a result of the proposed subdivision.
F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling
opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible. The future single family homes will have
roofs that can accommodate solar panels to permit future passive or natural heating or cooling
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\T M\243pa99 (TM 29286)\243pa99cc-A.doc
13
opportunities.
G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of properly within the
proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent
to those previously acquired by the public will be provided. The project will take direct access from
Margarita Road and will not obstruct any easements.
H. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby).
The project is conditioned to satisfy the City's parkland dedication requirement through the payment
of an in-lieu fee equivalent to the dedication of .49 acres of land. The fee shall be calculated by
multiplying the required amount of parkland by the City's then current appraised land valuation as
established by the City Manager.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates
that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions
of Approval have been added to the project, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration, therefore, is
hereby adopted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby conditionally
approves Planning Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29286) for the subdivision
of a 9.75 acres into 38 residential parcels located on the east side of Margarita Road at the northern
City limit and known as Assessor's Parcel Number 911-640-003, subject to the project specific
conditions set fodh on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference,
F:~Depts~PLANNING\T M\243pa99 (TM 29286)\243pa99cc-A.doc
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this day of
Jeffery E. Stone, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. __ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular
meeting of the City Council on the __day of 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:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
F:\Depts\PLANNiNG\T M\243pa99 (TM 29286)\243pa99cc-A.doc
ATTACHMENT 4
FINDINGS
F:\Depts\PLANNING\T M\243pa99 (TM 29286)\243pa99cc-A.doc
General Plan Amendments
1. The amendment is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. The
proposed General Plan Amendment is not changing the land use designation, density or
permitted use types which might adversely effect the health, safety and welfare of the
community. The amendment is simply removing the subject site from Figure 2-5, Specific Plan
Overlay zone, and reverting the zoning back to the existing Land Use Designation of Low
Medium Density Residential to be consistent with the Land Use Map. Therefore, the project will
not have an adverse effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community.
2. The amendment is compatible with existing and surrounding uses. The subdivision is
compatible with the surrounding areas as the project is for single family residential homes which
are similar land uses in the immediate area. Furthermore, the future homes will be developed
pursuant to the General Plan, the Development Code and all of which regulate residential
parcels and development. In addition, the proposed subdivision provides adequate access and
circulation for emergency vehicles and will not impact existing circulation or emergency vehicle
access. The project as conditioned, will comply with the City's Development Code, General
Plan and subdivision requirements upon approval of the corresponding General Plan
Amendment (PA99-0244) and Zoning Amendment (PA99-0245).
The amendment will not have an adverse effect on the community and is consistent with the
goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The proposed subdivision and future residential
development is a permitted use in the existing SP (Specific Plan) and Land Use Designation
of the Low Medium (LM) Density Residential zoning classification. The project is being
developed in conformance with the General Plan Land Use Designation and Development
Code standards of Low Medium (LM) Density Residential. The proposed density is below the
target density of 4.5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) with a proposed density of 3.9 du/ac.
Therefore, the amendment will not have an adverse effect on the community and is consistent
with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan.
Zoning Amendment:
The change is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. The proposed
General Plan Amendment is not changing the land use designation, density or permitted use
types which might adversely effect the health, safety and welfare of the community. The
amendment is simply removing the subject site from Figure 2-5, Specific Plan Overlay zone,
and reverting the zoning back to the existing Land Use Designation of Low Medium Density
Residential to be consistent with the Land Use Map. Therefore, the project will not have an
adverse effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community.
The amendment is compatible with existing and surrounding uses. The subdivision is
compatible with the surrounding areas as the project is for single family residential homes which
are similar land uses in the immediate area. Furthermore, the future homes will be developed
pursuant to the General Plan, the Development Code and all of which regulate residential
parcels and development. In addition, the proposed subdivision provides adequate access and
circulation for emergency vehicles and will not impact existing circulation or emergency vehicle
access. The project as conditioned, will comply with the City's Development Code, General
Plan and subdivision requirements upon approval of the corresponding General Plan
Amendment (PA99-0244) and Zoning Amendment (PA99-0245)..
F:\DeptsXPLANNING\T M\243pa99 (TM 29286)\243pa99cc A.doc
3. The change will not have an adverse effect on the community and is consistent with the goals
and policies of the adopted General Plan. The proposed subdivision and future residential
development is a permitted use in the existing SP (Specific Plan) and Land Use Designation
of the Low Medium (LM) Density Residential zoning classification. The project is being
developed in conformance with the General Plan Land Use Designation and Development
Code standards of Low Medium (LM) Density Residential. The proposed density is below the
target density of 4.5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) with a proposed density of 3.9 du/ac.
Therefore, the amendment will not have an adverse effect on the community and is consistent
with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan.
Tentative Tract Map 29286
4. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is consistent
with the Development Code, General Plan, any applicable specific plan and the City of
Temecula Municipal Code and Subdivision Ordinance. The project is compatible with the
existing General Plan Land Use Designation and zoning standards of Low Medium Density
Residential. Tentative Tract Map No. 29286 proposes thirty eight (38) residential lots which
comply with the minimum average net lot size requirement of 7,200 square feet and the unit
density of 3-6 units per acre.
5. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract entered into
pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a Land
Conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following division of the land will not be too
small to sustain their agricultural use. The subject site is not part of the California Land
Conservation Act of 1965 or any conservation contract. All proposed parcels are for residential
home sites and comply with the Low Medium (LM) Density standards and requirements of the
Development Code and General Plan.
6. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed by
the tentative map. The project is compatible with the existing General Plan Land Use
Designation and zoning standards of Low Medium Density Residential. Tentative Tract Map No.
29286 proposes thirty eight (38) residential lots which comply with the minimum average net
lot size requirement of 7,200 square feet and the unit density of 3-6 units per acre. The
proposed subdivision is being developed below the General Plan and Development Code target
density of 4.5 dwelling units per acre, with a density of 3.9 dwelling unit per acre. Thus, the
subject site is suitable to accommodate the proposed density.
7. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval, are
either:
a. Not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat; or
b. An environmental impact report has been prepared and a finding has been made, pursuant
to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) (3), finding that specific economic, social, or
other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or project alternatives identified
in the environmental impact report;
F:XDepts\PLANN1NG\T M\243pa99 (TM 29286)\243pa99cc-A.doc
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could
have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this
case because the mitigation measures described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program and
the Conditions of Approval that have been added to the project. Therefore, a Mitigated
Negative Declaration will be adopted.
8. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements is not likely to cause
serious public health problems. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the City's
General Plan, Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance. The project proposes one street
access from Margarita Road that is restricted to right-in, right-out only. The project is
consistent with these documents and conditions of approval have been placed on the project
accordingly to assure that the development conforms to City Standards. Therefore, cause
serious public health problems are not likely to occur as a result of the proposed subdivision.
9. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling
opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible. The future single family homes will have
roofs that can accommodate solar panels to permit future passive or natural heating or cooling
opportunities.
10. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements
acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed
subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to
those previously acquired by the public will be provided. The project will take direct access from
Margarita Road and will not obstruct any easements.
11. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby). The
project is conditioned to satisfy the City's parkland dedication requirement through the payment
of an in-lieu fee equivalent to the dedication of .49 acres of land. The fee shall be calculated
by multiplying the required amount of parkland by the City's then current appraised land
valuation as established by the City Manager.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\T M\243pa99 (TM 29286)\243pa99cc-A.doc
ATTACHMENT 5
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
F:\Depts\PLANNING\T M\243pa99 (TM 29286)\243pa99cc-A.doc
20
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
ORI /N,4L
December 8, 1999
Planning Application No. PA99-0244 (General Plan Amendment)
Planning Application No. PA99-0245 (Zoning Amendment)
Planning Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29286)
RECOMMENDATION:
Prepared By: Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning
Application No. PA99-0244 (General Plan Amendment);
Planning Application No. PA99~0245 (Zoning Amendment);
and Planning Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract
Map 29286);
ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application No. PA99-0244 (General Plan Amendment);
Planning Application No. PA99-0245 (Zoning Amendment);
and Planning Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract
Map 29286);
ADOPT Resolution No. 99- recommending the City
Council approve Planning Application No. PA99-0244
(General Plan Amendment) based upon the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report;
ADOPT Resolution No. 99- recommending the City
Council approve Planning Application No. PA99-0245
(Zoning Amendment) based upon the Analysis and Findings
contained in the Staff Report;
ADOPT Resolution No. 99- recommending the City
Council approve Planning Application No. PA99-0243
(Tentative Tract Map 29286) based upon the Analysis and
Findings contained in the Staff Report, and subject to the
attached Conditions of Approval
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
PROPOSAL:
Bill Storm, Lennar Communities
Planning Application No. PA99-0244 is a request for a General
Plan Amendment to remove the subject site from the Specific
Plan overlay designation on Figure 2-5 of the General Plan
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\243pa99.PC.doc
and revert back to the underlying Land Use Designation of
Low Medium (LM) Density Residential depicted on the
General Plan Land Use map;
Planning Application No. PA 99-0245 (Zoning Amendment)
to change the existing zoning map from Specific Plan
Overlay (SP) to Low Medium (LM) Density Residential which
is consistent with the underlying General Plan Land Use
designation of Low Medium (LM) Density Residential.
Planning Application No. PA99-0243 is a request for a
Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 9.75 acres of land into thirty
eight (38) single family residential lots.
LOCATION:
Located on the east of Margarita Road at the nodhem City limit
(Assessor's Parcel Number 911-640-003).
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
LM (Low Medium Density Residential)
North: Single Family Residential (County of Riverside
Zoning)
South: SP (SweetWater Specific Plan)
East: Single Family Residential (County of Riverside
Zoning)
West: SP (SweetWater Specific Plan)
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: LM (Low Medium Density Residential)
EXISTING LAND USE:
Vacant
SURROUNDING LAND USES:
BACKGROUND
North: Vacant
South: Winchester Creek Park
East: Single Family Residential
West: Vacant
PA99-0244 General Plan Amendment, Planning Application No. PA99-0245 Zoning Amendment
and Planning Application No. PA99-0243 for Tentative Tract Map No. 29286 were submitted on
June 22, 1999. A Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on July 15, 1999
which resulted with the Public Works and Fire Departments having issues relative to the number
and location of access points. Staff worked with the applicant to resolve the issues and bring the
project into compliance with the City standards. The applications were deemed complete on
November 9, 1999.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applications are to subdivide 9,75 acres into 38 single family residential lots with and a
corresponding General Plan Amendment to remove the subject site from the Specific Plan Overlay
designation on Figure 2-5 of the General Plan and revert back to the underlying Land Use
Designation of Low Medium (LM) Density Residential as depicted on the General Plan Land Use
map. The Zoning Amendment is to remove the subject site from the existing Specific Plan zoning
to be consistent with the existing Land Use Designation of LM (Low Medium Density Residential)
of the General Plan.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\243pa99.pC.doc
2
ANALYSIS
General Plan Amendment (PA99-0244)
The applicant is requesting to remove the subject site from the proposed SweetWater Specific Plan
that is currently being reviewed by staff. This requires a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to
remove the site from the Specific Plan (SP) Overlay designation on Figure 2-5 of the General Plan
and revert the zoning back to the underlying Land Use Designation of Low Medium (LM) Density.
The map is being subdivided in conformance with the Low Medium (LM) Density Residential
standards and is below the General Plan and Development Code target density of 4.5 dwelling
units per acre, with a proposed density of 3.9 dwelling units per acre. The proposed GPA is a
procedural change to make Figure 2-5 of the General Plan consistent with the proposed Zoning
Amendment. No change in Land Use or density will occur as a result of this General Plan
Amendment.
Zoning Amendment (PA99-0245)
The subject site is being removed from the existing SweetWater Specific Plan that is currently
under review by staff. A Zoning Amendment is required to change the existing zoning map from
Specific Plan Overlay (SP) to the underlying General Plan Land Use designation of Low Medium
(LM) Density Residential. Both the applicant and staff agree that the subject parcel is not
appropriate to include in the Specific Plan because it is an isolated, in-fill parcel that does not have
a logical connection to the proposed Specific Plan. Therefore, staff supports excluding this site from
the SweetWater Specific Plan and reverting the zoning back to LM (Low Medium Density
Residential) to be consistent with the existing Land Use Designation of the General Plan.
PA 99-0243 Tentative Tract Map (29286)
The tentative tract map proposes to subdivide 9.75 acres into 38 single family residential lots. The
proposed subdivision as designed is in conformance with the General Plan and Development Code
standards for Low Medium (LM) Density Residential. Pursuant to Table 17.06.040 of the
Development Code, the minimum average net lot area for Low Medium Density Residential zoned
parcels is 7,200 square feet. The proposed parcels range in size from 6,334 square feet to 16,263
square feet, with an average net lot area of 8,765 square feet which exceeds the minimum average
net lot area of 7,200 square feet. The subdivision proposes to have 3.9 dwelling units per acre
(du/ac), which is below the target density of 4.5 du/ac, but within the density range of 3-6 du/ac
pursuant to the Development Code andGeneral Plan.
Access and Circulation
The proposed subdivision will have one point of access off Margarita Road that will be restricted
to right-in, right-out only. There will be no access from Date Street. As proposed, the subdivision
consists of three cuPde-sacs off of the primary street that provides circulation throughout the
development.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could have
a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because
the mitigation measures described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program and the Conditions of
Approval that have been added to the project. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is
hereby adopted.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPTX243pa99.PC.doc
3
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The proposed map provides adequate access, circulation and developable lots. The proposed lots
comply with the minimum average net lot size requirements of the Low Medium Density Residential
zoning classification pursuant to Chapter 17, Table 17.06.040 of the Development Code. The
proposed General Plan Amendment is a procedural change to remove the subject site from the
Specific Plan Overlay designation on Figure 2-5 of the General Plan and revert back to the
underlying Land Use Designation of Low Medium (LM) Density Residential. The proposed Zoning
Amendment is to change the existing zoning map from Specific Plan Overlay (SP) to Low Medium
(LM) Density Residential which is consistent with the underlying General Plan Land Use
designation of Low Medium (LM) Density Residential. The proposed subdivision is being
developed in compliance with the standards of the LM zoning classification.
FINDINGS
General Plan Amendments
The amendment is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. The
proposed General Plan Amendment is not changing the land use designation, density or
permitted use types which might adversely effect the health, safety and welfare of the
community. The amendment is simply removing the subject site from Figure 2-5, Specific
Plan Overlay zone, and reverting the zoning back to the existing Land Use Designation of
Low Medium Density Residential to be consistent with the Land Use Map. Therefore, the
project will not have an adverse effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community.
The amendment is compatible with existing and surrounding uses. The subdivision is
compatible with the surrounding areas as the project is for single family residential homes
which are similar land uses in the immediate area. Furthermore, the future homes will be
developed pursuant to the General Plan, the Development Code and all of which regulate
residential parcels and development. In addition, the proposed subdivision provides
adequate access and circulation for emergency vehicles and will not impact existing
circulation or emergency vehicle access. The project as conditioned, will comply with the
City's Development Code, General Plan and subdivision requirements upon approval of the
corresponding General Plan Amendment (PA99-0244) and Zoning Amendment (PA99-
0245)..
The amendment will not have an adverse effect on the community and is consistent with
the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The proposed subdivision and future
residential development is a permitted use in the existing SP (Specific Plan) and Land Use
Designation of the Low Medium (LM) Density Residential zoning classification. The project
is being developed in conformance with the General Plan Land Use Designation and
Development Code standards of Low Medium (LM) Density Residential. The proposed
density is below the target density of 4.5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) with a proposed
density of 3.9 du/ac. Therefore, the amendment will not have an adverse effect on the
community and is consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan.
Zonincl Amendment:
1. The change is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community. The
proposed General Plan Amendment is not changing the land use designation, density or
permitted use types which might adversely effect the health, safety and welfare of the
community. The amendment is simply removing the subject site from Figure 2-5, Specific
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPTX243pa99.PC.doc
4
Plan Overlay zone, and reverting the zoning back to the existing Land Use Designation of
Low Medium Density Residential to be consistent with the Land Use Map. Therefore, the
project will not have an adverse effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community.
The amendment is compatible with existing and surrounding uses. The subdivision is
compatible with the surrounding areas as the project is for single family residential homes
which are similar land uses in the immediate area. Furthermore, the future homes will be
developed pursuant to the General Plan, the Development Code and all of which regulate
residential parcels and development. In addition, the proposed subdivision provides
adequate access and circulation for emergency vehicles and will not impact existing
circulation or emergency vehicle access. The project as conditioned, will comply with the
City's Development Code, General Plan and subdivision requirements upon approval of the
corresponding General Plan Amendment (PA99-0244) and Zoning Amendment (PA99-
0245)..
The change will not have an adverse effect on the community and is consistent with the
goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The proposed subdivision and future
residential development is a permitted use in the existing SP (Specific Plan) and Land Use
Designation of the Low Medium (LM) Density Residential zoning classification. The project
is being developed in conformance with the General Plan Land Use Designation and
Development Code standards of Low Medium (LM) Density Residential. The proposed
density is below the target density of 4.5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) with a proposed
density of 3.9 du/ac. Therefore, the amendment will not have an adverse effect on the
community and is consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan.
Tentative Tract MaD 29286
The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is consistent
with the Development Code, General Plan, any applicable specific plan and the City of
Temecula Municipal Code. The project is compatible with the existing General Plan Land
Use Designation and zoning standards of Low Medium Density Residential. Tentative Tract
Map No. 29286 proposes thirty eight (38) residential lots which comply with the minimum
average net lot size requirement of 7,200 square feet and the unit density of 3-6 units per
acre.
The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract entered
into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a
Land Conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following division of the land will
not be too small to sustain their agricultural use. The subject site is not part of the
California Land Conservation Act of 1965 or any conservation contract. All proposed
parcels are for residential home sites and comply with the Low Medium (LM) Density
standards and requirements of the Development Code and General Plan.
The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development proposed
by the tentative map. The project is compatible with the existing General Plan Land Use
Designation and zoning standards of Low Medium Density Residential. Tentative Tract Map
No. 29286 proposes thirty eight (38) residential lots which comply with the minimum
average net lot size requirement of 7,200 square feet and the unit density of 3-6 units per
acre. The proposed subdivision is being developed below the General Plan and
Development Code target density of 4.5 dwelling units per acre, with a density of 3.9
dwelling unit per acre. Thus, the subject site is suitable to accommodate the proposed
density.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFP, PT\243pa99.PC.doc
5
The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of approval,
are either:
a. Not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; or
b. An environmental impact report has been prepared and a finding has been made,
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) (3), finding that specific
economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report;
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could
have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this
case because the mitigation measures described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program and
the Conditions of Approval that have been added to the project. Therefore, a Mitigated
Negative Declaration will be adopted.
The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements is not likely to cause
serious public health problems. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the
City's General Plan, Development Code and Subdivision. The project proposes one street
access from Margarita Road that is restricted to right-in, right-out only. The project is
consistent with these documents and conditions of approval have been placed on the
project accordingly to assure that the development conforms to City Standards. Therefore,
cause serious public health problems are not likely to occur as a result of the proposed
subdivision.
The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or cooling
opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible. The future single family homes will
have roofs that can accommodate solar panels to permit future passive or natural heating
or cooling opportunities,
The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements
acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed
subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent to
those previously acquired by the public will be provided. The project will take direct access
from Margarita Road and will not obstruct any easements.
The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements (Quimby).
The project is conditioned to satisfy the City's parkland dedication requirement through the
payment of an in-lieu fee equivalent to the dedication of .49 acres of land. The fee shall be
calculated by multiplying the required amount of parkland by the City's then current
appraised land valuation as established by the City Manager.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPTX243pa99.PC.dOC
6
Attachments:
1. PC Resolution No. 99- - (Planning Commission Recommendation of PA99-0244, General
Plan Amendment and PA99-0245, Zoning Amendment) - Blue Page 8
Exhibit A - Draft City Council Resolution No. 99~ (Approving PA99-0244, General
Plan Amendment) - Blue Page 13
Exhibit B - Draft City Council Ordinance No. 99- (Approving PA99-0245, Zoning
Amendment) - Blue Page 17
2. PC Resolution No. 99- - (Planning Commission Recommendation of PA99-0243, Tentative
Tract Map 29286) - Blue Page 20
Exhibit A--Draft City Council Resolution Approving PA99-0243 Blue Page 24
Exhibit A--Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 29
3. Exhibits - Blue Page 40
A. Vicinity Map
B. General Plan Map
C. Zoning Map
D. Tentative Tract Map No. 29286
4. Initial Environmental Study - Blue Page 44
5. Mitigation Monitoring Program - Blue Page 45
R:\STAFFRPT\243pa99.PC.doc
7
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
PA 99-0244 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT)
AND
PA 99-0245 (ZONING AMENDMENT)
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRYF\243pa99.PC.dCC
8
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL
ADOPT A RESOLUTION ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE
SPECIFIC PLAN OVERLAY MAP (FIGURE 2-5) OF THE
GENERAL PLAN (PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0244)
FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
MARGARITA ROAD AT THE NORTHERN CITY LIMIT AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 911-640-003" AND
ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA AMENDING THE
ZONING MAP TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM SP (SPECIFIC
PLAN) TO LOW MEDIUM (LM) DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
(PLANNING APPLICATION PA 99-0245) ON THE PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD AT THE
NORTHERN CITY LIMIT AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NUMBER 911-640-003".
WHEREAS, Lennar Communities submitted Planning Application No. PA99-0244 (General
Plan Amendment) and PA99-0245 (Zoning Amendment), in accordance with the City of Temecula
General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA99-0244 (General Plan Amendment) and PA99-
0245 (Zoning Amendment) was processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and
manner prescribed by State and local law;
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, Temecula Library,
Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA99-0244
(General Plan Amendment) and PA99-0245 (Zoning Amendment) on December 8, 1999, at a duly
noticed public hearing as prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had
an opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission headng and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission recommended approval of Planning Application No. PA99-0244
(General Plan Amendment) and PA99-0245 (Zoning Amendment);
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
Section 2. Findiners.
A. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the General Plan
Amendment, make the following findings:
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\243pa99.PC.doc
9
1. The amendment is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community. The amendment is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community.
The proposed General Plan Amendment is not changing the land use designation, density or
permitted use types which might adversely effect the health, safety and welfare of the community.
The amendment is simply removing the subject site from Figure 2-5, Specific Plan Overlay zone,
and reverting the zoning back to the existing Land Use Designation of Low Medium Density
Residential to be consistent with the Land Use Map. Therefore, the project will not have an adverse
effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community.
2. The amendment is compatible with existing and surrounding uses. The
subdivision is compatible with the surrounding areas as the project is for single family residential
homes which are similar land uses in the immediate area. Furthermore, the future homes will be
developed pursuant to the General Plan, the Development Code and all of which regulate
residential parcels and development. In addition, the proposed subdivision provides adequate
access and circulation for emergency vehicles and will not impact existing circulation or emergency
vehicle access. The project as conditioned, will comply with the City's Development Code, General
Plan and subdivision requirements upon approval of the corresponding General Plan Amendment
(PA99-0244) and Zoning Amendment (PA99-0245).
3. The amendment will not have an adverse effect on the community and is
consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The proposed subdivision
and future residential development is a permitted use in the existing SP (Specific Plan) and
Land Use Designation of the Low Medium (LM) Density Residential zoning classification. The
project is being developed in conformance with the General Plan Land Use Designation and
Development Code standards of Low Medium (LM) Density Residential. The proposed density
is below the target density of 4.5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) with a proposed density of 3.9
du/ac. Therefore, the amendment will not have an adverse effect on the community and is
consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan.
B. The Planning Commission, in recommending approval of the Zoning
Amendment, make the following findings:
1. The change is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community. The proposed General Plan Amendment is not changing the land use designation,
density or permitted use types which might adversely effect the health, safety and welfare of the
community. The amendment is simply removing the subject site from Figure 2-5, Specific Plan
Overlay zone, and reverting the zoning back to the existing Land Use Designation of Low Medium
Density Residential to be consistent with the Land Use Map. Therefore, the project will not have
an adverse effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community.
2. The amendment is compatible with existing and surrounding uses. The
subdivision is compatible with the surrounding areas as the project is for single family residential
homes which are similar land uses in the immediate area. Furthermore, the future homes will be
developed pursuant to the General Plan, the Development Code and all of which regulate
residential parcels and development. In addition, the proposed subdivision provides adequate
access and circulation for emergency vehicles and will not impact existing circulation or emergency
vehicle access. The project as conditioned, will comply with the City's Development Code, General
Plan and subdivision requirements upon approval of the corresponding General Plan Amendment
(PA99-0244) and Zoning Amendment (PA99-0245).
3. The change will not have an adverse effect on the community and is
consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The proposed subdivision and
F:\DeptS\PLANN1NG\STAFFRPT\243pa99.PC.dOc
future residential development is a permitted use in the existing SP (Specific Plan) and Land Use
Designation of the Low Medium (LM) Density Residential zoning classification. The project is being
developed in conformance with the General Plan Land Use Designation and Development Code
standards of Low Medium (LM) Density Residential. The proposed density is below the target
density of 4.5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) with a proposed density of 3.9 du/ac. Therefore, the
amendment will not have an adverse effect on the community and is consistent with the goals and
policies of the adopted General Plan.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for these projects which
indicates that although the proposed projects could have a significant impact on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the
Mitigation Monitoring Program and the Conditions of Approval that have been added to the project.
Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby adopted.
Section 4. The City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of
Planning Application No. PA99-0244 and PA99-0245 (General Plan Amendment and Zoning
Amendment) and recommends that the City Council do the following:
A. Approve a Resolution entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Temecula Amending the Specific Plan Overlay Map of the General Plan for the property located
on the east side of Margarita Road at the northern City limit and known as Assessor's Parcel
Number 911-640-003" (Planning Application No. PA99-0244 and PA99-0245)" substantially in the
form that is attached to this resolution as Exhibit A; and,
B. Adopt an Ordinance entitled "An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of
Temecula Amending the Zoning Map of the City of Temecula City to change the zoning from SP
(Specific Plan) to LM (Low Medium Density Residential) on the properly located on the east side
of Margarita Road at the northern City limit and known as Assessor's Parcel No. Number 911-640-
003 (Planning Application No. PA99-0245)" substantially in the form that is attached to this
resolution as Exhibit B.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\243pa99.PC.doc
11
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 8th day of December 1999.
Ron Guerriero, Chairperson
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 8~ day of December,
1999 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\243pa99.PC.doc
12
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 99-.__
PA 99-0244 (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT)
R:\STAFFRPT\243pa99.PC.doc
13
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE SPECIFIC PLAN OVERLAY MAP
(FIGURE 2-5) OF THE GENERAL PLAN (PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA99-0244) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED
ON THE EAST SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD AT THE NORTHERN
CITY LIMIT AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER
911-640-003
WHEREAS, Lennar Communities submitted Planning Application No. PA99-0244 (General
Plan Amendment), in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA99-0244 (General Plan Amendment) was
processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State
and local law;
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, Temecula Library,
Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA99-0244
(General Plan Amendment) on December 8, 1999, at a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed
by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and did testify
either in support or opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due
consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Planning
Application No. PA99-0244 (General Plan Amendment);
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to Planning Application
No. PA99-0244 (General Plan Amendment) on , , at which time interested
persons had opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to Planning Application
No. PA99-0244 (General Plan Amendment);
WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff
Report regarding Planning Application No. PA99-0244 (General Plan Amendment);
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
reference.
Section 2. Findings The City Council, in approving Planning Application No. PA99-0244
(General Plan Amendment) hereby makes the following findings:
A. The change is compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the
community. The proposed General Plan Amendment is not changing the land use designation,
density or permitted use types which might adversely effect the health, safety and welfare of the
community. The amendment is simply removing the subject site from Figure 2-5, Specific Plan
Overlay zone, and reverting the zoning back to the existing Land Use Designation of Low Medium
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~243pa99.PC.doc
Density Residential to be consistent with the Land Use Map. Therefore, the project will not have
an adverse effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community.
B. The amendment is compatible with existing and surrounding uses. The
subdivision is compatible with the surrounding areas as the project is for single family residential
homes which are similar land uses in the immediate area. Furthermore, the future homes will be
developed pursuant to the General Plan, the Development Code and all of which regulate
residential parcels and development. In addition, the proposed subdivision provides adequate
access and circulation for emergency vehicles and will not impact existing circulation or emergency
vehicle access. The project as conditioned, will comply with the City's Development Code, General
Plan and subdivision requirements upon approval of the corresponding General Plan Amendment
(PA99-0244) and Zoning Amendment (PA99-0245)..
C. The amendment will not have an adverse effect on the community and is
consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan. The amendment will not have
an adverse effect on the community and is consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted
General Plan. The proposed subdivision and future residential development is a permitted use in
the existing SP (Specific Plan) and Land Use Designation of the Low Medium (LM) Density
Residential zoning classification. The project is being developed in conformance with the General
Plan Land Use Designation and Development Code standards of Low Medium (LM) Density
Residential. The proposed density is below the target density of 4.5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac)
with a proposed density of 3.9 du/ac. Therefore, the amendment will not have an adverse effect
on the community and is consistent with the goals and policies of the adopted General Plan.
Section 3. Amendment To The Specific Plan Overlay Map of the General Plan. The City
Council hereby amends Figure 2-5, the Specific Plan Overlay Map, of the General Plan on the
following parcel in the manner specified below:
A. For the parcel identified as APN 911-640-003: On Figure 2-5 of the Specific Plan
Overlay Map, change the Land Use Designation from Specific Plan (SP) to the underlying zoning
classification of Low Medium Density Residential (LM) of the Land Use Map of the General Plan
Section 4. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for the project which
indicates that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the
Mitigation Monitoring Program and the Conditions of Approval that have been added to the project.
Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby adopted.
Section 5. Severability The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of this
Resolution are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall hold any
sentence, paragraph, or section of this Resolution to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining parts of this Resolution.
Section 6. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
F:\DeprS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\243pa99.PC.doc
15
Section 7. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this ~ day of ,
Jeffery E. Stone, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA)
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
__ by the following vote of the Council:
AYES:
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
CITY COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: CITY COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
CityClerk
F:\Depls\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\243pa99.PC.doc
16
EXHIBIT B
DRAFT CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 99-
PA 99-0245 (ZONING AMENDMENT)
R:\STAFFRPT\243pa99.PC.doc
17
EXHIBIT B
ORDINANCE NO. 99-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO CHANGE THE
ZONING FROM SP (SPECIFIC PLAN) TO LOW MEDIUM (LM)
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
EAST SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD AT THE NORTHERN CITY
LIMIT AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 911-
640-003 (PLANNING APPLICATION PA 99-0245)".
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 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 Califomia, pursuant to the Planning and Zoning law of the
State of California, and the City Code of the City of Temecula. The changes to the land use district
as shown on the attached exhibit are 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. The City of Temecula Official Zoning Map is
amended by placing in affect the zones as described in Planning Application PA99-0245 (Zoning
Amendment) and listed below:
A. For the parcel identified as APN 911-640-003: change the Zoning Designation from
Specific Plan (SP) to Low Medium Density Residential (LM) consistent with General Plan Land Use
Designation of Low Medium Density Residential (LM);
Section 2. Notice of Adoption. Within 10 days after the adoption hereof, the City Clerk of
the City of Temecula shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be posted in at
least three public places in the City.
Section 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. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for the project which
indicates that although the proposed projects could have a significant impact on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the
Mitigation Monitoring Program and the Conditions of Approval that have been added to the project.
Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby adopted.
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRPTX243pa99.PC.dOC
18
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this __ day of __,
ATTEST:
Jeffery E. Stone, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, Califomia, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. ~ was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular
meeting of the City Council on the day of and that thereafter, said Ordinance
was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of th~ City Council of the City of Temecula on
the day of , ~ by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
CityClerk
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~243pa99.PC.dOC
19
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 99-
PA99-0243 (TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 29286)
R:\STAFFRPT\243pa99.PC.doC
20
ATTACHMENT No. 2
RESOLUTION NO. 99-
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BY THE CITY
COUNCIL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0243 FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29286 FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 9.75
ACRES INTO 38 RESIDENTIAL LOTS LOCATED ON THE EAST
SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD AT THE NORTHERN CITY LIMIT AND
KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 911-640-003.
WHEREAS, Lennar Communities filed Planning Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative
Tract Map No. 29286) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code
and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by
reference;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29286) was
processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State
and local law;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA99-0243
(Tentative Tract Map No. 29386) on December 8, 1999, at a duly noticed public hearing as
prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and
did, testify either in support or opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Commission headng and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA99-0243
(Tentative Tract Map No. 29286);
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. Findinqs. That the Temecula Planning Commission, in approving Planning
Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29286), hereby makes the following findings
as required in Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460.
A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is
consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, any applicable specific plan and the City of
Temecula Municipal Code. The project is compatible with the existing General Plan Land Use
Designation and zoning standards of Low Medium Density Residential. Tentative Tract Map No.
29286 proposes thirty eight (38) residential lots which comply with the minimum average net lot
size requirement of 7,200 square feet and the unit density of 3-6 units per acre.
B. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract
entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a
Land Conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following division of the land will not be
too small to sustain their agricultural use. The subject site is not part of the California Land
Conservation Act of 1965 or any conservation contract. All proposed parcels are for residential
R:\STAFFRPT\243pa99.PC.doc
21
home sites and comply with the Low Medium (LM) Density standards and requirements of the
Development Code and General Plan.
C. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development
proposed by the tentative map. The project is compatible with the existing General Plan Land Use
Designation and zoning standards of Low Medium Density Residential. Tentative Tract Map No.
29286 proposes thirty eight (38) residential lots which comply with the minimum average net lot
size requirement of 7,200 square feet and the unit density of 3-6 units per acre. The proposed
subdivision is being developed below the General Plan and Development Code target density of
4.5 dwelling units per acre, with a density of 3.9 dwelling unit per acre. Thus, the subject site is
suitable to accommodate the proposed density.
D. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions
of approval, are either:
Not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; or
An environmental impact report has been prepared and a finding has been made,
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) (3), finding that specific
economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report;
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could
have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case
because the mitigation measures described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program and the
Conditions of Approval that have been added to the project. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative
Declaration will be adopted.
E. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements is not likely
to cause serious public health problems. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the
City's General Plan, Development Code and Subdivision. The project proposes one street access
from Margadta Road that is restricted to right-in, right-out only. The project is consistent with these
documents and conditions of approval have been placed on the project accordingly to assure that
the development conforms to City Standards. Therefore, cause serious public health problems are
not likely to occur as a result of the proposed subdivision.
F The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or
cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible. The future single family homes will
have roofs that can accommodate solar panels to permit future passive or natural heating or
cooling opportunities.
G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the
proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent
to those previously acquired by the public will be provided. The project will take direct access from
Margarita Road and will not obstruct any easements.
H. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements
(Quimby). The project is conditioned to satisfy the City's parkland dedication requirement through
the payment of an in-lieu fee equivalent to the dedication of .49 acres of land. The fee shall be
calculated by multiplying the required amount of parkland by the City's then current appraised land
valuation as established by the City Manager.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\243pa99.PC.doc
22
Section 3. Environmental Coml~liance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates
that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions
of Approval have been added to the project, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration, therefore, is
hereby adopted.
Section 4. The City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of
Planning Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29286) and recommends that the
City Council do the following:
A. Approve a Resolution entitled "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of
Temecula approving Planning Application PA99-0243 for Tentative Tract No. 29286 for the
sbudivision of 9.76 acres into 38 residential lots for the property located on the east side of
Margarita Road at the northern City limit and known as Assessor's Parcel Number 911-640-003"
substantially in the form that is attached to this resolution as Exhibit A;
Section 5 Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission conditionally
hereby approves Planning Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29286) for the
subdivision of a 9,75 acres into 38 residential parcels located on the east side of Margarita Road
at the northem City limit and known as Assessor's Parcel Number 911-640-003, subject to the project
specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this
reference, for the property.
Section 6 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 8thday of December, 1999.
Ron Guerriero, Chairperson
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 8~h day of December,
1999 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAINED:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\243pa99.PC.doc
23
EXHIBIT A
DRAFT CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION APPROVING PA99-0243
R:\STAFFRPT\243pa99.PC.doc
24
EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 99-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA99-0243 FOR
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29286 FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 9.75
ACRES INTO 38 RESIDENTIAL LOTS FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MARGARITA ROAD AT THE
NORTHERN CITY LIMIT AND KNOWN AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NUMBER 911-640-003.
WHEREAS, Lennar Communities filed Planning Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative
Tract Map No. 29286) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code
and Riverside County Land Use and Subdivision Ordinances, which the City has adopted by
reference;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29286) was
processed including, but not limited to public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State
and local law;
WHEREAS, notice of the proposed Ordinance was posted at City Hall, Temecula Library,
Pujol Street Community Center, and the Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered Planning Application No. PA99-0243
(Tentative Tract Map No. 29286) on December 8, 1999, at a duly noticed public hearing as
prescribed by law, at which time the City staff and interested persons had an opportunity to, and
did testify either in support or opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due
consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Planning
Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29286);
WHEREAS, the City Council considered Planning Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative
Tract Map No. 29286) on , at a duly noticed public hearing as
prescribed by law, at which time the City staff an~l interested persons had an opportunity to, and
did, testify either in support or opposition to this matter;
WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff
Report regarding Planning Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29286);
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
by reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated
Section 2. Findinqs. That the Temecula City Council, in approving Planning Application
No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29286), hereby makes the following findings as required
in Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460.
R:\STAFFRFT\243pa99.PC.doc
25
A. The proposed subdivision and the design and improvements of the subdivision is
consistent with the Development Code, General Plan, any applicable specific plan and the City of
Temecuta Municipal Code. The project is compatible with the existing General Plan Land Use
Designation and zoning standards of Low Medium Density Residential. Tentative Tract Map No.
29286 proposes thirty eight (38) residential lots which comply with the minimum average net lot
size requirement of 7,200 square feet and the unit density of 3-6 units per acre.
B. The tentative map does not propose to divide land which is subject to a contract
entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or the land is subject to a
Land Conservation Act contract but the resulting parcels following division of the land will not be
too small to sustain their agricultural use. The subject site is not part of the California Land
Conservation Act of 1965 or any conservation contract. All proposed parcels are for residential
home sites and comply with the Low Medium (LM) Density standards and requirements of the
Development Code and General Plan.
C. The site is physically suitable for the type and proposed density of development
proposed by the tentative map. The project is compatible with the existing General Plan Land Use
Designation and zoning standards of Low Medium Density Residential. Tentative Tract Map No.
29286 proposes thirty eight (38) residential lots which comply with the minimum average net lot
size requirement of 7,200 square feet and the unit density of 3-6 units per acre. The proposed
subdivision is being developed below the General Plan and Development Code target density of
4.5 dwelling units per acre, with a density of 3.9 dwelling unit per acre. Thus, the subject site is
suitable to accommodate the proposed density.
D. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements, with conditions of
approval, are either:
a. Not likely to cause significant environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; or
b. An environmental impact report has been prepared and a finding has been made,
pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a) (3), finding that specific
economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or
project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report;
An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates that although the proposed project could
have a significant impact on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case
because the mitigation measures described in the Mitigation Monitoring Program and the
Conditions of Approval that have been added to the project. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative
Declaration will be adopted.
E. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements is not likely
to cause sedous public health problems. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the
City's General Plan, Development Code and Subdivision. The project proposes one street access
from Margarita Road that is restricted to right-in, right-out only. The project is consistent with these
documents and conditions of approval have been placed on the project accordingly to assure that
the development conforms to City Standards. Therefore, cause serious public health problems are
not likely to occur as a result of the proposed subdivision.
F. The design of the subdivision provides for future passive or natural heating or
cooling opportunities in the subdivision to the extent feasible. The future single family homes will
have roofs that can accommodate solar panels to permit future passive or natural heating or
cooling opportunities.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\243pa99.PC.dOC
26
G. The design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the
proposed subdivision, or the design of the alternate easements which are substantially equivalent
to those previously acquired by the public will be provided. The project will take direct access from
Margarita Road and will not obstruct any easements.
H. The subdivision is consistent with the City's parkland dedication requirements
(Quimby). The project is conditioned to satisfy the City's parkland dedication requirement through
the payment of an in-lieu fee equivalent to the dedication of .49 acres of land. The fee shall be
calculated by multiplying the required amount of parkland by the City's then current appraised land
valuation as established by the City Manager.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance. An Initial Study prepared for this project indicates
that although the proposed project could have a significant impact on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in the Conditions
of Approval have been added to the project, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration, therefore, is
hereby adopted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula City Council hereby conditionally
approves Planning Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29288) for the subdivision
of a 9.75 acres into 38 residential parcels located on the east side of Margarita Road at the northem
City limit and known as Assessor's Parcel Number 911-640-003, subject to the project specific
conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference,
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\243pa99.PC.doc
27
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City ef
Temecula this day of
Jeffery E. Stone, Mayer
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) SS
CITY OF TEMECULA)
I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. ~was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading at a regular
meeting of the City Council on the day of , and that thereafter, said
Ordinance was duly adopted and passed""~t a regular meetin~ of the City Council of the City of
Temecula on the day of , ~ by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
F:\DeprS\PLANNING\STAFFR~T\243pa99.PC.doc
28
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
F:\DeptsXPLANNING\STAFFRPT~243pa99.PC.doc
29
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29286)
Project Description:
Planning Application No. PA 99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map
29286) for the subdivision of 9.75 acres of land into thirty
eight (38) residential lots zoned Low Medium Density
Residential.
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
911-640-003
December 8, 1999
December 8, 2001
PLANNING DIVISION
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicantJdeveloper shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning
Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount
of One Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Eight Dollars ($1,328.00) which includes the One
Thousand Two Hundred and Fifty Dollar ($1,250.00) fee, required by Fish and Game Code
Section 711.4(d)(3) plus the Seventy-Eight Dollars ($78.00) County administrative fee, to
enable the City to file the Notice of Determination for the Mitigated or Negative Declaration
required under Public Resources Code Section 21108(a) and California Code of
Regulations Section 15075. If within said forty-eight (48) hour period the
applicantJdeveloper has not delivered to the Community Development Department -
Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project granted shall
be void by reason of failure of condition (Fish and Game Code Section 711.4(c)).
General Requirements
The tentative subdivision shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and
to all the requirements of Ordinance No. 460, unless modified by the conditions listed
below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City
Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
The applicant and owner of the real property subject to this condition shall hereby agree to
indemnity, protect, hold harmless, and defend with Legal Counsel of the City's own
selection, the City shall be deemed for purposes of this condition, to include any agency or
instrumentality thereof, or any of its elected or appointed officials, officers, employees,
consultants, contractors, legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions,
awards, judgements, or proceedings against the City to attack, set aside, void, annul, seek
monetary damages resulting, directly or indirectly, from any action in furtherance of and the
approval of the City, or any agency or instrumentality thereof, advisory agency, appeal
board or legislative body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning
the Planning Application. City shall promptly notity the both the applicant and landowner
of any claim, action, or proceeding to which this condition is applicable and shall further
cooperate fully in the defense of the action. The City reserves its right to take any and all
action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such
F:\Depr~\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~243pa99.PC.doc
30
defense.
The Tentative Tract Map (29286) shall not be approved until the General Plan Amendment
(PA99-0244) and Zoning Amendment (PA99-0245) are approved.
If subdivision phasing is proposed, a phasing plan shall be submitted to and approved by
the Planning Director.
The project and all subsequent projects within this site shall comply with all mitigation
measures contained in the projects Mitigation Monitoring Program.
After grading all slopes shall be planted in accordance with the City's Slope Planting
Guidelines. Jute netting will be required on all slopes greater than ten linear feet.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
A copy of the Rough Grading plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning
Division.
The applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal
Code (Habitat Conservation) by paying the appropdate fee set forth in that ordinance or by
providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid.
Prior to Recordation of the Final Map
10. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes:
a. This property is located within thirty (30) miles of Mount Palomar Observatory. All
proposed outdoor lighting systems shall comply with the California Institute of
Technology, Palomar Observatory recommendations, Ordinance No. 655.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
11. The Department of Public Works recommends the following Conditions of Approval for this
project. Unless stated otherwise, all conditions shall be completed by the Developer at no
cost to any Government Agency.
General Requirements
12.
It is understood that the Developer correctly shows on the tentative map all existing and
proposed easements, traveled ways, improvement constraints and drainage courses, and
their omission may require the project to be resubmitted for further review and revision.
13.
A Grading Permit for either rough or precise grading shall be obtained from the Department
of Public Works prior to commencement of any construction outside of the City-maintained
road right-of-way.
14.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City right-of-way.
15.
All improvement plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans shall be coordinated
for consistency with adjacent projects and existing improvements contiguous to the site and
shall be submitted on standard 24" x 36" City of Temecula mylars.
F:\Depts\pLANNING\STAFFRPT\243pa99.PC.doc
31
Prior to Approval of the Final Map, unless other timing is indicated, the Developer shall
complete the following or have plans submitted and approved, subdivision improvement
agreements executed and securities posted:
16.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
b. Rancho California Water District
c. Eastern Municipal Water District
d. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
e. City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau
f. Planning Department
g. Department of Public Works
h. Riverside County Health Department
i. Cable TV Franchise
j. Community Services District
k. General Telephone
I. Southern California Edison Company
m. Southern California Gas Company
n. Fish & Game
o. Army Corps of Engineers
17.
The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula
General Plan standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by
the Department of Public Works:
Improve Margarita Road (Arterial Highway Standard No. 100 - 110' RAN) to include
dedication of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street
improvements, paving, curb and gutter, 6 feet wide sidewalk within a 12 feet wide
parkway, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not
limited to water and sewer), 14 feet wide raised landscaped median and a 14 feet wide
lane west side of the median. The Developer can receive Development Impact Fee
credits for half of the raised landscaped median.
Improve Date Street (Major Highway Standard No. 101-100' RAN) to include dedication
of half-width street right-of-way, installation of half-width street improvements, paving,
curb and gutter, 6 feet wide sidewalk within a 10 feet wide parkway, street lights,
drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and
sewer). The Developer shall deposit $40.00/L.F. with the City for future construction of
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\243pa99.PC.doc
32
half width of the 14 feet wide raised landscaped median.
Improve Streets "A", "B", "C" and "D" (Local Road Standard No. 104 - 60' RAN) to
include dedication of full-width street right-of-way, installation of full-width street
improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities,
signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer).
d. All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement
transitions per Caltrans standards for transition to existing street sections.
18.
Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the design
of the street improvement plans:
a. Street centerline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C. paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to City Standard Nos. 207 and 208.
c. Street lights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in accordance
with Ordinance No. 461.
d. Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400,
401 and 402.
e. Design of street improvements shall extend a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project
boundaries to ensure adequate continuity of design with adjoining properties.
f. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
g. Landscaping shall be limited in the corner cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent
to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall
be provided underground. Easements shall be provided as required where adequate
right-of-way does not exist for installation of the facilities. All utilities shall be designed
and constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider.
i. All utilities, except electrical lines rated 33kv or greater, shall be installed
underground.
19.
A construction area Traffic Control Plan shall be designed by a registered Civil Engineer
and reviewed by the Department of Public Works for any street closure and detour or
other disruption to traffic circulation as required by the Department of Public Works.
20.
Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Date Street and Margarita Road on the
Final Map with the exception of Street "A" opening as delineated on the approved
Tentative Tract Map.
21.
Vehicular movement to and from Street "A" shall be restricted to right in/right out,
respectively.
22.
Corner property line cut off for vehicular sight distance and installation of pedestrian
facilities shall be provided at all street intersections in accordance with Riverside County
Standard No. 805.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\243pa99.PC.dOC
33
23.
All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public
or other appropriate agency and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons
such offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
24.
Pursuant to Section 66493 of the Subdivision Map Act, any subdivision which is part of an
existing Assessment District must comply with the requirements of said section. Prior to
City Council approval of the Final Map, the Developer shall make an application for
reapportionment of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency.
25. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid.
26.
An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Final
Map to delineate identified environmental concerns and shall be recorded with the map. A
copy of the ECS shall be transmitted to the Planning Department and Public Works
Department for review and approval. The following information shall be on the ECS:
a. The delineation of the area within the 100-year floodplain.
b. Special Study Zones.
c. Geotechnical hazards identified in the project's geotechnical report.
d. Archeological resources found on the site.
27.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraint Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject
property.
28.
The Developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property
interests, and if he or she should fail to do so, the Developer shall, prior to submittal of the
Final Map for recordation, enter into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant
to the Subdivision Map Act, Section 66462 and Section 66462.5. Such agreement shall
provide for payment by the Developer of all costs incurred by the City to acquire the off-site
property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Security of a portion of these
costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an appraisal report
obtained by the Developer, at the Developer's cost. The appraiser shall have been
approved by the City prior to commencement of the appraisal.
29.
All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable TV shall be
provided for underground, with easements provided as required, and designed and
constructed in accordance with City Codes and the utility provider. Telephone, cable TV,
and/or security systems shall be pre-wired in the residence.
30.
The Developer shall notify the City's cable TV Franchises of the Intent to Develop. Conduit
shall be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements.
31.
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated
and noted on the Final Map.
32. Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities,
utilities, etc., shall be shown on the Final Map if they are located within the land division
boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and
recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located
F:~Depts\PLANNING\STAFFP, PT\243pa99.PC.doc
34
outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on
the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating "drainage easements shall be
kept free of buildings and obstructions."
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
33.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
b. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
c. Planning Department
d. Department of Public Works
e. Riverside County Health Department
f. Community Services District
g. General Telephone
h. Southern California Edison Company
i. Southern California Gas Company
j. Fish & Game
k. Army Corps of Engineers
34.
A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of
Temecula standards and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to
commencement of any grading. The plan shall incorporate adequate erosion control
measures to protect the site and adjoining properties from damage due to erosion.
35.
The Developer must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board. No
grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the
project is shown to be exempt.
36.
The Developer shall post security and enter into an agreement guaranteeing the grading
and erosion control improvements in conformance with applicable City Standards and
subject to approval by the Department of Public Works.
37.
A flood mitigation charge shall be paid. The Area Drainage Plan fee is payable to the
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District by either cashier's check
or money order, prior to issuance of permits, based on the prevailing area drainage plan
fee. If the full Area Drainage Plan fee or mitigation charge has already been credited to this
property, no new charge needs to be paid.
38.
The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work performed
on adjoining properties. The letters or easements shall be in a format as directed by the
Department of Public Works.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRFE\243pa99.PC.dOC
35
39. All lot drainage shall be directed to the driveway by side yard drainage swales independent
of any other lot.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
40. The Final Map shall be approved and recorded.
41.
A Precise Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review
and approval. The building pad shall be certified by a registered Civil Engineer for location
and elevation, and the Soils Engineer shall issue a Final Soils Report addressing
compaction and site conditions.
42.
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California Building Code,
the approved grading plan, the conditions of the grading permit, City Grading Standards
and accepted grading construction practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved rough grading plan.
43.
The Developer shall pay to the City the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the Temecula Municipal Code and
all Resolutions implementing Chapter 15.06.
Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy
44.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
a. Rancho California Water District
b. Eastern Municipal Water District
c. Department of Public Works
45.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
46.
All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City
standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
47.
The existing improvements shall be reviewed. Any appurtenance damaged or broken due
to the construction operations of this project shall be repaired or removed and replaced to
the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
The following are the Fire Department Conditions of Approval for this project. All questions
regarding the meaning of these conditions shall be referred to the Fire Prevention Bureau.
48.
Final fire and life safety conditions will be addressed when building plans are reviewed by
the Fire Prevention Bureau. These conditions will be based on occupancy, use, the
California Building Code (CBC), California Fire Code (CFC), and related codes which are
in force at the time of building plan submittal.
49.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a miramum fire flow for residential land
division per CFC Appendix ILIA, Table A-Ill-A-1. The developer shall provide for this
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\243pa99.PC.doc
36
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
project, a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating
pressure with a 2 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted dudng the approval
process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection
measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has
taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903,2, Appendix Ill-A)
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix Ill.B, Table A-Ill-B-1. Standard fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2 1/2" outlets) shall be
located on Fire Department access reads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be
spaced at 500 feet apart and shall be located no more than 250 feet from any point on the
street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall
be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire
hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B)
Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul-
de-sac shall be thirty-eight (38) feet. (CFC 902.2.2.3)
If construction is phased, each phase shall provide approved access and fire protection
prior to any building construction. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2)
Prior to building construction, all locations where structures are to be built shall have
approved temporary Fire Department vehicle access roads for use until permanent roads
are installed. Temporary Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather surface for
80,000 Ibs. GVVV. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire
Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any
portion of an exterior wall of the building(s), Fire Department access roads shall be an all
weather su~ace designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVVV with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet.
( CFC sec 902)
Fire Department vehicle access reads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13)
feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1)
Prior to building construction, dead end read ways and streets in excess of one hundred
and fifty (150) feet which have not been completed shall have a turnaround capable of
accommodating fire apparatus. (CFC 902,2.2.4)
Prior to issuance of building permits, the developer shall furnish one copy of the water
system plans to the Fire Prevention Bureau for approval prior to installation. Plans shall be
signed by a registered civil engineer; contain a Fire Prevention Bureau approval signature
block; and conform to hydrant type, location, spacing and minimum fire flow standards.
After the plans are signed by the local water company, the originals shall be presented to
the Fire Prevention Bureau for signatures. The required water system including fire
hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any
combustible building materials being placed on an individual lot. (CFC 8704.3, 901.2.2.2
and National Fire Protection Association 24 1-4.1 )
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers"
shall be installed to identify fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3
F:\Depts\PLANN1NG\STAFFRPTX243pa99.PC .doe
37
59.
All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry
system.for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (CFC 902.4)
COMMUNITY SERVICES
General ReQuirements:
60.
A Class II Bicycle Lane on Margadta Road and Date Street shall be identified on the street
improvement plans and constructed in concurrence with the completion of said street
improvements.
6t.
The developer, or his assignee, shall be responsible for the parkway landscaping adjacent
to Margarita Road and Date Street and the raised landscape medians until such time as
those responsibilities are approved and accepted by the TCSD.
62.
All perimeter walls, interior slopes, drainage structures and entry monumentation shall be
constructed outside of the proposed TCSD maintenance area and maintained by the
property owner or and established Home Owner's Association (HOA).
63.
Construction of the parkway landscaping on Margarita Road and Date Street and the
landscaped medians shall commence pursuant to a pre-construction meeting with the
developer and the TCSD Maintenance Superintendent. Failure to comply with the TCSD
review and inspection process may preclude the acceptance of this area into the TCSD
maintenance program.
64.
Grading improvements that encroach upon the adjacent Winchester Hills Park shall require
a City Council approved grading agreement, The developer shall provide construction
plans and post securities to guarantee the park is repaired to City standards.
Prior to Approval of the Final Map:
65.
The developer shall satisf,/the City's parkland dedication requirement through the payment
of an in-lieu fee equivalent to the dedication of .49 acres of land. The fee shall be
calculated by multiplying the required amount of parkland by the City's then current
appraised land valuation as established by the City Manager.
66.
Landscape construction drawings for the perimeter parkway landscaping and the raised
landscape medians shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Community Services.
67.
The developer shall post security and enter into an agreement to improve the parkway
landscaping and raised landscape medians.
68.
The proposed landscaped parkway adjacent to Margarita Road and Date Street (Lot Nos.
1 and 25-38) shall be identified as a TCSD maintenance area and offered for dedication on
the final map.
69.
The developer shall file a notice of intention with the TCSD to initiate election proceedings
for acceptance of residential street lighting and slope maintenance responsibilities into the
respective TCSD maintenance programs. All costs associated with this process shall be
borne by the developer,
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits:
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\243pa99.PC.doC
38
70.
Pdor to issuance of building permits or installation of the street lights, whichever comes first,
the developer shall pay the appropriate energy fees related to the transfer of said street
lights into the TCSD maintenance program.
Prior to Issuance of Certificates of Occupancy:
71.
It shall be the developer's responsibility to provide written disclosure of the existence of the
TCSD and its service level rates and charges to all prospective purchasers.
OTHER AGENCIES
72. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated July 12, 1999, a copy of which is attached.
73. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Eastern Information
Center's transmittal dated July 12, 1999, a copy of which is attached.
74. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside,
Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated July 12, 1999, a copy of which is
attached.
75. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District's transmittal dated July 29, 1999, a copy of
which is attached.
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant's Signature
Date
Name printed
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\243pa99.PC.doc
39
ltancho
Water
Ralph H. Daily
Doug Kulberg
Lisa D, Herman
July 12, 1999
Patty Anders, Case Planner
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
TRACT NO. 29286
APN 911-640-003
PLANNING APPLICATIONS NO. PA99-0243, NO. 99-0244,
AND NO. PA99-0245
Dear Ms. Anders:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within
the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD). Water
service, therefore, would be available upon completion of financial
arrangements between RCWD and the property owner.
If fire protection is required, the customer will need to contact RCWD for
fees and requirements.
Water availability would be contingent upon the property owner signing
an Agency Agreement which assigns water management rights, if any, to
RCWD.
If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
Development Engineering Manager
99\SB:rnc175~F012-T1 ~FCF
c: Laude Willjams, Engineering Services Supervisor
JUL I 4
i
Rancho (alifornia Water District
'Monday July 12, 1999 9:47am -- From '909787F ' -- Page 2I
SENT BY:UCR ?-12-99 ;1g:29AR; ARCH RESEARCH .iT4 90969464??;# 2
w
CALIFORNIA
RISTORICAL
RESOURCES
INFORMATION
SYSTEM
RfVZR,,~IDB
Eastern InformaUon Center
Department of AnthrOpology
University of Califomia
Riverside, CA 92521-04~18
Phone (909) 787-5745
Fax (909) 787-5409
CULTURAl, RESOURCE R VIEW
DATE: /~N,P~/12,t fc~'~R
R~ord~ at ~e E~totn Infom~ion Cent~ offfic C~ifomia Zt~ri~ R~ourc~ ~o~lon S~m have
b~n rcvi~ to d~rmin. if ~is proj~ would ~v~d~ ~c~ pr~mrlc or historic ~1~ r~oum~;
The propor. xl project ztrra has not been Surfeyed for ealmral ruousDm and ~n~aina or i, ~ to known cultural
resource(i). A Fauc I study is rccommeadcd.
Based upon exixL;ng data Ihs proposed proj~t irma has th~ Dote~6al for eo~t. fining msltuml rmour~es. A Ph,8 1 study
is r~oommended.
A phue I eukur~l r~ouz~ mzdy (MF t
.) i&W~'t,d one ot mo~ ~lmrM
The project area contains. or has the possibilky of ~ont~inin,~, oultunl rcsoutccs. Hovcvcr, du¢ W the niRtr~ of tho
project or prior data teeeve:7 sterile,. an Klvea~eff~t on ouhral r~souree4 is not anticipated. F~rther ,:~dy is n0¢
rebornmended.
_V'//A Pt~sc l cultural rvsourcc study(MF# ~,~5'?~)idcndfiedazouhuralmourves. Futther study is not recormuended.
Thcrc is a low 9fobafD~Zhy 0f c0RIJft[ t'ClORfCCl. tc~fthcf study ii not receman~ndix[.
__L,/~I {, during oonstructien, ~u|tura] rcseut~cs ar~ e,n~ountc:~l. wofJ[ shotrid [t~ h~lted or dlv~tted ~n the imm~hd~ ar~a while
a q~dificd archaeo|o~ilt ¢valoMcs ~c finds aJld makes teeommnndations.
the archaeological sensitivity of th= z~=, zidhmoving durin~ constructlea should Ig monitemd by, prof~slona[
archn¢o[ogizt.
Chase I
Phale !1
Phle iil
Phue IV
COMMENTS:
If you have any questions, please contact us.
Eastern Information Center
Mgnday JuLy 12. 1999 9:47am -- From '909787S -- Page 3]
SENT BY:U~R . ?-12-99 ;1O:30AM; ARCH RESEARCH .~T~
90969454??;#
D~evelopment
REC.~VED IN
City of Temecula JUt, 0 l~ t
Planning Department E I C
Review Commi~ee - Project Transmittal
The attached project has b~e.n scheduled for a Development Review Committee meeting on
Thursday, July 15, 1999,' ,
Your written comments are requested. Our mail 'IX address is: City of Tem~cula Planning
ri ,
Should you have an~questions regarding this project[ pleas, contact the case planner at (909) 694-
Project Information: Winchester I-Iills fLenn,,r ~omes
Case Number: PA99-0243 Crentati,z' Tract Ma ~ 29286% PA99-0244 (GPA) and
PA.99-0245 Zone, C ge
Applicant:
Proposal: Subdivision of 9.75 acres into 40 single family residenfiaJ lots and
two open space lots ('PA99-tY243). A C~neral Plan Amendment to
change the current land use classification of "S" (Specific Plan) to
LM (Low Medium Density Residential) and a zone change to
change the zoning cla,~sification from 'SP" (Specific Plan) to LM
(Low Medium Dmasit)- Residential),
Southeast corner of Margarita Road and Date Street
Negative Declaration ]
911-640-003 (Formerl.~ 911-640-002)
Re-submittal: Previou.~ DRC Date:
This is not part Of the proposed Swe~ ,twater Specific Plan (previously known as
Winchester Hills Specific Plan).
Location:
h~tcnded
Environmental Action:
Assessor's Parcel Nmber:
Case Planner:
Status:
Coanllents;
~XTEMEp_FS201XDATAXDItPTSXPLANNING~PLANNINGX243p~99DKC T~,do;
2
~CNonday JuLy 12, l~g 3:02Fro -- From #9558903, Page
87/12/1999 14:42 9558983
County of Riverside
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL BUEALTH
TO:
FROM:
RE:
PAGE 03/04
DATE: Jm~wy' 12 1999
CITY OF TEMECULA PLANNING DEPARTMENT
: Patty And .s sistaunt Planner
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. PA99-0245 ( Reference: TFR 29286, GPA PA99-0244)
1, The Department of Environmental Health has reviewed this Change of Zone No. PA99-0245 and has
no objections.
2. Sanitary sewer 'and water services should be availdole in this area.
CIt:dr
(9O9) 955-8980
DAVID P. ZAPPE
General Manager-Chief Engineer
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
City of Temecula
Plannin De art · t
Post
Temecula, California 92589-9033
Attention: Patty Anders
Ladies and Gentlemen:
1005 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
900.955.1200
909.788.9965 FAX
582341
Re: Tentative Tract Map 29286 (PA 99-0243)
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions or other land use cases in incorporated
cities. The District also does not plan check ci land use cases, or provide State Division of Real Estate letters
or other flood hazard re orts for such cases. ~istdct comments/recommendations for such cases are normally
limited to terns of speci~cc interest to the Distdct including Distdct Master Drainage Plan facilities, other regional
flood control and draina e facilities which could be considered a logical component or extension of a as er
plan system, and DistdcPArea Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In addition, informati~ o~ a
generm nature is provided.
The Distdct has not reviewed the proposed pro'ect in detail and the following checked comments do not in an
way constitute or im I District a proval or en~Jorsement of the proposed project with respect to flood hazar~
public health and sa~y or any o~er such issue:
This project would not be impacted by District Master Drainage Plan facilities nor are other facilities of
regional interest proposed.
This project involves District Master Plan facilities. The District will acce t ownership of such facilities
on written request of the C ty Facilities must be constructed to Distd~'~standards and District plan
check and inspection will be required for Distdct acceptance. Plan check, inspection and
administrative fees will be required.
X Th s project ma involve draina e facilities that may be considered a logical extension of the District's
' Margadta Roa~JYStorm Dra n ~he District would consider acceptin ownership of such facilities on
wdtten request of the City. Facilities must be constructed to Distnct ~andards, and District lan check
and inspection will be required for District acceptance. Plan check, inspection and adminis~ative fees
will be required.
X This project s ocated w th n the mits of the District's Murrieta Creek/Santa Margarita Valley Area
' Dra nage Plan for which drainage fees have been adopted a plicable fees should be paid by cashiers
check or money order onl to tffie Flood Control District rior tPoI issuance of building or grading permits,
whichever comes first. ~ees to be paid should be at t~e rate in effect at the time of Issuance of the
actual permit.
GENERAL INFORMATION
This pro'ect may require a National Pollutant Dischar · Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State
Water ~J~sources Control Board. Clearance for ra~f?n~g, recordation or other final ap roval should not be
given until the City has determined that the project gnas been granted a permit or is shown ~)~ be exempt.
If this roject nvo ves a Federa Emergency Management Agenc (FEMA) mapped flood plain then the City
shou dPrequ re the app cant to rovide all studies calculations gYans and other information re uired to eet
FEMA requirements, and shouldfurther require that the applicant obtain a Conditional Letter o~q~ap Revision
n n m
CLOMR) prior to grading, recordation or other final approval of the project, and a Letter of Map Revision
ILOMR) p or to occupa cy.
If a natural watercourse or mapped flood plain is im acted by this project, the City should require the applicant
to obta n a Section 1601/1603 A reement from the ~aa fornia Department of Fish and Game and a Clean Water
Act Section 404 Permit from the ~.S Army Corps of Engineers or written correspondence from these agencies
nd cat n the pro'ect s exempt from these re uirements. ~, Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality
Certifica~on ma ~e required from the local Cali?oLmia Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to issuance
of the Corps 40~ permit.
Very truly yours,
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
Date: July 29, 1999
SKM:slj
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
EXHIBITS
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRFF\243pa99.PC.doc
40
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29286),
PA99-0244 (General Plan Amendment), PA99-0245 (Zoning Amendment)
EXHIBIT A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 8, 1999
VICINITY MAP
F:\DepB\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\243pa99.PC.doC
41
CITY OF TEMECULA
TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29286
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29286)
EXHIBIT D TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 8, 1999
F:\DepLS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\243pa99.pC.dOC
42
CITY OF TEMECULA
PI
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP
DESIGNATION - LM (Low Medium Density Residential)
EXHIBIT C - SPECIFIC PLAN OVERLAY MAP (FIGURE 2-5) OF THE GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION - SP (SPECIFIC PLAN)
CASE NO. - PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map 29286)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - December 8, 1999
F:XDepts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\243pa99.PC.doc
43
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
F:\Depts\pLANN1NG\STAFFRPT\243pa99.PC.doc
44
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Environmental Checklist
Project Title
Tentative Tract Map No. 29286 (Planning Application No. PA99-
0243); General Plan Amendment (Planning Application No. PA99-
0244); and Zoning Amendment (Planning Application No. PA99-
0245)
Lead Agency Name and Address
Contact Person and Phone Number
Project Location
Project Sponsor's Name and Address
General Plan Designation
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033,
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Patty Anders, Assistant Planner
(909) 694-6400
Located on the east side of Margadta Road at the northern City limit,
approximately 880' north of the intersection of Margarita Road and
Rustic Glen. (Assessor's Parcel Number 911-640-003)
Bill Storm, Lennar Homes, 24800 Chrisanta Drive, Mission Viejo, CA
92691
Low Medium Density Residential (LM)
Zoning
Specific Plan Overlay (SP)
Description of Project
PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29286) is a request to subdivide
9.75 acres into 38 single family residential lots and two open space lots
that comply with the Low Medium (LM) Density Residential zoning
classification (3-6 dwelling units per acre);
PA 99-0244 (General Plan Amendment) to remove the subject site from
the Specific Plan overlay designation on Figure 2-5 of the General Plan
and revert back to the underlying Land Use Designation of Low Medium
(LM) Density Residential depicted on the General Plan Land Use map;
PA99-0245 (Zoning Amendment) to change the existing zoning map
from Specific Plan Overlay (SP) to Low Medium (LM) Density
Residential which is consistent with the underlying General Plan Land
Use designation of Low Medium (LM) Density Residential.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Other public agencies whose approval
is required
These three applications shall constitute the "project" as used in the
comment portions of the Environmental Checklist.
North: Neighborhood Commercial (Vacant)
East: SweetWater Specific Plan (Vacant)
South: Medium Density Resident (Existing Community Park)
West: Low Medium Density Resident (Existing Single Family)
Fire Department, Health Department, Temecula Police Department,
Eastern Municipal Water District, Rancho California Water District,
Riverside County Flood Control, Southern California Edison,
Southern California Gas Company, General Telephone
\\TEMEC_FS101 ~VOL1 \DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\243pa98 new IES.doc
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use Planning
Population and Housing
Geologic Problems
Water
Air Quality
Transportation/Circulation
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral Resources
Hazards
Noise
Public Services
Utilities and Service Systems
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of Significance
None
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by
the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in
an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially
significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially impacts(a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION
pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Printed name
F:\Depts\PLANNING\CEQA\243pa98 new IES.doc
2
1. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
C=
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Physically divide an established community?
Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project
(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigation an
environmental effect?
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated impact
No
~mpact
Comments:
1.a,
The project will not disrupt of divide the physical arrangement of an established community. The
project site is vacant and surrounded by vacant land and existing single family homes. The
development of this site will be consistent with the surrounding properties. No impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
1.b.
The project will not conflict with applicable General Plan designation, environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project. The tentative tract map is being developed in
compliance with the City's General Plan Land Use designation of LM (Low Medium Density Residential
3-6 du/acre). The proposed General Plan Amendment is a procedural change to remove the subject
site from a Specific Plan overlay designation (Figure 2-5) of the General Plan whereas the land use
designation remains unchanged. The Zoning Amendment is also a procedural change to amend the
existing zoning map for the subject site from Specific Plan Overlay (SP) to Low Medium (LM) Density
Residential. The proposed Zoning Amendment is consistent will the underlying Land Use Designation
of the General Plan. The subject site was originally anticipated to be included as part of a Specific
Plan; however, the site is separated by a General Plan Circulation Element Road and is not a logical
connection of the Specific Plan Area to the west. Therefore, the applicant is proposing to develop this
area separately in compliance with the existing land use designation and density of 3-6 dwelling units
per acre.
Impacts from all General Plan land use designations were analyzed in the Environmental Impact Report
(EIR) for the General Plan. Agencies with jurisdiction within the City commented on the scope of the
analysis contained in the EIR and how the land uses would impact their particular agency. Mitigation
measures approved with the EIR will be applied to this project where necessary. Further, all agencies
with jurisdiction over the project are also being given the opportunity to comment on the project, and it
is anticipated that they will make the appropriate comments as to how the project relates to their
specific environmental plans or policies. The project site has been not been previously graded;
however, services are available into the area. Therefore no impacts on adopted environmental plans or
policies are anticipated as a result of this project.
1.C.
The proposed project will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan. This site is not within any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
\\TEMEC FS 101 \VOL1 \DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\243pa98 new IES.doc
3
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension
of reads or other infrastructure)?
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
NO
Impact
2.a.
The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The project is
consistent with the existing General Plan Land Use Designation. The proposed Zoning Amendment will
be consistent with the Land Use Designation of Low Medium (LM) Density Residential. The proposed
subdivision will result in the development of new single family homes, which will cause some people to
relocate to, or within Temecula. However, due to its limited scale, it will not induce substantial growth
beyond what is projected in the City's General Plan. No significant effects are anticipated as a result of
this project.
2.b, c.
The project will not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing as the site is vacant
property zoned Low Medium Density Residential. Therefore, the project will not displace existing
housing or people necessitating the construction of replacement housing. No impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
\\TEMEC_FSlO1\VOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\243pa98 new IES.doc
4
3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Expose people or structures to potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Midgation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
NO
i)
iv) Landslides?
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ,/
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or ,/
that would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1801-B
of the Uniform Building Code (1998), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
e. Have soil incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
Comments:
3.a.i. There are no known or identified earthquake faults as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
3.a.ii, iii, b., and d.
There may be a potentially significant impact from seismic ground shaking, ground failure, soil erosion
or expansive soils. Although, there are no known fault hazard zones on the property, the project is
located in Southern California, an area that is seismically active. Any potential significant impacts will
be mitigated through grading and building construction, which is consistent with the Uniform Building
Code standards. Further, the project will be conditioned to provide soil reports prior to grading and
recommendations contained in this report are followed during construction. The soil reports will also
contain recommendations for the compaction of the soil, which will serve to mitigate any potentially
significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure, liquefaction, subsidence and
expansive soils. After mitigation measures are performed, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
3.a. iv, c.
The City's General Plan does not identify the subject site as being within an area of subsidence,
landslides or liquefaction hazards. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
%\TEMEC_FSlOl\VOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING%CEQA\243pa98 new IES.doc
5
3.e.
Septic sewage disposal systems are not proposed for this project as sewers are available for the
disposal of waste water. The project will be required to hook up to the existing public sewer system.
Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there
would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate
of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation
map?
Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant UnlessMitigation Significant No
impact IncorDorated Impact Impact
Comments:
4.a.
The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The
subdivision, and subsequent residential development, will be required to comply with the requirements
of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water
Resources Control Board. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent has been
filed or the project is shown to be exempt. By complying with the NPDES requirements, any potential
impacts can be mitigated to a level less than significant.
\\TEMEC_FSlO1\VOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\243pa98 new IES.doc
6
4.b.,f.
4.c,d.
4.e.
4j.
The project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level. The project will not have an affect on the quantity and quality of ground
waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability. Further, construction on the
site will not be at depths sufficient to have a significant impact on ground waters or aquifer volume. No
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation and/or flooding on- or off-site. Some changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the
rate and amount of su~ace runoff is expected whenever development occurs on previously permeable
ground. Previously permeable ground will be rendered impervious by construction of buildings,
accompanying hard scape and driveways. While absorption rates and surface runoff will change,
potential impacts shall be mitigated through site design. Drainage conveyances will be required for the
project to safely and adequately handle runoff which is created. No significant impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
Due to the small scale of the proposed subdivision, and ultimately the future single family residential
development, the project will not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff. The project will be conditioned to accommodate the drainage created as a result of the subject
site. In addition, the project will be conditioned so that the drainage will not impact surrounding
properties. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The project will have no impact on people or property to water related hazards such as flooding
because the project site is located outside of the 100 year floodway and the dam inundation area as
identified in the City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. No impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
The project site will not be subject to inundation by sieche, tsunami, or mudflow as these events are not
known to happen in this region. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially
to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient
air quality standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number
of people?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
No
Impact
,f
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLl\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\243pae8 new IES.doc
7
Comments:
5.a-c.
The project will not conflict with applicable air quality plans nor violate air quality or pollution
standards. The project proposes to subdivide a 9.75 acres into 38 residentially zoned lots and two
open space lots. The subdivision, and future development, are anticipated to be within the number of
dwelling units threshold for potentially significant air quality impact established by the South Coast Air
Quality Management District of 166 units as depicted in SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook
(Source 3) page 6-10, Table 6.2. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
5.d.
There are no known sensitive receptors to pollutant concentrations in the immediate vicinity. The future
development of the project for single family homes will create pollutants during the grading and
construction phase of the project emanating from fugitive dust and small quantities of construction
equipment pollutants. These impacts will be of short duration and are not considered significant. The
future residents are not anticipated to generate significant pollutants, but that typical of a residential
tract development. Therefore, impacts will be less than significant as a result of this project.
5,e.
The project may create objectionable odors during the grading and construction of single family home,
however, these impacts are anticipated to be of short duration and will have less than a significant
impact.
6. TRANSPORTATIONFFRAFFIC. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting information Sources
Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in
relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the
street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in
either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity
ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?
Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways?
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either
an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
results in substantial safety risks?
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Result in inadequate emergency access?
Result in inadequate parking capacity?
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Comments:
6.a, b. There will be an increase in vehicle trips on adjacent streets once the proposed subdivision is
developed. Due to the number of lots the vehicle trip count per, the City's Traffic Engineer and the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) estimates the total vehicle trips per day for approximately 38
single-family residences would be approximately 380 daily trips. The project will be condition to width
both Margarita Road and Date Street to the ultimate General Plan road way width to help mitigate the
incremental impacts of the subject site. The City's Traffic Engineer indicated that the future single
\\TEMEC_FS 101 \VOL1 \DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\243pa98 new ES.doc
8
6.c
6.d
6.e
6.f
6.g
family development will have a less than significant impact to the existing road system due to the
additional road widening and the maximum capacity of the existing road system. No further traffic
studies were required for this project. The development of tract will be required to contribute traffic
signal and public facility development impact fees prior to the issuance of any building permits. Less
than significant impacts are anticipated.
The project will not result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks. The site is not located within the French
Valley Airport influenced area pursuant to the French Valley Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan,
December 1996. Therefore no significant impacts are anticipated.
The project will not result in hazards to safety from design features. The project is designed to current
City standards and does not propose any hazards. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
The project will not result in inadequate emergency access or inadequate access to nearby uses. The
project is designed to current City standards and has adequate emergency access. The project does
not interfere with access to nearby uses but will help accommodate emergency access with the
widening of Margarita Road. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
The proposed project is for the subdivision of land; therefore no parking is required. Subsequent
development of the proposed parcels will be required to comply with the City's Development Code
parking requirements for the residential use. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
The proposed project will not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). The project was reviewed by Riverside Transit
Agency (RTA). RTA concluded that the project is not near existing or planned RTA bus routes and will
not impact RTA services at this time. In addition, the project will be conditioned to install Class II bike
lanes along Margarita Road and Date Street to encourage alternative transportation. Therefore no
impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species identified
as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant No
Impac[ Incorporated Impact Impact
\\TEMEC_FS101 \VOL1 \DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\243pa98 new IES.doc
9
Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected
wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Comments:
Pursuant to a biological assessment and jurisdictional determination dated June 29, 1999, the
subject site will not have a substantial adverse effect either directly or through habitat modifications on
candidate, sensitive or special species. The assessment concluded that the proposed project will not
have an adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game, or the US Fish
and Wildlife Service. Moreover, the biological assessment concluded that there are no federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act that will be adversely effected by
the proposed project. The site has been historically disturbed by farming, grazing and discing, and
there are no sensitive biological resources or significant waters that will be affected by the proposed
project.
7. d.
The biological assessment of the site dated June 29, 1999 states that the proposed project will not
interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites. On February 19, 1999, a focused habitat survey for the federally listed endangered
Quino chekerspot butterfly (QCB) was conducted in accordance with the Service's 1999 protocol. The
survey resulted with no QCB observed on the subject site
The subject site does have important raptor foraging habitat due to the high abundance of prey species.
However, there were few roosting sites available because of the total lack fo large trees. Because
foraging habitat for raptor species is not regionally unique, the loss of this resource would not be
significant (biological assessment dated June 29, 1999.
The biological survey concludes that the project site provides habitat for several wildlife species,
however, none of these are rare or endangered. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of
this project.
7.e.
The project will not result in an impact to locally designated species. Locally designated species are
protected in the Old Town Temecula Specific Plan; however, they are not protected elsewhere in the
City. Since this project is not located in Old Town, and since there are no locally designated species on
site, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
7 .f. The project site is located within the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Habitat Fee Area. Although the biological
assessment concludes that the Stephens Kangaroo Rat is not likely to occur onsite, the project will be
\\TEMEC FS 101 \VOL1 \DEPTS%PLANNING\CEQA\243pa98 new IES.doc
conditioned to comply with provisions of Chapter 8.24 of the Temecula Municipal Code (Habitat
Conservation) which requires payment of the Stephens Kangaroo Rat fee. No impacts are anticipated
as a result of this project.
8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Comments:
8.a,b.
The project will not result in the loss of available, known mineral resources nor in the loss of an
available, locally important mineral resource recovery site. The State Geologist has classified the City
of Temecula a classification of MRZ-3a, containing areas of sedimentary deposits, which have the
potential for supplying sand and gravel for concrete and crushed stone for aggregate. However, these
areas are determined as not containing deposits of significant economic value based upon available
data in reports prepared in accordance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) of 1975.
No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transportation, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-
quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles or a public airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
\\TEMEC_FS101 \VOL1 \DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA%243pa98 new IES.doc
11
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
No
Impact
working in the project area?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk or loss,
injury or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Comments:
9.8.
Because the property and the surrounding area will be used for single family homes and not a
commercial or industrial use, this project is not likely to create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Residential
development and habitation does not typically result in the routine transportation, use or disposal of
hazardous materials. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
9.b.
The ultimate development of this site will be single family homes. As such it is reasonably expected that
residents will not will not store or house large quantities of hazardous material that would create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. No impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
9.c,
The ultimate use of this project site will be single family homes. This site is within approximately one-
quarter mile of a proposed school and one-half mile from an existing high school. The operation of
construction equipment and machinery during the development of this site will emit some hazardous
emissions and or handle some hazardous material. However, these emissions and materials should be
of limited quantities over a short duration of time. Moreover, the construction operations or handling of
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste, are regulated by the Department of
Environmental Health and Occupational Safety and Health Agencies (OSHA). Because the potential
use, emission and operations of hazardous material or acutely hazardous materials, substances or
waste is minimal, of a short duration, and is regulated by the proper environmental authorities, less than
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
9.d.
This project site is not, nor is it located near a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials
sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 that would it create a significant hazard
to the public or the environment. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
9.e, f.
The project site is not located within an airport land use plan, but is located within approximately two
miles of a public or private airstrip. Given the fact that the project is being developed in compliance
with the General Plan Land Use Designation, and all impacts were analyzed in the General Plan
Environmental Impact Report, no significant impacts upon airport uses will result from this proposal.
9.g.
The project will take access from maintained public streets and will therefore not impede emergency
response or evacuation plans. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
9.h.
This project site in an area surrounded by vacant land existing single family homes; however the
subject site is not adjacent to any wildlands. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
\\TEMEC_FS101 \VOL1 \DEPTS\PLANNING%CEQA\243pa98 new IES.doc
12
10, NOISE. Would the project result in:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Exposure of people to severe noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
For a project located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Comments:
10.a.
This project site is designated for the development of single family homes. The site is currently vacant
and development of the land logically will result in increases to noise levels during construction phases
as well as increases to noise in the area over the long run. However, long-term noise generated by this
project would be within the limits of the General Plan standards for residential development. Less than
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
10.b.
This project site is designated for the development of single family homes. There will be no activities
on this site that would exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels. No impacts are anticipated.
10.c.
The project will ultimately result in the development of 38 single family homes and two open space lots
which will create some noise levels over that currently emanating from the vacant land. However,
those noises will not be substantial nor permanent and are not anticipated to create a substantial
permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project. Therefore, only less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project,
10.d.
The project may result in temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels during construction.
Construction machinery is capable of producing noise in the range of 100+ DBA at 100 feet which is
considered very annoying. However, this source of noise from construction of the project will be of
short duration and therofore would not be considered significant. Furthermore, construction activity will
comply with City ordinances regulating the hours of activity in residential areas. No significant impacts
are anticipated.
10.e.f. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan, but is located within approximately two
miles of a public or private airstrip. Given the fact that the project is being developed in compliance
\\TEMEC_FS101 \VOL1 \DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\243pa98 new IES.doc
13
with the General Plan Land Use Designation, and all impacts were analyzed in the General Plan
Environmental Impact Report, no significant impacts upon airport uses will result from this proposal.
11. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered Government services in any of the following areas:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associates with the provisions of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or
physically altered governmental facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objectives for any of the
public services?
b. Fire protection? ,/
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant No
Impact incorporated Impact Impact
c, Police protection?
,/
d. Schools? ,/
e. Parks? ,/
f. Other public facilities?
Comments:
11.a.,b.,c.,e. and f.
The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered fire,
police, recreation or other public facilities. The project will incrementally increase the need for some
services such as parks, schools, police and fire protection. Hever, the project will contribute its fair
share through the City's Development Impact Fees to the maintenance or provision of services from
these entities. Due to its small scale, less than significant impacts are anticipated.
11.d.
The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a need for new or altered school
facilities. The project will not cause significant numbers of people to relocate within or to the City. The
cumulative effect from the project will be mitigated through the payment of applicable School Fees.
Less than significant impacts are anticipated.
\\TEMEC_FS 101 \VOL1 \DEPTS\PLANNI NG\CEQA\243pa98 new IES.doc
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
Potentially
Potentially Significant Less Than
Significant Unless Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated impact
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water ./'
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the projecrs projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the projecrs solid waste disposal needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
No
Comments:
12.a., b. and e.
The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of new
treatment facilities, nor affect the capacity of treatment providers. The project will have an incremental
effect upon existing systems. However, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's
General Plan states: "implementation of the proposed General Plan would not significantly impact
wastewater services." Since the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project. Moreover, the project will be conditioned to comply with the
Regional Water Quality Control Board standards that will be monitored by the Department of Public
Works. No significant impacts are anticipated.
12.c.
The project will not result in the need for new storm water drainage facilities. The development of the
tract will require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities on site that will
connect to the existing system currently in place located within Margarita Road at the southwest corner
of the site. The design of the existing system is sufficient to handle this project and will not require the
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
Drainage fees are required by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to
reimburse the county for the Murrieta Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan. No significant
impacts are anticipated.
12.d. The project will not significantly impact existing water supplies nor require expanded water entitlements.
The project will have an incremental effect upon existing systems. While the project will have an
incremental impact upon existing systems, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the City's
%\TEMEC_FS101 \VOL1 ~DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\243pag8 new IES.doc
15
12.f,g.
General Plan states: "both EMWD and RCWD have indicated an ability to supply as much water as is
required in their services areas (p. 39)." The FEIR further states: "implementation of the proposed
General Plan would not significantly impact wastewater services (p. 40)." Since the project is
consistent with the City's General Plan, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
There are no septic tanks on site or proximate to the site. No significant impacts are anticipated as a
result of this project.
The project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity. Any potential impacts from solid waste
created by this development can be mitigated through participation in Source Reduction and Recycling
Programs, which are implemented by the City. Less than a significant impact is anticipated as a result
of this project.
13. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
NO
Impact
,f
C=
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but
not limited to, trees, rock outcropping, and historic
building within a state scenic highway?
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of the site and its surroundings?
Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Comments:
13.a.
The project will not affect a scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not located in an area where
there is a scenic vista. The City does not have any designated scenic highways. No impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
13.b-c. The project site has no unique physical attributes, therefore the future development will not
substantially degrade any scenic resources, or alter the visual character. When the residential
structures are built, the design of the homes will be reviewed by the Planning Department to ensure
compatibility with the surrounding area and a high quality architectural design. Therefore, no impacts
are anticipated as a result of this project.
13.d.
The project will have a potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project will produce and
result in light and glare with the installation of new light sources. All light and glare has the potential to
impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. The future development of the project site will be conditioned
to comply with Ordinance No. 655 Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution. After mitigation is performed,
less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING~CEQA\243pa98 new IES.doc
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resoume as defined in Section 1506.57
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 1506.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Potentially
Significant
ImDact
Potentially
Significant Unless
Mitigatjon
tncorporated
LessThan
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
14 a. thru d.
The site is not located in an area that has high archaelogical sensitivity pursuant to the General Plan
(Source 1, Figure, 5-6). Figure 5-7 of the General Plan indicates that the subject site is located within
an area of potential paleontological sensitivity. The Eastern Information Center of the University of
California at Riverside (UCR) has reviewed the project and has determined that a Phase I cultural
resource study identified no cultural resources. UCR recommends that if, during construction, cultural
resources are encountered, work should be halted or diverted in the immediate area while a qualified
archaeologist evaluated the finds and makes recommendations. Therefore, with appropriate mitigation
measures placed on the project and review of UCR, a less than significant impact is anticipated as a
result of this project.
15. RECREATION. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated?
Does the project include recreational facilities or require
the construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
~rnpact Incorporated Impact Impact
Comments:
15.a,b. The project will have an impact on the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational
facilities, or affect existing recreational opportunities. However, the project will be conditioned to pay in-
lieu (Quimby) fees, which will be used for park land acquisition of future park land and/or improvements
of existing parks. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
\\TEMEC_FS 101 \VOL 1 \DEPTS\PLANNI NG\CEQA\243pa98 new IES.doc
16. Agricultural Resources. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
b. Conflict with the existing zoning for agricultural use, or a ,,/
Williamson Act contract?
c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, ,/
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion
of farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Potentially
Potentially Significant Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Comments:
16a,c. The project site is not currently in agricultural production and is not considered prime or unique of
Farmland of statewide importance pursuant the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency. Figure 5-4 of the General Plan indicates that the subject site is farmland
of local importance; however, the site is zoned Low Medium Density Residential with existing
development or planned development around the entire site. Moreover, the site is not currently in
agricultural production. The subject site is not considered valuable farmland or the conversion of
farmland to non-agricultural use. There are no impacts related to this issue.
16b.
The project site does not have an agricultural zoning designation by the City of Temecula (Source 1,
Figure 5-5), and the site is not regulated by a Williamson Act contract. As a consequence there are no
impacts related to this issue.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
\\TEMEC_FSlOl\VOLl\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\243pa98 new IES,doc
18
Issues and Supporting information Sources
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, reduce the number of
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? CCumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects of past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects?
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
impact
No
Comments:
17.a.
This site has not been previously graded and is completely surrounded by residential development and
does not contain any viable habitat for fish or wildlife species. This is an in-fill development and it does
not have the potential to: degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten
to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number of restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory. Therefore less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
17.b.
The cumulative effects from the project are not considered significant because the subject site is being
development in conformance with the City of Temecula's General Plan and Development Code. All
cumulative effects for the residential land use of the subject site as well as the surrounding
developments were analyzed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report. Given the projects
consistency with the General Plan and Development Code, the cumulative impact related to the
development of the 38 residential lots will not have a significant impact.
17.c.
The tract map and the future development of single family homes will not have environmental effects
that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly. The subdivision is
designed and will be developed consistent with the Development Code and General Plan. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR,
or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or
negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following
on attached sheets.
a. I Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
\\TEM EC_FS 101 \VOL1 \DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\243pa98 new IES .doc
Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which affects from the above check list were within the
scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and
state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and
the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
18.a. No earlier analyses specifically related to this project site were used. The City's General Plan and Final
Environment Impact Report were used as a referenced source in preparing this Initial Study
18.b. There were no earlier impacts which affected this project.
18.c. The mitigation measures are addressed in the Mitigation Monitoring Program which is attached.
SOURCES
(Available in the Temecula Planning Department)
City of Temecula General Plan.
City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
\\TEMEC_FS101 ~VOL1 \DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\243pa98 new IES.doc
20
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\243pa99.PC.doc
45
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Planning Application No. PA99o0243 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 29286; Planning
Application No. PA99-0244 (General Plan Amendment) and Planning Application No.
PA99-0245 (Zone Change)
GeoloQic Problems
General Impact:
Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking.
Mitigation Measure:
Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards.
Specific Process:
A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be
submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial
grading plan check. Building pads shall be certified by a
registered Civil Engineer.
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Department of Public Works and Building and Safety Department.
General Impact:
Expose people to impacts from seismic ground failure, including
liquefaction.
Mitigation Measure:
Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards.
Specific Process:
A soils report prepared by a registered Civil Engineer shall be
submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial
grading plan check. Building pads shall be certified by a
registered Civil Engineer.
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Department of Public Works and Building and Safety Department.
General Impact:
Expose people to risks to life or property due to expansive soils.
Mitigation Measure:
Utilize construction techniques that are consistent with the
Uniform Building Code.
Specific Process:
Submit construction plans to the Building and Safety Department
for approval.
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Building and Safety Department.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA%243pa98 M.M. Pgm..doc
1
Water
General Impact:
The project will violate water quality or waste discharge
requirements
Mitigation Measure:
An erosion control plan shall be prepared in accordance with City
requirements and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) shall be prepared in accordance with the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements.
Specific Process:
The applicant shall submit a SWPPP to the San Diego Regional
Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) for their review and
approval.
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP).
General Impact:
The project will substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of
the site
Mitigation Measure:
An erosion control plan shall be prepared in accordance with City
requirements and a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) shall be prepared in accordance with the National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements.
Specific Process:
The applicant shall submit a SWPPP to the San Diego Regional
Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) for their review and
approval.
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Department of Public Works and SDRWQCB (for SWPPP).
Transportation/Circulation
General Impact:
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Mitigation Measure:
Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements and
traffic impacts.
Specific Process:
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the
Temecula Municipal Code.
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Building and Safety Department.
\\TEMEC_FS101WOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA~43pa98 M.M. Pgm..doc
2
General Impact: Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Mitigation Measure:
Payment of Development Impact Fee for traffic signal mitigation.
Specific Process:
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the
Temecula Municipal Code.
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of building permit.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Building and Safety Department.
Bioloqical Resources
General Impact:
Endangered, threatened or ram species or their habitats (including
but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds).
Mitigation Measure:
Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephens Kangaroo Rat.
Specific Process:
Pay $250. per unit of disturbed area of Stephens Kangaroo Rat
habitat.
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Department of Public Works and Planning Department.
General Impact:
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and
Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service.
Mitigation Measure:
Comply with the conditions of approval and mitigation measure for
the 1603 permit (Notification No. 6-027-99) issued by the
California Department of Fish and Game on March 11, 1999.
Specific Process:
Submit evidence of compliance with the approved conceptual
implementation plan per the approved 1603 permit with the
mitigation ratio of 3 to 1.
Mitigation Milestone:
Create mitigation monitoring area for five (5) years for successful
restoration area (timing established by the California Department
of Fish and Game 1603 permit).
Responsible Monitoring Party:Department of Public Works and Planning Department.
\\TEMEC_FS101WOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA~243pa98 M.M. Pgrn..doc
3
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Have a substantial adverse effect of federally protected wetlands
as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means
Comply with the conditions of approval for the 404 permit (Permit
No. 980032500-SDM) issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife on
June 30, 1999.
Submit evidence of compliance with the approved conceptual
implementation plan per the approved 1603 permit as the 404
permit does not require an implementation plan with the mitigation
ratio of 3 to 1.
Create mitigation monitoring area for five (5) years for successful
restoration area (timing established by the California Department
of Fish and Game 1603 permit).
Responsible Monitoring Party:Department of Public Works and Planning Department.
Noise
General Impact:
Expose people to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels.
Mitigation Measure:
Construction activity shall comply with City ordinances regulating
the hours of activity in residential areas.
Specific Process:
City inspectors shall periodically monitor the construction site to
ensure compliance.
Mitigation Milestone:
During active construction of the site.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Building & Safety Department and Department of Public Works.
Public Services
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
A substantial effect upon and a need for new/altered schools. No
significant impacts are anticipated.
Payment of School Fees.
Pay current mitigation fees with the Temecula Valley Unified
School District.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Building & Safety Department and Temecula Valley Unified
School District.
\\TEMEC_FS101WOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEOA~243pa98 M.M. Pgm..doc
4
General Impact: A substantial effect upon and a need for maintenance of public
facilities, including roads.
Mitigation Measure:
Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements,
traffic impacts, and public facilities.
Specific Process:
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the
Temecula Municipal Code.
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Building and Safety Department.
Aesthetics
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
The creation of new light sources will result in increased light and
glare that could affect the Palomar Observatory.
Use lighting techniques that are consistent with Ordinance No.
655.
for
Submit lighting plan to the Building and Safety Department
approval.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Building & Safety Department.
Cultural Resources
General Impact:
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature.
Mitigation Measure:
The project was reviewed by the Eastern Information Center of the
University of California at Riverside (UCR) and determined that a
Phase I cultural resource study identified no cultural resources.
UCR recommends that if, during construction, cultural resources
are encountered, work should be halted or diverted in the
immediate area while a qualified archaeologist evaluated the finds
and makes recommendations.
Specific Process:
Place a condition on this project that grading will cease if cultural
resources are encountered during grading per UCR's
recommendation.
Mitigation Milestone:
During the grading process.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Public Works Department.
\\TEMEC_FS101WOL1\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA~243pa98 M.M. Pgm..doc
5
ATTACHMENT 6
ZONING MAP
F:\Depts\PLANNING\T M\243pa99 (TM 29286)\243pa99CC.doc
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - Planning Application No. PA99-0243 (Tentative Tract Map No. 29286),
=A99-0244 (General Plan Amendment), PA99-0245 (Zoning Amendment)
ATTACHMENT 6 ZONING MAP
CITY COUNCIL DATE - March 28, 2000
F:'iDepts~PLANNING\T M\243pa99 (TM 29286)\243pa99CC,doc
20
ATTACHMENT 7
FIGURE 2-5 OF THE GENERAL PLAN
F:\Depts\PLANNING\T M\243pa99 (TM 29286)\243pa99CC.doc
SPECIFIC PLAN OVERI ,AY
~Approved Specific Plan
Areas
.O Proposed Specific Plan
Areas
SUBJECT SITE
General Plan Program
TUt' [T~IU:NNING
CENTER
FIGURE 2-5
ITEM 8
APPROVAL b~"
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINAN
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City ManagedCity Council
/i~tWilliam G. Hughes, Acting Director of Public Works/City Engineer
March 28, 2000
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
PREPARED BY: All Moghadam, Senior Engineer - Traffic
RECOMMENDATION:
Program
That the City Council adopt the Neighborhood Traffic Calming
BACKGROUND: At the meeting of August 24, 1999, the City Council directed staff
to conduct a demonstration project by installing temporary traffic circles on Via Cordoba and
evaluate their effectiveness in reducing vehicular speeds and volumes. Recognizing that
residents commonly express concern for excessive speed and volume on nearly every
residential street in the City, the City Council also directed Staff to develop a Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Program that would create a toolbox of accepted strategies that could be used
to alleviate residential traffic concerns.
Traffic calming is not new to the City of Temecula. In the past, the City has experimented with
speed undulations and more recently traffic circles and median islands as a means of controlling
vehicle speeds and volumes on residential streets. To date, the speed undulation test on Calle
Pina Colada has proven to be somewhat effective in reducing vehicular speeds but not
volumes. The residents' perception is that the speed undulations are ineffective and should be
removed. The temporary traffic circle and median island experiment on Via Cordoba, however,
has proven to be ineffective in reducing vehicle speeds and volumes along the roadway.
Based on the direction received by the City Council, staff has developed a comprehensive
program for addressing neighborhood traffic concerns. The goal of the program is to establish
procedures and techniques that will mitigate impacts created by vehicular traffic on residential
streets. The Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program's objective is to:
· Reduce vehicular traffic on local residential streets without severely impacting the residents
and general public;
· Reduce vehicular speeds on local residential streets without severely impacting the
residents and general public;
· Preserve and enhance pedestrian and bicycle access to neighborhood destinations;
· Encourage citizen involvement in neighborhood traffic management activities;
· Provide a process that will address neighborhood traffic concerns; and,
· Provide a process that will facilitate local traffic management requests.
I
R:\agdrpt\00\0328\trafficcalming\ajp
At the meeting of March 9, 2000, the Public/Traffic Safety Commission received a report and
provided input regarding the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. Following a brief
discussion, the Public/Traffic Safety Commission approved the program with some minor
additions and directed staff to forward the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program to the City
Council. Copies of the staff report and attachments are provided for information.
The application of the neighborhood traffic calming program is intended to be progressive in
nature with staff, the Public/Traffic Safety Commission, and Police Department working closely
with neighborhood representatives to identify the problem and determine the appropriate
solution. The program wilt address traffic calming in a two-stage approach. Stage 1 is
comprised of actions that are primarily education and enforcement based. Historically, the City
has practiced some of these strategies when responding to requests from residents.
Stage 2 is comprised of actions that involve the use of roadway design features to reduce
vehicular speeds and volumes. While these can be more effective than Stage 1, they are
generally accompanied by a variety of negative impacts related to emergency vehicle response
times, safety problems for some roadway users, diversion of traffic, and aesthetic impacts.
Because of the potential for negative impacts from Stage 2 features, staff believes there needs
to be considerable involvement and "buy in" from representatives of the neighborhood prior to
consideration of implementation.
In fact, the involvement of the neighborhood and its representatives is essential to the eventual
success of any traffic calming strategy implemented. At a minimum the program will include
implementation of Stage I traffic calming tools. The decision to consider Stage 2 features will
include the neighborhood, staff, the Public/Traffic Safety Commission, and City Council. Stage
2 features will be implemented as a temporary measure prior to installation of a permanent
design feature. The minimum evaluation period for any temporary measure shall be 4 months.
Listed below are the traffic calming tools that may be used during each stage of the program.
Stage 1 - Education and Enforcement
Neighborhood Traffic Safety Awareness Program - The first step in any traffic calming
strategy is to educate neighborhood drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, residents, nonresidents,
children and adults of existing traffic laws and roadway responsibilities. The City of
Temecula has developed pamphlets that are geared to providing a greater awareness of the
rules of the road.
Radar Speed Trailer Deployment - When appropriate, the radar speed monitoring trailer will
be used to educate motorists by advising them of their travel speed. The radar speed trailer
can also be used to show the residents that actual travel speeds may not be as high as they
are perceived.
Neighborhood Speed Watch Program - The purpose of this program is to help
neighborhood groups identify vehicles that are significantly exceeding the prima facie or
posted speed limit by use of the City provided "hand held" radar monitoring device. The
offenders could be notified and warned by mail. "Neighborhood Speed Watch" signs could
be installed at each entrance to the neighborhood streets.
· Traditional Enfomement - This action is intended to modify driver behavior that will result in
safer conditions for neighbors and drivers alike.
· Speed Limit Signs - Post 25-MPH speed limit signs and pavement markings on residential
streets to reinforce the prima facie speed limit.
2
R:~gdrpt\00\0328\trafficcalming\ajp
Residential Multi-Way Stop Controls - Where appropriate, multi-way stop signs are installed
to establish the right-of-way at residential street intersections. The warrant criteria for the
use of multi-way stop controls may be lower than the arterial roadway criteria. When used
inappropriately, stop signs have been ineffective at controlling or reducing vehicular speeds
and volumes on residential streets. Studies have shown that driver compliance with traffic
control devices decreases and vehicular speeds increase between the "stop" locations.
Unwarranted stop signs increase unnecessary noise and air pollution and often cause
inconvenience to drivers who comply with existing laws.
Stage 2 -Roadway Design Features
Pavement Markings - This roadway design feature narrows the travel way by striping a
centerline and edge lines or bike lanes along a segment of roadway. This feature has
proven to be effective in certain situations but may not be appropriate at every location.
Bike lane striping may eliminate on-street parking.
Speed Undulations - There is a policy in place for the use of speed undulations on
residential streets. Speed undulations have proven effective at reducing vehicular speeds,
but not vehicular volumes. This roadway design feature may not be appropriate at every
location and there are several disadvantages associated with their implementation including
diverting traffic to another location.
Traffic Circles - This roadway design feature is a raised circular island typically installed in
the middle of a residential street intersection. To date, the traffic circle has proven
ineffective in reducing overall vehicular speeds although speeds were reduced at the traffic
circle location. This roadway design feature may not be appropriate at every location and
there are several disadvantages associated with this feature.
Staff suggests that if the City Council determines that the traffic circles are not a viable option on
Via Cordoba, this roadway feature could be deleted from the Stage 2 category.
The traffic calming matrix included in the body of the program document identifies the benefits
and impacts of each of the traffic calming tools identified above.
Although the City of Temecula has a road closure policy in place the Neighborhood Traffic
Calming Program does not recognize a road closure or permanent barricade as a viable traffic
calming strategy. Therefore, road closures and/or permanent barricades are not included in the
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program.
Along with the available tools, the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program includes identification
of implementation considerations (i.e....financial impacts, liability and legal issues, and physical
impacts), criteria and application process that will be used to address the requests for traffic
calming measures and the tools that are likely to be used.
Staff recommends approval of the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
2. March 9, 2000 Public/Traffic Safety Commission Agenda Report
3
R:%agdrpt\00\0328\trafficcalming%ajp
CITY OF TEMECULA
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM
PURPOSE
Since incorporation in 1989, the City of Temecula has focused on quality of life for Temecula
residents. One area that is under constant scrutiny is traffic, both on major arterials and in
residential neighborhoods.
Recognizing the need to mitigate speed control issues on neighborhood thoroughfares, the City has
developed a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. The goal of the program is to establish
procedures and techniques that will promote neighborhood livability by mitigating the negative
impacts of automobile traffic on residential streets.
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
To promote safe and pleasant conditions on neighborhood streets for residents, pedestrians,
bicyclists and motorists, the City's Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program objective is to:
· Reduce vehicular traffic on local residential streets without severely impacting the residents and
general public;
· Reduce vehicular speeds on local residential streets without severely impacting the residents
and general public;
· Preserve and enhance pedestrian and bicycle access to neighborhood destinations;
· Encourage citizen involvement in neighborhood traffic management activities;
· Provide a process that will address neighborhood traffic concerns; and,
· Provide a process that will facilitate local traffic management requests.
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION AND NEIGHBORHOOD IDENTIFICATION
The two basic elements of neighborhood traffic calming are the roadway functional classification and
neighborhood identification. Classifying roadways according to their mobility function and interaction
with adjacent land uses assists in defining the roadway types that are suited for traffic calming
strategies.
Roadway Classification
In the City of Temecula there are five functional roadway classifications. The classifications are
Arterial, Major, Secondary, Principal Collector, and Local. Since the goal of any traffic calming
strategy is to reduce the opportunity for shortcutting and/or speeding on residential streets, the focus
of the traffic calming strategies will be on local streets, or streets that are primarily residential in
nature.
R:\traffic\policy\traffic calming program/ajp
Neiqhborhood Identification
Traffic calming strategies will be focused on neighborhoods, particularly those where traffic pattems
have changed. Each neighborhood is unique and it is recognized that individual features or
characteristics will be important considerations in any application of traffic calming techniques. Input
from residents of a particular neighborhood will be solicited early in the process to define traffic
problems and assist in identifying the boundaries of the area of impact. Local characteristics and
neighborhood identities will be important factors to consider when analyzing each problem and
developing mitigation measures.
IMPLEMENTATION CONDISERATIONS
Financial Impacts
The costs for analyzing requests and implementing traffic calming strategies are variable and there
is a wide range of costs from inexpensive to capital intensive. The lower cost strategies include
enforcement, educational programs, signage and installing roadway markings. A change to the
physical layout of the roadway often demands more financial resources. During the evaluation of
traffic calming strategies, staff may determine that mitigation measures be tested incrementally to
minimize unnecessary major expenditures.
The City's budget generally covers the cost of installing and maintaining traffic control devices and
speed undulations. The availability of funds for the installation of roadway design features will be
dependent on overall priorities identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP). In
circumstances where cost-intensive traffic calming strategies are needed, it may be necessary to
weigh the timing of their installation against other demands on the CIP.
Additionally, costs associated with the maintenance of the landscaping at roadway design features
will need to be programmed in the CIP.
Traffic Control Devices or Roadway Design Features
Traffic calming strategies may fall into one of two categories, traffic control devices or roadway
design features. Traffic control devices regulate, warn or guide motorists on roadways. There is
defined methodolgy for assessing their applicability to certain roadway conditions and characteristics.
These conditions and characteristics are defined in the California Vehicle Code and the State of
California, Department of Transportation, Traffic Manual. Traffic control devices are nationally and
internationally standardized and are easily recognized by a majority of drivers.
Roadway design features constitute physical changes to a roadway designed to make it inconvenient
or perceptibly more time consuming to use a local street. Typically roadway design features are
permanent modifications to the width, surface or alignment of the roadway. Examples of roadway
design features include speed undulations, median islands, chokers, traffic circles, and street
closures. These features also cause inconvenience for the local residents and may result in
increased emergency vehicle response times.
Local governments are empowered to install roadway design features. All features must take into
consideration roadway safety.
Although the City of Temecula has a road closure policy in place, the Neighborhood Traffic Calming
Program does not recognize a road closure or permanent barricade as a viable traffic calming
strategy. Therefore, road closures and/or permanent barricades are not included in the
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
2
R:\traffic~policy\traffic calming program/ajp
Physical Impacts
Traffic calming strategies that involve traffic control devices and madway design features may have
impacts that include increased noise, air pollution, visual intrusion, restricted access, removal of on-
street parking, increased emergency response times, and obstacles to bicycles and pedestrians.
1. Impacts to Emergency Vehicles
Traffic calming devices that alter the roadway or create obstacles in the path of a vehicle can
increase the response times for emergency personnel. The delay in response time will vary
depending on the characteristics of the roadway and the traffic calming device, the availability
of alternate routes, and the type of emergency vehicle.
2. Impacts to Utility Vehicles and Buses
Traffic calming devices that alter the roadway may have an impact on utility trucks, trash
collection trucks, transit buses, dial-a-ride vehicles, and school buses. Vehicles on repetitive
routes that access roadways that have speed undulations may experience maintenance or
replacement of parts more frequently. Likewise, vehicles that access roadways with traffic
circles will experience maneuverability problems.
3. Impacts to Surrounding Streets
Both categories of traffic calming strategies may impact the quality of life at adjacent
neighborhoods by diverting traffic to the surrounding street network. While this may serve the
intended purpose to reduce vehicle speeds and volumes on a certain madway, it may mean that
all traffic, local and non-local will use parallel or adjacent roadways more frequently.
Due care will be exercised to minimize the negative or unintended impacts to adjacent roadways
and neighborhoods. Potentially impacted residents and property owners will be notified of any
proposed action, and will be given an opportunity to provide input before any decision is made.
4. Impacts to Residents
All roadway design features will result in an inconvenience to the residents that use the roadway
on a daily basis. Some type of roadway design features may reduce accessibility to residential
driveways.
5. Loss of On-Street Parking
The installation of traffic control devices, pavement markings, and/or roadway design features
may require the removal of on-street parking to accommodate the implementation of the feature
and maximize the visibility to approaching vehicles.
6. Aesthetics
Roadway design features such as traffic circles can be made aesthetically pleasing by installing
landscaping, pavers, textured pavement or other hardscape. Other traffic calming devices such
as speed undulations cannot be aesthetically enhanced. All traffic control devices and roadway
design features will require standardized signing, striping and markings in colors and at locations
that may not be aesthetically pleasing. The City will strive to make all traffic calming devices as
aesthetically pleasing as possible and as cost effective as possible.
3
R:\traffic\policy~traffic calming program/ajp
Drainage
Roadway design features may impact the capacity of catch basins, cross-gutters, or other
drainage facilities. 8taft will ensure that any roadway modification does not negatively impact
drainage or cause the pending ef water on the roadway.
Landscape Irrigation
When landscaping is proposed as parl of the roadway modification feature, consideration must
be given to the location of the irrigation source. Providing irrigation to a landscaped traffic circle
may be cost prohibitive. This may result in the selection of other traffic calming devices or
treatments.
4
R:\traffic\policy\traffic calming program/ajp
CRITERIA FOR APPLICATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING
TECHNIQUES
Neighborhood traffic calming is most efficient when directed at reducing vehicular volumes and
speeds in residential areas. The criteria listed below define the roadways and portions thereof that
qualify for traffic calming consideration. The criteda constitutes a guideline for application of traffic
calming techniques.
Residential streets must satisfy the following basic parameters:
1. A roadway or portion thereof must not be designated on the City's General Plan Circulation Plan.
General Plan roadways are expected to provide major connections to a variety of land uses
throughout the City. Volumes and speeds are expected to be higher than those on local
roadways.
2. Candidate roadway segments must be at least '~ mile in length.
Traffic calming strategies are more effective on bad driving habits on longer stretches of
roadway.
3. The average daily traffic must significantly exceed the expected volumes based on the number
of dwelling units accessing the subject roadway.
Residential areas typically generate 10 vehicles per day per household. An average daily traffic
volume between 1,200 to 2,500 vehicles per day can be expected on a typical residential
roadway, depending on the characteristics. Traffic calming techniques will address vehicular
volumes that exceed the expected volumes, providing disincentives to using neighborhood
roadways as a cut-through or bypass route.
4. The 85th percentlie speed must exceed the posted or prima facie speed limit by 10 miles per
hour.
The prima facie speed limit on residential roadways is 25 miles per hour as mandated by the
California Vehicle Code. Engineering and Traffic Sup/eys have shown that typical 85th percentlie
speeds on residential streets range from 30 to 34 miles per hour, despite the posted or prima
facie speed limit.
By addressing vehicular speeds that are above the 85~h percentlie, traffic calming techniques will
focus on driver behavior that is considered unreasonable for conditions.
While intrusive traffic calming devices such as speed undulations and traffic circles are intended to
target the minority (15th percentlie) of drivers that do not adhere to the established laws, these
devices will affect the majority of the drivers (85th percentlie), who comply with the existing laws.
5
R:\traffic~policy\traffic calming program/ajp
APPLICATION PROCESS
Neighborhood traffic calming is intended to be progressive in nature, with City staff working in
conjunction with the Public/Traffic Safety Commission, Police Department and neighborhood
representatives to determine the problem and identify the appropriate solution. The City of
Temecula's Neighbor Traffic Calming Program will address traffic calming strategies in a two-stage
approach. Stage 1 is comprised of actions that are primarily education and enforcement based.
Stage 2 involves the use of readway design features intended to reduce vehicular speeds and
volumes. Listed below are the traffic calming tools that may be used during each stage of the
program.
Stage I - Education and Enforcement
Neighborhood Traffic Safety Awareness Program - The first step in any traffic calming strategy
is to educate neighborhood drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, residents, nonresidents, children and
adults of existing traffic laws and roadway responsibilities. The City of Temecula has developed
pamphlets that are geared to providing a greater awareness of the rules of the road.
Radar Speed Trailer Deployment - When appropriate, the radar speed monitoring trailer will be
used to educate motorists by advising them of their travel speed. The radar speed trailer can
also be used to show the residents that actual travel speeds may not be as high as they are
perceived.
Neighborhood Speed Watch Program - The purpose of this program is to help neighborhood
groups identify vehicles that are significantly exceeding the pdma facie or posted speed limit by
use of the City provided "hand held" radar monitoring device. The offenders could be notified
and warned by mail. "Neighborhood Speed Watch" signs could be installed at each entrance to
the neighborhood streets.
· Traditional Enforcement - This action is intended to modify driver behavior that will result in safer
conditions for neighbors and drivers alike.
· Speed Limit Signs - Post 25-MPH speed limit signs and pavement markings on residential
streets to reinforce the pdma facie speed limit.
Residential Multi-Way Stop Controls - Where appropriate, multi-way stop signs are installed to
establish the right-of-way at residential street intersections. The warrant criteria for the use of
multi-way stop controls may be lower than the arterial roadway criteria. When used
inappropriately, stop signs have been ineffective at controlling or reducing vehicular speeds and
volumes on residential streets. Studies have shown that driver compliance with traffic control
devices decreases and vehicular speeds increase between the "stop" locations. Unwarranted
stop signs increase unnecessary noise and air pollution and often cause inconvenience to ddvers
who comply with existing laws.
Where education and enforcement fall short of addressing the perceived speeding and volume
problem, the City will analyze the feasibility of installing roadway design features. These Stage 2
engineering strategies will be evaluated on their effectiveness in achieving the desired reduction
in vehicular speeds and volumes. The benefit of the roadway design feature will be weighed against
any adverse impact to adjacent roadways and neighborhoods. The Stage 2 features should be
implemented as a temporary measure prior to installation of a permanent design feature. The
minimum evaluation period shall be 4 months.
6
R:\traffic\policy\traffic calming program/ajp
Stage 2 -Roadway Desicln Features
Pavement Markings - This roadway design feature narrows the travel way by striping a centerline
and edge lines or bike lanes along a segment of roadway. This feature has proven to be
effective in certain situations but may not be appropriate at even/location. Bike lane striping may
eliminate on-street parking.
Speed Undulations - There is a policy in place for the use of speed undulations on residential
streets. Speed undulations have proven effective at reducing vehicular speeds, but not vehicular
volumes. This roadway design feature may not be appropriate at even/location and there are
several disadvantages associated with their implementation including diverting traffic to another
location.
Traffic Circles - This roadway design feature is a raised circular island typically installed in the
middle of a residential street intersection. To date, the traffic circle has proven ineffective in
reducing overall vehicular speeds although speeds were reduced at the traffic circle location.
This roadway design feature may not be appropriate at even/location and there are several
disadvantages associated with this feature.
POLICIES
The policies of the neighborhood traffic calming program will be communicated in the application
process. The policies listed below will be followed throughout the analysis and final determination
phases.
1. Safety of pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and residents is the prime concern of this program.
2. Significant vehicular volumes must not be diverted from one local roadway to another.
3. Emergency vehicle access must be preserved.
4. Auto, pedestrian, and bicycle access must be maintained for residents living within the traffic
calming area of impact.
5. All traffic control devices installed must comply with the California Vehicle Code.
6. Roadway design features will be planned and designed according to accepted engineering
practice.
7. The least intrusive traffic calming strategy will be implemented first. If the strategy is found to
be ineffective after a reasonable evaluation period, the City may consider more extensive
strategies.
PROCESS
Step 1. Communicatin~l a Request for Traffic Calmin.q Measures
To initiate a request for neighborhood traffic calming, an Application for Consideration of Traffic
Calming Measures must be completed. This form identifies the nature of the perceived problem, the
location and type of relief requested, and the contact person making the request, It is highly
advisable that the residents gather as much support as possible for the requested action.
7
R:\traffic\policy\trafgc calming program/ajp
After receipt of the application form, staff will identify the area of impact and provide a petition form
to the contact person identified on the application. Signatures representing at least 60% of
households within the affected area are necessary to initiate an analysis of the perceived problem.
Each household is entitled to only one signature. Nonresident property owners and their tenants
must decide who should sign the petition.
Step 2. Analysis
Following the receipt of the application form and petition, Public Works staff will begin the review and
analysis process. The analysis will include the gathering of relevant information, including but not
limited to vehicular volume data, vehicular speed data, pedestrian and bicycle activity, recorded
accident history, roadway charectedstics, and nearby land uses. During the review process staff will
meet with the residents of the affected area to receive input and define the issues. The evaluation
of the request will be conducted in conformance with accepted traffic engineering practices and
standards.
Based on the results of the evaluation, staff will determine the existence and magnitude of the traffic
related problem and recommend an appropriate traffic calming strategy. A conservative traffic
calming approach will be taken with the least intrusive strategy being implemented first.
Step 3. Consideration by Public/Traffic Safety Commission
Following the completion of the evaluation, the Public/Traffic Safety Commission will consider the
issue at their regular meeting. The residents of the affected area will be notified by mail or through
their designated representative, of the date that the issue will be considered.
In some cases, the issue will be forwarded to the City Council for their approval of the recommended
action.
Step 4. Consideration by the City Council
Following the Public/Traffic Safety Commission's consideration, the City Council will consider the
issue and provide a final recommendation.
Step 5 Implementation
Emphasis will be placed on the implementation of Stage 1 traffic calming strategies. If Stage 1
strategies fail to achieve the desired results then Stage 2 strategies may be considered.
In situations where Stage 2 traffic calming strategies are necessary, temporary design features will
be implemented for a period of approximately four months. During the four-month period the
effectiveness of the roadway design feature to reduce vehicular speeds and volumes will be
measured. The timing of implementation of a permanent improvement will depend on the results
of the evaluation and available funding.
Staff will prepare documents for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA).
Step 6 Evaluation
Following the implementation of the traffic calming strategies, a data collection effort will be
undertaken to determine the effectiveness of the devices. This "follow-up" data will provide valuable
information that may be used when considering similar devices at other locations.
8
R:\traffic\polisy\lraflic calming program/ajp
0 0 0 0 0 ~o 0 m cn
7 ~ ~ Z 7 >, ~' >, >,
0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 '~
Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z u~
0
o 0 0 o
Z Z Z Z Z
0 0
o o o E E ~> o ~
~ 0 o 0 0 o 0 '~ o
~n Z Z Z Z Z Z :o Z
o o
n n
0 0 0
~HgVAS
0
0
E
E
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLS
ED UCA TION
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC SAFETY AWARENESS PROGRAM
Stage 1 Tool
Consists of activities that inform and seek to modify driver behavior. Techniques include printed
information, meetings, and workshops between staff and residents, signing campaign,
enforcement activities, school programs, parent outreach, etc...
Advantages
· Can be relatively effective and inexpensive
· Involves and empowers citizens
· Works well with other mitigation tools
Disadvantages
· Not as effective on non-localized traffic
· Can be time consuming
· May take time to be effective
· Effectiveness may decrease over time
ED UCA TION
RADAR SPEED TRAILER DEPLOYMENT
Stage 1 Tool
Portable radar speed monitoring device capable of measuring vehicular speeds and displaying the
speed to advise motorists of their speed.
Advantages
· Educational tool
· Very good public relations tool
· Useful especially in areas where spot speed
reduction is necessary
Disadvantages
· Requires periodic enforcement
· Effective for limited duration
Unit moves frequently which requires
personnel
EDUCATION
NEIGHBORHOOD SPEED WATCH PROGRAM
Stage 1 Tool
This program will help neighborhood groups identify vehicles that are significantly exceeding the
prima facie speed limit or posted speed limit. Residents will use a "hand held" speed-monitoring
device to measure vehicle speeds.
Advantages
· Educational tool
· Very good public relations tool
· Allows identification of vehicles that are
significantly exceeding the speed limit
Disadvantages
· Requires periodic enforcement
· Effective for limited duration
· Can be time consuming
ETaFOR CEME?'VT
TRADITONAL ENFORCEMENT
Stage 1 Tool
Periodic monitoring of speeding and other violations by the police departeat.
, ,,.,, =..
Z Good temporary public relations toolvantages
Serves to inform public that s e ' · ect is not Permanent
unacceptable behavior for which the e Enforcement is an e~pens~ve tool
· Good ~e'~porary public relatt~~c~nsum~ng .
ENFOR CEMENT
SPEED LIMT SIGNS
Stage 1 Tool
Post speed limit signs on residential sweets to reinforce the prima facie speed limit.
r ~
SPE:E:D
LIMIT
Advantages
· Educational tool
· Reinforces prima facie speed limit
Disadvantages
· May have negligible impacts on speeds
· Ovemse is counterproductive
ENFORCEME VT
RESIDENTIAL MULTI-WAY STOP CONTROLS
Stage 1 Tool
Install multi-way stop controls to establish right-of-way and reduce vehicle conflicts at residential
street intersections. Stop controls will not be implemented to control vehicular speeds and
volumes.
Advantages
· Reduces vehicle conflicts by assigning
right-of-way
Disadvantages
· Increased noise near stops
· Increased emissions
· May induce non-compliance of traffic
control devices
· Does not reduce vehicular speeds
ROAD WAY D ESI GN FEA TUPjE
PAVEMENT MARKINGS
Stage 2 Tool
This feature narrows the travel way by striping a centerline and an edge line or bike lane along a
segment of roadway.
Advantages
· Inexpensive
· May reduce speed
· Edge treatment increases pedestrian and
bicyclists safety
· Low maintenance
Disadvantages
· May not be as effective as other physical
improvements
· May eliminate on-street parking
ROADWAY DESIGN FEATUPjE
SPEED UNDULATIONS
Stage 2 Tool
Speed undulations are wave shaped humps in the roadway which when ideally placed at 300 feet
apart can reduce vehicular speeds by 5 to 10 MPH.
Advantages
· Reduces vehicular speeds in the vicinity of
undulation
· Self enforcing
· Relatively inexpensive
Disadvantages
· May create noise
· May be a problem for emergency vehicles
· May impact drainage
· Vehicular speeds may increase between
undulations
· May increase vehicular volumes on other
streets
· Requires signage that may be considered
unsightly
ROADWAY DESIGN FEATURE
TRAFFIC CIRCLES
Stage 2 Tool
A small circular island placed in the center of existing residential street intersection.
Advantages
· Reduces vehicular speeds at intersection
· Effective at four-way intersections
· Provides area for landscaping
· Provides equal access to intersection for all
drivers
Disadvantages
· May be restrictive for larger vehicles
· May increase volumes on adjacent streets
· May increase vehicle speeds between circle
locations
· Maintenance responsibility if landscaped
· Required signing may bc unsightly
· May put pedestrians and bicyclists more at
risk duc to vehicle deflection
· Loss of on-street parking
· Unlawful left turns may compromise safety
CITY OF TEMECULA
APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF
TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES
Please fill out and mail this form to the City of Temecula, Public Works Department, P.O. Box
9033, Temecula, Califomia 92589-9033, or fax to (909) 694-6475.
Date
Contact Person
Street Address
Phone # Fax #
E-mail (if available)
Please indicate the location or street where you believe a problem exists. Be as specific as
possible as to the location, time of day, day of week, and the problem being observed.
Thank you for your input.
R:\traf~c\policy\traffic calming program/ajp
ANALYSIS PHASE
All requests for traffic calming measures will include the following:
· An approved application describing the perceived problem; and
· An indication of participation of the residents who would be impacted by the problem and/or
requested traffic calming measures.
Following the receipt of the application for consideration of traffic calming measures, staff will:
1. Determine the area of impact and provide a petition form to the listed contact person for the
collection of the necessary signatures.
Signatures representing at least 60% of households within the affected area are necessary to initiate
an analysis of the perceived problem. Each household is entitled to only one signature. Nonresident
property owners and their tenants must decide who should sign the petition.
2. Meet with the area residents to define the problem and develop solutions.
Residents within a localized area will be advised of the request and invited to participate in
identifying the perceived problem and developing solutions.
3. Evaluatetherequestaccordingtoacceptedtrafficengineeringpracticeandstandards.
The analysis will include the gathering of relevant information, including but not limited to vehicular
volume data, vehicular speed data, pedestrian and bicycle activity, recorded accident history. roadway
characteristics, and nearby land uses. The vehicular volume and speed data collection will be
performed by an independent contractor hired by the City of Temecula.
4. Determine a solution, if necessary.
Based on the results of the evaluation, staff will determine the existence and magnitudes of the traffic
related problem and recommend an appropriate traffic calming strategy. A conservative traffic
calming approach will be taken with the least intrusive strategy being implemented first.
5. Communicate the results of the evaluation to the requesting parties and residents withbt the area
of impact.
Residents will be notified by mail of the results of the evaluation. The City may poll affected
residents and property owners to determine the acceptability of potential traffic calming measures that
may be suggested.
6. Present the results of the evaluation to the Public/Traffic Safety Commission and solicit public
input.
7. Consideration by the City Council.
8. Implement traffic calming measures
9. Evaluate the results
2
R:\traffic\policy\traffic calming program/ajp
COUNCIL BUSINESS
ITEM 8
ATTACHMENT
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Public/Traffic Safety Commission
Ali Moghadam, P.E., Senior Engineer, Traffic
March 9, 2000
Item 4
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission review the report and provide input regarding the Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Program.
BACKGROUND:
At the meeting of August 24, 1999, the City Council directed staff to develop a Neighborhood Traffic Calming
Program that would create a toolbox of accepted strategies that could be used to alleviate residential traffic
concerns. The public has been notified of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission's consideration of this issue
through the agenda notification process.
Residents commonly express concern for excessive speed and voleme on heady every residential slreet in the
City. The challenge is to provide an effective means of reducing vehieniar speeds without signi~can~y
hnpacting the general public and adjacent neighborhoods. In the past, the City has experimented with speed
undulations and more reeen~y traffic circles as a means of controlling vehicular speeds and volumes on
residential streets.
To date, the speed undulation test on Calle Pina Colade has proven to be somewhat effective in reducing
vehicular speeds but not vehicular volumes. The residents' perception is that the speed undulations are
ineffective and should be removed. The temporary traffic circle experiment on Via Cordoba, however, has
proven to be ineffective in reducing vehicular speed and volume along the roadway.
Recognizing that these two types of roadway features may not be the 'cookie cutler" answer to addressing
speed and volume eontrul issues on residential roadways, staff has developed a comprehensive program for
neighborhood traffic calming. The goal of the program is to establish procedures and techniques that will
mitigate impacts created by vehicular traffic on residential streets. The Neighborhood Traffic Calming
Program's objective is to:
· Reduce vehicular traffic on local residential streets;
· Reduce vehicular speeds on local residential streets;
· Preserve and enhance pedesui an and bicycle access to neighborhood destinations;
· Encourage citizen involvement in neighborhood traffic management activities;
· Provide a process that will address neighborhood traffic concerns; and,
· Provide a process that will facilitate local traffic management requests.
The application of the neighborhood traffic cainring program is intended to be progressive m naru~ with staff
working closely with neighborhood r~pr~s~ntatives to identify the problem and determine the appropriate
solution. The program will address traffic calming in a two stage approach with Stage 1 being comprised of
actions that are primarily education and enforcement based. Stage 2 will involve the use of roadway design
features to reduce vehicular speeds and volumes.
The program also includes the policies and proccclurcs tha~ will be used w address the rcqucsU for u'af~c caXming
mcasurcs and the tools that are likely to be used.
HSCAL IMPACT:
NOlle
Attachment:
1. Exhibit "A~ - Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
CITY OF TEMECULA
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CALMING PROGRAM
PURPOSE
Since incorporation in 1989, the City of Temecula has focused on quality of life for Temecula residents. One
area that is under constant scrutiny is traffic, both on major artenals and in residential neighborhoods.
Recognizing the need to mitigate speed control issues on neighborhood thoroughfares, the City has
developed a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. The goal of the program is to establish procedures
and techniques that will promote neighborhood livability by mitigating the negative impacts of automobile
traffic on residential slreets.
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
To promote safe and pleasant conditions on neighborhood streets for residents, pedestrians, bicyclists and
motorists, the City' s Neighborhood Traffic Calm'rag Program objective is to:
· Reduce vehicular traffic on local residential streets;
· Reduce vehicular speeds on local residential streets;
· Preserve and enhance pedestrian and bicycle access to neighborhood destinations;
· Encourage citizen involvement in neighborhood traffic management activities;
· Provide a process that will address neighborhood traffic concerns; and,
· Provide a process that will facilitate local traffic management requests.
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION AND NEIGHBORHOOD IDENTIFICATION
The two basic elements of ncighborhood traffic calming are the roadway functional classification and
neighborhood identification. Classifying roadways accord'rag to their mobility function and interaction with
adjacent land uses assists in defm'mg the roadway types that are suited for traffic calming strategies.
Roadway Classification
In the City of Temecula there are five functional roadway classifications. The classifications are Arterial,
Major, Secondary, Principal Collector, and Local. Since the goal of any traffic calming strategy is to reduce
the opportunity for shortcutting and/or speeding on residential streets, the focus of the traffic calming
strategies will be on local streets, or streets that are primarily residential in nature.
Neighborhood Identification
Traffic calming strategies will be focused on neighborhoods, particularly those where traffic patterns have
changed. Each neighborhood is unique and it is recognized that individual features or characteristics will
be important considerations in any application of traffic calming techniques. Input from residents of a
particular neighborhood will be solicited early in the process to define traffic problems and assist in
identifying the boundaries of the area of impact. Local characteristics and neighborhood identities will be
important factors to consider when analyzing each problem and developing mitigation measures.
IMPLEMENTATION CONDISERATIONS
Financial Impacts
The costs for analyzing requests and implementing traffic calming strategies are variable and there is a wide
range of costs from inexpensive to capital intensive. The lower cost strategies include enforcement,
educational programs, signage and installing roadway markings. A change to the physical layout of the
roadway often demands more financial resources. During the evaluation of traffic calming s~rateg~es. staff
may determine that mitigation measures be tested incrementally to minimize unnecessary ma3or
expenditures.
The City's budget generally covers the cost of installing and maintaining traffic control devices and speed
undulations. The availability of funds for/he installation of roadway design features will be dependent on
overall priorities identified in the City's Capital Improvement Program (Cff'). In circumstances where cost-
intensive traffic calming strategies are needed, it may be necessary to weigh the timing of their installation
against other demands on the CI~P.
Additionally, costs associated with the maintenance of the landscaping at roadway design features will need
to be programmed in the CIP.
Liability and Legal Issues
Traffic calming strategies may fall into one of two categories, traffic control devices or roadway design
features. Traffic control devices regulate, warn or guide motorists on roadways. There is defined methodolgy
for assessing their applicability to certain roadway conditions and characteristics. These conditions and
characteristics are defined in the California Vehicle Code and the State of California, Department of
Transportation, Traffic Manual. Traffic control devices are nationally and internationally standardized and
are easily recognized by a majority of drivers. Variation from these standards often results in driver
confusion and may create liability problems for the jurisdiction.
Roadway design features constitute physical changes to a roadway designed to make it inconvenient or
perceptibly more time eonsurning to use a local sl~'eet. Typically roadway design features are permanent
modifications to the width, surface or alignment of the roadway. Examples of roadway design features
include speed undulations, median islands, chokers, traffic circles, and street closures. These features also
cause inconvenience for the local residents and may result in increased emergency vehicle response times.
Roadway design features are not recognized in California as traffic control devices, but local governments
are empowered to install them. All features must take into consideration the liability and legal issues before
their implementation. Because roadway design features require modification ofthe roadway geometrics or
other changes to the roadway, the City could incur some liability. This liability could be significant if it is
proven that the altered roadway configuration presents a safety hazard.
Although the City of Temecula has a road closure policy in place, the Neighborhood Traffic Calming
Program does not recognize a road closure or permanent barricade as a viable traffic calming strategy.
Therefore, road closures and/or permanent barricades are not included in the Neighborhood Traffic Calming
Program
2
R:\traffic~policy\traffic calming program/alp
Physical Impacts
Traffic calming stntegies that involve waffle control devices and roadway design features may have impacts
that include increased noise, air pollution, visual intrusion, restricted access, removal of on-street parking.
increased emergency response times, and obstacles to bicycles and pedestrians.
Impacts to Emergency Vehicles
Traffic calming devices that alter the roadway or create obstacles in the path of a vehicle can increase
the response times for emergency personnel. The delay in response time will vary depending on the
characteristics of the roadway and the traffic calming device, the availability of alternate routes, and the
type of emergency vehicle.
2. Impacts to Utility Vehicles and Buses
Traffic calming devices that alter the roadway may have an impact on utility tracks, trash collection
trucks, transit buses, dial-a-fide vehicles, and school buses. Vehicles on repetitive routes that access
roadways that have speed undulations may experience maintenance or replacement of parts more
frequently. Likewise, vehicles that access roadways with traffic circles will experience maneuverability
problems.
3. Impacts to Surrounding Streets
Both categories of traffic calming strategies may impact the quality of life at adjacent neighborhoods
by diverting traffic to the surrounding street network. While this may serve the intended purpose to
reduce vehicle speeds and volumes on a certain roadway, it may mean that all traffic, local and non-local
will use parallel or adjacent roadways more frequently.
Due care will be exercised to minimize the negative or unintended impacts to adjacent roadways and
neighborhoods. Potentially impacted residents and property owners will be notified of any proposed
action, and will be given an opportunity to provide input before any decision is made.
Impacts to Residents
All roadway design features will result in an inconvenience to the residents that use the roadway on a
daily basis. Some type of roadway design features may reduce accessibility to residential driveways.
5. Loss of On-Street Parking
The installation of traffic control devices, pavement markings, and/or roadway design features may
require the removal of on-street parking to accommodate the implementation of the feature and
maximize the visibility to approaching vehicles.
6. Aesthetics
Roadway design features such as traffic circles can be made aesthetically pleasing by installing
landscaping, pavers, textured pavement or other harriscape. Other traffic calming devices such as speed
undulations cannot be aesthetically enhanced. All traffic control devices and roadway design features
will require standardized signing, sinping and markings in colors and at locations that may not be
aesthetically pleasing. The City will strive to make all waffle calming devices as aesthetically pleasing
as possible and as cost effective as possible.
3
R:\traffic\policyltraffic calrmng program/aJp
Drainage
Roadway design features may impact the capacity of catch basins, cross-gutters, or other drainage
facilities. Staff will ensure that any roadway modification does not negatively impact drainage or cause
the ponding of water on the roadway.
8. Landscape lxrigation
When landscaping is proposed as part of the roadway modification feature, consideration must be given
to the location of the irrigation source. Providing irrigation to a landscaped traffic circle may be cost
prohibitive. This may result in the selection of other traffic calming devices or treatments.
CRITERIA FOR APPLICATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC CAL,~I1NG
TECHNIQUES
Neighborhood traffic calming is most efficient when directed at reducing vehicular volumes and speeds in
residential areas. The criteria listed below define the roadways and portions thereof that qualify for traffic
calming consideration. The criteria constitutes a guideline for application of traffic calming techniques.
Residential streets must satisfy the following basic parameters:
A roadway or portion thereofmust not be designated on the City's General Plan Circulation Plan.
General Plan roadways are expected to provide major connections to a variety of land uses throughout
the City. Volumes and speeds are expected to be higher than those on local roadways.
2. Candidate roadway segments must be at least V2 mile in length.
Traffic calming strategies are more effective on bad driving habits on longer stretches of roadway.
3. The average daily traffic must significantly exceed the expected volumes based on the number of
dwelling units accessing the subject roadway.
Residential areas typically generate 10 vehicles per day per household. An average daily traffic volume
between 1,200 to 2,500 vehicles per day can be expected on a typical residential roadway, depending
on the characteristics. Traffic calming techniques will address vehicular volumes that exceed the
expected volumes, providing disincentives to using neighborhood roadways as a cut-through or bypass
route.
4. The 85'h percentile speed must exceed the posted or prima facie speed limit by 10 miles per hour.
The pnma facie speed limit on residential roadways is 25 miles per hour as mandated by the California
Vehicle Code. Engineering and Traffic Surveys have shown that typical 85*h percentile speeds on
residential streets range from 30 to 34 miles per hour, despite the posted or pnma facie speed limit.
By addressing vehicular speeds that are above the 85a' percentile, traffic calming techniques will focus
on driver behavior that is considered unreasonable for conditions.
While intrusive traffic calming devices such as speed undulations and traffic circles are intended to target
the minority (15th percentile) of drivers that do not adhere to the established laws, these devices will affect
the majority of the drivers (85* percentile), who comply with the existing laws.
5
APPLICATION PROCESS
Neighborhood traffic calming is intended to be progressive in nature, with City staff working in con3 unction
with neighborhood representatives to determine the problem and identify the appropriate solution. The C~ry_
of Temecula's Neighbor Traffic Calming Program will address traffic calming strategies in a re,o-stage
approach. Stage 1 is comprised of actions that are primarily education end enforcement based. Stage 2
involves the use of roadway design features intended to reduce vehicular speeds and volumes. Listed below
are the traffic calming tools that may be'used during each stage of the program.
Stage 1 - Education and Enforcement
· Neighborhood Traffic Safety Awareness Program - The first step in any traffic calming strategy is to
educate neighborhood drivers, pedeslriens, bicyclista, residents, nonresidents, children and adults of
existing traffic laws end roadway responsibilities. The City of Temecula has developed pamphlets that
are geared to providing a greater awareness of the rules of the road.
Radar Speed Trailer Deployment - When appropriate, the radar speed monitoring trailer will be used
to educate motorists by advising them of their travel speed. The radar speed trailer can also be used to
show the residents that actual travel speeds may not be as high as they are perceived.
Neighborhood Speed Watch Program - The purpose of this program is to help neighborhood groups
identify vehicles that are significently exceeding the prim facie or posted speed limit by use of the City.'
provided "hand held" radar monitoring device. The offenders could be notified and warned by mail.
· Traditional Enforcement - This action is intended to modify driver behavior that will result in safer
conditions for neighbors end drivers alike.
· Speed Limit Signs - Post 25-MPH speed limit signs and pavement markings on residential streets to
reinforce the prima facie speed limit.
Residential Multi-Way Stop Controls- Where appropriate, multi-way stop signs are installed to establish
the right-of-way at residential street intersections. The warrant criteria for the use of multi-way stop
controls is may be lower than the arterial roadway criteria. When used inappropriately, stop signs have
been ineffective at controlling or reducing vehicular speeds and volumes on residential streets. Studies
have shown that driver compliance with traffic control devices decreases and vehicular speeds increase
between the "stop" locations. Unwarrented stop signs increase unnecessary noise and air pollution and
often cause inconvenience to drivers who comply with existing laws.
Where education and enforcement fall short of addressing the perceived speeding and volume problem,
the City will analyze the feasibility of installing roadway design features. These Stage 2 engineering
strategies will be evaluated on their effectiveness in achieving the desired reduction in vehicular speeds and
volumes. The benefit of the roadway design feature will be weighed against any adverse impact to adjacent
roadways and neighborhoods. The Stage 2 features should be implemented as a temporary measure pnor
to installation of a permanent design feature. The minimum evaluation period shall be 4 months.
6
Stage 2 -Roadway Desima Features
· Pavement Markings - This roadway design feature narrows the travel way by striping a centerline and
edge lines or bike lanes along a segment of roadway. This feature has proven to be effective in certain
situations but may not be appropriate at every location. Bike lane striping may eliminate on-street
parking.
Speed Undulations - There is a policy in place for the use of speed undulations on residential streets.
Speed undulations have proven effective at reducing vehicular speeds, but not vehicular volumes. This
roadway design feature may not be appropriate at every location and there are several disadvantages
associated with their implementation.
Traffic Circles - This roadway design feature is a raised circular island typically installed in the middle
of a residential street intersection. To date, the Waffle circle has proven ineffective in reducing overall
vehicular speeds although speeds were reduced at the lraffic circle location. This roadway design feature
may not be appropriate at every location.
POLICIES
The policies of the neighborhood traffic calming program will be communicated in the application process.
The policies listed below will be followed throughout the analysis and final determination phases.
1. Safety of pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and residents is the prime concem of this program.
2. Significant vehicular'volumes must not be diverted fi'om one local roadway to another.
3. Emergency vehicle access must be preserved.
4. Auto, pedestrian, and bicycle access must be maintained for residents living within the traffic calming
area of impact.
5. All traffic control devices installed must comply with the California Vehicle Code.
6. Roadway design features will be planned and designed according to accepted engineering practice.
7. The least intrusive traffic calming strategy will be implemented first. If the strategy is found to be
ineffective after a reasonable evaluation period, the City may consider more extensive strategies.
PROCESS
Step 1. Communicating a Request for Traffic Calming Measures
To initiate a request for neighborhood traffic calming, an Application for Consideration of Traffic Calming
Measures must be completed. This form identifies the nature of the perceived problem, the location and type
of relief requested, and the contact person making the request. It is highly advisable that the residents gather
as much support as possible for the requested action.
.--~=.
After receipt of the application form, starf will identify the area of impact and provide a petition form to the
contact person identified on the application. Signatures representing at least 60% of households within the
affected area are necessary to initiate an analysis of the pemeived problem. Each household is entitled to
only one signature. Nonresident property owners and their tenants must decide who should sign the petition.
7
R:~traffic\policy\traffic calming program/alp
Step 2. Analysis
Following the receipt of the application form and petition, Public Works staff will begin the review and
analysis process. The analysis will include the gathering of relevant information, including but not limited
to vehicular volume data, vehicular speed data, pedestrian and bicycle activity, recorded accident histo~'.
roadway characteristics, and nearby land uses. During the review process staff will meet with the residents
of the affected area to receive input and define the issues. The evaluauon of the request will be conducted
in conformanee with accepted traffic engineering practices and standards.
Based on the results of the evaluation, staff will deterre'me the existence and magnitude of the traffic related
problem and recommend an appropriate traffic calming strategy. A conservative traffic calming approach
will be taken with the least intrusive strategy being implemented first.
Step 3. Consideration bv Public/Traffic Safe~ Commission
Following the completion of the evaluation, the Public/Traffic Safety Commission will consider the issue
at their regular meeting. The residents of the affected area will be notified by mail or through their
designated representative, of the date that the issue will be considered.
In some cases, the issue will be forwarded to the City Council for their approval of the recommended action.
Step 4. Consideration by the City Council
Following the Public/Traffic Safety Commission's consideration, the City Council will consider the issue
and provide a final recommendation.
Step 5 Implementation
Emphasis will be placed on the implementation of Stage 1 traffic calming strategies. If Stage I strategies
fail to achieve the desired results then Stage 2 strategies may be considered.
In situations where Stage 2 traffic calming strategies are necessary, temporary design features will be
implemented for a period of approximately four months. During the four-month period the effectiveness of
the roadway design feature to reduce vehicular speeds and volumes will be measured. The timing of
implementation of a permanent improvement will depend on the results of the evaluation and available
funding.
Step 6 Evaluation
Following the implementation of the traffic calming strategies, a data collection effort will be undertaken
to determine the effectiveness of the devices. This "follow-up" data will provide valuable information
that may be used when considenng similar devices at other locations.
TRAFFIC CALMING TOOLS
Education
NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC SAFETY AWARENESS PROGRAIM
Stage 1 Tool
Consists of activities that inform and seek to modify driver behavior. Techniques include printed
information, meetings, and workshops between staff and residents, signing campaign,
enforcement activities, school programs, parent outreach, etc...
Advantages
· Can be relatively effective and inexpensive
· Involves and empowers citizens
· Works well with other mitigation tools
Disadvantages
Not as effective on non-localized traffic
· Can be time consuming
· May take time to be effective
· Effectiveness may decrease over time
Education
RADAR SPEED TRAILER DEPLOYMENT
Stage 1 Tool
Portable radar speed monitoring device capable of measuring vehicular speeds and displa.~'ing the
speed to advise motorists of their speed.
Advantages
· Educational tool
· Very good public relations tool
· Useful especially in areas where spot speed
reduction is necessary
Disadvantages
· Requires periodic enEorccment
· Effective for limited duration
Unit moves frequently which requires
personnel
Education
NEIGHBORHOOD SPEED WATCH PROGRAM
Stage 1 Tool
This program will help neighborhood groups identify vehicles that are significantly exceeding the
prima facie speed limit or posted speed limit. Residents will use a "hand held" speed-monitoring
device to measure vehicle speeds.
Advantages
· Educational tool
· Very good public relations tool
· Allows identification of vehicles that are
significantly exceeding the speed limit
Disadvantages
· Requires periodic enforcement
· Effective for limited duration
· Can be time consuming
Enforcement
TRADITONAL ENFORCEMENT
Stage 1 Tool
Periodic monitoring of speeding and other violations by the police department.
Advantages
· Good temporary public relations tool
· Serves to inform public that speeding is
unacceptable behavior for which there are
consequences
Disadvantages
· Effect is not permanent
· Enforcement is an expensive tool
· Can be time consuming
Enforcement
SPEED LIMT SIGNS
Stage 1 Tool
Post speed limit signs on residential sweets to reinforce the prima facie speed limit.
SPEED
LIMIT
Advantages
· Educational tool
· Reinforces prima facie speed limit
Disadvantages
· May have negligible impacts on speeds
· Overuse is counterproductive
Enforcement
RESIDENTIAL MULTI-WAY STOP CONTROLS
Stage 1 Tool
Install multi-way stop controls to establish right-of-way and reduce vehicle conflicts at residential
street intersections. Stop controls will not be implemented to control vehicular speeds and
volumes.
S-:TO:P
Advantages
· Reduces vehicle conflicts by assigmng
right-of-way
Disadvantages
· Increased noise near stops
· Increased emissions
· May reduce non-compliance of traffic
control devices
· Does not reduce vehicular speeds
Roadway Design Feature
PAVEMENT MARKINGS
Stage 2 Tool
This feature narrows the U'avel way by striping a centerline and an edge line or bike lane along a
segment of roadway.
Advantages
· Inexpensive
· May reduce speed
· Edge n'eam~ent increases pedestrian and
bicyctists safety
· Low maintenance
Disadvantages
· May not be as effective as other physical
improvements
· May eliminate on-street parking
Roadway Design Feature
SPEED UNDULATIONS
Stage 2 Tool
Speed undulations are wave shaped humps in the roadway which when ideally placed at 300 feet
apart can reduce vehicular speeds by 5 to 10 MPH.
Advantages
· Reduces vehicular speeds in the vicinity of
undulation
· Self enforcing
· Relatively inexpensive
Disadvantages
· May create noise
· May be a problem for emergency vehicles
· May impact drainage
· Vehicular speeds may increase between
undulations
· May increase vehicular volumes on other
streets
· Requires signage that may be considered
unsightly
Roadway Design Feature '-
TRAFFIC CIRCLES
Stage 2 Tool
A small circular island placed in the center of existing residential street intersection,
Advantages
· Reduces vehicular speeds at intersection
· Effective at four-way intersections
· Provides area for landscaping
· Provides equal access to intersection for all
drivers
Disadvantages
· May be restrrictive for larger vehicles
· May increase volumes on adjacent streets
· May increase vehicle speeds between circle
locations
· Maintenance responsibility if landscaped
· Required signing may be unsightly
· May put pedes~ians and bicyclists more at
risk due to vehicle deflection
· Loss of on-street parking
· Unlawful left turns may compromise safety
CITY OF TEMECULA
APPLICATION FOR CONSIDERATION OF
TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES
Please fill out and mail this form to the City of Temecula, Public Works Department, P.O. Box
9033, Temecula, California 92589-9033, or fax to (909) 694-6475.
Date
Contact Person
Street Address
Phone # Fax #
E-mail (if available)
Please indicate the location or street where you believe a problem exists. Be as specific as
possible as to the location, time of day, day of week, and the problem being observed.
Thank you for your input.
1
R:\traffic\pohcyltraffic calming program/alp
ANALYSIS PHASE
All requests for 'traffic calming measures will include the following:
· An approved application describing the perceived problem; and
· An indication of participation of the residents who would be impacted by the problem ancLor
requested traffic calming measures.
Following the receipt of the application for consideration of traffic calming measures, staff will:
1. Determine the area of impact and provide a peation form to the listed contact person for the
collection of the necessary signatures.
Signatures representing at least 60% of households within the affected area are necessary to initiate
an analysis of the perceived problem. Each household is entitled to only one signature. Nonresident
property owners and their tenants must decide who should sign the petition.
2. Meet with the area residents to define the problem and develop solutions.
Residents within a localized area will be advised of the request and invited to participate in
identifying the perceived problem and developing solutions.
3. Evaluate the request according to accepted Waffle engineering practice attd standards.
The analysis will include the gathering of relevant information, including but not limited to vehicular
volume data, vehicular speed dam, pedestrian and bicycle activity, recorded accident history, roadway
characteristics, and nearby land uses. The vehicular volume and speed data collection will be
performed by an independent contractor hired by the City of Temecula.
4. Determine a solution, if necessary.
Based on the results of the evaluation, staff will determine the existence and magnitudes of the traffic
related problem and recommend an appropriate traffic calming strategy. A conservative traffic
calming approach will be taken with the least inlrusive strategy being implemented first.
5. Communicate the results of the evaluation to the requesting parties and residents within the area
of impact.
Residents will be notified by mail of the results of the evaluation. The City may poll affected
residents and property owners to determine the acceptability of potential traffic calming measures that
may be suggested.
6. Present the results of the evaluation to the Public/Traffic Safety Commissiou attd solicit public
input.
7. Consideration by the City Council
8. Implement traffic calming measures
9. Evaluate the results
2
6TOP 6IGN6
WHY DON'T THEY PUT IN MORE STOP SIGNS?
A' stop sign is one of our most valuable and effective control devices when used at the
right place and under the right conditions. It is intended to help drivers and pedestrians at
an intersection decide who has the right-of-way.
One common misuse of stop signs is to arbitrarily interrupt through traffic, either by
causing it to stop, or by causing such an inconvenience as to force the traffic to use other
routes. Where stop signs are installed as "nuisances" or "speed breakers," there is a high
incidence of intentional violation. In those locations where vehicles do stop, the speed
reduction is effective only in the immediate vicinity of the stop sign, and frequently
speeds are actually higher between intersections. For these reasons, it should not be used
as a speed control device.
A school crossing may look dangerous for children to use, causing parents to demand a
stop sign to halt traffic. Now a vehicle which had been a problem for 3 seconds while
approaching and passing the intersection becomes a problem for a much longer 13eriod.
A situation of indecision is created as to when to cross as a pedestrian or when to start as
a motorist. Normal gaps in traffic through which crossings could be made safely no longer
exist. An intersection which previously was not busy now looks like a major intersection.
It really isn't - it just looks like it. It doesn't even look safer and it usually isn't.
Most drivers are reasonable and prudent with no intention of maliciously violating traffic
regulations; however, when an unreasonable restriction is imposed, it may result in
flagrant vioiations. In such cases, the stop sign can create a false sense of security in a
pedestrian and an attitude of contempt in a motorist. These two attitudes can and often
do conflict with tragic results.
Well-developed, nationally recognized guidelines help to indicate when such controls
become necessary. These guidelines take into consideration, among other things, the
probability of vehiclc; errlying at an intersection at the same time, the length of time
traffic must wait to enter, and the availability of safe crossing opportunities.
CROSSWALKS
WHEN IS A CROSSWALK UNSAFE?
Apparently, whenever it is painted on the streetJ
A number of years'beck, the City of San Diego published some s~artllng results of a very
extensive study of the relative safety of marked and unmarked crosswalks. San Diego
looked at 400 intersections for five years (without signals or four-my stops) that had a
marked crosswalk on one side and an unmarked crosswalk on the other. About two and
one half times as many pedestrians used the marked crosswalk. but about six times as
many accidents were reported in the marked crosswalks! Long Beach studied pedestrian
safety for three years (1972 through 1974) and found eight timas as many reported
pedestTian accidents at intersections with marked crosswalks than at those without.
One explanation of this apparent contradiction of common sense is the false security
pedestrians feel at the marked crosswalk. Two painted line do not provide protection
against an oncoming vehicle and the real burden of safety/has to be on the pedestrian
to be alert and caUtious. while crossing any street. A pedestrian can stop in less than three
feet, while a vehicle traveling at 25 MPH will recluire 60 feet and at 35 MPH
approximately 100 feet :,..~ ~-- ,
The California Vehicle Code says that a crosswalk exists at all intersections unless
pedestrian crossing is prohibited by signs. Some of these crosswalks are marked with
painted lines, but most of them are not. Pedestrian crosswalk marking is a method of
encouraging pedestrians to use a particular crossing. Such marked crossings may not be
as safe as an unmarked crossing at the same location. Therefore, crosswalks should be
marked only where necessary for the guidance and control of pedestrians, to direct them
to the safest of several potential routes.
BIKE LANE6
WHEN ARE WE GOING TO GET SOME BIKEWAYS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD?
Bikeways have raised a lot of interest in the past few years. Some cities have built
separate off-road bike paths. Many more have painted bike lanes on streets. Others have
installed green "Bike Route" signs wittYout the special lanes.
The cost of both building and maintaining bikeways can be a deterrent to many city bike
programs. Initial cost can range from a few dollars to paint a lane to a small fortune to
build a separate path including special bridges where needed.
Before plunging into a bikeway program, your city or county should look at the total
problem of bicycle operation and safety. Bike lanes and signs alone cannot solve the
probiem of bicycle accidents; in some places they have increased the problem by giving
riders a false sense of security.
An overall bicycle safety program should include: enforcement of traffic laws: bike safety
training in the schools at an early age; follow-up training every year in the schools; and
involvement of the parents of minor children who violate traffic laws or exhibit
dangerous riding habits. The overwhelming cause of bicycle accidents is violation of the
RULES OF THE ROAD.
If these recommendations seem to b~ oriented toward the younger set, there is good
reason. Over 70 percent of cyclists involved in accidents were violating a traffic law;
over 60 percent were age 17 or under. It only makes good sense to emphasize the
children in training programs, since they are the principal users of bicycles.
The bike program for your community should include three principal points:
1. Education in safe riding.
2. Enforcement of rules of the road.
3. Development of well-engineered bike lanes and bike paths.
This will involve the active participation of:
1. The schools,
2. The police or sheriff.
3. The traffic engineers; and, of course, you, the citizen.
SPEED LIMIT6
WHEN WILL A LOWER SPEED LIMIT BE POSTED ON MY STREET*?
A common belief is that posting a speed limit will influence drivers to drive at that speed.
The facts indicate otherwise.
Research conducted in many parts of this country over a span of several decades has
shown that drivers are influenced more by the appearance of the highway itself and the
prevailing traffic conditions than by the posted speed limit.
California's Basic Speed Law rec~uires that:
"No person shall drive a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is responsible or
prudent having due regard for weather, visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width
of the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the safety of persons or
property."
Under California law, the maximum speed limit for any passenger vehicle is now 55 miles
per hour. All other speed limits are called prima facie limits, which "on the face of it" are
safe and prudent under normal conditions. Certain prima facie limits are established by
taw and include the 25 MPH limit in business and residential districts, the 15 MPH limit in
alleys, at blind intersections and blind railroad crossings and a part-time 25 MPH limit in
school zones when children are going to and from school. These speeds are not always
posted but all California motorists are required to know these basic 15.25, and 55 mile
per hour speed laws.
Intermediate speed limits between 25 and 55 miles per hour may be established by local
authorities on the basis of traffic engineering surveys. These surveys include an analysis
of roadway conditions, accident records, and the prevailing speed of prudent drivers. If
speed limit signs are posted for a lower limit than is needed to safely meet these
conditions, many drivers will simply ignore the signs. At the same time. other drivers will
stay within the posted limits. This generally increases the conflicts between faster and
slower drivers, reduces the gaps in traffic through which
crossings could be made safely and increases the difficulty for
pedestrians to judge the speed of approaching vehiclrs.
Studies have shown that where uniformity of speed i~ not
maintained, accidents generally increase.
TRAFFIC
SIGNALS
DOES SOMEBODY HAVE TO BE KILLED BEFORE A TRAFFIC SIGNAL
WILL BE INSTALLED?
Traffic signals don't always prevent accidents. They are not always an asset to traffic
control. In some instances, total accidents and severe iniuries increased after signals were
installed. Usually, in such instances, right angle collisions were reduced by the traffic
signals, but the total number of collisions, especially the rear-end type, increased,
There are times when the installation of signals results in an increase in pedestrian
accidents. Many pedestrians feel secure with a painted crosswalk and a red light between
them and an approaching vehicle, The motorist, Qn the other hand, is not always so quick
to recognize these "barriers,"
When can a traffic signal be an asset instead of a liability to safety7 in order to answer
this, traffic engineers have to ask and answer a series of questions:
1. Are there so many cars on both streets that signal controls are necessary to
ciear up the confusion or relieve the congestion?
2. Is the traffic on the main street so heavy that drivers on the side street will
try to cross when it is unsafe?
3. Are there so many pedestrians trying to cross a busy main street that
confusing, congested or hazardous conditions result?
4. Are there so many school children trying to cross the street at the same
time that they need special controls for their protection? If so, is a traffic signal
the best solution?
5. Are signals at this location going to help drivers maintain a uniform pace
a ong the route without stopping unnecessarily?
6. Does the collision history indicate that signal controls will reduce the
probability of collisions?
7. Do two arterials intersect at this location and will a signal help improve the
flow of traffic?
8, Is there a combination of the above conditions which indicates that a signal
will be an improvement rather than a detriment?
To aid them in answering these questions, engineers compare 'the existing conditions
against nationally accepted minimum ' guidelines. These guidelines (often called
"Warrants") were established from many observations at intersections throughout the
country by experienced traffic engineers. Where the guidelines were met, the signals
generally were operating effectively with good public compliance. Where the guidelines
were not met, public compliance was reduced, and additional hazards resulted.
A traffic signal that decreases accidents and improves the flow of traffic is an asset to any
community. On the other hand, an ill-advised or poorly designed signal can be a source
of danger and annoyance to all who use the intersection; pedestrians, cyclists and drivers
alike.
CHILDREN AT PLAY
WHY WON'T THEY PUT UP "CHILDREN AT PLAY" SIGNS?
An often heard neighborhood request concerns the Dosling of generalized warning signs
with "SLOW-CHILDREN AT PLAY" or other similar messages. Parental concern for the
safety of children in the street near home, and a misplaced but wide-spread Dubtic faith
in traffic signs to provide protection often prompt these requests.
Although some other states have posted such signs widely in residential areas. no factual
evidence has been presented to document their success in reducing pedestrian accidents.
operating speeds or legal liability. Studies have shown that many types of signs
attempting to warn of normal conditions in residential areas have failed to achieve the
desired safety benefits. If signs encourage parents and children to believe they have an
added degree of protection. which the signs do not and cannot provide, a great disservice
results.
Because of these serious considerations, California Jaw does not recognize. and Federal
Standards discourage, use of "Children at Play" signs. Specific warnings for schools,
playgrounds, parks and other recreational facilities are available for use where clearly
justified.
Children should not be encouraged to play within the street travelways. The sign has
long been rejected since it is a direct and open suggestion that this behavior is acceptable.
chilclT
:
ITEM 9
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL CE_~'
CITYATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINAN~
CITYMANAGER
CITY OFTEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
,'lA/4EWiiliam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
March 28, 2000
Evaluation of Traffic Circles on Via Cordoba
PREPARED BY: All Moghadam, Senior Engineer - Traffic
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
Find the temporary traffic calming devices ineffective in reducing overall vehicular
speeds along Via Cordoba.
Direct Public Works Traffic Division staff to remove the temporary traffic calming devices
along Via Cordoba.
Direct Public Works Traffic Division staff to work with neighborhood representatives to
implement Stage 1 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program strategies to address the
problem.
BACKGROUND: In July 1999, a request was received from representatives of the
Bridlevale Homeowners Association to evaluate the need for Multi-Way stop controls at
intersections along Via Cordoba due to increased vehicular volumes and speeds. A survey of
vehicular speeds and Multi-Way stop warrant analysis was performed along Via Cordoba. The
results of the analysis was presented to the Public/Traffic Safety Commission at their meeting of
June 24, 1999. The Public/Traffic Safety Commission approved the Staff recommendation to
deny a request for Multi-Way Stop Controls on Via Cordoba.
Subsequently, at the City Council meeting of July 13, 1999, the residents appealed the
Public/Traffic Safety Commission's decision and asked that the City Council agendize the issue
and reconsider the installation of Multi-Way stop controls along Via Cordoba to control vehicular
speeds.
At the meeting of August 24, 1999, the City Council upheld the Public/Traffic Safety
Commission's decision to deny the request for Multi-way stop controls on Via Cordoba.
Pursuant to a request for traffic circles from Ms. Janet Dixon, the City Council directed staff to
conduct a demonstration project by installing temporary traffic circles on Via Cordoba and
evaluate their effectiveness in reducing vehicular volumes and speeds over a four (4) month
period. Staff was directed to present the results of the evaluation to the Public/Traffic Safety
Commission and the City Council for consideration of permanent improvements if the
demonstration project proved to be effective. Staff was also directed to develop a
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program to address future requests for traffic calming devices.
I
R:~agdrpt\00\0328Wiacordoba\ajp
Based on the direction received from the City Council, staff developed two (2) types of
temporary traffic calming devices for installation at five (5) intersections along Via Cordoba. The
devices are traffic circles to be used at four-way intersections and median islands at "T"
intersections.
On September 30, 1999, a letter was mailed to the residents of Via Cordoba that explained the
intent of the traffic calming demonstration program and identified the types of temporary traffic
calming devices that could be expected on Via Cordoba. The letter also stated that the devices
would be evaluated for a period of four months to determine their effectiveness and that
following the evaluation period the City Council would be apprised of the results of the
evaluation and provide further direction on installing permanent improvements.
Temporary traffic circles and median islands were installed along Via Cordoba on October 6,
1999. The temporary traffic circles were installed at Via Salito/Corte Bravo and Code Bella
Donna. Temporary median islands were installed at Loma Linda Road, Corte Rosa, and Corte
Zorita. Because of access restriction to the numerous driveways within the vicinity of the latter
three streets, traffic circles were found to be inappropriate at these locations. In addition to the
temporary devices, advanced warning signs and parking restriction sings were installed along
Via Cordoba at both the traffic circle and median island locations. The approximate cost for the
research, data collection, design and implementation of the temporary traffic calming devices
including signing and striping was approximately $10,000.
A before and after study was performed to determine the effectiveness of the temporary traffic
calming devices. The study includes an evaluation of vehicular volume and speed data before
and after installation of the temporary devices. Vehicular volume and speed data was collected
at four locations on Via Cordoba on September 21, 1999, before the installation and at the same
four locations on November 17, 1999, following the installation of the temporary traffic calming
devices. The data collection was performed by Counts Unlimited, an independent contractor.
The table below summarizes the results of the before and after evaluation conducted on Via
Cordoba.
L OCA TION
"~tw. Via Quivera and Volume (ADT)
Via Salito/Code Bravo Speed (85 h %)
Btw. Via Lucia and
Loma Linda Road
' Btw. Corte Valle and
i Corte Rosa
Btw. Corte Zorita and
Corte Bella Donna
Volume (ADT)
Speed (85t %)
Volume (ADT)
Speed (85t %)
Volume (ADT)
Speed (85 %)
.BEFORE'INSTA~TION AFTER INSTALLATION
' '(Si~tyeydateg/~'li99) (Surveydate ff/17/99)
2,078 1,821
32 MPH 33,5 MPH
1,277 1,304
31 MPH 33 MPH
2,071 2,046
33 MPH 33 MPH
1,708 1,593
31 MPH 30 MPH
As shown, the results of the before and after evaluation indicate that the installation of the
temporary traffic calming devices did not significantly reduce the overall speed of traffic or
vehicle volumes along Via Cordoba. In fact, the results indicate that the 85th percentlie speeds
increased by 1 to 2 miles per hour at two of the locations, Additionally, our observation of
vehicle speeds at the temporary traffic circles revealed that a majority of the motorists did slow
down at the traffic circle, but increased their speed immediately after leaving the circle location.
This is a common behavioral pattern at multi-way stop locations and at locations where speed
undulations are present. The temporary median islands did not prove to be effective in reducing
vehicle speeds even at the median locations.
2
R:~agdrpt\00\0328\viacordoba\ajp
An observation of conditions and driver behavior following the installation of the devices
revealed several operational problems. The problems observed at the circles included vehicles
making illegal left-turns (against opposing traffic), failure to yield to vehicles in the circle area,
and potential vehicle versus pedestrian conflicts as vehicles maneuvered around the circles.
The problems that were observed at the median island locations were elimination of on-street
parking in some areas and restriction of convenient access to properties at other locations.
In addition to the statistical evaluation, the "pulse" of the neighborhood was evaluated to
determine the perceived effectiveness of the temporary traffic calming devices. During the
evaluation period staff received input from approximately 24 residents of Via Cordoba and
adjacent streets regarding the traffic calming devices. Some of the complaints received
included the devices are ugly, motorists are confused by the circles, children are using the circle
as a playground, trash collects in the circles, vehicles continue to speed between the devices,
large trucks and school buses cannot maneuver around them, loss of on-street parking in front
of some homes, too many signs, access has been restricted, and neighborhood property values
have been decreased by this installation. The positive "feedback" received included the circles
are wonderful, these are better than "Stop" signs and thank you for doing something about
vehicle speeds.
Of the 24 responses received by staff, approximately 19 were opposed to the traffic calming
devices and only 5 supported their use. The table below summarizes the results of the
responses received,
Resident of Via Cordoba
Resident of adjacent streets
Unknown
In favor Of traffic calming
devices on Via Cordoba
2
2
1
Against traffic calming
devices on Via Cordoba
4
12
3
According to some of the Via Cordoba residents, the perceived increased in vehicular volumes
occurs on the weekend and is attributed to the soccer games held at Kent Hintergardt Park.
This issue can not be addressed by the installation of traffic calming devices or traffic control
devices, and requires coordination with the game organizers.
Following the installation of the temporary traffic calming devices, the Bridlevale Homeowners
Association conducted their own survey of the residents on Via Cordoba and adjacent streets.
The survey consisted of six questions with pre-determined responses. The HOA submitted a
total of 38 responses to the City.
The table below summarizes the survey responses.
QUESTIONS
1. Do you feel that the temporary traffic circles
and median islands have slowed traffic?
2. How long should the temporary median be
tested?
Do you feel that there are too many No
Parking signs?
Do you wish to see red marked curbs in lieu
of No Parking signs?
RESPONSE TO TAL
RESPONSES ......... ':
Yes 22
No 16
2 months 19
3 months 5
4 months 6
(Remove) 8
Yes 25
No 11
(No response) 2
Yes 27
No 9
(Neither) 2
R:~agdrpt\00\0328\viacordoba\ajp
QUESTIONS
RESPONSE
5. Do you want the street returned to the way
that it was no circles or median islands?
6. What should the final medians be made of?
Yes
No
(None)
Landscaped flowers
and trees
Plain colored brick
(Neither Imp.)
(Either Imp.)
( ) - represents responses other than the pre-determined responses
TOTAL
RESPONSES
18 ...........
19
1
26
2
9
1
In addition to the aforementioned information, a survey form was hand delivered to residents of
Via Cordoba and the adjacent streets on February 3, 2000. The survey consisted of two
questions with pre-determined responses and a request for general comments. The residents
were asked to return the survey form prior to the Public/Traffic Safety Commission's meeting of
February 10, 2000. Of the 240 surveys delivered, approximately 113 were returned on or
before the deadline. To date, staff has received 12 additional surveys since the February 10,
2000 deadline.
The table below summarizes the responses of the 125 surveys received to date.
QUESTIONS
RESPONSE
1. Do you believe that the temporary calming Yes
devices (traffic circles and median islands) No
have been effective in reducing overall No Opinion
vehicle speeds on Via Cordoba?
2. If the traffic calming devices are found to be Yes
effective, would you support the installation of No
permanent improvements (raised concrete No Opinion
median islands and/or raised concrete traffic
circles)?
TOTAL
RESPONSES
64
59
2
68
56
1
The survey results indicate that approximately 51% of the respondents believe the temporary
calming devices have been effective, while 47% of the respondents do not believe the devices
have been effective. Similarly, the survey indicates that approximately 54% of the respondents
would support permanent improvements, while 45% of the respondents are opposed to
permanent improvements.
The general comments received on the survey mirrored the respondents position on the issue
with the exception of the numerous requests received to remove the circles and install Multi-
Way stop controls and/or speed undulations along Via Cordoba to control vehicular volumes
and speeds.
During the evaluation period, staff received input from the Loma Linda Road residents regarding
the traffic impacts created on Loma Linda Road by the temporary traffic calming devices. The
general consensus of the residents on Loma Linda Road was that if the traffic calming devices
were found to be effective on Via Cordoba, then they should also be implemented on Loma
Linda Road to mitigate the "spillover" traffic impacts.
4
R:\agdrpt\00\0328\viacordoba\ajp
The evaluation process considered potential impacts to emergency response times. Following
the installation of the temporary traffic calming devices, a fire apparatus from Station 84, which
is responsible for this area, performed a "mock run" on Via Cordoba. Although, the vehicle did
maneuver around the traffic circle slowly, their response time was not significantly reduced and
no other problems were created by the traffic circle. Subsequent observations by station
personnel during the four-month evaluation period resulted in the same findings. No delays
were experienced at the median island locations.
Independent studies conducted by other agencies that have implemented traffic calming
devices indicate that typical response times at traffic circles are reduced by approximately 5 to 8
seconds per circle for fire trucks. The studies further show that typically no delays are
experienced at raised median island locations. These results are consistent with those found on
Via Cordoba.
At the meeting of February 10, 2000, the Public/Traffic Safety Commission received a
presentation of the results of the data collected before and after the installation of the temporary
traffic circles and medians, and considered the effectiveness of the traffic calming devices.
Copies of the minutes of the February 10, 2000 meeting along with the staff report and
attachments documenting the evaluation period are provided for information.
Additionally, the Commission received testimony from six residents who live in the area. The
following individuals spoke in favor of the installation of the traffic calming devices:
· Mr. Charles Hankley
· Ms. Janet Dixon
31745 Via Cordoba
31860 Via Cordoba
The following individuals relayed their opposition to the installation of the traffic calming devices:
· Mr. William Kelley
· Mr. Robed Garcia
· Mr. Mario Carvahal
· Ms. Candace Whitmore
31542 Via Cordoba
31775 Via Cordoba
31645 Via Cordoba
31795 Via Cordoba
Following receipt of the public testimony, the Commission approved the staff recommendation
to pass the matter on to the City Council for further consideration. Staff was directed to obtain
additional vehicular volume and speed data and present the new data to the City Council.
Vehicular volume and speed data was collected at the same four locations on Via Cordoba for a
seven-day period beginning February 28, 2000. During the data collection the City experienced
approximately 3 days of rain. Due to the rainy condition, additional data was collected during
the week of March 10, 200 through March 16, 2000. Both sets of data were collected by Counts
Unlimited, an independent contractor.
In order to validate the before and after data collected, the table below includes the results of
the before and after study, as well as the recent data collected on Via Cordoba.
LOCATION
Btw. Via Qui~,era
and Via Salito/Corte
Bravo
Btw. Via Lucia and
Loma Linda Road
Volume (ADT)
Speed (85t %)
Volume (ADT)
t
Speed (85 h %)
BEFORE AFTER NEW DATA
INS.TALLA TION INSTALLATION SURVEYED
OF DEVICES OF DEVICES 03/'I 0/00
2,078 ........... 1' ,~2"j ....... :1%665
32 MPH 33.5 MPH 33.5 MPH
1,277 1,304 1,131
31 MPH 33 MPH 30 MPH
5
R:\agdrpt\00\0328\viacordoba\ajp
LOCATION' ' '
Btw. Code Valle and
Code Rosa
Btw. Code Zorita
and Code Bella
Donna
Volume (APT)
t
Speed (85 h %)
Volume (APT)
h
Speed (85t %)
B,~, ORE . AFTER NEW DATA
IN$i~A:L~ON ~ iNS:TALLATION : SURVEYED
OF DEV/CES OF DEVICES 03/f 0/00
2,071 2,046 1,729
33 MPH 33 MPH 32.5 MPH
1,708 1,593 1,391
31 MPH 30 MPH 30 MPH
As shown, the recent data collected indicates that the overall 85th percentlie speeds are very
similar and continue to fall within the same 30 MPH to 33.5 MPH pace without any significant
reduction. The data does indicate an overall average vehicular volume reduction of
approximately 304 APT along Via Cordoba.
As previously mentioned, some of the residents expressed concern that vehicular volumes and
speeds seemed to increase significantly on the weekends because of the soccer activities at
Kent Hintergardt Park. For these reasons, staff specifically reviewed the Saturday and Sunday
volume and speed data and compared the data to the weekday vehicular volumes.
The table below summarizes the results of the Saturday and Sunday data collected.
LOCATION
Btw. Via Quivera .... ~2~i~m~ iADT)
and Via Salito/Code Speed (85th %)
SA TURDA Y
(03/11/00)
1,299
33.5 MPH
SUNDAY . WEEK'b:~Y ......
(03/f2/00) .... AVERAGE
1,288 1,665"'
32.5 MPH 33.5 MPH
Bravo
Btw. Via Lucia and Volume (ADT) 1,061 910 1,131
t
Loma Linda Road Speed (85h %) 30 MPH 30 MPH 30 MPH
Btw. Code Valle and Volume (ADT) 1,749 1,527 1,729
Code Rosa Speed (85th %) 32.5 MPH 33 MPH 32.5 MPH
Btw. Code Zorita Volume (ADT) 1,427 1,212 1,391
t
and Code Bella Speed (85h %) 32.5 MPH 33 MPH 30 MPH
Donna
As shown, the weekend data collected indicates that the overall 85th percentile speeds are
consistent with the average weekday speeds and fall within the same 30 MPH to 34 MPH pace.
The volume data indicates that in most cases traffic is heavier on Saturday than on Sunday.
The data does indicate that in most cases the Saturday vehicular volumes are consistent with
the weekday average vehicular volumes. The data as shown, does not support the resident's
perception that there is a significant increase in vehicular volumes and speeds on the
weekends.
Another concern expressed by the residents was that there was a high volume of "cut-through"
traffic on Via Cordoba. The latest traffic volume data collected at the four locations indicates
that Via Cordoba carries from 1,197 ADT to 1,769 ADT between Via Del Coronado and
Redhawk Parkway. Based on the data collected, it does not appear that there is a significant
amount of "cut through" traffic along this corridor. In fact the number of vehicles travelling on
Via Cordoba is appropriate for the approximately 300 single-family dwelling units that directly
access Via Cordoba. Past enforcement efforts by the Police Department have revealed that the
majority of drivers cited on Via Cordoba are residents of the immediate area which further
substantiates this fact.
6
R:\agdrpt\00\0328\viacordoba\ajp
The decision to start using traffic circles and/or raised median islands as a means of reducing
neighborhood vehicle speeds on a citywide basis will need to consider potential design,
construction and maintenance costs. The cost to design and construct a traffic circle can vary
from $10,000 to $20,000 depending on the location and type of improvements desired. The
estimated cost includes some form of landscaping. Based on our observations of operational
problems at the test locations, modification to the existing improvements may also be necessary
to mitigate these problems. The additional cost to modify existing improvements is unknown
and would be in addition to the estimated cost to construct the circles.
The cost to design and construct the raised median island varies from $5,000 to $15,000 and
will depend on the location and type of improvements needed. The estimated cost includes
some form of landscaping. If the City chooses the median island design that is currently
simulated on the street, the existing curb, gutter and sidewalk area will need to be modified to
provide a "narrowing" effect. The estimated cost to construct the additional improvements may
vary between $20,000 to $40,000 depending on the degree of improvements needed.
In addition to the design and construction improvements, landscape and roadway maintenance
costs would be incurred with the installation of both types of improvements. The costs are
unknown at this time but may vary from $500 to $1,500 per year per location.
To date, Staff has received numerous requests to implement some type of traffic calming device
at numerous locations throughout the City. Based on the estimated cost previously stated, the
construction of traffic circles at the requested locations could cost as much as $500,000.
Currently, there are no funds appropriated in the City's Capital Improvement Program for this
type of improvement. It should be noted that the existing adopted City Policy for closure or
modification of traffic flow on public streets requires the residents to participate in all costs
directly associated with the street modification.
The results of the before and after study and the recent data collected on Via Cordoba, indicate
that the temporary traffic circles and median islands have been ineffective in reducing overall
vehicular speeds. The vehicular volume data collected indicates that volumes have been
reduced by as little as 304 vehicles per day. Based on these findings, the estimated cost to
install and maintain permanent traffic circle and median island improvements outweighs the
benefits received from the improvements.
Moreover, the results of the resident survey indicates that the resident's perception of the
effectiveness of the traffic calming devices, is divided almost in half. There does not appear to
be overwhelming support for their effectiveness and permanency. Conversely, some of the
residents believe that Multi-Way stop controls and/or speed undulations would be more effective
at achieving the desired results.
Multi-Way controls are recommended where there is strong evidence that overall traffic safety
can be improved and should not be used solely for controlling vehicular speeds. Studies have
shown that when stop signs are installed at locations that do not satisfy the minimum warrant
criteria, they become ineffective traffic control devices. Thus, by installing signs at unwarranted
locations, some drivers become conditioned to disregard traffic controls such as speed limits,
stop signs and signals. Those motorists who actually stop for the controls are forced to stop for
no apparent reason. This often results in driver frustration and lack of respect to traffic control
devices while doing nothing to address the real problem of speeding.
Our own experience with the Calle Medusa Multi-Way stop controls supports this finding. Multi-
Way stop controls were implemented on Calle Medusa in an attempt to reduce vehicle speeds
and make it a less desirable route for "cut-through" traffic. Since then the residents of Calle
Medusa have petitioned the City numerous times to close the street because the unwarranted
multi-way stop controls have failed to achieve the desired effect.
7
R:\agdrpt\00\0328\viacordoba\ajp
By installing unwarranted stop signs on Via Cordoba the City would be setting a precedence for
installing unwarranted traffic controls along residential collector streets that were designed to
provide access between residential neighborhoods and regional roadway facilities. Fudhermore
the installation of unwarranted stop signs on Via Cordoba will not address the perceived
problem and will eventually result in the failure to achieve the desired effect thereby, continuing
the street closure legacy.
Insofar as implementing speed undulations to reduce vehicular speeds and volumes, to date,
the City's only test location along Calle Pina Colada has been ineffective at significantly
reducing vehicular speeds and volumes. In fact, the Calle Pina Colada resident's perception is
that the speed undulations are ineffective and have requested that the City remove the speed
undulations and close the street to through traffic to achieve the desired effect.
Installing speed undulations along Via Cordoba could reduce overall vehicular speeds and
would likely reduce vehicular volumes by divecling through traffic, including resident generated
traffic, onto adjacent streets. However, the installation of speed undulations on Via Cordoba
would result in further requests to provide stop signs or speed undulations on adjacent streets
such as, Loma Linda Road and Via Salito where the quality of life would be affected by the
diverted traffic. Past experience dictates that the speed undulations are not likely to address the
perceived problem and will eventually result in the failure to achieve the desired effect.
Based on the data collected and the lack of support by the majority of Via Cordoba residents, it
is staff's opinion that the temporary traffic circles and median islands have been proven
ineffective in reducing overall vehicular speeds along Via Cordoba. Therefore, staff
recommends the removal of the temporary traffic calming devices on Via Cordoba and
implementation of Stage I Neighborhood Traffic Calming strategies that includes Radar Speed
Trailer Deployment, Neighborhood Speed Watch Program and Traditional Enforcement.
FISCAL IMPACT: Approximately $2,000 for removal of temporary devices, signing and
striping. These funds are available in the Public Works signing and striping account
ATTACHMENTS:
1. February 10, 2000 Public/Traffic Safety Commission Agenda Report (with attachments)
2. February 10, 2000 Public/Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Minutes
8
R:\agdrpt\00\0328\viacordoba\ajp
COUNCIL BUSINESS
ITEM 9
ATTACHMENT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA REPORT
Public/Traffic Safety Commission
Ali Moghadam, P.E., Senior Engineer, Traffic
February 10, 2000
Item 2
Evaluation of Traffic Circies - Via Cordoba
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission review the effectiveness of traffic circles and make a
recommendation to the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
At the meeting of August 24, 1999, per a request from a resident, the City Council directed staff to conduct
a demonstration project by installing traffic circles on Via Cordoba and evaluate their effectiveness in reducing
vehicle speeds and volumes over a four (4) month evaluation period. Staff was directed to present the results
of the evaluation to the PublicFFraite Safety Commission and the City Council for consideration of permanent
improvements if the demonstration project proved to be effective. The four-month evaluation period has
concluded and a before and after survey has been performed. The public has been notified of the
Public/Traffic Safety Commission's consideration of this issue through the normal agenda notification process
and by written notification to the residents along Via Cordoba.
At the meeting of June 24, 1999, die Public/Traffic Safety Commission considered a request from
representatives of the Bridlevale Homeowners Association (HOA) to evaluate the need for Multi-way stop
controls at intersections along Via Cordoba due to increased vehicle volumes and speeds. The evaluation
determined that Multi-way stop controls were not warranted at intersections along Via Cordoba and the
Commission approved staffs recommendation to deny the request.
At the meeting of July 13, 1999, the City Council received an appeal to the Public/Traffic Safety
Commission's decision from the residents. The residents asked that the City Council agendize the issue and
reconsider the installation of Multi-way stop controls along Via Cordoba to control vehicle speeds.
At the meeting of August 24, 1999, the City Council upheld the Public/Traffic Safety Commission's decision
to deny the request for Multi-way stop controls on Via Cordoba. However, staff was directed to install
temporary traffic circles on Via Cordoba to address neighborhood speeding conceres. Based on this direction,
staff developed two (2) types of traffic calming devices for installation at five (5) intersections along Via
Cordoba in an effort to reduce the speed.
On September 30, 1999, a letter was mailed to the residents of Via Cordoba that explained the intent of the
traffic calming demonstration program and identified ~he types of temporary Waffle calming devices that could
be expected on Via Cordoba. The leuer also stated that the devices would be evaluated for a period of four
months to determine their effectiveness and that following the evaluation period the City Council would be
apprised of the results of the evaluation and provide further direction on installing permanent improvements.
Temporary traffic circles and median islands were installed along Via Cordoba on October 6, 1999. The
temporary Waffle circles were installed at Via Salito/Corte Bravo and Cone Bella Donna, which are four-way
intersections. Temporary median islands were installed at Loma Linda Road, Corm Rosa, and Corte Zorita,
which are three-way intersections and due to driveway locations traffic circles were not appropriate. In
addition to the temporary devices, advanced warning signs were installed along Via Cordoba at beth the traffic
circle and median island locations. The approximate cost for the research, data collection, design and
implementation of the temporary traffic calming devices including signing and striping was approximately
$10,000.
A before and after study was performed to determine die effectiveness of the temporary traffic calming
devices. The study includes an evaluation of vehicle volume data, and speed data before and after installation
of the temporary devices. Vehicle volume and speed data was collected at four locations on Via Cordoba on
September 21, 1999. Following the installation of the temporary traffic calming devices, vehicle volume and
speed data was collected at the same four locations on November 17, 1999. The table below summarizes the
results of the before and after evaluation conducted on Via Cordoba.
LOCATION
Btw. Via Quivera and
Via Salito/Corte Bravo
Btw. Via Lucia and
Loma Linda Road
Btw. Corte Valle and
Corte Rosa
Btw. Cone Zorita and
Corte Bella Donna
Volume (ADT)
Speed (85~ %)
Volume (ADT)
Speed (85th %)
Volume (ADT)
Speed (85~ %)
Volume (ADT)
Speed (85~ %)
BEFORE (9/21/99)
2,078
32 MPH
1,277
31 MPH
2,071
33 MPH
1,708
31 MPH
AFTER (11/17/99)
1,821
33.5 MPH
1,304
33 MPtt
2,046
33 MPH
1,593
30 MPH
As shown, the before and after evaluation indicates that the installation of the temporaxy traffic calming devices
did not significantly reduce the overall speed of traffic or vehicle volumes along Via Cordoba. In fact, the
results indicale that the 85~ percentile speeds increased by 1 to 2 miles per hour at two of the locations.
Additionally, our observation of vehicle speeds at the temporary traffic circles revealed that a majority of the
motorists did slow down at the traffic circle, but increased their speed immediately after leaving the circle
location. The temporary median islands did not prove to be effective in reducing vehicle speeds even at the
median locations.
An observation of conditions and driver behavior following the installation of the devices revealed several
operational problems. The problems observed at the circles included vehicles making illegal le~-turns (against
opposing Waffle), failure to yield to vehicles in the circle area, and potential vehicle versus pedestrian contlicts
as vehicles maneuvered around the circles. The problems observed at the median islanu locations were
elimination of on-street parking in some areas and restriction of convenient access to properties at other
locations.
In addition to the statistical evaluation, the 'pulse" of the neighberhood was evaluated to determine the
perceived effectiveness of the temporary traffic calming devices. During the evaluation period staff received
input from approximately 24 residents of Via Cordoba and adjacent streets regarding the traffic calming
devices. Some of the complaints received included the devices are ugly, motorists are confused by the circles,
2
children are using the circle as a playground. trash collects in the circles, vehicles continue to speed between
the devices, large trucks and school buses cannot maneuver around them, loss of on-street parking in front of
some homes, too many signs, access has been restricted, and neighborhood property values have been
decreased by ~ installation. The positive 'feedback~ received included the circles are wonderful, these are
beuer than "Stop" signs and thank you for doing something about vehicle speeds.
According to the residents, a major portion of the increased traffic is related to the soccer games held at the
Kent Hintergardt Park, this issue can not be addressed by installation of various traffic control devices, and
requires coordination with the game organizers.
Of the 24 responses received by staff, approximately 19 were opposed to the traffic calming devices and only
five (5) supported their use.
The table below summarizes the results of the responses received.
Resident of Via Cordoba
Resident of adjacent streets
Unknown
In favor of traffic calming Against traffic calming devices on
devices on Via Cordoha Via Cordoba
2 4
2 12
I 3
Following the installation of the temporary traffic calming devices, the Bridlevale Homeowners Association
conducted their own survey of the residents on Via Cordoba and adjacent streets. The survey consisted of six
questions with pre-determined responses. The HOA submitted a total of 38 responses to the City.
The table below summarizes the survey responses.
QUESTIONS
1. Do you feel that the temporary traffic circles and
median islands have slowed traffic?
2. How long should the temporary median be tested?
3. Do you feel that there are too many No Parking
signs?
4. Do you wish to see red marked curbs in lieu of No
Parking signs?
5. Do you want the street returned to the way that it
was no circles nor median islands?
6. What should the final medians be made of?.
RESPONSE TOTAL RESPONSES
Yes 22
No 16
2 months 19
3 months 5
4 months 6
(Remove) ~ 8
Yes 25
No ,~. 11
(No response) 2
Yes 27
No 9
(Neither) ' 2
Yes 18
No '19
(None) 1
Landscaped flowers 26
and trees
Plain colored brick 2
(Neither Imp.),~., ' 9
(Either Imp.) I
( ) - represents responses other than the pre-determined responses
In addition to the information shown above, a survey form was hand delivered to residents of Via Cordoba
and the adjacent streets on FebmaW 3, 2000. The survey asked, "if the residents believed that the temporary
traffic calming devices have been effective in reducing overall vehicle speeds along Via Cordoba" and 'if the
traffic calming devices were found to be effective, would they support permanent improvements". Due to a
request from the HOA representatives not to delay the meeting dale, the results of the survey win be presented
at the meeting.
Emergency response times were also evaluated during the four-month evaluation period. Following the
installation of the temporary traffic calming devices, a fire apparatus from Station 84, which is responsible
for this area, performed a "mock run" on Via Cordoha. Although, the vehicle did maneuver around the traffic
circle slowly, their response time was not significan~y reduced nor did it create a problem. Subsequent
observations by station personnel during the four-month evaluation period resulted in the same findings. No
delays were experienced at the median island locations.
Indepondem studies that have been conducted by other agencies that have implemented traffic calming devices
indicate that typical response times at waffle circles are reduced by approximately 5 to 8 seconds per circle
for fire trucks. The studies further show that typically no delays are experienced at raised median island
locations. These results are consistera with those found on Via Cordoba.
The decision to start using waffle circles and/or raised median islands as a means of reducing neighborhood
vehicle speeds on a citywide basis will need Io consider potential design, conswuction and maintenance costs.
The cost to design and construct a waffle circle can vary from $10,000 to $20,000 depending on the location
and type of improvements desired. The estimated cost includes some form of landscaping. Based on our
observations of operational problems at the lest locations, modification to the existing improvements may also
be necessary to mitigate these problems. The additional cost to modif3, existing improvements is uula~wn and
would be in addition to the estimated cost to construct the circles.
The cost to design and couslruct the raised median island varies from $5,000 to $15,000 depending on the
location and type of improvements needed. The estimated cost includes some form of landscaping. If the City
chooses the median island design that is currently simulated on the street, the existing curb, gurer and sidewalk
area will need to be modified to provide a "narrowing" effect. The estimated cost to construct the additional
improvements may vary between $20,000 to $40,000 depending on the degree of improvements needed.
In addition to the design and conslnxction improvements, landscape and roadway maintenance costs would be
incurred with the installation of both types of improvements. The costs are unknown at this time but may vary
from $500 to $1,500 per year per location.
To date, Staff has received numerous requests to implement some type of traffic calming device at
approximately ten (10) locations throughout the City. Based on the estimated cost previously stated, the
construction of traffic circles at these locations could cost as much as $200,000. Currently, there are no funds
appropriated in the City's Capital Improvement Program for this type of improvement. It should be noted that
the existing adopted City Policy for closure or modification of traffic flow on public streets requires the
residents to parlicipate in all costs directly associated with the street modification.
The results of the before and after study performed on Via Cordoha, indicate that the temporary traffic circles
and median islands have been ineffective in reducing vehicle speeds. Moreover, the estimated cost to install
and maintain permanent traffic circle and median ishnd improvements outweighs the direct benefits received
from the improvements. Therefore, staff recommends that the temporary lraffic calming devices on Via
Cordoha be removed permanently and the street be restored to its prior condition as requested by the majority
of the residents.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Approximately $2,000 for removal of temporary devices, signing and sU-iping, These funds are available in
the Public Work~ signing and striping account
Attachments:
1. Exhibit "A' - Location Map
2. Exhibit "B' - Minutes and City Council Agenda Report of August 24, 1999
3. Exhibit "C' - Letter to Residents of Via Cordoba dated September 30, 1999
4. Exhibit "D" - "Before and "After" Volume and Speed Dam
5. Exhibit 'E' - Letter and Survey to Residents of Via Cordoba dated February 2, 2000
EXHIBIT "A"
LOCATION MAP
EXHIBIT "B"
MINUTES AND CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
OF AUGUST 24, 1999
MINUTE ACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
DATE:
August 27, 1999
TO:
Bill Hughes, Director of Public Works / City Engineer
MEETING OF:
August24,1999
AGENDA
ITEM NUMBER:
Item No. 19
SUBJECT:
Appeal of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission Denial to Install Stop Signs
on Via Cordoba for SpeedControl
The motion was made by Councilmember Comerchem seconded by Coundlmember
Roberts to approve staff recommendation.
Staff was directed to place two or three temporary circles/medians on Via Cordoba while
staff is formulating a City-wide plan and standard policy for addressing speeding problems
in residential areas. Staff was given discretion on the placement of the signs. Staff was
further directed to call a meeting of the Public Works Subcommittee.
RECOMMENDATION:
19.1 Deny a request for multi-way stop controls along Via Cordoba at Code Zodta,
Loma Linda Road, and Corta BrevoNia Saltio intersections;
19.2
Provide direction to the Public Works Traffic Division to establish a standard policy
for addressing speeding problems in residential areas to be approved by the
Public/Traffic Safety Commission and City Council, respectively.
The motion carded by the following vote:
AYES: 4
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
ABSTAINED: I
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Comerohero, lindemans, Roberts, Stone
None
None
Ford
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY Of RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
1, Susan W, Jones, C;,h/Clerk of the City of Temecula, Califomia, DO HEREBY
CERTIFY, under penalty of perjury, the foregoing to be the offidal action taken by the City
Council at the above meeting,
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 27th day of August, 1999.
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
r"~ William G. Hughes. Director of Public Works/City Engineer
August 24, 1999
Appeal of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission Denial to Install Stop Signs
On Via CordoDd for Speeq Control
PREPARED BY: Allie Kuhns. Semor Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council
Deny a request for Multi-Way Stop Controls along Via Cordoba at the Cone Zonta, Loma
Linda Roaq. and Corte Bravo/Via Saltio intersections.
Prowde direction to the Public Works Traffic Division to establish a standard policy for
addressing speeding problems ~n residential areas to be approved by the Public/Traffic
Safety Commission and City Council, respectively.
BACKGROUND: In Juty 1999, a request was received from representatives of the
Bndlevale Homeowners Association to evaluate the need for Multi-Way stop controls at ~ntersections
along Via Coraoba due to increaseq traffic volumes and vehicle speeds. An evaluation of traffic
conditions was performed that mcluded 24-hour volume counts. survey of vehicle speeds and Multi-
Way stop warrant analyses at three locations along Via CordoDd. The warrant analysis performed
at each of the locations determined that Multi-Way stop controls were not justified on Via Cotaloha
at Cone Zonta. Loma Linda Road and Cone Bravo/Via Sahto
At their meeting of June 24. 1999. the Public/Traffic Safety Commission approved the Staff
recommendation to deny a request for Multi-Way Stop Controls on Via CoraoDa at Cone Zonta.
Loma Linda Roaq and Cone Bravo/Via Salito Cop~es of the m~nutes of the June 24. 1999 meetrag
along wdh the staff report and attachments documenhng the stop s~gn warrant analys~s are prowded
for ~nformat~on
Dunng Public Comments at the July 13. 1999 City Council meeting, two residents who live on or near
V~a Cordoba requested an appeal to the PubhcjTraffic Safety Comm~ss~on's decision and 'asked that
the City Council agend~ze the ~ssue. The residents are requestrag that the City Councfi consider the
~nstallatlon of MultFWay 5top controls a~ong V~a Cordoba to Control vehicle speeds
The Colirons Traffic Manual indicates that MultFWay Stop controls may be useful at locations where
the volume of traffic on intersecting roac~s ~s approximately equal and/or where a combination of h~gn
speed. restncted sight distance and an accident history indicates that assignment of ngnt-of-way is
necessary Multi-Way Controls are recommended where there m strong evidence that overall traffic
safety can De ,roDroved and should not De used solely for controlling vehicle speeds
StuDies nave shown that wren stop signs are installed at locations that do not satisfy me minimum
warrant criteria :hey i~eccme ~neffective traffic control clevlces 'hue, by ~nstathng S~gns at
unwarrantec: tocazlons, some GrIvers 13ecome conctttloneo to disregard traffic c=ntroIs such as Speed
bruits stop signs slid SIgnal5 Those motorists wno actuaily Stop for tRe Controls are forcec: to stop
for no apparent reason, This often results ~n c~river frustration and lack of respect to traffic control
devices while doing nothing to ac~dress the real problem of speeding 'A/hen this occurs. safety can
De. and is often, cornpromised,
Residents commonly express the concern about excessive speeds on neady every res~dential street
~n the City of Temecula. ,-' speed survey performed in May 1999 indicates that although some
speeding does occur on the roadway, the majority of drivers are travelling at a reasonable and
prudent speed for conditions on Via CotalcOa. The speeds oPserved on Via Coredha are enforceable
and consistent with vehicle speeds observed on other City streets that are primonly residential.
The Cityw~ae enforcement of existing speed limits on residential streets has shown that the residents
of the area commit a majonty of the violations. Through enforcement of the posted 25-MPH speed
limit along Via Cotaloha, the Temecuta Police Department has proven that Via Cordoba is no
exception to this Cityw~de finding. Most traffic citations for exceeding the posted speed limit on Via
Coraoha were issued to residents of Via Cordoha and adjacent streets. Recently, the Police
Department placed their radar trailer on Via Cordoba to remind drivers of the posted speed limit. This
effort will continue as time and availability of the radar trader permits. until drivers become more
aware of the 25 MPH postea speed limit,
Another concern expressed lay the reszaents was that there was a nigh volume of "cut-through" traffic
on Via Cotaloha. In May 1999, traffic volume data was collected at two locations along Via Corcloha.
The count data indicates that Via Cordoba comes approximately 2,400 vehicles per day between
Loma Linda Road and Redhawk Parkway and approximately 1,400 vehicles per day between Loma
Linda Road and Via Del Coronado. Based on the traffic volumes shown, it does not appear that
there ~s a s~gnfficant amount of "cut through" traffic along this corndot. In fact the number of vehicles
travelling on Via Cordoha ~s appropriate for the approximately 300 single-family dwelling units that
directly access Via Cotaloha. This finding is further substantiated lay the Police Department's speed
violation citations ~ssued along Via Cordoha.
By installing unwarranted stop signs or other traffic controls on Via Cordoba the City would be setting
a precedence for ~nstalling unwarranted traffic controls along residential collector streets that were
designed to prowde access between res~dentml neighbornoo0s and regional roadway facilities.
Therefore. it is staff's recommendation that the Councd deny the request to install stop s~gns along
Via Corc~oha at the Cone Zonta. Loma Linda Road. and Cone Bravo/Via Saltio ~ntersect~ons.
Along w~th the recommendation to deny the installation of stop signs on Via CordoDd, Staff
recommends that a policy De developed to address speeding concerns in residential areas. This
policy wdl provide standard procedures for evaluating the need for traffic control dewcos ~n all
res~denhal areas so that 3cns~stency ~n addressing this issue Can be maintained Cityw~de
FISCAL IMPACT: 'Jone
ATTACHMENTS:
! June 24 1999 Public/Traffic Safety Ccrnmms~on Agenc~a Report (w~tb attacnments)
2. June 24 1999 PuDlIc,/Traffic Safety Comnnrsslon Meeting Minutes
via CcrnoDa at Cc, rte
MultFWay Stop Warraining Software
D5/17,'99
Major Street: 'Via Coroona
Minor Street: Cone Zorlta
Date of Analys~s: 05117/99
Name of Analyst: jg
Case NumDer:
Comments:
85'"% Speed of Major Street: 25
WARRANT ANALYSIS SUMMARY
WARRANT 1 - Acc~clent Expenence
NOT SATISFIED - The accident warrant of 5 or more reportable accidents of a correctable type is
not met with 0 accidents over a 12-month period.
WARRANT 2 - Minimum Traffic Volumes
NOT SATISFIED - The 100% vehicular warrant of 500 entering vehicles for any 8 hours of the day
~s not met with 0 hours meeting the warrant.
WARRANT 3 - Vehicular & Pedestrian Traffic from Minor Road
NOT SATISFIED - The cornDined total of 200 vemctes and pedestrians from the m~nor approach is
not met w~th 0 hours meeting the warrant
4
R ,agarpi%gg10824\wacorooDatratficcontrols
~!a Csroona at Loma Ljnoa Roao
MulthWay Stop Warranting Software
05/17/99
Major Street: Via CordoOa
Minor Street: Loma Linda Roa0
Date of Analysis: 05/17/99
Name of Analyst: jg
Case Number:
Comments:
85'"% Speed of Major Street: 25
WARRANT ANALYSIS SUMMARY
WARRANT 1 - Accident Expenence
NOT SATISFIED - The accident warrant of 5 or more reportable accidents of a correctable type is
not met with 0 accidents over a 12-month period.
WARRANT 2 - Minimum Traffic Volumes
NOT SATISFIED - The 100% vehicular warrant of 500 entering vehicles for any 8 hours of the day
is not met with 0 hours meeting the warrant.
WARRANT 3 - Vehicular & Pedestrian Traffic from Minor Road
NOT SATISFIED - The combined total of 200 vemcles and peoestnans from the m~nor approach Is
not met w~th 0 hours meeting the warrant
V~a Cordoba at Cone Bravo/Via Saltio
Mulh-Way Stop Warranting Software
05/17/99
Malor Street: V~a Cordoba
Minor Street: Cone Bravo/Via Salho
Date of Analysis C5117/99
Name of Analyst: jg
Case NumDer
Comments:
85'~-~ Speect of Malor Street: 25
WARRANT ANALYSIS SUMMARY
WARRANT 1 - Acclcient Experience
NOT SATISFIED - The acclnent wan'ant of 5 or more reponaole accidents of a correctable type ~s
not met wsth 0 accidents over a 12-month period,
WARRANT 2 - Minimum Traffic Volumes
NOT SATISFIED - The 100% vehicular warrant of 500 entenng ven~cles for any 8 hours of the clay
is not met w~th 0 hours meeting the warrant.
WARRANT 3 - Vehicular & Pedestrian Traffic from Minor Road
NOT SATISFIED - The combined total of 200 vehicles and pedestnans from the minor approach is
not met with 0 hours meeting the warrant.
6
R ~agorpl~99\0824,wacorooDatralficc°nlt°ls
EXHIBIT "C"
LETTER TO RESIDENTS OF
VIA CORDOBA
City of Temecula
43200 Bu~ne~ Park Drive · Temecula, CA 92~90 · M~ii~ngAUar~ P ~ B~x ~033 · Ternscala, CA 92589-9033
September 30, 1999
RE: VIA CORDOBA TRAFFIC CALMING PROTOTYPE
Dear Residents of Via Cordoba:
In preparation for the installation of the temporary traffic calming measures that will be
constructed at various locations along Via Cordoba, we would like to take this
opportunity to thank you for your patience and cooperation during the demonstration
site improvements for this traffic calming program.
HISTORY
Several months ago, residents from Via Cordoba approached the City of Temecula
Public/Traffic Safety Commission regarding the volume and speeds of traffic along Via
Cordoba. These residents expressed their concern that ddvers are not adhering to the
25 MPH speed limit along this street, and are creating a hazard to the residents both on
Via Cordoba as well as on adjacent through streets and cul-de-sacs. The residents
requested that stop signs be installed at 3 intersections along Via Cordoba. Based on
all of the information presented at this meeting, the Public/Traffic Safety Commission
denied this request, primarily because stop signs are used to assign right-of-way and
are not effective in slowing down traffic.
In appeal of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission's recommendation, residents
approached the City Council and requested that the installation of stop signs along Via
Cordoba be placed on a Council Agenda. Prior to taking this item to the Council, City
staff researched effective speed mitigation tools used in Southern California, and
conducted a door-to-door survey of residents along Via Cordoba to determine if
residents perceived a speed problem on this street. The results of the survey showed
that a high percentage of residents felt that there is a speed problem along Via
Cordoba, although there was not a consensus among those as to what should be done
to stow drivers down.
At the Temecula City Council Meeting on August 24, 1999, the Council agreed with
staffs recommendation not to install stop signs. However, based on a presentation
made by a resident of Via Cordoba, the Council directed staff to pursue a demonstration
project involving the installation of traffic calming measures, including traffic circles, as
soon as possible.
In response to Council direction, the City's Traffic Engineering Divisicn has designed
two different traffic calming devices that will be installed at 5 intersections along Via
Cordoba. Where there are two streets that intersect in a "T", the medians shown in
Figure 1 (see attached) will be installed because traffic circles are not appropriate for
this type of intersection. This is the case at the intersections of Via Cordoba and Lorna
Linda Road, Corte Zodta, and Corte Rosa. Where Via Cordoba intersects with Via
Saltio and Corte Bella Donna and the two streets create a four-way intersection, traffic
circles will be installed (Figure 2).
As discussed during the meeting, these devices are temporary in nature and will be
monitored closely for approximately 4 months to determine if the devices are effective in
slowing traffic. After the evaluation period is completed, staff will report to the City
Council on the effectiveness of the devices and request direction on installing more
permanent improvements.
Also, for your information, we have enclosed a brochure that explains the concept of
roundabouts (traffic circles) and how to ddve around them.
We sincerely hope that this program will be effective and successful in slowing traffic
along Via Cordoba. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to give us
a call at 694-6411.
Sincerely,
William G. Hughes
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Senior Traffic Engineer
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENGINEERING/
PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT
ALL ABOUT
ROUNDABOUTS
ROUNDABOUTS
Each year, the City rece,ves numerous requests to reduce the traffrc
congestion on streels throughout the Cdy Cjhzens also express concerns
about the safety of the streets where they hve In an effort to reduce traffic
congestion and ~mprove safety, the Caty has recently Considered the use of
roundabouts
Roundabouts are used throughout Europe and In Several Countries around
the world to reduce injury accidents, traffic delays, fuel consumption, air
pollution. and to enhance intersection beauty. They nave also successfully
been used to control traffic speeds in certain residential neighborhoods. If
properly constructed, they are considered one of the safest types of
intersection design.
A roundabout is a c~rcular intersection similar to the traffic circle used
previously in the U.S.. The major differences between a traffic c~rcle and a
roundabout are:
Yield at Entry: At roundabouts the entering traffic yields the right-of-way to the
csrculating traffic. This yield-at-entry rule keeps traffic from locking up and
allows free flow movement.
~: The entry and center island of a roundabout deflects entenng
traffic to slow traffic and reinforce/he yielding process,
Flare: The entry to a roundabout often flares out from one or two lanes to two
or three lanes at the y~eld line to provide increased capacity.
WHY USE A ROUNDABOUT?
1. Safety: Roundabouts have been shown to reduce fatal and injury accidents
as much as 75% in Australia and 86% in Great Britain. The reduction in
accidents is attributed to slower speeds and reduced number of conflict
points (See Figure 1).
2, Low Maintenance: Roundabouts eliminate maintenance costs associated
with traffic signals, which can be up to $3,500 per year per intersection.
Additionally. electricity costs are reduced approximately $1.500 per year
per intersection.
3. Reduced Delay: By yielding at the entry rather than stopping and wa~hng
for a green light. delay is significantly reduced.
4. Capacity: Intersections with a high volume of left turns are better handled
by a roundabout than a multi-phased traffic signal.
5. Aesthetics: A reduction in delay corresponds to a decrease in fuel
consumption and air pollution. In addition. the central island provides an
opportumty to provide landscaping.
Standard Intersection
Roundabout Intersection
· = Conflict Point
Figure I
HOW TO DRIVE A ROUNDABOUT
As you approach a roundabout, there will be a YIELD sign and dashed
yield limit line. Drivers need to slow down, watch for pedestrians and
bicyclists, and be prepared to stop, if necessary. When you enter, yield to
circulating traffic on the left, but do not stop if it is clear.
A conventional roundabout will have "ONE-WAY" signs mounted in the
center island, They help traffic and indicate that you must drive to the right of
the center island. Mini-roundabouts have no one-way signs since the center
island is not raised. You must still drive to the right of the domed painted
island.
Upon passing the street prior to your exit, turn on your right turn signal and
watch for pedestrians and bicyclists as you exit.
Left turns are completed by traveling around the center island (see Figure
2).
Figure 2
Important Contacts
Public Works Information:
(909) 694-6411
City Hotline:
(909) 694-6445, Option ~
Traffic Hotline:
(909) 694-6445, Option 6
City Website:
www. ci. temecula. ca
EXHIBIT "D'
BEFORE AND AFTER VOLUME
AND SPEED DATA
I ~- 77 A~2''
33
~071 ADT
XXX=
17D8 AI~T
31
CITY OF TSMECULA
VIA CORODOEA ~/0 CORTE VALLE
24 HE SPEED SURVEY
din 0- 6-
Time 10
I2:00 09/21 0
0h00 0
02:00 0
03:00 0
04:00 0
05:00 0
06:00 0
07:00 0
08:00 0
09:00 0
10:00 0
11:00 1
11- I6-
I5 20
COUNTS UNLIMITED, INC.
909.247.6716
EASTBOUND
21- 26- 31- 36- 41-
25 30 35 40 45
0 0 2 1 I 0
0 0 2 0 0 0
1 1 1 0 0 0
1 0 0 1 0 0
1 0 0 1 1
1 2 1 4 1 0
3 9 12 I6 0 1
1 tl 44 12 6 0
1 9 35 14 3 t
2 15 17 ll 0 2
1 8 13 9 7 1
2 9 10 12 5 4
46- 51-
50 55 60
Site Code: 000000157707
Start Date: 09/21/1999
File I.D.: THVC""
PaVe : !
61- 50tb 85th
999 Total Pct. Pct.
4 29 34
2 27 29
] 24 29
2 19 34
4 34 39
9 29 34
41 28 33
74 27 32
64 27 32
56 27
39 20 36
44 29 37
12:00 pm 0 1 1 4 6 14 10 4 2
01:00 O 0 1 0 8 22 12 5 2
02:00 0 0 0 0 16 26 12 7 0
03:00 0 0 0 2 21 37 34 12 3
04:00 0 0 1 2 26 37 29 15 2
05:00 0 Q 4 7 41 58 29 4 i
06:00 0 0 1 5 44 37 23 0 2
07:00 O O 3 6 14 24 I1 5 0
08:00 0 0 0 1 7 11 13 4 1
O9:OO Q 1 1 1 3 9 7 0 3
10:00 0 0 0 0 1 S ? 5 0
11:00 0 0 1 0 1 3 1 0 0
n-, TOtalS * 3 16 42 252 420 269 93 26
ala 0 ] 16 42 252 420 269 93 26
0 0
0 O
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 O
0 0
0 O
0 O
0 Q
0 O
0 O
1
I 0
42 28 34
50 28 34
61 27 33
110 28 34
i12 28 34
144 26 32
112 26 31
03 26 33
37 29 34
25 28 33
18 32 37
6 26 29
1122 27
1122
Speed Statistics.
15th Percentlie Speed
Median Speed (SOth percentih
Average Speed - All vehicles
85th Percentih Speed
95th Percenfih Speed
10 MPS Pace Speed
Number of Vehicles in Pace
Percent of vehicles in Pace
Number of Vehicles: :5 MPH
Percent of Vehxci-~ > 55 MPH:
22 MPH
27 MPH
29 MPH
33 MPE
38 MPH
26-35 MUR
609
61.35t
0
.DOt
CITI OF TEMECULA
VIA CORODOBA E;0 CORTE VALLE
"R SPEED SURVEV
j,n O- 6-
Time !0
I2:00 09/21
OhO0
02:00
03:00
04:00
05:00
06:00
07:00
08:00
09:00
10:00
lhO0
COOIrIS UNLIMITED, INC.
909.247.6716
WESTBOU~
11- 16- 21- 26- 31- 36- 41-
15 20 25 30 35 40 45
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 2 0
0 0 0 0 I 0
0 I 1 1 0 0
1 0 0 1 I 0
0 0 4 4 3 1
1 0 I3 20 9 2
I 4 10 46 13 3
1 1 8 21 11 7
0 0 11 12 i2 3
0 2 0 6 G 1
1 0 9 10 12 2
46- 51- 56- 61-
50 55 60 999
Site Code: 000000157707
Start Date: 09/21/1999
File I.D.: TEVCEOCV
Page : 1
5Orb 85th
Total Pct. Pct.
1 , 24
2 32 3&
I ' 34
3 24 29
3 29 34
12 27 33
45 27 32
07 27 32
49 28 34
38 28 33
25 26 33
41 27 33
I2:00 pm 0 0 0 3 7 16 14 5 0 0
01:00 0 0 1 0 6 17 i1 0 0 2
02:00 1 0 i B 20 31 10 3 1 0
03:00 0 0 0 3 13 25 9 6 0 0
04:00 0 1 0 3 14 35 17 3 0 0
05:00 0 O 1 6 29 37 23 3 0 0
06:00 1 0 2 I 41 51 9 1 1 0
OT:O0 0 0 1 2 14 21 tO I 0 0
08:00 0 1 0 0 I2 15 5 3 0 0
09:00 0 0 1 0 I0 14 9 3 0 0
10:00 0 0 0 2 1 4 3 2 0 0
H'OO O 0 0 1 0 4 1 I I 0
Totals 2 3 12 37 240 397 199 50 S 2
~s 2 3 12 37 240 397 199 50 6 2
Speed Statistics.
15th Percentile Speed
Median Speed BOth percentih
Average Speed - All Vehicles
85th Percentih Speed
95th Percentlie Speed
lO NPB Pace Speed
Number of Vehicles in Pace
Percent of Vehicles in Pace
Number of Vehicles > 55 NPH
Perce~t of Vehicles > 55 MPH:
21
27
28
32
36
21-30
G7.19%
0
.00%
MPR
MPB
NPH
MPE
MPH
45 28 33
37 28 33
83 27 32
56 27 33
73 27 32
99 27 32
107 26 29
49 26 32
36 26 32
37 27 33
12 28 34
8 28 39
949 27
949
CITY OF TEMEULA
VIA C02DOBA 8/0 CORTH VALLE
24 HR SPEMD 0URVHY
~in Int. 0- 1G 21 24
Time Total !5 20 25 30
12:00 11/I7 4 0 0 1 0
0h00 I 0 0 0 1
02:00 3 0 0 0 1
03:00 2 0 1 0 1
04:00 5 1 0 2 0
OS:O0 8 O I 2 2
06:00 47 1 0 19
07:00 72 1 6 20 21
08:00 62 0 2 20 21
09:00 26 O 0 6 12
10:00 38 1 7 10 13
lhO0 46 1 1 1I
COUNTS UNLIMITHD, INC.
909.247.6716
EASTBOUND
31 36 41
35 40 45 50
2 1 0
0 0 0
1 i 0
0 0 0
0 I
2 1 0
7 4 0
21 2 I
18 2 1
0 0 0
4 2 1
14 3 0
12:00 pm 86 2 3 17 32 25 5 2 0
01:00 71 0 0 18 26 21 G 0 0
02:00 62 0 0 11 34 11 0 0 0
03:00 92 1 2 17 34 25 11 2 0
04:00 I05 1 4 26 42 26 6 0 0
05:00 118 0 2 19 G( 25 6 0 0
06:00 92 0 G 23 45 14 4 0 0
07:00 57 1 1 18 17 15 5 0 0
08:00 30 I 1 2 15 6 4 1 0
09:00 25 0 0 1 8 13 2 1 0
10:00 19 0 0 5 5 7 2 0 0
11:00 12 0 0 2 2 4 3 1 0
"'" Totals 1083 11 37 250 430 2(7 77 11 t
51 56
55 00
0
0
0
0
61
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Site Code: 000000151578
Start Date: 11/17/1999
File I.E.: THVr"^~V
Page : 1
66 71 70
70 v5 9999
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
MPH
22
27
28
33
37
26-35
897
04.34t
0
.OOt
Speed Statistics.
15th Percentih Speed
Median Speed (50th percentih
Average Speed - All Vehicles
05th Percentih Speed
95th Percentih Speed
10 MPE Pace Speed
Number of Vehicles in Pace
Percent of Vehicles in Pace
Number of Vehicles > 55 NPH
Percent of Vehicles > 55 MPE:
Grand Total 1083 II 37 250 430 2(7 77 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 O O 0 Q
O O 0 0 Q
O 0 O 0 O
O 0 0 0 Q
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 O
0 O 0 0 Q
O 0 0 0 Q
O O O O O
O O 0 O O
O O O 0 O
O 0 0 0 O
fr t t t
CITY OF TEMECULA
VIA COEDOBA E/0 COETE VALLE
' ~R SPEED SUEVEY
=,n Int. 0-
Time Total !5
i2:00 11/17 2 0
01:00 0 0
02:00 3 0
03:00 2 0
04:00 9 0
05:00 18 2
06:00 31 0
07:00 69 3
08:00 57 0
09:00 38 1
10:00 36 0
I1:00 42 0
1G
20
COUI~TS UNLIMITND. INC.
909.247.6716
WESTBOUND
21 26 3I 36 41 4G
25 30 35 40 45 50
0 1 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 2 0 0 1
i 1 0 0 0
3 0 2 3 1
i G 6 3 0
G 17 4 2 0
10 28 14 2 0
19 19 13 3 0
7 16 13 0 0
7 15 ll 1 1
12 13 11 2 2
12:00 pm 84 2 3 20 31 22 5 0
01:00 72 1 3 15 29 19 5 0
02:00 60 0 1 15 26 12 4 2
03:00 63 0 0 10 30 18 4 1
04:00 74 2 4 26 2G 13 3 0
05:00 94 I 4 20 39 26 3 0
0G:00 57 0 3 16 26 l0 2
07:00 65 O 2 13 33 1S 2 0
08:00 47 0 3 9 22 9 4 0
09:00 25 0 0 1 16 6 1 1
10:O0 13 0 2 2 5 3 1 0
rll:00 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
Totals 963 12 36 223 401 229 50 9
5i 56 61 G6
55 60 65 70
Site Code: 000000151578
Start Date: 11/17/1999
File I.D.: TBVCEOCV
Page : !
7I 7G
75 9999
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Grand Total 98 12 36 223 401 229 50 9 1 0 1 0 1 0 0
Speed Statistics.
15th Percentlie Speed : 22 MPE
Median Speed (50tb percentih): 27 MPD
Average Speed - All Vehicles: 28 MPR
85th Percentih Speed : 33 MPE
95th Percentlie Speed : 36 MPH
10 MPE Pace Speed : 26-35 MPE
Number of Vehicles in Pace: 80
Percent of Vehicles in Pace: 65.40t
Number of Vehicles > 55 MPR : 2
Percent of Vehicles > 55 MPH: .21t
CITY OF TEMSCI3LA
VIA CORDOBA S/O VIA ZORITA
24 H SPSMD SURVMY
jim O-
Time iO
12:00 09/2I 0
01:00 0
02:00 0
03:00 0
04:00 0
05:00 0
06:00 0
07:OO 0
08:00 0
09:00 0
10:00 0
lhO0 1
11- 16- 21- 26-
I5 20 25 30
0 0 0 1
0 0 0 i
0 0 0 1
0 1 0 0
1 1 1
1 0 1 1
0 2 11 11
0 ] 11 44
0 0 6 30
0 1 8 13
0 1 11
O 1 9 13
COUNTS UNLIMITED, INC.
909.247.6716
EASTBOUND
31- 36- 41- 46- 51-
35 40 !5 50 55
1 0 0 0
1 0 0 0
0 0 0 1
O O 0 0
0 1 1 0
3 1 0 0
6 0 0 0
8 1 0 0
13 2 0 1
11 6 0 0
15 1 0 0
13 1 0 0
56- 61-
60 999
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Site Code: 000000157714
Start Date: 09/21/1999
Pile I.D.:
Page : 1
50th 85~,
Tctal Pct. Pct.
2 29 34
2 29 34
2 29 49
1 * 19
8 26 39
7 31 34
30 26 31
67 27 29
52 20 32
39 20 34
45 27 32
38 27 32
12:00 pm
01:00
02:00
03:00
04:00
OS:O0
06:00
07:00
08:00
09:00
1Q:QQ
11:00
"'* Totals
0 O S 7 18
O O 0 9 22 9
0 O 3 9 27 1S
O I 2 17 39 20
0 0 0 16 41 18
1 i 7 26 64 8
0 1 3 33 40 I2
0 1 i 12 19 13
1 0 1 S 14 4
O O 0 1 8 4
0 O 0 I 2 7
0 0 1 0 O 1
3 6 33 195 429
3 6 33 195 429 189
1 O 0 1
I O 1 O
I 0 0 0
4 1 0 0
6 0 0 0
'2 1 0 O
3 O 1 0
3 O 0 0
1 2 0 0
2 1 0 0
3 2 0 0
0 O 0 0
40 8 4 1
40 8 4 1
0 39 27 31
0 42 21 32
0 56 27 32
0 84 27 32
0 81 27 33
O 110 26 29
0 93 26 31
O 49 27 33
0 29 27 33
O 16 21 31
0 15 33 39
0 2 I! 34
* 909
0 909
Speed 2 ::istice.
15th Percentfie Speed : 22 MPH
NedSan Speed (SOth percentih): 27 NPH
Average Speed - All Vehicles: 28 MPH
Seth Percentih Speed : 32 MPH
95th Percentlie Speed : 36 KPE
10 MPS Pace Speed : 21-30 MPH
Rumeel of Vehicles in Pace: 624
Percent of Vehicles in Pace: 68.65t
Number of Vehicles > 55 NPH : 0
Percent of Vehichs > 55 MPH: .00%
CITI OF TEMMCULA
VIA CORDOBA S/O VIA ZORITA
"~R SPEND SURVBY
,n 0- 6-
Tile I0
12:00 09/21
01:00
02:00
03:00
04:00
05:00
06:00
07:00
08:00
09:00
lO:OO
I1:00
i1- t6- 21-
15 20 25
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 1 0
1 0
0 0 3
1 i0
2 1 17
1 5
0 3 I1
0 9
0 14
COUI{TSOI{LIMITBD, INC.
909.?47.6716
WESTBOUND
26- 31- 36- 41-
30 35 40 45
0 0
2 0
0 1
1 0
1 0
1 3
20 2
35 14
I2 9
13 4
8 2
20 2
44- 51-
50 55
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
56-
60
Site Code: 000000157714
Start Date: 09/21/1999
File I.D.: TBVCEOCZ
hoe : I
6I- 50th 85th
999 Total Pct. Pct.
0 * +
2 27 29
1 , 34
2 19 29
4 17 19
7 29 33
34 26 29
72 27 32
30 27 33
31 26 20
24 26 32
41 25 28
12:00 pm
OhO0
02:00
03:00
04:00
05:00
06:00
07:00
08:00
00:00
lO:O0
jhOO
'orals
.s
0 I
0 O
1 0
0 2
1 0
0 1
0 I
1 0
1 1
1 i
0 0
0 0
5 12
5 12
14 17
O 13 IS
26 28
3 22 20
16 37
4 25 39
33 41
I 15 19
8 13
Q 11 12
4 7
0 3
39 256 364
39 256 364
6 1 0 0 0 0
4 1 1 0 O 0
10 0 0 0 0 0
5 1 1 0 0 0
9 0 0 0 0 0
6 I 0 O 1 0
7 2 0 0 0 0
9 1 0 O O 0
1 2 0 0 0 0
2 2 0 I Q 0
0 1 0 0 O 0
0 1 1 0 O 0
96 21 4 1 1
96 21 4 1 1 0
39 26 31
34 26 31
70 25 29
54 24 29
68 26 29
77 26 29
90 25 29
46 26 31
26 26 29
30 26 32
12 26 28
5 28 39
799 26
799
Speed Statistics.
15th Percentih Speed : 21 NPH
Median Speed (50tb percentlie): 26 MPB
Average Speed - All Vehicles: 27 NPN
85th Percentih Speed : 30 MPg
95th Percentile Speed : 33 NPg
10 MPH Pace Speed : 21-30 MPB
Number of Vehicles in Pace: 620
Percent of Vehicles in Pace: 77.50%
Number of Vehicles > 55 NPN : 0
Percent of Vehicles > 55 NPH: .00%
CITY OF TEMOCULA
VIA CORDOBA E/O CORT8 ZORITA
24 ER SPEED SURVEY
. :in In,. 0- 16 21 26 31
Time Total 15 ' 20 25 30 35
12:00 11/i7 2 0 0 2 0 0
Oh00 1 0 1 0 0 0
02:00 2 0 0 0 1 1
03:00 1 0 0 1 0 0
04:00 7 0 1 1 3 2
05:00 I3 1 1 3 6 2
06:00 23 2 7 9 5 0
07:00 61 1 3 41 11 4
08:00 43 I 9 22 8 3
09:00 26 2 4 13 8 0
10cOO 30 1 6 17 5 1
11:00 29 1 3 17 7
12:00 pm 73 1 9 33 28 1 0 0
01:00 55 2 11 26 15 1 0 0
02:00 49 0 9 27 12 1 0 0
03:00 56 2 8 22 16 5 0 0
04:00 61 1 9 38 10 2 0 0
05:00 60 1 5 30 30 2 0 '0
06:00 50 1 8 28 13 O 0 0
07:00 51 2 4 27 16 2 0 0
08:00 40 1 4 24 11 O 0 0
09:00 19 0 1 12 5 1 0 0
10:00 10 I 1 3 4 1 0 0
lhO0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
,-. Totals 771 20 104 396 215 30 * *
COUNTS UNLIMITED, INC.
909.247.671G
EASTBOUND
36 ll 46
40 15 50
5i 56
55 60
0
0
0
0
61
65
0
0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
, , ,
Site Code: 000000151575
Start Date: 11/17/1999
File I.D.: TEVc'
Paqe : 1
66 71 76
70 75 9999
0 O 1
0 O 0
0 0 0
0 O 3
0 O 1
0 0 0
0 0 0
O 0 0
0 0 0
O 0 0
0 0 0
O 0 0
, , 6
Grand Total 771 20 104 39~ 215 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
Speed Statistics.
15th Percentile Speed : 19 MPH
Median Speed (5Orb percentile): 23 MH
Average Speed - All Vehicles: 25 MPB
85th Percentih Speed : 28 NPE
95th Percentile Speed : 29 NPH
10 MPH Pace Speed : 21-30 MPS
Number of Vehicles in Pace: 611
Percent of Vehicles in Pace: 79.32t
NUmber of Vehicles > 55 NPH : 6
Percent of Vehicles > 55 NPH: .78t
CITY OF TEMECULA
VIA CORDOBA E/0 CORTE ZORITA
"qR SPEED SURVEY
.a Int.
Ti~e Total 15'
i2:00 11/I7 2
01:00 I
02:00
03:00 2
04:00 4
05:00 10
06:00 35
07:00 58
08:00 56
09:00 23
10:00 29
lh00 44
20
21 26
25 .~0
0 2
0 0
0 2
1 I
1 2
4 4
11 13
14 25
13 25
9 12 1
12 10 2
14 16 8
COUFfS UNLIMIT~, INC.
909.247.S716
WESTBOUND
31 36 41 46
35 40 45 50
0 0
1 0
0 1
0 0
0 1
2 0
9 1
10 1
9 1
0
0
12:00 pm 76 0 4 20 34 15 1 1
0h00 45 0 5 13 19 8 0 0
02:00 46 2 1 8 28 S I 0
03:00 73 2 4 24 32 6 4 0
04:00 69 0 5 23 33 7 0 0
05:00 77 0 0 20 40 8 1 0
0S:00 70 0 2 IS 39 10 2 1
07:00 34 0 0 4 15 13 2 0
08:00 2d 0 1 4 10 7 2 0
09:00 19 0 0 0 8 9
10:00 14 0 0 2 4 S 2 0
ll:00 8 0 0 0 2 4 2 0
Totals 822 9 41 213 384 141 23 5
51 56 6i 66
55 60 65 70
Site Code: 000000151575
Start Date: I1/17/1999
File I.D. TEVCEOCZ
Paae
71 76
75 9999
O 0 1
0 0 O
0 0 0
0 0 1
0 0 1
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
e , 6 t
Grand Total 822 9 41 213 384 141 23 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 6
Speed Statistics.
15th Percentile Speed : 21 MPH
Median Speed (50th percentlie): 27 MPE
Average Speed - All Vehicles: 28 MPE
85th Percentile Speed : 31 MPB
95tb Percentih Speed : 34 MPG
10 MPH Pace Speed : 21-30 MPB
Number of Vehicles in Pace: 597
Percent of Vehicles in Pace: 72.S3t
Number of Vehicles > 55 MPH : 6
Percent of Vehicles > 55 MPE: .73%
CITY OF TEM~CULA
VIA C02DOBA S/O VIA
24 HR SPEED SURVEY
DEL COIONAD0
~in tnt. 0- 16
Time Total 15 20
12:00 11/17 7 0
01:00 2 0
02:00 2 0
03:00 2 1
04:00 2 0
05:00 4 0
06:00 3 1
0?:00 31 0
08:00 79 2
09:00 20 I
10:00 29 1
ii:00 48 O
COUFIS UliLIMITRD, INC.
909.247.6716
EASTBOUND
2I 26 3I 36 41 46
25 30 35 40 45 50
1 4 2 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 1 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0
0 1 1 0 0 0
2 1 1 0 0 O
1 0 0 1 0 0
7 10 7 4 O 0
21 31 I6 2 0 I
4 5 7 2 1 0
8 10 9 0 0 0
11 18 13 5 0 O
12:00 pm 89 2 2 17 30
01:00 67 1 5 18 20
02:00 42 1 0 11 I(
03:00 78 0 2 7 33
04:00 90 1 3 21 30
05:00 130 0 1 li 50
06:00 88 0 3 17 43
07:00 62 0 3 11 27
08:00 43 O 3 8 17
09:00 27 O 1 5 9
lO:O0 13 0 0 4 3
lh00 12 0 0 2 5
n,v Totals 970 11 34 192 362
26 10 0 0 0 0
19 2 1 I 0 0
9 7 0 0 0 0
31 4 I 0 0 0
29 5 1 0 0 0
54 8 '2 1 0 0
22 3 0 0 0 0
19 2 0 0 0 0
11 4 0 0 0 0
11 I 0 0 0 0
5 1 O 0 0 0
I 4 0 0 0 0
294 66 6 3 * *
51 56 61 66
55 60 65 70
Site Code: 000000151563
Start Date: tl/I7/1999
File I.D.: TEv'
PaVe : 1
71 76
75 9999
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 O
2 *
Grand Total 970 11 34 192 362 294 66 6 3 0 0 0 0 2 0
Speed Statistics.
15th Percentih Speed : 22 MPH
Median Speed (50th percentlie): 28 MPR
Average Speed - All Vehicles: 29 MPB
85th Percentih Speed : 33 MPl
95th Percentile Speed : 37 MPH
10 MPH Pace Speed : 26-35 MPI
Number of Vehicles in Pace: S56
Percent of Vehicles in Pace: 67.81t
Number of Vehicles > 55 MPH : 2
Percent of Vehicles > 55 MPH: .211
CITY OF TSMECULA
VIA COEDOBA E/O VIA
~' EE SPEED SUIVEY
.~ Int.
Time Total
12:00 11/17 1
01:00 0
02:00 1
03:00 0
04:00 18
05:00 44
06:00 83
07:00 85
08:00 82
09:00 32
I0:00 43
11:00 31
DSL COSONtO
0- I4
15 20
0
0
0
0
0
2
3
2
2
1
1
0
COUFYS DI{LIMITED, INC.
909.247.6716
WESTBO~
21 26 31 36 41 46
25 30 35 40 45 50
0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0
0 2 7 7 2
3 i7 29 11 2
9 16 30 20 4
10 16 38 16 0
20 30 24 5 0
4 1O 14 2 0
10 14 13 2 2
4 lO 14 3 0
12:00 pm 43 1 2 3 8 23
01:00 66 I 2 I3 28 19
02:00 39 0 2 5 12
03:00 45 0
04:00 47 1 1 5
05:00 55 0 2 5 22 22
06:00 44 1 0 3 14 I8
07:00 31 O 1 4 i1
08:00 21 O 0 3 S 10
09:00 8 0 0 O 0 5
10:00 7 1 0 0 1 4
11:00 5 0 0 I 2 O
Totals 851 ll 22 110 256 330
1 0
I 1
2
1 0
0 0
4 0 0
2 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
O 0
0 0
100 19 1
51 56 61 66
55 60 65 70
Site Code: 000000151563
Start Date: 11/17/!999
File I.D. TSVCEOVC
Page 1
71 76
75 9999
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Grand Total 851 11 22 110 256 330 100 19 1 0 0 1 I 0 0
Speed Statistics.
15th Percentlie Speed
Median Speed (50tb percentih
Average Speed - All Vehicles
85th Percentile Speed
95th Percentlie Speed
lO NPE Pace Speed
Number of Vehicles in Pace
Percent of Vehicles in Pace
Number of Vehicles > 55 MPE
Percent of Vehicles > 55 MPH:
23 NPH
30 MPH
30 MPM
34 MPE
38 NPE
26-35 MPE
586
60.83%
2
.23%
CITY OF TMMMCULA
VIA COEDOBA W/O VIA IECIA
24 HE SPM]D SUEVEY
:in 0-
Time I0
12:00 09/21
01:00
02:00
03:00
04:00
05:00
06:00
O?:O0
08:00
O9:OO
I0:00
lhO0
11- 16-
!5 20
21- 2G-
25 30
0
0
0
1
1
2
3
9 15
18 10
14 7
5 4
11 6
COUNTS UNLIMITED, INC.
909.247.6716
BASTBOUND
31- 36- 41-
35 40 45
I 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
1 0
7 0
4 0
S 0
5 0
3 0
46- 51-
50 55
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
56-
60
Site Code: 000000157706
Start Date: 09/21/!999
File I.D.: TEv°
Page : !
61- 50th B5t~
999 Total Pct. Pct.
1 * 34
0 + *
0 + t
1 * 24
2 24 44
8 24 28
12 23 28
35 27 32
35 24 29
30 24 33
1S 28 33
25 23 31
12:00 pm 0 0 0 4 ll 14 4 1 0 0 0 0
0h00 0 0 0 2 5 7 5 2 0 0 0 0
02:00 0 1 0 1 15 9 4 0 0 0 0 0
03:00 1 0 2 9 28 12 G 1 0 0 0 0
04:00 0 0 2 3 11 29 12 0 0 0 0 0
OS:O0 0 2 2 8 25 46 13 1 0 0 0 0
0S:00 0 0 2 8 34 31 8 1 0 0 0 0
07:00 0 1 2 0 11 14 6 0 0 0 1 0
00:00 0 0 1 0 7 8 S 0 0 0 0 0
09:00 I 0 I O 3 7 3 O O O 0 0
IO:OO 0 0 I I 3 10 4 1 O 0 0 0
11:00 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 O 0 0 0
~-U~I~tals 2 S 17 4S 218 240 97 14 1
2 S 17 46 218 240 97 14 i 0 1 O
34 26 29
21 27 33
30 23 29
50 23 28
57 27 31
91 25 29
84 24 28
35 2( 31
21 2( 32
15 21 31
20 27 32
5 24 28
642 2~
642
Speed Statistics.
1Sth Percentlie Speed : 20 MPg
Median Speed (5Orb percentile): 26 MPE
Average Speed - All Vehicles: 26 MPH
85tb Percentlie Speed : 31 MPH
95th Percentile Speed : 33 NPE
10 MPH Pace Speed : 21-30 MPR
Number of Vehicles in Pace: 458
Percent of Vehicles in Pace: 71.45t
Number of Vehicles > 55 NPH : 0
Percent of Vehicles ~ 55 MPH: .OOt
CITY OF TEMECU~
VIA CORDOBA W/O VIA LLICIA
"~R SPEED SURVEY
on 0- 6-
Ti~e l0
12:00 09/21
01:00
02:00
03:00
04:00
05:00
06:00
07:00
08:00
09:00
10:00
lh00
If- 16-
i. 20
0
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
1
3
0
3
21- 26-
25 30
21
14
7
8
13
COUNTS UNLIMITED, INC.
909.247.67t6
WESTBOUND
31- 36- 41-
35 40 45
0 0 0
1 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
2 2 0
10 4 1
24 8 0
31 13 2
33 10 4
10 7 0
I0 1 0
7 2 I
46- 51- 56- 61-
50 55 60 999
Site Code: 000000157708
Start Date: 09/21/1999
File I.D.: TEVCMOVL
Page : 1
5Oth 85th
Total Pct. Pct.
0 * t
1 ' 29
0 t t
I * 19
4 29 32
17 27 32
53 28 29
68 27 32
64 27 32
28 26 32
19 26 20
26 23 20
12:00 pm
OhO0
02:00
03:00
04:00
05:00
06:00
07:00
08:00
09:00
10:00
...,LI:OO
~otals
.e
0 0 13 11 3 2
0 5 7 7 3 0
0 2 19 29 5 2
1 4 4 16 5 0
0 I 10 I7 11 1
2 4 23 21 2 1
1 2 I1 31 4 1
0 6 5 1O 3
0 2 4 5 3 1
0 0 3 7 2 2
0 1 2 2 0 0
I 2 1 0 2 1
8 40 183 284 90 20
8 40 103 284 90 20
0 0 0 0 29 25 31
0 0 0 0 22 23 29
0 0 0 0 57 26 29
O 0 0 0 32 26
0 0 0 0 40 27 32
0 0 0 0 55 23 28
0 0 0 0 51 25 29
0 0 O 0 25 25 29
0 0 0 0 16 25 33
0 O 0 0 15 21 31
0 0 0 0 5 22 21
0 0 0 0 7 N
* * * * 63S 25
0 0 0 0 635
Speed Statistics.
15th Percentih Speed
Median Speed (50tb percentlie
Average Speed - All Vehicles
85tb Percentile Speed
95th Percentile Speed
10 MPE Pace Speed
Number of Vehicles in Pace
Percent of Vehicles in Pace
Number of Vehicles > 55 MPM
Percent of Vehicles > 55 MPE:
21 MPR
26 MPE
26 NPH
31 MPE
34 MPE
21-30 MPN
457
73A3t
0
.00%
CITY OF TEMECULA
VIA COEDOBA S/O VIA LUCIA
24 ER SPEED SURVEY
COUNTS UNLIMITED, INC.
909.247.6716
EASTBOUND
]in Int. 0- 16 21 26 31 36 41 46
Time Total !5 20 25 30 25 40 45 50
12:00 11/I7 2 0 0 0 0 1 I 0
Ol:O0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
02:00 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
03:00 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
04:00 2 0 0 0 I 1 0 0
0S:00 4 0 0 2 1 I 0 0
06:00 21 1 0 9 7 2 1 I
07:00 26 1 4 6 12 3 0 0
08:00 56 0 3 15 29 8 1 0
09:00 19 2 1 9 4 3 0 0
lO:O0 20 1 1 5 2 9 1 1
11:00 32 0 2 8 i0 9 3 0
12:00 pn 44 0 1 13 14 I1 3 I 0
01:00 54 1 2 12 27 9 3 O 0
02:00 45 i 0 12 17 13 1 0 0
03:00 54 0 1 14 15 14 9 1 0
04:00 58 I 1 I1 22 21 2 0 0
05:00 75 2 0 17 35 19 2 0 0
06:00 54 1 1 13 24 12 3 0 0
07:00 30 1 0 11 10 7 1 0 0
00:00 12 0 0 4 6 1 1 0 0
09:00 13 O O 0 6 5 2 0 0
1Q:00 10 0 0 1 3 5 1 0 O
11:00 7 0 0 0 2 4 1 0 0
~'" Totals 641 13 17 163 247 150 37 4 *
51 56
55 60
61 66
65 70
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Site Code: 000000151569
Start Date: 11/17/1999
File I.D.: TEVr
Page : 1
71 76
75 9999
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 1 O
0 0 Q
0 0 O
0 0 Q
0 0 O
0 O O
0 0 Q
O O Q
0 O O
O O Q
0 0 Q
0 0 0
, I
Grand Total 641 13 17 I63 247 158 37 4 0 0 0 1 0 i 0
Speed Statistics.
15th Percentih Speed : 22 MPS
Median Speed (5Orb percentile): 27 NPH
Average Speed - All Vehicles: 28 MPH
BSth Percentile Speed : 33 MPB
95th Percentlie Speed : 36 NPR
10 MPE Pace Speed : 21-30 MPH
Number of Vehicles in Pace: 410
Percent of Vehicles in Pace: 63.94%
Number of Vehicles > 55 NPE : 2
Percent of Vehicles > 55 NPE: .3It
CITY OF TEMgCULA
VIA COgDOBA M/O VIA LUCIA
"qR SPMED SURVEY
.a int. 0-
Ti~e Total 15
12:00 11/I7 1
0h00 0
02:00 2
03:00 1
04:00 B
05:00 22
06:00 22
07:00
08:00 57
09:00 28
10:00 32
lh00 34
COU}{TS UXLIMITRD, INC.
909.247.6716
WESTBOUND
16 21 26 31 36 41 4G
20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 1 0
1 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 1 3 2
2 4 3 10 3 0
1 6 9 5 1 0
4 13 10 6 3 0
2 19 26 8 0 0
2 7 8 B 2 0
1 12 9 6 2 1
2 S 12 8 6
51 56
55 60
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
O 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
12:00 pm 50 1 1 9 16 18 5 0 0 0 0
01:00 55 I 3 13 25 13 0 0 0 0 0
02:00 45 1 3 9 23 6 1 1 1 0 0
03:00 39 1 2 lO 9 13 3 0 1 0
04:00 47 1 4 I7 19 4 1 1 0 0 0
OS:O0 59 0 0 ll 24 10 3 'I 0 0 1
06:00 36 1 2 12 I( 6 1 0 0 0 0
07:00 35 0 0 7 19 8 1 0 0 0 0
08:00 23 1 I 6 8 3 4 0 O 0 0
09:00 13 1 0 2 5 2 3 O 0 0 0
10:00 6 0 1 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0
ll:O0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 O 0
Totals 663 14 34 103 251 147 43 7 3 * 1
61 66
65 70
Site Code: 000000151569
Btart Date: 11/17/!999
File I.D.: TBVCEOVL
Page : 1
71 76
75 9999
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O O
0 Q Q
O 0 Q
0 0 Q
0 0 O
0 0 0
0 Q O
0 O
0 O Q
0 0
0 O I
0 0
Grand Total GG3 14 34 163 251 1(7 43 7 3 0 I 0 0 0 e
Speed Statistics.
a Q teentile): 27 MPH
Average Speed - All Vehicles: 28 MPH
85th Percentih Speed : 33 NPB
95th Percentile Speed : 37 NPg
10 MPH Pace Speed : 21-30 MPH
Number of Vehicles in Pace: 414
Percent of Vehicles in Pace: 62.43t
Number of Vehicles > SS MPB : 1
Percent of Vehicles > 55 MPH: .iSt
EXHIBIT "E"
LETTER AND SURVEY TO RESIDENTS OF
VIA CORDOBA
· 1~~/ P~ I Acidtress: PO Box 9033.Temecula. CA 92589-9033
~ebr~l'y 1~
Re: Via Cordoba Traffic Calming Prototype Program
Dear Residents of Via Cordoba:
As you may recall, the temporary traffic calming devices were installed on Via Cordoba in October
1999, in response to speed control requests made by residents who live on Via Cordoba. The
temporary devices were installed to determine their effectiveness in reducing vehicle speeds over a
four-month evaluation period. The four (4) month evaluation period has concluded and a %efore' and
"after" evaluation has been performed.
Enclosed you will find a survey along with a self-addressed stamped envelope. Please respond to the
questions on the survey form and return it to the City of Temecula no later than 5:00 P.M.,
Wednesday, February 9, 2000. Your responses will assist us in determining if the residents believe the
temporary traffic calming devices have been effective.
The results of the evaluation and the survey will be presented to the Public/Traffic Safety Commission
for consideration at their meeting of February 10, 2000 at 6:00 P.M. The meeting will be held at City
Hall Council Chambers located at 43200 Business Park Drive. You are encouraged to attend this
meeting to provide input.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Ali Moghadam, Senior Engineer or me at
(909) 694-(~411.
Sincerely,
William G. Hughes
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Enclosures
Ali Moghadam, Senior Engineer
Jerry Gonzalez, Associate Engineer
Via Cordoba
Survey of Traffic Calming Devices
,
Do you believe that the temporary traffic calming devices (traffic circles and median islands)
have been effective in reducing overall vehicle speeds on Via Cordoba?
YES NO
If the traffic calming devices are found to be effective, would you support the installation of
permanent improvements (raised concrete median islands and/or raised concrete traffic
circles)?
YES NO
3. Additional Comments: (Please provide your observation of the effectiveness of the devices
and list any advantages and disadvantages to having traffic circles and/or median islands on
Via Cordoba.)
MINUTES OF
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 10, 2000
MINUTES OF A REGULAR
MEETING OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 10, 2000
CALL TO ORDER
The City of Temecula Public/Traffic Safety Commission convened in a regular meeting
at 6:01 P.M., on Thursday, February 10, 2000, in the City Council Chambers of
Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park Ddve, Temecula. California.
FLAG SALUTE
The audience was led in the Flag salute by Commissioner Edwards.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Also Present:
Commissioners *Coe, Edwards, Katan, and
Chairman Connerton.
None.
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks,
Senior Engineer Moghadam,
Associate Engineer Gonzatez,
Battalion Chief Ritchey,
Police Sergeant DiMaggio,
Administrative Secretary Pyle, and
Minute Clerk Hansen.
* (Commissioner Coe left the
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No comments.
COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Minutes of January 27, 2000
RECOMMENDATION:
meeting at 7:00 P.M.)
1.1 Approve the Minutes of January 27, 2000.
MOTION: Commissioner Edwards moved to approve the minutes, as written. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Coe and voice vote reflected unanimous
approval.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
2. Evaluation of Traffic Circles - Via Cordoba
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1
That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission review the effectiveness of
traffic circles and make a recommendation to the City Council.
Senior Engineer Moghadam provided a detailed overview of the staff report (of record);
relayed that due to the community appeal from the Via Cordoba residents to the City
Coundl on August 24, 1999, the Council had directed staff to conduct a demonstration to
evaluate the effectiveness of temporary devices in reducing vehicle speed and volumes
over a four-month pedod; noted the subsequent installation of two types of devices, one.
for four-way intersections (traffic circle), and a vadant device installed at the T-
intersections (raised median); relayed that the two types of calming devices had been
installed at five intersections along Via Cordoba; and via overhead graphs, presented
the results of the data, demonstrating that the speed and volumes had not been
signfficantly reduced by the temporary installation of the devices.
Via overheads, Senior Engineer Moghadam reviewed the neighborhood response dudng
the evaluation pedod; noted that initially the concam had been regarding the aesthetics
of the temporary devices, relaying that staff had clarified that these were temporary
devices for evaluation purposes only, noting that if permanent devices were installed the
appearance would be aesthetically pleasing; highlighted the alternate residential
concerns with respect to the installation of the devices, as follows: illegal left turns. right-
of-way issues, restricted access and parking. children playing in the areas where the
devices had been installed, difficulty with respect to larger busses and trucks
maneuvering around the circles, and opposition to the number of signs posted in the
area; clarified that the Fire Department truck had been able to maneuver around the
devices, solely slowing the response time by five to eight seconds; noted that the
response from the forty-seven percent (47%) of residents that had responded (out of 240
total letters sent) to the wdtten correspondence revealed that the residential opinion was
split approximately fifty/fifty percent in terms of those opposed to, or proponents of. the
effectiveness of the calming devices; and relayed that the adjacent communities
expressed concam with respect to cut-through traffic in their area due to drivers avoiding
the traffic circles.
W'~h respect to the estimated costs associated with the installation of permanent
devices, Senior Engineer Moghadam relayed that the cost would be approximately
$10,000-$20,000 per traffic circle device. and approximately $5,000-$15,000 per median
island device; noted that although the matter was subject to City Council direction, there
was a possibility that the residents would participate in the funding of the permanent
installations, if installed; and concluded that due to the data presented which revealed
that the devices had been ineffective tools for reducing speed, staff had recommended
that the temporary installation devices be permanently removed.
For Chairman Connerton, Senior Engineer Moghadam relayed that the traffic surveys
had been conducted before and after the temporary installation of the devices; and for
Commissioner Coe, clarified that the data revealed that speed did not significantly
change with respect to downhill and uphill areas.
Commissioner Coe commented that from the intersection of Via Del Coronado to Via
Saltio there had been no device installed, noting that since this portion of travel was
downhill, it was his opinion that vehicles would travel at higher rates of speed. In
response, Senior Engineer Moghadam relayed that staff could further investigate the
matter.
Relaying her great disappointment with the outcome of the data, Commissioner Edwards
queried whether the survey questioned whether the residents would be in favor of the
installation of the devices, if the data proved that the devices were ineffective. in
response, Senior Engineer Moghadam confirmed that the survey did not quenj with
respect to that question.
The following individuals were in favor of the installation of the traffic circle devices:
Q Mr. Chades Hankley
:3 Ms. Janet Dixon
31745 Via Cordoba
31860 Via Cordoba
The above-mentioned residents expressed the following comments:
/ Challenged the results of the data evaluation results.
,/
Relayed that the volumes of traffic varied greatly due to special activities held
in the area (i.e., soccer), noting that the data did not take this matter into
account.
Noted that there had been minimal Police Enforcement since the installation
of the devices.
Specified that the data had concentrated on the results of the eighty-five
percent (85%) range of ddver's patterns, noting that the evaluation
demonstrated that r~teen percent (15%) of the drivers were driving speeds in
excess of 33 MPH.
/ Concurred that the median islands were ineffective calming tools.
,, Via photographs, presented a sample of permanent traffic circles devices,
noting the visual pleasing appearance.
Relayed that ddvers were speeding in between the traffic circles,
recommending that additional devices be installed.
Recommended installing a modified traffic circle rather than a median island
at the T-intersections.
/ Implored the Commission and staff to not give up on seeking solutions to
resolve the high volumes and speed on Via Cordoba.
For Commissioner Coe, Mr. Hankley clarified that he was in favor of the installation of
the traffic circles.
The following individuals relayed their opposition to the installation of the traffic calming
devices:
a Mr. William Kelley
n Mr. Robert Garcia
a Mr. Mado Carvatal
n MS. Candace Whitmore
31542 Via San Carlos
31775 Via Cordoba
31645 Via Cordoba
31795 Via Cordoba
The above-mentioned residents expressed the following comments:
.' Relayed difficulty maneuvering around the traffic drcies.
., Noted that the plethora of signs associated with the devices devaluated the
community.
., Relayed that the soccer activities scheduled in the area negatively impacted
the volumes of traffic.
Noted that Police Officers were diligently citing speed violators in the area.
., Requested that the City continue to seek solutions to reduce the speed and
volumes in the area.
Relayed that the survey should have separated the evaluation of the traff'~c
circles versus the median islands.
., Noted that if stop signs were installed in conjunction with the traffic circles,
they would be more effective.
-' Relayed the complete ineffectiveness of the median islands.
., Since residents from the County area utilized this area for travel,
recommended closing Loma Linda Road at Via Del Coronado in order to
reduce this impact.
., Thanked the City and the Commission for the provision of a forum to express
community comments.
Suggested photo radar speed enforcement as an alternative solution.
., Relayed that the traffic circles created a hazardous situation, commenting on
the numerous near collisions at the sites due to fight-of-way issues.
., Queded the number of citations issued before and after the installation of the
devices.
., Recommended that there be increased enforcement to control speed in the
area.
.~ Relayed that the devices restricted easy access to residential driveways.
Noted that when the surrounding mad improvement projects were complete,
the volumes and speeds would most likely be signfficantly reduced.
For Chairman Connerton, Mr. Kelley relayed that he was aware that if the devices ware
installed permanently, the visual appearance would be aesthetically improved; reiterated
concern with regard to the plethora of signage; and dadfled that he would be in favor of
installing devices that had been proven to be effective in solving the speed and volume
impacts.
For Mr. Gamia, Commissioner Edwards dadfled that photo redar enforcement was
currently illegal in California.
In response to Chairman Connerton, Ms. VVhitmore confirmed that the calming devices
had made it difficult for her to access her driveway.
The Commission relayed its concluding3 remarks, as follows:
Commissioner Katan relayed that per his visits to the area, it was his opinion that the
traffic cimles did appear to reduce vehicle speed, concurring that the median islands
appeared to be ineffective; and commented that the speed posted at 15 MPH in vadous
portions was unreasonably low.
In response to Commissioner Katan's comment that if the speed of eighty-five percent
(85%) of the vehicles ware travelling under 33 MPH after the installation of the devices, it
would appear the devices were effectively controlling speed, Senior Engineer
Moghadam clarified that the speed survey conducted before and after the installation of
the devices revealed the approximate same results with respect to speed traveled in the
area, noting that the devices did not have a significant impact.
Commissioner Katan recommended that due to the effectiveness of the devices in
alternate cities, that the matter should be further pursued in the City of Temecula.
With respect to the survey results, Commissioner Coe relayed the following comments:
that the study was flawed. that there should have been additional evaluation periods in
additional locations (i.e., the downhill pertions), that at the T-intersections a modified
traffic circle should have been installed rather than the median islands; relayed that in
his opinion, and based on his experience, the traffic circles would reduce speeds if
designed correctly; and noted that if additional traffic circles were installed, the
permanent devices would be effective in reducing speeds.
It was noted for the record that Commissioner Coe left the meeting at 7:00 P,M.
Commissioner Edwards reiterated her dismay with the outcome of the surveys and
studies associated with the calming devices; noted that Via Cordoba was one of
approximately four streets in the City that have experienced similar problems due to the
configuration of the development; noted the additional ineffectiveness of the installation
of stop signs for curving speed impacts; miterated the close percentage of residents
opposed. versus in favor of the calming devices; relayed her previous hopes that the
traffic cimles would have been proven effective in order for the Commission to be able to
present viable solutions to community concems; relayed that since the devices had been
proven ineffective she would be reluctant to recommend installation in light of there
being no justification for the associated costs; noted that she was additionally reluctant
to dismiss the issue, relaying that penhaps staff could pursue additional concepts to
render the devices more effective; and recommended that the matter be forwarded to
the City Council for determination.
Chairman Connerton relayed that he had visited the area of discussion, and noted the
following: 1) on the weekends the vehicle speeds appeared to be higher, and 2) that
based on his timing method of surveying speed, the speeds were generally at an
average of 33-35 MPH, confirming the results of the traffic data; recommended that the
evaluation pedod be extended, that the data be inclusive of traffic volumes and speeds
generated on weekends and weekdays, and that the survey be conducted with respect
to traffic traveling in both directions, in light of Commission Coe's comments regarding
downhill speed; and recommended that there would be review of altamata temporary
devices, and that after additional evaluation, the Commission consider the matter again.
For Chairman Connerton, Senior Engineer Moghadam advised that additional speed
surveys could be conducted and that the associated data could be presented at the
February 24, 2000 Public/Traffic Safety Commission meeting.
in light of the City's current budgeting process, Commissioner Edwerds recommended
that the issue be forwarded to the Coundl expeditiously with the caveat that additional
surveys be conducted for the Council's consideration.
Senior Engineer Moghadam provided additional information regarding the timing of the
City's budgeting process.
For Commissioner Edwards, Senior Engineer Moghadam clarified that the current data
reflected studies of the tmffm impacts before and after the installation of the devices,
noting that all factors remained equal with respect to the before and after evaluation
pedods (i.e., the same day of week, same hours of evaluation, and same location);
advised that based on his engineering experience, it was his opinion that additional
studies would reveal similar traffic speeds; noted staffs willingness to conduct additional
studies if that was the desire of the Commission, requesting that either a resident, or
group of residents work with staff, or that the Commission articulate specified direction
as to what the Commission's desire was with respect to the request for additional studies
in order for staff to adequately provide the data that the Commission desired.
Commissioner Edwards concurred with Senior Engineer Moghadam with respect to
the likelihood of additional studies revealing similar data; relayed that the only issue
mentioned that would warrant continuing this Agenda Item, rather than passing it to the
City Coundl, was the issue of reconfigudng the design of the T-intersection devices; and
noted that in her opinion, the residents would best be served by passing this issue on to
the City Council for direction.
In response to Commissioner Edwards, Chairman Connerton clarified that his desire
was to provide additional spedtic direction to the Council, reiterating his
recommendation to conduct a broader survey.
For clarification, Senior Engineer Moghadam relayed that there would not be an
opportunity to evaluate the pdor speed and volumes analysis if additional areas were
surveyed, noting that there would be no comparison data.
In concun'ence with Commissioner Edward's comments, Commissioner Katan
recommended moving the matter forward to the City Coundl for consideration at this
time; noted that in light of the fact that the data revealed that these particular calming
devices were ineffective, his concam was with respect to the lack of any viable solutions
provided to offer the numerous residents with concern regarding residential speed and
volumes; relayed that in light of the perception that the traffic drcles were effective
(noting that the data did not support this concept), and that the median islands were
ineffective, recommended that additional traffic drcles be installed.
Senior Engineer Moghadam provided a bdef history of the matter, noting the residents
odginal desire for stop signs and the subsequent Council direction to temporarily install
the traffic circles for evaluation; noted that the configuration design of the installations
had been carefully engineered, clarifying that due to the location of the residential
driveways, alternate devices would not be feasible at the T-intersections; and relayed
that if it was the desire of the Commission to reconfigure the installation and design of
the devices, he would forward those comments to Director of Public Works Hughes and
the City Council in order to investigate funding appropriations for the proposal to
redesign and install alternate T-intersections devices.
Chairman Connerton provided additional clarification regarding his recommendation for
additional studies, relaying the benefits of obtaining additional data; and for
Commissioner Edwards, clarified that the new data could be compared to the average
speed traveled in the area.
For Commissioner Katan, Senior Engineer Moghadam reiterated the likelihood of
additional surveys revealing very similar data with respect to speeds.
MOTION: In light of the survey results, and the response of the residential opinions with
respect to this issue, Commissioner Edwards moved to approve staff recommendation
and to pass the matter on to the Council for further determination. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Katan and voice vote reflected approval with the exception
of Commissioner Coe who was absent.
Senior Engineer Moghadam relayed that all of the additional information would be
forwarded to the Council.
3. Additional Left-Turn Lane - Marilarita Road at Rancho California Road
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission receive and file the report.
Senior Engineer Moghadam provided an overview of the staff report (of record); noted
that a new traffic study (referencing Exhibit B of the agenda material) had been
conducted which revealed increased volumes of traffic in the left-turn lane from
Margadta Road to Rancho California Road; and relayed staffs recommendation to install
an additional left-tum lane.
MOTION: Commissioner Edwards moved to approve staff recommendation. The motion
was seconded by Commissioner Katan and voice vote reflected approval with the
exception of Commissioner Coe who was absent.
TRAFFIC ENGINEER'S REPORT
Senior Engineer Moghadam noted the provision of the supplemental material
regarding a vadant criteda standard for installing stop signs; and for Commission
Katan, relayed additional information regarding the data.
After additional Commission discussion ensued, Chairman Connerton requested
that the issue be agendized for future consideration.
POLICE CHIEF'S REPORT
Police Sergeant DiMaggio relayed that the Police Department was preparing for
the Rod Run Event in Old Town Temecula; and specified the street closures
assodated with the event.
For Police Sergeant DiMaggio, Senior Engineer Moghadam noted that the red
light camera representative had been scheduled to provide a presentation to the
Commission at the March 9, 2000 meeting.
C,
In response to Senior Engineer Moghadam's comments, Chairman Connerton
clarified that the action the Commission took with respect to the Via Cordoba
matter (Agenda Item No. 2) was not inclusive of staff conducting additional
studies.
FIRE CHIEF'S REPORT
No comments.
COMMISSION REPORTS
Commissioner Katan challenged the residents on Via Cordoba, and
Commissioner Coe, who had previously commented on the effectiveness of
traffic circles in altemata cities (i.e., Seattle) to provide the associated data to
staff or the Council.
In light of the future plans for a Coundlmember to visit Temecula's sister City in
Japan, Commission Katan recommend that the Councilman take note of any
traffic observations in that country.
At Commissioner Coe's request, and due to his absence, Chairman Connerton
relayed that Commissioner Coe had attended the Public Traffic Safety
Awareness meeting, noting that the next meeting was scheduled for February 16,
2000 at 3:30 P.M., advising that the Committee would further discuss enhanced
traffic violation awareness within the area and prepare a plan with respect to the
issue.
For information purposes, Deputy Director of Public Works Parks relayed that the
Pala Road Bridge would be open on February 22, 2000; noted that this would be
t~e first phase of the project; provided additional information regarding the
detoured area, and the restricted access points. during the road improvement
project period which could last from 30 days to six months; and relayed the
notification process.
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:44 P.M. Chairman Connerton formally adjoumed this meeting to Thursday,
February 24. 2000 at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park
Ddve, Temecula.
Chairman Darrell L. Connerton
Administrative Secretary Anita Pyle
ITEM 10
AN ORAL REPORT WILL BE PRESENTED
ITEM 11
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council/City Manager
FROM: Grant Yates, Assistant to the City Manager
DATE: March 28, 2000
SUBJECT: Wild and Exotic Animal Ordinance
PREPARED BY: Aaron Adams, Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council consider adopting the following Ordinance:
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
CALIFORNIA ADDING CHAPTER 6.12 TO THE
TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING THE
DISPLAY OF WILD OR EXOTIC ANIMALS FOR
ENTERTAINMENT OR AMUSEMENT PURPOSES
BACKGROUND: At the request of Councilmember Roberts, staff has prepared the
attached Ordinance (Chapter 6.12) which would be added to the Temecula Municipal Code.
It is the intent of this ordinance to prohibit the display of wild or exotic animals for
entertainment or amusement purposes. This ordinance primarily relates to circuses but will
also prohibit petting zoos at malls and school carnivals which display goats and baby lambs.
A provision has been added that this ordinance will not regulate matters covered by state or
federal law.
Lake EIsinore Animal Friends (LEAF) has reviewed and approved the proposed ordinance, as
they would become the primary enforcers of the ordinance.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None at this time.
Attachment: Ordinance No.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
CALIFORNIA ADDING CHAPTER 6.12 TO THE
TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE PROHIBITING THE
DISPLAY OF WILD OR EXOTIC ANIMALS FOR
ENTERTAINMENT OR AMUSEMENT PURPOSES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Chapter 6.12 is hereby added to the Temecula Municipal Code to read as
follows:
Chapter 6.12 Wild and Exotic Animals
6.12.010 Intent. It is the intent of this Chapter to control hazards to the physical
and mental health of the public and to promote the protection of animals by prohibiting
the display of wild or exotic animals for public entertainment or amusement in the City of
Temecula. It is the further intent of the City of Temecula to regulate the display of wild
or exotic animals for public entertainment or amusement to the extent of the City
s regulatory authority and not to regulate those matters as to which regulation has been
preempted by state or federal law.
6.12.015 Definitions. As used in this Chapter, the following terms have the
meanings set forth below:
A. As used in this Chapter, display means to undertake any exhibition, act, circus,
public show, trade show, photographic opportunity, carnival, fide, parade, petting zoo,
race, performance or similar undertaking in which animals are displayed or exhibited or
in which animals are required to perform tricks, fight, wrestle or participate in
performances for the amusement or entertainment of an audience, whether or not a fee is
charged. Display shall not include the use or exhibition of animals for educational
purposes by institutions that are accredited by the American Zoological Association, or
by the Association of Sanctuaries, or by similar organizations which the Council may
approve by resolution. Displayed
means to be the subject thereof.
B. Circus means any institution featuring exhibits for the purpose of entertainment
and includes, but is not limited to, exhibitions and performances by clowns, acrobats
and/or animals, provided, that nothing in this Chapter shall be construed as authorizing
any display of wild or exotic animals otherwise prohibited by the Temecula Municipal
Code.
C. Wild or exotic animal means any or all of the following animals, whether
bred in the wild or in captivity, and also any or all of their hybrids with domestic species.
It is not the intent of this section to include domesticated species such as, horses, cows,
llamas or sheep with the animals listed below. The words in parentheses are intended to
act as examples only and are not to be construed as being an exhaustive list or to
otherwise limit the generality of each group of animals.
1. Non-human primates and prosimians (such as chimpanzees, monkeys).
2. Felids, except domesticated cats.
3. Canids, including wolf hybrids and except domesticated dogs.
4. Ursids (bears).
5. Elephants.
6. Marine mammals (such as seals, sea lions, dolphins, otters).
7. Cocodilians (such as alligators and crocodiles).
8. Marsupials (such as kangaroos and opossums).
9. Snakes, reptiles and exotic birds including ostriches and similar birds.
10. Ungulates (such as hippopotamus, rhinoceros, giraffe, camel, zebra, deer).
11. Hyenas.
12. Mustelids (such as skunks, weasels, otters and badgers).
13. Procyonids (such as raccoons and coatis).
14. Endentates (such as anteaters, sloth and armadillos).
15. Viverrids (such as mongooses, civets, and genets).
16. Camels.
17. Cetaceans.
3/2/00 1481245
6.12.020 Display Prohibited. No person may display or sponsor a display of wild or
exotic animals on any public or private property within the City of Temecula, except as
otherwise provided in this Chapter. The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to the display
of wild or exotic animals by institutions accredited by the American Zoological Association, the
Association of Sanctuaries, or similar organizations as determined by resolution of the City
Council.
Section 2. If any semence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any
reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the
validity of the remaining provisions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that
it would have passed this ordinance and each sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of
the fact that any one or more sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or
otherwise invalid.
Section 3. The City Clerk of the City of Temecula shall certify to the
passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same or a summary thereof to be
published and posted in the manner required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 28th day of March, 2000.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey E. Stone
Mayor
Susan Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
3/2/00 1481245
- 3 -
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify
that the foregoing Ordinance No. 00- was duly introduced and placed upon its first reading
at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 281h day of March, 2000, and that thereafter,
said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the
281h day of March, 2000 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: CO UNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SUSAN JONES, CMC/AAE
CITY CLERK
Peter M. Thorson
City Attorney
3/2/00 1481245
- 4
ITEM 12
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
City ManagedCity Council
;~Susan W. Jones, City Clerk/Director of Support Services
March 28, 2000
SUBJECT: Public/Traffic Safety Commission Appointment
PREPARED BY:
Cheryl Domenoe, Administrative Secretary
RECOMMENDATION: Appoint one applicant to serve an unexpired term on the Public/Traffic Safety
Commission through October 10, 2000.
BACKGROUND: Due to the appointment of John Telesio to the Planning Commission, there
is currently an unexpired position available on the Public/Traffic Safety Commission. The City Clerk's
office has followed the Council's established procedure for filling Commission vacancies by advertising
the openings in two different local publications. When the deadline was reached for receiving
applications, the applications were forwarded to the subcommittee comprised of Mayor Stone and
Councilmember Roberrs for review and recommendation. Mayor Stone recommends the appointment
of Scott Lanier to serve an unexpired term through October 10, 2000. Coundlmember Roberls will make
his recommendation at the meeting of March 28, 2000.
Attached are copies of the applications that were received by the filing deadline of February 22, 2000.
ATTACHMENTS:
Seven (7) Copies of Applications for Appointment
02-22-00P01:0'7 RCVD
CITY OF TEMECULA
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO COMMISSION
Qualification Requirement: Resident of the City of Temecula.
Check one: __ Planning Commission __ Community Services Commission
XX Public/Traffic Safety Commission
NAME: V. NORMAN JEWETT, JR.
YEARS RESIDENT OF TEMECULA New
ADDRESS: 41435 Avenida De La Reina, Temecula, CA 92592
HOME PHONE: (909) 676-6051
WORK PHONE: (909) 296-0436
OCCUPATION: Attorney
EMPLOYER NAME: Law Offices of V. Norman Jewett, Jr.
EMPLOYER ADDRESS: 41890 Enterprise Circle South, Suite # 280
Temecula, CA 92590
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUNDIDEGREES:
Associates Degree (Paralegal)
Bachelor of Science (Law)
Juris Doctor
Certified Health & Safety Specialist (U.C. Davis)
LIST ANY RIVERSIDE COUNTY OR OTHER CITY BOARD, COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION' ON
WHICH YOU HAVE SERVED AND THE YEAR(S} OF SERVICE:
I have not served on any city or county governmental board. I was
a volunteer firefighter in Wildomar in 1990-1991.
ORGANiZATIONS'TO WHICH YOU BELONG: (Professional, technical, community, service):
I am a member of the California Bar Association and various other
Law related organizations. I recently stepped down for a new person
to replace me on the Legal Aid Foundation board. I was the founding
president of the_0.c. Christian Le_ga_l Aid~_F~o~undation.
BRIEFLY STATE WHY YOU WISH TO SERVE ON THIS COMMISSION, AND W.~ YOU BELIEVE
YOU ARE QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION. BE SPECIFIC (Use additional paper if necessary):
I have long been interested in community service and local politics.
I have a long and strong history in health and safety issues going
back to my first becomming a Union Steward in 1983. While on the
Pacific Bell Safety team one of my accomplishments was a complete
re-write of the corpor_ate defensive drivinq program.
I understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release
Return to: City Clerk' ness Park Drive (909) 694-6~.4~. OR
Mail to: P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, Ca. 92589-9033
Commissions~Application for various Commissions
02_22-00P~2:54 RCVD
V. NotxBan Jewetts JL~ AttoHley at Law
41890 Enterpdse Circle South, Suite 280
Temecula, Califoraia 92,~90
(909) 296-0436 FAX 296-0437
E-mail: law4iamC~prodi~v.net
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY:
2/99 - present, Attorney in Solo Practice
I am currently managing my own caseload including primarily Estate Planning
Personal Injury, Family Law, and Business and Labor disputes. As a solo
practitioner I handle all phases of a case from intake to preparation & filing of
documents, trial, etc. I am also the founding president of the Orange County
Christian Legal Aid Foundation. We assist low income and indigent clients at the
Salvation Army on Friday afternoons.
11/98 - 3/99, Senior Law Clerk at Orange County District Attorney's Office
1 was part of a special project team in the Family Support Division. We reviewed
case files to ensure that all information is accurate and complete. We then took any
necessary and appropriate actions to locate parents, assets, prepare for OSC,
establishment of court order, etc.
11/97 - 12/98, Supervisor at Pacific Bell
I Supervised a 20-person crew of Systems and Communications Technicians. We
installed and maintained the Emergency %1-1, High Capacity data (T-l, T-3, Fiber,
etc.), and other data circuits in Nonhem Califomia from the Chico, Oroville area to
the Oregon border. I was responsible for various types of employee compliance
(i.e.: OSHA, FCC, CPUC, etc.), workload completion, working with customers,
engineers, vendors, technician training, tools, supplies, motor vehicles, etc.
09/96 - 11/97, Safety Manager at Pacific Bell
I managed the overall corporate safety program for the San Francisco Bay area. My
duties included working with other employees throughout the various levels and
disciplines within the company to ensure a safe working environment and
compliance with applicable safety laws, regulations and policies for the
approximately 14,000 Pacific Bell employees throughout the Bay area. I worked
with OSHA, Pacific Bell Legal Department and our local management teams on
any OSHA complaints or citations. I conducted various training on health and
safety issues. Training development, including video production, aimed at
resolving specific safety process difficulties. I reviewed Regional Managers Safety
Plans for approval and worked with the Regional Managers and their management
teams to implement their approved safety plans. I reviewed and fewrote the
company defensive driving policy. I conducted ergonomics evaluations and
training. I completed the U.C. Davis Health and Safety Professional Program as
well as their Health and Safety Trainer Program. 1 enjoyed this position very much
and only left due to the very high financial cost of living and working in the Bay
area.
03/91 - 09/96, Service Technician at Pacific Bell
I was an installation and repair technician of various telecommunications circuits
and equipment throughout Orange County, CA. These were primarily voice grade
circuits for all classes of customers from the largest businesses to simple residence
service. It was during this time that I was able to attend Law school on weekends
and at night and obtain my Bachelors and Law degrees. I clerked for the Child
Support Division of the San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office for the
Fall 1994 semester. I was an unpaid volunteer in this position.
09/89 - 03/91, Self Employed Low Voltage Electrical Contractor
We moved to Riverside County and I obtained my State Contractors License and
Realtors License. I was busy primarily as a low voltage contractor.
I was also a Riverside County Volunteer Firefighter during this time. Serving two
terms as the Vice President of the Volunteer Fire Company in Wildomar California.
04/84 - 09/89, Service Technician / Union Steward at Pacific Bell
I performed installation and repair oftelecommunications services in the South
Central area of Los Angeles County. I also became a Communications Workers of
America (CWA) union steward. I was soon promoted to the position of Area
Steward in CWA Local 9400. As an Area Steward I supervised and trained other
stewards and assisted with grievance processing and negotiating local issues with
mid and lower level management representatives. During this time I obtained my
AA degree as a paralegal by attending Cerritos College at night and on weekends.
As part of my school cumculam and my CWA duties I also completed special
projects on the subjects of Workers Compensation and Workplace Drug Testing.
EDUCATION:
Associate of Arts, Paralegal, Cerritos College, 1989
Bachelor of Science in Laws, Western State University, College of Law, 1994
Juris Doctor, Western State University, College of Law, 1995
Certified Health & Safety Professional, U.C. Davis, 1997
ADDITIONAL SKILLS:
I am a Member of the California State Bar since June of 1996. I am also a lifetime
member of Alpha Gamma Sigma, the California Academic Honors Society. I have
strong interpersonal, commacat-ions and advocacy skills. I enjoy and I am good at
helping others resolve conflicts. I learn quickly and adapt well to new and
challenging environments.
Check one:
CITY OF TEMECULA
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO COMMISSION
Qualification Requirement:
NAME:
ADDRESS:
HOME PHONE:
OCCUPATION:
EMPLOYER NAME:
EMPLOYER ADDRESS:
Planning Commission
Resident of the City of Temecula.
Community Services Commission
Public/Traffic Safety Commission
02-~8-00P01:28 RCVD
YEARS RESIDENT OF TEMECULA
909-693-9483
92592
WORK PHONE:
Scott Lanier
31374 Corte Talvera, Temecula, CA
909-693-9976
Operations Manager
Federal Express
92590
27260 Jefferson Avenue, Temecula, CA
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND/DEGREES:
B.A. Social Relations, U C Riverside 1978
LIST ANY RIVERSIDE COUNTY OR OTHER CITY BOARD, COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION ON
WHICH YOU HAVE SERVED AND THE YEAR(S) OF SERVICE:
Architectural Control Committee - Villages II Homeowner's Assoc. - 3 years
ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH YOU BELONG: (Professional, technical, community, service):
BRIEFLY STATE WHY YOU WISH TO SERVE ON THIS COMMISSION, AND WHY YOU BELIEVE
YOU ARE QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION. BE SPECIFIC (Use additional paper if necessary):
See attached sheet.
I understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release
of this information for public information purposes.
SIGNATURE: ~ DATE:2~/~ - ZZg~
Return to: City Clerk's Office, 43200 Business Park Drive (909) 694-6444 O._~R
Mail to: P.O, Box 9033, Temecula, Ca. 92589-9033
Commissions~Application for Various Commissions
Briefly state why you wish to serve on this commission, and v~hy you
believe you are qualified for this position. Be specific.
I would like to serve on this commission because it would give me a chance to
have a positive effect on the City of Temecula and its residents. This
commission has had a good track record and I believe my experience would only
add to this commission's success.
I have lived and worked in Temecula for ten years. I have seen the City grow
and am very familiar with every neighborhood, street and roadway. I also have
had the opportunity to attend many commission meetings and am familiar with
the topics they have covered.
I am currently an Operations Manager for Federal Express, which includes being
charge of safety issues. This includes safe driving as well as the personal safety
of Federal Express employees. I have also had experience in solving customer
service problems. I have acquired the skill to listen and to clearly understand
what people are asking for and the ability to find a solution that makes the
customer satisfied, while holding true to Federal Express policy and guidelines.
I have no personal agenda or ax to grind by being appointed to this committee. I
would just like the opportunity to apply my knowledge and skills to help keep
Temecula a great place to live.
SCOTT LANIER
31374 CORTE TALVERA
TEMECULA, CA. 92592
(909) 693-9976
EDUCATION
June 1978
June 1975
B.A. Social Relations
A.A. General Education
U.C. Riverside
Riverside Community College
EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE
May 1997 - Present
Operations Manager - FEDEX - Temecula, CA
Responsible for workgroup of 20 couriers/customer
service agents. Currently involved with the scheduling
and training of existing employees. Also the hiring and
training of new employees which includes, but not limited
to FEDEX computer systems, customer service techniques
and defensive driving.
Have kept current station in compliance with all FEDEX
policies regarding financial audit items, as well as all
state and federal laws. Have been the safety manager for
the Temecula station the last two years.
April 1986 - May 1997
Courier - FEDEX - Temecula, CA
Responsible for the timely delivery and pick-up of critical
overnight packages. Developed extensive area knowledge
of local and regional streets, roads and highways. Earned
nine safe driving awards and was the Temecula station's
safety representative.
SPECIAL INTERESTS
Fresh water fishing, bicycling and baseball.
REFERENCES PROVIDED UPON REQUEST
February, 14, 2000
To Whom It May Concern:
27260 Jefferson Avenue
Ternecu~a, CA 92590
Subject: Recommendation - Public Safety/Traffic Commission
I would like to take this opportunity to write to you regarding Scott Lanier.
Scott is an operations manager at the FedEx facility in Temecula. In this
capacity he manages approximately 60 employees. He is also responsible for
all aspects of the fast paced work environment associated with FedEx. I have
found Scott to be committed, dedicated and eager to step in wherever needed
to achieve corporate objectives. He regularly accepts additional tasks and
responsibilities to assist me and the other managers on my staff. Scott's
strength lies in his ability to be a team player.
As a manager of FedEx drivers, Scott has extraordinary knowledge of the
City of Temecula. He also has an outstanding safety record. Over the past
three years, Scott has worked to improve worker safety. His efforts have
paid off and his facility is a safety leader within FedEx.
Scott possesses the necessary skills and drive that have made him a valuable
member of my management team. If given the opportunity, I am confident
that he will prove to be a valuable member of your team too.
I can vouch that Scott has a strong desire to serve his community. Scott is to
be commended for the courage and determination shown in applying for
Temecula's Public Safety/Traffic Commission. If you have any doubts or
questions about Scott's career with FedEx, please feel free to contact me
directly.
Regar ,
Senior Manager
Temecula and Victorville Facilities
RCVD
02-22-00A08:54
CITY OF TEMECULA
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO COMMISSION
I/ ........ Requirement:
C/tlck one: Planning Commission
X
Community Servir, es Commission
Public/Traffic Safety Commission
NAME: Robert J. Lopshire
ADDRESS: 40244 Atmore Court,
HOME PHONE: 909-699-9040
OCCUPATION: Sales Manager
YEARS RESIDENT OF TEMECULA 11 ,yrs
Temecula, CA 92591
WORK PHONE: 909-676-6681 x 155
EMPLOYER NAME: Aard Spring & Stamping inc.
EMPLOYER ADDRESS: 420?5 Avenida Alvarado, Temecula, CA 92590
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND/DEGREES:
Bachelor of Science - Business Marketing - Cal. State University
Long Beach, 1981
Associate of Arts - Liberal Arts - Orange Coast College 1977
UST ANY RIVERSIDE COUNTY OR OTHER CITY BOARD, COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION ON
WHICH YOU HAVE SERVED AND THE YEAR(S) OF SERVICE:
None
1998-99 Legislative Chairman- Nicolas Valley Elem. School PTA
1998-99 School Sight Council Chairman Nicolas Valley Elem. School
-see attached-
BRIEFLY STATEWHY YOUWISH TO SERVE ONTHIS COMMISSION, ANDWHYYOU BELIEVE
YOUARE QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION. BE SPECIFIC(Ueeadd~ionaIpaperffnecessaW):
I have lived in Temecula for eleven years and know the area fairly
well. I have grown with this city and have admired the leadership
and thewell managed growth of this city. I believe I have the
leadership and discernment to advise city council on the tough
decisions that need to be made over the course of the next several
I uMem~nd that any or all information on this form may be verffied. I conse~ ~ the release
d this information for public information purposes.:.
SIGNATURE: ~ DATE: 2-19-2000
Return to: City Cierk's Office, 43200 Business Park Drive (909) 694-6444 OR
Mail to: P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, Ca. 9258S~033
years,
Comrnila~ns~NXfficlt~n for vamps Commmr~ions
Mr. Lopshire called on February 22, 2000 and asked
us to add th following to his application:
Under Organizations,
PTA President of Nicholas Valley Elementary
1996-1997
1997-1998
SERVICE cont.
1998-99 West Coast Spring Manufacturers Association
B~ard ~ember
1998- Present Supplier Improvement Program - ~oard
Member - SIP team - Calsonics inc.
WISH TO SERVE cont.
I here addressed City Ciuncil, and the Traffic Commission
to study the traffic circles on N. General Kearnev. to open
up roads around James L. Day Middle School, ~sked for city
support to pay 1/3 the cost of a sidewalk built for the
children of Nicolzs Valley Elementary School. I have
supplied local newspapers information of unsafe situations
around ~emecula. I have addressed the school board on a
number of occasions and have gotten to know several of the
school board members fairly we~l. I have served to re-elect
a school board member. Several years ago I organized a protest
against a convicted felon being released back into the
community. I organized lectures for parents who have children
withA.D.D., bringing in a well versed doctor who specialized
in the field. I also organized a lecture for parents who
wamted to be informed about the mode of operation of a child
molestar and how it keep our children safe. My conviei~zns are
selfish in nature, because I have fatbared five children with
my wife of fourteen years end want Temecula to remain safe for
my children's children.
C~TY OF TEMECULA RECEIVED FEB 7 4 2000
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO COMMISSION
Qualification Requirement: Resident of the City of Temecula.
Chock one: ~ Planning Commission __ Community Services Commission
.~)~ Public/Traffic Safety Commission
ADDREss: ,Z/~q 7
HOME PHONE: ~'~F"-50/~-
OCCUPATION:
EMPLOYER NAME:
EMPLOYER ADDRESS:
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND/DEGREES:
LIST ANY RIVERSIDE COUNTY OR OTHER CITY BOARD, COMMI'I"~E OR Cdl~I(41SSION ON
WHICH YOU HAVE SERVED AND THE YEAR(S) OF SERVICE:
ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH YOU BELONG: (Professional, technical, community, service):
BRIEFLY STATE WHY YOU WISH TO SERVE ON THIS COM~'ISSION, AND WHY YOU BELIEVE
I ~n~e~tand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I ~o~sent to the ~lease
of this information for publiC information purposes.
Retarn to: City Clerk's OffiCe, 43200 Business Park Drive (909) 694-6~4 O2
~ail to: P.O. Box 9033, TemeCula, Ca. 92S89-9033
Commissionsv~pplication for various Commissions
Check one:
RECEIVED FF.':_:i I
CITY OF TEMECULA
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO COMMISSION
Qualification Requirement: Resident of the City of Temecula. ~
Planning Commission
Community Services Commission
X Public/Traffic Safety Commission
YEARS RESIDENT OF TEMECULA
I ADFRA "'L,~c~\
WORK PHONE:
NAME: STEPHEN SOLTZ
ADDRESS: 4205q AVFNIDA VISTA
HOME PHONE: 699-8736
OCCUPATION: FIRE FIGHTER
EMPLOYER NAME:
CITY FIRE SERVICES, RIv, Co. FIRE DFPT.
EMPLOYERADDRESS: 27415 ENTERPRISE CIR, WEST
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND/DEGREES:
A-A ENGINEERING DRAFTING/DESIGN
LIST ANY RIVERSIDE COUNTY OR OTHER CITY BOARD, COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION ON
WHICH YOU HAVE SERVED AND THE YEAR(S) OF SERVICE:
RANCHO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL SITE COUNCIL I YEAR CURRENT CHAIRMAN
ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH YOU BELONG: (Professional, technical, community, service):
TEMECULA VALLEY SOFTBALL, PARTICIPATING PARENT
BRIEFLY STATE WHY YOU WISH TO SERVE ON THIS COMMISSION, AND WHY YOU BELIEVE
YOU ARE QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION. BE SPECIFIC (Use additional paper if necessary):
I WOULD LIKE THIS POSITION IN ORDER TO TAKE A MORE ACTIVE ROLL IN MY
COMMUNITY, I HAVE BEEN A FIRE FIGHTER IH TEMECULA FOR 10 YEARS.
DEALING WITH PULBIC SAFETY AND TRAFFIC IS LARGE PORTION OF THAT JOB.
I understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release
of this information for public information purposes.
SIGNATURE~.~,_~/~/,/~~ DATE:
Return to: City Clerk's Office, 43200 Business Park Drive (909) 694-6~.~.~. OR
Mail to: P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, Ca. 92589-9033
Commissions%Application for various Commissions
02-22-00A08:5~ RCVD
CITY OF TEMECULA
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO COMMISSION
PUBLIC/TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
NAME:
YEARS RESIDENT OF TEMECULA:
ADDRESS:
HOME PHONE:
WORK PHONE:
OCCUPATION:
EMPLOYER:
EMPLOYER ADDRESS:
EDUCATION BACKGROUND/DEGREES:
RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOARDS:
ORGANIZATIONS:
WHY YOU WISH TO SERVE:
Curtis K. Stepban
11
41990 Avenida Vista Ladera, Temecula CA
699-5813
(714) 517-9205
Risk Manager
Anaheim City School District
1001 South East Street, Anaheim CA
Bachelor of Arts - San Francisco State
None
Past President of Risk and Insurance
Management Society, (RIMS)
Past President of Public Risk and Insurance
Management Society, (PRIMA)
I want serve the community and lend my expertise and experience to make the City ofTemecula a
safe environment. During my career, I have been faced with many safety challenges and have
been successful in reducing or eliminating potential safety exposures. I am confident that as a
team member, I could recommend alte tives o the safety issues that face our growing City.
/
SIGNATURE: C~~
DATE: 9_ - -~- I - ~
Llty OII emecula Application p or Appointment 1 o Loremission rage i oi z
CITY OF TEMECULA
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO COMMISSION
Qualification Requirement: Resident of the City of Temecula.
Check one: Planning Commission
ommunity Services Commission
~7~Pu°blic/Traffic Safety Commission
YEARS RESIDENT OF TEMECULA:
ADDRESS:
HOME PHONE:
WORK PHONE:
OCCUPATION:
EMPLOYER NAME:
EMPLOYER ADDRESS:
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND/DEGREES:
LIST ANY RIVERSIDE COUNTY OR OTHER CITY BOARD, COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION ON
WHICH YOU HAVE SERVED AND THE YEAR(S) OF SERVICE:
ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH YOU BELONG: (Professional, technical, community, service):
BRIEFLY STATE WHY YOU WISH TO SERVE ON THIS COMMISSION, AND WHY YOU BELIEVE
YOU ARE QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION. BE SPECIFIC (Use additional paper if necessary):
I understand that any or all information on this form may be verified. I consent to the release of
this information for public information purposes.
htt~://www~ci~temecu~a~ca~us/cityha~l/~~mmissi~ns/P~siti~ns%2~&%2~Ap~lica~~~/applicati~n~ht 2/18/00
City oI '1 'emecula Application P'or Appointment '1 'o Cormmssion
CITY OF TEMECULA
APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO COMMISSION
Qualification Requirement: Resident of the City of Temecula.
Check one: ~ Planning Commission
· Community Servlcss Commission
~f Public/Traffic Safety Commission
NAME: "~e0~--
YEARS RESIDENT OF TEMECULA:
ADDRESS: z7';~5
/
HOME PHONE: 6qq
WORK PHONE: /~_6 g3y 27'0~' E-/CT~ 7~
OCCUPATION: V~%J~ ~o~ 5 ~ec~ ~ ,~
EMPLOYER NAME:
EMPLOYER ADDRESS: ~ 5/~e~< ~/~/~ZdS~
EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND/DEGREES:
Page 1 oi'2
RECEi,'4EQ FEB 1 s
LIST ANY RIVERSIDE COUNTY OR OTHER CITY BOARD, COMMITTEE OR COMMISSION ON
WHICH YOU HAVE SERVED AND THE YEAR(S) OF SERVICE:
ORGANIZATIONS TO WHICH YOU BELONG: (Professional, technical, community, service):
BRIEFLY STATE WHY YOU WISH TO SERVE ON THIS COMMISSION, AND W~ YOU BELIE~
YOU ARE QUALIFIED FOR THE POSITION. BE SPECIFIC {Use additional paper if
te~,~ ~, ~ ~t~c~ ,~ ~y ~,s,~ ~,,5
I undenmnd that any or all info~ation on this fo~ may be veri~. I consent to the release of
this info~a~on for public info~ation pu~os~.
http:~~www~ci~temecu~a~ca~us/cityha~l/c~mmissi~ns/P~siti~ns%2~&%2~App~i~a.../a~plicati~n~ht 2/14/00
· . Ci, ty oI Temecula Apphcation For Appointmere To Comrmssion
· -~/' t~
Return to: City Clerk's Office, 43200 Business Park Drive (909) 694-6444 OR
Mall ~o: P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, Ca. 92589-9033
4~RETURN TO Temecula City Hall, Main Page
Page 2 of 2
http://www.ci.temecu~a.ca.us/cityha~~/c~mmissi~ns/P~siti~ns%2~&%2~App~ica.../app~icati~n.ht 2/14/00
ITEM 13
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL ~
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City ManagedCity Council
William G. Hughes, Dire~or of Public Works/City Engineer
March 28, 2000
Consideration of Adoption of Resolution of Necessity for the Acquisition in Eminent
Domain of an Easement in Conne~ion with the Pala Road Bridge Project,
Project No. PW97-15
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
Open and conduct a hearing on the adoption of the proposed Resolution of Necessity,
receive from staff the evidence stated and referred to in this Report, take testimony from any
person wishing to be heard on issues A, B, C and D below, and consider all the evidence to
determine whether to adopt the proposed Resolution, which requires a unanimous or 4/5ths
vote.
tf the City Council finds, based upon the evidence contained in and referred to in this Report,
the testimony and comments received in this hearing, that the evidence warrants the
necessary findings with respect to the proposed Resolution of Necessity, then the staff
recommends that the City Council, in the exercise of its discretion, adopt proposed
Resolution No. 2000- (which requires a 4/5ths vote of the entire Council) and authorize
that an eminent domain proceeding be filed to acquire Certain Property Interests ("Subject
Property Interest") in the real property commonly known as Assessors Parcel No. 961-010-
006 and more fully described in the legal descriptions attached hereto collectively as Exhibit
"1 ," which also contains maps showing the location of the Subject Property Interests in
relation to the proposed Mitigation Site Easement. A map of the Project Area showing
roughly the location of the Subject Property Interests is attached hereto as Exhibit "2."
Exhibits "1" and "2" are incorporated in this Report by this reference.
3. Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF NECISSITY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY NECESSARY FOR
PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION
THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED SITE
MITIGATION FOR THE PALA ROAD BRIDGE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
1
r:~adgrpt~2000\0328~pala esmt reso/ajp
BACKGROUND: The Subject Property interest is sought for a public purpose, namely
to obtain access to an adjacent wetlands area being created by the City in connection with mitigating
the environmental impact of the Pala Road Bridge Capital Improvement Project, and all purposes
necessary and convenient thereto pursuant to Government Code Sections 37350, 37350.5, 37351,
37353, 40401 and 40404 and California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1240.010 through
1250.050 and 1240.110, 1240.120, 1240.150, 1240.160, 1250.510, 1240.610, 1240.650, and other
provisions of law.
The Subject Property Interest is located in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, California.
These Subject Property Interest is a portion of the real property commonly known as Assessors
Parcel No. 961-010-006, and is more fully described in the legal description attached hereto as
Exhibit "1," which also contains maps showing the location of the subject property in relation to the
proposed project. A map of the Project area showing roughly the location of the Subject Property
Interest is attached hereto as Exhibit "2." Exhibits "1" and "2" are incorporated in this Report by this
reference. The proposed Resolution of Necessity, Resolution No. 2000- is included with this
Staff Report.
In connection with the Pala Road Bridge Capital Improvement Project, the City is required to create
and maintain a wetlands area in accordance with the conditions of the Army Corp and Fish and
Game Permits. In order to access that mitigation area, the subject Mitigation Site Easement is being
sought. Dudng the term of the Mitigation Site Easement, the City will utilize the easement to access
the mitigation area to plant, maintain, and ensure the survival of vegetation in the newly created
wetlands area.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 7262 et seq., the City obtained a fair market value appraisal
of the Subject Property Interest, set just compensation in accordance with the appraised fair market
value and extended a written offer letter to the record title owner of the subject property, Old Vail
Partners, LP, on February 29, 2000. A true and correct copy of the offer letter is on file with the City.
To date however, no negotiated purchase has been consummated, and the schedule for the
proposed Project requires that the City Council consider the proposed Resolution of Necessity at this
time.
To adopt the proposed Resolution of Necessity, the City Council must find and determine that:
A. The public interest and necessity require the project;
B. The project is planned or located in the manner that will be compatible with the
greatest public good and least private injury;
C. The Subject Property Interest described in the Resolution of Necessity is necessary
for the Project;
D. The fair market value offer required by Section 7267.2 of the Government Code has
been made to the owner of record of the property sought to be acquired.
This hearing relates to Issues A, B, C and D above.
A. The Public Interest and Necessity Require the Project
The Pala Road Bridge Capital Improvement Project affected an adjacent wetlands area. As a result,
the City is required to create and maintain a wetlands area nearby. There is a recognized and strong
public interest in maintaining the wetland areas.
2
r:~adgrpt~20oo\o328~pala esmt reso/ajp
The proposed Mitigation Site Easement would provide a safe and reliable means of obtaining access
to the mitigation site for a period of five years.
The public interest and necessity require the proposed project to create and maintain a replacement
wetlands area to mitigation damage caused by the Pala Road bridge-widening project.
Be
The Project is Planned or Located in the Manner that will be Compatible with the
Greatest Public Good and Least Private Injury
The proposed Mitigation Site Easement, which consists of a total area of approximately 10, 759
square feet (.247 acres), has been designed to utilize an already existing permanent easement, in
favor of the Metropolitan Water District ("MWD""), which consists of a total area of approximately
7,100 square feet. In so doing, the City has attempted to minimize the impact of the Mitigation Site
Easement on the subject property. The City has otherwise configured the Mitigation Site Easement
to minimize the impact on the subject property.
Cm
The Subject Property Interests Described in the Resolution of Necessity are necessary
for the Project
That access easement is necessary for the purpose of creating and maintaining a wetlands area
over a period of five years. The City must be able to access the area in which the wetlands area will
be created, and thereafter be able to access the area for purposes of maintaining that newly created
wetlands environment. Without the temporary access easement here proposed, the City will not be
able to create and maintain the wetlands area.
The Offer Required by Section 7267.2 of the Government Code has been made to the
Owner of Record of the Property Sought to be Acquired
Pursuant to Govemment Code Section 7262 et seq., the City obtained a fair market value appraisal
of the Subject Prepedy Interest, set just compensation in accordance with the appraised fair market
value, and extended a written offer letter to Old Vail Partners, LP, the owner of record of the Subject
Property Interests on February 29, 2000. A true and correct copy of the offer letter is on file with the
City. The owner of record has not formally responded to the City's offer. To date, no negotiated
purchase has been consummated and the schedule for the proposed project requires that the City
Council consider the proposed Resolution of Necessity at this time.
Adoption of the Resolution of Necessity requires at least a loudfifths (4~5) vote of the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT: The right-of-way acquisition for the Pala Road Bridge Project is funded by
Capital Project Reserves. Adequate funds are available in Account No. 210-165-631-5700 for the
deposit amount of $6,000.00.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. 2000-
2. Exhibits "1" and "2"
3
r:%adgrpt~2000\0328~pala esmt reso/ajp
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF NECESSITY OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA
DECLARING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY NECESSARY FOR
PUBLIC PURPOSES AND AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION
THEREOF, IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED SITE
MITIGATION FOR THE PALA ROAD BRIDGE CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City of Temecula is a municipal corporation in the County of
Riverside, State of California.
Section 2. The real property interest described generally in Section 3 of this
Resolution and more particularly described in Exhibit "1" of this Resolution ("Subject Property
Interest"), is to be taken for a public use, namely for a temporary access easement to a
mitigation site and all purposes necessary and convenient thereto pursuant to the eminent
domain authority conferred on the City of Temecula by California Constitution Article I, Section
19, and California Government Code Sections 37350, 37350.5, 37351, 37353, 40401 and
40404 and California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1230.010, et seq. including Sections
1240.010 through 1240.050; and 1240.110, 1240.120, 1240.150, 1240.160, 1240.410,
1240.510, 1240.610, 1240.650, and other provisions of law.
Section 3. The Subject Property Interest sought to be taken is located in the
City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California and is a portion of a larger parcel
known as Assessor's Parcel No. 961-010-006. The Subject Property Interest is located on the
south side of California State Highway 79 South, east of Jedediah Smith Road in the City of
Temecula. The Subject Property Interest sought to be taken is more particularly described in
the legal description attached hereto as Exhibit "1" to this Resolution. Exhibit "1" also contains
a map depicting the location of the Mitigation Site Easement, which is incorporated herein by
this reference. The Subject Property Interest is required to obtain access to the mitigation site
required in connection with the Pala Road Bridge Capital Improvement Project and for all
purposes necessary and convenient thereto.
Section 4. The City Council of the City of Temecula finds and determines
that the acquisition of the Subject Property Interests is required for mitigation site in connection
with the Pala Road Bridge Capital Improvement Project.
Section 5.
determines that:
The City Council of the City of Temecula hereby finds and
A. The public interest and necessity require the proposed project.
B. The proposed project is planned or located in the manner that will be
most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury.
C. The property interests described in Exhibit "1" are necessary for the
proposed project; and
D. The offer letter required by Section 7267.2 of the Government Code has
been made to the owner(s) of record.
1
r:~cip~projects~pw97-15\environmental~pala reso of necessity
Section 6. The findings and declarations contained in this Resolution are
based on the record before the City Council on March 28, 2000 when it adopted this
Resolution; including the staff report dated March 28, 2000 all documents incorporated in the
staff report; the testimony at the hearing; the records and documents prepared in connection
with the Project; the testimony and evidence presented at hearings related to the Project; and,
the public records of the City pertaining to the Project, all of which are incorporated in this
Resolution by this reference.
Section 7. The City of Temecula hereby authorizes and directs the City
Attorney to take all steps necessary to commence an action in a court of competent jurisdiction
to acquire by eminent domain the property interests described in this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 28th day of March, 2000.
[SEAL]
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Temecula held on the 28th day of March, 2000, and was passed at a regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Temecula held on the 28th day of March, 2000, by the following vote:
AYES: 0
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE,City Clerk
2
r:~cip~projects~pw97-15~environmentafipala reso of necessity
0
Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
27555 Ynez Road, Suite 400
Temecula, CA 92591
EXHIBIT "A"
January 26, 2000
JN 15100168-M1
Page 1 of 1
Access Easement to Wetland Area
That certain parcel of land situated in the City of Temecula, County of Riverside, State of
California, being that portion of Parcel 1 of Parcel Map No. 18993 filed in Book 134, Pages
13 through 18 of Parcel Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said Riverside County,
lying within a strip of land 25.00 feet wide, the centerline of which is described as follows:
COMMENCING at the centerline intersection of State Highway 79 with Jedediah Smith Road
as shown on said Parcel Map;
thence along said centerline of State Highway 79 South 83°43'07" East 422.40 feet;
thence South 09°50'15" West 102.20 feet to the northerly line of said Parcel 1 and the TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING;
thence continuing South 09°50'15'' West 253.25 feet;
thence South 67°59'57'' East 176.29 feet to the southerly line of said Parcel 1.
Said strip of land shall be lengthened or shortened so as m terminate northerly in said
northerly line of Parcel 1 and southerly in said southerly line of Parcel 1.
CONTAINING: 0.247 Acres, more of less.
EXHIBIT "B" attached and by this reference made a part hereof.
Ra~'~nd L. Mathe, P.L.S. 6185
My license expires 3/31/02.
This description was prepared by me or under my direction.
H:\GRP60XPDATA\ISI00168\OFFICE\WpWIN~1681gI01 .wpd
200
0
200 400 600
GRAPHIC SCALE
C/L STATE H[GHINAy 79
P
,5' 55'
422.,
S0g°50' 15"W
MWD ESMT
EASEMENT AREA WITHIN MWD = 0.163 ACRES
[ASEMENT AREA OUTSIDE OF MWD = 0.084 ACRES
EXHIBIT 'B'
ACCESS EASEMENT
TO WETLAND AREA
JANUARY 26, 2000
SCALE
1"=200'
MAP NO.
P.M.B.
S67'59'57"E PCL.
N78'04' 14"E
18993
134/13-18
1
I, ANDA r
c]
uj
SHEET 1 rlF 1 SHEET
Robe-rt Bein, Wittiam F~ost & Associates
FIELD BOOK
JOB NO.
15100168-M1
E
ITEM 14
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council
FROM:
Grant Yates, Assistant to the City Manager
DATE: March 28, 2000
SUBJECT:
City Council Policy (Staff Time)
PREPARED BY: Aaron Adams, Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council consider adopting the attached City Council Policy.
BACKGROUND: At the request of Mayor Stone, staff has prepared a City Council Policy
which identifies guidelines for City Staff in responding to City Council request for information
that requires detailed staff analysis.
The draft City Council Policy (attached) states the following conditions:
· The basis for this policy is to avoid misdirection of requests and inefficient use of staff time
· City Council members shall normally request information or services to the City Manager
· Requests that require less than 5 hours of staff time will be handled as a matter of business
· Requests that require more than 5 hours of staff time may be approved by the City Manager
· Requests that require more than 5 hours of staff time outside the scope of "normal course
of business" as determined by City Manager will be referred to the City Council for
authorization
· This policy is not intended to stifle communication with Department Heads
FISCAL IMPACT: None at this time.
Attachment: City Council Policy
Procedure:
Department:
Updated:
City of Temecula
City Council Policy
Council Communicationwith Staff
CityManager
March 2000
PURPOSE:
POLICY:
Provide guidance to City Staff in responding to City Council
requests for information that requires detailed staff analysis.
Requests should normally be provided to City Manager or
in his/her absence to the Assistant City Manager. This
facilitates overall coordination of work effort and
communication.
Requests that require less than 5 staff hours of time will
normally be handled as a matter of business. The City
Manager or his/her designee will provide the information to
the City Council member. When the requested information
or service is not readily available, the City Manager or
designee will provide an estimate of time needed, given the
current workload.
Requests involving more than 5 hours of staff time (either
individually or closely related requests that collectively
exceed 5 hours) may be administratively approved by the
City Manager if he/she determines that such effort is in the
normal course of business or complies with previous
Council direction. (e.g. requests for street or signal repairs,
attendance at meetings regarding Pierce's Disease, etc.,)
Requests over 5 hours that are outside the scope of "normal
course of business" as determined by the City Manager will
be referred to the City Council for authorization.
This policy is not intended to stifle communication with
Department Heads. Where Council members have
requests for information or services that are minimal in
nature, the Council members are invited to discuss those
issues directly with the appropriate Department Head.
ITEM 15
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Manager/City Council
Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager
March 28, 2000
Appointment of two Council Members to participate in the County General
Plan Update Committees
Prepared By: Stephen Brown, Senior Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council appoint one Council member to attend the County
General Plan Update Committee (RCIP) meetings and appoint one Council member to attend
the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Committee (MSHCP) Meetings.
BACKGROUND: The County of Riverside is in the initial stages of updating its General Plan,
establishing a Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan, and providing a comprehensive review
of transportation issues. The outcome of this process will have a major effect on the City of
Temecula in regards to traffic congestion and overall quality of life. The Council has expressed
an interest in being more proactive with County issues and attendance at the meetings and
work sessions by an elected official will ensure that our community's voice is heard.
The County General Plan (RCIP) has standing meetings on the first Tuesday of every month at
9:00 a.m. The Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan meets every second Thursday at 1:30
p.m. Occasionally there are subcommittees of both of the above that meet on a time and space
available schedule.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
ATTACHMENT: None
p:\forms\city clerk forms\staff repor~ - shell 1
ITEM 16
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
APPROVAL
CITYATTORNEY ~
DIRECTOR OFFINAN
CITY MANAGER
/
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City ManagedCity Council
Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager
March 28, 2000
Appointment of two Council Members to the City General Plan Update
Committee
Prepared By: Stephen Brown, Senior Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council appoint two Council Members to sit on the City's
General Plan Update Committee.
BACKGROUND: The City Council has held two workshops and considered the Growth
Management Program at their regularly scheduled meeting on March 21, 2000. The Council
expressed the thought that the City might re examine its own General Plan to solidify growth
management principles within the mandated element of the Plan. Council members also
expressed an interest to look at the Land Use, Circulation, and the Open Space and
Conservation Elements of the General Plan. In order to determine the scope of the revision to
the General Plan, the Council will need to appoint two members to provide input into the
process.
FISCAL IMPACT: None, for the initial review.
ATTACHMENT: None
p:\forms\city clerk forms\staff report - shell 1
DEPARTMENTAL
REPORTS
APPROVAL ~
CItY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANCET/'_~
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City Council/City Manager
Anthony J. Elmo, Chief Building Official .-'/~
March 28, 2000
Departmental Report
February, 2000
PREPARED BY: Carol Brockmeier, Administrative Secretary
TOTALNUMBER OF PERMITSISSUED ..............................................................................233
NSFR ............................................................................................................................60
NCOM .............................................................................................................................3
TOTAL VALUATION ................................................................................................$11,190,760
CODE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS ....................................................................................1,219
APPROVAL
CiTY ATTORNEY
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
City Manager/City Council
Jim O'Grady, Assistant City Manager,~
March 28, 2000
SUBJECT: Economic Development Monthly Departmental Report
Prepared by: Gloda Wolnick, Marketing Coordinator
The following are the recent highlights for the Economic Development Department for
the month of February 2000.
Economic Develol~ment
Leads & In{iuiries
In the month of February, the City responded to 3 IEEP inquiries and a lead, which
consisted of a soils testing/engineering firm interested in relocating. We have been
advised that we are one of three cities short-listed for a plastic injection molding firm as a
result of one of the IEEP inquiries.
Note: Information on Fast Track, Expansion, Relocation and Speculative Building can
be found in the Community Development Department report,
Media
Staff wrote an article for the Chamber of Commerce Monthly Newsletter, "Temecula
In Review In 1999 And A Look To The Future," which provided a summary of the
State of the City Address presented by Mayor Jeff Stone.
Outreach Materials
Staff prepared text for the "Welcome" pamphlet, which is currently in the design stage.
This will primarily be distributed to new residents through the "Valley Greeters". The
group welcomes approximately 100 new homeowners per month and provides them with
coupons and vadous information on Temecula. This pamphlet is a counterpart to the
very popular Guide to City Services, which has been distributed to businesses.
Olden HousedLuncheon Meetin{is/Forums
Councilmembers and City staff attended the Dedication and Open House of the
Temecula One-Stop Workforce Development Center on February 10t". The Temecula
One-Stop is located at 27447 Enterprise Circle West. The Economic Development
Corporation of Southwest Riverside County and the County Alliance has offices at the
One-Stop Center.
Mayor Pro Tem Jeff Comerohero and Staff artended the IEEP Temecula Satellite
Office Open House, which was held on February 23~. Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero
spoke on behalf of the City Council and Staff welcoming IEEP to the area. The office is
located at 27919 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 107.
Staff attended the IEEP Membership Luncheon, which was held at Temecula Creek
Inn on February 23'd. Dr. Pamela Clute, Executive Director of the Alpha Center--
Academy of Learning through Partnerships for Higher Achievement and a lecturer in
mathematics and education at the University of California, Riverside, was the key note
speaker. She stressed the importance of businesses and professional organizations to
get involved and invest in time, interest and resources in "Mathematics Education" as we
prepare our youth before they enter the workforce.
Staff attended the CALED/Trade and Commerce Forum on February 9th in Yuceipa.
The program topic consisted of incentives and assistance that cities can draw upon to
attract and help businesses.
Staff made preparations for the State of the City presentation, which was held on
February 29 at Temeku Hills. The event was successful and was well attended by
community leaders.
Mayor Pro Tem Jeff Comerchero, City staff, and representatives from the EDC held a
lunch meeting on February 16~ with representatives from local manufacturing
businesses as part of the City's Business Retention Program that is being
implemented in conjunction with the EDC. The lunch was informative and allowed for
the shadng of information.
Staff attended the Temecula Connect Links Luncheon on February 11th. The program
focused on negotiating skills training.
Meetintcls
Staff attended a meeting on February 1't with representatives of COSTCO to discuss a
possible new buyer for the existing COSTCO property that will be vacated upon their
relocation.
As members of the EDC's retention committee, staff attended site visits to Graphics
Unlimited and to Rancho Bell Blueprint.
Staff attended the UCR breakfast meeting at Embassy Suites on February 3r~. The
meeting outlined the changing nature of today's economy and the need for educational
institutions such as UCR to respond to changing educational needs.
Staff artended the Business Retention Committee Meeting on February 3~d in
Muraleta. Committee roprasentatives described their results of their site visits to Plant
Equipment, Cadent Technologies and Exotic-Electro Optics.
On February 4t~, Mayor Stone presented highlights of our 1999 accomplishments to the
Murrieta Temecula Group at Callaway Winery. Representatives of Murdeta and Lake
Elsinore provided highlights for their cities as well.
On February 8t~, Councilmembers Jeff Stone and Ron Roberrs met as the Hotel
Conference Center Ad Hoc Council Subcommittee to discuss the updated Keyser-
Marston study and development opportunities.
Staff attended the Southwest Riverside County Manufacturers' Council Meeting on
February 9t". The program was held at the new One-Stop Center. This site will be used
for future meetings of the Manufacturers' Council.
On February 14, Staff met with Marty Smith and Allen Nunez of Coldwell Banker
regarding potential developments. Staff assembled information and data for them to
forward on to some of their potential clients. The information will also be useful in their
research efforts.
Staff met with Ron Nater, formerly with the Silicon Valley Joint Venture, on February
14t~ to learn more about the Joint Venture and possible applications for our region.
Toudsm
Media
Staff sent information to the California Division of Tourism, which is now published on
their website. The Temecula Valley Museum and Temecula Stage Stop listed under
What's New in California - Inland Empire section are highlighted this quarter. (see
attached)
Staff sent a press kit and slides to Sign On San Diego, the website of the San Diego
Union Tribune. Within the month they are going to feature Temecula on their website
which will be listed under entertainment in their weekend getaway section.
Staff sent slides and a press kit to The Destination Group in Ann Arbor, MI. They were
hired by Mitsubishi to produce a special CD Rom for one of their automobile
promotions. Mitsubishi requested that Temecula be one of the cities featured. They will
be highlighting other beautiful cities throughout the US.
Staff sent out slides, photos and a press kit to Pilot Publishing. They are publishing a
new book called The Western U.S. Pilot's Travel Guide, which is due out June 1=.
The Guide is for pilots and includes destinations that have definite reasons to visit -
recreation, resorts, etc.
As a member of the Inland Empire Toudsm Council the City benefits from advertising
opportunities we could not afford to do including the Official 2000 California State
Visitor's Guide & Travel Planner (see attached). Temecula is included in the Inland
Empire section courtesy of iETC free of charge. The guide is distributed at Welcome
Centers throughout the state and through the California Division of Tourism offices.
Staff is working with Channel 7 with Lisa Renee Ramedz, Producer for the Eye on
LA program. They have scheduled to film a weekend getaway segment on Temecula
on Apdl 1st & 2"~. Staff sent the Elmer Dills segment on Temecula, press kit, Vintners
press kit, other materials and suggested itinerary to Lisa to review. Staff is scheduling
all the arrangements for the station.
Meetin~ls
Staff attended the Chamber Tourism and Visitors Council meeting on February
There was discussion of a planned TVC reception to educate community leaders,
chamber board and industry leaders as to the new direction of the Temecula Chamber
Toudsm and Visitors Council. The goal is for attendees to become knowledgeable
regarding toudsm statistics available and utilize information to educate and campaign for
a percentage of TOT tax dollars to be placed back into toudsm marketing efforts and for
the future formulation of a Temecula Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau. The
reception will be held on May 4th, from 5:30 p.m. - 7:30 p.m. at Temecula Creek Inn.
City staff reported on the tourism rack brochure that is underway and the San Diego
CONVIS Official Pocket Visitors Guide.
Staff met with a wdter from the San Diegan publication on February 11"~ to go over new
tourism/business/residential developments, attractions and events to include in their
Temecula section.
Debbie Knapp of TuckIota Springs, an RV Park in Sage, contacted staff to obtain
literature and new information on Temecula. They will be holding a National Rally in
mid March. Approximately 175 people, pdmarily seniors, will be attending this RV rally.
Attendees will be coming from areas as far as New York and New Hampshire, This is
the second consecutive year they have held this popular rally. Staff encouraged Debbie
to notify the group of the new attractions in Temecula to visit including our new museum.
Toudsm Travel Shows
Staff met with Vicki Barnes of the Chamber regarding a debriefing of the recent
California Travel Market trade show. Temecula was represented by the Chamber and
IEEP at this California industry trade show. Vicki met with some good travel groups,
which the City will follow-up with. Staff pulled information off the internet on the contacts
made and will send them a personal letter; a toudsm brochure and wine tasting
certificate to qualified groups.
The Los Angeles Times Travel Show will be held Apdl 29*" & 30"~ at the LA Convention
Center. On Saturday from 8:00 a.m. - 10:00 a.m. meetings with travel agents will occur.
After that time, the show is opened up to consumers. Temecula will partner with San
Diego CONVIS for the first time. Temecula will share the cost with San Diego CONVIS
and the Winegrowers Association. Temecula representatives will also be participating at
the IETC booth at no cost.
Attachments:
Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce Activities Report
Economic Development Corporation of Southwest Riverside County
Activities Report
Temecula Valley Film Council Activities Report
Southwest Riverside County Economic Alliance
Inland Empire Economic Partnership January Activities Report
Official California 2000 Visitors Guide & Travel Planner
What's New In California Website - Temecula Listings
27450 Ynez Road, Suite 104
Temecula, CA 92591
Phone(909) 676-5090 · Fax (909)694-0201
March 7, 2000
Shawn Nelson, City Manager
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Dear Shawn:
Attached please find the Monthly Activity Report provided as per our contract with the City of Temecula.
This is the month of February at a glance:
Business Inquiry Highlights
3 businesses requested infonnation on starting or relocating their business in Temecula.
They received a business packet which includes information on demographics, relocation, housing,
rentals, maps, organizations, etc.
Committee Highlights
Tourism & Visitors Council: Committee members are actively working on a TVC Reception to educate
community leaders, chamber board and industry Ieaders as to the new direction of the committee. A date
has been set for May 4 at Temecula Creek Irm. Chamber and City staff will be attending the L.A. Times
Register Show on April 29 & 30. Temecula staff member and committee members will share booth spacc
in the San Diego Convis and Inland Empire Tourism Council Booths. The show caters to travel agents
and consunlers.
Education Committee: The Student of the Month luncheon was held on February 28, 2000, at Sizzler in
Temecula. The students honored were: Adam Forrest and Rachael Crouch - TVHS, Aaron Barret and
Christine Scott - Chaparral, Matthew Augustine and Rachelle La Pointe - The Linfield School. The next
Temecula Valley High School Career Fair is scheduled for April 11, 12, and 13. The topic is visual and
performing arts (dance, music, drama, visual arts, interior design, and fashion design). The Chamber
supplies TVHS with a list of members to contact for their career fairs. Video filming of two Chamber
businesses for the career education departments for the high schools have been completed and are being
edited. The videos will become part of a career library*.
Ways & Means Committee: This year's State of the City Address held at Temeku Hills Golf Club was a
successful luncheon program. The Chamber partnered with the City of Temecula in order to bring an
outstanding and successful program. March 17th is the 9th Annual Chamrock Golf Classic at SCGA
Members Club, with a 9:00 AM Shot gun. Team Member of the Year is accepting nominations from
March 1 through the 31'~. Team Member of the Year is scheduled at Embassy Suites Hotel.
Local Business Promotions Committee: "The Profit Puzzle" seminar and luncheon program at Embassy
Suites Hotel is scheduled for March 30, 2000, 11:00AM to 1:30PM. Mr. Don Osborne is the author and
publisher of the "Profit Puzzle." The June campaign committee of Shop Temecula First has begun
preparations for the up and coming June Campaign.
Temecula Today!
The Chamber received the official notification of being awarded the Polaris Award of Excellence. This award
will be received March 15, 2000 in Riverside. Temecula Today! the Chamber's monthly newsletter has been
entered into the national spectrum of P. R. S .A.
Government Action Committee: The committee's next meeting is scheduled for March 7, 2000, at the
Murrieta Chamber. This joint committee with the Mumeta Chamber of Commerce held a Candidates
Forum on February 28, 2000 and was a great success. The forum will rebroadcast on cable for public
viewing. Candidates running for Assembly District 66 and Congressional District 48 attended and
answered questions regarding issues such as e-commerce and taxation, and Pierce's Disease. Thirteen of
the fifteen congressional candidates were in attendance. After polling members, the Chamber has taken
the position to oppose a building moratorium. Chamber Board of Directors and members attended the
workshop on February 29, 2000. We look forward to finding solutions to continue the high quality of life
in Temecula. Thank you again to all the council members and city staff for taking the time to meet with
the Chamber board members and staff regarding the building moratorium.
Membership Committee: Ambassadors attended 11 Ribbon Cuttings in February. Chamber static'
attended the W.A.C.E Conference. We are more aggressive than other Chambers that was in attendance.
The Membership Committee hosted a successful Special Topic Breakfast "How to Maximize your $".
Over 45 business members attended. The committee is also organizing for the March Mixer at the La~v
Offices of Timothy Kuzelka.
Tourism Highlights (Bulk brochure distribution)
· 300 Visitor Guides to representatives attending the Orange County Register Show for distribution to tour
operators and consumers.
· 250 Winery Brochures, 125 Visitor Guides and 60 One-page Street Maps to TVCC's Weekend Visitor
Center for Distribution to tourists
· 250 Temecula Brochures to European Deli for distribution to tour operators visiting Temecula.
· 150 Visitor Guides to the City of Temecula for distribution to walk-ins.
· 150 Temecula Brochures and 150 Winery Brochures to Desert Hills Premium Outlets for distribution to
tourists.
· 100 One-page Street Maps, 25 Temecula Brochures and 25 Visitors Guides to American Coach for
distribution to rally attendees at Outdoor Resorts.
· 150 One-page Street Maps, 75 Winery Brochures and 75 Pechanga Brochures to Embassy Suites for
distribution to bmests.
· 150 Temecula Brochures to Riverside County EDC for distribution in the lobby.
· 150 Visitor Guides to Thornton Winery for distribution to guests.
· 100 Visitor Guides to Lawrence Welk Resorts for distribution to guests.
· 75 One-page Street Maps, 75 Visitor Guides and 75 Winery Brochures to Tucolata Springs for
distribution to guests attending a rally.
· 40 One-page Street Maps and 23 Visitor Guides to Best Western Guest House for distribution to guests.
30 Temecula Brochures and 5 Visitor Guides to West Coast FWB Women's Ministries for distribution to
retreat attendees.
· 30 Visitor Guides to Guidant Corporation for distribution to clients.
· 30 Winery Brochures to Coldwell Banker Johnson & Johnson for distribution to clients.
· 25 Temecula Brochures, 25 Visitor Guides and 25 Relocation Packets to Park Place Realty/Better Homes
for distribution to clients.
· 26 Visitor Guides and 26 Temecula Brochures to Lynette Pitman for distribution to wedding guests.
· 20 City Maps, 20 School Brochures, 20 Temecula Brochures, 20 Visitor Guides and 20 Winery Maps to
U.S Border Patrol for distribution to prospective and new employees.
· 20 School Brochures, 20 Temecula Brochures and 20 Winery Brochures to Lanar Homes/Couutry Walk
for distribution to new residents.
· 12 Visitor Guides to Hope Lutheran Church for distribution to potential applicants for pastor of the
church.
· 10 Visitor Guides, 10 One-page Street Maps and 10 Winery Brochures to Pechanga R.V. Resort for
distribution to visitors.
· 10 Visitor Guides to Bonnie Ernestine for distribution to wedding guests.
· 10 Visitor Guides to Chaparral High School for distribution to visitors of the school.
Activity Report
· Total tourism calls for February were 2,510.
· Total phone calls for February were 4,677.
· Total walk-ms for February were 2,680
· E-Mail requests are up 14.52 percent from last year.
· Web page user sessions: N/A
Also attached are the Meeting minutes for the Tourism and Visitors Council, Education, Ways & Means.
Local Business Promotions, Membership Conkmittee report and a February issue of Temecula Today! If you
have any questions regarding this information, please feel free to call me. Thank you.
Mayor Jefl~ry E, Stone
Mayor Pro Tern Jeff Comerehero
Councilman Ronald H, Roberks
Councilman Sam Pra~
Councilman Mike Naggar
Shawn Nelsom City Manager
Jim O'Crrady, Assistant City Manager
Gary ThonghilL Deputy Cily Manager
Gloria Wolnick, Marketing Coordinalor
TVCC Board of Directors
PHONE CALLS
TOURISM
TOURISM REFERRALS
Calendar of Events
Special Events
General Information
TOTAL TOURISM CALLS
RELOCATION
DEMOGRAPHICS
CHAMBER
MISCELLANEOUS
TOTAL PHONE CALLS
* CHAMBER REFERRALS
WALK-INS TOURISM
CALENDAR OF EVENTS
SPECIAL EVENTS
GENERAL INFORMATION
RELOCATION
DEMOGRAPHICS
CHAMBER
MISCELLANEOUS
TOTAL WALK-INS
MAILINGS
TOURISM
RELOCATION
DEMOGRAPHICS
TOTAL MAILINGS
E-MAIL
TOURISM
RELOCATION
MISCELLANEOUS
TOTAL E-MAIL
WEB PAGE USER SESSIONS
GRAND TOTALS
PHONE CALLS
WALK-INS
MAILINGS
E-MAIL
WEB PAGE USER SESSIONS
CHAMBER REFERRALS
TEMECULA VALLEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORT
FOR FEBRUARY, 2000
Chamber Vis. Center
This Month This Month
Total
Year-To-Date
399
104
555
1187
2,245
793
252
936
2,374
4,355
106
54
2,024
187
4,616
N/A
282
136
4,053
315
9,141
N/A
190
156
83
637
144
140
973
91
2,414
123
22
10
77
8
13
2
11
266
627
325
154
1,627
294
265
2,053
214
5,559
117
94
94
305
247
182
175
604
N/A
33
30
79
142
THIS MONTH
4,616
2,680
305
142
N/A
N/A
75
60
131
266
N/A
YEAR-TO-DATE
9,141
5,559
604
266
2,342
8,614
ANNUAL VOLUME COMPARISONS
Chamber Chamber
February, 1999 February, 2000
Percentage
Increase
PHONE CALLS
TOURISM
Tourism Referrals 503 399 -20.68
Calendar of Events 128 104 -18.75
Special Events 825 555 -32.73
General Information 1,054 1,187 12.62
TOTAL TOURISM CALLS 2,510 2,245 -10.56
RELOCATION 197 106 -46.19
DEMOGRAPHICS 87 54 -37.93
CHAMBER 1,735 2,024 16.66
MISCELLANEOUS 148 187 26.35
TOTAL PHONE CALLS 4,677 4,616 -1.30
CHAMBER REFERRALS N/A N/A N/A
WALK-INS
TOURISM 183 190 3.83
CALENDAR OF EVE NTS 109 156 43.12
SPECIAL EVENTS 107 83 -22.43
GENERAL INFORMATION 613 637 3.92
RELOCATION 173 144 -16.76
DEMOGRAPHICS 51 140 174.51
CHAMBER 1007 973 -3.38
MISCELLANEOUS 64 91 42.19
VISITOR CENTER WALK-INS 378 266 -29.63
TOTAL WALK-INS 2,685 2,680 -0.19
MAILINGS
TOURISM 219 117 -46.58
RELOCATI ON 107 94 - 12.15
DEMOGRAPHICS 116 94 -18.97
TOTAL MAILINGS 442 305 -31.00
E-MAIL
TOURISM 26 33 26.92
RELOCATION 18 30 66.67
MISCELLANEOUS 80 79 -1.25
TOTAL E-MAI L 124 142 14.52
N/A
**WEB PAGE USER SESSIONS
N/A
* Chamber referrals reflects faxes, walk-ins and phone calls
**New category relects Web-page requests
3-09-200 3:32P~ FROM EDC-SWRC 9096006065
March 9, 2000
Jim O'Grady
Assistant City Manager
City of Temecula
PO Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589
RE: Activity Summary - February 2000
Activities of the EDC during the month of February are as follows:
Business Development
The EDC responded to the following four IEEP site search requests submitted through the City
of Temecula:
* Project No. 305-00 / Gas Distribution FaCility. The client wishes to purchase a minimum
of 12 acres of land for a build-to-suit, rail preferable, initial investment total is $5,000,000.
and an estimated 35 new employees to hire. Search inquiries were distr/buted to area
brokers, with one response from Marry Smith, Coldwell Banker Commercial I ALMAR R.E.
Group.
· Project No. 307-00 / Fortune 500 Company, The client will consider
unimproved/improved vacanl land for sale, builds.to-suit opportunities and potentially
existing facilities. The cljeni is particularly interested in sites in the Western portions of the
Inland Empire. Requiren~ents include 8 to I0 acre site or large parcels with options to
divide, may consider building not available until ya quarter 2000, and an estimated 35 new
employees to hire. Search inquiries were distributed to area brokers, with no known
responses,
* Project No. 308-00 / Microcircuit Manufacturer. The client is a manufacturer of wafer
board and semiconductors and wishes to lease an existing facility with 20,000 to 30,000
square feet of Class I to 100 clean room space. Search inquiries were distributed to area
broken, with no known responses.
* Project No. 309-00 / Plastics Manufacturer. The client is a plastic bag manufacturer and
desires a build-to-suit facility with 200,000 square feet. rail access mandatory, and 100 new
employees to hire Search inquiries were distributed to area brokers, with 'no known
responses.
* The EDC received two inquiries for funding to expand the following existing businesses:
Tom & Terri Davis / Bearly Sweels in Murrieta. Mr. Davis wishes to expand his existing
candy/novelty store into Temccula. He has found a facility that includes a lease-hold
improvement and is seeking funding for expansion. Staff delivered a funding packet that
included information on CDC Small Business Finance Corp., Small Business
Administration and area banks that provide business loans.
Post Office BOx 1388 · Tenlecula, CA 92593-1,58S · Office 909/69%5130 · FAX 909/695-5126
3-09-200 3:33PM FROM EDC-SWRC 9(~96006065 P. 3
Jim O'Grady
City of Temceula
Activity Report - February 2000
Page 2
Rick McGe~ / M&W Automotive on Rio Node in Ton~ecula, xVa', McC~e wishes to
relocate his full-service automotive business to a new location in Murrieta due to cunent
leasedsignage issues. He has conducted business in Temecula for nine years. He is
seeking funding for reloc_~-_'on to purchase an existing site. Staff delivered a funding
packet that included information on ~ Small Business Finance Corp., Small Business
Administration and area banks that provide business loans.
Marketlull Outreach
Staff at'tended the following events:
* February 1, 2000 - EDC Business Relations visit to Graphics Unlimited in Temceula.
Staff participated in a sfie tour with Jim O'Grady, Mark O'Connor, and Aaron Adams.
* February 9, 2000 - Southwest Riverside County Manufacturers' Council Meeting -
Featured speakers included Kathleen Newton of Publishing Professionals on "Your
Marketing Program" and Barbara Clemons of Guidant on "Lean Manufacturing". The
EDCSWRC has arranged the Council's monthly meetings at the Workforce Development
Center and helps coordinate the meeting each month.
, February 9, 2000 - EDC Business Relations visit to Rencho Bell Blueprint Company in
Temecula. Staff participated in a site tour with Mark O'Connor, and Grant Yates.
* February 10, 2000 - Workforce Development Center Dedication and Open House.
EDCSWRC assisted in the preparation of the open house and provided guests with site tours.
County and city officials were present to dcclicate the center.
February 23, 2000 - Inland Empire Eeonomie Partnership Open HOuse - Principals of
the IF~P presented their .partnership with Mr. San Jacmto College to provide skilled training
in manufacturing.
February 23, 2000 - Temecula Connect Links Luueheon in Temccula. Featured speaker
were Lori Walton and Robert Gottlicb of Gottlieb & Associates on "Negotiation to
Collaboration"_ An interactive session included understanding style (personality)
pnef~rences to negotiate and negotiation skill building.
February 29, 2000 - City of Temecula's State of the City Luncheon in Temecula.
Attenclees enjoyed the film of Temecula's accomplishments and economic growth.
Business Relations
* Staff attcndcd the EDC Business Relations Committee Meeting on February 3, 2000. (See
attached meeting minutes. )
Administration/Orltaniza~on
The Board of Directors Meeting was hcld on February 17, 2000 at the Workforce Dcvclopmunt
Center in Temecula, General business was conducted, and other topics included the growth
management workshop, the impact of the proposed annexation in Mumeta, the EDC draft
implementation plan, EDC membeRhips and budget issues, propos~cl EDC bylaw
3-09-200 3:33P~ FRON EDC-SWRC 909600G9GB P 4
Jim O'Grady
City of Tcmccula
Activity Report- February 2000
Page 3
amendments, board meeting attendance and the upcoming golf tournament. (See attached
draft meeting minutes. )
· Staff responded to one membership request by Manpower Temporary Services in Temecula
and sent an EDC information packet.
· Staff responded to one request for general demographics in Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, and
Temecula and sent an information packet.
· Stuff aUcnded the Wo~kforcc Developmen~ Cenw~ All Stuff Meeting on Februaxy 29, 2000.
Discussion was held rehtive to the upcoming WDC dedication and open house, building
problems/main~cnance issues, and hours of operation for cach agency.
· Staff a~tendcd the Workforce Dcvclopmcnt Center Partact Meeting on February 24, 2000.
Discussion was held relative to jar~toxial and maintenance issues, security issues, project
coordination of special events and activities of common interest.
· Staff aftended the Workforce Development Ccntcr All Staff Mccting on February 29, 2000.
Discussion was held relative to Hemet's WDC open house in April, security issues, BDD's
Youth Job Fair in May, and a Disaster Plan Commiftec. Staff voluntccrcd as a Disast0r
Committcc member.
This concludes the activiW summary for February 2000. Should you have questions or need
further detail, please call me at (909) 600-6064_
Sincerely,
Diane Sessions
Economic Development Corporation
of Southwest Riverside County
3-09-200 3:3.a,.PM FROM EDC-SWRC 9098006065
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
OF SOUTHWEST RIVERSiDE COUNTY
BOARD OF DIRECTORS GENERAL MEETING
Thursday, February 17, 2000 - 9:00 a.m.
27447 Enterprise Circle West, Tcmecula, CA
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT
EDC STAFF
ALSO A'I"I;~,NDING
:vlarleae Best, City of Lake Elsinor~
,2hris Boyd, Inland Valley Regional Medical Center
~on Bradley, TCrncc~a, CONNECT
~mni~ Frmxk, UCR Exte~ion
~red Orhnes, WestMar Commercial Brokernge, Inc,
Jim King, The Gas Company
~obe~t Lopez, South~ California Edison
~hil Oberhansley, Ailmdeff Cannon Rose Sol~ & Parks
3avid Ph~res, D.L. Phares & Associa~s
~onnie Rmx,z-Hnnna. Divorsi~ed Temporary Services
· ~1 Snbsevitz, GTE
:;~ve Tapicy, T~pley Properties
T:mnny W~lsh, l~ke Elsinor~ Chamber of
Commerce/EDC
M Vollbrecht, City of Murrieta
~udy Williarns, Barney & Barney
t~'~3~ml Yates, CRy of Temecula
~-y Yorehans, Fallbrook National Bank
Sessions
Kathleen Newton, Publ~ching
Professionals
John Viei~k, GTE
Esther Penner, Planned Success
!ZALL TO ORDER
,. President Oavy Youroans called the meeting to order at 9:07 a_m.
jvi1NUTE$
I, Motion was made by AI Sabsevilz, seconded by Jim King and carried unanimously to approve the xmnutes of tile
January 20, 2000 Board of Directors MeefinE as presented.
]?INANCIAL REPORT
,. The Board reviewed the financial starcravats ending Decetnbe~ 31, 1999. l:)~anis Frank re'potted total assets of
$94.848 and year-to-date. totals in tile following categories: $89,406 in Revenues. $32,402 in ln'sotmel services,
$1,689 in advCrtiSiIlg/consttlfng/insurallce, $10,685 in direct operating expenses, $7,332 in direct program ~xpenscs,
showing $52,108 in total expenses and a favorable variance of $37,298 in revenues over ~xpenses. Motion was made
by Jim King, seconded by Ron Bradley and carried tmanimously to approve the December 3 I. 1999 Financial Report
as presented.
,. Oary Youmarts reported the quarterly meanbet. hip luncheon was well attended, although the was a deficit of $91.25
in expenses over income. Diane Sessions reported two unforeseen expeimes that resulted in tile deficit, which would
be corrected for future events. Mr. Youroans not6~i tile importance of holdlng events and suggested that lanchcon fees
t" be increased to cover the hard costs.
3-gg-200 3:34P~ FRO~ EDC-SWRC 9098008065 P. 6
.:~c, onomic Development Corporanon
,>f Southwest Riverside County
f.'3oerd of Dire~ors General Me~ng - Februand 17, 2000
· ,/inures - Page 2 of 3
~2ONTINUING BUSINESS
Urban Futures, Inc. - Gany YoatnaalS reported that he, Chuck Washington and David Phares met with Steve Harding of
Urban Futures to discuss the outc, e~e of the EDC's business stud implementation plan. Mr. Phares reported that
Hardlug would complete the rqc}ort and submit it to the Board for review.
EDC M~nberships - Oanj Youmsn~ stat~ incre~se~ memb~-~hjps were cnacial to the EDC's op~ra~ons. He
c~mmitted to cell on business associates ~om other Innks to solicit EDC memberships and suggested tlmt board
me-/nbers also call on their peers. Diane Sessions provided the Boerd with an EDC heinefit list and requested the board
to nvi~w and make rec,~rarumdations to modify.
BUSINESS
City and Chamber N~'ws
~ City of Temecula - Grant Yates reported the State of the City Luncheon would be held on February 29, 2000,
l I:00 a~n., at Taueku Crolf Coune and a growth managealent workshop at City hall at 6:00 p.m., which would
address the proposed home-building moratorium.
City of Murrieta ~. AI Vollbrecht 3nnounced that an economic forecast is the focus of a UCR Real Estate
Conference to be held on February 25, 2000 at the Riverside Convention Center. The Board disoussed the impact
of the proposed residential armcxation in Murri~a.
,~ City of Lake Elsinore - Marl~ne Best remounted the palm trees issue was resolved, plans for an auto mall was in
progress, the Ford dealaship held their grand ope~ a Request for Qualification relative to the campground
initiatives were in progress, the grand opening for the new sheriff station would be held on Febl~mJ 28m at 11:00
a.m., the lake was well stocked with trout, Collier Business Park would break ground by month-~nd, and
constmcliun of the Banana Boat facility was ready to begin.
~' Lake Elsinore Chamber of Commerce/EDC - Tammy Walsh reported she completed two business visitations,
preparations for the Mini Grand Prix was its progress, the Lake Elsinore EDC was moving forward with their now
business sitmotion and malkgtin~ package, and their luncheon on March 9, 200(I st 11 ;30 a.m. at the Lake FJsinore
Prime 0utle~s wolnld feature Eastan Mumoipal Water District
~, County of Riverside - No report available.
EDC Admini.~'ation Updates
~. Diane Sessions reported the Workforce Development Center Open House was held on Febnaa~ 10xl' and was well
atte~ded. Newspaper arlicles regarding the event mentioned the pannering agencies within the WDC, including
the Economic Dcvclopm~t Center ofSoulhwest Rivwside County_
~ LoopNet Monthly Subscription Increase - Diane Sessions repofied the monthly subscription to LoopN~t,
property listing web link to the EDC web site, would increase from $119 per reenth to $179 in Match. The Board
discussed alternate methods or links that would serve the seine purpose. Ms. Sessions and Grant Yates advised the
litsk w~l$ veTy BsefUl alld ~ the most c.4Bt-offec~jve roeflied ~o ~ for available com~nel'cild properties. David
Phares noted limt a thorough n.alysis was completed by the Cily of Temecula to determine costs for LoopNet
versus a self-mnnnged database or other listing sen, ices. Fred Grimes advised he could provide the names of other
listing sources W research,
~' Interland.corn - Dian~ S~sions announ~n;d that a n~v web hosting company, Interland, would host the EDC web
siR. She repo~a~i the chnnge was due to the inad~qunt~ ~ustomer suppox1 by the current ~ompany, Mindspring.
Ms. S~,.slons further noted fl~ change would not effect th~ web site 'address, sendee, links, or monthly f~.
), SWRC Association of Readton - Diane Sessions rq~nted the SWRC A.~so~iafion of Reeltors invited file EDC to
make a l~'~catstion ~t their geeoral membership me~in8 on May 9t~. The Board agree~ to use the same
p~eseamon used at the SWRC Manufactureis' Counc~ M~flng. Dianc Sessions to contact the SWRC
Association of Realtors to accept the invitation.
3-09-200 3:36P~ FRO~ E[3C--SWRC 9096006065 P. 7
~conomlc Develolnmmt COrpOratiOn
~fSouthwest Riverside County,
/=, ~oard of Dircotors Geaezal Meeting - Fobnuity 17, 2000
vlinul~s - Pa~e 3 of 3
Open Discussion
)' Board Iv[~ng Attelldanc~ - ~ Willi~s ~ ~E~ ~d m~s ~. ~ W ~ .a
p~e of m~ng~ ~d ~ ~ y~ ~ ~ c~ f~ or ~jn a ~d ~, HC ~ s~
· ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~ m~s w~ ~ ~ ~e or~i~,on ~d wo~d ~m~ ~
~c B~d ~us~ ~6 ~ ~d ~ ~ a byl~ ~ wo~d be r~ to ~pl~. P~
Ob~l~ ~ ~e ~s ~d n~ ~s ~ d~ ~ ~e ~'s ~ in i~ i~on, w~ch
~fiy ch~ ~n~. ~e B~d ~ ~ o~ ~l~ ~n~ ~o~d ~ ~d~. Mr.
m~dm~ts. ~e ~d ~ to m~e r~ons for ~ssi~ at ~e M~h ~ m~n~. Ro~
~p~ ~ Phil O~sl~ vol~ w ~e ~ ~e Byl~ ~ Co~i~.
~ ~d Pb.~ ~ ~e r~pro~ ~ ~s ~ E~ ~ Tm~ CO~ECT, He ~
~ ~me E~ ~d l~m~ r~el~ly ~d CONNECT m~ ~ a rom~ ~s W ~p~ ~d ~fill
~i~ bo~ p~fi~ ~o CO~ECT. ~e ~d ~ afi~ ~d m~p ~lm~
CO~ECT. R~ B~ re~n~ on ~e o~s ~d ~s be~e~ EDC ~ CO~.
~o~ to wn~ ~e role ~t ~ h~ ~ ~e CO~CT ~ of D~
} M~hip ~o~ - G~ Yo~ ~mm~d~ ~e Bo~ ~pt ~c ~ ~om ~ N~ of
PubB~ ~of~o~s for "~-~nd' p~fi~sulfi~ ~ ~ ~ge for ~ EDC m~b~ip.
Bo~d r~i~ ~e pr~ ~d ~ ~ ~c~ ~ond ~e s~e of ~e pro~ wo~d be f~ ~d
~bj~ to pr~ov~ ~f~e ~o~. Mod~ ~ ~e by G~ Yo~ ~nd~ by ~ Wffiims ~d
~ molly w a~t Ka~ N~ton' s "in-~d' mem~ip p~ ~ p~te~ w inchde ~e
~ ~p~an.
} E~ M~p B~ List - ~ Yo~nen ~ ~e Bo~d r~ ~e ~nt mm~p ben~B
Ed m~ it ~ l~e wi~ ~g~ ~lo~s. He ~ ~ ~~ons ~o~d be fo~ to Di~e
S~ons.
} R~ W~s su~e~ ~ ~ EK b~s pl~ ~d b~S~ ~ ~. G~ Yo~s ~o~
wo~d be ~ ~ ~e M~ ~ m~.
~ ~lf Tom~t - G~ Yo~ r~ ~e So~we~ Riv~ Co~ M~uf~t~' Co~c~ wo~d
~o p~ ~ EDC ~ ~ n~ golf t~t ~d r~m~dc~ ~e Bo~d ~t ~e off6. Mr. Yom~s
~ ~e SWRCMC wo~d ~ ~s~n~ble f~ ~n~ ~ golfers ~d EDC wo~d ~ r~ble for promofio~
p~ss ~e, ~d ~e~ ~o~ for d~r p~s. ~ tom~t would ~ held on J~e 13~ ~ 1 :~ p.m.,
~ a~ w fo~ow. ~. Y~s w fo~ow ~ wi~ ~e Co~cil' s off~ rel~vo to s~g ~ ~o~,
} ~o~ M~t W~k~ - ~ Yo~s r~m~ ~ b~d m~s ~d ~e wo~sh~
Fcb~ 29~ ~ w0~d ad~ ~e h~ufl~g m~o~m. ~e Bo~d di~s~d ~e im~ct in
~u~w~t Co~W ~on. Da~d P~ ~ ~e E~ paer wi~ ~e ~m~s d Con~ m supp~
of ~e ~l m~b~s ~ ciW ~ff ~ pl~g ~ ~m~t ~ ~e n~. He ~
~ng ~d ~g sup~ le~ ~om a ~d~t ~ve.
~kDJOURNMENT
,. At 10:25 a,m., motion was made by David Phazes, seconded by Dennis Frank mid carlied unanimously to adjourn the
I~.cspecnvely submiu~ by:
] )iaue Sessions Phil Ob~haosl~
F, ecordln4 SecreUuy Board Secl~ia~y
3-09-200 2:31PN FRQN EDC--SWRC 9096006065 P 1
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
OF SO~ST RIVERSIDE COUNTY
BUSINESS RELATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING
Thursday, February 3, 2000 - 9;00 a.m.
Workforce Development Center
27447 Enterprise Circle West, Executive Board Room
Temecula, CA
Committee Members Present:
Marlerie Best, City of Lake Elsinore
Dick Kurtz, CDM Group, Inc.
Michael Lcwin, Mirau, Edwards, Cannon, Hinton & Lewin
Mark O'Connor, Lee & Associates
Jim O'Grady, City of Temecula
Tammy Walsh, Wells Fargo Bank & Lake Elsinore EDC
Randy Willjams, Barney & Barney
Also in Attendance:
3tevie Hirdler, Riverside Co. EDA
Esther Pennet, Planned Success
Dianc Sessions, EDC Staff
Call To Order
Committee Chair Randy Willlares called the meedng to order at 9:19 a.m.
Weicqm,e
· Randy Willjams thanked' all for attending and expressed his appreciation for their volunteer efforts.
Mr. Williams introduced Esther Pcnner of Plarmed Success and Stevie I-Iirdler of Rivers/de County
EDA.
· Committee members reviewed the minutes of the January 6, 2000 Business Relations Committe~
Meeting.
Follow-un Action Reports
* Solid State Stamping - Randy Willlares nl~rted that John Fill of Solid State Stamping met a
Southern California Edison representative at the Manufacturers' Expo in November 1999. Edison
would assist with utility issues only if Solid State Stamping would relocate to a different facility.
Robert Lopez of SCE confirmed this stipulation. Mr. Willlares further reported that Solid State was
classified with a G2 rating by SCE and could possibly change to a "Time of Use" ('70U") rating.
Mr. Fil/, was to meet with SCE to discuss the rotaria for a TOU rating. Jim O'Orady suggested that
an SCE representative attend future expositions t~ d/scuss utility policies and benefits.
· Chemicon - Jim O'Crrady reposed his attempts to s~curc a visit with Chemicon were unsuccessful,
although he would continue his efforts.
· Head To Toe - Randy Williams reported that Gary Youmans would continue his efforts to schedule
a visit with Head To Toe,
Po~-iP Fax Note 7671
3-B9-200 2:32PM FROM EDC-SWRC 9096006065 P, 2
Business Rclations Committee Meeting
Minutes - February 3, 2000
Page 2 of 3
Company Contact lienorB
· Randy Williams reported that Steve Art was unable to attend the meeting, but could provide his
contact reports m Mnrch. Mr. Arfs visits included Outdoor Media Group, Canyon Reprographics,
Production Equipment Specialtics, and Rancho Metal Supply. Mr. Williaras congratulated Mr. Art
for completing four visits in February and will present him with an award for his successes.
· Graphics Unlimited - Mark O'Connor reported that be, Diane Sessions and Jim O'Grady werc
invited to tour Graphics Unlimited during a visit. Owner Start Schroedcr moved from Hawthorne,
CA to Murrieta in 1980 and occupies a 10,500 square feet building. He ol~xates a printing busincss
with fifteen employees, 75% of whom live in TemccuiMMurric~ Mr. Schrocdcr will not expand
his operation or number of employees, as he cxprcssed concerns of futurc advcrtising on the web.
He is satisfied with business in Temccula, 'although he was not pleased with Tcmccuia's city policies
in 1990. Primary customers are based in Rivcrsidc at 50%, Los Angclcs at 25%, and 25% in Orange
County. Primary competitors in the Southwest region arc Mattrice Printers, and pnmary suppliers
provide paper and ink. ML Schrocder considers his printing operation medium in size compared to
his competitors m other counties. He also designed an inventory software prolgam that has a patent
pending.
Goal_Progress Renort
Randy Willtams stated that year-to-date visitations were sligh~ lower than goal projections. He
suggested that four persons per month be assigned to visits. He announced year-to-date goal results as
follows:
27 visits ~ 3 points each + 33 phone imetviews ® 1 points each -~ 60 visits/calls (~114 points
YI'D VISIT PHONE POINTS
Actual 13 9 48'
Goal 16 20 68
Variance -3 - 11 -20
.N ,e~y Committee Assienments
· Dick Kurtz, Alice Sullivan and Gary Youroans were assigned tbr February visitations. Mr. Ku~z
received a binder for February, and binders for Ms. Sullivan and Mr. Youmarts robe delivered.
· Strategic Visits - Randy Willtams announced that sUategic visits for Februaqr included Plant
Equipment, Cedent Tcchnologics and Exotic-Electro Optics.
EDC News and Information
* City Ncw~ - Lake Elsinore - Marlent Best rcpo~cd the Lake E| sinorc Chamber of Commerce was
active in business retention and visitations. She stated the Chamber would like to partner with
EDC's Business Relations program. Ms. Best announced the grand opening of the new Lake
Elsinorc police station on February 28m at 11 a.m.
3--09-200 2:33PN FRQ~ DC--SWRC 9096006965 P_ 3
Business Relations Committee Meeting
Minutes - February 3, 2000
Page ~ of 3
A new substation manned by volunteers was opened in Lake Elsinore, and a new fire station is
planned for January 2001, She further announced the California Depastment of Forestry 'would
move to Lake Elsinore in a facility new Banana Boat. Three buildings in the Collier Business Park
were sold and others were in sale negotiations, with ground breaking within thirty days. Ms. BeSt
stated that passing of Proposition 13 would provide $15 million in needed funds for water
improvements. Marrlm - No report available. Temeeula - Jim O'Grady reported that Kathleen
Newton would continue to follow OmniCorder's progress in finding venture capital. He stated that
possible funding was located in Orange County, contingent that OmniCorder was established there.
Mr. O'Grady suggested that finding venture capital be indeded in the EDC's m~keting effort_ He
reported the City of Temecula compiled survey results that showed where families were moving
from as follows: 45% from San Diego, 25% from Murrieta/remecula, 9% from Orange County, 6%
from Los Angeles, and the remainder from various areas. Mr, O'Grady reported The home-building
moratorium was an important matte before the City Council. He encouraged all to attired a
workshop scheduled for February 17~ at 6:00 p.m. at the Temecala Council Chambers. Mr.
O'GTady armouneed that ~he Diamond Venture form, facilitated by Inland Empire'Economic
Partnership (IEEP), was scheduled for the fall. He reported the forum was held to rev/ew innovative
ventures for funding, similar to Temeeula CONNECT.
Manufacturers' Council Presentation - Randy Willjams reported the EDC presentation at the
Southwest Riverside County Manufacturers' Council Meeting was well received, and Council
President John Fill was very happy,
Business Resource Guide and Regional Storey - Marlerie Best reported the Resource Guide was
near completion for final layout, with publication targeted for mid-Mereh
Workforce Development Center Open House - Stevie Hirdler announced the open house was
scheduled for February 10th at 10:00 a.m.. The catered event would include facility tom and
announcements from the Workforce Development Board of Directors and other city and county
officials, Ms, Hirdler reported her focus for business attraction in Southwest County was targeted
primarily in San Diego.
Guest Sneaker
· Alicia Ramirez - Center for Employment Training - not in attendance.
Adiournment
The meeting adjourned at 10:10 a.m.
TEMECULA VALLEY FILM COUNCIL
ACTIVITIES REPORT
February 2000
Members of the Temecula Valley Film Council are Maggi Allen, President;
Sunny Thomas, Vice-President; Steve Phelps, Secretary/Treasurer; Shed
Davis, Stacy Sievek, Judy Staats, Eve Craig, JoeHohenberger and Patty
Slayton.
The Business of the Film Council
· This month we received 35 phone calls; 8 - Film Festival, 12 - locations
and information requests, 7 - for Temecula "Showcase 2000" audition
info, 8- council business.
· The Production Guide Review committee is continuing to call local
businesses to add to and update information for reprint
· Temecula location photos are being scanned and sent to the Inland
Empire Film Commission to be included in their web site locations
directory and eventually the California State Locations Library. We are
still planning to have our web site ready this year with online access to
our own location photo library.
· TVFC members attended the Locations Expo from February 25-27 at the
Los Angeles Convention Center. This was a very good experience for
new members to learn about location competition. We were able to pick
up some tips for the future and feel strongly that TVFC should have its
own booth at the ShowBiz Expo in June.
· Thank you to Gloria Wolnick who arranged for us to take a beautiful
Temecula basket to Locations Expo. The basket was presented to
locations scout, Joni Coyote, who has already contacted us to do some
scouting in Temecula.
· Preparations are being made for the Talent Showcase, which will be held
on June 3rd as part of the Arts Council' s "Arts in the Country Art
Festival". Auditions will be held April 8, 9, 15 & 16 in the gazebo in
front of the Temecula Valley Museum.
Filming in Temecula
· Stacy Sievek worked with Eddie Hunt on Hunt' s movie, "In My Blood",
which filmed in Temecula for approximately one week in February.
Estimated spending in the area was $750 to $1000 a day - figures are not
available at this time.
· 2 one-day shoots for commercials were completed. Both shoots were
conducted on private property.
· Temecula Valley International Film Festival 2000 is still in its formative
stages - set for September. Films are being collected.
We will continue to support the daily management of ~lmmaker's requests,
and encourage the growing awareness of the industry in this community. It
is our goal to generate a higher awareness of the Temecula Area within the
context of filmmaking activities, and to present the opportunities and
benefits of this production to local merehams and businesses.
Respectfully,
Maggi Allen
President, TVFC
ECQNOMIC
ALLIANCE
Lake ELsinc~e. CA92530
tgO~ 6743124
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Madene Best
Assistant City Manager
City of Lake Elsinore
Stevie Hirdler
Marketing Coordinator
March 8, 2000
SOUTHWEST RIVERSIDE COUNTY MONTHLY MARKETING UPDATE
Jim O'Grady
Assistant City Manager
City of Temecula
Lod Moss
Assistant City Manager
City of Murdeta
Dear Partners:
As the Southwest Riverside County Economic Alliance Marketing Coordinator, I will be
submitting an update on the marketing activities for the Alliance as required in the Southwest
Riverside County Marketing for Business Attraction Agreement. Subsequent reports will be
submitted at the first meeting of each month through the term of this agreement.
January 5
The marketing coordinator for the SWRC Economic Alliance is identified as
Stevie Hirdler.
January 6
RFP released for Identity Package, Design and Production of logo,
letterhead, envelopes, and presentation folder with inserts and td-fold
brochure.
January 10 Cuffing Edge Marketing was selected.
January 18- 20
MD & M trade shows attended in Anaheim, which produced 226 leads.
*One owner of a manufacturing company, who employs 75 people and is
from Los Angeles County is very interested in the SWRC region and will
coming down here to look at 55,000 sq. ft. sites in March.
January 26 Alliance approved Identity Package,
February 4 Mission Trails Library Groundbreaking.
February 9
February 10
February 24
February 25
March 1, 2
March 3
Mamh 10
Met with Press-Enterprise for tour of WDC and interview on the Economic
Alliance and its goal.
Workforce Development Center Grand Opening.
Received trade-show leads from IEEP.
Alliance Logo letterhead and envelopes available for use.
Distributed Alliance materials to cities.
Finalized Alliance Marketing Plan.
Sent trade-show response letter to partners for review via e-mail.
On an ongoing basis I have been attending the following meetings:
Manufacturers Council
Temecula Connect
Business Relations Committee
EDC
To date, I have met with each of the three (3) cities and various brokers to familiarize myself with
the city departments and the available land opportunities within their city limits.
Currently, I am working on the following:
1. Working with Cuffing Edge Marketing on format and content of the Alliance brochure with first
draft to be supplied at next Alliance meeting for review.
2. Working with Cutting Edge Marketing for the Alliance presentation folder, map and inserts.
3. Postcard for mass mailing.
4. Radio and billboard campaign.
5. Request for Proposal (RFP) for production :30 commercial to air in San Diego, Orange and
Los Angeles Counties.
6. Obtaining media kits from various advertising mediums to determine where would be most
beneficial for the Alliance to reach targeted population.
7. Preparing for upcoming Westec Manufacturers trade show March 20-23.
If you need any additional information or if you have any questions, please feel free to contact
me at (909) 600-6066.
Sincerely,
Stevie Hirdler
Copy: Brad Hudson
Robin Zimpfer
Sarah Mundy
INLAND EMPIRE ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP
For Period: January, 2000 to January. 2000
1. Corporate
· Public Speaking Engagements
· Community Outreach
· Membership Events
· Public Policy Events
· Committee Meetings
· Member Visits/Calls
· New Member Prospect/interest
Letters
· New Members
January I Cumulative
2 2
10 10
1 1
1 1
7 7
6 6
6 6
2 2
2. Foundation
· Grants
· Activities
3. Marketing
· Direct Mail
· Print Advertising
· Tradeshows
· Press Releases
· Professional Articles
· Media Relations
Comments
California Capital;
Brickley Environmental
Remediation
jArco
/:'*: ,~'; *: ;:~::;
2 2
1 1
3 3
10 10
1 1
Medical Device Mfg.
4. Economic Development · Prospect Missions
· Site Selector Outreach
· Leads/Sources of Leads
· Site Tours
· Inquiries
· Attractions
· Jobs Created
· Retentions
· Jobs Retained
· Financial Investment
5. High Tech :" ,
· Clients/Inquiries
· Client Hours
· Training Events
· Financial Impact
· Other Projects
2
577
Page 1 of 2
8
2
577
2-CATCA; 1-Site
Selector; 3-Magazines; 1-
Member Broker; 1-Other
RSCE VE[:)
INLAND EMPIRE ECONOMIC pARTNERSHIP
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
For Period January, 2000 to January, 2000
6. Workforce Development~.::~Z::~:!:: :'
· School Enrichment Standard
7. SBDC :~;i*'!~'~'~'::~"':>:
· Jobs Created/Jobs Retained
· Total Economic impact -
SBDC and Export actions combined
· Client Activity
· Client Hours
· Training Events
· Training Hours
· Training Attendees
· Inland Empire Trade:
· Export Actions
· Financial Impact
8, Film Commission. '. ~;';~ :~:~,'.':;~' .~::. · Industry Outreach
· Request for Locations
· Permits: San Bemardino/Riverside
January I Cumulative I Comments
' ' '::! *:7:,
15/3 15/3
$103,861 $103,861
288 288
577.25 577.25
11 11
744 744
184 184
2 2
191 191
12/8 12/8
· Production Days 121 121
· Economic Impact** $3,203,000 $3,203,000
· Filming Activity:
· Features 1
· Television 5
· Commercials 21
· Stills 14
· Music Videos 4
· Student Films 3
· Documentary/Indus. Videos 5
· TOTAL FILMING ACTIVITY** 53
9. Tou rism Council ,:': :,'; -~: :,~,~-~"::',::~/~,L::-: :: -~-:: f!~' ::
· Industry Outreach
,, Marketing Activity
· Tradeshows 1
· Promotional Materials
· Mailings
· Ads 1
· Leads
· Tourism Events 1
**Preliminary Numbers
1
5
21
14
4
3
5
53 ** Preliminary Numbers
1 Anaheim Sports & Rec.
1 CA Travel Planning Guide
1 Yucaipa Fishing Derby
Page 2 of 2
i ViSITOR'S GUIDE & TRAVEL PLANNER
Best Bets,
Region
Region
Attractions, Lodging, Parks
www. gocalif.com
Ln :a nd Empire
Post-World War H was boom time in Southern Cali~rnia, but the
new.~:eeways and suburbs of Los Angeles always seemed to end just
short of the fbothills that led to the dairy Jams, ~range groves, and
vineyards in the eastern counties. ~red of playing second fiddle,
Riverside and San Bernardino decided in the early 1950s to pool their
resources and call themselves the Inland Empire. It truly is an empire,
much larger than Rhode Islan~ Connecticut, and Delaware com-
bined, and encompassing the mountain ranges to the north and the
sunnyJarmlands and orchards along the Santa Ana River l~lley that
drew so many Easterners to Southern Califbrnia in the first place.
The Inland Empire is full of surprises: nearby ski resorts, lush vine-
yards, an art museum originally designed in 1929 by Julia Morgan,
and a historic Spanish mission-s{yle hotel where Humphrey Bogart was
marriea~ What~ not surprhing is that the Inland Empire is now one of
the fastest-growing areas in the United States.
CULTURAL LANDMARKS
Points of interest that define
California Theater of Performing Arts,
San Bernardino
A home for classical music and light
Glen Helen Blockbuster Pavilion, Devore
Major concert venue in an outdoor
setting
Old Town, Temecula
Antiques capital of Southern California
Ontario Museum of History and Art
Housed in historic building that was
once city hall
Ramona Pageant Museum, Hemet
Exhibits and gi~ shop associated with
the historic "official California outdoor
play" (open February-May)
Riverside Art Museum
Julia Morgan~designed building
showcases Southland artists
San nernardino County Museum
Displays cover Californla's historic
figures
UC Riverside Botanic Gardens
39 acres of herb, rose, and desert gardens
TASTE OF THE EMPIRE
Graze on ~cal speciakies ~ you go
An 1894 cannery and museum
~l~ss Ranch, Riverside
Nav~ oranges, pump~n patch, and
Christmas trees (open year-round)
Famous for their date sh~es
Organic Appl~source. PhiInn
This farm features 14 varieties of
apples; roadside stand sells a
jams, and baked goo~ (Aug.-Dec.)
RII~ Farm, Oak ~len
Pick your own apples ~d browse the
1800s general store
Includes winery tour, champagne ba~f'
goutmet food, and summer jazz seri
Winchester Cheese Company
F~e k~nds of Holland s~le Gouda
.... ;;:
SCENIC DRIVES
Roads you shouldn~ miss /ar a taste
of real Calid~rnia *
Joan Bautista de Ann National Historic Trail
The Ramona Expressway adjacent to
Lake Perris; 35 mi., 45 min.
Palms to Pines Scenic Byway
Rtes. 74 and 243; 67 mi., 2.5 hrs.
Rim of the World Scenic Byway
Rtes. 138, 18, and 38; 107 ~i., 3-5 hrs.
GOING TO THE TOP
· ;~ere to go .~r un/brgettable
t'ieu.5
Hot*Air Ballooning, Temecula
Chaml~agne flights arc a ilopu-
E lar way to see the virlevards
~ Mt. Baldy
g Ride chair lifi's ~'ilr a vicw o{'
g Santa Catahna Island and tile
Mojave Desert at 8,600 feel or hike
3-.h miles to tile ll/.l164-filor peak
Mr. Rubioux
1,337-fbot sumhilt proddes a full-
circle vista of the Inland Valley
Mt. San lacinto State Park, Idyllwild
This rugged park has three peaks above
l il,O00 f~et (wilderness permit needed1
:.Redlands
(:Displays American
%~from the early
.... em dines
Route 66 Heritage Corridor ~,:.kl) '"~,~
Rtes. 40, 15,210, 110, and 10; 330 _. · ""' Idyllwild
~,,
mi., 8 hrs. ~ ... ·
· All driving times are approximate ~ : :.... ?:.. ,_ , ~: i resort ','illage in the San.
Merma,ed. Ma.a'
~ :::;5:. ~ Redlands
~ :/""i~ t.~ E Victorians from ~
~. o. , ~ citrtts wa~s king; fo~c ~
~,~ll~ . ~ v · tou 'isit the Ki~:
,; 66t HOURS
30mi~sto :~7"" ,'.:
Los~geks / ~ .' 7: , ,v ~ .,, Museum, ~rrls .:: }
Mission Inn, Rba~l~!
Presidents have wed "i.
h,,.~,,,,n~a ~ ~L~.
Spanish wonder '~ .,. :~ :, , :'
20 mik's to Ilalm .S>rin~
47 miles to San Diego fOREST
V STTHE HI. AND EMP RE AND YOU'LL
HAVE TO PUT UP w TH A FEW TH NGS
6olf Courses - tonmament ~d championship in spectacular settings PRISTINE MOUNTAIN
G[TAWAYS -like the movie locations
Vermont Luxury
Desert
Resorts - getaways of the rich and hmous
Snowboarding
and fg 8/)~L/"d,/~- on the same day
only an hour drive from each other WINE
COUNTRY
TOURS - in a va~ey as beautiful as Napa IV] 0 U ntai n
Biking -in real mountains Horseback Riding -
on literally thousands of miles of eques-
triantrails Balloon
an~ Wine Festivals - and hot springs and spas, hiking, sailing,
jetskiing, camping, museums, renaissance fain, concerts, theaters... But hey, who's counting?
Southern California's Inland Empire is located inland from Los Angeles
and Orange counties, and can be easily reached by plane, train, or auto-
mobile. The region offers visitors four seasons of opportunity, at prices
for every budget. Have we missed anything?
Contact Jennifer Nutter, Director, Inland Empire Tourism Council.
1/800/344/6526
E mail: jnutter~ieep.com website: www. ieep.com/ietc/index.html
~t~ern Ca, liforn/o,i,
Inland Empire
EMPIRE
,KIIOW BEFORE YOU GO
;' > lingo, and !;,
~ Index
percent of the tim~
5easenat Quirks
Summer can be he: '~ .:'.
pleasant in the mou ".~ '..
Wine Country
Temecula, in souff .'m R~.. Hd, ( ,. n..
Club Mud
Mud baths and hoe ,~ak~ ..:~ .i u.ld ....
Local Skiing
Apple History
Southern Cali[orni... I.r!'.~'~e .' .~.~.~ ?.... .~
ing ~e~ion is in the m,:.: 'ell.
Be~nard~no Mounhe !.~
End of the Line
South[end !~/
That's another name h' .!fl .f ~o..I,..1, .~'
California
Rivemide Betan:eel Gardens; Redland%
Classic Internallentil bike racer: Rpy
~fi a~ Leo[anted by
, ~r~nm~'nral ed,.,~,tion alesignal
:. ~0 Sana Aria BoDnic Galen. '~
,
~ CuumonJa Quakes :~
~:~o-clad u~heh n...; .:~.v. minor-"
' ~ ~e~Da[e Evans Museum, ...
~ ~l~ing a.d ,I..choarding ' '
THE GREAT OUTDOORS
~,'~?,': ,~ hik=. '_:zb.e: ~, '..-:he,wise enjoy
Alpine Slide, Big Bear Lake
B,~.~le~ ~-v.n ~ ---i'r ~rT.' ~rack, one
of tZ=ree m the L S.
Aspen Grove T~ail. 5an Gorgehie
Wildurness
ga '~. ?.~e .-' ~-l~, p,. ~- I :sh Creek
Bear Mountain Biking Park
Heap~ Peak Atboretum, Lake Arrowhead
FaIZ ~.,io:_- ~:ong a ~.l:~k =a_ure trail
Holcomb Valley
Lake Elsinore
Lake Perri~ State Recreation Area,
Riverside
%:..~ :" h. :,' .n,' . '::: ",: lishing,
b.'~: n!'. .~ h ... ~..' .., "ruing
Mr. San Gotgenie T~eil.
San Bernardine Monntains
Prado Park. Chine
~-:;:, ?adcle. or rc;v '_,n ~_ 5e-acre lake
5ilvenvood Lake. Hesperia
Snow 5ummit Ski Resort. BiB Bear Lake
I ..I '.
For More
Apple Valh
Banulna CI
Cheny Va
228
~d
ml
Inland Empire
For More Information
Boulder Bay, Big Bear Lake
Things to Do
Apple Valley VICTOR VALLEY MUSEUM l ] 873
AppleValleyRd. 92308 760/240-2111
Banning GILMAN HISTORIC RANCH & WAGON
MUSEUM 16th &Wilson 92220 909/922-9200
BiN Bear City BIG BEAR HISTORICAL MUSEUM
I~O. Box 513 92314 909/585-8100
BiB Near Lake ALPINE SLIDE Hv3,.t8 92315
909/866~i626
Big Bear Lake ALPINE TROUT LAKE 440 Catalina Rd.
92315 909/866-4532
RY
'ION
Murrieta SANTA ROSA PLATEAU ECOLOGICAL
RESERVE 909/677-6o~1
Ontario CUCAMONGA GUASTI REGIONAL PARK
909/4814205
Places to Stay
Big Bear City GOLD MOUNTAIN MANOR 1928 his
tofic ]o cabin. Six uniq~ue, romant,c I{uesr rooms: a!l
private Lath/fireplace. Gournlet breM,2ast. breathtaking
scenery. Watersports/skiing/hiking/horseback riding close
b)~ lllT AnitaAve. 92314 9097585-6997,
800/509-2604 Fax: 909/585-0327
w~w. bighear. com/oldram
~&B~ NS ")' 9 Units $125 $250
Big Bear Lake BIG BEAR LAKE INN 'The place to be
in Big Bear. Clean. Comfor~abk. Contemporary. Near
all winter and summer sports. Come and cnjoy Big
Bear Lake. AAA approve& CLIA member. 39471 Big
Bear BIrd, 92315 !109/866-3477, 800/843-0103
Fax: 909/878 9187 wv~v. bigbearfakeinn,com
E-mail: nileshp98@yahoo.com
,e SD % $ dS, NS 85 Units $854350
breakfast. Free USA Today, loc~a~ calls, satellite TV.
Boating on Lake Perrig
~,vw, strawberrycreekinn,com
~ & NG 10 Units $85-$150
!~ax: 9091787-6783 ~?wsunstllnchotds com
higher rates. 25dnch color TV, remotc, half-mile free
dl ~ 31 Units $29-$40
{lI ~$ & ~?{ NS 'W' 250Units$89-$160
San ~rnardlno LA QUINTA INN: SAN BERNARDINO
New rooms with 25dnch TVs, movies on
demand/Nintendo, coffeemakers, dataport phones, and
voice maih Heated pooh health dub privileges. Free
breakfast and local calls. Near CA Raceway. 205 E,
Hospitality Ln. 92408
909/888 7571, 800/531-~000 Fax: 909/884 3864
www./aquh~/a.com see ,~ p 31
'% $ & h NS ~' 153 Units $65-$80
San Bernardlno R~I, DISSON HOTELSAN
BERNARDINO Elegant 230-room, full-service hotel
nc;u area attractions, activities, and shopping. Accessible
ul OIA by free shuttle. Many in-room amenides. G~vat
II,~dc~gcs available. CH&MA member. 295 N. 'E' St
9241)1 9t}9/381-6181 Fax: 909/381-5288
Old TownTemecula
Whafs New in California Page 1 of 28
,.,,.
WHAT'S NEW IN CAI,.IFORNIA
Also available in:
French
German
portuguese
Spanish
Top News Story--- Statewide--- Shasta Cas_c__ade-~- North. Coast---
San Francisco Bay Area--- Central Valley--- GoldCountry--- High_ Sierra---
Cent[al Coast--- Los Angel¢~ Count3'--- Orange CoUnty--- pC~se_rt_~---
Inland Empire--- San Diego Count3,--- A_t a Bookst, ore Near .You---
Looking to the F_uture--- Dates_to Remember--- FeatuLe Releases
TOP NEWS STORY
New State Welcome Centers. California's two newest welcome centers-in Arcata and Los Angeles-
will open soon. Scheduled to open in early 2000, the Arcata welcome center will give visitors a
sampling of the activities and nature adventures found along the North Coast. Displays showing the
history, parks, recreation, national resources and culture of the region will be found in the center, as
well as rotating museum-quality exhibits. The 2,000 square-foot facility will also include landscaping
designed to reflect the North Coast created by California State University, Humboldt, horticulture
students. The California Welcome Center, Arcam, will be located on Coastal Highway 101 at the
junction of Highway 299. California Welcome Center, Los Angeles, is preparing to open its doors in
early 2000. Located in the prestigious Beverly Center (street level at the comer of Beverly Boulevard
and La Cienega), the new welcome center will encompass everything from the arts to nightlife and
outdoor recreation. The center will ereate one-stop "shopping" for statewide travel information in Los
Angeles. Public contact: California Wdcome Center Arcata, 1655 Heindon Road, Arcata, CA,
95521; telephone: TBA. Public contact: California Welcome Center, Los Angeles, 8500 Beve~y
BIvd, Suite 150. Los Angeles, CA; talephone: TBA.
STATEWIDE
http://gocaliEca.gov/whatsnew/ 02/24/2000
What's New in California Page 18 of 28
the premiere issue of the Gay Guide to Palm Springs, Focusing on the 30 inns catering to a gay
clientele, the magazine also includes a myriad of dining and entertainment options. Editorial features a
calendar of gay events and an overview of gay life in Palm Springs. Information on all area attractions,
special events, restaurants and hotels is also included. Public contact: Palm Springs Tourism, 2781
N. Palm Canyon Dr., Palm Springs, CA, 92262, telephone (888) 866-2744 or (760) 778-8418.
Intomet: www.palm-springs org
Palm Springs Aerial Tramway. The Palm Springs Aerial Tramway has received approval to proceed
with construction necessary to install its new rotating tram cars, The new cars, which will arrive from
Switzerland in February, are scheduled for installation next summer. The Tramway will close on June
1, 2000, for installation, and the grand re-opening is scheduled to take place in August, When the
Tramway re-opens, riders will be greeted with new roomlet ears that will rotate slowly as they ascend
and descend San Jacinto Mountain, providing a full 360-degree viewing experience. Press contact:
The Jones Agency, 303 North Indian Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, CA, 92263; talephone (760)
325-1437; fax (760) 778-0320.
Palm Springs Desert Museum. The Palm Springs Desert Museum will soon present a major
exhibition of glass sculptures by Howard Ben Tr6, one of the world's premier sculptors. Howard Ben
Tr6: Interior/Exterior opens its national tour at the Palm Springs Desert Museum December 11, 1999,
and will continue through March 12, 2000, offering visitors the unique sensory experience &walking
through an environment of monumental glass sculptures. Ben Tr~ pioneered the use of cast glass as a
seulptural medium and his work is included in more than 70 museum and public collections
worldwide. The exhibition will showcase 30 sculptures, 11 works on paper and 4 public art projects
completed between 1983 and 1999. Public contact: Palm Springs Desert Museum, 101 Museum
Drive, Palm Springs, CA, 92263-2310; telephone (760) 325-0189. Internet: www.psmuseum.org
Railroad Walk of Fame. America's first Railroad Walk of Fame was dedicated in Boron in October.
Each Railroad Walk of Fame monument honors an important person in railroad history, and a track
switchstand holds a plaque describing each person. Cyrus K. Holliday, first president of the Santa Fe,
and William Hood, designer of the famous Tehachapi Loop will be the first honored, with more
monuments to be added each year. Public contact: Steam Train Excursion and Museum
(STEAM), 27144 Twenty Mule Team Road, Boron, CA, 93516; telephone (877) 6 MUSEUM.
Internet: www:freedomtrain.org
INLAND EMPIRE
Temecula Valley Museum. Visitors to historic Old Town Temeeula will now have the opportunity to
explore Temecula's treasures through the new 7,200 sq. ft. Temecula Valley Museum. The museum
preserves and exhibits the history, artifaets, historic documents and photographs of the Temecula
Valley. Exhibitions showcasing the historical periods and people who lived in the region including the
Luiseno Indians, the period of Mission San Luis Key, and the establishment of ranches. Another
http://goealif. ca.gov/whatsnew/ 02/24/2000
What's New in California Page 19 ot 21~
display will focus on commerce and the influence of the Southern Emigrant Trail, the Butterfield
Overland State and the introduction of railroad service and the eventual Interstate Highway systems.
Press and public contact: City of Temecula, P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-90331
telephone (909) 694-6452; fax {909) 506-6871.
Internet: httpi//www.ci:temecula.ca,us
Temecula Stage Stop. A state of the art transportation center is now located in Temecula. The
Temecula Stage Stop is a Greyhound Bus Lines affiliate and destination, designed to accommodate
chartered bus tours from any Southern California location. Designed for convenience of tour buses
and group tours, The Stage Stop provides ground transportation, tourist information center, and
outdoor beer and wine garden, The Grape Arbor. A 450-foot hand-painted mural on a building to the
north side of the State Stop depicts Temecula's Wine Country, the annual Balloon and Wine Festival
and Temecula's interesting histoW. The M.V.P. Limousine-Temeeula Shuttle offers airport shuttle
service to and from all major airports, as well as limousine service, towncars and passenger vans.
Temecula wine country tours are also offered. Press and public contact: Temecula Stage Stop,
28464 Front Street, Temecula, CA 92590; talephone (909) 694-0292; fax (909) 506-4472.
Internet: httpl//www~temeculatours.com
SAN D1EGO COUNTY
Aviation Adventures. Aviation Adventures has began offering flights to the public in a historic World
War II aircraft. Built in 1941, the alrcrnfl is complete with a tallhook and two 30-caliber machine
guns. The flight is a 40-minute mission that consists of a pre~ight briefing, cockpit checkout and
twenty minutes in the air. Better than any TV show, movie or computer simulator, flights in the
"warbird" offer the sights, sounds, and sensations of Word War II air combat, and a unique
opportunity to relive the gloW days of aviation. The historic aircraft resides at McClellan-Palomar
Airport in Carlsbad. Press and public contact: Aviation Adventures, McCIdlan-Palomar Airport,
2160 Palomar Airport Road, Cadsbad, CA, 92009; telephone (760) 438-7680 or (800)
SKYLOOP; fax (760) 931-2664.
San Diego Paradise Point Resort. Paradise Point Resort-formerly the San Diego Princess Resort-is
undergoing a multi-million dollar transformation. The comprehensive renovation will renew and
enhance the already magnificent tropical island setting into a unique getaway featuring incredible fire
and water structures throughout the resort to incorporate the rich histoW of Tierra del Fuego. All 462
guest rooms will be fully remodeled during the second phase of renovation expected to be complete by
spring 2000. The third phase will concentrate on a new lobby, expanded gift shop and a quaint
delicatessen as welt as expansion of the resort's convention center. Finally, redevelopment of the main
pool and spa will be complete by early 2001. Public contact: San Diego Paradise Point Resort,
1404 West Vacation Road, San Diego, CA 92109-7905; telephone (858) 274-4630 or (800) 344-
2626. Internet: www.paradisepoint.com
http://gocali~ ca. gov/whatsnew/ 02/24/2000
APPROVAL ~
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Mike Brown, City Fire Chief
March 28, 2000
Monthly Departmental Report
RECOMMENDATION: Attached for City Council's review and filing is the Fire Department's
Monthly Activity Report for the month of February, 2000.
Temecula Fire Services
Monthly Activity Statistics
Month
FEBRUARY
Year 2000
Structure Fires
Vehicle Fires
Vegetation Fires
Other Fires
Medical Aids
Traffic Collisions
False Alarms
Fire Menace Standbys
Public Service Assists
Assists and Covers
Totals:
Sta. 12 SIx. n Sta, 83 i 84:: Totals
2 3 0 1 6
5 2 0 t 8
3 0 0 t 14
1 0 2 2 5
59 35 32 81 207
21 30 7 12 70
25 31 4 9 69
I I 0 0 2
8 6 3 12 29
9 7 2 8 26
134 115 50 127 426
Fire =;, ,~v;ntlon
Community Activities
School Programs
Fairs and Displays
Company Inspections
LE-38 Dooryard Inspections
Fire Investigations
Burning Permits Issued
Preplans
I
Totals:
Sta; t2 Sta,73 Sta. 83 StL 84 Totab
3 0 0 0 3
0 I 0 5 6
2 I 0 0 3
87 119 10 0 216
35 0 0 0 35
0 0 0 0
35 0 0 2 37
0 0 2 I 3
162 121 12 8 303
Form B15-1 H/99)
By: Carl Calderon
Date: 3/3/00
MEDIC SQUAD 84 MONTHLY RESPONSE SUMMARY
February 2000
Total Runs for the month: 220
· Medical Aids 140
· Traffic Collisions 49
· Public Service Assists 9
· Fire Menace Standby's 0
· Structure Fires 1
· Ringing Alarms 19
· Vegetation Fires 1
· Vehicle Fires 1
Average response time 4.62 minutes
Longest response time 10 minutes
Medic Squad Canceled Prior to Patient Contact: 60
Medical Aid Responses with Medic Squad 84 on scene prior to AMR: 60 times
Performed Advanced Life Support prior to the arrival of AMR: 25 times
Education and Training Programs 34 staff hours
Comments:
Medic Squad 84 responded to a total of 220 calls in the month of February. Of those calls
the Squad was cancelled 60 times or 21% of the time. On medical aids, the Medie Squad arrived on-
scene prior to AMR 60 times or 42% of the tim~ When the Medic Squad arrived prior to AMR,
ALS interventions were initiated 25 time~ AMR typically arrived on-seene within 4 minutes after
the arrival of the Medic Squad. On 2 instances AMR arrived more than 10 minutes after the Medic
Squad had made patient contact, the longest being 14 minutes. The Medic Squad has had 2
responses of 10 minutes. These times are still consistently occurring on responses into the areas
served by Station 83.
APPROVAL C~"~'
CITY MANAGER ~
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City ManagedCity Council
Mike Brown, City Fire Chief
March 28, 2000
Annual Departmental Report
RECOMMENDATION: Attached for City Council's review and filing is the Fire Department's
Annual Activity Report for the year of 1999, Included within the report are all of the responses for
the four stations that respond within the city. You will note that the medic squad statistics are for
the time period September 1, 1999 through December 31, 1999, the date when the medic squad
began its coverage within the city.
The total number of Battalion calls in 1999 (5548) was an increase of approximately 14% from 1998
(4839). This increase in calls is primarily due to the continued growth being experienced within the
A number of accomplishments occurred during the year. Most notably, the FirafightefiParamedic
Medic Squad Program was implemented within the City of Temecula, The pdmary goal of the
program was to provide faster advancod life support to the community. You will see from the
statistics provided that the program has, with a high percentage of responses, been successful in
accomplishing this goal. The highest percent of medical responses are being met with a response
time of less than five minutes. You will also note that responses into the Northeast (83 PRA) and
Northwest (73 PRA) areas of the city continually have the highest response times. Additionally, pdor
to the implementation of this program, the city funded to upgrade all battalion personnel to the level
of Emergency Medical Technician (EMT). Of the currently assigned battalion personnel, there are
only two persons remaining who have not had the EMT upgrade training. The remaining personnel
will attend an EMT upgrade class in 2000.
Other accomplishments dudng 1999 include adding additional fire prevention staff to accommodate
the demand for services being created by the various new construction projects within the city. Fire
Prevention Staff maintained a demanding work schedule throughout the year dealing with such large
projects as the Promenade Mall, power center, and Lowe's to name a few.
Year 2000 and beyond hold a great many challenges to meet the growing fire protection needs of
the City of Temecula. As such, fire department staff is preparing a Fire Master Plan for approval by
the city. The City of Temecula Fire Master Plan will assist the city in identifying fire protection
service needs in the future, Other significant projects to be accomplished dudng 2000 are the use
of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) for enhancing our response and incident management
capabilities. A Deputy Fire Marshal will be added to our fire prevention staff during the year. This
person will primarily deal with the other elements of fire prevention necessary in providing the full
scope of fire prevention services to the community.
The Califomia Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and Riverside County Fire Department
looks forward to continuing to provide the highest level of professional fire delivery services within
the City of Temecula. This could not be possible if it were not for the continued support from the City
of Temecula City Council and City Staff.
Temecula Fire Services
MEDIC SQUAD 84
· 1999 YEAR END STATS
~y Activity ' ~ Oct-99 NOv-99 1:~-99 Totls
Structure Fires 3 6 12 8 29
Vehicle Fires 1 2 2 5
Vegetation Fires I 1
Other Fires 0
Medical Aids 73 166 127 173 539
Traffic Collisions 5 40 33 40 118
False Alarms 6 22 12 25 65
Fire Menace Standbys 2 3 I t 7
Public Service Assists 3 6 4 3 16
Assists and Covers 0
Totals: 92 244 192 252 780
CERT Training 1'
School Programs 1
Fairs and Displays 2 2
Company Inspections
LE-38 Dooryard Inspections
Fire Investigations
Burning Permits Issued
Totals: 3 3
I I 1
I 2
2 5 11
0
0
0
0
3 7 16
~ :SquadStilts Totals
T:3ancels 33 102 69 89 293
En Route 15 70 46 40 17'1
At Scene 18 32 23 49 t 22
MS84 on scene before AMR 15 67 48 77 207
MS84 ALS before AMR 9 23 17 39 88
Note: Stats are reflected from 9/15199-12131199
Form MS8499YE (03/00) By: Phil Rawlings Date: 3/20/00
Medic Squad 84 Average Response Time
Per Response Area
Year End Total 1999
Station 84 - (30% of call volume)
Station 12 - (40% of call volume)
Station 73 - (26% of call volume)
Station 83 - (4% of call volume)
4.4 Minutes
4.8 Minutes
6.5 Minutes
7.5 Minutes
NOTE: This pertains to all medical aids & traffic accidents only
Compiled by Chris Amestoy on 03/04/00
Revised 03~20~00 PR
LU
Z
(~
UJ
Z
UJ
Z
LU
LU 0
~l--l--
Ilrll
0
LU
0
Temecula Fire Services
Monthly Activity Statistics
1999 YEAR END STATS
Structure Fires 103 79 36 51 269
Vehicle Fires 40 20 10 15 85
Vegetation Fires 118 51 23 35 227
Other Fires 47 79 26 31 183
Medical Aids 932 511 458 873 2774
Traffic Collisions 229 198 75 98 600
False Alarms 250 270 29 101 650
Fire Menace Standbys 49 30 18 29 126
Public Service Assists 57 51 48 91 247
Assists and Covers 115 118 27 127 387
Totals: 1940 1407 750 1451 5548
Community Activities 22 13 0 34 69
School Programs 21 3 0 44 68
Fairs and Displays 0 6 0 4 10
Company Inspections 891 1102 7 58 2058
LE-38 Dooryard Inspections 1119 0 149 0 1268
Fire Investigations 21 34 25 35 115
Burning Permits Issued 189 0 19 33 241
Preplans 21 21 19 23 84
Totals: 2284 1179 219 197 3913
Date: 1/6/00
By: Cad Calderon
Form B15,-1 (4/99)
W
LLI
0
rn
I--
Z
ILl
0
LU
ILl
0
ILl
n~
0
u.I
~o
0
W
n~
W
~o
0
o
z ~
__
Station 12 Inspections: 1027
Incurred Hours: 246
Station 73 Inspections: 1201
Incurred Hours: 303
Station 83 Inspections: 0
Incurred Hours: 0
Station 84 Inspections: 108
Incurred Hours: 25
All Stations
Inspections: 2336
Incurred Hours: 574
APPROVAL ~-
CITY ATTORNEY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
March 28, 2000
Department of Public Works Monthly Activity Report
RECOMMENDATION: Attached for City Council's review and filing is the Department of Public
Works' Monthly Activity Reports for the month of February 2000.
MOACTRPT
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Monthly Activity Report
February / March 2000
Prepared By: Amer Attar
Submitted by: William G. Hughes
Date: March 28, 2000
PROJECTS UNDER CONSTRUCTION
1. 1-15/Overland Drive Overcrossing Improvement
Work on this project is almost complete. Only minor change order work remains. Contractor is to submit '~As-
Builts.'
2. Pala Road Bridge
The Pala Road Bridge is now open to through traffic. The Rainbow Canyon detour and Cupeno closure have
been implemented. Starting on March 24, 2000, Rainbow Canyon Road is open to traffic during commute time,
nights and weekends.
3. Pujol Street Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter
Construction on this project started on January 20, 2000. The improvements include the construction of curb and
gutter, sidewalk, asphalt concrete pavement, driveways and driveway approaches and extending a storm drain
line~ The storm drain line has been completed. Concrete curb & gutter have been poured and the contractor is
working to form and pour the sidewalks and build the headwall. Completion is scheduled for April 24, 2000.
4. Pavement Management System FY99-16, Winchester Road
This project will rehabilitate Winchester Road fi-om Diaz to Jefferson. The City Council awarded the contract to
E. L Yeager for $360,440. The pre-construction meeting was held on February 9, 2000. Consauction was delayed
due to weather. Most of the rehabilitation work will be completed over two-weekends. The first part of the work,
the outside lanes, was completed at 5:00 a.m., Monday, March 27. The inside lanes will be done the following
weekend. Striping and loop detectors installation will be done at night, the following week. Construction is
scheduled for completion in early May 2000.
5. Margarita Community Park Lighting and Fencing
This project will install new light assembly on the existing poles and install a new fence in margarita Park.
Construction on this project started on February 7, 2000. The contractor installed the fence and began trenching
and installing the conduit. Project completion is expected in early April 2000.
6. First Street Bridge
This project will construct First Street from Pujol Street to Front Street, including the construction of a bridge
over Murrieta Creek and the realignment of Santiago Road. The new intersection of First Street, Front Street and
R:\MonthlyActivityRepon\CIP\99\February
Santiago Road will be signalized. Construction on this project started late February. The contractor completed
clearing Murrieta Creek before the March 15 environmental deadline. Stage I of the work is set to start. This stage
includes work along the west side of Front Street and Pujol Street. In addition, waterline relocation is to be done
simultaneously. Completion is scheduled for January 2001.
7. North General Kearney ~ La Colima Walkway
Construction on this project was just completed. This project installed a walkway from base material along the
existing AC benn on North General Kearny and added an AC berm to close the gap between the existing curb,
gutter and sidewalk and berm.
PROJECTS BEING BID
1. Sports Park Tot Lot Equipment Replacement
This project will replace the tot lot equipment at the Rancho California Sports Park. Plans, Specifications and
Cost Estimate (PS & E) ~vere completed and the City received authorization from the Economic Development
Agency (EDA) to advertise for bids. CDBG funds (Federal) are funding this project. Bids are scheduled to be
opened on April 12, 2000.
PROJECTS IN DESIGN
l. Pavement Management System
This project will provide street rehabilitation of Jefferson Avenue from the northerly City limits to Rancho
California Road. This project will also include the installation of streetlights along the entire length of Jefferson
Avenue. Pavement and street light design is in progress.
2. Old Town Parking Lots
Thisprojectconsistsoftwoproposedparkinglots. OnewillbelocatedonthewestsideofFrontStrectjustnor',h
of Second Street, and the other lot is located on the south side of Fourth Street west of Front Street. The project
is currently being designed in-house. A landscape architect and an electrical consultant are being utilized to do
the specialty work. The design for the Second Street parking lot is being finalized. This project is scheduled to
be advertised for bids in April. Design for Fourth Street Parking Lot is on hold pending the Mercantile building
plans.
3. Diaz Road Realignment
The consultant presented to the City two different alignments for Diaz as it is approaching Rancho California
Road Staff reviewed the available three alignment choices (one from a previous study) and gave the consultant
direction on the preferred alternative. The consultant submitted 30% completed plans based on staff direction.
Staff completed a traffic circulation and fight of way impact analysis and a preferred alignment has been
established. Individual meetings will be held with property owners to discuss and present to them the new
alignmcnt and its impacts to their properties. The consultant was directed to proceed with the design. 70% plans
will be submitted in April 2000.
2 R:\MonthlyActivityReport\CIP\99\February
4. Margarita Road Widening, Pauba Road to Dartolo Road
The consultant completed 70% plans and submitted them to the City. Staff reviewed these plans and provided
the consultant with input and comments on many issues that were raised. A minor delay is expected due to utility
and developer~s (Home Depot) coordination. The design is moving forward. Design completion is expected in
May 2000.
5. Santa Gertrudis Bridge Widening at I-15
This is Phase II of the Southbound Auxilimy Lane at Winchester Road project. This project will widen the 1-15
southbound off-ramp at the Santa Gemdis Creek Bridge to provide for an additional lane from the freeway to
just north of Winchester Road. The design consultant submitted the Ist plan check to the City and Caltrans the
first week of January. Staff is currently reviewing the plans and providing the consultant with input. Comments
from Caltrans are pending.
6. Traffic Signals Design at Pala Road and Loma Linda and at Pala Road and Wolf Valley
The consultant submitted the preliminary design plans for the Loma Linda intersection to the City. The City is
reviewing these plans. Wolf Valley intersection plans are expected at the end of March. Final plans for both
signals will be completed in April Z000 and the project will be ready to advertise for bids.
7. Pala Road Improvements - Phase II (79 South to Pechanga Road)
Design of this project is proceeding as scheduled. Preliminary design work include geotechnical investigation,
environmental assessment, surveying and utility research. In addition, staff is coordinating the work with the
Pechangas and Spring Pacific Properties, the developer for Wolf Creek. 30% plans are expected in early April
2000. The design is to be completed in August 2000.
8. Calle Aragon Park Drainage Structures
Staff is designing a stom~ drain line to cany nuisance water that accumulates at the park to the City~s stonn drain
system and fix the drainage problem. Plans and Specifications are complete. TCSD is reviewing the plans. This
project will be advertised for bids in April (as soon as TCSD comments are received and addressed).
9. Rancho California Road Median Modifications at Town Center
Under this project, the two median openings at Target and at the Claim Jumper will be closed and the left turn
pockets at Town Center and the church will be lengthened. Design completion is expected in early June 2000.
10. Sports Park Pond Desiltation
This project will clean up the Desiltation Pond in the Sports Park by removing silt from it to allow proper
drainage downstream. The consultant, Armstrong Development Services, is curren~y making their fmal revisions
to the design plans. This project is scheduled to be advertised for bids in April 2000~
11. Adding an Additional Lane On Ynez Road Between Tierra Vista and Rancho Vista
This project will add a second southbound lane to Ynez Road between Tie~ra Vista and Rancho Vista. The project
area is to be surveyed and staff will do the design. A modified striping plan for Ynez Road within the proposed
project has been prepared.
3 R :hMonthlyActivityReport\CIP\99\February
12. Senior Center Expansion
The expansion will include and addition of 3000 square feet of building area for recreational, oft~co, and meeting
purposes. The project is currently under design.
13. Chaparral High School Swimming Pool
A swimming pool will be constructed inside Chaparral High School. The kick-off meeting for the design
committee, including the architect RKM Design Group, City staff, School District staff and the swim club, was
held on January 11, 2000. A community workshop was held on February 12, 2000 at the high school. A tour of
the a number of aquatic facilities was conducted on March 1, 2000. The design committee is to meet and decide
on the type of facility to be built.
14. Temecula Library
A full service library, approximately 35,000 square feet in area, will be designed and built on Pauba Road, next
to Fire Station #84. This project will provide the community with library resources and services. The design
committee kick-off meeting was held on January 25, 2000. A layout and a theme were approved by the design
committee. The committee has come to consensus on the building form and appearance, and interior and ~.u'niture
layout( minor adjustments were requested by the committee and are being done by the architect). The parking lot
theme is being finalized by the architect. Design is scheduled for completion in July 2000.
4 R:MMonthlyActivityReport\ClP\99\February
I-
0
a~
._1
I--
Z
LU
LU
0
_1
I--
Z
0
5:
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Bill Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
~,~ Brad Buron, Maintenance Superintendent
March 6, 2000
Monthly Activity Report - February, 2000
The following activities were performed by Public Works Department, Street Maintenance Division in-house
personnel for the month of February, 2008:
I. SIGNS
A. Total signs replaced 31
B. Total signs installed 12
C. Total signs repaired 20
II.
TREES
A. Total trees tdmmed for sight distance and street sweeping concerns
8
4,388
54
283
III.
ASPHALT REPAIRS
A. Total square feet of A. C. repairs
B. Total Tons
IV.
CATCH BASINS
A. Total catch basins cleaned
V,
VI.
VII.
RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED ABATEMENT
A. Total square footage for right-of-way abatement
GRAFFITI REMOVAL
A. Total locations
B. Total S.F.
STENCILING
A. 6 New and repainted legends
B. 0 L.F. of new and repainted red curb and striping
11,980
67
2,690
Also, City Maintenance staff responded to 38 service order requests ranging from weed abatement, tree
trimming, sign repair, A.C. failures, litter removal, and catch basin cleanings. This is compared to 32
service order requests for the month of January, 2000.
The Maintenance Crew has also put in 150 hours of overtime which includes standby time, special
events and response to street emergencies.
The total cost for Street Maintenance performed by Contractors for the month of February, 2000 was
$52~517.60 compared to $26,606.00 for the month of January. 2000.
Account No. 5402 $ 49,396.50
Account No. 5401 $ 32,071.10
Account No. 999-5402 $ 1,050.00
cc;
Ron Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works
All Moghadam, Senior Engineer - (CIP/Traffic)
Greg Butler, Senior Engineer - (Capital Improvements)
Amer Attar, Senior Engineer - (Capital Improvements)
Jerry Alegria, Senior Engineer - (Land Development)
STREET MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS
The following contractors have performed the following projects for the month of February, 2000
DATE DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST
ACCOUNT STREET/CHANNEL/BRIDGE OF WORK SIZE
CONTRACTOR:
Date: 02/03/00
# 5401
MONTELEONE CONTRACTORS
D1AZ ROAD NORTH OF RANCHO
WAY
REPLACE AND REPAIR 24" CMP
Date: 02/07/00
# 5401
MUIRFIELD CHANNEL
TOTAL COST $3,440.00
CLEAN DEBRIS AND SILT FROM CHANNEL
Date: 02/14/00
# 5402
OLD TOWN
TOTAL COST $3,000.00
WASHING OF STREETS IN OLD TOWN FOR
ROD RUN
Date: 02/23/00
# 5402
CITYWIDE
TOTAL COST $ 600.00
DEBRIS & SILT REMOVAL FROM STREETS
DUE TO HEAVY RAINS
Date: 02/24/00
# 5401
WALCOTT AT CALLE CHAPPOS
TOTAL COST $7,146.00
EROSION CONTROL ON FOUR UNPRO-
TECTED LOTS
TOTAL COST $16,107.00
STREET MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS
The following contractors have performed the following projects for the month of February, 2000
DATE DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST
ACCOUNT STREET/CHANNEL/BRIDGE OF WORK SIZE
CONTRACTOR:
Date: 02/25/00
# 5402
MONTELEONE CONTRACTORS (continued)
CITYWIDE REMOVAL OF DEBRIS AND SILT FROM
CITY STREETS
Date: 02/23/00
# 999-5402
SERVICE LEVEL "R" AREAS
TOTAL COST
GRADING OF DIRT ROADS
$5,887.50
CONTRACTOR:
Date: 02/28/00
# 5401
BECKER ENGINEERING
40243 M1MULUS WAY
TOTAL COST
$1,050.00
REMOVE OLD FENCING & REPLACE WITH
STEEL FABRICATED 2" TUBING
Date: 02/02/00
# 5402
WINCHESTER ROAD WEST OF
JEFFERSON
TOTAL COST $2,400.00
P.C.C. REPAIRS R&R 327 L.F. OF CURB &
GUTTER; 1,144 S.F. OF SIDEWALK
Date: 02/24/00
# 5401
JOHN WARNER ROAD AT CABRILLO
TOTAL COST $17,150.00
CLEAN CULVERTS, REMOVE DEBRIS &
SILT FROM CHANNELS & REPAIRS TO
CHANNEL
TOTAL COST $5,369.10
STREET MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS
The following contractors have performed the following projects for the month of February, 2000
DATE DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT STREET/CHANNEL/BRIDGE OF WORK
TOTAL COST
SIZE
CONTRACTOR:
Date: 02/16/00
# 5402
TORAN DEVELOPMENT
OLD TOWN
MAINTENANCE TO BOARDWALK, LIGHT
POST BARRELS, BENCHES AND PLANTERS
CONTRACTOR:
Date: 02/00
# 5402
WEST COAST ARBORISTS
CITYWIDE
TOTAL COST
TRIMMED 445 R.O.W. TREES
REMOVED 7 R.O.W. TREES
$4,998.00
CONTRACTOR:
Date: 02/07/00
# 5401
RENE'S COMMERCIAL MANAGEMENT
EMPIRE CREEK
RANCHO V1STA AT MIRA LOMA
TOTALCOST
$13,615.00
REMOVAL OF WOODY DEBRIS, WEEDS AND
MECHANICAL WEEDING & CLEAN-UP
Date:
TOTALCOST
$1,775.00
TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #5401
TOTAL COST ACCOUNT #5402
TOTAl, COgT ACCOUNT #99-5402
TOTALCOST
$32,071.10
$49,396.50
$ 1.0~O.00
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
SIGNS
MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 2000
DATE
02/01/00
02/01/00
02/03/00
02/03/00
02/07/00
02/07/00
02/07/00
02/08/00
02/09/00
02/09/00
02/I 1/00
02/14/00
02/14/00
02/14/00
02/16/00
02/18/00
02/23/00
02/23/00
02/23/00
02/25/00
02/28/00
02/29/00
02/29/00
02/29/00
LOCATION
WINCHESTER WEST OF JEFFERSON
MORENO EAST OF K.F.C.
RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD. AT TARGET CENTER
RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD. EAST OF HOPE WAY
MERCEDES AT MORENO
WINCHESTER AT WATER DISTR1CT
AVEN1DA ALVARADO AT DIAZ
YNEZ AT SANTIAGO
BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
FRONT AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAT AT MARGARITA
3Rv STREET AT END
DE PORTOLA ROAD AT MARGARITA
NICHOLAS ROAD
DEL REY AT PINA COLADA
BAYHILL DRIVE AT CLUBHOUSE
RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD. WEST OF MARGARITA
RANCHO VISTA WEST OF MIRA LOMA
MARGARITA NORTH OF JEDEDIAH SMITH
MEADOWS PARKWAY AT McCABE
BAYHILL DRIVE AT CLUBHOUSE
RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD AT FRONT
LA SERENA WEST OF NORTH GENERAL KEARNY
MARGARITA SOUTH OF WINCHESTER
WORK COMPLETED
REPLACE R-7 AND TYPE "K' T.C.
REPLACE CARSONITE MISSING
REPLACE TYPE "K" TYPE "Q' MISSING
REPLACE BUS LOADING ZONE MISSING
REPAIR R-I DAMAGED
REPAIR R-26
REPAIR STREET NAME SIGN
REPAIR I CARSONITE
INSTALL 6" R2-35s
REPAIR "16" DELINEATORS
REPLACED 3 R-7 GRAFFIT1
REPLACED W-31 & RED "N' MARKER T.C.
REPLACED R-2 50 T.C.
REPLACED 2 CARSONITES
REPLACED 1 CARSONITE
INSTALLED 2 R-I
REPLACED R-7 T.C.
REPLACED TYPE K MISS1NG
REPLACED R-26D T.C.
REPLACED 8 DELINEATORS "FADED"
INSTALLED 4 R-I-A
REPLACED TYPE Q "MISSING'
REPLACED W-17 T.C.
REPLACED R-7 T.C.
DATE
02/29/00
02/29/00
LOCATION
MARGAR1TA N/O NORTH GENERAL KEARNY
OVERLAND AT YNEZ
WORK COMPLETED
REPLACED W-4 1 T.C.
REPLACED TYPE K MISSING
TOTAL SIGNS REPLACED
TOTAL SIGNS INSTALLED
TOTAL SIGNS REPAIRED
31
12
20
DATE
02/01/00
02/02/00
02/03/00
02/07/00
02/07/00
02/07/00
02/07/00
02/08/00
02/09/00
02/09/00
02/09/00
02/10/00
02/14/00
02/15/00
02/16/00
02/22/00
02/23/00
02/28/00
02/29/00
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
ASPHALT (POTHOLES) REPAIRS
MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 2000
LOCATION
SCOPE OF WORK S.F.
OLD TOWN REPAIRS
42817 AGENA
STARLITE RIDGE AREA "SLURRY SEAL"
DIAZ AT WINCHESTER
30460 CABRILLO
2~'a~ AND MERCEDES
RAINBOW CANYON ROAD
3-587 MILKY WAY
MAIN AT PUJOL
30587 MIKLY WAY
41819 ASTEROID
MAIN STREET AT PUJOL
RAINBOW CANYON ROAD
PALA ROAD AT LOMA LINDA
CITYWIDE "RAIN"
RANCHO VISTA EAST OF MARGARITA
CITYW1DE POTHOLES "RAIN"
WINCHESTER WEST OF JEFFERSON
NICHOLAS ROAD EAST OF NORTH GENERAL KEARNV
TOTAL
TONS
R&R A.C. 355 4.5
R&R A.C. 660 16.5
OVERLAY A.C. 583 3.5
R & R A.C. 204 6.5
AC OVERLAY 64
AC OVERLAY "BERM" 50
REPAIR E/P I 10
AC OVERLAY 390 2.5
POTHOLE REPAIR 24
AC OVERLAY 525 4.5
AC OVERLAY 180
POTHOLE REPAIR 5
POTHOLE REPAIR 26 TEMP. A.C.
POTHOLE REPAIR 12 TEMP A.C.
POTHOLE REPAIR 195 TEMP. A.C.
R&R A.C. 281 8
POTHOLE REPAIR 145 TEMP A.C.
R & R A.C. 95 3.5
A.C. OVERLAY 484 4.5
TOTAL S.F. OF REPAIRS 4v388
TOTAL TONS 54
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
STENCILS / STRIPING
MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 2000
DATE LOCATION
02/09/00 BUSINESS PARK DRIVE
WORK COMPLETED
INSTALL "6'~ R-2-35 LEGENDS
TOTAL NEW & REPAINTED LEGENDS 6
NEW & REPAINTED RED CURB & STRIPING L.F. 0
DATE
02/01/00
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
RIGHT-OF-WAY TREE TRIMMING
MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 2000
LOCATION
MORENO AND MERCEDES
WORK COMPLETED
TRIMMED 8 R.O.W. TREES
TOTAL R.O.W. TREES TRIMMED 8
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED ABATEMENT
MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 2000
DATE
02/01/00
02/08/00
02/09/00
02/14/00
LOCATION
OLD TOWN'
SANTIAGO AT 1ST
FELIX VALDEZ AT 6Ta STREET
6TM STREET AT PUJOL
WORK COMPLETED
ABATED
ABATED
ABATED
ABATED
5,080 S.F.R.O.W. WEEDS
3,200 S.F.R.O.W. WEEDS
700 S.F.R.O.W. WEEDS
3,000 S.F.R.O.W. WEEDS
TOTAL S.F. R-O-W WEEDS ABATED 11~980
DATE
02~2~0
02~3/00
02/07~09
02~7~0
0~08~0
02~8~0
02/09/00
02/11~0
02/12/00
02/16~0
02/16/00
02/17~0
02~1~0
02/22/00
02~2~0
02/23/00
02~3~0
02/28~0
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
CATCH BASIN MAINTENANCE
MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 2000
LOCATION
AREA #2
AREA #2
AREA #2
AREA #1
AREA #1
AREA #2
AREA # 1
CITYWIDE "RAIN"
CITYWIDE "RAIN"
AREA #2
CITYW1DE "RAIN"
AREA #2
CITYWIDE "RAIN"
CITYWIDE "RAIN"
CITYWIDE "RAIN"
CITYWIDE "RAIN"
CITYWIDE "RAIN"
AREA #3
WORK COMPLETED
CLEANED & CHECKED 16 CATCH BASINS
CLEANED & CHECKED 13 CATCH BASINS
CLEANED & CHECKED 15 CATCH BASINS
CLEANED & CHECKED 30 CATCH BASINS
CLEANED & CHECKED 5 CATCH BASINS
CLEANED & CHECKED 10 CATCH BASINS
CLEANED & CHECKED 3 CATCH BASINS
CLEANED & CHECKED 20 CATCH BASINS
CLEANED & CHECKED 6 CATCH BASINS
CLEANED & CHECKED 14 CATCH BASINS
CLEANED & CHECKED 15 CATCH BASINS
CLEANED & CHECKED 6 CATCH BASINS
CLEANED & CHECKED 8 CATCH BASINS
CLEANED & CHECKED 18 CATCH BASINS
CLEANED & CHECKED 26 CATCH BASINS
CLEANED & CHECKED 36 CATCH BASINS
CLEANED & CHECKED 29 CATCH BASINS
CLEANED & CHECKED 13 CATCH BASINS
TOTAL CATCH BAS|NS CLEANED & CHECKED 283
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
SERVICE ORDER REQUEST LOG
MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 2000
DATE
RECEIVED
02/03/00
02/07/00
02/07/00
02/08/00
02/09/00
02/10/00
02/10/00
02/14/00
02/14/00
02/14/00
02/17/00
02/17/00
02/22/00
02/22/00
02/22/00
02/22/00
02/22/00
02/22/00
02/22/00
02/22/00
02/22/00
02/22/00
02/22/00
02/22/00
LOCATION
43484 FASSANO COURT
43935 HIGHLANDFER DRIVE
W~B RANCHO CALIF. RD. ~ CALLE BAHIA VISTA
YNEZ AT OVERLAND
28636 FRONT STREET
BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD AT PAUBA
39634 RUSTIC GLEN
31190 INDIAN SUMMER ROAD
30165 CASA CHATA PLACE
HOMES BY THE GREEN
31190 INDIAN SUMMER ROAD
42456 AGENA
40085 ROSHANI DRIVE
41725 FOSSE WAY
43930 FLORES
31880 CORTE POSITAS
YNEZ ROAD AT SANTIAGO ROAD
40030 WALCOTT LANE
29500 MIRA LOMA DRIVE #101
39879 NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD
30241 CABRILLO AVENUE
40979 ALTON COURT
30747 SAN PASQUAL
40685 LA COLINA
REQUEST
STANDING WATER
SINKHOLE
BUMP IN AC
LIGHT POLES
CAR PASS
SWEEPER CONCERN
DIRT IN DRIVEWAY
ROAD GRADING
TREE REMOVAL
TREE TRIMMING
ROAD GRADING
TREE TRIMMING
POTHOLE
E.P. EROSION
CLOGGED STORM DRAIN
TRIPPING HAZARD
WATER ON PROPERTY
WATER ON PROPERTY
CLOGGED STORM DRAIN
CLOGGED STORM DRAIN
WATER ON PROPERTY
CLOGGED STORM DRAIN
MUD IN STREET
MUD IN STREET
DATE WORK
COMPLETED
02/03/00
02/08/00
02/08/00
02/08/00
02/09/00
02/10/00
02/10/00
02/14/00
02/14/00
02/14/00
02/17/00
02/17/00
02/22/00
02/22/00
02/22/00
02/22/00
02/22/00
02/22/00
02/22/00
02/22/00
02/22/00
02/22/00
02/22/00
02/22/00
DATE
RECEIVED
02/22/00
02/22/00
02/22/00
02/22/00
02/22/00
02/24/00
02/24/00
02/24/00
02/24/00
02/25/00
02/25/00
02/25/00
02/28/00
02/28/00
LOCATION
28718 FRONT STREET
27510 LARK COURT
40030 WALCOTT LANE
JOHN WARNER ROAD
30481 MILKY WAY
32342 CORTE LAS CRUCES
29699 ST. ANDPEWS COURT
40481 CALLE TIARA
44618 PALA ROAD
31783 LOMA LINDA ROAD
CARA WAY
40139 ROSHINI
29835 CANTRELL ROAD
MORAGA
REQUEST
DATE WORK
COMPLETED
CLOGGED STORM DRAIN 02/22/00
MUD IN STREET 02/22/00
WATER ON PROPERTY 02/22/00
ROAD GRADING 02/22/00
TREE CONCERN 02/22/00
KEYS IN STORM DRAIN 02/24/00
UPROOTED TREE 02/24/00
DRAINAGE CONCERN 02/24/00
CHANNEL CLEANING 02/24/00
POTHOLE 02/25/00
A.C. CONCERN 02/25/00
POTHOLE 02/25/00
MUD IN STREET 02/28/00
POTHOLE 02/28/00
TOTAL SERVICE ORDER REQUESTS 38
DATE
02/01/00
02/02/00
02/04/00
02/09/00
02/09/00
02/09/00
02/11/00
02/15/00
02/17/00
02/17/00
02/17/00
02/17/00
02/22/00
02/23/00
02/24/00
02/25/00
02/28/00
02/29/00
02/29/00
02/29/00
02/29/00
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
ROADS DIVISION
GRAFFITI REMOVAL
MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 2000
LOCATION
6TM STREET PHONE BOOTH
42200 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD
WINCHESTER ROAD
MAIN STREET & PUJOL
MAIN STREET BRIDGE
McCABE COURT 1,000' SOUTH OF VISTA PAINT
6Tn STREET AT PUJOL
VIA GILBERTO AT PALA ROAD
TARGET CENTER
MADISON AT END
TARGET CENTER
42145 LYNDIE LANE
LOMA LINDA / PALA ROAD AREA
LOMA LINDA / PALA ROAD AREA
LOMA LINDA / PALA ROAD AREA
LOMA LINDA / PALA ROAD AREA
31071 CAMINO VERDE
44535 BEDFORD COURT
31320 VIA EDUARDO
31360 VIA EDUARDO
WINCHESTER AT MARGARITA MEADOWS
( 7 LOCATIONS
(17 LOCATIONS
( 8 LOCATIONS
'16 LOCATIONS
2 LOCATIONS)
2 LOCATIONS)
WORK COMPLETED
REMOVED
REMOVED
REMOVED
REMOVED
REMOVED
REMOVED
REMOVED
REMOVED
REMOVED
REMOVED
REMOVED
REMOVED
REMOVED
REMOVED
REMOVED
REMOVED
REMOVED
REMOVED
REMOVED
REMOVED
REMOVED
4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
24 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
S.F. OF GRAFFITI
134 S.F. OF GRAFF1TI
512 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
3 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
87 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
488 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
21 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
46 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
98 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
184 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
350 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
181 S.F. OF GRAFFIT[
438 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
2 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
4 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
85 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
20 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
6 S.F. OF GRAFFITI
TOTAL S.F. GRAFFITI REMOVED 2,690
TOTAL LOCATIONS 67
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Jim Domenoe, Chief of Polic_,~_//
March 28, 2000
Monthly Departmental Repod
The following report reflects special teams, traffic enforcement and miscellaneous activity occurring
during February of 2000.
The Police Department responded to thirty "priority one" cells for service during the month of
February, with an average response time of approximately 7.0 minutes. A total of 1,508 calls for
police service were generated in the City of Temecula during the month.
During the month of February, the Temecula Police Department's storefront served a total of 332
people, up from 310 people last month. The number of citizens utilizing this facility continues to
increase. One hundred fifteen people were fingerprinted, forty-three people made police reports,
fifteen people had citations signed off, eleven recreation vehicle permits and four solicitor's permits
were issued.
Crime Prevention Officer Lynn Fanene participated in a number of special events and community
oriented programs during the month. Officer Fanene conducted two "Stranger Danger" training
sessions as part of the "Project Head Start" at Temecula Elementary School. He also participated
in the Temecula Rod Run, and made a presentation to the Board of Realtors in conjunction with
members of the Temecula Problem Orientated Policing team concerning personal safety. Officer
Fanene also participated and assisted in the planning of the "Every Fifteen Minutes" program at
Temecula Valley High School. In addition, he also completed part two of an article for the Valley
Business Journal called "Identity Theft."
The POP Team of Officers Matt Hughes and Earl Quinata continued to work on the "Crime Free
Multi Housing" project. One complex, Mission Village Apartments, was certified during the month.
This brings the citywide total number of certified complexes to seventeen, which equates to 71%
of the city's apartment complexes. These officers were also involved in the "Every Fifteen Minutes"
program at Temecula Valley High School. Other programs conducted this month included the
homeless assistance program that resulted in a collaborative approach with Code Enforcement.
A pro-active vehicle sweep was conducted with forty-three citations issued and three vehicles
towed and stored. Old Town patrol resulted in the arrest of five subjects for various offenses and
six citations were issued.
A great deal of work was accomplished toward the conclusion of the "Every Fifteen Minutes"
program during February prior to program completion (March 1st and 2"d). Cooperation and
assistance with the following departments and agencies has been outstanding to date in making
this program extremely effective: Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, Temecula Valley
Unified School District, Temecula Fire Department, American Medical Response, Inland Valley
Regional Medical Center, Mercy Air Ambulance, Riverside County Coroner's office and Embassy
Suites hotel.
On February 19, the traffic team conducted its monthly Operation ERACIT DUI checkpoint. The
operation resulted in the arrest of four persons for DUI. For the month of February three hundred
twenty five citations were issued for hazardous violations, one hundred thirty one citations were
issued for non-hazardous violations and one hundred fifty parking citations were issued. In
addition, nine injury collisions were reported, fifty-six non-injury collisions were reported and thirty-
three drivers were arrested for DUI.
During the month of February, the POP officers assigned to the Promenade Mall handled a total
of forty-five calls for service. These cells resulted in the arrest and filings on sixteen people for
various offenses and the issuance of one citation.
The four school resource officers continue to remain very active in their schools. During the past
month, the officers made numerous presentations to pupils on topics such as inhalant use,
Stranger Danger, and criminal law issues. Four arrests were made at the middle schools for
misdemeanor offenses.
The JOLT program (Juvenile Offender Law Enforcement Program) continues to be a success in
part through its youth court program, Twenty new cases were heard this month, The probation
officer assigned to the program was reassigned during this month and a replacement is expected
soon. Additional programs this month included school presentations on the JOLT program, truancy
reduction, drug, alcohol and tobacco awareness training and a mentoring program that involves
past JOLT participants. A new trend appeared at the schools this month which involves juveniles
becoming intoxicated through misuse of over the counter cough suppressant. This will be
monitored during the next few months,
During the month of February, the Special Enforcement Team of Officers Rich Holder and Mark
Kdkava handled a total of twenty-five cases. These cases resulted in twenty-seven misdemeanor
and fourteen felony arrests, primarily for narcotics violations. The SET team also worked in
conjunction with the POP team to resolve an issue of vandalism in the Loma Linda housing area
of the City. This incident revolved around a neighborhood being repeatedly spray painted by
unknown suspects. With the assistance of an alert citizen, the team was able to locate and identify
four suspects who were involved in the vandalism (three of whom were juveniles). Charges are
being filed in this case and no further acts of vandalism have been reported in this area.
Volunteers from the community continue to be an integral part of the Temecula Police Department's
staff. Under the guidance of volunteer coordinator Ed Bekas, the Police Department's volunteer
staff contributed 802 hours of service in February up from 678 in January. Volunteer assignments
include computer data input, Iogistics support, crime observation (TAG program surveillance),
special event assistance and telephone answering duties.
The reserve officer program and mounted posse are additional valuable volunteer resources
available to the police department. The police department utilizes reserve officers to assist with
patrol, traffic enforcement, crime prevention and a variety of special functions,
Reserve police officers worked a total of 285 hours during the month. The majority of this time was
spent assisting with the patrol deployment during the Rod Run. The posse contributed a total of 60
hours during the month at the Rod Run.
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Gary Thornhill, Deputy City Manager
March 28, 2000
Monthly Report
The following are the recent highlights for the Planning Division of the Community Development
Department in the month of February, 2000.
CURRENT PLANNING ACTIVITIES
New Cases
The Division received 36 new applications for administrative, other minor cases and home
occupations and 5 new applications for public hearings during the month of February. The new
public hearing cases are as follows:
Tentative Tract Map 1
Development Plan 3
Massage Establishment 1
Prepapplications
-k
Intense Cycles - the design, construction and operation of a 14,630 square foot industrial
building at the northwest corner of Vincent Moraga and Ridge Park Drive. Owner to
relocate an existing manufacturing operation from Lake Elsinore. Received February 17,
2000; Pre-Application Meeting will be held on March 15, 2000.
Southern California Storage - Proposal to develop a 65,395 square foot multi building
storage facility for industrial user. This is a two-acre site located on the north side of
Winchester Road just west of the Rancho Water District headquarters. A Pre-Application
meeting will be held on March 2, 2000.
Tentative Map 29557 - Proposal to subdivide 18.86 acres into 50 lots (2.65 units per acre)
on property currently zoned Very Low Density which only allows 1 unit per 2.5 acres,
located on the south side of Nicolas Road between Calle Medusa and Calle Girasol Road.
This proposal will require a General Plan Amendment and Change of Zoning. A Pre-
Application meeting will be held on March 15, 2000.
\\TEMEC_FS101WOLI\Depts\PLANNING\MONTHLY.RPT\2000\FEBRUARY 2000.doc
1
Status of Maior Proiects
Staff is working with project applicants to address any remaining issues and get the following cases
ready for public hearing before the Community Development Director or Planning Commission:
Rancho Community Church expansion on Vallejo Avenue. The project is on hold, as the
applicant is still looking at other options for their development. The applicant met with staff
in January to discuss potential options.
-k
Tentative Pamel Map 28627, the Margarita Canyon Property. The project was continued
to the March 15, 2000 Planning Commission meeting based on the applicant's concerns
with various conditions of approval proposed by Staff. Staff has been working with the
applicants to resolve concerns relative to the spacing of the proposed access into the site.
Wolf Valley Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report - A Development Agreement
application has been filed for this project. Staff is reviewing the Development Agreement
and EIR response to comments. Tentative Planning Commission date is pending in Spring,
2000. Tentative Map 29305 - To create legal parcels for each Planning Area, Pala
Drainage Channel and the lineal park within the Wolf Creek Specific Plan.
Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report: The project is on hold
pending review and report by the Ad-hoc Committed appointed by the City Council. The
Ad Hoc committee met on November 16, 1999 and determined that the applicant should
conduct a study to determine the viability of an assessment district for the construction of
off-site infrastructure. The Ad Hoc committee is scheduled to meet on March 20, 2000 to
evaluate the results of this study and reports and formulate a recommendation to the City
Council as to how to proceed.
-k
Tentative Tract Map 29286, General Plan Amendment and Zone Change - Subdivision of
9.75 acres into 40 single family residential lots and two open space lots, a General Plan
Amendment to change the current land use classification of "SP" (Specific Plan) to LM (Low
Medium Density Residential) and a zone change to change the zoning classification from
"SP" (Specific Plan) to LM (Low Medium Density Residential) located on the southeast
corner of Margarita Road and Date Street. Development Review Committee meeting was
held on July 15, 1999. Approved at Planning Commission on December 8, 1999. A City
Council hearing date is March 28, 2000.
Meadowview Golf Course - The design, construction and operation of an 18 hole public golf
course with clubhouse, cart barn, maintenance and other accessory buildings and an
equestrian trail park located on 297 acres south of Nicolas Road, north of Del Rey Road,
east of Margarita Road and west of Calle Medusa, within the Meadowview Community. A
DeveLopment Review Committee meeting was held on August 19, 1999. Staff received
revised plans and additional information regarding project operations. Additional studies
that address environmental concerns are anticipated to be submitted by March 17, 2000
at which time staff shall complete the initial Environmental Assessment for the project.
Temecula Village - The proposal is for a General Plan Amendment, Planned Development
Overlay zone and Parcel Map for 23 acres located on the south side of Rancho California
Road, between Moraga Road and Cosmic Drive. Staff is awaiting re-submittal.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\MONTHLY.RPT~2000\FEBRUARY 2000.doc
2
'k
Temecula Ridge Apartments - The design and construction of 266 apartment units on 22.21
acres on the south side of Rancho California Road, east of Moraga Road. Community
meeting held on February 11,2000. Revisions to plans and Traffic Study submitted by the
applicant to the State Clearinghouse for 30-day review on March 29, 2000. Planning
Commission hearing scheduled for May 3, 2000.
Temecula Gas Station and Car Wash - To construct and operate a self-serve gas station
and drive-thru car wash facility located on the southwest corner of the intersection of the
proposed Western Bypass and Front Street. Project is on hold pending outcome of
Margarita Canyon Map. In the process of preparing an initial study.
Quaid Harley Davidson - The design, construction and operation of a 17,371 square foot
Harley Davidson motorcycle dealership with sales and repairs located on the north side of
Front Street, approximately 1,800 feet west of the interstate 15 Freeway on-ramp. Staff is
awaiting re-submittal.
Christ the Vine Church - To design, construct and operate a 6,258 square foot church, 643
square foot two car garage, 7,499 square foot day school and 5,628 square foot fellowship
hall on 2.62 net acres located on North General Kearny Road and Margarita Road. Second
DRC meeting was held on October 7, 1999. Access issues to be resolved. DRC was held
on February 10, 2000. Awaiting applicant re-submittal.
Ultra Mar Gas Station - To build a 5,000 square foot gas station and convenience store with
fast food located on pad "E" along Winchester Road, east of Ynez Road on Outlot E of the
Promenade Mall. Appreved at Planning Commission hearing is scheduled on January 19,
2000. Construction drawings under review.
Provident Savings Bank - To construct and operate a 3,000 square foot Provident Savings
Bank with drive-thru services in the Winchester Meadows Shopping Center located on the
northeast corner of Winchester Road and Margarita Road. DRC meeting was held on
October 21, 1999. Staff is awaiting re-submittal.
Hunco Development - To develop a 1.02 acre site in the Light Industrial Zone with a one
story, 18,080 square foot, tilt-up concrete speculative industrial building located at 42655
Rio Nedo. Scheduled for March 15, 2000 Planning Commission.
Car Spa - To build a car wash tunnel with attached retail store and post wash canopy, an
open pit designed for oil changes and a fueling station with canopy located at the southwest
entrance of the Promenade Mall on Ynez Road. Approved at Planning Commission hearing
on February 2, 2000. Construction drawings under review.
Childtime Children's Center- To develop a .978 acre of vacant land within the C-A zone
with a 8,000 square foot building to be utilized as a child care center located at the
northeast corner of the intersection of Margarita Road and Verdes Lane. Appreved at
Director's Hearing on February 3, 2000.
Hilton Garden Hotel- To construct a 100-unit hotel on 1.38 acres located on the westerly
side of Rancho Highland Drive, westerly of Ynez Road. The accompanying General Plan
Amendment is on hold with the Planning Commission.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\MONTHLY.RPT\2000\FEBRUARY 2000.doc
3
Temecula Creek Inn - A request to expand by adding two new buildings to expand the
hotel's room capacity and conference room facilities located at 44501 Rainbow Canyon
Road. DRC meeting was held on December 9, 1999. Staff received re-submittal on
February 14, 2000. Should go to Planning Commission in May.
5 & Diner - To build and operate a 3,200 square foot restaurant located on Pad "N" of the
Promenade Mall along Ynez Road just before the north entrance. DRC meeting was held
on December 16, 1999. Appreved at the Planning Commission hearing on February 16,
2000.
Diaz Super Storage - The design, construction and operation of a 62,350 square foot mini-
self storage facility with a two-story office and resident manager's quarters and covered RV
storage spaces located on the southwest corner of Remington Avenue and Diaz Road.
DRC meeting was held on December 23, 1999. Planning Commission approval on
February 16, 2000 and the applicant submitted for construction plan check March 8, 2000.
Lundstrom and Associates - To develop a 4.72-acre site with three speculative industrial
buildings totaling 57,103 square feet located on Business Park Drive and Rancho Way.
DRC meeting was held on December 30, 1999. Staff is awaiting re-submittal.
Avoca Enterprises - To construct a 25,201 square foot commercial building on 1.22 acres
of vacant land within the Light Industrial Zone located at 42506 Avenida Alvarado. DRC
meeting was held on January 20, 2000. Applicant re-submitted; staff is reviewing and
awaiting Conditions of Approval.
Helix Development, Inc. - To build an 8,240 square foot multi-tenant retail building located
on the southwest entrance of the mall on Ynez Road. DRC meeting was held on January
27, 2000. Staff received rre-submittal on February 10, 2000.
Overland Self Storage - Conditional Use Permit and Development Plan for the design,
construction and operation of a 43,174 square foot mini-self storage facility with office,
resident manager's quarters and RV storage spaces located approximately 155 feet north
of the intersection of Commerce Center Drive and Overland Drive. DRC meeting was held
on January 27, 2000. Staff is awaiting re-submittal.
Palomar Hotel - Remodel of the existing Palomar Hotel to the Palomar Inn (a bed and
breakfast) located on the northeast corner of Front and Fifth Streets. DRC meeting was
held on January 27, 2000. Staff is awaiting re-submittal.
Guaranty Federal Bank - To construct a 12,758 square foot bank building on approximately
1.015 acres of land within the Community Commercial Zone located southeasterly of the
intersection of Margadta and Winchester Roads, northeast corner of the intersection of
Margarita Road and Verdes Lane. Scheduled for March 15, 2000 Planning Commission
Meeting.
Ridge Park Office Center -A Pre-Application Meeting was held on February 10, 2000 and
the applicant submitted a formal application on February 24, 2000 for the design,
construction and operation of a 56,000 square foot office complex consisting of 10 buildings
on 4 acres along the nodh side of Ridge Park Drive, between Rancho California Road and
Vincent Moraga.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\MONTHLY.RPT\2000\FEBRUARY 2000.doc
4
-k
',r
Tentative Tract Map 29133 - Subdivide 5 acres into eight residential lot locate on the west
side of Ynez Road south of Calle Halcon. A Planning Commission Hearing is scheduled
for April 19, 2000.
Out-lot Retail Pad C - To build a 15,783 square foot multi-tenant retail building located on
pad "C" along Winchester Road, east of Ynez Road at the Promenade Mall. Director's
approval likely mid March.
Out-lot Retail Pad D - To build a 6,575 square foot multi-tenant retail building located on
pad "D" along Winchester Road, east of Ynez Road at the Promenade Mall. Director's
approval likely mid March.
Encinitas Corporate Center - To develop a 1.9 acre site in the Light Industrial Zone with a
two story, 32,500 square foot, tilt-up concrete speculative industrial building located at
42545 Rio Nedo. DRC meeting was held on February 24, 2000. Staff is awaiting re-
submittal.
Small Business Assistance
-k
'k
The Grapevine: Staff met with the owner of this Old Town business and discussed his new sign
proposal in preparation for submittal to the Old Town Local Review Board. Made suggestions
regarding the possibility of implementing an overall sign program for his office/retail building.
Olde Town Smoke Shop: Worked with this small business owner in selecting the locations and
styles for new signs. Staff made a presentation to the Old Town Local Review Board resulting
in approval of the package.
Set Free Christian Church: Planning staff met with the pastor of this church regarding a minor
conditional use permit for his proposed church in Old Town Temecula. The Building
Department was consulted to provide additional information.
Israel Gonzalez: Helped property owner evaluate site for potential business selling Mexican
artifacts. Provided him with Old Town Specific Plan information regarding facade designs and
signs.
Old Town Framing & Fine Art: Aided this applicant in reviewing proposed new signs for this
business in preparation for submittal to the Old Town Local Review Board. Staff advised owner
regarding appropriate colors and the benefits of an overall sign program for his building.
Captain's Cabin: Discussed sign preposals with owner and made suggestions regarding his
planning application for improvements to the existing restaurant site.'
Focus 21: Met with the owner of this business who is considering the relocation of his firm from
the San Diego area to Temecula. Representatives from Planning, Building and Fire outlined
what he would need to complete his tenant improvement and an estimated timeline for
completion.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\MONTHLY.RPT~2000\FEBRUARY 2000.doc
5
Special Events Permits
Rod Run 2000: Held final meeting with the Temecula Town Association and staff prior to the
event. Designed site plan for applicant and distributed conditions of approval.
, Expo Home Show: Sent applicant Community Events Handbook and application. Met with him
to discuss site plan design and timeline for approval.
Northwest Sportspark Races: Staff met with applicants regarding extensions of temporary use
permits for mini-car and motorcycle races. A sound reading will be taken at the first of three
races in order to ascertain noise levels throughout the city.
Chamber of Commerce Mixer: Aided Merrill-Lynch and the Temecula Valley Chamber of
Commerce in processing the approval of the required temporary use permit on short notice.
Special Projects & Long Range Planning Activities
The Division also commits work efforts toward larger scale and longer time frame projects for both
private and public purposes. These activities can range from a relatively simple ordinance or
environmental review to a new specific plan or a general plan amendment. Some of the major
special projects and long range planning activities are as follows:
-k
Housing Element Update: The City has received a draft of the City's Regional Housing Need
Assessment obligations and staff has provided corrections to the text. The consultant is
making the corrections and will repod back to staff with the final draft results of where the
City stands in relation to the programs contained within the existing Housing Element. A
preliminary meeting date in the early spring is planned to inform the City Council of the
results.
Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the City Redevelopment Plan: The consultant
has gathered much of the information needed to begin preparation of the Draft EIR. The
Circulation Element traffic study is currently being revised due to recent land use changes
within the County which may affect the analysis of the SEIR therefore, pending the outcome
of the revisions to the Circulation Element, the Redevelopment Plan EIR is on hold.
.,
General Plan Circulation Element Update: The revised traffic study has been received and
will be circulated to the Subcommittee members for their final comments once staff has had
a chance to perform a final check. Preparation of the draft environmental impact report is
being finalized. Due to regional land use changes, the approval process for the updated
Element is being delayed until Spring.
Traditional Neighborhood Development Ordinance: Final changes are being made prior to
scheduling this item for a Planning Commission workshop in early spring 2000.
Vail Ranch Annexation Study: The Resolution Initiating annexation proceedings has been
scheduled for City Council on March 21, 2000. If adopted, Staff will submit an annexation
application to LAFCO with a goal of going to hearing before LAFCO in July or August.
Surface Mining Ordinance: The staff and City Attorney are making final changes based
upon feedback from the State prior to submitting this item to the Council for their
consideration.
F:\Depts\pLANNING\MONTHLY.RPT~.000\FEBRUARY 2000,doc
6
,
..
Geographic Information System (GIS): GIS levels of service maps were used in the City
Council's Growth Management Workshop. Recent mapping products include Vail Ranch
Maintenance Agreements for TCSD, fire response time for the Fire Depadment, tree
trimming right-of-way and levels of service map for Public Works, directions map for Human
Resources, CFD 88-12 property status for Finance Depadment, maps to be used for the
coordination of the Rod Run, minor updates were made to the City's Zoning map and
various other data analyses and mapping requests. GIS staff continues to make updates
to the database and previously completed maps and reports.
Antenna Ordinance: Staff met with a group of wireless communication industry
representatives on November 4, 1999. Based upon their comments, staff has revised the
draft ordinance and forwarded it to the City Attorney for his review and comment. Staff is
awaiting the City Attorney's response to the initial draft of the ordinance. When the City
Attorney's comments are received, another meeting with the industry representatives will
be scheduled.
Coordination with the Bureau of Census. Staff continues to work with the Bureau to ensure
an accurate and complete count for the 2000 census. Staff recently submitted several
hundred new addresses to the Bureau as part of the New Construction Program.
Application Fee Study: Staff recently received a study from the consultant and has provided
information to the consultant and Finance Department about which applications should not
be charged the full-cost of processing.
Hillside Development Policy: The policies are being discussed internally by City staff in an
effod to create fair and useable development policies.
Multi-species Habitat Conservation Planning Efforts for Western Riverside County: Staff is
attending committee meetings and monitoring the process of determining conservation
reserve needs and will report back to the Council when a draft plan is available.
Large Family Day Care Home Facility Ordinance: The Planning Commission considered
this Ordinance amendment at their February 2, 2000 meeting. Based upon the
Commission direction, staff is making additional changes to the Ordinances.
Citywide Sign Inventory: The arduous process of inventcrying signs is pending additional
staff resources.
Hotel Conference Center Feasibility Study Addendum: A draft of the study was received and
reviewed by staff. This item will be presented to the Convention Center Subcommittee will
be presented in January after new Subcommittee members are appointed.
County Project Reviews: Staff continues to allocate significant resources to review projects
within the County and other local jurisdictions that could effect the City of Temecula. Two
major projects that staff is currently reviewing are:
The Murrieta Oaks Specific Plan and EIR which includes approximately 260
undeveloped acres located in the northeastern portion of the City of Murrieta
near the intersection of 1-215 and Clinton Keith Road. The application
includes a Vesting Tentative Map with 560-single family units, elementary
school, active park and open space.
\\TEMEC_FS101\VOLI\Depts\PLANNING\MONTHLY.RPT~2000\FEBRUARY 2000,doc
7
Staff is also reviewing the EIR for the Scott Road South Residential
Subdivision in the unincorporated County. This project is composed of four
tentative tract maps, a General Plan Amendment, and a Change of Zone on
198 acres located one mile east of the 1-215 Freeway and south of Scott
Road. The proposed residential subdivision would provide 649 lots for
single family homes with lot areas ranging from 7,200 to 30,500 square feet.
Other General Plan Amendments. Two Circulation Element Amendments have been
proposed. The Circulation Element traffic analysis will be used to consider both requests.
Both requests are currently under review by the Planning and Public Works Departments.
A Proposal to reduce the width of the Western Bypass Road north of Avenida
Alvarado from a Secondary Roadway to a Principal Collector.
A request to delete Via Rio Temecula west of Avenida de Missiones from the
Circulation Map.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\MONTHLY.RP'R2000\FEBRUARY 2000.doc
8