HomeMy WebLinkAbout050900 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
MAY 9, 2000 - 7:00 P.M.
:1~:30 P.m."'-"~i~d SesSion"'~Y"';~e City Council pursuant to Government Code
; Sections:
1. Conference with City Attorney and legal counsel pursuant to Government
Code Section 54956.9(c) with respect to one matter of potential litigation. With
respect to such matter, the City Attorney has determined that a point has been
reached where there is a significant exposure to litigation involving the City based on
existing facts and circumstances and the City will decide whether to initiate litigation.
Public Information concerning existing litigation between the City and various parties
.m...ay .be acquired by r.evie...w.i,n..cj,,t.h..e public documen.t_s~hel_,d,,b_y t_h..e,.,C. ity,C..!e..r..k: ......
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.
CALL TO ORDER:
Prelude Music:
Invocation:
Flag Salute:
ROLL CALL:
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. 2000-04
Resolution: No. 2000-29
Mayor Jeff Stone
Katie Welsch
Pastor Tom Inglis of New Covenant Fellowship
Councilman Roberrs
Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, Stone
PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
Introduction of Councilmember Klaas de Roo, City of Voorbur~l
Mental Health Month Proclamation
Veteran Appreciation Month Proclamation
Kids Day America/International Proclamation
RAAgenda\050900
1
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.
I Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure
RECOMMENDATON:
1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the
agenda.
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of February 29, 2000;
2.2 Approve the minutes of March 21, 2000.
3 Resolution Approvin¢l 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
R:~Agenda\050900
2
4
5
6
City Treasurer's Report
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of March 31, 2000.
Temecula Creek Line W, Staqe IV, Storm Drain Project No. 7-0-0051 - Tract Map Nos.
24136 and 25417 - Cooperative Aqreement
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Approve the Temecula Creek Line VV, Stage IV, Storm Drain Project No. 7-0-0051,
Tract Map Nos. 24136 and 25417 - Cooperative Agreement with the Riverside
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Cal-Paseo Del Sol, LLC and
the City of Temecula;
5.2 Authorize the execution and attestation of such agreement in its final form by the
City Manager and City Clerk.
Completion and Acceptance for the Rancho California Road at 1-15 Ramp Improvements
- Project No. PW95-12 (PW98-08)
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Accept the project for the Rancho California Road at I-15 Ramp Improvements -
Project No. PW95-12 (PW98-08) as complete;
6.2 File a Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one-year
Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract;
6.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after filing of the Notice of
Completion if no liens have been filed.
Solicitation of Construction Bids and Approval of the Plans and Specifications for Proiect
No. PW00-13 - FY99-00 - Slurry Seal Proiect
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of
Public Works to solicit construction bids for Project No. PW00-13 - FY99-00 Slurry
Seal Project.
Approval of the Plans and Specifications and authorization to solicit Construction Bids for
Pavement Manaqement System - Project No. PW00-14 -various streets
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Approve the Construction Plans and Specifications and authorize the Department of
Public Works to solicit construction bids for Pavement Management System -
Project No. PW00-14 - various streets.
RAAgenda\050900
3
9 GST Fiber Optics - Purchase of CitV-desiClnated Conduits
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1
Approve an agreement with GST Telecom in the amount of $108,000.00 to
purchase two (2) one quarter inch conduits for City use within GST Telecom fiber
optic's trench and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement;
9.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve additional purchases not to exceed the
contingency amount of $10,800.00, which is equal to 10% of the agreement amount.
10 Gradinq Aqreement with Lennar Homes to qrade a portion of Winchester Creek Park
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1 Approve the Grading Agreement to allow Lennar Homes to regrade a portion of
slope area within Winchester Creek Park in order to be consistent with the adjacent
grading improvements within Tract No. 29286;
10.2 Accept the improvement Agreement and Bonds to guarantee that Winchester Creek
Park is repaired to City Standards.
11
Professional Design Services Aqreement - IntelliClent Transportation System (ITS)
Deployment in Temecula - Project No. PW99-05
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1 Approve a Professional Design Services Agreement with Minagar and Associates
for the design of the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Deployment in
Temecula in the amount of $81,625.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the
agreement.
11.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders, not to exceed the
contingency amount of $8,162.50, which is equal to 10% of the agreement amount.
12
Completion and Acceptance for 1-15 Southbound Auxiliary Lane at Rancho California
Road - Project No. PW98-08
RECOMMENDATION:
12.1 Accept the project for the 1-15 Southbound Auxiliary Lane at Rancho California
Road - Project No. PW98-08, as complete;
12.2 File a Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one-year
year Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract;
12.3 Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after filing of the Notice of
Completion, if no liens have been filed.
RAAgenda\050900
4
13
Second Reading of Ordinance No. 2000-03
RECOMMENDATION:
13.1 Adopt an ordinance entitled:
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-03
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING PORTIONS OF CHAPTER 5.09 OF
THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING ADULT
BUSINESSES (PLANNING APPLICATION PA00-0041 )
RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO SCHEDULED MEETINGS OF
THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
AND
THE CITY OF TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
R:~Agenda\050900
5
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT MEETING
CALL TO ORDER: President Jeff Comerchero
ROLL CALL: DIRECTORS:
PUBLIC COMMENTS
R:~,genda\050900
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. CSD 2000-01
Resolution: No. CSD 2000-08
Naggar, Pratt, Roberrs, Stone, Comerchero
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 fort/yard 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
I Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
I Approve the minutes of March 28, 2000.
2 TCSD Proposed Rates and Charqes for FY 2000-01
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. CSD 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
ACKNOWLEDGING THE FILING OF A REPORT WITH
RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED RATES AND CHARGES FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2000-01 AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE
FOR A PUBLIC HEARING IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
6
3 Authorization to solicit Construction Bids for the Rancho California Sports Park
Parkincl Lot Rehabilitation Project- Project No. PW00-05
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Approve the Plans and Specifications and authorize the Public Works
Department to solicit Construction Bids for the Rancho California Sports
Park Parking Lot Rehabilitation Project- Project No. PW00-05.
4 Award of Construction Contract for the Rancho California Sports Park Tot Lot
ADA Upqrade - Project No. PW00-04CSD
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Award a contract for the Rancho California Sports Park Tot Lot ADA Upgrade -
Project No. PW00-04CSD - to McLaughlin Engineering & Mining, Inc. for
$92,187.00 and authorize the President to execute the contract;
4.2 Authorize the General Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the
contingency amount of $9,218.70 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount.
DISTRICT BUSINESS
5 Temecula Hiqh Hopes Pro.qram Presentation
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Receive and file the report and video presentation on the Temecula High
Hopes Program.
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
Next adjourned regular meeting: May 23, 2000, scheduled to follow the City Council Consent
Calendar, City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
R:~Agenda\050900
7
TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Ron Roberts
ROLL CALL AGENCY MEMBERS:
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Comerchero,
Next in Order:
Ordinance: No. RDA 2000-01
Resolution: No. RDA 2000-05
Naggar, Pratt, Stone. Roberrs
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
I Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of March 28, 2000.
2
Old Town Streetscape Project
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1
Approve an appropriation of $114,000.00 from Redevelopment Tax Increment
Fund Balance to fund a settlement agreement.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
AGENCY MEMBERS'REPORTS
R:~Agenda\050900
8
ADJOURNMENT
Next adjourned regular meeting: May 23, 2000, to follow the Community Services District Meeting,
City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
R:~Agenda\050900
9
RECONVENE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
PUBLIC HEARING
Any person may submit written comments to the City Council before a public
hearing or may appear and be heard in support of or in opposition to the approval
of the project(s) at the time of 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.
PUBLIC HEARING
14 Appeal of Condition of Approval Nos. 27 and 28 for Planninq Application No. PA97o0307
(Tentative Parcel Map No. 28627) bY the project applicant and an appeal of the Planning
Commission's approval of PlanninCl Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map No.
28627) by adiacent properly owners to the south
RECOMMENDATION:
14.1 Uphold the Planning Commission's decision.
COUNCIL BUSINESS
15 Consideration of Sponsorship Request for the Temecula Valley International Film Festival
RECOMMENDATION:
15.1 Consider the sponsorship request of $30,000 for the Temecula Valley lnternational
Film Festival;
15.2 Approve a transfer of $30,000 from the Community Service funding to the Economic
Development sponsorship budget.
16 Annual Adiustment of Development Impact Fees
RECOMMENDATION:
16.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA CONFIRMING THE ADJUSTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-2001
TO BE EFFECTIVE JULY 10, 2000 PURSUANT TO CHAPTER
15.06 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE AND
RESOLUTION NOS. 97-94 AND 98-30
R:~Agenda\050900
10
17 Consideration of methods to facilitate the public's understandincl of City Council aclenda
items - requested by Councilman Naggar
RECOMMENDATION:
17.1 Oral report will be given by Councilman Naggar.
18 Consideration of establishment of Council Districts - requested by Councilman Pratt
RECOMMENDATION:
18.1 Provide direction to staff on whether to research establishment of Council Districts in
the City of Temecula,
19 Fire Response/Incident Enhancement Proclram
RECOMMENDATION:
19.1 Approve the Enhanced Response and Emergency Incident Management Program
for two (2) vehicles;
19.2 Approve the purchase agreement with Public Safety Corporation for the Max
Responder software and that the City Manager execute the agreement in its final
form for a cost of $41,635.
20 Via Cordoba Multi-Way Stop Controls
RECOMMENDATION:
20.1 Consider the recommendation of the City Council Subcommittee to install multi-way
stop controls on Via Cordoba at Via Salito/Corte Bravo, Loma Linda Road, and
Corte Zorita;
20.2 If the City Council Subcommittee's recommendation were approved by the City
Council, adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ESTABLISHING MULTI-WAY STOP
INTERSECTIONS AT 1 ) VIA CORDOBA AND VIA
SALITO/CORTE BRAVO; 2} VIA CORDOBA AND LOMA LINDA
ROAD; AND 3) VIA CORDOBA AND CORTE ZORITA
20.3 If the City Council Subcommittee's recommendation were approved by the City
Council, direct staff to perform an evaluation of the multi-way stop controls after a
period of three (3) months;
20.4 Ratify Council action on April 25, 2000, directing the removal of traffic circle
improvements on Via Cordoba.
R:~,genda\050900
11
21 Trees for Temecula - Street Tree Replacement ProClram
RECOMMENDATION:
21.1 Receive and file the report regarding the implementation of the City's Street Tree
Replacement Program to replace damaged or missing trees in specific residential
neighborhoods within the City right-of-way areas.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
Next regular meeting: City Council, May 23, 2000, 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200
Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
R:~Agenda\050900
12
PROCLAMATIONS
AND
PRESENTATIONS
~ o
o o
ITEM 1
ITEM 2
MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED WORKSHOP MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
FEBRUARY 29, 2000
The City Council convened in an adjourned workshop meeting at 6:10 P.M., on Tuesday,
February 28, 2000, in the City Council Chambers of Temecula City Hall, 43200 Business Park
Drive, Temecula, California.
Present:
Councilmembers: Comerohero, Naggar, Pratt, Roberts, and Stone.
Absent: Councilmember: None.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Commenting on Pauba Ranch, Councilman Pratt advised that in 1962 he had appraised the
property at $185,897,000.00 and noted that he would make the report available for public viewing.
With regard to a moratorium, Councilman Pratt stated that, in his opinion, a moratorium
would give the City the necessary time to plan for a change, noting that a City Plan to slow
residential growth must be implemented to ensure proper traffic mitigation, local mass
transportation, and open space.
B. Mayor Stone commended and thanked staff in particular Assistant to the City Manager
Yates and Management Analyst Adams for their associated efforts with the City's State of Address
video.
COUNCIL BUSINESS
Growth Manaclement Workshop
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1
Receive staffs presentation and provide direction.
City Manager Nelson reviewed the purpose of the Growth Management Strategy Workshop,
advising that it would be the goal to identify realistic, tangible strategies that will set a course of
action, within the City as well as outside the City and in the County of Riverside, with respect to
future growth. He advised that staff will provide background information relative to planning and
traffic since the City's incorporation, will discuss various growth management tools that may be
effectively utilized, and will address future growth in an effort to reach a consensus as to how
the City should address future growth within the City.
By way of a PowerPoint presentation and maps, Public Works Director Hughes addressed past
traffic flow. current traffic flow, and future/anticipated traffic flow throughout the City. Proceeding
with the presentation, Mr. Hughes referenced the following:
· independent review of the City's intersection operations
R:Wlinutes~022900
1
· traffic engineering terms (Peak Periods, Level of Service, Gridlock, Traffic
modeling)
· three main problem corridors (I-15 & Winchester Road, 1-15 & Rancho
California Road, I-15 & SR 79 South), advising that currently the City has no
intersections operating at a Level of Service (LOS) F during peak periods;
that all intersections are currently operating at a Level of Service D or better
during peak periods with the exception of the Winchester/Ynez intersection
and the Winchester/Margarita intersection, which are currently operating at
LOS E; and that Winchester/Jefferson and Rancho California Road/Old Town
Front Street intersections are currently operating between LOS D and E and
that these four intersections have scheduled improvements, within the next 6
to 12 months to ensure a LOS of D or better
· City will be well equipped to handle its buildout.
By way of PowerPoint presentation, Deputy City Manager Thornhill discussed growth
management and the City's strategies to address growth management, noting the following:
· Importance of a General Plan - General Plan determines buildout
· Buildout (population) - originally predicated at 112,000 within City limits;
subsequent amendments to the General Plan have reduced that number to
106,000, noting that actual approvals are at a lower density than the General
Plan and, therefore, it is estimated that buildout population will be between
95,000 - 100,000
· Buildout (timeframe) - typically population slows down as a City matures;
referenced urban sprawl/leap frog development, noting that this type of
development usually creates serious traffic circulation problems; livable urban
places. noting that this type of development clearly defines urban core areas
· Future Vision - cities and County must cooperatively work to develop new
land use patterns
· Growth Management - solutions are regional in nature and require
intergovernmental cooperation to succeed a controlling urban sprawl;
General Plan most significant growth management tool.
In conclusion, City Manager Nelson noted that the City, within the next 12 to 18 months, has a
unique opportunity to participate in the changing of Temecula. As was addressed by Deputy
City Manager Thornhill, Mr. Nelson reiterated that the City is well equipped to address the
impacts of growth within the City but that it is apparent, the City will not be able to effectively
mitigate the traffic impacts and to provide the necessary levels of urban municipal services
within the unincorporated areas of Riverside County. Therefore, it is staff's recommendation to
the City Council to consider the growth management strategies, which include redirecting the
urban development to urban areas, preserving open spaces, continuing to pursue traffic
circulation improvements, maximize transportation network, which includes effectively utilizing
mass transit and other public transportation opportunities and to pursue interagency
cooperation/coordination by completely engaging in the Riverside County Integrated Plan
process.
Councilman Pratt suggested to proceed with a moratorium until the development and proper
implementation measures are in place to ensure proper enforcement of the Growth
Management Program.
R:\Minutes\022900
2
Due to his inability to attend the City Council meeting, City Clerk Jones read into the record a
letter from Mr. David Robinson who spoke in support of a moratorium until the completion of a
comprehensive traffic study and until reasonable and responsible growth can be accomplished,
At this time, Mayor Stone invited public input.
The following individuals spoke in opposition to the City imposing a moratorium on building:
Mr. Louie DiBernardo 44168 La Paz
Mr. Larry Green 36340 Linda Rosea
Mr, Thom Curry 38595 Calaveras Road
Mr. Paul Jacobs 32370 Corte Zamora
Mr. John Fill 43350 Business Park Drive
representing Southwest Riverside County Manufactures Council
Mr. Gene Wunderlich 36286 Province Drive
Mr, Dennis Frank 37820 Spring Valley Road
Mr. David Phares 31782 Via San Carlos
Mr. Sam Alhadeff
Mr. Robert VVheeler
Mr. Robert Newsom
Ms. Joan Sparkman
Mr. Jim Horn
Mr, Gary Youmarts
Mr. Jack Henz 43009 Manchester Court
Ms. Tomi Arborgast 27450 Ynez Road
representing Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce
Mr. Darrell Connerton 31618 Corte Rosario
Ms. Kathleen Newton 30903 Riverton Lane
Mr. William Griffith 15751 Rockfield Blvd
representing Wolf Creek Specific Plan
27555 Ynez Road
29090 Camino Alba
28910 Rancho California Road
40213 Colony Drive
31467 Sonoma Lane
32206 Corte Chatada
representing the Southwest Riverside Economic Development Corporation
Ms. Mary Jane OIhasso 31333 Heitz Lane
The above-mentioned individuals spoke in opposition to a moratorium and in support of the
proposed Growth Management Program for the following reasons:
· Impact/consequences on the overall City
· Continue to follow planned growth/growth management program
· Pursue regional solutions, continued interagency cooperation
· Encourage the County to work with impacted cities
· People have a choice of where to live
· Support programs to preserve and improve the City's current quality of life
· No positive benefits to the City
· Traffic issues/concerns will not be rectified by a moratorium
The following individuals spoke in support of a moratorium:
Mr. Tom Stillings
Ms. Michelle Anderson
Ms. May Lorah
Ms. Christi Johnson
35595 Glen Oaks Road
43797 Barletta Street
41886 Corte Lara
45631 Caminito Olite
R:\Minutes\022900
3
The above-mentioned individuals spoke in support of a moratorium, noting the following:
· City to be more proactive than reactive with regard to traffic issues
· Responsible growth
Mr. Rodolfo Martinez, 43655 Buckeye Road, addressed the City Council, commenting on
progress, sectore of the economy in the City, construction spending, and demography,
Ms. Pamela Miod, 31995 Via Saltio, provided information with regard to the use of an electric
trolley and new trolley technologies and offered her assistance in further pursuing this matter.
Ms. Adrian McGregor, 34555 Madera del Playa, addressed her concerns relative to water flow
and inquired what the County's vision is with regard to water flow.
Mr. David Mathewson, 31293 Durney Court, encouraged the City Council to continue the
process of identifying and responding to growth issues in this community and suggested a
General Plan update to facilitate in this process.
At 8:44 P.M., Mayor Stone called a brief recess and at 9:03 P.M., the City Council convened as
the Temecula Community Services District and the Temecula Redevelopment Agency. At 9:05
P.M., the City Council resumed with regularly scheduled City Council business.
By way of overheads, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero, as the newly appointed City Council
representative to the RTA, commented on efforts being explored with the RTA to increase bus
service throughout the City.
Ms. Susan Heffner, representing the RTA, commended the City on its proactive stand in
addressing future growth and addressed efforts being undertaken to achieve funding necessary
to fulfill the vision of the Temecula representatives at the RTA Board level.
Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero commended Deputy City Manager Thornhill and Public Works
Director Hughes on their detailed and comprehensive staff reports, noting that staff precisely
articulated the City's overall vision since incorporation. Since staff, this evening, described the
City's goals with regard to growth management and since these strategies clearly paralleled
with the desirous of numerous individuals, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero suggested that efforts
be undertaken to ensure better communication with the public. Mr. Comerchero relayed his
support of a General Plan update; reiterated that Level of Service D is an acceptable level; and
commented on the need for interagency cooperation (County, City of Murrieta, Lake Elsinore,
Hemet, San Jacinto, Perris, Canyon Lake, and Pechanga).
As the City representative on the Riverside County Transportation Commission, Councilman
Roberts commented on the following:
· Measure A Funds
· Establishment of a Regional Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
· Expansion of public transit options
· Providing non-automotive circulation options
Participation in the Integrated Planning Process
· Providing quarterly City Council Workshops with the County as it relates to the
CETAP process
R:~vlinutes%022900
4
Councilman Naggar relayed his concurrence with the updating of the City's General Plan;
requested that the possibility of a Design Review Board for residential construction be explored;
commented on the need for a regional traffic and growth plan, one which encompasses the
County as well; suggested the phasing of projects and that each phase must mitigate traffic to a
LOS D or better; noted that the State/County/Cities must address the traffic issues on I-15 and
215; supported the electric trolley system; favored quarterly growth management meetings with
the County; supported a study to explore an apartment density reduction; opposed a
moratorium and clustering; relayed his support of urban limit lines; and expressed some
concern with the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee.
Concurring with many of the previously made comments made by the City Councilmembers,
Councilman Pratt requested that staff explore the following: responsible growth, open space,
local traffic circulation management for the existing conditions, existing traffic circulation
calming, and local public transportation. Mr. Pratt recommended that the imposition of a
moratorium be delayed to the March 21, 2000 City Council meeting in order to further address
key issues.
Providing some City history relative to growth and population and its impacts on the City, Mayor
Stone commented on the City's successes such as the parks, recreation center, paramedic
units, Fire Station, City Hall, etc. and addressed projects undertaken to address traffic
challenges, noting that those challenges have been adequately addressed. Viewing this
workshop as extremely beneficial, Mayor Stone suggested that the proposed Growth
Management Program be implemented and that it be reviewed in a year to determine its
SUCCESS,
Additional City Council discussion ensued as to the agendizing of a moratorium at the March 21,
2000 City Council meeting with Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero and Councilman Roberts noting
that this matter must be resolved. With regard to potential zone changes at lower SR 79, which
could potentially result in more housing, Councilman Roberts requested that the County be
apprised that the area of discussion is a farming area and that it should remain as such.
In closing, City Manager Nelson recapped the City Council's direction, noting the following:
· Consider information and testimony provided
· Direct staff to agendize formal consideration of the Growth Management Strategies
at the March 21, 2000 City Council meeting
· Separately agendize for the March 21, 2000 City Council meeting the elimination of
a moratorium
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
No comments.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
No comments.
R:\Minutes\022900
5
ADJOURNMENT
At 10:06 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, March 21, 2000, at
7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
R:\Minutes\022900
6
MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
MARCH 2t, 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, and Stone.
Absent:
Councilmember: Roberrs.
PRELUDE MUSIC
The prelude music was provided by Iva Brough.
INVOCATION
The invocation was given by Pastor James Field of First Baptist Church of Temecula.
ALLEGIANCE
The salute to the Flag was led by Councilman Pratt.
PRESENTATIONS/PROCLAMATIONS
Video Presentation of State of the City Address
For the attending and viewing public, Mayor Stone requested that the State of the City Address
video be shown at this time.
There being no objection to Mayor Stone's request, Consent Calendar will be considered later
in the meeting and that Agenda Item Nos. 18 and 19 will be considered out of order.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
A. Ms. Charolette Fox, 32800 Hupa Drive, representing the Girl Scouts, Troop 863, advised
that the Troop was in attendance in order to work on its Active Citizenship.
B. Dr. Leslie Navran, 43027 Corte Fresca, relayed his and his neighbors dismay with the
sounds emanating from the open-air bar on Front Street. In response to Dr. Navran, Mayor Pro
Tem Comerchero noted that the Planning Department staff is exploring the matter.
C. In an effort to maintain the rural atmosphere and not viewing it as aesthetically pleasing
and/or compatible, Ms. Rowena Cook, 44065 Sheldon Court, requested that the Council
reconsider to not install the stop sign at the Santiago/Old Town Front StreetJFirst Street
intersection.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
A. Having attended the Murrieta Creek Committee meeting, Councilman Pratt briefly
apprised the Council of on-going efforts by this Committee.
R:\Minutes\032100
1
B. Councilman Naggar welcomed the Japanese exchange students to the City of
Temecula.
C. In response to Councilman Naggar's concern, Public Works Director Hughes advised
that Caltrans is planning to rehabilitate the surface of 1-15, both north and southbound lanes
within City limits, and that the project should commence the end of May.
D. Having recently attended a National League of Cities Conference in Washington, D.C.,
Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero commented on issues of discussion such as the elimination of
racism in the United States and the issue of taxation of the Internet.
On behalf of the Temecula Area Women's Club, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero presented
to the Council a miniature version of the Mission bell that was dedicated and placed at the
Temecula Museum.
E, Mayor Stone commended the Police Department on its efforts associated with the
E.R.A.C.I.T. Program, a program which deters drunk driving in the City.
F. As per the Temecula Valley High School tennis coach, Mayor Stone advised staff that
most of the lights at the tennis courts are not properly functioning and requested staff to explore
the matter.
G. Commenting on the aesthetically pleasing appearance of all entrances to the City, Mayor
Stone commented on the need for median improvements on Winchester Road and requested
that the Community Services Commission review this matter.
H. In response to Mayor Stone, Deputy City Manager Thornhill addressed several
inaccuracies printed in a local newspaper with regard to the Riverside County Planning
Commission and the City's continual efforts to review County projects, advising that two staff
members have been appointed to the RCIP and will be involved where appropriate.
At this time, Council Business Item Nos. 18 and 19 were considered together and out of order.
COUNCIL BUSINESS
Agenda Item Nos. 18 and 19 were considered to~lether and out of order
18 Growth ManaGement Proqram
RECOMMENDATION:
18.1 Approve the Growth Management Program.
19 Residential Building Permit Moratorium
RECOMMENDATION:
19.1 To not adopt a Residential Building Permit Moratorium but proceed with a
Growth Management Program.
City Manager Nelson reviewed the staff report (of record) and referenced the City's goals with
regard to the Growth Management Program.
R:\Minutes\032100
2
By way of a PowerPoint presentation, Deputy City Manager Thornhill commented on the
strategic goals and action plan of the Growth Management Program, noting the following:
that staff is actively involved in the update of the County's Integrated
Plan; that two staff members have been solely dedicated to monitor the County
Integrated Plan
that monthly progress reports will be provided to the City Council
that community participation in the County's planning efforts is greatly welcomed
and appreciated
that information with regard to the Integrated Plan would be posted on the City's
Web with links to the County
that a quarterly newsletter, if approved by the City Council, will be published and
distributed to the residents; first publication to be completed by May
that, as per City Council direction, another community survey will be completed
that County staff will update the City Council on its Integrated Plan on a quarterly
basis
that collaboration with other Temecula Valley jurisdictions is encouraged (School
District, City of Murrieta, and other agencies, etc.)
that during the Integrated Plan process, staff is requesting that the County not
approve any project that would increase traffic above the existing General Plan
densities
that the redistribution of land uses will be closely examined
that collaboration with the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians is encouraged
In conclusion, City Manager Nelson noted that the proposed Growth Management Plan is an
aggressive and proactive Plan; that it will address the future challenges the growth will have on
the City; and that staff are proposing the following measures to ensure the success of the Plan:
to appoint City Councilmembers and staff to attend all County of
Riverside Integrated Plan meetings as well as any proposed developments that
offset the City
to solely dedicate two staff positions to work on the County's Integrated
Plan process and development within the County
to prepare and distribute quarterly publications to the community
regarding the County's Integrated Plan process; first publication to be distributed
in May
to conduct a citizens' survey and to hold quarterly workshops regarding
the Integrated Plan
to complete a focused review of the City's General Plan; to review the
Development Impact Fees in order to explore open space acquisitions
to continue to aggressively pursue the City's Capital Improvement
Program
to continue with Category I and II street striping and paving improvements
to aggressively pursue Measure A Funds for regional road improvements to
ensure the City receives its equitable share
to continue efforts to establish a regional Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
(TUMF) in order to provide the ability to build more regional infrastructure
improvements within the City; to improve traffic signal operation hired a
technician solely dedicated to improve traffic signal coordination throughout the
City.
R:\Minutes\032100
3
Viewing the City's growth, as a developed City, appropriate, and confident that the City has
measures in place to address and mitigate the traffic impacts of growth within the City, City
Manager Nelson noted that it would be inappropriate forthe County to grow as an urban area
creating impacts to the City, ones which the City will be unable to address and mitigate. Mr.
Nelson requested the approval of the City's Growth Management Program.
With regard to the moratorium, Deputy City Manager Thornhill relayed staffs opposition to a
moratorium and its support of the Growth Management Program.
At this time, Mayor Stone invited public input.
Although he had left the meeting, it was noted the Mr. Greg Morrison was in support of the
Growth Management Program,
The following individuals spoke in opposition to a building moratorium and relayed their support
of the Growth Management Program:
Mr. Bob Lopshire 40244 Atmore Court
Ms. Tomi Arbogast 27450 Ynez Road (representing Chamber
of Commerce
Mr. Bill Harker 31130 South General Kearney Road
(noted that recent infrastructure has greatly addressed the City traffic
congestion concerns.)
Mr. Rudy Martinez 43655 Buckeye Road
(addressed population growth and demographic diversity and encouraged
consensus on these issues and relayed his support of the Growth
Management Program.)
Mr. Doug Woelke 27513 Jimson Circle
Mr. Harold Provin 44750 Villa Del Sun
Mr. Dennis Frank 37820 Spring Valley Road
Mr. Paul Jacobs 32370 Corte Zamora
At 8:41 P.M., this time, Mayor Stone called a short recess and reconvened the meeting at 8:52
P.M.
Ms. Joan Sparkman
Mr. Sam Alhadeff
Mr. William Kelley
Mr. Bob Newsom
Ms. Lori Stone-Rubin
Ms. Maryann Edwards
40213 Colony Drive
27555 Ynez Road, #203
31542 Via San Carlos
28910 Rancho California Road, #104
42913 Calle Londe
(encouraged City participation in the development of the County
Integrated Plan.)
Mr. Ray Johnson 26785 Camino Seco
(encouraged strengthening the Growth Management Plan to ensure
mitigation by the County.)
Mr. David Alvarado 33432 Corte Ebano
Mr. William Griffith 15751 Rockfield Blvd., #100
Mr. Wilyira Johnson 29400 Rancho California Road
Further addressing the City's proposed Growth Management Program, Ms. Adrian McGregor,
34555 Madera del Playa, commented on the County's feasibility to mitigate traffic impacts to the
City; voiced concern with regard to high density; and addressed future water effects.
R:\Minutes\032100
4
M r. Gene Frick, 17205 Monterey Road, encouraged staff to explore the rate of growth, noting
that the City's current growth rate is not sustainable.
The following individuals spoke in suppod of a moratorium:
Ms. May Lorah 41886 Code Lara
(Citizens First of Temecula Valley, relayed her
suppodofatemporary moratorium during the implementation period of the
Growth Management Program.)
Ms. Michelle Anderson 43797 Barletta Street
(relayed her suppod of a temporary moratorium.)
Ms. Pare Miod 31995 Via Saltio
(Citizens First of Temecula Valley)
(submitted a petition in suppod of a moratorium and relayed her suppod of an
emergency moratorium limited to the construction of new permits not those
already issued for residential track homes in the City or County; commented on
the need for open space.)
Mr. Clif Hewlett 42890 Calle Codo
(De Luz 2000/Save Walker Basin)
(supported a moratorium or to implement the Growth Management
Program but ensuring it has the needed measure to ensure successful
Enforcement; recommended that the County stop all further residential
Development in the County until the completion of the Integrated Plan.)
Mr. Robert Wheeler 29090 Camino Alba
(spoke in suppod of a moratorium or the implementation of a Growth
Management Program which clearly address mitigation measures to
ensure enforceability of the Plan.)
In response to Mr. John Lynn, 32237 Placer Belair, Deputy City Manager Thornhill advised that
staff does provide input and comments on County projects which could impact the City and will
continue to do so.
There being no additional public comments, Mayor Stone welcomed City Council input.
Advising that staff and the Councilmembers have expended a tremendous effort in the creation
of this Growth Management Action Plan, Councilman Naggar referenced the recent Traffic
Circulation Element update, noting that it is the City's goal to ensure that all levels of service E
and F be eliminated by buildout.
To ensure the City the ability to measure the success of this Action Plan, Councilman Naggar
offered the following comments and requested the following amendments:
inform the City Council of all construction, at each level of approval, within the
sphere of influence;
1. Inter-A<~encv Coordination -A. 6. include verbiage as follows: that any
amendments that would result in increased traffic levels and which were not able
to be mitigated would be denied;
1. A. 6. - should read as follows: Deny General Plan amendments, change of
zones, Specific Plan amendments, or Specific Plan approvals within the City ...
increased traffic levels should be defined as anything higher than service level D;
that during the Riverside County Integrated Plan process, the Council will review
any Specific Plans, General Plan amendments, zone changes that will increase
density in the County;
R:\Minutes\032100
5
It was noted by City Attorney Thorson that General Plan amendments, change of
zone, and Specific Plan amendments require City Council approval;
1. A. 8b. should read as follows: Proactively phase and fund infrastructure
to keep pace with paralleled proposed development projects;
2. Redirect Urban Development to Urban Areas - City Council direct the
Planning Commission to approve projects at the lowest allowable zoning
density and to take into account any amenities the project may be
offering;
General Plan Committee should evaluate and determine whether or not to
change the estimated number of dwelling units in the City, should review entitled
properties, vesting rights, and determine whether or not it is appropriate for the
City may regulate nonentitled building permits;
4. Traffic Circulation System Improvements - direct the Planning
Commission to consider strict phasing restrictions;
4. B. 1. - should read as follows: Determine how the RCIP and CETAP
will address and miti~ate the impact that future growth will have on the
I-15 and I-215 freeway system; it was recommended to involve neighboring
cities;
4. C. 3. - should read as follows: Reevaluate DIF fees to ensure that
appropriate mitigation fees are being charged and determine when the fees are
char,qed;
It was noted by Deputy City Manager Thornhill that the City adheres to legal
provisions as it relates to the charging of these fees;
5. Maximize existina Transportation Network Efficiency - aggressively
pursue traffic signal coordination; realign 79N to a City road to acquire jurisdiction;
5. B. 2c. - immediately pursue the electric trolley system as well as other
transportation alternatives as noted in d - i.
Councilman Naggar reiterated that although he is not desirous of suing the County, it was
requested that City Attorney Thorson explore the City's litigation options. With regard to
Diamond Valley Lake, Mr. Naggar commented on the position the City must take to prevent the
potential impacts this project could have on Winchester Road. As to Ms. McGregor's comments
relative to water issues, Councilman Naggar requested that this matter be explored in more
detail. It was suggested that a workshop be scheduled with the Water District to discuss the
District's ability to meet the water needs in light of the proposed growth. In closing,
Councilman Naggar relayed his opposition to a moratorium if his proposed amendments were
included in the Action Plan and recommended that the Plan be reviewed in one year.
Mayor Pro Tem Comerohero echoed Councilman Naggar's comments with regard to Diamond
Valley Lake and its potential impact on Winchester Road and as well spoke in support of a
workshop with the Water District. With regard to the Action Plan, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero
made the following comments/amendments:
1. Inter-Aqencv Coordination - A. 4d. - concurred with conducting
another citizen survey, noting that the wording of the survey is critical and, therefore,
requested that the survey be reviewed by the City Council prior to it being distributed to
the public;
A. 6. - requested that during the RCIP plannina process be deleted from
Paragraph;
R:\Minutes\032100
6
3. Preserve Open Space to create Buffers and protect Aariculture and
Valuable Habitat Areas - determine how much property is available within City
limits in the event funds were available and determine a price per acre;
3. A. 4. - should read as follows: Apply for and utilize State Bond Funds
(Proposition 12 and 13 funds)...
4. Traffic Circulation System Improvements -A. 3b. - critical that this be
pursued;
4. A. 4b. - because of common borders and issues, include conversation with the
City of Murrieta in an effort to achieve a common opinion and goal which may
then be presented to the County;
4. C. 2 - spoke in support of independent traffic analysis;
5. Maximize existinQ Transportation Network Efficiency - B. 2b. - provide the
infrastructure necessary to provide these fuels and keep abreast of technological
advances (CNG stations).
Councilman Pratt requested that a traffic count be conducted in order to obtain a baseline;
commended staff on their efforts with regard to the Action Plan; and with regard to regional
improvements to circulation systems, suggested freeway management.
Mayor Stone relayed his opposition to a moratorium. After consulting the City Attorney, Mayor
Stone reiterated that existing development agreements or vesting Tentative Tract Maps are
exempt from a moratorium or building caps, advising that legal findings must be established in
order to impose a moratorium.
By way of overheads, Mayor Stone clarified the impact County development has and continues
to have on the City, advising that the City has approved 425 single-family homes since
incorporation (1989), noting that the County, within the same timeframe, has approved 8,000.
He noted that County anticipates to approve another 30,000 homes and the City another 3,500.
Mr. Stone emphasized that the City must take a proactive approach to ensure the County will be
able to mitigate impacts to the City.
Mayor Stone relayed his opposition to any increase in sales tax for the buying of open space
and suggested that the exchange of land in lieu of fees to increase open space be explored.
For Mayor Stone, City Manager Nelson advised that the Development Impact Fees will be
reviewed by the City Council in April.
In closing, Mayor Stone reiterated his opposition to a moratorium and support for the Growth
Management Action Plan and echoed Councilman Naggar's suggestion that this Action Plan be
readdressed in one year.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero moved to approve the Growth Management Program.
The motion was seconded by Councilman Naggar and voice vote reflected approval with the
exception of Councilman Roberts who was absent.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero moved to deny the residential building permit
moratorium. The motion was seconded by Councilman Pratt and voice vote reflected approval
with the exception of Councilman Roberts who was absent.
At 11:08 P.M., Mayor Stone called a shod recess and reconvened the meeting at
11:16P.M.
R:\Minutes\032100
7
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Standard Ordinance Adoption Procedure
RECOMMENDATON:
1.1 Motion to waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the
agenda.
2 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
2.1 Approve the minutes of January 11, 2000.
3 Resolution Approvina List of Demands
RECOMMENDATION:
3.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-19
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS
AS SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT A
4 City Treasurer's Report as of January 31. 2000
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Receive and file the City Treasurer's Report as of January 31, 2000.
5 License Aqreement between the Temecula Town Association and the City of Temecula
for office space at the Temecula Community Center
RECOMMENDATION:
5.1 Approve the License Agreement between the City of Temecula and the Temecula
Town Association ('R'A) for use of office space at the Temecula Community Center
(TCC).
Adoption of Resolution initiating3 annexation proceedinqs for the Vail Ranch Specific Plan
Area - PA00-0021
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1 Make a finding that the Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted on July 28, 1998 for
the Redhawk/Vail Ranch Annexation (PA98-0205) addresses all environmental
impacts associated with this project;
6
R:\Minutes\032100
8
6.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-20
A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA REQUESTING THE
COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS REORGANIZING THE
JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN INHABITED
TERRITORY DESCRIBED HEREIN AS THE VAIL RANCH
SPECIFIC PLAN AREA TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE
CORPORATE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO
INCLUDE SAID TERRITORY WITHIN THE TEMECULA
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND TO DETACH SAID
TERRITORY FROM CSA t43, CSA 152, AND THE RIVERSIDE
COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT; DESIGNATED AS
PART OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0021
6.3 Direct staff to prepare and submit application and associated materials for
annexation to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO).
Councilman Pratt abstained with regard to this Item.
7 Review of Citv's Conflict of Interest Code
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-21
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE CITY'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST
CODE
8 Third Amendment to Aqreement with P & D Consultants for Contract Buildinq Inspectors
RECOMMENDATION:
8,1
Approve a Third Amendment to an Agreement for Consultant Services with P & D
Consultants in an amount not to exceed $76,075 to provide supplemental building
inspection services to the Building and Safety Department for the remainder of the
fiscal year.
9
Substitute Aqreements and Bonds for Public Improvements in Tract No. 25892 (located
on the south side of Pauba Road between Ynez Road and Mamarita Road)
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1 Accept the Substitute Subdivision Improvement Agreement and replacement
securities for Public Improvements in Tract No. 25892;
R:\Minutes\032100
9
10
9.2 Authorize release of the Faithful Performance, Labor and Materials, and Subdivision
Monumentation securities on file;
9.3 Direct the City Clerk to so advise the developer and surety.
Award of Construction Contract for Pala Road Bridee Improvements Environmental
M itiqation - Project No. PW97-15(EM)
RECOMMENDATION:
10.1 Award the construction contract for Pala Road Bridge lmprovements Environmental
Mitigation - Project No. PW97-15(EM) - to Habitat West, Inc. of Escondido,
California, in the amount of $74,163.00 contingent on the acquisition of the access
easement 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 $7,416.30 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount.
11
Reimbursement Aqreement with Eastern Municipal Water District First Street Extension -
Proiect No. PW95-08
RECOMMENDATION:
11.1 Approve the Reimbursement Agreement with Eastern Municipal Water District
(EMWD) for the cost to install sewer force mains and a pump station made
necessary for the construction of First Street Extension - Project No. PW95-08 -
and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement.
12
Reimbursement Aqreement with Rancho California Water District First Street Extension -
Proiect No. PW95-08
RECOM M ENDATION:
12.1 Approve the Reimbursement Agreement with Rancho California Water District
(RCWD) for the cost to relocate and install water improvements made necessary by
the construction of First Street Extension (Bridge) - Project No. PW95-08 - and
authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement.
Mayor Stone abstained with regard to this issue.
13 Professional Services A~lreement for First Street Extension - Project No. PW95-08
RECOMMENDATION:
13.1 Approve a Professional Services Agreement for Construction Support Services -
Project No. PW95-08 - to Frederic R. Harris, Inc. for $30,790.00 and authorize the
Mayor to execute the contract;
13.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the
contingency amount of $3,079.00 which is equal to 10% of the contract amount.
Mayor Stone abstained with regard to this Item.
R:\Minutes\032100
10
14 Professional Services Aqreement for First Street Extension - Proiect No. PW95-08
RECOMMENDATION:
14.1
Approve a Professional Services Agreement for Structural Bridge Inspection for the
First Street Extension - Project No. PW95-08 - to Caltrop Engineering Corporation
for $45,402.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract;
14.2 Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the
contingency amount of $4,540.20, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount.
Mayor Stone abstained with regard to this Item.
15 Completion and Acceptance of Street Name SiCin Replacement - Project No. PW98-18
RECOMMENDATION:
15.1 Accept the project Street Name Sign Replacement - Project No. PW98-18 as
complete;
15,2 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;
15.3 Release the Labor and Materials Labor Bond seven (7) months after filing of the
Notice of Completion if no liens have been filed.
16
Completion and Acceptance for Traffic Siclnal Installation. Marclarita Road at Pauba Road,
Marclarita Road at Pio Pico Road - Proiect No. PW98-12 & PW98-13
RECOMMENDATION:
16.1 Accept the project Traffic Signal Installation, Margarita Road at Pauba Road,
Margarita Road at Pio Pico Road - Project No. PW98-12 & PW98-13 as complete,
as constructed by DBX, Inc. of Temecula, California;
16.2 Direct the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion;
16.3 Accept the one-year Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract;
17 Traffic Awareness Now (T.A.N.) FundinCi ReCiuest
RECOMMENDATION:
17.1 Approve the request for financial participation in an amount not to exceed $15,000
for the Traffic Awareness Now courteous driving campaign.
MOTION: Mayor Pro Tem Comerohero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1-5 and
8-17 (Item Nos. 6 and 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. 12, 13, and 14 and Councilman Roberts who was absent.
R:\Minutes\0321 O0
11
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS SEPARATELY DISCUSSED
Adoption of Resolution initiating annexation proceedinqs for the Vail Ranch Specific Plan
Area - PA00-0021
RECOMMENDATION:
6.1
Make a finding that the Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted on July 28, 1998
for the Redhawk/Vail Ranch Annexation (PA98-0205) addresses all
environmental impacts associated with this project;
6.2 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-20
A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA REQUESTING THE
COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS REORGANIZING THE
JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES OF CERTAIN INHABITED
TERRITORY DESCRIBED HEREIN AS THE VAIL RANCH
SPECIFIC PLAN AREA TO INCLUDE WITHIN THE
CORPORATE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA TO
INCLUDE SAID TERRITORY WITHIN THE TEMECULA
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT AND TO DETACH SAID
TERRITORY FROM CSA 143, CSA 152, AND THE RIVERSIDE
COUNTY WASTE MANAGEMENT DISTRICT; DESIGNATED AS
PART OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA00-0021
6.3
Direct staff to prepare and submit application and associated materials for
annexation to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO).
Deputy City Manager Thornhill presented the staff report (of record).
Councilman Pratt advised that he has received communication from the Redhawk residents,
expressing concern that LAFCO may not approve the proposed annexation for Vail Ranch.
In response to Councilman Pratt, Deputy City Manager Thornhill advised that staff has
investigated the proposal with LAFCO and that staff is of the opinion that LAFCO would not
accept the application of annexation without giving it serious consideration. Mr. Thornhill
reiterated that the City is not promoting this annexation, noting that the request has come from
the Vail Ranch residents.
Mr. Ken Johnson, 44728 Corte Valencia, requested that the City Council temporarily withdraw
the annexation proposal to ensure the concerns/issues of the Redhawk residents have been
addressed.
Mr. Sam Alhadeff, 27555 Ynez Road, #203, representing Excel Legacy Corporation and MDC
Vail, spoke in opposition to the annexation of Vail Ranch.
Mr. Ron Turco, 45436 Via Jaca (Redhawk resident), relayed his support of the request to annex
Vail Ranch, noting that such a decision should be determined by the Vail Ranch residents
without the input of the Redhawk residents.
R:\Minutes\032100
12
In light of the results of the November 1999 Election, Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero, echoed by
Mayor Stone, relayed his support of proceeding with the annexation and forwarding it to
LAFCO.
Concurring with Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero's comment, Councilman Naggar offered the
following motion:
MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 6, including the
adoption of Resolution No. 2000-20. The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Comerchero
and voice vote reflected approval with the exception of Councilman Pratt who abstained and
Councilman Roberts who was absent.
7 Review of Citv's Conflict of Interest Code
RECOMMENDATION:
7.1 Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-2'1
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AMENDING THE CITY'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST
CODE
City Clerk Jones briefly reviewed the staff report (as per agenda material), clarifying that the
position of Deputy Director of Public Works should be added to the Designated City of
Employees and Disclosure Categories.
MOTION: Councilman Naggar moved to approve Consent Calendar Item No. 7. The motion
was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero and voice vote reflected approval with the
exception of Councilman Roberts who was absent.
At 11:40 P.M., the City Council convened as the Temecula Community Services District and the
Temecula Redevelopment Agency. At 11:52 P.M., the City Council resumed with regularly
scheduled City Council business.
COUNCIL BUSINESS
18
Growth Manaqement Action Plan
RECOMMENDATION:
6.4 Approve the Growth Management Action Plan.
(Previously discussed; see pages 2-7.)
R:\Minutes\032100
13
19 Residential Buildin.q Permit Moratorium
RECOMMENDATION:
6.5 Determine whether to endorse or reject the idea of a Residential Building Permit
Moratorium.
(Previously discussed; see pages 2-7.)
20 Additional Amendments to the Citv's Requlation of Helium Balloons
RECOMMENDATION:
6.6 Direct staff to present this issue to the Planning Commission for a recommendation
to the Council on any needed Ordinance amendments.
Mayor Stone provided a brief overview of the matter.
Advising that Southern California Edison does not necessarily oppose the usage of balloons for
outdoor advertising, Mr. Bob Lopez, representing Southern California Edison, advised that
SCE's concern is the raising of the balloon height limit, which could lead to unfortunate power
outages and, therefore, requested that while the Planning Commission reviews the associated
ordinance, special consideration be given to the securing of these balloons.
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
Commending the Public Works Department on a job well done, City Manager Nelson advised
that Rainbow Canyon Road will be open as of Friday, March 24, 2000.
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
City Attorney Thorson noted that there were no reportable actions from Closed Session under
the Brown Act.
ADJOURNMENT
At 11:56 P.M., the City Council meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday, March 28, 2000, at
7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
R:\Minutes\032100
14
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 $2,337,140.18.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, this 9th day of May 2000.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
Resos2000-
1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, hereby do certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. 2000- was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Temecula on the 9th day of May, 2000 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
Resos 2000-
2
CITY OF TEMECULA
LIST OF DEMANDS
04/20/00 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
04/27/00 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
05/09/00 TOTAL CHECK RUN:
04/27/00 TOTAL PAYROLL RUN:
TOTAL LIST OF DEMANDS FOR 05109/00 COUNCIL MEETING:
DISBURSEMENTS BY FUND:
CHECKS:
001
120
165
190
191
193
194
210
280
300
320
330
340
GENERAL FUND
DEVELOPMENT iMPACT FUND
RDA DEV-LOW/MOD SET ASIDE
COMMUNITY SER~qCES DISTRICT
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PRO J. FUND
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY-CIP
INSURANCE FUND
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
SUPPORT SERVICES
FACILITIES
106
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
TOSD SERVICE LEVEL D
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY-CIP
INSURANCE FUND
INFORMATION SYSTEMS
SUPPORT SERVICES
FACILITIES
TOTAL BY FUND:
$ 247,482.59
204,970,62
1,703,549.36
1,190,825,05
93,533.40
66,240.61
7,345.36
18,449.94
445.39
710,980.62
14,154.28
342.72
29,158.00
5,081.81
130,865.18
3,888.37
32,566.06
4.38
2,018.25
426.77
1,658.54
416.69
3,534.43
4,620.95
$ 2,156,002.57
$ 2,337,140.18
, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
, HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE
04/20/00 12:41 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
FUND TITLE
001 GENERAL FUND
120 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FUND
165 RDA DEV- LOW/NOD SET ASIDE
190 COHMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A
TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C
194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D
210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND
280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - CIP
300 INSURANCE FUND
INFORHATION SYSTEMS
330 SUPPORT SERVICES
340 FACILITIES
AMOUNT
88o166.07
22,238.56
566.23
7°480.48
218.00
4,681.58
141.99
15,423.66
425.18
TOTAL 247°482.59
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 1
04/20/00 12:41 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
V(XJCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
DATE NUMBER NAME
ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
61877
61877
61877
61877
61878
61879
61879
61883
61884
61884
61885
61886
61886
61886
61886
61886
61886
61886
61886
61887
61888
61888
61889
61889
61890
61890
61891
61891
61891
61891
61891
61891
61891
61891
61891
61891
61891
61891
61891
04/13/00
04/13/00
04/13/00
04/13/00
04/13/00
04/13/00
04/13/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
004075 R & R PAPER & PACKAGING
004075 R & R PAPER & PACKAGING
004075 R & R PAPER & PACKAGING
004075 R & R PAPER & PACKAGING
004094 FINELINE BUILDERS INC
003786 WESTSIDE CITY II, LLC
003786 WESTSIDE CITY II, LLC
ALM, HITCH
003607 AMERICAN FIRST AID & SA
003607 AMERICAN FIRST AID & SA
004022 AMERICAN MINI STORAGE,
003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV
003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV
003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV
003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV
003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV
003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV
003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV
003285 AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERV
000101 APPLE ONE, INC.
003203 ARTISTIC EMBROIDERY
003203 ARTISTIC EMBROIDERY
002648 AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN C
002648 AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN C
000122 B S N SPORTS
000122 B S N SPORTS
004037 BARNEY & BARNEY
004037 BARNEY & BARNEY
004037 BARNEY & BARNEY
004037 BARNEY & BARNEY
004037 BARNEY & BARNEY
004037 BARNEY & BARNEY
004037 BARNEY & BARNEY
004037 BARNEY & BARNEY
004037 BARNEY & BARNEY
004037 BARNEY & BARNEY
004037 BARNEY & BARNEY
004037 BARNEY & BARNEY
004037 BARNEY & BARNEY
POLY FOAM FOR MUSEUM
TISSUE FOR MUSEUM
RUBBLE WRAP FOR MUSEUM
POLY FOAM FOR MUSEUM
190-185-999-5230
190-185-999-5230
190-185-999-5230
190-185-999-5230
TENANT IMPROVEMENTS -FRONT ST 001-170-502-5219
REIMBURSE DIF FEES PER ARGMNT 120-1270
REIMBURSE DIF FEES PER ARGMNT 120'199-4242
REIMB:SEARS DELIVERY COST 001-170-502-5242
FIRST AID SUPPLIES:SPT/SKATE P 190-183-999-5305
FIRST AID SUPPLIES:SPT/SKATE P 190-183-999-5380
CITY RECORDS STORAGE UNIT 001-120-999-5277
MAR MAT/TOWEL RENTAL:CITY HALL
MAR MAT/TOWEL RENTAL:MNTC FAC
MAR MAT/TOWEL RENTAL:SR CTR
MAR MAT/TOWEL RENTAL:CRC
MAR MAT/TOWEL RENTAL:TCC
MAR UNIFORMS RENTAL:PW MNTC
MAR UNIFORMS RENTAL:TCSD MNTC
CREDIT:DBLE CHRG FOR DAWNSON
340-199-701-5250
340-199-702-5250
190-181-999-5250
190-182-999-5250
190-184-999-5250
001-164-601-5243
190-180-999-5243
190-180-999-5243
TEMP HELP W/E 04/01 HOOVER 001-161-999-5118
STAFF SHIRTS & SWEATSHIRTS
SALES TAX
190-180-999-5243
190-180-999-5243
EMERG ROAD SVCS:VARIOUS MBSHPS 001-162-999-5214
EMERG ROAD SVDS:VARIOUB MBSHPS 001-164-601-5214
RECREATION SUPPLIES:SPT FLAGS 190-183-999-5380
RECREATION SUPPLIES:SPT FLAGS 190-180-999-5301
MAR WORKERS' COMP PREMIUM 001-2370
MAR WORKERS' COMP PREMIUM 165'2370
MAR WORKERSt COMP PREMIUM 190-2370
MAR WORKERS' COMP PREMIUM 191'2370
MAR WORKERS' COMP PREMIUM 193-2370
MAR WORKERSI COMP PREMIUM 194-2370
MAR WORKERSI COMP PREMIUM 280-2370
MAR WORKERSI COMP PREHIUM 300-2370
MAR WORKERS' COMP PREMIUM 320-2370
MAR WORKERS' COMP PREMIUM 330-2370
MAR WORKERS' COMP PREMIUM 340'2370
MAR WORKERS' COMP PREMIUM 190'181'999-5112
MAR WORKERS' COMP PREMIUM 190'181'999-5112
60.00
9.36
108.00
204.72
16,995.00
49,019.82
44,513.58
13.45
41.35
41.35
124.00
104.25
42.75
46.20
104.15
64.20
74.95
105.00
17.50'
468.00
234.00
18.14
53.00
212.00
78.32
111.89
3,873.54
89.43
1,421.73
.71
71.17
16.02
32.03
7.08
92.08
12.64
293.80
1.27
.72
382.08
16,995.00
93,533.40
13.45
82.70
124.00
524.00
468.00
252.14
265.00
190.21
5,912.22
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE Z
04/20/00 12:41 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHEEK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
EHEEK
AMOUNT
61892 04/20/00 004113 BLACK VOICE
PUBLIC NOTICE:R.C.SPTS PRK LOT 210-190-145-5801
91.00
91.00
61893 04/20/00 BUSINESS FURNITURE SOLU REFUND: FORFEIT FEE 190-183-4994
30.00
30.00
61894 04/20/00 002878 BUSINESS INFORMATION SO ON-SITE COMPUTER TRAINING 320-199-999-5261
600.00
600.00
61895 04/20/00 000387 CAREER TRACK SEMINARS M GRAMMAR/PROOFREAD:OBMANN:5/24 001-171-999-5261
125.00
125,00
61896 04/20/00 002534 CATERERS CAFE
REFRESHMENT:COMMUNICATiON WKSP 001-150-999-5261
19,90
19.90
61897 04/20/00 001195 CENTRAL SECURITY SERVIC CRC - QUARTERLY FIRE SYSTEM 190-182-999-5250
61897 04/20/00 001195 CENTRAL SECURITY SERVIC CRC - ALARM MONITORING 190-182-999-5250
61897 04/20/00 001195 CENTRAL SECURITY SERVIC SENIOR CENTER-ALARM MONITORING 190-181-999-5250
150.00
50.00
45.00
245.00
61898 04/20/00 000137 CHEVRON U S A INC FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-110-999-5263
61898 04/20/00 000137 CHEVRON U S A INC FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-140-999-5262
61898 04/20/00 000137 CHEVRON U S A INC FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-162-999-5263
61898 04/20/00 000137 CHEVRON U S A INC FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-164-601-5263
61898 04/20/00 000137 CHEVRON U S A INC FUEL EXPENSE FOR CITY VEHICLES 001-165-999-5263
32.85
17.76
70.34
25.80
22.48
169.23
61899 04/20/00 001275 COMPUSERVE INC
SUBSCRIPTION-COMPUTER MAGAZINE 320-199-999-5228
9.95
9.95
61900 04/20/00 000442 COMPUTER ALERT SYSTEMS INSTALL HOLD UP BUTTON:C.HALL 340-199-701-5250
61900 04/20/00 000442 COMPUTER ALERT SYSTEMS MNTC FAC-DOOR HARDWARE 210-190-158-5804
50.00
860,00
910.00
61901 04/20/00 002945 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL ELECTRICAL REPAIRS @ CRC
190-182-999-5212
181.02
181.02
61902 04/20/00 004123 D L PHARES & ASSOCIATES RENTAL PMT:POLICE STOREFRONT 001-170-999-5229
61903 04/20/00 DIAZ, STEPHANIE REFUND: ADMIN FEE(DOG LICENSE) 001-162-4255
3,010.00
150.00
3,010,00
150.00
61904 04/20/00 001669 DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATIO SUPPLIES FOR GRAFFITI REMOVAL 001-164-601-5218
61904 04/20/00 001669 DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATIO SUPPLIES FOR GRAFFITI REMOVAL 001-164-601-5218
61904 04/20/00 001669 DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATIO SUPPLIES FOR GRAFFITI REMOVAL 001-164-601-5218
59.39
95.08
36.84
191.31
61905 04/20/00 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 04/07 SALAZAR 001-162-999-5118
61905 04/20/00 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIE TEMP HELP W/E 04/07 WILLIAMS 001-162-999-5118
61905 04/20/00 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 04/07 DEGANGE 001-161-999-5118
61905 04/20/00 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 04/07 HILLBERG 165-199-999-5118
61905 04/20/00 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 04/07 SHAH#MALA 001-163-999-5118
61905 04/20/00 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 04/07 HANSEN 001-120-999-5118
61905 04/20/00 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 04/07 HANSEN 001-161-999-5118
61905 04/20/00 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 04/07 HANSEN 001-164-604-5118
61905 04/20/00 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 04/07 KRUEGER 320-199-999-5118
61906 04/20/00 000523 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER 95366-02 DIEGO DR LDSCP 193-180-999-5240
929.60
2,940.80
1,439.20
1,572.80
594.95
315.27
716.98
1,724.40
169.45
11,465.20
169.45
61907 04/20/00 002390 EASTERN MUNICIPAL WATER BLUEPRINTS:RC SEWER FAC TWN CT 001-164-602-5412
21.16
21.16
61908 04/20/00 000395 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CO EDC'S~RC QTRLY MB LUNCHEON 001'110'999'5260 150.00
61908 04/20/00 000395 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CO EDC-SWRC QTRLY MB LUNCHEON 001-164-604-5260 25.00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 3
04/20/00 12:41 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
61908 04/20/00 000395 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CO EDC"SWRC QTRLY MB LUNCHEON
61908 04/20/00 000395 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CO EDC"SWRC QTRLY MB LUNCHEON
280'199'999'5260
001-140-999-5260
25.00
25.00
225.00
61909 04/20/00 002517 ERNIE B'S RESTAURANT REFRESHMENTS:EMPLOYEE TRAINING 001-150-999-5261
220.00
220.00
61910 04/20/00 003959 EVERETT & EVERETT PAINT
FACADE IMPROV PRGM:ANT1QUE MAG
280-199-813-5804
61911 04/20/00 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE FEB BALLFIELD PREPS: TMS 190-180-999-5212
61911 04/20/00 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE MAR BALLFIELD PREPS: TMS 190-180-999-5212
61911 04/20/00 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE REPLACE BARREL COLORS:OLD TWN 001-164-603-5416
61912 04/20/00 002037 EXPANETS PHONE MNTC & REPAIRS:CITY HALL 320-199-999-5215
61912 04/20/00 002037 EXPANETS PHONE MNTC & REPAIRS:CITY HALL 320-199-999-5215
61912 04/20/00 002037 EXPANET$ PHONE MNTC & REPAIRS:CITY HALL 320-199-999-5215
61912 04/20/00 002037 EXPANETS PHONE MNTC & REPAIRS:CITY HALL 320-199-999-5215
61912 04/20/00 002037 EXPANETS PHONE MNTC & REPAIRS:CITY HALL 320-199-999-5215
1,975.00
1,075.00
1,075.00
3,666.20
48.00
48.00
48.00
48.00
48.00
1,975.00
5,816.20
240.00
61913 04/20/00 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 190-1990
61913 04/20/00 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-120-999-5277
61913 04/20/00 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-1990
61913 04/20/00 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-150-999-5230
61913 04/20/00 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-165-999-5230
61913 04/20/00 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-111-999-5230
61913 04/20/00 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-140-999-5230
59.98
17.61
134.02
12.08
12.08
59.53
20.05
315.35
61914 04/20/00
FIRE WORKS AMERICA PYROTECHNICS CF:ND/KC:04/15/00 001-171-999-5261
80.00
80.00
61915 04/20/00 003174 FIREHOUSE MAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTION: ONE YR STN 12 001-171-999-5228
61916 04/20/00 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER XX-3083 M.NAGBAR:CF:YOSEMITE 001-100-999-5258
61916 04/20/00 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER XX-3083 M.NAGGAR:MTG:CLAIM JUM 001-100-999-5260
61916 04/20/00 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER XX-0902 OIGRADY:EMBASSY SUITES 001-1270
61916 04/20/00 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER XX-0902 O~GRADY:MAYORS LUNCH 001-111-999-5260
61916 04/20/00 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER XX-0902 OIGRADY:CF:CALED 001-110-999-5258
61916 04/20/00 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER XX-2576 S.NELSON:MTG:TEM GRILL 001-110-999-5260
61916 04/20/00 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER XX-5288 S.JONES:HITECSOFT CORP 320-199-999-5221
61916 04/20/00 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER XX-5288 S.JONES:MTG:OLD SPAGHE 001-120-999-5260
61916 04/20/00 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER XX-5288 S.JONES:SUPPLIES:TARGE 320-199-999-5210
61916 04/20/00 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER XX-5288 S.JONES:HTL:HILTON 001-120-999-5258
61916 04/20/00 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER XX-5288 S.JONES:LOWRY COMPUTER 320-199-999-5221
61916 04/20/00 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER XX-5288 S.JONEB:EARTHLINK 320-199-999-5211
61916 04/20/00 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER XX-5288 JONES:REFSHMT COUNCIL 001-100-999-5260
61916 04/20/00 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER XX-4117 ~.HUGNS:MTG:HUNGRY HUN 001-164-601-5250
61916 04/20/00 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER XX-4117 ~.HUGHS:MTG:MARIE CAL 001-164-604-5260
61916 04/20/00 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER XX-6702 J.MEYER:MTG:ROCKY COLA 280-199-999-5260
61916 04/20/00 003347 FIRST BANKCARD CENTER XX-6702 J.MEYER:CF:~ESTIN HTL 280-199-999-5258
61917 04/20/00 000170 FRANKLIN QUEST COMPANY DAY TIMER SUPPLIES-PLANNING 001-161-999-5220
28.97
210.65
11.72
148.68
170.71
500.00
21.72
252.60
48.48
21.54
36.28
87.07
79.80
151.87
58.94
21.34
19.00
269,46
78.23
28.97
2,109.86
78.23
61918 04/20/00 000184 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909 197-0073 GENERAL USAGE 320-199-999-5208 1,959.34
61918 04/20/00 000184 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 197-5072 GENERAL USAGE 320-199-999-5208 6,438.93
VOUCHRE2
04/20/00 12:41
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK
NUMBER DATE
61918 04/20/00
61919 04/20/00
61920 04/20/00
61921 04/20/00
61921 04/20/00
61922 04/20/00
61923 04/20/00
61924 04/20/00
61925 04/20/00
61926 04/20/00
61927 04/20/00
61927 04/20/00
61928 04/20/00
61929 04/20/00
61930 04/20/00
61931 04/20/00
61932 04/20/00
61933 04/20/00
61933 04/20/00
61934 04/20/00
61935 04/20/00
61936 04/20/00
61936 04/20/00
61937 04/20/00
61937 04/20/00
61937 04/20/00
61937 04/20/00
61938 04/20/00
61939 04/20/00
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VENDOR VENDOR ITEM
NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION
000184 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM 909 506-1941PTA CD TTACSD
001355 G T E CALIFORNIA INC APR ACCESS-RVSD CO. OPEN LINE
002819 GARWIN& DHAN ASSOCIATE MISC AUDIO/VIDEO SUPPLIES
GRAPEVINE, THE
GRAPEVINE, THE
GUILD MORTGAGE COMPANY
000378 HAFELI, THOMAS
001517
HERNANDEZ-DAVIDIMONICA
003624 HOWELL, ANN MARIE
003956
003956
003670
001407
REFUND:APPLICATION PAO0-O032
REFUND:APPLICATION PAO0'O032
REFUND: BUSINESS LICENSE
REIMB:SIERRA CF:O4/lO'14:RENO
HEALTH & HUMAN RESOURCE EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PRGM
RELOCATION COST FOR TENANTS
GRAPHIC DESIGN-FULL COLOR AD
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
320-199-999-5208
320-199'999'5208
320-199'999'5210
001-161-4125
001-163'4388
001-199-4056
320-199-999-5258
001"150-999-5248
165'199-823-5700
001-111-999-5270
INLAND EMPIRE ECONOMIC 230 COPIES OF IEEP CD ROM 001-111-999-5270
INLAND EMPIRE ECONOMIC SALES TAX 001-111-999-5270
INLAND OVERHEAD DOOR CO REPAIR DOOR TAKE UP REEL:STN84 001-171-999-5212
INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPL POOL SANITIZING CHEMICALS 190-182-999-5212
002575 JONES, SUSAN W, REIMB:CCAC CF:O4/3-7:CONCORD
002424 KELLEY DISPLAY INC FREIGHT:WESTERN DAY BANNERS
002789 KIMCO STAFFING SERVICES TEMP HELP W/E 04/02 MUELLER
000206 KINKOS INC
000206 KINKOS INC
004122 KRUEGER, KIMBERLEE REIMB:SIERRA TRAINING:4/lO-14
002187 LAKE ELSINORE ANIMAL FR MAR ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES
003286 LIBRARY SYSTEMS & $ERVI MAR SVCS'LIBRARY SYSTEM AGRMT
003286 LIBRARY SYSTEMS & SERVI MAR SVCS"LIBRARY SYSTEM AGRMT
001967 MAkePOWER TEMPORARY SERV TEMP HELP W/E 3/19 MCCLANAHAN
001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SERV TEMP HELP W/E 4/02 MCCLANAHAN
001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SERV TEMP HELP W/E 4/09 LARKIN"MCCL
001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SERV TEMP HELP W/E 4/09 BARTON
004107 MASSA-LAVITT, SANDRA PROF CONSULTING SVCS:4/04"4/13
MC LAUGHLIN, MICHAEL REFUND: FORFEIT FEES
001-120-999-5258
280-199-999-5271
330-199-999~5118
STATIONERY PAPER/MISC SUPPLIES 190-180-999-5220
STATIONERY PAPER/MISC SUPPLIES 330-199-999-5220
320-199-999-525B
001-172-999-5255
001-101-999-5285
001-101-999-5285
001-161-999-5118
001-161-999-5118
001-161-999-5118
001-110-999-5118
001-161-999-5248
190-183-4994
ITEM
AMOUNT
56.76
320.00
91.28
176.00
14.00
35.00
254.39
438.00
5,250.00
155.16
490.00
37.97
123.75
177.79
74.54
21.25
141.13
8.60
122.81
112.55
2,768.15
1,260.65
1,501.38
464.40
464.40
464.40
92.88
2#600.00
40.00
PAGE 4
CHECK
AMOUNT
8,455.03
320.00
91.28
190.00
35.00
254.39
438.00
5,250.00
155,16
527.97
123.75
177.79
74.54
21.25
141.13
131.41
112.55
2,768.15
2,762.03
1,486.08
2,600.00
40.00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 5
04/20/00 12:41 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
61940 04/20/00 003800 MCLAUGHLIN ENGINEERING C/0~1 PMT:N.GEN.KEARNY WALKWAY 001-164-601-5402 1,464.35
1,464.35
61941 04/20/00 004090 MERCHANT, RAYMOND
61941 04/20/00 004090 MERCHANT, RAYMOND
FACADE IMPROVE PRGM:R.MERCHANT 280-199-813-5804 1,935.00
ADDIL PLAN CHECK FEES 280-199-813-5804 103.67
2,038.67
61942 04/20/00 002952 MINOLTA BUSINESS SYSTEM MAY LEASE OF COPIER AT CRC 190-182-999-5239 162.70
162.70
61943 04/20/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS BUS. CARDS: R. GUERRIERO 001-161-999-5222 102.50
61943 04/20/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS BUS. CARDS: D. MATHEWSON 001-161-999-5222 102.50
61943 04/20/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS SALES TAX 001-161-999-5222 15.89
61943 04/20/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS BUSINESS CARDS: W. OTT 190-185-999'5222 38.25
61943 04/20/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS SALES TAX 190-185-999'5222 2.96
61943 04/20/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS BUS. CARDS: S. LANIER 001-164-602-5222 102.50
61943 04/20/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS SALES TAX 001-164-602-5222 7.94
61943 04/20/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS BUS. CARDS: B. YASINOSKY 001-164-604-5222 38.25
61943 04/20/00 001384 MINUTEMAN PRESS SALES TAX 001-164-604'5222 2.96
413.75
61944 04/20/00 0009}"3 MIRACLE RECREATION EQUI PLAYGROUND SUPPLIES:VARIOUS PK 190-180-999-5212 288.65
61944 04/20/00 00097~ MIRACLE RECREATION EQUI PLAYGROUND SUPPLIES:VARIOUS PK 190-180-999-5212 19.40
61944 04/20/00 000973 MIRACLE RECREATION EQUI PLAYGROUND SUPPLIES:VARIOUS PK 190-180-999-5212 283.55
591.60
61945 04/20/00 MORAMARCO, TONY REFUND: FORFEIT FEES 190-183-4994 40.00
40,00
61946 04/20/00 MUNOZ, MARIO REIMB:CPRS CONF:3/17/00 190-180-999-5261 5.00
5.00
61947 04/20/00 NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFO QTY 2-"NAICS" BOOKS-BUS.LIC. 001-140-999'5228 70.00
70.00
61948 04/20/00 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES - AT DISPLAY ADS:VAR CIP CONSTR UPD 001-165-999-5256 227.35
61948 04/20/00 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES - AT DISPLAY ADS:VAR CIP CONSTR UPD 001-165-999-5256 259.83
61948 04/20/00 002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES - AT DISPLAY AD:CHILD MUSEUM WRKSHP 210-190-165-5802 220.90
708.08
61949 04/20/00 PALA RAINBOW LLC WETLANDS MITIGATION LIC AGRMNT 210-165-631-5700 1.00
1.00
61950 04/20/00 003292 PATTISON, WILLIAM B. REIMB:SIERRA CONF:4/11-14/00 001-1990 439.34
439.34
61951 04/20/00 003218 PELA MAR LDSCP PLAN CHECK SVCS 191-180-999-5248 450.00
61951 04/20/00 003218 PELA MAR LDSCP PLAN CHECK SVCS 193-180-999-5248 2,140.00
61951 04/20/00 003218 PELA MAR LDSCP PLAN CHECK SVCS 190-180-999-5248 1#260.00
61952 04/20/00 000246
61952 04/20/00 000246
61952 04/20/00 000246
61952 04/20/00 000246
61952 04/20/00 000246 PERS
61952 04/20/00 000246 PERS
61952 04/20/00 000246 PERS
61952 04/20/00 000246 PERS
61952 04/20/00 000246 PERS
61952 04/20/00 000246 PERS
61952 04/20/00 000246 PERS
61952 04/20/00 000246 PERS
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE
PERS EMPLOYEES' RETIRE
EMPLOYEES' RETIRE
EMPLOYEES' RETIRE
EMPLOYEES' RETIRE
EMPLOYEES' RETIRE
EMPLOYEESI RETIRE
EMPLOYEESI RETIRE
EMPLOYEES' RETIRE
EMPLOYEES' RETIRE
000246 PERS RET 001-2390 24,435.37
000246 PERS RET 165-2390 698.71
000246 PERS RET 190-2390 4,575.40
000246 PERS RET 191-2390 12.68
000246 PERS RET 193-2390 427.77
000246 PERS RET 194-2390 119.15
000246 PERS RET 280-2390 300.25
000246 PERS RET 300-2390 134.45
000246 PERS RET 320-2390 658.32
000246 PERS RET 330-2390 147.67
000246 PERS RET 340-2390 594.03
000246 PERS-PRE 001-2130 110.97
5,850.00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 6
04/20/00 12:41 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR
NUMBER DATE NUMBER
VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT
NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
61952 04/20/00 000246 PERS
61952 04/20/00 000246 PERS
61952 04/20/00 000246 PERS
61952 04/20/00 000246 PERS
61952 04/20/00 000246 PERS
61952 04/20/00 000246 PERS
61952 04/20/00 000246 PERS
61952 04/20/00 000246 PERS
61952 04/20/00 000246 PERS
61952 04/20/00 000246 PERS
61952 04/20/00 000246 PERS
61952 04/20/00 000246 PERS
61952 04/20/00 000246 PERS
61952 04/20/00 000246 PERS
61952 04/20/00 000246 PERS
EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS-PRE 190-2130 11.24
EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS-PRE 191'2130 2.81
EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS'PRE 193-2130 33.72
EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 PERS'PRE 194-2130 8.42
EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 001-2390 87.75
EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 165-2390 1,87
EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 190-2390 18,11
EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 191-2390 .05
EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 193-2390 1.80
EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 194'2390 .41
EMPLOYEESI RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 280-2390 .92
EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 300-2390 .46
EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 320-2390 1.86
EMPLOYEESI RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 330-2390 .93
EMPLOYEES' RETIRE 000246 SURVIVOR 340-2390 2.65
32,387.77
61953 04/20/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-1990
61953 04/20/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-170-999-5229
61953 04/20/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-110-999-5260
61953 04/20/00 000249 PEYTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-162-999-5222
61953 04/20/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-183-999-5350
61953 04/20/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-111-999-5260
61953 04/20/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-150-999-5265
61953 04/20/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-101-999-5280
61953 04/20/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-164-602-5262
61953 04/20/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-110-999-5260
61953 04/20/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-171-999-5222
61953 04/20/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-164-604-5222
41.48
40.34
21.00
15.45
18.00
15.00
50.00
24,80
4,23
33.98
4.42
13.69
282.39
61954 04/20/00 000580 PHOTO WORKS FILM/PHOTO DEVELOPING:PW MAINT 001-164-601-5250
61954 04/20/00 000580 PHOTO WORKS FILM/PHOTO DEVELOPING:CIP 001-165-999-5250
61954 04/20/00 000580 PHOTO WORKS FILM/PHOTO DEVELOPING:TCSD 190-180-999-5250
61954 04/20/00 000580 PHOTO WORKS FILM/PHOTO DEVELOPING:LAND DEV 001-163-999-5250
8,02
24.70
28,07
46,38
107.17
61955 04/20/00 PLANT EQUIPMENT~ [NC, REFUND: FORFEIT FEES 190'183-4994
40.00
40.00
61956 04/20/00 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN PUBLIC NTC:PA99-O465/PAO0-0007 001-161-999-5256
38.25
38.25
61957 04/20/00 000947 RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C BLUEPRINTS:CALLE ARAGON PARK 210-190-169-5801
213.35
213.35
61958 04/20/00 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST MAR:Ol-OO-11001-O:MARG RD 190-180-999-5240
61958 04/20/00 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST APR:VARIOUS WATER METERS 190-180-999-5240
61958 04/20/00 000262 RAHCBO CALIF WATER DIST APR:VARIOUS WATER METERS 191-180-999-5240
61958 04/20/00 000262 RANCBO CALIF WATER DIST APR:VARIOUS WATER METERS 193-180-999-5240
250.90
1,793.84
99.98
853,57
2,998.29
61959 04/20/00 000907 RANCHO CAR WASH CITY VEHICLE DETAILING 001-161-999-5263
61959 04/20/00 000907 RANCHO CAR WASH CITY VEHICLE DETAILING 001-162-999-5214
61959 04/20/00 000907 RANCHO CAR WASH CITY VEHICLE DETAILING & GAS 001-110-999-5214
61959 04/20/00 000907 RANCHO CAR WASH CITY VEHICLE DETAILING & GAS 001-110-999-5263
61959 04/20/00 000907 RANCHO CAR WASH CITY VEHICLE DETAILING & GAS 001-165-999-5214
61959 04/20/00 000907 RANCHO CAR WASH CITY VEHICLE DETAILING & GAS 001-163-999-5214
6.00
18,00
26.95
82.98
27.50
26.14
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 7
04/20/00 12:41 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
DATE NUMBER NAME
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
61959
61959
61959
61959
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
000907 RANCHO CAR WASH
000907 RANCHO CAR WASH
000907 RANCHO CAR WASH
000907 RANCHO CAR WASH
CITY VEHICLE DETAILING & GAS
CITY VEHICLE DETAILING & GAS
CITY VEHICLE DETAILING & GAS
CITY VEHICLE DETAILING & GAS
001-164-601-5214
190-180-999-5214
190-180-999-5263
340-199-701-5263
12.00
26.00
29.07
39.67
294.31
61960
61960
61960
61961
61961
61961
61962
61962
61962
61963
61964
61964
61965
61966
61967
61967
61967
61967
61967
61967
61968
61969
61970
61970
61970
61970
61971
61971
61971
61971
61971
61972
61973
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
RANCHO COMMUNITY CHURCH
RANCHO COHMUNITY CHURCH
RAN~HO COMMUNITY CHURCH
003742 REHAB FINANCIAL CORPORA
003742 REHAB FINANCIAL CORPORA
003742 REHAB FINANCIAL CORPORA
002181 RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION
002181 RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION
002181 RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION
003282 RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION-
002743 SAFE & SECURE LOCKSMITH
002743 SAFE & SECURE LOCKSMITH
000278 SAN DIEGO UNION TRIBUNE
000793 SCANTRON FPC CORPORATIO
003801 SELF'S JANITORiAL SERVI
003801 SELF'S JANITORIAL SERVI
003801 SELF~S JANITORXAL SERVI
003801 SELF'S JANITORIAL SERVI
003801 SELF'S JANITORIAL SERVI
003801 SELF'S JANITORIAL SERVI
SMITH, TINA
000537 SO CALIF EDISON
001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY
001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY
O01ZlZ SO CALIF GAS COMPANY
001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY
000519 SOJTH COUNTY PEST CONTR
000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTR
000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTR
000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTR
000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTR
000752 STONE, JEFFREY E.
STREET, MIKE
REFUND:PLANNING APPL:PA99-0449
REFUND:PLANNING APPL:PA99-0449
REFUND:PLANNING APPL:PA99-0449
RES IMPROVE LOAN SERVICING
RES IMPROVE LOAN SERVICING
RES IMPROVE LOAN SERVICING
MAR PRGS PMT#Z6:RC/I15:95-12
MAR PRGS PMT#Z6:RC/I15:95-12
RET.W/B PMT#26:RC/I15:95-12
RETENTION TO ESCROW ACCT
LOCKSMITH SERVICES:CRC
LOCKSMITH SVCS: SKATE PARK
RECRUITMENT AD:PLANNER
1YR SCNR MAINT AGRMNT:O0011946
APR CUSTODIAL SVCS:PRKS/6TH ST
APR CUSTODIAL SVCS:PRKS/6TH ST
APR GUSTODIAL SVCS:T.V,H,S.RR
APR CUSTODIAL SVCS:PICNIC SHLT
APR CUSTODIAL SVCS:DUCK POND
APR CUSTOOIAL SVCS:T.H.PARK
REFUND: PICNIC SHELTER RENTAL
MAR:2-OO-397-5059:COMM SVC UTL
APR:021-725-0775-4: SENIOR CTR
APR:O95-167-7907-Z:STN #84
APR:101-525-0950-O: TCC
APR:133-040-73~-O: MAINT FAC
PEST CONTROL SVCS:WED.CHAPEL
PEST CONTROL SVCS:CITY HALL
PEST CONTROL SVCS: TEM. MUSEUM
PEST CONTROL $VCS: SENIOR CTR
PEST CONTROL SVCS:PALOMA PARK
REIMB:NAT'L LEAG CF:3/10-14/00
REFUND: FORFEIT FEES
001-161-4108
001-163-4108
001-163-4388
165-199-813-5804
165-199-999-5449
165-199-999-5250
210-165-601-5804
210-165-601-5804
210-2035
210-1035
190-182-999-5212
190-180-999-5212
001-150-999-5254
320-199-999-5215
190-180-999-5250
001-164-603-5250
190-180-999-5250
190-180-999-5212
190-180-999-5250
190-180-999-5250
190-183-4990
190-180-999-5240
190-181-999-5240
001-171-999-5240
190-184-999-5240
340-199-702-5240
190-185-999~5250
340-199-701-5250
190-185-999-5250
190-181-999-5250
190-180-999-5250
001-100-999-5258
190-183-4994
230.00
600.00
34.00
750.00
1,500.00
750.00
609.81
890.19
75.00-
75.00
24.76
50,00
379.72
825.00
2,310.00
210.00
210.00
400.00
210.00
420.00
20.00
3,065.52
43.29
156.49
37.93
58.83
32.00
56.00
42.00
29.00
64.00
77.08
40.00
864.00
3,000.00
1,425.00
75.00
74.76
379.72
825. O0
3,760.00
20.00
3,065.52
296.54
223.00
77.08
40.00
VOUCHRE2
04/20/00
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
61974
61974
61975
61976
61976
61977
61978
61978
61979
61980
61980
61980
61981
61982
61983
61984
61984
61984
61985
61986
61987
61988
61988
61988
61988
61989
61990
61991
61992
12:41
CHECK
DATE
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
04/20/00
CITY OF TEHECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VENDOR VENDOR
NUMBER NAME
000305 TARGET STORE
000305 TARGET STORE
003665
TELCO COMMUNICATIONS GR
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
MISC SUPPLIES FOR EASTER
MISC SUPPLIES FOR EASTER
FEB LONG DISTANCE PHONE SVCS
000307 TEMECULA TROPHY COMPANY NAMETAGS FOR MUSEUM STAFF
000307 TEMECULA TROPHY COMPANY EMP RECOGN AWARD:R.BRUSIO~
003140
000919
000919
001483
001483
001483
003031
000978
003051
002899
002899
002899
TEMECULA VALLEY TAEKWON TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED RENT FAC:CITYWIDE CLEAN-UP DAY
TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED
THOMASI JESSE
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES
FEB PW PATCH TRUCK MAINT SVCS
REFUND: FORFEIT FEES
JAN PROF SVCS:REGIONAL CTR
FEB PROF SVCS:REGIONAL CTR
TOM DODSON & ASSOCIATES MAR PROF SVCS:REGIONAL CTR
TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICE SUPPLIES FOR PW MAINT CREWS
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
190-183-999-5370
190-183-999-5370
320-199-999-5208
190-185-999-5222
001-150-999-5265
190-183-999-5330
194-180-999-5254
001-164-601-5214
190~183-4994
001-2620
001-2620
001-2620
001-164-601-5218
TRAUMA INTERVENTION PRG 3RD QTR EMERG RESPONSE VOL PRG 001-171-999-5274
UNIQUE PAVING MATERIALS TEMP A.C.-CITYWIDE STR REPAIRS 001-164-601-5218
UNISTRUT 6 SAFETY EQUIPMENT-PW MAINT
UNISTRUT FREIGHT
UNISTRUT SALES TAX
UNIV. PRESS OF NEW ENGL PUBLICATION MATERIALS:MUSEUM
VILLANUEVA, THOMAS REFUND: FORFEIT FEES
003191 WEDEKING, BRUCE REIMB:CPRS COMF:3/16'17/00
003T~0 WEST COAST ARBORISTS IN TREE TRIMMING RANCHO VISTA RD
003730 WEST COAST ARBORISTS IN 30' ROOT PRUNE, ROOT BARRIER.
003730 WEST COAST ARBORISTS IN 1 TREE REMOVAL 12" DIAMETER.
003730 WEST COAST ARBORISTS IN CITYWIDE TREE TRIM MAINT SVCS
000339 WEST PUBLISHING COMPANY CITY HALL LEGAL PUBLICATIONS
003970 WESTCON ELEVATOR INC APR ELEV MAINT/INSPECT:MUSEUM
WRIGHT, TIM REFUND: FORFEIT FEES
000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI FEB BASE CHARGE:DC-20 COPIER
001-164-601-5242
001-164-601-5242
001-164-601-5242
190-185-999-5301
190-183-4994
190-180-999-5258
193-180-999-5415
193-180-999-5415
193-180-999-5415
001-164-601-5402
001-120-999-5228
190-185-999-5212
190-183-4994
001-171-999-5217
ITEM
AMOUNT
283.83
107.57
61.63
60.00
74.00
40.00
250.00
857.75
100.00
170.25
1,312.50
464.19
192.00
14.88
77.45
40.00
360.00
143.00
166.50
40.00
PAGE 8
CHECK
AMOUNT
391.40
1,597.79
82.64
60.00
195.18
40.00
1,207.75
170.25
1,312.50
464.19
221.59
77.45
40.00
48.77
7,466.70
166.50
105.00
40.00
148.70
TOTAL CHECKS 247,482.59
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 10
04/27/00 11:48 VOUCHER/CHECK REG|STER
FOR ALL PERIODS
FUND TITLE
001 GENERAL FUND
165 RDA DEV- LOW/HOD SET ASIDE
190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
191 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL A
193 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL C
194 TCSD SERVICE LEVEL D
210 CAPITAL IHPROVEHERT PROJ FUND
280 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY -
300 INSURANCE FUND
320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS
330 SUPPORT SERVICES
340 FACILITIES
AMOUNT
111,792.83
7,280.00
38,682.05
6,779.13
10,969.46
227.39
8,569.88
9,472.70
200.73
5,895.62
1,261.00
3,839.83
TOTAL 204,970.62
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 1
04/27/00 11:48 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME
ITEM ACCOUNT
DESCRIPTION NUMBER
61994 04/20/00 TEMECULA, CITY OF 3 DRAWING AWARDS:SPR EGG HUNT 190-2085
61995 04/21/00 003917 SEARS ROEBUCK & COMPANY
477542 04/27/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
477542 04/27/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
477542 04/27/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
477542 04/27/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
477542 04/27/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
477542 04/27/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
477542 04/27/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
477542 04/27/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
477542 04/27/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
477542 04/27/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
4~542 04/27/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD)
OFFICE EQUIP FOR FINANCE DEPT
001-140-999-5242
1ST QTR 2000 UI & ETT TAX 001-2350
1ST QTR 2000 UI & ETT TAX 165-2350
1ST QTR 2000 UI & ETT TAX 190-2350
1ST QTR 2000 UI & ETT TAX 191-2350
1ST QTR 2000 UI & ETT TAX 193-2350
1ST QTR 2000 UI & ETT TAX 194-2350
1ST QTR 2000 UI & ETT TAX 280-2350
1ST QTR 2000 UI & ETT TAX 300-2350
1ST QTR 2000 UI & ETT TAX 320-2350
1ST QTR 2000 UI & ETT TAX 330-2350
1ST QTR 2000 UI & ETT TAX 340-2350
ITEM
AMOUNT
225.00
215.36
14,045.25
343.73
4,214.66
7.37
325.64
64.69
180.81
73.48
628.97
208.49
549.62
496578 04/27/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 001-2070 20,124.81
496578 04/27/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 165-2070 458.14
496578 04/27/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 190-2070 4,080.49
496578 04/27/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 191~2070 .60
496578 04/27/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 193-2070 269.12
496578 04/27/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRB) 000283 FEDERAL 194-2070 96.91
496578 04/27/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 280-2070 158.50
496578 04/27/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 300-2070 22.28
496578 04/27/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 320-2070 698.14
496578 04/27/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 330-2070 168.72
496578 04/27/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 FEDERAL 340-2070 546.74
496578 04/27/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 001-2070 5,004.02
496578 04/27/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 165-2070 144.11
496578 04/27/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 190-2070 1,180.74
496578 04/27/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 191-2070 .17
496578 04/27/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 193-2070 72.04
496578 04/27/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 194-2070 17.02
496578 04/27/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 280-2070 61.11
496578 04/27/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 300-2070 15.54
496578 04/27/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 320-2070 150.12
496578 04/27/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 330-2070 40.16
496578 04/27/00 000283 INSTATAX (IRS) 000283 MEDICARE 340-2070 164.45
496666 04/27/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 001-2070 64.86
496666 04/27/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 165-2070 3.76
496666 04/27/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 190-2070 72.95
496666 04/27/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 193-2070 2.18
496666 04/27/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 280'2070 .88
496666 04/27/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 320-2070 3.27
496666 04/27/00 000444 INBTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 330-2070 2.90
496666 04/27/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 SDI 340'2070 7.43
496666 04/27/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 001-2070 5,432.18
496666 04/27/00 000444 INBTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 165-2070 130.36
496666 04/27/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 190-2070 879.24
496666 04/27/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 191-2070 .12
CHECK
AMOUNT
225.00
215.36
20,642.71
33,473.93
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 2
04/27/00 11:48 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
DATE NUMBER NAME
ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
496666 04/27/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 193-2070 52.30
496666 04/27/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 194-2070 27.20
496666 04/27/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 280-2070 49.64
496666 04/27/00 000444 INBTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 300-2070 4.85
496666 04/27/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 320'2070 162.36
496666 04/27/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 330-2070 37.47
496666 04/27/00 000444 INSTATAX (EDD) 000444 STATE 340-2070 111.12
61998 04/27/00 A A C E
61999
62000
62001
62002
62002
62003
62003
62004
62004
62004
62004
62004
62004
62004
62004
62004
62004
62004
62004
62004
62004
04/27/00 004054 ADKISON ENGINEERS INC
04/27/00 002877 ALTA LOMA CHARTER LINES
04/27/00 000747 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOC
04/27/00 000101 APPLE ONE, INC.
04/27/00 000101 APPLE ONE# INC.
04/27/00 003203 ARTISTIC EMBROIDERY
04/27/00 003203 ARTISTIC EMBROIDERY
04/27/00 002648 AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN C
04/27/00 002648 AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN C
04/27/00 002648 AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN C
04/27/00 002648 AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN C
04/27/00 002648 AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN C
04/27/00 002648 AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN C
04/27/00 002648 AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN C
04/27/00 002648 AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN C
04/27/00 002648 AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN C
04/27/00 002648 AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN C
04/27/00 002648 AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN C
04/27/00 002648 AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN C
04/27/00 002648 AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN C
04/27/00 002648 AUTO CLUB OF SOUTHERN C
04/27/00 002381 BEAUDOIN, LINDA
04/27/00 003817 BLUE RIDGE MEDICAL
62005
62006
62007 04/27/00 C S A I A
04/27/00 002803 CANTY ENGINEERING GROUP
04/27/00 002534 CATERERS CAFE
62008
62009
EDUCATION CF:5/10-11:SALAZAR 001-162-999-5261
SURVEY SVCS:IST STREET P~95-08 280-199-807-5804
BUS TO LAX-SISTER CITY TRIP 001-101-999-5280
RE-ISSUE CK:APA MTG 6/24/99 001-161-999-5260
TEMP HELP W/E 04/08 MCKEIGHAN 190-180-999-5118
TEMP HELP W/E 04/08 HOOVER 001-161-999-5118
STAFF SHIRTS & S~EATSBIRTS:CSD 190-180-999-5243
SALES TAX 190-180-999-5243
MEMBERSHIP: BRUCE WEDEKING 190-180-999-5214
MEMBERSHIP: C. ADKISSON-FLOHR 190-180-999-5214
MEMBERSHIP: LORRI ANN AMAVISCA 190-180'999-5214
MEMBERSHIP: BURON, BRAD
MEMBERSHIP: KEVIN HARRINGTON
MEMBERSHIP: HODSON, JACK
MEMBERSHIP: JERZY KANIGOWSKI
MEMBERSHIP: HERMAN PARKER
MEMBERSHIP: JULIE PELLETIER
MEMBERSHIP: MARIANNE SALAZAR
MEMBERSHIP: PHIL SMITH
MEMBERSHIP: STEVEN STERLING
MEMBERSHIP: DONNA VEDIA
MEMBERSHIP: MATT WIECHEC
001-164-604-5214
190-180-999-5214
001-163-999-5214
190-180-999-5214
190-180-999-5214
001-162-999-5214
001-162-999-5214
190-180-999-5214
190-180-999-5214
190-180-999-5214
REIMB:SIERRA CONF:4/12-14/00 001-161-999-5261
PHARMACEUTICALS 4/MEDIC SQUAD 001-171-999-5242
SEX OFFENDERS CF:KUBEL/QUINATA 001-170-999-5261
JAN-MAR ENG SVCS:R.C./I-15 210-165-601-5804
REFRSBMNT:LOWEIS HOME IMPR MTG 001-110-999-5260
395.00
3~838.25
292.00
44.00
249.60
468.00
217.50
16.86
43.00
43.00
43.00
43.00
43.00
43.00
43.00
43.00
43.00
43.00
43.00
43.00
43.00
43.00
98.81
466.67
110.00
3,500.00
31.82
395.00
3#838.25
292.00
44.00
717.60
234.36
6O2.0O
98.81
466.67
110.00
3,500.00
31.82
62010 04/27/00 003940 CHESHERS CUSTOM EMBRO[D JACKETS FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT 001-162-999-5243 230.00
62010 04/27/00 003940 CHESHERS CUSTOM EMBROID FREIGHT 001-162-999-5243 5.50
62010 04/27/00 003940 CHESHERS CUSTOM EMBROID SALES TAX 001-162-999-5243 17.83 253.33
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 3
04/27/00 11:48 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME
62011 04/27/00 001139 CHIP MORTON PHOTOGRAPHY
62012 04/27/00 002147 COMPLIMENTS COMPLAINTS
62012 04/27/00 002147 COMPLIMENTS COMPLAINTS
62012 04/27/00 002147 COMPLIMENTS COMPLAINTS
62012 04/27/00 002147 COMPLIMENTS COMPLAINTS
62012 04/27/00 002147 COMPLIMENTS COMPLAINTS
62013 04/27/00 000447 COMTRONIX OF HEMET
62014 04/27/00 003252 CONTRACT SERVICES CORPO
62014 04/27/00 003252 CONTRACT SERVICES CORPO
62014 04/27/00 003252 CONTRACT SERVICES CORPO
62014 04/27/00 003252 CONTRACT SERVICES CORPO
62014 04/27/00 003252 CONTRACT SERVICES CORPO
62014 04/27/00 003252 CONTRACT SERVICES CORPO
62014 04/27/00 003252 CONTRACT SERVICES CORPO
62015 04/27/00 003986 C02AD & THOMSEN INC
62016 04/27/00 001393 DATA TICKET INC
62016 04/27/00 001393 DATA TICKET INC
62017 04/27/00 002954 DIAMOND GARAGE DOOR INC
62018 04/27/00 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC
62019 04/27/00 004099 EARL & PETES FINISH
62020 04/27/00 004066 EMBLEM ENTERPRISES INC
62020 04/27/00 004066 EMBLEM ENTERPRISES INC
62020 04/27/00 004066 EMBLEM ENTERPRISES IHC
62020 04/27/00 004066 EMBLEM ENTERPRISES IHC
62020 04/27/00 004066 EMBLEM ENTERPRISES INC
62021 04/27/00 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
62021 04/27/00 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
62021 04/27/00 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
62021 04/27/00 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
62021 04/27/00 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
62021 04/27/00 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
62021 04/27/00 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
62021 04/27/00 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
62021 04/27/00 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
62021 04/27/00 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
62021 04/27/00 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
62021 04/27/00 001056 EXCEL LANDSCAPE
ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
PHOTO SHOOT @ THE DUCK POND 001-111-999-5270
DYNAMITE DAVE - WESTERN DAYS
WESTERN CLOWN'WESTERN DAYS
MEDICINE MAN ' WESTERN DAYS
4~BUNNY SUITS FOR EGG HUNT
SALES TAX
280-199-999-5362
280-199-999-5362
280-199-999-5362
190-183-999"5370
190-183-999-5370
INSTALL DISTANCE METER:PW TRUK 001-164-601'5214
JANITORIAL SUPPLIES-MNTC FAC
JANITORIAL SUPPLIES-MNTC FAC
JANITORIAL SUPPLIES-MUSEUM
JANITORIAL SUPPLIES-CRC
JANITORIAL SUPPLIES-PARKS
JABITORIAL SUPPLIES-CITY HALL
JAHITORIAL SUPPLIES-CITY HALL
340-199-702-5212
340-199-702-5212
190-185-999-5212
190-182-999-5212
190-180-999~5212
340-199-701-5212
SURVEY SVCS:YNEZ RD PW00-06 210-165'655-5802
MAR PARKING CITATION PROCESSIN 001-140-999-5250
MAR PARKING CITATION PROCESSIN 001-170-999-5250
RESIDENTIAL IMPROV:BENTLEY,C. 165-199-813-5804
TEMP HELP W/E 04/07 THORNSLEY 001-161-999'5118
RESIDENTIAL IMPROV:HOLDER,S. 165-199-813'5804
52 PATCHES:FIRE EXPLORER
53 PATCHES: TEM FIRE & RESCUE
53 PATCHES:TEM EXPLORER
FREIGHT
SALES TAX
001'171-999-5235
001-171-999-5235
001-171-999-5235
001-171'999-5235
001'171-999-5235
MAR LDSCP REPAIRS:MEADOW PKWY
MAR LDBCP REPAIRS:R.C.SPRTS PK
MAR LDSCP REPAIRS:R.C.SPRTS PK
MAR LDSCP REPAIRS:SPORTS PRK
MAR LDSCP REPAIRS:SPORTS PRK
MAR LDSCP REPAIRS:SPORTS PRK
MAR LDSCP REPAIRS:NICOLAS RD
MAR LDSCP REPAIRS:MIRADA
MAR LDSCP REPAIRS:MIRADA
MAR LDSCP REPAIRS:PALOMA DEL S
MAR LDSCP REPAIRS: P.D.S.
MAR LDSCP REPAIRS:SPORTS PARK
190-180'999-5212
190-180-999-5416
190-180-999'5416
190-180'999'5416
193'180-999-5212
193'180-999-5212
193-180-999-5212
190-180-999-5415
190'180'999-5212
125.00
150.00
150.00
450.00
300.00
23.25
63.89
55.24
120.14
120.14
120.14
43.20
2,590.00
105.25
105,25
640.00
2,582.74
2,000.00
85.28
236.38
130.38
6.20
32.77
655.89
350.00
1#250.00
1,400.00
1,400.00
2~446.40
250.00
3,7B4.00
125.00
66.90
149.63
125.00
1,073.25
63.89
622.17
2,590.00
210.50
640.00
2,582.74
2,000.00
491.01
13,697.82
62022 04/27/00 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-165-999-5230 12.20
62022 04/27/00 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-164-604-5230 12.20
62022 04/27/00 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES 001-1990 21.72
VOOCHRE2
04/27/00 11:48
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME
62022 04/27/00 000165 FEDERAL EXPRESS INC
62023 04/27/00 * 003853 FENCING BY BUZZ
62024 04/27/00 001511 FIELDMAN ROLAPP & ASSOC
62025 04/27/00 000166 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE CO
62026 04/27/00 001135 FIRST CARE INDUSTRIAL M
62027 04/27/00 002982 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD - W
62028 04/27/00 000184 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM
62028 04/27/00 000184 G T E CALIFORNIA - PAYM
62029 04/27/00 001158 HOLIDAY INN
62030 04/27/00 003622 I C M A - MEMBERSHIP
62031 04/27/00 003622 ! C M A - MEMBERSHIP
62032 04/27/00 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS
62032 04/27/00 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS
62032 04/27/00 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS
62032 04/27/00 000194 I C M A RETIREMENT TRUS
62033 04/27/00 002842 INLAND EMPIRE SMALL BUS
62034 04/27/00 003183 INSTITUTE OF TRAFFIC EN
62035 04/27/00 001407 INTER VALLEY POOL SUPPL
62036 04/27/00 001186 IRWIN, JOHN
62037 04/27/00 003280
62038 04/27/00 003223
62039 04/27/00 003046
62040 04/27/00 002772
62041 04/27/00 000205
62041 04/27/00 000205
62042 04/27/00 002789
62043 04/27/00 003289
62044 04/27/00 002519
62044 04/27/00 002519
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIOOS
JON LASKIN BAND
K E A ENVIRONMENTAL, IN
K F R 0 G 95.1 FM RADIO
KELLEY BLUE BOOK
KIDS PARTIES ETC
KIDS PARTIES ETC
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
EXPRESS MAIL SERVICES
RESIDENTIAL IMPROV:OHLER,KEVIN
CONSULTING SERVICES
LOT BOOK REPT:30294 CUPEMO LAN
PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYSICALS
002982 ST DED
909 197-0074 GENERAL USAGE
909 695-3564 ALARM
HTL:EDUC.CF:5/lO-11:#6730-1967
MEMBERSHIP: SHAWN NELSON
MEMBERSHIP: JAMES O'GRADY
000194 DEF COMP
000194 DEF CC)MP
000194 DEF COMP
000194 DEF COMP
SPONSORSHIP - DIAMOND VENTURE
DISTRICT 6 SEM:6/24-28:J.G.
CRC POOL SANITIZING CHEMICALS
TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
BAND FOR OLD TWN WESTERN DAYS
BIOLOGICAL SERVICES'PALA RD BR
26 RADIO SPOTS FOR WESTERN DAY
BLUE BOOK SUBSCRIPTION:POLICE
EGG HUNT-4 PARTY JUMPS W/ATTND
RENTAL: 2 GENERATORS
KIMCO STAFFING SERVICES TEMP HELP W/E 04/09 MUELLER
KRIEGER & STEWART INC BOUNDARY DESCRIP:VAIL RANCH AN
LAB SAFETY SUPPLY INE MISC SUPPLIES: PW MNTC
LAB SAFETY SUPPLY INC FREIGHT
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
001'120-999'5277
280-199-999-5248
165-199-813-5804
001'150'999-5250
001-2140
320-199'999'5208
320-199-999-5208
001-162-999'5261
001"110-999-5226
001-110-999-5226
001-2080
190'2080
193'2080
194'2080
001-111-999-5266
001'164'602-5261
190-182-999-5212
190'183-999'5330
280-199-999-5362
210'165'631-5801
280-199'999-5362
001-170-999-5228
190-183-999-5370
190-183-999-5370
330-199-999-5118
001'163-999'5224
001-164-601'5430
001-164-601-5430
ITEM
AMOUNT
17.37
850.00
3,500.00
150.00
155.00
202.80
258.16
55.14
334.09
884.93
853.42
1,953.11
325.52
30.01
21.37
1,000.00
325.00
177.79
308.00
200.00
574.03
390.00
54.00
335.00
90.00
153.96
11467.40
19.60
7.09
PAGE 4
CHECK
AMOUNT
63.49
850.00
3,500.00
150.00
155.00
202.80
313.30
334.09
884.93
853.42
2,330.01
1,000.00
325.00
177.79
308.00
200.00
574.03
390.00
54.00
425.00
153.96
26.69
VOUCHRE2
04/27/00
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
62045
62045
62046
62047
62047
62047
62047
62048
62049
62050
62051
62052
62053
62054
62054
62055
62055
62055
62055
62056
62057
62058
62058
62058
62059
62060
62060
62060
62061
62061
62061
62061
62061
62061
62061
11:48
CHECK
DATE
04/27/00
04/27/00
04/27/00
04/27/00
04/27/00
04/27/00
04/27/00
04/27/00
04/27/00
04/27/00
04/27/00
04/27/00
04/27/00
04/27/00
04/27/00
04/27/00
04/27/00
04/27/00
04/27/00
04/27/00
04/27/00
04/27/00
04/27/00
04/27/00
04/27/00
04/27/00
04/27/00
04/27/00
04/27/00
04/27/00
04/27/00
04/27/00
04/27/00
04/27/00
04/27/00
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VENDOR VENDOR
NUMBER NAME
000482 LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES I
000482 LEIGBTON & ASSOCIATES l
LITTLE TIKES COMMERCIAL
004087 LOWERS
004087 LOWE'S
004087 LOWE'S
004087 LOWEIS
004013 M & M REFRIGERATION & H
001865 M C I TELECOMMUNICATION
003782 MAIN STREET SIGNS
001967 MANPOWER TEMPORARY SERV
MARCH, CHARLES
MATSUO, GRACE
000973 MIRACLE RECREATION EQUI
000973 MIRACLE RECREATION EQUI
ITEM
DESCRIPTION
CREDIT: 2 HOURS OF DEPUTY SVCS
GEOTECHNICAL BVCS:BIKE TRAIL
PLAYGROUND EQUIP-SAM HICKS PRK
MISC SUPPLIES:POLICE STOREFRNT
SALES TAX
MISC SUPPLIES:POLICE STOREFRNT
SALES TAX
RES IMPROVE PRGM: C. DEDERICO
CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE
STREET SIGN SUPPLIES FOR PW
TEMP HELP W/E 4/16 MCCLANAHAN
REFUND:SISTER CITIES FEE
REFUND: TINY TOTS-CREATIVE BEG
PLAYGROUND BUPPLIES:VAR.PARKS
PLAYGROUND SUPPLIES:VAR.PARKS
000228 MOBIL CREDIT FINANCE CO FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES
000228 MOBIL CREDIT FINANCE CO FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES
000228 MOBIL CREDIT FINANCE CO FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES
000228 MOBIL CREDIT FINANCE CO FUEL FOR CITY VEHICLES
002139 NORTH COUNTY TIMES - AT 2 PAGE NEWSPAPER AD-15 MIN PGM
002100 OBJECT RADIANCE INC TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS
002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE
002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE
002105 OLD TOWN TIRE & SERVICE
CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT
CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT
CITY VEHICLE REPAIRS & MAINT
002088 OLD TOWN TYPEWRITER TYPEWRITER REPAIR - FINANCE
002256 P & D CONSULTANTS INC
002256 P & D CONSULTANTS INC
002256 P & D CONSULTANTS INC
JAN BLDG INSPECTION SVCS
FEB BLDG INSPECTION SVCS
DEC BLDG INSPECTION SVCS
003021 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER APR CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE
003021 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER APR CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE
003021 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER APR CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE
003021 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER APR CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE
003021 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER APR CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE
003021 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER APR CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE
003021 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER APR CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
210-190-147-5804
210-190-147-5804
190-180-999-5212
001-170-502-5219
001-170-502-5219
001-170-502-5219
001-170-502-5219
320-199-999-5208
001-164-601-5244
001-161-999-5118
001-2174
190-183-4982
190-180-999-5212
190-180-999-5215
001-170-999-5262
001-164-601-5263
001-165-999-5263
190-180-999-5263
001-170-999-5371
190-183-999-5330
001-163-999-5214
001-162-999-5214
001-140-999-5250
001-162-999-5118
001-162-999-5118
001-162-999-5118
001-100-999-5208
001"110-999-5208
001-150-999-5208
190-1990
280"199-999-5208
001-161-999-5208
001-140-999-5208
ITEM
AMOUNT
130.00-
38.80
295,20
22.88
89.49
6.94
3.97
57.65
464.40
230.00
30.00
427.80
361.68
245.68
78.10
27.23
32,90
614.40
46.37
19.18
101.65
65.00
11,626.00
953.50
522.71
193.18
63.43
505.26
55.25
108.89
56.53
PAGE 5
CHECK
AMOUNT
1,792.50
38.80
414.51
1,550.00
3.97
57.65
464.40
230.00
~0.00
789.48
383.91
1,253.70
614.40
167.20
65.00
28~697.00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 6
04/27/00 11:48 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK
NUMBER
CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT
DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
62061
62061
62061
62061
62061
62061
62061
62061
62061
04/27/00 003021 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER APR CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE 001-162-999-5208
04/27/00 003021 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE BER APR CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE 320-199-999-5208
04/27/00 003021 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER APR CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE 001-120-999-5208
04/27/00 003021 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER APR CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE 001-163-999-5208
04/27/00 003021 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER APR CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE 001-164-601-5208
04/27/00 003021 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER APR CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE 001-164-602-5208
04/27/00 003021 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER APR CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE 001-164-604-5208
04/27/00 003021 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE BER APR CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE 001-165-999-5208
04/27/00 003021 PACIFIC BELL MOBILE SER APR CELLULAR PHONE SERVICE 001-165-999-5208
62062 04/27/00 004088 PALA MESA RESORT CR:PMT MADE ON INV# 9150 001-150-999-5260
62062 04/27/00 004088 PALA MESA RESORT ROOMS FOR MGMT RETREAT:3/23/O0 001-150-999-5260
62062 04/27/00 004088 PALA MESA RESORT MEALS FOR MGMT RETREAT:3/23/O0 001-150-999-5260
62062 04/27/00 004088 PALA MESA RESORT ADD'L COSTS DUE TO ITINERARY 001-150-999-5260
62062 04/27/00 004088 PALA MESA RESORT SALES TAX 001-150-999-5260
917.23
613.75
112.90
323.92
161.74
107.29
53.64
360.03
.01
604,20-
1,425.00
1,098.98
294.30
145,35
2,359.43
62063 04/27/00 004074 PARTY CITY OF TEMECULA RECREATION SUPPLIES FOR TCC 190-184-999-5301
62063 04/27/00 004074 PARTY CITY OF TEMECULA SUPPLIES FOR MGMT RETREAT(3/24 001-150-999-5265
47.30
26,08
73.38
62064 04/27/00 001958 PERS LONG TERM CARE PRO 001958 PERS L-T 001-2122 154.60
154,60
62065 04/27/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-170-999'5222
62065 04/27/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-170-999-5242
62065 04/27/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-161-999-5260
62065 04/27/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-140-999-5262
62065 04/27/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-140-999-5260
62065 04/27/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-150-999-5260
62065 04/27/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-111-999-5262
62065 04/27/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-162-999-5220
62065 04/27/00 000249 PETTY CASN PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-183-999-5320
62065 04/27/00 000249 PETTY CASR PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 001-164-602-5218
62065 04/27/00 000249 PETTY CASH PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 190-1990
24.74
40.07
9.35
13.00
7.00
9.72
15.00
4,75
40.39
28.17
5.96
198.15
62066 04/27/00 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN PUBLIC NOTICE: PA99-0317 001-161-999-5256
62066 04/27/00 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN PUBLIC NOTICE: PA99-0022/0500 001-161-999-5256
62066 04/27/00 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN PUBLIC NOTICE: PAO0-O013 001-161-999-5256
62066 04/27/00 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN RECRUITMENT AD:SR PLANNER 001-150-999-5254
62066 04/27/00 000254 PRESS ENTERPRISE COMPAN PUBLIC NOTICE: SPORTS PARK 001-120-999-5256
19.00
40.00
19,50
369.12
18.00
465.62
62067 04/27/00 002110 PRIME EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT RENTAL:PW MAINT CREW 001-164-601-5238
62067 04/27/00 002110 PRIME EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT RENTAL:CRC 190-182-999-5238
62067 04/27/00 002110 PRIME EQUIPMENT CR:BILLING ERROR:INV#2853043 001-164-601-5238
62067 04/27/00 002110 PRIME EQUIPMENT EQUIPMENT RENTAL:PW MAINT CREW 001-164-601-5238
360.97
75.43
280.15-
34.47
190.72
62068 04/27/00 002776 PRIME MATRIX INC MAR:5001377:SR VAN 190-180-999-5208
62068 04/27/00 002776 PRIME MATRIX INC MAR:5002330:CITY VAN 190-180-999-5208
50.85
26.50
77.35
62069 04/27/00 000947 RANCHO BELL BLUEPRINT C DUP BLUEPRINTS:IST ST EXT. 280-199-807-5804
101.66
101.66
62070 04/27/00 000262 RANCNO CALIF WATER DIST APR:VARIOUS WATER METERS 190-180-999-5240 11405.53
62070 04/27/00 000262 RANCBO CALIF WATER DIST APR:VARIOUS WATER METERS 191-180-999-5240 26.88
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 7
04/27/00 11:48 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
ITEM
AMOUNT
CHECK
AMOUNT
62070 04/27/00 000262 RANCHO CALIF WATER DIST APR:VARIOUS WATER METERS
62071 04/27/00 003761 HANCHO METALS & SUPPLY METAL SUPPLIES:VARIOUS PARKS
193-180-999-5240
3,653.16
5,085.57
23.16
62072 04/27/00 001365 RIVERSIDE CO ENVIRONMEN
62072 04/27/00 001365 RIVERSIDE CO ENVIRONMEN
62072 04/27/00 001365 RIVERSIDE C0 ENVIRONMEN
62072 04/27/00 001365 RIVERSIDE CO ENVIRONMEN
RENEW ANNUAL PERMIT:TES POOL
RENEW ANNUAL PERMIT: SNACK BAR
RENEW ANNL PERMIT:R.V,SNACK BR
RENEW ANNUAL PERMIT:PALOMA PRK
190-180-999-5250
190-180-999-5250
190-180-999-5250
190-180-999-5250
210.00
65.00
65.00
65.00
405.00
620}'3 04/27/00
RIVERSIDE CO TREASURER- #4217 SALES AGRMNT PUBL COST 165-199-999-5250
620.00
620.00
62074 04/27/00 004102 RIVERSIDE COMMUNICATION RADIO FOR STATION 83
001-171-999-5242
900.79
900.79
62075 04/27/00 001097 ROADLINE PRODUCTS INC PARTS/SUPPLIES FOR STENCIL TRK
62075 04/27/00 001097 ROADLINE PRODUCTS INC FREIGHT
62075 04/27/00 001097 ROADLINE PRODUCTS INC SALES TAX
001-164-601-5218
001-164-601-5218
001-164-601-5218
692.91
10,80
53.70
757.41
62076 04/27/00 002226 RUSSO, MARY ANNE TCSD INSTRUCTOR EARNINGS 190-183-999-5330
700.00
700.00
62077 04/27/00 SDHMERSAL, LORI REFUND: SECURITY DEPOSIT 190-2900
62078 04/27/00 002384 SECURE BUSINESS COMMUNI AUDIO/VIDEO MAINTENANCE SVCS 320-199-999-5250
100.00
600.00
100.00
600.00
62079 04/27/00 004103 SKY ADVERTISING
RECRUITMENT AD:ADMIN SECRETARY 001-150-999-5254
239.80
239.80
62080 04/27/00 000645 SMART & FINAL INC RECREATION CLASS SUPPLIES 190-184-999-5301
62080 04/27/00 000645 SMART & FINAL INC RECREATION CLASS SUPPLIES 190-183-999-5320
17.47
175,85
193.32
62081 04/27/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON
62081 04/27/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON
62081 04/27/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON
62081 04/27/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON
62081 04/27/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON
62081 04/27/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON
62081 04/27/00 000537 SO CAIIF EDISON
62081 04/27/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON
62081 04/27/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON
62081 04/27/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON
62081 04/27/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON
62081 04/27/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON
62081 04/27/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON
62081 04/27/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON
62081 04/27/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON
62081 04/27/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON
62081 04/27/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON
62081 04/27/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON
62081 04/27/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON
62081 04/27/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON
62081 04/27/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON
62081 04/27/00 000537 SO CALIF EDISON
APR:2-11-007-0455:6TH ST 001-164-603-5240
APR:2-14-204-1615:FRNT ST RDIO 340-199-701-5240
APR:2-13-O79-2377:HWY 79 191-180-999-5319
MAR:2-19-488-2627:PIO PICO RD 191-180-999-5319
APR:2-O9-330-3139:WINCH RD 191-180-999-5319
APR:2-18-937-3152:MORENO RD 190-185-999-5240
APR:2-19-249-3989:VARIOUS MTRS 191-180-999-5319
APR:2-O2-351-4946:SR CTR 190-181-999-5240
APR:2-O7-626-6063:RANCHO VISTA 193-180-999-5240
APR:2-18-348-6315:MARGARITA RD 191-180-999-5319
APR:2-18-049-6416:FRONT ST PED 001-164-603-5319
APR:2-O2-351-6800:VARIOUS MTRS 191-180-999-5240
APR:2-19-171-8568:WED CHAPEL 190-185-999-5240
APR:2-OS-791-8807:VARIOUS MTRS 191-180-999-5319
APR:2-20-140-9299:WINCH/YNEZ 191-180-999-5319
APR:2-19-999-9442:VARIOUS MTRS 191-180-999-5319
APR;2-19-335-9700:VARIOUS MTRS 190-180-999-5240
APR:2-19-335-9700:VARIOUS MTRS 191-180-999-5319
APR:2-18-373-9903:MARGARITA 190-180-999-5240
319.54
17.43
87.52
177.57
92.80
232.46
410.37
162.20
71.38
715.31
12.96
108.62
151.97
39.20
59.56
48.23
4,474.64
499.37
610.64
398.32
128.03
696.72
9,514.84
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 8
04/27/00 11:48 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME
62082 04/27/00 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY
62082 04/27/00 001212 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY
62083 04/27/00 000519 SOUTH COUNTY PEST CONTR
62084 04/27/00 002366 STEAM SUPERIOR CARPET C
62084 04/27/00 002366 STEAM SUPERIOR CARPET C
62085 04/27/00 000574 SUPERTONER
62085 04/27/00 000574 SUPERTONER
62085 04/27/00 000574 SUPERTONER
62086 04/27/00 003599 T Y LIN INTERNATIONAL
62087 04/27/00 004076 TEMECULA CREEK LEARNING
62088 04/27/00 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED
62088 04/27/00 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED
62088 04/27/00 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED
62088 04/27/00 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED
62088 04/27/00 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED
62088 04/27/00 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED
62088 04/27/00 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED
62088 04/27/00 000919 TEMECULA VALLEY UNIFIED
62089 04/27/00 003849 TERRYBERRY COMPANY
62089 04/27/00 003849 TERRYBERRY COMPANY
62090 04/27/00 003545 THINK JACOBSON & ROTH
62091 04/27/00 004001 U C REGENTS
62092 04/27/00 001065
62092 04/27/00 001065
62092 04/27/00 001065
62092 04/27/00 001065
62092 04/27/00 001065
62092 04/27/00 001065
62092 04/27/00 001065
62092 04/27/00 001065
62093 04/27/00
62093 04/27/00
62093 04/27/00
62093 04/27/00
62093 04/27/00
62093 04/27/00
62093 04/27/00
62093 04/27/00
62094 04/27/00
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
APR:O91-O24-9300-5:CRC
APR:181-383-8881-6:MUSEUM
PEST CONTROL SVCS:CABOOSE
CITY HALL CARPET CLEANING
CLEAN WALLS/PARTITIORS:C.CHBRS
APR LASER PRINTER MAINT SVCS
NP TONER SUPPLIES
NP TONER SUPPLIES
MAR CONST SUPPORT:PALA BRIDGE
REFRESHMENTS:MGMT RETREAT:3/23
FEB VEHICLE FUEL USAGE
FEB VEHICLE FUEL USAGE
FEB VEHICLE FUEL USAGE
FEB VEHICLE FUEL USAGE
FEB VEHICLE FUEL USAGE
FEB VEHICLE FUEL USAGE
FEB VEHICLE FUEL USAGE
CREDIT;DOESN'T BELONG TO CITY
CUSTOM EMBLEM DIES:RECOGNITION
CUSTOM EMBLEM DIES:RECOGNITION
CONSULTING SERVICES FOR MUSEUM
TREE HAZARD EVAL ~RKSHP:5/25
001065 DEF COMP
001065 DEF COMP
001065 DEF COMP
001065 DEF COMP
001065 DEF COMP
001065 DEF COMP
001065 DEF COMP
001065 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
U-HAUL INTERNATIONAL, I
REFUND: ADMIN CIT #0826/0527
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
190-182-999-5240
190-185-999-5240
001-170-999-5250
340-199-701-5212
340-199-701-5212
320-199-999-5215
320-199-999-5221
320-199-999-5221
210-165-631-5801
001-150-999-5265
001-162-999-5263
190-180-999-5263
001-170-999-5262
001-163-999-5263
001-164-601-5263
001-164-604-5263
001-165-999-5263
001-150-999-5265
001-150-999-5265
190-185-999-5250
190-180-999-5261
001-2080
165-2080
190-2080
193-2080
280-2080
300-2080
320-2080
340-2080
001-2160
165-2160
190-2160
193-2160
280-2160
320-2160
330-2160
340-2160
001-162-4255
ITEM
AMOUNT
1,513.90
73.88
29.00
650.00
175.00
625.00
880.32
510.74
113.35
172.92
321.01
901.75
5.27
335.25
1,019.38
40.61
159.53
9.79-
595.00
595.00
4,975.00
144.00
8,666.20
278.66
I~661.48
46.67
153.66
83.33
666.66
180.73
695.02
100.24
841.38
23.38
29.44
35.02
31.06
79.82
400.00
CHECK
AMOUNT
29.00
825.00
2,016.06
113.35
172.92
2,773.01
1,190.00
I,,975.00
144.00
11,737.39
1,835.36
400.00
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 9
04/27/00 11:48 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CNECK VENDOR VENDOR
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME
ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
62095 04/27/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 001-2120 284.25
62095 04/27/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 165-2120 11.00
62095 04/27/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 190-2120 25.60
62095 04/27/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 193-2120 1.60
62095 04/27/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 194-2120 .20
62095 04/27/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 280-2120 3.50
62095 04/27/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 300-2120 1.25
62095 04/27/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 320-2120 4.00
62095 04/27/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 330-2120 2.50
62095 04/27/00 000325 UNITED WAY 000325 UW 340-2120 .60
62096 04/27/00 001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY I
62096 04/27/00 001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY I
62096 04/27/00 001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY I
62096 04/27/00 001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY I
62096 04/27/00 001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY I
62096 04/27/00 001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY I
62096 04/27/00 001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY I
62096 04/27/00 001342 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY I
62097 04/27/00 003756 WHITE HOUSE SANITATION
62098 04/27/00 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI
62098 04/27/00 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI
62098 04/27/00 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI
62098 04/27/00 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI
62098 04/27/00 000345 XEROX CORPORATION BILLI
62098 04/27/00 000345 XEROX CORPORATION 81LLI
CITY HALL MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 340-199-701-5212
CITY HALL MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 340-199-701-5212
JANITORIAL SUPPLIES FOR PARKS 190-180-999-5212
CITY HALL MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 340-199-701-5212
CRC MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 190-182-999-5212
CRC MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 190-182-999-5212
CITY HALL MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 340-199-701-5212
PARKS MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 190-180-999-5212
MAINT SVCS:BUTTERFIELD R.R. 190-180-999-5250
MAR REPAIR/MAINT OF DC220 CPR
MAR LEASE INTEREST:DC220 CPR
MAR LEASE OF DC220 COPIER
MAR BASE CHRG FOR 5343 COPIER
JAN-MAR BASE CHRG:2510 COPIER
MAR BASE CHARGE:PC20 COPIER
330-199-999-5217
330-199-999-5391
330-2800
330-199-999-5217
330-199-999-5239
001-171-999-5217
138.10
579.25
40.56
128.28
41.91
207.67
249.51
147.25
50.00
77.57
56.32
119.08
242.77
120.00
148.70
334.50
1,532.53
50.00
764.44
TOTAL CHECKS 204,970.62
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 3
04/27/00 12:16 VCUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
FUND TITLE
001 GENERAL FUND
190 COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
210 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJ FUND
320 INFORMATION SYSTEMS
AMOUNT
990,866.15
5,320.00
699,524.49
71838.72
TOTAL 1,703,549.36
VOUCHRE2 CITY OF TEMECULA PAGE 1
04/27/00 12:16 VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIOOS
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK VENDOR VENDOR ITEM ACCOUNT ITEM CHECK
NUMBER DATE NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION NUMBER AMOUNT AMOUNT
62101 05/09/00 003213 A M S PLANNING RESEARCH MAR:KID MUSEUM FEASIBILTY STDY 210-190'165'5802 6,000.00 6,000.00
62102 05/09/00 001193 COMP U S A INC 3- SONY NOTEBOOK COMPUTER 320-1970 7,199.91
62102 05/09/00 001193 COMP U S A INC FREIGHT 320-1970 75.00
62102 05/09/00 001193 COMP U S A INC SALES TAX 320-1970 563.81
7,838.72
62103 05/09/00 003986 COZAD & THOMSEN INC DESIGN SVCS:PALA RD SOUNDWALL 210-165-631-5802 9,470.86 9,470.86
62104 05/09/00 003511 DELL COMPUTER CORPORATI 4 COMPUTERS-POLICE STOREFRONT 001-170-502-5604 6,324.00
62104 05/09/00 003511 DELL COMPUTER GORPORATI SALES TAX 001-170-502-5604 490.11 6,814.11
62105 05/09/00 001544 E L YEAGER CONSTRUCTION PAVEMENT MGMT:WINCH REHAB PRJT 210-165-655-5804 358~190.75
62105 05/09/00 001544 E L YEAGER CONSTRUCTION RETENTION:PW99-16:PAVEMNT REHA 210-2035 35,819.07-
322,371.68
62106 05/09/00 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 03/24 CHUiTONY 001-164-604-5118 11644.80
62106 05/09/00 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 03/24 GALLARDO 001-165-999-5118 2~510.31
62106 05/09/00 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 03/24 MILES 001-163-999-5118 292.08
62106 05/09/00 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 03/24 MILES 001-165-999-5118 292.08
62106 05/09/00 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 03/24 MILES 001-164-604-5118 292.08
62106 05/09/00 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 04/07 GALLARDO 001-165-999-5118 2,772.53
62106 05/09/00 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 04/07 CHU,TONY 001-164-604-5118 1,644.80
62106 05/09/00 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 04/07 MILES 001-163-999-5118 312.36
62106 05/09/00 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 04/07 MILES 001-165-999-5118 312.36
62106 05/09/00 001380 E S I EMPLOYMENT SERVIC TEMP HELP W/E 04/07 MILES 001-164-604-5118 312.37
10,385.77
62107 05/09/00 000164 ESGIL CORPORATION MAR PLAN CHECKING SVCS
001-162-999-5248 8,576.13 8,576.13
62108 05/09/00 003592 GRANITE CONSTRUCTION MAR PRGSS CO#11-12:PALA RD 210-165-631-5804 80,743.60
62108 05/09/00 003592 GRANITE CONSTRUCTION MAR PBSS:PALA RD PW97-15 210-165-631-5804 229,569.50 310,313.10
62109 05/09/00 001719 L P A INC DESIGN/DEVEL:TEM LIBRARY PRJT 210-199-129-5802 42,522.80
62109 05/09/00 001719 L P A INC REIMBURSABLES 210-199-129-5802 989.80 43,512.60
62110 05/09/00 003286 LIBRARY SYSTEMS & SERVI MAR SVCS-LIBRARY SYSTEM AGRMT 001-101-999-5285 9~789.49 9,709.49
62111 05/09/00 002256 P & D CONSULTANTS INC MAR:BLDG INSPECTION SVCS 001-162-999-5118 16,363.00 16,363.00
62112 05/09/00 000267 RIVERSIDE CO FIRE DEPAR 2ND QTR/4TH QTR EST:FIRE SVCS 001-171-999-5251 1,043,176.27
62112 05/09/00 000267 RIVERSIDE CO FIRE DEPAR CR:FY 99/00 4TH QTR ESTIMATE 001-171-999-5251 521m588.14- 521,588.13
62113 05/09/00 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS D LAW ENFORCEMENT
62113 05/09/00 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS D LAW ENFORCEMENT
62113 05/09/00 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS D LAW ENFORCEMENT
62113 05/09/00 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS D LAW ENFORCEMENT
62113 05/09/00 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS O LAW ENFORCEMENT
62113 05/09/00 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS D LAW ENFORCEMENT
62113 05/09/00 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS D LAW ENFORCEMENT
62113 05/09/00 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS D LAW ENFORCEMENT
62113 05/09/00 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS D LAW ENFORCEMENT
62113 05/09/00 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS D LAW ENFORCEMENT
62113 05/09/00 000406 RIVERSIDE CO SHERIFFS D LAW ENFORCEMENT
JAN 2000 001-170-999-5288 232,506.26
JAN 2000 001-170-999-5299 39,331.40
JAN 2000 001-170-999-5298 381912.00
JAN 2000 001-170-999-5294 101030.62
JAN 2000 001-170-999-5300 19,456.00
JAN 2000 001-170-999-5291 9,752.55
JAN 2000 001-1230 3#250.85
JAN 2000 001-170-999-5281 26,031.80
JAN 2000 001-170-999-5262 20,589.76
JAN 2000 001-170-999-5279 2,553.88
JAN 2000 001-170-999-5297 14,934.40
4171349.52
VOUCHRE2
04/27/00 12:16
VOUCHER/
CHECK CHECK
NUMBER DATE
62114 05/09/00
62115 05/09/00
CITY OF TEMECULA
VOUCHER/CHECK REGISTER
FOR ALL PERIODS
VENDOR VENDOR ITEM
NUMBER NAME DESCRIPTION
003545 THINK JACOBSON & ROTH C/0#2 PMT-DESIGN TEM MUSEUM
003730 WEST COAST ARBORISTS 1N TREE TRIMMING MAINT:VAR PARKS
ACCOUNT
NUMBER
210-190-808-5804
ITEM
AMOUNT
7,856,25
5,320,00
PAGE 2
CHECK
AMOUNT
7,856.25
5,320.00
TOTAL CHECKS 1,703,549.36
ITEM 4
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
Genie Roberrs, Director of Finance ~
May 9, 2000
City Treasurer's Report as of March 31, 2000
PREPARED BY:
Tim McDermott, Assistant Finance Director
William B. Pattison, Senior Accountant ~-
RECOMMENDATION:
as of March 31, 2000.
That the City Council receive and file the City Treasurer's Report
DISCUSSION: Reports to the City Council regarding the City's investment portfolio,
receipts, and disbursements are required by Government Code Sections 53646 and 41004
respectively. Attached is the City Treasurer's Report which provides this information. Also
attached are reports that provide information regarding the City's assets, liabilities, and fund
balances as of March 31, 2000.
The City's investment portfolio is in compliance with Government Code Sections 53601 and
53635 as of March 31, 2000.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Attachments: 1. City Treasurer's Report as of March 31, 2000
2. Schedule of Assets, Liabilities, and Fund Equity as of March 31, 2000
3. Fund Equity Detail by Fund as of March 31, 2000
$ 51,823,495
(4,815,620)
$ 50,835,056
C~h and Inveatmenta Portfolio:
Petty Cash City Hall n/a $ 1,500 $ 1,500
Cwcncral Checking Union Bank n/a (397,572) (391,572) (1)
(Mor~y Market A~count) (Highmark U.S. Trcasury)
B~ncfitDemandDcposits UnionBank n/a 556 556 (1)
$ 50,835,056
City of Temecula
Schedule ~fAsseiJ, Liabilitle~, and Fund Balances
As of March 31, 2000
To~lasgts
Conununity Conununity
City (1) District A~cy Dis~cta (2) Total
$ 33,928,524 $ 1,742,626 $ 10,411,691 $ 4,752,215 $ 50,835,056
5,175,645 42,155 2,303,551 17,689 7,539,040
45,299 21,054 362,064 1,206 423~,623
530,401 2,103,053 2,633,434
132,202 132,202
420,986 420,986
1,128,220 1~128,220
$ 41,361,27.mauamuua=~7 $ 1,805,835 S 15,180,359 $ 4,771,110 $ 637118,581
Total liabili~ga
Fund equity:
Contributed capital
Rctain=d earnings
Fund balances:
Reserved (3)
l~sigaat~d (3)
Unduignst=d
Total fund equity
Total liabilitiea and fund equity
63,069 $ 3,284 $ 362,064 $ 1,206 $ 429,623
6,741,046 163,942 518,479 3,64~,738 11,070,205
320t784 912,182 1,232,966
7,124,899 167,226 1,792,725 3,647,944 12,732,794
1,281,781 1,281,781
1,170,112 1,170,112
10,197,115 877,445 14,052,292 5,750 25,132,602
20,531,232 761,164 (664,658) 1,117,416 21,745,154
1,056,138 1,056t138
34,2361378 1t638,609 13,387,634 1,123,166 50,3851787
ITEM 5
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANC
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
City ManagedCity Council
William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE: May 9, 2000
SUBJECT:
Temecula Creek Line W, Stage IV, Storm Drain Project No. 7-0-0051
Tract Map Numbers 24136 and 25417 - Cooperative Agreement
Ronald J. Parks, Deputy Director of Public Works
PREPARED BY: f.~ Gerald L. Alegria, Senior Engineer - Land Development
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
Approve the Temecula Creek Line W, Stage IV, Storm Drain Project No. 7-0-0051, Tract
Map Numbers 24136 and 25417- Cooperative Agreement with the Riverside County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District, Cal-Paseo Del Sol, LLC and the City of Temecula.
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 850 lineal feet of underground concrete
pipe in De Portola Road, illustrated on Exhibit "A".
The City of Temecula Planning Commission approved Tract Map No. 25417 on August 5, 1991.
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 650 lineal feet of underground concrete pipe in Campanula Way,
illustrated on Exhibit "A".
Pursuant to the Cooperative Agreement, the developer will construct said facilities, and the County
Flood Control District 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.
Participation 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.
1
\%TEMEC_FS101/VOLl\Depts\PW\AGDRPT%2000\TernCrkStage4RCFCDCQOPAGRdoc
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:
1. Location Map (Exhibit "A")
2. Cooperative Agreement
2
\%TEMEC_FSIOI\VOLI\DeptS/PW/AGORPT\2OOO%TemCrkStage4RCFCDCOOPAGRdOC
VICINITY MAP
EXHIBIT "A"
1 OF2
EXHIBIT "A"
2OF2
1 AGREEMENT
2 (Tract Numbers 24136 and 25417)
3
The RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER
4
CONSERVATION DISTRICT, hereinafter called "DISTRICT", the CITY OF TEMECULA,
5
hereinafter called "CITY", and CAL-PASEO DEL SOL, LLC, a California limited liability
6
7 company, hereinafter called "DEVELOPER", hereby agree as follows:
8 RECITALS
9 A. DEVELOPER has submitted for approval Tract Nos. 24136 and 25417 in
10 the city of Temeeula, and as a condition for approval DEVELOPER must construct certain flood
11 control facilities in order to provide flood protection for DEVELOPER'S planned development;
12
and
13
B. The required facility includes a reach of Line W which consists of
14
approximately 850 lineal feet of underground concrete pipe, and a lateral extending down
15
16 Campanula Way which consists of approximately 650 lineal feet of underground concrete pipe,
17 hereinafter called "PROJECT", as shown in concept in red on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and
18 made a part hereof; and
19 C. PROJECT connects to Line VV, Stage 3, a proposed underground concrete
20
pipe, hereina~er called "STAGE 3", as shown in concept in green on Exhibit "A", that will be
21
constructed and inspected by DISTRICT under the authority of a separate Cooperative
22
Agreement between DISTRICT, CITY and DEVELOPER; and
23
D. DEVELOPER and CITY desire DISTRICT to accept ownership and
24
25 responsibility for the operation and maintenance of PROJECT, excluding all catch basins,
26
27
28
-1-
1
connector pipes and laterals. Therefore, DISTRICT must review and approve the plans and
2
specifications and subsequently inspect the construction of PROJECT; and
3
E. DISTRICT is willing to (i) review and approve plans and specifications
4
5 prepared by DEVELOPER for PROJECT, (ii) inspect the coustruction of PROJECT, and (iii)
6 accept ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of PROJECT, excluding
7 all catch basins and connector pipes, provided DEVELOPER (i) complies with this Agreement,
8 (ii) pays DISTRICT the mounts specified herein to cover DISTRICT'S costs for plan review,
9 construction inspection and in the preparation and administration of this agreement, (iii)
10
conslxuets PROJECT in accordance with plans and specifications approved by DISTRICT and
11
CITY, (iv) obtains all regulatory permits, and (v) accepts ownership and responsibility for the
12
operation and maintenance of PROJECT after completion of PROJECT consauction until such
13
time as DISTRICT accepts ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of
14
15 PROJECT and STAGE 3; and
16 F. CITY is willing to (i) review and approve plans and specifications prepared
17 by DEVELOPER for PROJECT, (ii) accept and hold faithful performance and payment bonds
18 submitted by DEVELOPER for PROJECT, (iii) grant DISTRICT the right to inspect, operate
19
and maintain PROJECT within CITY rights of way, and (iv) accept ownership and responsibility
20
for the operation and maintenance of all catch basins, cormeetor pipes and laterals within CITY
21
rights of way provided PROJECT is constructed in accordance with plans and specifications
22
23 approved by DISTRICT and CITY.
24 NOW, THEEFOE, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
25 SECTION I
26 DEVELOPER shall:
27
28
-2-
I
1. Prepare plans and specifications for PROJECT in accordance with
2
DISTRICT and CITY standards, and submit the plans and specifications to DISTRICT for its
3
review and approval.
4
2. Pay DISTRICT, within thirty (30) days after receipt of periodic billings
5
6 from DISTRICT, any and all such amounts as are deemed reasonably necessary by DISTRICT to
7 cover DISTRICTS costs associated with the review of plans and specifications for PROJECT,
8 and with the processing and administration of this Agreement.
9 3. Deposit with DISTRICT, at the time of providing written notice to
10
DISTRICT of the start of PROJECT construction as set forth in Section 1.7. herein, the estimated
11
cost of providing construction inspection for PROJECT, in an amount as determined and
12
approved by DISTRICT in accordance with Ordinance Nos. 671 and 749 of the County of
13
14 Riverside, including any amendments thereto, based upon the bonded value of PROJECT
15 facilities to be inspected, operated and maintained by DISTRICT.
16 4. Secure, pursuant to its sole cost and expense, all necessary licenses,
17 agreements, permits and fights of entry as may be needed for the construction, inspection,
18
operation and maintenance of PROJECT. DEVELOPER shall furnish DISTRICT, at the time of
19
providing written notice to DISTRICT of the start of construction as set forth in Section 1.7.
20
herein, with sufficient evidence of DEVELOPER having secured such necessary licenses,
21
22 agreements, permits and rights of entry, as determined and approved by DISTRICT.
23 5. Furnish DISTRICT with draft copies of all permits, approvals or
24 agreements required by various resource/regulatory agencies for the construction, operation and
25 maintenance of PROJECT. Such documents include but are not limited to those issued by the
26
27
28
-3-
1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, and California
2
State Department of Fish and Game.
3
6. Provide CITY, at the time of providing written notice to DISTRICT of the
4
start of construction as set forth in Section 1.7. herein, with faithful performance and payment
5
6 bonds, each in the amount of 100% of the estimated cost for construction of PROJECT as
7 determined by DISTRICT. The surety, amount and form of the bonds shall be subject to the
8 approval of DISTRICT and CITY. The bonds shall remain in full force and effect until
9 PROJECT is accepted by DISTRICT as complete; at which time the bond mount may be
10 reduced to t0% for a period of one year to guarantee against any defective work, labor or
11
materials.
12
7. Notify DISTRICT in writing (Attention - Dale V. Anderson), at least twenty
13
(20) days prior to the start of cortstruction of PROJECT. Constxuction shall not begin on any
14
15 element of PROJECT, for any reason whatsoever, until after DISTRICT has issued to
16 DEVELOPER a written Notice to Proceed authorizing DEVELOPER to initiate construction.
17 8. Furnish DISTRICT, at the time of providing written notice to DISTRICT of
18 the start of construction as set forth in Section 1.7. with a complete list of all contractors and
19
subcontractors to be performing work on PROJECT, including the corresponding license number
20
and license classification of each. At such time, DEVELOPER shall further identify in writing
21
its designated superintendent for PROJECT construction.
22
9. Furnish DISTRICT with the final mylar plans for PROJECT and assign
23
24 their ownership to DISTRICT prior to the start of construction on any element of pROjECT.
25 10. Not permit any change to or modification of the plans and specifications for
26 PROJECT without the prior written permission and consent of DISTRICT.
27
28
-4-
1 11. Construct, or came to be constructed, PROJECT at DEVELOPER'S sole
2
cost and expense in accordance with plans and specifications approved by DISTRICT and CITY.
3
12. Accept sole ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance
4
of PROJECT, until such time as DISTRICT accepts ownership and responsibility for operation
5
6 and maintenance of STAGE 3 and PROJECT, excluding all catch baiins, connector pipes and
7 laterals. Further, it is mutually understood by the parties hereto that prior to DISTRICT
8; acceptance of ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of PROJECT as
9 set forth herein, PROJECT shall be in a satisfactorily maintained condition as approved at the
10
sole discretion of DISTRICT.
ll
13. Pay, if suit is brought upon this Agreement or any bond guaranteeing the
12
completion of PROJECT, all costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable
13
14 attorneys' fees, and acknowledge that, upon entry of judgment, all such costs, expenses and fees
15 shall be taxed as costs and included in any judgment rendered.
16
14. Upon completion of construction of PROJECT, but prior to DISTRICT
17 acceptance of PROJECT for ownership, operation and maintenance, DEVELOPER'S civil
18
engineer of record or construction civil engineer of record, duly registered in the State of
19
California, shall provide to DISTRICT redlined "as-builts" of PROJECT. After DISTRICT
20
approval of redlined "as-builts", engineer shall schedule with DISTRICT a time to transfer the
21
redlines onto DISTRICT original mylars at DISTRICTS office, after which the engineer shall
22
23 review, stamp and sign PROJECT plans as "as-built".
24 SECTION II
25 DISTRICT shall:
26
27
28
-5-
1 I. Review and approve plans and specifications prepared by DEVELOPER for
2
PROJECT, prior to the start of construction.
3
2. Provide CITY an opportunity to review PROJECT design plans prior to
4
DISTRICT final approval.
5
3. Upon execmion of this Agreement, record or cadse to be recorded, a copy
6
7 of this Agreement in the Official Records of the Riverside County Recorder.
8 4. Inspect the consauction of PROJECT.
9 5. Keep an accurate accounting of all DISTRICT costs associated with the
10 review and approval of plans and specifications for PROJECT and in processing and
11
administration of this Agreement.
12
6. Keep an accurate accounting of all DISTRICT construction inspection
13
costs, and within forty-five (45) days after DISTRICT acceptance of PROJECT as being
14
15 complete, submit a final cost statement to DEVELOPER. If the deposit, as set forth in Section
16 1.3. exceeds such costs, DISTRICT shall reimburse DEVELOPER the excess amount within
17 sixty (60) days aeter DISTRICT acceptance of PROJECT as being complete. If at any time the
18 costs exceed the deposit or are anticipated by DISTRICT to exceed the deposit, DEVELOPER
19
shall pay such additional mount, as deemed reasonably necessary by DISTRICT to complete
20
PROJECT, within thirty (30) days after receipt of billing from DISTRICT.
21
7. Accept ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of
22
23 PROJECT, excluding catch basins and connector pipes upon (i) DISTRICT acceptance of
24 PROJECT consauction as being complete, (ii) DISTRICT acceptance of STAGE 3, and (iii)
25 acceptance by CITY of all necessary street rights of way as deemed necessary by DISTRICT and
26 CITY for the operation and maintenance of PROJECT.
27
28
-6-
1
2
3
4
5
8. Provide CITY reproducible duplicate "as-built" mylar prints for all
PROJECT facilities constructed within CITY rights of way, upon DISTRICT acceptance of
PROJECT as being complete.
SECTION III
CITY shall:
6
7 1. Review and approve plans and specifications prepared by DEVELOPER for
8 those portions of PROJECT within CITY rights of way, prior to the start of construction of
9 PROJECT.
10
2. Accept the CITY and DISTRICT approved faith_tiff performance and
11
payment bonds submitted by DEVELOPER as set forth in Section 1.6. and hold said bonds as
12
provided hereLm
13
3. Grant DISTRICT, by execution of this Agreement, the right to construct,
14
15 inspect, operate and maintain PROJECT within CITY rights of way as set forth hereLm
16 4. Upon DISTRICT acceptance of PROJECT as being complete, accept
17 ownership and responsibility for the operation and maintenance of all catch basins, connector
18
pipes and laterals within CITY rights of way.
19
5. Upon DISTRICT acceptance of PROJECT as being complete, accept sole
20
responsibility for the adjustment of ail PROJECT manhole rings and covers located within CITY
21
22 rights of way, at no cost to DISTRICT, which mast be performed at such time that the furlshed
23 grade along and above PROJECT is improved, repaired, replaced or changed.
24 6. Not grant any occupancy permits for any units within any portion of Tract
25 Nos. 24136 and 25417 until construction of PROJECT is complete, unless otherwise approved in
26 writing by DISTRICT.
27
28
-7-
1 SECTION IV
2
It is further mutually agreed:
1. All work involved with PROJECT shall b~ inspected by DISTRICT and
4
shall not be deemed complete until approved and acceptfl in writing as complete by DISTRICT.
2. CITY and DEVELOPER personnel may observe ~nd inspect all work being
6
7 done on PROJECT, but shall provide any comments to DISTRICT personnel who shall be
8 r~sponsible for all quality control communications with the contrmztor during the conslruction of
9 PROJECT.
10 3. DEVELOPER shall complete construction of PROJECT within twelve (12)
11
consecutive months after execution of this Agreement and within ninety (90) consecutive
12
calendar days after commencing work on PROJECT. It is expressly understood that since time is
13
14 of the essence in this Agreement, failure of DEVELOPER to perform the work within the agreed
15 upon time shall constitute authority for DISTRICT to perform the remaining work and require
16 DEVELOPER'S surety to pay to CITY the penal sum of any and all bonds. In which case, CITY
17 shall subsequently reimburse DISTRICT for DISTRICT costs incurred.
18 4. DEVELOPER shall, during the consauction period of PROJECT, provide
19
Workers' Compensation humnee in an mount required by law. A certificate of said insurance
20
policy shall be provided to DISTRICT and CITY at the time of providing written notice pursuant
21
to Section 1.7.
22
23 5. DEVELOPER shall, commencing on the date notice is given pursuant to
24 Section 1.7. and continuing until DISTRICT accepts PROJECT as complete for ownership,
25 operation and maintenance:
26
27
28
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
(a) Provide and maintain or cause its contractor(s) to provide and
maintain comprehensive liability insurance coverage which shall
protect DEVELOPER from claim from damages for personal injury,
including accidental and wrongful death, as well as from claims for
property damage which may arise from DEVELOPER'S construction
of PROJECT or the performance of its obligations hereunder, whether
such construction or performance be by DEVELOPER, by any of its
contractors, subcontractors, or by anyone employed directly or
indirectly by any of them. Such insurance shall name DISTRICT and
CITY as additional insured with respect to this Agreement and the
obligations of DEVELOPER hereunder. Such insurance shall
provide for limits of not less than two million dollars ($2,000,000)
per occurrence.
(b) Cause its insurance carrier(s) or its contractor's insurance carrier(s),
who shall be authorized by the California Department of Insurance to
txansact business of insurance in the State of California, to furnish
DISTRICT and CITY at the time of providing written notice to
DISTRICT of the start of construction as set forth in Section 1.7. with
certificate(s) of insurance showing that such insurance is in full force
and effect and that DISTRICT and CITY are named as additional
insured with respect to this Agreement and the obligations of
DEVELOPER hereunder. Further, said certificate(s) shall state that
the issuing company shall give DISTRICT and CITY sixty (60) days
-9-
1 written notice in the event of any cancellation, termination, non-
2
renewal or reduction in coverage of the policies evidenced by the
3
certificate(s). In the event of any such cancellation, termination, non-
4
renewal or reduction in coverage, DEVELOPER shall, forthwith,
5
6 secure replacement insurance meeting the provision of this paragraph.
7 Failure to maintain the insurance required by this paragraph shall be
8 deemed a material breach of this Agreement and shall authorize and constitute authority for
9 DISTRICT, at its sole discretion, to proceed to perform the remaining work pursuant to Section
10
IV.3.
I1
6. PROJECT construction work shall be on a five (5) day, forty (40) hour
12
work week with no work on Saturdays, Sundays or DISTRICT designated legal holidays, unless
13
' otherwise approved in writing by DISTRICT. If DEVELOPER feels it is necessary to work
14
15 more than the normal forty (40) hour work week or on holidays, DEVELOPER shall make a
16 written request for permission ~'om DISTRICT to work the additional hours. The request shall
17 be submitted to DISTRICT at least 72 hours prior to the requested additional work hours and
18
state the reasons for the overtime and the specific time frames required. The decision of granting
19
permission for overtime work shall be made by DISTRICT at its sole discretion and shall be
20
final. If permission is granted by DISTRICT, DEVELOPER will be charged the cost incurred at
21
the overtime rates for additional inspection time required in connection with the overtime work
22
23 in accordance with Ordinance Nos. 671 and 749, including any amendments thereto, of the
24 County of Riverside.
25 7. In the event that any claim or legal action is brought against DISTRICT or
26 CITY in connection with this Agreement because of the actual or alleged acts or omissions by
27
28
-10-
I DEVELOPEPh DEVELOPER shall defend, indemnify and hold DISTRICT and CITY harmless
2
therefrom, without cost to DISTRICT or CITY. Upon DEVELOPER'S failure to do so,
3
DISTRICT and CITY shall be entitled to recover from DEVELOPER all of their cost and
4
expenses, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees.
5
8. DEVELOPER shall defend, indemnify and hold DISTRICT and CITY,
6
7 their respective officers, agents, employees and independent contractors free and harmless from
8 any claim or legal action whatsoever, based or asserted, pursuant to Article I, Section 19 of the
9 Caiifomia Constitution, the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, or any other law
10 or ordinance which seeks to impose any other liability or damage whatsoever, for the design,
11
construction or failure of PROJECT or from the diversion of the waters from the natural drainage
12
' patterns, save and except claims and litigation arising through the sole negligence or sole willful
13
: misconduct of DISTRICT or CITY. DEVELOPER shall defend DISTRICT and CITY without
14
15
16
cost to DISTRICT or CITY, and upon DEVELOPER'S failure to do so, DISTRICT and CITY
shall be entitled to recover from DEVELOPER all of their cost and expenditures, including, but
17 not limited to, reasonable attorneys' fees.
18
9. DEVELOPER for itself, its successors and assigns hereby releases
19 DISTRICT and CITY, their respective officers, agents, and employees from any and all claims,
20
demands, actions, or suits of any kind arising out of any liability, known or unknown, present or
21
future, including, but not limited to any claim or liability, based or asserted, pursuant to Article I,
22
Section 19 of the California Constitution, the Fifth Amendment of the United States
23
24 Constitution, or any other law or ordinance which seeks to impose any other liability or damage,
25 whatsoever, for the design, construction or failure of PROJECT, or the discharge of drainage
26 within or from PROJECT. Nothing contained herein shall constitute a release by DEVELOPER
27
28
-11-
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
of DISTRICT or CITY, their officers, agents and employees fi'om 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.
10. Any waiver by DISTRICT or by CITY of any broach of any one or more of
the terms of this Agreement shall not be construed to be a waiver oi 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.
11. If any provision in this Agreement is held by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforeeable, the remaining provisions will nevertheless
continue in full force without being impaired or invalidated in any way.
12. This Agreement is to be construed in accordance with the laws of the State
of California.
13. 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
Atm: Dean Meyer
14. Any action at law or in equity brought by any of the parties hereto for the
purpose of enforcing a fight or fights provided for by the Agreement, shall be tried in a court of
competent jurisdiction in the County of Riverside, State of California, and the parties hereto
-I2-
1 waive all provisions of law providing for a change of venue in such proceedings to any other
2
county.
3
15. This Agreement is the result of negotiations between the parties hemto, and
the advice and assistance of their respective counsel. The fact that this A~reement was prepared
6 as a totter of convenience by DISTRICT shall have no import or signl~cance. Any uncertainty
7 or ambiguity in this Agreement shall not be construed against DISTRICT because DISTRICT
8 prepared this A~reement in its final form.
9 16. The fights and obligations of DEVELOPER shall inure to and be binding
10 upon all heirs, successors and assignees.
11
17. DEVELOPER shall not assign or otherwise transfer any of its fights, duties
12
or obligations hereunder to any person or entity without the written consent of the other parties
13
hereto b~ing first obtained. In the event of any such transfer or assigmnent~ DEVELOPER
14
15 expressly understands and agrees that it shall remain liable with respect to any and all of the
16 obligations and duties contained in this Agreement.
17 18. This Agreement is intended by the parties hereto as a final expression of
18 their understanding with respect to the subject matter hereof and as a complete and exclusive
19
statement of the terms and conditions thereof and supersedes any and all prior and
20
contemporaneous agreements and understandings, oral or written, in connection therewith. This
21
Agreement may be changed or modified only upon the written consent of the parties hereto.
22
//
23
24 //
25
26
27
28
-13-
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
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hemto 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
JOE S. RANK
Assistant County Counsel
Dated '3 l'2-'i~ [oo
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:seb
PC\61314
03/24/2000
CALrPAS. EO' D. EL .SO.L? LLC,
LaD o
Vice President
(NOTARY)
-14-
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California
County of lab DIego ss.
O~e~rll ! 7, 2'000
personally appeared
, before me, Deletes A. Valle, Notary Public
Name and T:tle of Officer (e g, Jane Doe, Notan/Pubhc')
/,.Dotwiwa K. ti4oe~se~.,., and James M. Delhamer
Name(s) Of Signer(s)
I~ personally known to me
I 3 proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence
DOLORES A ', AU_
: ,200Q
to be the person(s) whose name(s)-~/are
subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that hei. et=~/they executed
the same in hick'for/their authorized
capacityties), and that by ~/their
signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or
the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)
acted. executed the instrument.
WITNE~d,t~eal'
OPTIONAL
Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document
and could prevent fraudu/ent removal and reattachment of this form to another document.
Description of Attached Docu nt
n'Wesee del eel
Title or Type of Document:
Document Date:
Number of Pages:
Signer(s) Other Than Named Above:
Capacitylies) Claimed by Signer
Signer's Name: Individual
Corporate Officer -- Title(s):
Partner -- Limited L~! General
Attorney ~n Fact
Trustee
Guardian or Conservator
Other:
Signer Is Representing: hl-Pejsee, 4ellel. U.e
LaDenha K. Mobsees and James M, Delhalnet
PROJECT S I TE
VICINITY MAP
EXHIBIT "A"
1 OF2
EXHIBIT "A"
2OF2
ITEM 6
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
City ManagedCity Council
William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE:
May 9, 2000
SUBJECT:
Completion and Acceptance for the Rancho California Road at 1-15 Ramp
Improvements, Project No. PW95-12 (PW98-08)
PREPARED BY:
Scott Harvey, Associate Engineer - Capital Projects
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
1. Accept the project for the Rancho California Road at 1-15 Ramp Improvements, Project No.
PW95-12(PW98-08), as complete; and
2, File a Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one (1) year
Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract; and
3. Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after filing of the Notice of Completion,
if no liens have been filed,
BACKGROUND: On July 27, 1999, the City Council awarded the contract to McLaughlin
Engineering & Mining, Inc. for an amount of $756,965.00. Five contract change orders for an
amount of $44,457.20 was approved by the City Manager. Three of the change orders ($21,511.00)
were for the installation of the Old Town Front Street signs. Funds were appropriated for the signs
by City Council at the September 14, 1999 meeting and are available in Account No. 280-199-829-
5804. Also, there were some increases and decreases in quantity extension costs totaling amount
of -$30,899.00. This brings the total cost of the project to $770,523.20.
The Contractor has completed the work in accordance with the approved plans and specifications
and within the allotted contract time to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Caltrans. The
construction retention for this project will be released on or about 35 days after the Notice of
Completion has been recorded.
FISCAL IMPACT: The total bid amount for this project was $756,965.00. Contract change order
nos. 1 through 5 were approved in the amount of $44,457.20. Contract change orders 2 through 4,
totaling $21,511.00 for the CIP - Freeway Signs Old Town. With some quantity extension costs of
-$30,899.00, bringing the total cost of the project to $770,523.20. This project is funded through
Capital Project Reserve funds, account no. 210-165-711-5804, in the amount of $563,115.20,
FY1998-99 Pavement Management Project, Measure "A" funds, account no. 210-165-655-5804, in
the amount of $185,897.00, and CIP - Freeway Signs Old Town, account no. 280-199-829-5804,
in the amount of $21,511.00.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Notice of Completion
Maintenance Bond
3. Contractor's Affidavit
2
F\DEPTS~PW~AGDRPT~2000\O5091PW95-12(98-OS) ACCDOC
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 McLaughlin Engineering & Mining, Inc.
to perform the following work of improvement:
Rancho California Road at I-15 Ramp Improvements, Project No. PW95-12(PW98-08)
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 May 9, 2000. That upon
said contract the Frontier Pacific 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. PW95-12
(PW98-08).
5. The street address of said property is: I-15 Freeway and Rancho California Road.
Dated at Temecula, California, this 9th day of May, 2000.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
Susan W. Jones CMC, City Clerk
I, Susan W. Jones CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California and do hereby certify under penalty
of pedury, that the foregoing NOTICE OF COMPLETION is true and correct, and that said NOTICE OF
COMPLETION was duly and regularly ordered to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of
Riverside by said City Council.
Dated at Temecula, California, this 9'h day of May, 2000.
Susan W. Jones CMC, City Clerk
(a Cahfornia Company)
6404 Wilsh~re BIrd, Suite 850. Los Angeles. California <X)048-5510
MAINTENANCE BOND
BOND NO. 7647
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS:
That Ndaughlin Engineering & ~ning, Inc.
as Principal. hereinafter called Contractor, and Fl~er Pacific Insurance ~ . as Surety,
hereinafter called Surety, are held and firmly bound unto City of TeZL-'~Ula
as Obligee, hereinafter called Owner, in the penal sum of $ 77,052,00 . for the payment whereof Contractor
and Surety hind themselves. their heirs. executors. administrators. successors and assigns. jointly and severally. firmly by
these presents.
WHEREAS, Contractor has by written agreement. dated ,April ZT, 2G:X}
entered into a contract with Owner for RarlCho California Road 8 1-15 Ramp lqx'ovu,~ts (101;) Pai ntemnce Bead
in accordance with the General Conditions, the Drawings and Specifications, which contract is by reference incorporated
herein, and made a part hereof, and is referred to as the Contract,
NOW, THEREFORE. the condition of this obligation is such that, if Contractor shall remedy any defects due to faulty
materials or workmanship, and pay for any damage to other work resulting therefrom. which shall appear within a period
of year(s) from the date of substantial completion of the work provided for in the Contract. then this
obligation to be void. otherwise to remain in full force and effect.
PROVIDED. HOWEVER, that Owner shall give Contractor and Surety notice of observed defects with reasonable promptness.
SIGNED and sealed this 27th day of April
In the presence of:
Lori A. Harrison
.)8(20(X) .
P, cLaughlin Engineering & Mining, Inc.
Wa~//'~te ' Vice-President
Frontier Pacific Insurance C~
[SEAL)
Principal
TItle
INSURANCE COMPANY
( A Cantom,a ~)
4250 Executive Square. Suile 200, La Jofia, California 92037
POWER OF ATTORNEY
:LF~thfit~ :3, ~[ 'q'~[l'u ~{ t_l (LThL'el' TJr~.~['lll~t: That FRONTIER PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY, a Cahforma Corporahon. having its principal office
~n La Jolla, CalHorma, pursuant to the logowing resolution, adopte~ by the Boar~ ol Diretots of the Corporabon on the 15th ~ay of November. 1991
"RESOLVED, that the Chmrman o( the Board, the Premdent o~ any Vice President be, and hereby is, authorized to appoint Attorneys-in -
Fact to represent and act Ior and on behalf o{ the Company to execute bon~s. unde~akings. recognizances and other compacts of indemmty
and wnhngs obligatory in the nature thereof, and to attac~ thereto the corporate sere ol the Company. m the transaction of its surety
business:
"R ESQLVE D, th at me sig natures an~ attestations oi such officers and the seal of the Company may be athxed to any such Power Ol Attorney
Or to any certfficale relating thereto by facsimile. and any such Power of Attorney Or certihca~e bearing Such
seal shall be valid and binding u Don the Company when so affixed wdh respec~ to any ~ond. underta king recog n ~z a nce or other contract of
~ndemmty or wrmng obligatory in the nature thereof
"RESOLVED. tha~ any such Attorney-in~Fact dehvenng a Secretana~ cerhhcahon that the lobegoing resolutions shH be ~n effect may rosen ~n
such Certlhcation the date thereof, sa~d date to be not later than the date of delivery thereof by such Attorney-an Fact
This Power o~ Attorney es signed and seale~ m facsimile under an~ by the authority oi the above Resoluhon
DOES HEREBY MAKE. CONSTITUTE AND APPOINT: JAMES T. SMITH JOHN B. MANUS ROGER A. NEAL
~YMOND M. HUNDLEY BROOK T. SMITH
o~ LOUISVILLE m Ihe State ol KENTUCKY
ds true and lawful Agotney(s)-In-Fact wdh lull power an~ authority hereby Conferred m its name, place and stead ~o s~gn execute, acknowledge an~
dehver m ,s behaJf. and as its act and deed, wlthoul power ol redeiegal~on, as Iollows
Bonds guaranteerag the lideli~ of persons holding places of public or private trus~ guarantee~ng the pedormance of contracts other than
~nsurance pohcies; and executing or guaranteeing ~nds and undenakings requ~r~ or ~fm~ed in all actions or proceedings or by law allowed;
IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED THREE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND {g.~,~.~) DOLORS: and to bind FRONTIER PACIFIC
INSURANCE COMPANY thereby as fully and to the same extent as ff such bond or underking was signed by the duly authorized officers of
F RONTI ER PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY. and all the acts of said A~orney(s)-in-Fact pursuant to the authoriW herera gwen are hereby ratified
and Confirm~
3ill ~jhlt'ee ~hcri, tff, FRONTIER PACZFIC INSURANCE COMPANY of La Jolla, Caldorn~a has caused th~s Power oJ Attorney to be s~gned by ds
Vice President and d5 Cocporate seal to be affixed th~s day of , 19
FRONTIER PACIFIC INSURANCE COMPANY
~'--...,,.,~.,.,...,,./ DAVID E2AMPBELL, Vice President
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF SAN O~EGO)
Commission # 1045661 Z
Notan/Pubhc CahfomK3 Z
,h~_' Col.oI~l,on ,' ~ Z7_th .ay ,jr Apr'ii
Joseph P !jghhrl ~ecretary
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California
County of Riverside
On 04/27/00
personally appeared
X personally known to me - OR -
before me. Lori A. Harrison
Name and T~tle of Offmet (e g Jane Doe Nolarl 'umhc I
Wayne White
Name{s) of S~gnerls~
proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s)
whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the w~thin instrument
and acknowledged to me that helshelthey executed the
same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by
his/her/their signature(e) 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.
OPTIONAL
Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent
fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document.
Description of Attached Document
Title or Type of Document: Maintenance Bond - Rancho Calif. Rd. @ 1-15 Ramp Imp.
Document Date: 04/27/00 Number of Pages: 1
Signer(s) Other Than Named Above: No Other Si~ners
Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s)
Signer's Name: Wayne White
Signer's Name:
Individual
Corporate Officer
Title(s): Vice-Pre s ident
Partner -- Limited General
Attorney-in-Fact
Trustee
Guardian or Conservator
Other:
Signer Is Representing:
McLaughlin Engineering
Individual
Corporate Officer
Title(s):
Partner -- Limited , General
Attorney-in-Fact
Trustee
Guardian or Conservator
Other:
Signer Is Representing:
& Mining, Inc.
CITYOF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT AND FINAL RELEASE
PROJECT PW95-f2
RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD A T 1-15 RAMP IMPROVEMENTS
McLaughlin Engineering
This iS to certify that & Mining, inc. , (hereinafter the "CONTRACTOR") declares
to the City of Temecula, under oath, that he/she/it has paid in full for all materials, 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 work of improvement known as PROJECT PW95-12,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD AT 1-15 RAMP IMPROVEMENTS, situated in the City of Temecula,
State of California, more particularly described as follows:
RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD AT 1-15 RAMP IMPROVEMENTS
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:
Description
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.
Dated: 3/28/00
CONTRACTOR
Signature,~k~
Wayne White, VP
Print Name and Title
RELEASE R-1
R ~r0~eClS~Dw98~wg~08~Cramp~rnp
ITEM 7
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City ManagedCity Council
r]/~William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
May 9, 2000
Solicitation of Construction Bids and Approval of the Plans and Specifications
for Project No. PW00-13, FY99-00 - Slurry Seal Project
PREPARED BY:
Bradley A. Buron, Maintenance Superintendent
Amer Attar, Senior Engineer
Steven W. Beswick, Associate Engineer
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Construction Plans
Specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for
Project No. PW00-13, FY99-00, Slurry Seal Project.
and
BACKGROUND: With the Pavement Management System (PMS) in place, a five (5)
year Slurry Seal Project has been formulated. All streets within the City were physically inspected,
evaluated and pdoritized dudng the implementation of the Pavement Management System. Certain
streets have been grouped into areas to provide the most cost-effective projects.
This year's Slurry Seal Project will be using rubberized sealing agent called, "Rubberized Polymer
Modified Emulsion (RPME)", which is a preventive maintenance measure where an asphalt concrete
surface has become dry or brittle. This rubberized agent will be placed over the existing asphalt
concrete pavement to replace the fine materials/oils and seal the pavement surface against water
intrusion. This treatment will extend the life of the existing asphalt concrete pavement from five (5)
to seven (7) years. The work to be performed in this project includes the following: Application of
RPME, crack sealing, treatment of all oil stains, traffic control, and replacement of all striping and
street legends.
The Plans, Specifications and Contract Documents have been completed and the project is ready
to be advertised for construction. These Plans and Specifications are available for review in the City
Engineers office. All plans used in the construction of this project are City of Temecula Standard
Plans approved by the City Council in October 1998.
The Engineer's estimate for this project is $260,000.00.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are available in the Public Works Department Street Maintenance
Account 001-164-601-5402.
ATTACHMENT: Attachment "A"
r:\agdrpt\99\0420\pw99-04bid/seh
SLURRY SEAL LIST
2000
LOCATION
PREECE LANE YNEZ ROAD TO YNEZ ROAD
BUCKEYE ROAD - PREECE LANE TO PREECE LANE
GATEViEW COURT - BUCKEYE ROAD TO END OF STREET
BUTTERNUT DRIVE - BUCKEYE ROAD TO BUCKEYE ROAD
BUTTERNUT DRIVE - BUCKEYE ROAD TO END OF CUL DE SAC
GATEWOOD WAY - PREECE LANE TO END OF CUL DE SAC
LONGVALE COURT - GATEWOOD TO END OF CUL DE SAC
TERRA VISTA ROAD - PREECE LANE TO 28304 TERRA VISTA ROAD
CALLE NACIDO - TERRA VISTA ROAD TO VIA MONDO
CORTE RIALTO - VIA MONDO TO END OF CUL DE SAC
VIA MONDO - CALLE NACIDO TO PREECE LANE
CORTE FRESCA- CALLE NACIDO 100' WEST
CORTE COPA - CALLE NACIDO TO END OF CUL DE SAC
VIA FANITA PREECE LANE TO CALLE NACIDO
C STREET - SANTIAGO ROAD TO END OF CUL DE SAC NORTH
C STREET - SANTIAGO ROAD TO END OF CUL DE SAC SOUTH
CALLE HALCON - YNEZ TO END OF STREET
CIELO DE AZUL - CALLE HALCON TO END OF STREET
VILLA ALTURAS - CALLE HALCON TO PAUBA
CIELO MESA - CALLE HALCON TO END OF STREET
CAMPO VERDE CALLE HALCON TO END OF STREET
CAMPO ROJO - CAMPO VERDE TO END OF STREET
VIA BRISA - ELINDA DRIVE TO END OF STREET
sQ. fT.
2650 X 40 106,000
1310 X 38 49,780
193 X 34 103 X 22 8,828
1080 X 36 38,880
675 X 38 143 X 31 30,083
421X34 102X14
207 X42 117 X 19 26,659
300 X 34 132 X 30 14,160
700 X 40 28,000
1645 X 37 60,865
1100X37 138X19 43,322
511 X37 100X 12 20,107
100 X 36 3,600
142 X 65 9,230
500 X 37 18~500
515 X 34 135 X 24 20,750
220 X 54 11,880
1860 X 33 131 X 36 66,096
127 X 67 8,509
204 X 34 6,936
188X30 108X20 7,800
433 X 30 t40 X 20 15,790
208X30 133X22 9,166
585X37 136XI7 23,957
LOCATION
VIA CANADA - ELINDA DRIVE TO END OF STREET
ELINDA DRIVE - VIA BRISA TO PAUBA ROAD
CORTE VILLA - COLINA VERDE TO END OF STREET
LA PRIMAVERA - PAUBA ROAD TO COLINA VERDE
COL1NA VERDE - LA PRIMAVERA TO END OF STREET
COLINA VERDE LA PRIMAVERA TO VISTA DEL RANCHO
ESTERO STREET - COLINA VERDE TO END OF STREET
VISTA DEL RANCHO - COLFNA VERDE TO COLINA VERDE
COSMIC DRIVE RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD TO AGENA STREET
NEBULA LANE COSMIC DRIVE TO END OF STREET
TWILIGHT COURT - COSM1C DRIVE TO END OF STREET
NORTH STAR COURT - COSMIC DRIVE TO END OF STREET
BOREALIS DRIVE - COSMIC DRIVE TO MIlkYWAY DRIVE
ASTEROID WAY - COSMIC DRIVE TO RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD
M1LKYWAY DRIVE - ASTEROID WAY TO END OF STREET
AGENA STREET - SOUTHERN CROSS ROAD TO END OF STREET SOUTH
AGENA STREET - SOUTHERN CROSS ROAD TO END OF STREET NORTH
SKY TERRACE DRIVE - AGENA STREET TO SOUTHERN CROSS
CENTAUR COURT AGENA STREET TO END OF STREET
ALPHA PLACE - AGENA STREET TO END OF STREET
SOUTHERN CROSS - MARGARITA ROAD TO RANCHO VISTA ROAD
MOONTIDE COURT - SOUTHERN CROSS TO END OF STREET
SPICA COURT SOUTHERN CROSS EAST TO END OF STREET
SPICA COURT - SOUTHERN CROSS WEST TO END OF STREET
ARGO COURT - RANCHO VISTA ROAD TO END OF STREET
MIRA LOMA DRIVE RANCHO VISTA TO END OF STREET
VERONDA PLACE - MIRA LOMA DRIVE TO END OF STREET
-,
sQ.
440 X 37 130 X 18 18~620
1215X39 108X15 49,005
378X30 135X22 14.310
I12X37 4.144
540 X 36 130 X 21 22,120
1710X34 100X15 59,640
460 X 33 130 X 21 17,910
815 X 34 27~710
2625 X 42 110.250
347 X 30 127 X 27 13.839
275X29 127X24 11.023
245 X 30 140 X 20 10. 150
1170 X 38 44,460
1300 X 40 52.000
1930 X42 145 X 19 83,815
1675 X 36 146 X 18 62.928
2475 X 38 130 X 28 97,690
1015X38 llOX15 40.220
146 X 65 9A90
140 X 69 9,660
2490 X 43 107.070
1095 X 38 145 X 18 44.220
600 X 38 160 X 17 25,520
200 X 62 12.400
430X38 150X 19 19.190
ll10X34 140X18 40.260
435 X 30 130 X 19 . 15.520
LOCATION SQ. FT.
CANDIDA PLACE - AGENA STREET TO MIRA LOMA DRIVE 670 X 34 22.780
SENELA - CANDIDA PLACE TO END OF STREET NORTH 175 X 65 11,375
SENELA M CANDIDA PLACE TO END OF STREET SOUTH 326 X 30 150 X 28 13,980
REMORA STREET - MIRA LOMA DRIVE TO END OF STREET 925 X 30 140 X 30 31.950
ESCOLACATA ROAD - REMORA STREET TO SANTA CECILIA DRIVE 545 X 34 18,530
CAPRICE COURT - ESCOLACATA ROAD TO END OF STREET 255 X 30 132 X 19 10, 158
SANTA CECILIA DRIVE - MIRA LOMA DRIVE TO COSMIC DRIVE 2095 X 42 87,990
CARlNO PLACE - SANTA CECILIA DRIVE TO END OF STREET 665 X 30 145 X 21 22.995
VERDADERO PLACE - SANTA CECILIA DRIVE TO END OF STREET 466 X 30 124 X 16 15.964
LEVANDE PLACE - VERDADERO PLACE TO END OF STREET 520 X 30 140 X 14 17,560
CALLE CARRANZA MIRA LOMA DRIVE TO END OF STREET 200 X 29 105 X 19 7,795
CASA CHATA PLACE - MIRA LOMA DRIVE TO END OF STREET 236 X 30 115 X 17 9,035
AVENIDA DE CALZADA -MIRA LOMA DRIVE TO MIRA LOMA DRIVE 615 X 30 18,450
AVENIDA DE LA REINA - RANCHO VISTA ROAD TO CORTE ALHAMBRA 860 X 42 36.120
CORTE ALHAMBRA M AVENIDA DE LA RE1NA TO END OF STREET EAST 900 X 34 134 X 20 33,280
CORTE ALHAMBRA - AVENIDA DE LA REINA TO END OF STREET WEST 1580 X 34 150 X 20 56,720
CORTE ALAMAR - CORTE ALHAMBRA TO END OF STREET 975 X 33 138 X 28 36.039
CORTE DE LOS SANTOS - CORTE ALAMAR TO END OF STREET 750 X 34 142 X 23 28,766
CALLE RIO VISTA - RANCHO VISTA ROAD TO CORTE ALAMAR 156 X 41 6,396
STREET PAST POST OFFICE OFF RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD - RANCHO
CALIFOR. NIA ROAD TO END OF STREET 295 X 45 495 X 29 27,630
CORTE ANZA CALLE ARAGON TO END OF STREET 965 X 38 150 X 23 40,120
CORTE ANACAPA CALLE ARAGON TO END OF STREET 285 X 38 130 X 11 12.260
CALLE ARAGON - RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD. TO AVENIDA DE LA REINA 1532 X 37 56,684
CALLE BAHIA VISTA - RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD. TO AVE. DE LA REINA 150 X 42 6.300
AVENIDA DE LA REINA CALLE BAHIA VISTA TO END OF STREET EAST 980 X 38 175 X 21 40~915
AVENIDA DE LA REINA - CALLE BAHIA VISTA TO END OF STREET WEST 835 X 38 31,730
LOCATION
CORTE TALVERA AVENIDA DE LA REINA TO END OF STREET
VINEYARD AVENUE - REISLING COURT TO MEADOWS PARKWAY
ZINFANDEL AVENUE - VINEYARD AVENUE TO MERLOT CREST
CHEN1N BLANC STREET - MERLOT CREST TO VINEYARD AVENUE
SAUV1GNON COURT - CHENIN BLANC STREET TO END OF STREET
MERLOT COURT - CHENIN BLANC STREET TO END OF STREET
CHABLIS COURT - VINEYARD AVENUE TO END OF STREET
REISLING COURT - RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD TO END OF STREET
HNOT BLANC COURT - REISLING COURT TO END OF STREET
SQ. FT.
1150 X 38 127 X 20 46,240
1310 X 37 48.470
1484 X 37 54,908
1250 X 37 46.250
102 X 73 7,446
188 X 53 9,964
405 X 33 122 X 21 15,927
835 X 38 132 X 25 35,030
182 X 61 11,102
4
TOTALSQ. FT.
2,628,971
ITEM 8
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANC
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manage~City Council
'~A~William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
May 9, 2000
Approval of the Plans and Specifications and Authorization to Solicit
Construction Bids for Pavement Management System - Project No. PW00-14,
Various Streets
PREPARED BY:
Amer Attar, Senior Engineer
Steve Charette, Assistant Engineer
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Construction Plans and
Specifications and authorize the Department of Public Works to solicit construction bids for
Pavement Management System - Project No. PW00-14, Various Streets.
BACKGROUND: With the Pavement Management System (PMS) in place, a five (5)
year Pavement Management System Program has been formulated. The Public Works Department
is proposing to reconstruct and resurface the following street locations:
· Rancho California Road from Hope Drive to Moraga Road.
· Ynez Road from Santiago Road to Jedediah Smith Road.
· Diaz Road from Blackdeer Loop to Rancho Way.
Additional street locations will be resurfaced as budget allows.
The work to be performed will also include replacement of all striping and street legends.
All streets within the City were physically inspected, evaluated and prioritized during the
implementation of the Pavement Management System. Based on these priorities, streets were
grouped into areas that would provide for the most cost-effective projects while providing
maintenance where it would be most beneficial.
The Specifications and Contract Documents have been completed and the project is ready to be
advertised for construction bids. The Specifications are available for review in the City Engineer's
office.
The estimated total cost for this project is $800,000.
FISCAL IMPACT: This is a Capital Improvement Project and will be funded by Measure A.
Adequate funds are available in Account 210-165-655-5804.
r:\agdrpt\00\0509\pwO0-14 .bid
ITEM 9
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
IT APPROVALC_~
C Y ATTORNEY
I'
CITY OFTEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City ManagedCity Council
-/ H,~Villiam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
May 9, 2000
GST Fiber Optics, Purchase of City Designated Conduits
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
Approve an agreement with GST Telecom in the amount of $108,000.00 to purchase
two (2) one quarter inch conduits for City use within GST Telecom fiber optic's trench
and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement.
Authorize the City Manager to approve additional purchases not to exceed the
contingency amount of $10,800.00, which is equal to 10% of the agreement amount.
BACKGROUND: GST Telecom California Inc., (GST) has been meeting with the
Public Works Department over the past year regarding installation of telecommunication
facilities in the City. GST is planning to install eighteen conduits through the City to provide a
new telecommunication transmission system.
The Public Works Department requested that GST provide the City two (2) conduits designated
to City use to avoid the need to trench separate conduits for City traffic signal interconnects and
City intersection camera monitoring systems. GST has agreed to install our conduits for an
amount, which will not exceed $108,000.00. In addition to avoiding traffic disruptions, the City's
cost of this installation will be approximately one quarter (1/4) of the cost of trenching
separately.
The route is along Jefferson Avenue to Winchester Road, Winchester Road to Ynez Road, Ynez
Road to La Paz Road, La Paz Road to State Highway 79 South, State Highway 79 South to
Pala Road, and Pala Road to Rainbow Canyon Road. Our City conduits will end at Rainbow
Canyon Road and Pala Road.
FISCAL IMPACT: An appropriation of $120,000.00 in Capital Project Reserves was
approved as part of the Mid-Year Capital Project Budget. Adequate funds are available for this
project in Account No. 210-165-718-5804.
ATTACHMENTS: GST Agreement
I
R:\agdrpt\2000\0411 \fiberoptics
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE FIBER OPTIC CONDUIT
This Agreement to Purchase Fiber Optic Conduit ("Agreement") is made and
entered into as of May 9, 2000, by and between the City of Temecula, a municipal corporation
("City"), and GST Telecom California, inc., a Delaware Corporation ("GST"). In consideration of the
premises and the mutual agreements and covenants contained herein, and other valuable
consideration, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. RECITALS. This Agreement is made with respect to the following facts and
for the following purposes which each party hereto acknowledges and agrees are true and correct:
a. GST is establishing a fiber optic network and is installing fiber optic
conduit within the City as part of GST network.
b. City desires to purchase and use a portion of the fiber optic conduits
and structures being installed by GST for City's own purposes.
c. GST desires to sell to the City, and City desires to purchase, the fiber
optic conduit, structures, access facilities, and other related facilities which are specifically
described in "Exhibit A", Description of Fiber Optic Conduit, attached hereto and incorporated
herein as though set forth in full (hereafter "Fiber Optic Conduit").
d. The City has determined that it is in the public interest, convenience
and welfare and for the common benefits of the inhabitants of the City, that the City acquire
the Fiber Optic Conduit.
2. PURCHASE FIBER OPTIC CONDUIT. For valuable consideration described
in this Agreement, GST agrees to sell to City and City agrees to purchase from GST, the Fiber Optic
Conduit described in Exhibit A. The final purchase price for the Fiber Optic Conduit shall not exceed
One Hundred Eight Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($108,000.00). City hereby determines and
represents to GST that the purchase of the Fiber Optic Conduit is not a "public work" and does not
require the payment of prevailing wages. In the event that the Director of the California Department
of Industrial Relations determines that the Fiber Optic Conduit being purchased by the City requires
the payment of prevailing wages, the City agrees to pay GST the incremental difference between
the Purchase Price and the price of constructing the Fiber Optic Conduit at prevailing wage, if
applicable, and to indemnify GST for any penalties adsing out of or related to this contract in relation
to the City's representation.
a. The City agrees to purchase the final product, in accordance with the cost
estimate and terms as set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference as though set fodh in full, based upon actual quantities. Any terms in Exhibit B other than
the payment rates and schedule of payment are null and void. This amount purchased shall not
exceed One Hundred Eight Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($108,000.00) for the total term of
the Agreement unless additional payment is approved by the City Council.
b. GST shall not be compensated for the purchase of any facilities in connection
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. The City will only purchase additional
facilities in the amounts and in the manner as agreed to by City Manager and GST at the time City's
written authorization is given to GST. The City Manager may increase the purchased facilities which
don not exceed ten percent (10%) of the amount of the odginal purchase, but in no event shall such
sum exceed twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000.00). Any additional work in excess of this amount
shall be approved by the City Council.
1
R:%agrmts%master%rniscagrmts\GST fiber agrmt
3. CONVEYANCE OF TITLE. GST agrees to convey or cause to be conveyed
title to the Fiber Optic Conduit by bill of sale, approved as to form by both parties, to the City free and
clear of all recorded and unrecorded liens, encumbrances, assessments, easements, leases and
taxes, subject only to those exceptions approved in writing by City pursuant to this Agreement. GST
shall submit to City an invoice for the Purchase Price upon acceptance of title by City, and City shall
pay such invoice within thirty (30) days of receipt. City will be deemed to have accepted title of the
Conduit with GST has completed the Conduit and the Conduit complies with all applicable laws,
regulations, and standards, and GST has submitted an invoice to City for the Conduit. Upon the
conveyance of title to the Fiber Optic Conduit, City shall maintain the Fiber Optic Conduit.
4. INDEMNIFICATION. GST shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its
officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents free and harmless from any and all claims,
demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury, in law or equity, to
property or persons, including wrongful death, whether imposed by a court of law or by administrative
action of any federal, state or local governmental body or agency (collectively "Claims"), in any
manner arising out of or incident to any acts, omissions, negligence, or willful misconduct of GST,
its officials, officers, employees, agents, and GST's arising out of or in connection with the
performance of the Work under this Contract, including without limitation the payment of all
consequential damages and reasonable attorneys fees and other related costs and expenses. This
indemnification excludes only such portion of any claim, demand, cause of action, liability, loss,
damage, penalty, fine, or injury, to property or persons, including wrongful death, which is caused
by the negligence or willful misconduct of City. GST's indemnification obligation herein shall survive
the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
5. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES OF GST. GST hereby represents
and warrants to City that the following statements are true and correct as of the date of this
Agreement, and will be true and correct as of the conveyance of title, and the truth and accuracy of
such statements shall constitute a condition precedent to all of City's obligations under this
Agreement:
a. GST is duly organized, validly existing and in good standing under the laws
of the state of its formation. GST has full legal power and authority to own and to convey the
Fiber Optic Conduit to City and to enter into and perform its obligations under this
Agreement.
b. This Agreement and all other instruments and documents delivered by GST
or its members to City now or at the conveyance of title have been or will be duly authorized,
executed and delivered by GST or its members and are or will be the legal, valid and binding
obligations of GST, sufficient to convey to City good, absolute and marketable title to the
Fiber Optic Conduit and are enforceable in accordance with their respective terms.
c. GST has no knowledge of any pending, threatened or potential investigation,
proceeding or action (including legislative action) or communications with governmental
authorities relating to the failure of GST to comply with any and all statutes, laws, ordinances,
regulations, rules and orders of governmental authorities having or claiming jurisdiction
relating to the ownership, operation and use of the Facilities and Easements including, but
not limited to, compliance with all zoning, health, safety, building and fire regulations and the
obtaining and compliance with any and all necessary permits, licenses and certificates of
authority.
d. GST has no obligations to any finder or broker in connection with the sale of
the Fiber Optic Conduit.
2
R:~agrmtsVnaster~rniscagrmts\GST fiber agrmt
e. GST is not aware of any Hazardous Materials (as defined in Paragraph 10)
that have been used, present, released, stored, manufactured, generated or disposed of on,
under or about, or transported to or from the Fiber Optic Conduit.
f. All of the documents, information and records provided by GST to City in
accordance with this Agreement shall contain true and accurate information and do not omit
any material fact.
g. As of the time of the conveyance of title to the Fiber Optic Conduit, GST shall
have paid and settled all outstanding debts, claims and other obligations owed by GST in
connection with the ownership of the Fiber Optic Conduit, its construction, ("Debts"). City
is not assuming any Debts. GST will indemnify and defend City from all actions relating to
collection of Debts.
h. By entedng into this Agreement and completing the transfer of the Fiber Optic
Conduit, GST will not be in breach of or violate the terms of any agreements to which the
GST may be a party or successor in interest.
i. The Fiber Optic Conduit will be constructed in accordance with all applicable
laws and regulations.
6. SURVIVAL. The representations and warranties of GST made in this
Agreement shall survive the conveyance of title.
7. ATTORNEY'S FEES. In the event of any litigation between the City and
GST, concerning this transaction or interpreting or enforcing the terms of this Agreement, the
prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees.
8. USE OF CONDUIT/NON-COMPETE. City, or any City assignee pursuant to
the terms herein, hereby agrees that the Conduit conveyed to City under this Agreement shall not
be used for any commercial purpose, but strictly for governmental use only.
9. PERMITS AND LICENSES. GST shall be responsible for securing City
permits and licenses necessary to perform its requirements under this Agreement. GST will not be
charged any additional permitting fees, beyond those required independent of this Agreement, for
any City permits directly related to the installation of Conduit for purchase by City.
10. CALIFORNIA LAW. The Agreement shall be construed and governed in
accordance with the laws of the State of California, without regard to any governing principles of
conflicts of law.
11. SECTION HEADINGS. The section headings contained in this Agreement
are for convenience of reference only, shall not affect the meaning or interpretation of this
Agreement, and shall not be considered in construing this Agreement.
12. AMENDMENTS AND WAIVERS. No term or provision of this Agreement may
be amended, altered, modified or waived orally or by a course of conduct, but only by an instrument
in wdting signed by a duly authorized officer or representative of the party against which enforcement
of such amendment, alteration, modification or waiver is sought. Any amendment, alteration,
modification or waiver shall be for such period and subject to such conditions as shall be specified
in the written instrument effecting the same. Any waiver shall be effective only in the specific
instance and for the purpose for which given.
3
R:~agrmtsVnaster\miscagrmts~GST fiber agrmt
· 13. NOTICES. All notices called for herein shall be in writing and shall be
delivered to GST and City at the addresses set forth in this Paragraph. Notices shall be deemed
delivered five (5) business days after first-class mailing, or upon receipt by personal service at the
office of the party, delivery by a reputable overnight courier service (such as, but not limited to,
Federal Express) to the office of the party, or by legible and complete facsimile transmission actually
received by the party in complete and legible form. The following addresses are to which notices
shall be sent pursuant to this Paragraph, provided that either party may change its address by proper
notice to the other:
GST Representative:
Contracts Manager/GST
GST Telecom California, Inc.
4001 Main Street
Vancouver, WA. 98663
CITY Representative:
William G. Hughes
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, Ca. 92589-9033
Attention: City Manager
14. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
a. This Agreement integrates all of the terms and conditions mentioned herein
or incidental hereto, and supersedes all negotiations or previous agreements between the
parties or their predecessors in interest with respect to all or any part of the subject matter
hereof.
counsel.
Both Parties have participated in the drafting of this Agreement through their
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the
date first written above.
GST TELECOM CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware
Corporation
By
Name
Title
By
Name
Title
CITY OF TEMECULA, a Municipal Corporation:
4
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
R:~agrmtsVnaster~niscagrmts\GST fiber agrmt
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, Ci~ Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Peter M Thorson, City Attorney
5
R:~agrmts~naster\miscagrmts~GST fiber agrmt
EXHIBIT "A"
DESCRIPTION OF FIBER OPTIC CONDUIT
The Fiber Optic Conduit shall consist of approximately 37,149 linear feet of 11/4 inch HDPE conduit,
as well as twenty five (25) Cal Trans No. 6 hand holes, to be placed in conjunction with GST's
telecommunication facilities construction project. City access points will be co-located with GST's
manhole in one pit excavation area. The location of the Fiber Optic Conduit is shown on the map
of GST facilities approved by the Director of Public Works and on file in the Office of the Director of
Public Works.
6
R:~agrmts~naster~miscagrmts\GST fiber agrmt
EXHIBIT "B"
The conduit structure that may be requested by the City is approximately 30,655 linear feet along
the proposed route. Additionally the City may request approximately 20 Caltrans #6 hand holes.
Estimated cost to the City for the actual footage of conduit and number of access holes placed is
based on the unit prices quoted below. Unit costs are based on trenching as method of
construction plus cut and restoration of asphalt along the route.
Unit Description
Unit Price
Two 1.25" Conduit (Material) $0.76 / I f
Two 1.25" Conduit (Labor) $1.98 / I f
Credit - Pala Bridge crossing $(10,000)
(Estimated Administration Cost)
Caltrans #6 Hand Hole $792.00 / each
Estimated Quantity
30,655 feet
30,655 feet
Lump Sum Credit
20
7
R:~agrmts~masterVniscagrmts\GST fiber agrmt
ITEM 10
APPROVA
CITY ATTORNEY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council
Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Services
May 9, 2000
Grading Agreement with Lennar Homes to Grade a Portion of
Winchester Creek Park
PREPARED BY:
Cathy McCarthy, Development Services Administrator
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
Approve the Grading Agreement to Allow Lennar Homes to regrade a portion of
slope area within Winchester Creek Park in order to be consistent with the adjacent
grading improvements within Tract No. 29286.
Accept the Improvement Agreement and Bonds to guarantee that Winchester Creek
Park is repaired to City Standards.
BACKGROUND: Lennar Homes is the owner of a proposed 38 lot residential
subdivision known as Tract No. 29286. The property is located at the southeast corner of
Margarita Road and Date Street, adjacent to the northerly boundary of Winchester Creek Park.
A ribbon gutter currently exists along this edge of the Lennar property and intercepts runoff that
would otherwise flow onto the Park. Upon completion of the grading improvements for the new
subdivision there will no longer be a need for the ribbon gutter. However, it will be necessary for
Lennar to encroach upon and grade the northerly portion of the Park in order to ensure both
properties will have compatible elevations. The grading improvements will provide more useable
pad area for Lennar while producing more useable parkland for the City.
As a result, the TCSD conditioned the developer at the Tentative Map stage, to enter into a grading
agreement, provide landscape plans and post the appropriate bonds for the replacement of
landscape and irrigation within the park. The developer has provided the required improvement
plans and posted the following surety bonds from The American Insurance Company as follows:
1. Faithful Performance Bond No. 111 2744 3510 in the amount of $27,621.00
2. Labor and Materials Bond No. 111 2744 3510 in the amount of $13,810.50
3. Warranty Bond No. 111 2744 3510 in the amount of $2,762.10
Lennar is ready to begin work and indicates they will complete the grading and replacing of the park
improvements within approximately six months. Construction access to the park will be from the
Lennar property. All work will be inspected by Public Works and TCSD staff to insure the park is
graded and landscaping replaced to City standards. The public's access and use of Winchester
Creek Park will not be affected by this construction.
FISCAL IMPACT:
NODe.
ATTACHEMENTS:
Site/Vicinity Map
Grading Agreement
Improvement Agreement and Bonds
R:/yasinobk/lennarWinchestercreekpark
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
WrN'CHESTER HILLS I. LLC
PARKSITE LOCATION
EXtlIBIT "A"
THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE CITY OF TEIvlECULA,
COUNTY OF lIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING A PORTION OF LOT i68
('fOGETHER WITH THOSE PORTIONS OF VACATED DATE STREET, CHERRY
STREET, AND JOHN JAY AVENUE ADJOINING SAID LOT), ALL AS SHOWN BY
MAP OF THE TEMECULA LAND .AND WATER COMPANY ON FILE IN BOOK 8
PAGE 359 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO COU~FFY, CALIFORNIA;
EXCEPTING THAT PORTION LYING SOUTHWESTERLY OF THE
NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF MARGAlITA ROAD (110 FEET WIDE).
BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT THE MOST EASTERLY CORNER OF SAID LOT 168; THENCE
ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT SOUTH 48°00'31 WEST 496.79
FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF MARGARITA ROAD (110 FEET WIDE);
THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF
MARGAKITA ROAD NORTH 42 °50'35" WEST (NORTH 42 °52'11" WEST IN
DECLARATION OF DEDICATION, RECORDED JULY 3, 1974 AS INSTRUMiENT NO.
83317 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY), 392.11 FEET; THENCE,
LEAVING SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF MARG,ARITA ROAD, ALONG A LINE
PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF 5AED LOT 168, NORTH 48°00'31"
EAST 503.12 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 168; THENCE
ALONG SAID LOT LINE SOUTH 4I °55'04" EAST 392.07 FEET TO THE POINT OF
BEGINNING.
SAID PORTION CONTAINS AN AREA OF 196,014.92 SQUARE FEET (4.5 ACRES).
PORTIONS OF JOHN JAY AVENUE AND CHERRY STREET WERE VACATED
BY THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BY RESOLUTION NO.
74-383 RECORDED AS INSTRUMENT NO. 418, RECORDED JANUARY 2, 1975,
INCLUDING THOSE PORTIONS WITHIN THE SUBJECT PARCEL. THIS
ACTION ALSO RESERVED AN EASEMENT IN EACH OF THE VACATED
ROADS FOR ANY EXISTING PUBLIC UTILITY OR PUBLIC SERVICE
FACILITY.
BASIS OF BEARINGS: LOT LINES AS SHOWN ON TRACT MAP NO. 23368 AS FILED
IN BOOK 215 OF MAPS, AT PGS 1-5 INCL., AND CENTERLINE OF MARGARITi
OAD AS SHOWN ON RECORD OF SURVEY FILED IN BOOK i00 OF RECORDS OF
JRVEY AT PGS 9-12 INCL. BOTH RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
CORDkR, RIVERSIDE COU~qTY.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
vqI'b/CI-IY_Sq'~R t-II!.LS I, LLC
P.~R_~Sff~E LOCATION
NOTE: NaP NOT TO SCALE
~8 8/55~
Exl:. Oai~ g-30-g7
' CIVIL
TE~ECULA LAt,/D
&: YfATER CO.
EXHIBIT B
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF LENNAR PROPERTY
THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE CITY OF TEMECULA,
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BEING A PROTION OF LOT 18
(TOGETHER WITH THOSE PROTIONS OF VACATED DATE STREET, AND JOHN JAY
AVENUE ADJOINING SAiD LOT). ALL AS SHOWN BY MAP OF THE TEMECULA
LAND AND WATER COMPANY ON FILE IN BOOK 8, PAGE 359 OF MAPS, RECORDS
OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
- c>rrI
'E
EXHIBIT C
DESCRIPTION OF GRADING AND SLOPE
CONSTRUCTION ON CITY PROPERTY
LENNAR WILL GRADE THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF WINCHESTER CREEK
PARK TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE ADJACENT ELEVATION OF THE PROPOSED
LENNAR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 29286. SAID GRADING WILL ELIMINATE THE
PARK'S NEED FOR A RIBBON GUTTER CURRENTLY LOCATED ON LENNAR'S
PROPERTY. THE DEVELOPER WILL REPLACE ALL PARK LANDSCAPING AND
IRRIGATION DISTURBED BY THE GRADING TO CITY STANDARDS.
RECORDED AT REQUEST OF
AND WHEN RECORDED
RETURN TO:
City of Temecula
P. O. Box 9033
Temecula, California 92590
ATTN: Susan W. Jones, City Clerk
EXEMPT FROM RECORDER'S FEES
pursuant to Government Code
Sections 6103 and 27383
AGREEMENT WITH LENNAR COMMUNITIES TO REGRADE
CERTAIN SLOPE AREAS AND REPLACE IRRIGATION AND
LANDSCAPING WITHIN WINCHESTER CREEK PARK
THIS GRADING AGREEMENT is made and effective as of by
and between the City of Temecula ("City") and Lennar Homes CLennar"). In consideration of
the mutual benefits and covenants set forth herein, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Recitals. This Agreement is made with respect to the following facts
and purposes, which the parties hereto each acknowledge and agree are true and correct:
a. City is the owner in fee of that certain real property consisting of
approximately 4.5 acres generally located on Margarita Road in the City of Temecula,
County of Riverside. and designated as Winchester Creek Park and which is legally
described and depicted on Exhibit A., Legal Description of City Property ("City
Property").
b. Lennar is the owner in fee of that certain real property consisting
of approximately 9.75 gross acres and known as Tract No. 29286, generally located
adjacent to the City Property on Margarita Road which is legally described and depicted
on Exhibit B., Legal Description of Lennar Property CLennar").
c. The Letmar Property is adjacent to the City Property.
d. Lennar desires to obtain permission to grade from the City to
allow Lennar to grade a portion of the City Property in conjunction with the grading
and construction of slopes and building pads on the Lennar Property.
e. Lennar has posted a Landscape Improvement Agreement and
bonds to insure the landscaping and irrigation equipment within the City Property are
restored to City Standards.
f. Both parties agree that each will receive benefits from the
permission to grade pursuant to this Agreement and the construction of the
improvements pursuant to this Agreement. The parties further agree that sufficient
consideration exists for the covenants set forth in this Agreement and that such
consideration has been received by each party.
2. Permission to Enter for Grading of Slopes and Replacing,
Landscaping and Irrigation Equipment. City hereby grants to Lennar permission to grade a
portion of City Property and to replace certain landscaping and irrigation equipment thereon as
in substantial conformance and depicted on Exhibit C, labeled Description of Grading and
Landscape Construction on City Property, and the approved landscape and irrigation plans,
identified as CSD 00-002, at its sole cost and expense for the benefit of the Lennar Property
and subject to the terms of this Agreement ("Slopes"). City hereby also grants to Letmar a
license to enter upon City Property for the purpose of grading and replacing landscaping and
irrigation equipment. subject to the terms of this Agreement. Upon final acceptance of the
Slopes and landscape improvements by the City Council as provided in this Agreement, City
shall maintain the slopes in accordance with the provisions of Exhibit C at its sole cost and
expense.
3. Designation of "Improvements." The slopes and landscape
improvements to be constructed and/or replaced on the City Property and the regrading of the
City Property as described in Sections 2 and 3 and Exhibit C of this Agreement may be
referred to collectively as the "Improvements".
5. Design of Improvements. Letmar shall, at its sole cost and expense,
design the Improvements and prepare plans and specifications for construction in accordance
with the standards of the City as well as generally accepted engineering standards and practices
utilized by engineers engaged in designing similar improvements in the area. Lennar shall
contact the TCSD Maintenance Superintendent prior to the commencement of work on the
Improvements.
6. Commencement of Work on Improvements. Lermar shall commence
7. Performance and Pavment Security for Improvements. Lennar shall
at all times guarantee Letmar's performance of this Agreement by furnishing to City, and
maintaining, good and sufficient security through forms approved by City Attorney for the
purposes and in the amounts as follows:
R lyasnlobk/letmarhomesgradingeasementagreementwinchesterprark
a. To assure faithful performance of this Agreement in regard to the
Improvements in an amount of one hundred percent (100 %) of the estimated cost of the
Improvements; and
b. To secure payment to any contractor, subcontractor, persons
renting equipment, or furnishing labor materials for the Improvements required to be
constructed or installed pursuant to this Agreement in the additional amount of fifty
percent (50%) of the estimated cost of the Improvements; and
c. To guarantee or warranty the work done pursuant to this
Agreement for a period of one year following acceptance thereof by City against any
defective work or labor done or defective materials furnished in the additional amount
of ten percent (10%) of the estimated cost of the Improvements.
d. The performance and labor and material securities shall be
released within 35 days upon the final acceptance of the Improvements by the City
Council and the warranty security shall be released upon the expiration of the warranty
period, provided no claims on the security have been made or threatened.
8. Inspection and Acceptance of Improvements. City shall inspect and
accept the Improvements in accordance with the following procedures:
a. Lennar shall obtain City inspections of the Improvements and the
inspections by the City's Department of Public Works and TCSD inspectors concerning
the Improvements in accordance with the City standards referenced as part of the
approval of the plans and specifications. Upon completion of the Improvements,
Lennar shall request a final inspection by the Director of Public Works and the Director
of Community Services, or his or her designee. If the Director of Public Works and
Director of Community Services, or his or her designee, determines that the work has
been completed in accordance with this Agreement, then the Director of Public Works
and the Director of Community Services shall notify Lennar that the Improvements are
complete.
b. Letmar shall continue to maintain the slopes and the erosion
control measures required by the City standards for a period of ninety (90) days after
the Director of Public Works and Conununity Services have notified Letmar that the
Improvements are complete.
c. The Director of Community Services (City Council) shall accept
the Slope and Grading Improvements upon finding that the maintenance period has
expired, and all aspects of the work have been inspected and determined to have been
completed in accordance with the Improvement Plans and City standards. The Director
of Community Services shall accept the improvements upon finding that all aspects of
the work have been inspected and determined to have been completed in accordance
with the Improvement Plans and City standards. Such acceptance shall not constitute a
waiver of defects by City. Upon acceptance by the Director of Community Services,
all Improvements on the City Property shall become the property of the City,
d. Lennar shall bear all costs of plan check, permits, inspection and
certification of the Improvements.
9. Improvements Warrantv Period. Lennar shall guarantee the work
done pursuant to this Agreement for a period of one year after final acceptance by (the City
Council) of the work against any defective work or labor done or defective materials furnished.
If within the warranty period any work or part of any work done, furnished, installed,
constructed or caused to be done, furnished, installed or constructed by Lennar for the
Improvements fails to fulfill any of the requirements of this Agreement or the Improvement
Plans and specifications referred to herein, Lennar shall without delay and without any cost to
City, repair or replace or reconstruct any defective or otherwise unsatisfactory part or parts of
the work or structure. Should Lennar fail to act promptly or in accordance with this
requirement, Lennar hereby authorizes City, at City's option, to perform the work twenty (20)
days after mailing written notice to Lennar and agrees to pay the cost of such work by City.
Should City determine that an urgency requires repairs or replacements to be made before
Lennar can be notified, City may, in its sole discretion, make the necessary repairs or
replacements or perform the necessary work and Lennar shall pay to City the cost of such
repairs.
10. Investigation of Conditions on City Property. Lennar and its
contractors shall have sole responsibility for investigating the actual locations of any utilities
that may be within the City Property and to protect those utilities and keep them in service
during Lennar's activities.
11. Responsibilitv for Dama~,e to City Property. Lennar shall not alter or
damage City's property, except for those areas to be affected by the use permitted by this
Agreement, and then only to the extent that such alteration or damage is reasonably necessary
to accomplish the permitted uses. Lennar shall return any property of City altered or damaged
by Lennar to the same or better condition as existed prior to the entrance of Lennar thereon,
subject to final approval of the Director of Public Works and the Director of Community
Services.
12. Responsibilitv for Obtaining Permits; Compliance with Law. Lennar
shall have the sole responsibility for obtaining any and all permits from any and all regulatory
agencies having jurisdiction which may be necessary, before commencement and during,the
existence of any of Lennar's activities, or the activities of Lennar's contractors on City's
property. Lennar shall perform its obligation under this Agreement in accordance with all
applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations and ordinances.
13. Prohibition of Liens on City Propertv. Lennar expressly
acknowledges that nothing in this Agreement shall authorize Lermar, or any person dealing
with, through or under Lennar to subject any the City Property to mechanic's liens, stop
notices or other liens. Lermar agrees to indemnify, hold harmless and defend City from any
claim. liability, loss, damage, cost or expense, including attorneys' fees, which City may incur
or which may be asserted by reason of any entry or work on or in relation to City's property
through or under Lennar. Lennar agrees not to permit or suffer and, to the extent permitted or
suffered, cause to be removed and released. any mechanic's lien, materialman's or other lien
on account of supplies, machinery, tools, equipment, labor or materials furnished or used in
connection with the entry or work upon or in relation to City's property. Lennar hereby
agrees to furnish to each and all of its agents and contractors who are to enter upon City's
property pursuant to this Agreement with a copy hereof.
14. Indemnification. Lennar shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold free
and harmless the City, its officers, agents, and employees from any and all obligations, claims,
liability, liens, damages, demands, costs or causes of action whatsoever in any way due to or
arising out of entrance upon or use of City Property, or the conduct of activities thereof by
Lennar, its agents, servants, contractors, employees and invitees, whether meritorious or not.
15. Insurance. Lennar shall procure and maintain for the duration of the
easements granted pursuant to this Agreement. 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 Lennar, its agents. representatives, or employees.
Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as
broad as:
(1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability
coverage (occurrence form CG 0001).
(2) Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87)
covering Automobile Liability, code I (any auto).
(3) Worker's Compensation insurance as required by the State of
California and Employer's Liability Insurance.
Minimum Limits of Insurance. Pacific shall maintain limits no
less than:
(I) General Liability: $2,000,000 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.
(3) Employer's Liability: $1,000,000 per accident for bodily
injury or disease.
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 Lennar 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:
(1) The City, 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 Letmar: products and completed operations of
Lennar; premises owned, occupied or used by Lennar; or automobiles owned,
leased, hired or borrowed by Letmar. The coverage shall contain no special
limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials,
employees or volunteers.
(2) For any claims related to this project, Lennar's insurance
coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials,
employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the
City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of Lennar'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) Lennar'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, cancelled 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
City.
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 City.
f. Verification of Coverage. Lennar shall furnish the City 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 on forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be
received and approved by the City before work commences. As an alternative to the
C ity's forms, Lennar's insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required
insurance policies, including endorsements effecting the coverage required by these
specifications.
16. Reports and Information About City Propertv. Copies of any and all
written information and reports relating to City 's property produced as a result of Lennar's
exercise of the rights herein granted, shall be furnished to City as soon as available.
17. Limitation of Use of City Propertv. Lennar's activities on the City
Property shall be limited to the purposes set in this Agreement and Lennar shall strictly limit
its activities to the City Property to such purposes. Lennar shall take the necessary actions to
assure that the unauthorized entrance to or use of City Property by anyone other than Lennar
its employees, invitees, guests, contractors and their employees does not occur. Letmar shall
at all times keep the portion of City Property described herein secured from public access,
except for necessary entry to perform operations in accordance with the terms of this
Agreement. Lennar shall take access to City park property to perform said activities from the
Letmar property and, at no time, will interfere with, or impede public access to, or use of,
Winchester Creek Park.
18. Hazardous Substances. Letmar agrees that Letmar, its employees,
agents, servants, contractors and invitees shall not discharge hazardous or toxic substances on
City Property, shall not engage in clean-up or repair activities on City Property, which will
result in the discharge of such substances, and shall, upon completion of all of Lennar's
activities, remove all supplies, materials and waste remaining on City Property which, if
exposed, could result in the discharge of such substances.
19. Compliance with City Rules for Use of City Property. Lennar's use
or' City Property pursuant to this Agreement shall be subject to reasonable rules and regulations
as may be prescribed by City 's representative, including, but not limited to, such matters as
location and storage and disposal of equipment and materials, and protection of property,
structures and other things of value.
20. Maintenance Responsibilities. Letmar shall, during the term of this
Agreement, have the obligation to maintain the City Property in a clean, neat and orderly
condition and shall comply with all local governmental maintenance requirements.
21. Leeal Remedies. Each party shall have all remedies as may be allowed
by law or equity to enforce its rights in this Agreement. No legal action shall be filed by one
party against the other party until such time as the other party has received not less than thirty
(30) days prior written notice of the default which reasonably explains the nature of the
default. Any such action shall be filed in Riverside County, California. The prevailing party
in a court action shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
R:/yasinobk/lennarhomes.gradingea~ementagreementwinchesterprark
22. 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 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:
To City:
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Attention: City Manager
To Lennar:
Lennar Communities
Attn: Bill Storm
24800 Chrisanta Drive
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
23. Force Majeure. Changes in local, state or federal laws or regulations,
floods, earthquakes, delays due to strikes or other labor problems, moratoria enacted by any
other governmental entity or agency, injunctions issued by any court of competent jurisdiction,
the inability to obtain materials, civil commotion, fire~ intragalatic invasion, acts of God, or
other circumstances which substantially interferes with the construction of the Improvements or
which substantially interferes with the ability of any of the parties to perform its obligations
under this Agreement shall collectively be referred to as "Events of Force Majeure." If any
party to this Agreement is prevented by an Event or Events of Force Majeure from performing
its obligation under this Agreement, then on condition that the party claiming the benefit of
said Event(s) of Force Majeure (a) did not cause said Event(s) and (b) said Event(s) was
beyond said party's reasonable control, the time for performance by said party of its
obligations under this Agreement shall be extended by a number of days equal to the number of
days that said Event(s) of Force Majeure continued in effect, or by the number of days it takes
to repair or restore the damage caused by said Event(s) to the condition which existed prior to
the occupance of said Event(s), which ever is longer. The party claiming the benefit of an
Event of Force Majeure shall notify the other party of the existance of the Event of Force
Majeure and the estimated time of claimed as a result of such event withing ten (10) days
following the event.
24. Assignment Prohibited. Lennar shall not assign its obligations Rnder
this Agreement, nor any part thereof, without prior written consent of the City.
25. Covenants Running, With Land. Of the covenants which have been
established pursuant to this Agreement, the same shall be deemed to be covenants running with
the land for the benefit of both the City Property and the Lennar Property, and shall be binding
upon the successors and assigns of the parties hereto.
26. Investieation of Conditions of Citv Propertv. Lennar warrants and
represents to the City that it has fully investigated the surface and subsurface conditions of the
City Property and has had the opportunity to conduct such geologic and soils tests as it deems
necessary to design the Improvements and Letmar assumes full responsibility for completing
the Improvements in the event unknown surface or subsurface conditions are later discovered.
27. Exhibits. The following exhibits are attached to this Agreement and
incorporated herein as though set forth in full:
a. Exhibit A. Legal Description of City Property
b. Exhibit B. Legal Description of LennarProperty
c. Exhibit C.
Description of Grading Landscape Construction on
City Property
28. Amendment. No provision of this Agreement may be amended or
added to except by an agreement in writing.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as
of the date first written above.
CITY OF TEMECULA
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, City Clerk CMC/AAE
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Peter M. Thorson
City Attorney
LENNAR COMMUNITIES, INC., a
California Corporation
Name: Thomas Bankq
Title: Vice President
By:
Name:
Title:
ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
State of California
County of
on
personally appeared
~personalty known to me
SS.
ieornm.#1228574
NOC 0 C' 3 ~
before me, _ //~/,.//C_~'
- OR -
/_-.
[] proved [u rue un the basi~ of satisfactory
e-.vide'ace to be the person(s) whose name(s)
C/~?~i~ subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me thatCh/k-he~ executed
the same in(~.ti~'~r authorized
capacity(ies), and that
signatures(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.
OPTIONAL i~FORMATION
The information below is not required by law. However, it could prevent fraudulent attachment of this acknowl-
edgement to an unauthorized document.
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER (PRINCIPAL) DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
[] INDIVIDUAL
[] CORPORATE OFFICER
[] PARTNER(S)
[] ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
[] TRUSTEE(S)
[] GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
[] OTHER:
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
NUMBER OF PAGES
DATE OF DOCUMENT
OTHER
SIGNER IS REPRESENTIN(J:
NA~IE OF PERSONIS) OR ENTITY{ IESl
RIGHT THUMBPRINT
OF
SIGNER
APA 5/99 VALLEY-SIERRA. 800-362-3369
March 2, 2000
Mr. Reza James
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Subject: Permission to Grade 38 Lot Pamel Tract No. 29286
Dear Mr. James:
Please accept this letter as Lennar's formal notification to the City of Temecula to bear
all risks and responsibility, and to hold the City of Temecula harmless from all liabilities,
damages, etc., that may result from our early grading of the subject tract.
The tentative subdivision map for the subject tract was previously approved by the City
Planning Commission. However, since the tentative map was accompanied by
amendments to the Specific Plan and the City's General Plan, these items must still be
approved by the City Council at the March 28 meeting.
As you may know, on March 3, 2000, Lennar is scheduled to pull grading permits, and on
March 6 we will begin excavation of the subject tract and the Sweetwater school site.
Since our grading will be commencing prior to City Council approval of the tentative
map, the City of Temecula has requested that we acknowledge and accept all risks,
should the City Council fail to approve the subject tentative map.
We appreSiate the City of Temecula's co-operation and assistance in this matter, if you
have any questions, or if we can be of assistance, please do not hesitate to contact the
undersigned.
Bill Storm
Project Director
CC:
Patty Anders, City of Temecula
Bill Green, Robert Bein, William Frost & Associates
Tom Banks, Lennar Communities
Greg Dooley, Lennar Communities
24800 ChrisantO Drive. Mission Vieln C.A O?AO~
,j
CITY OF TEMECULA
PARKI,AND / LANDSCAPE IMPROV*F2VIF. NT AGREEMF. NT
DATE OF AGRF, gJVlENT:
NAME OF SUBDIVIDER:
NAME OF SUBDIVISION:
TRACT NO.: 29286
L~nn~'r Rnm~ Of Califnrni~, Tnr,
(Referred ~o as "SUBDIVIDER")
(Referred to as "SUBDIVIDER")
TENTATIVE MAP RESOLUTION
OF APPROVAL NO.: 2 024
(Referred to as "Resolution of Approval")
PARKLAND IMPROVEMENT PLANS NO.: CSD00-002
(Referred to as "Resolution of Approval")
ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF PARKLAND IMPROVEMENTS: $ 27,621.00
COMPI .RTION DATE: 10 / 19 / 00
NAME OF SURETY AND BOND NO. FOR LABOR AND MATERIALS BOND:
The American Insurance Co. 111 2744 3510
NAME OF SURETY AND BOND NO. FOR FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND:
The American Insurance Co. 111 2744 3510
NAME OF SURETY AND BOND NO. FOR WARRANTY BOND:
The Amprir~n Tn.qllrance CO. 111 2744 3510
This Agreement is made and entered into by and between the City of Temecula, California,
a Municipal Corporation of the State of Califomia, hereinafter referred to as CITY, and the
SUBDIVIDER.
RECITALS
A. SUBDIVIDER has presented to CITY for approval and recordation, a final
subdivision map of a proposed subdivision pursuant to provisions of the Subdivision Map Act of
the State of California and the CITY ordinances and regulations relating to the filing, approval
and recordation of subdivision maps. The Subdivision Map Act and the CITY ordinances and
regulations relating to the filing, approval and recordation of subdivision maps are collectively
referred to in this Agreement as the "Subdivision Laws."
B. A tentative map of the SUBDIVISION has been approved, subject to the
Subdivision Laws and to the requirements and conditions contained in the Resolution of Approval.
The Resolution of Approval is on file in the Office of the City Clerk and is incorporated into this
Agreement by reference,
C. SUBDIVIDER is required as a condition of the approval of the tentative map that
the Parkland Improvement plans must be completed, in compliance with City standards, by the
Completion Date. The Subdivision Laws establish as a condition precedent to the approval of a
final map, that the SUBDIVIDER has entered into a secured Agreement with the CITY to
complete the Parkland/Landscape Improvement Plans within the Completion Date.
D. In consideration of approval of a f'mal map for the SUBDIVISION by the City
Council, SUBDIVIDER desires to enter into this Agreement, whereby promises to install and
complete, at SUBDIVIDER'S own expense, all the Parkland/Landscape Improvement work
required by City in connection with proposed subdivision. Subdivider has secured this agreement
by Parkland/Landscaping Improvement Security required by the Subdivision Laws and approved
by the City Attorney. The term "Parkland" includes landscape areas intended to be maintained
by the Temecula Community Services District.
E. Complete Parkland/LandScape Improvement Plans for the construction, installation
and completion of the Parkland Improvements have been prepared by SUBDIVIDER and
approved by the Director of Community Services. The Parkland Improvement Plans numbered
as referenced previously in this Agreement am on file in the Office of the Director of Community
Services and are incorporated into this Agreement by this reference. All references in this
Agreement to the Parkland Improvement Plans shall include reference to any specifications for
the Improvements as approved by the Director of Community Services.
F. An estimate of the cost for construction of the Parkland Improvements according
to the Improvement Plans has been made and approved by the Director of Community Services.
The estimated amount is stated on Page 1 of this Agreement. The basis for the estimate is
attached as F_,xhibit "A" to this Agreement.
G. The CITY has adopted standards for the construction and installation of
Parkland/Landscape Improvements within the CITY. The Parkland/Landscape Improvement
Plans have been prepared in conformance with the CITY standards, (in effect on the date of
approval of the Resolution of Approval).
H. SUBDIVIDER recognizes that by approval of the final map for SUBDIVISION,
CITY has conferred substantial rights upon SUBDIVIDER, including the right to sell, l~se, or
finance lots within the SUBDIVISION, and has taken the final act necessary to subdivide the
property within the SUBDIVISION. As a result, CITY will be damaged to the extent of the cost
of installation of the Parkland/Landscape Improvements by SUBDIVIDER'S failure to perform
its obligations under this Agreement, including, but not limited to, SUBDIVIDER'S obligation
to complete construction of Parkland/l ~ndscape Improvements by the Completion Date. CITY
shall be entitled to all remedies available to it pursuant to this Agreement and the Subdivision
Laws in the event of a default by SUBDIVIDER. It is specifically recognized that the
determination of whether a reversion to acreage or rescission of the SUBDIVISION constitutes
an adequate remedy for default by the SUBDIVIDER shah be within the sole discretion of CITY.
NOW, T/-m~I~_.FORE, in consideration of the approval and recordafion by the City Council
of the final map of the SUBDIVISION, SUBDIVIDER and CITY agree as follows;
1. SUBDIVIDER'S Obligations to Construct Parkland/Landscape Improvements.
SUBDIVIDER Shall:
a. Comply with all the requirements of the Resolution of Approval,
and any amendments thereto, and with the provisions of the Subdivision
Laws.
b. Complete by the time established in Section 20 of this Agreement
and at SUBDIVIDER'S own expense, all the Parkland/Landscape Improvement
Work required on the Tentative Map and Resolution of Approval in conformance
with the Parkland Improvement Plans and the CITY standards:
c. Furnish the necessary materials for completion of the Parkland
Improvements in conformity with the Parkland Improvement Plans and CITY
standards.
d. Except for easements or other interests in real property to be
dedicated to the homeowners association of the SUBDIVISION, acquire and
dedicate, or pay the cost of acquisition by CITY, of all rights-of-way, easements
and other interests in real property for construction or installation of the
Parkland/Landscape Improvements, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances
for the SUBDIVIDER'S obligations with regard to acquisition by CITY of off-site
rights-of-way, easements and other interests in real property shall bd subject to a
separate Agreement between SUBDIVIDER and CITY.
2. Acquisition and Dedication of Easements or Rights-of-Way. If any of the
Parkland/Landscape Improvements and land development work contemplated by this Agreement
are to be constructed or installed on land not owned by SUBDIVIDER, no construction or
installation shall be commenced before:
a. The offer of dedication to CITY or appropriate rights-of-way,
easements or other interest in real property, and appropriate authorization from the
property owner to allow construction or installation of the Improvements or work,
or
b. The dedication to, and acceptance by, the CITY of appropriate
rights-of-way, casements or other interests in real property, and approved by the
Department of Public Works, as determined by the Director of Community
Services.
C.
The issuance by a court of competent jurisdiction pursuant to the
State Eminent Domain Law of an order of possession. SUBDIVIDER shall
comply in all respects with order of possession.
Nothing in this Section 2 shall be construed as authorizing or granting an extension of time to
SUBDIVIDER.
3. Security. SUBDIVIDER shall at all times guarantee SUBDIVIDER'S performance
of this Agreement by furnishing to CITY, and maintaining, good and sufficient security as
required by the Subdivision Laws on forms approved by CITY for the purposes and in the
amounts as follows:
a.
to assure faithful performance of this Agreement in regard to said
improvements in and amount of 100% of the estimated cost of the
Parkland/Landscape Improvements; and
b. to secure payment to any contractor, subcontractor, persons renting
equipment, or furnishing labor materials for Parkland/Landscape Improvements
required to be constructed or installed pursuant to this Agreement in the additional
amount of 50 % of the estimated cost of the Improvements; and
c. to guarantee or warranty the work done pursuant to this Agreement
for a period of one year following acceptance thereof by CITY against any
defective work or labor done or defective materials furnished in the additional
amount of 10% of the estimated cost of the Parkland Improvements.
The securities required by this Agreement shall be kept on ~e with the City Clerk. The terms
of the security documents referenced on Page 1 of this Agreement axe incorporated into this
Agreement by this Reference. If any security is replaced by another approved security, the
replacement shall be fried with the City Clerk and, upon fig, shall be deemed to have been
made a part of and incorporated into this Agreement. Upon f~ing of a replacement security with
the City Clerk, the former security may be released.
4. Alterations to Parkland Improvement Plans.
a. Any changes, alterations or additions to the Parkland/landscape
Improvement Plans and specifications or to the improvements, not exceeding 10%
of the original estimated cost if the improvement, which are mutually agreed upon
by the C1TY and SUBDIVIDER, shall not relieve the improvement security given
for faithful performance of this Agreement. In the event such changes, alterations,
or additions exceed 10% of the original estimated cost of the improvement,
SUBDIVIDER shall provide improvement security for faithful performance as
required by Paragraph 3 of this Agreement for 100% of the total estimated cost of
the improvement as changed, altered, or amended, minus any completed partial
releases allowed by Paragraph 6 of this Agreement.
b. The SUBDIVIDER shall construct the Parkland Improvements in
accordance with the CITY Standards in effect at the time of adoption of the
Resolution of Approval. CITY reserves the right to modify the standards
applicable to the SUBDIVISION and this Agreement, when necessary to protect
the public health, safety or welfare or comply with applicable State or federal law
or CITY zoning ordinances. If SUBDIVIDER requests and is granted an extension
of time for completion of the improvements, CITY may apply the standards in
effect at the time of the extension.
5. Inspection and Maintenance Period.
a. SUBDIVIDER shall obtain City inspection of the
Parkland/Landscape Improvements in accordance with the City standards in effect at the time of
adoption of the Resolution of Approval. SUBDIVIDER shall at all times maintain proper facilities
and safe access for inspection of the Parkland Improvements by CITY inspectors and to the shops
wherein any work is in preparation. Upon completion of the work the SUBDIVIDER may
request a final inspection by the Director of Community Services, or the Director of Community
Service' s authorized representative. If the Director of Community Services, or the designated
representative, determine that the work has been completed in accordance with this Agreement,
then the Director of Community
Services shah certify the completion of the Parkland/Landscape Improvements to
the Board of Directors.
b. SUBDIVIDER shall continue to maintain the Parkland/Landscape
Improvements for ninety (90) days after they have been certified completed. No
improvements shall be finally accepted unless the maintenance period has expired,
and aH aspects of the work have been inspected and determined to have been
completed in accordance with the Parkland/Landscape Improvement Plans and
CITY standards. SUBDIVIDER shall bear all costs of inspection and
certification.
6. Release of Securities. Subject to approval by the Board of Directors of the
Community Services District of the CITY, the securities required by this Agreement shall be
released as follows:
a.
Security given for faithful performance of any act, obligation, work
or Agreement shall be released upon the expiration of the maintenance period and
the final completion and acceptance of the act or work, subject to the provisions
of subsection (b) hereof.
b. The Director of Community Services may release a portion of the
security given for faithful performance of improvement work as the Parkland
Improvement progresses upon application therefore by the SUBDIVIDER;
provided, however, that no such release shall be for an amount less that 25 % of the
total Parkland Improvement Security given for faithful performance of the
improvement work and that the security studl not ~ reduced to an amount less than
50% of the total Landscape/Parkland Improvement Security given for faittkful
performance until expiration of the maintenance period and f'mal completion and
acceptance of the improvement work. In no event shall the Director of Community
Services authorize a release of the Parkland/Landscape Improvement Security
which would reduce such security to an amount below that required to guarantee
the completion of the improvement work and any other obligation imposed by this
Agreement.
c. Security given to secure payment to the contractor, kis or her
subcontractors and to persons furnishing labor, materials or equipment shall, six
months after the completion and acceptance of the work, be reduced to an amount
equal to the total claimed by an claimants for whom lien have been filed and of
which notice has been given to the legislative body, plus an amount reasonably
determined by the Director of Community Services to be required to assure the
performance of any other obligations secured by the Security. The balance of the
security shall be released upon the settlement of all claims and obligations for
which the security was given.
d. No security given for the guarantee or warranty of work shall be
released until the expiration of the warranty period and until any claims fried
during the warranty period have been settled. As provided in paragraph 10, the
warranty period shall not commence until f'mal acceptance of all work and
improvements by the City Council.
e. The CITY may retain from any security released, and amount
sufficient to cover costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable
attorneys' fees.
7. Injury to Public Improvements, Public Property or Public Utilities Facilities.
SUBDIVIDER shall replace or have replaced, or repair or have repaired, as the case may be, all
public improvements, public utilities facilities and surveying or subdivision monuments which are
destroyed or damaged or destroyed by reason of any work done under this Agreement.
SUBDIVIDER shah bear the entire cost of replacment or repairs of any and all public property
on public utility property damaged or destroyed by reason of any work done. Under this
agreement whether such property is owned by the United States or any agency thereof, or the State
of California, or any agency or political subdivision thereof, or by the CITY or any public or
private utility corporation or by any combination or such owners. Any repair or replacement shall
be to the satisfaction, and subject to the approval, of the City Engineer.
8. P_enB~. SUBDIVIDER shall, at SUBDIVIDER"S expense, obtain all necessary
pennits and licenses for the construction and installation of the improvements, give all necessary
notices and pay all fees and taxes required by law.
9. Default of SIYBDIVIDER.
a. Default of SUBDIVIDER shall include, but not be limited to,
SUBDIVIDER'S failure to timely commence construction pursuant to this
Agreement; SUBDIVIDER'S failure to timely complete construction of the
Parkland/Landscape Improvements; SUBDIVIDER'S failure to timely cure any
defect in the Parkland/Landscape Improvements; SUBDIVIDER'S failure to
perform substantial construction work for a period of 20 calendar days after
commencement of the work; SUBDIVIDER'S insolvency, appointment of a
receiver, or the fding of any petition in bankruptcy either voluntary or involuntary
which SUBDIVIDER fails to discharge within thi~ (30) days; the commencement
of a foreclosure action against the SUBDIVISION or a portion thereof, or any
conveyance in lieu or in avoidance of foreclosure; or SUBDIVIDER's failure to
perform any other obligation under this Agreement.
b. The CITY reserves to itself all remedies available to it at law or
in equity for breach of SUBDIVIDER's obligations under this Agreement. The
CITY shall have the right, subject to this section, to draw upon or utilize the
appropriate security to mitigate CITY damages in event of default by
SUBDIVIDER. The fight of CITY to draw upon or utilize the security is
additional to and not in lieu of any other remedy available to CITY. It is
specifically recognized that the estimated costs and security amounts may not
reflect the actual cost of construction or installation of Parkland/Landscape
Improvements and, therefore, CITY damages for SUBDIVIDER'S default shall be
measured by the cost of completing the required improvements. The sums
provided by the improvement security may be used by CITY for the completion of
the Parkland/Landscape Improvements in accordance with the parkland/Landscape
Improvement Plans and specifications contained herein.
In the event of SUBDIVIDER'S default under this Agreement, SUBDIVIDER
authorizes CITY to perform such obligation twenty days after mailing written
notice of default to SUBDIVIDER and to SUBDIVIDER'S Surety, and agrees to
pay the entire cost of such performance by CITY.
CITY may take over the work and prosecute the same to completion, by contract
or by any other method CITY may deem advisable, for the account and at the
expense of SUBDIVIDER, and SUBDIVIDER'S Surety shall be liable to CITY
for any excess cost or damages occasioned CITY thereby; and, in such event,
CITY, without liability for so doing, may take possession of, and utilize in
completing the work, such materials, appliances, plant and other property
belonging to SUBDIVIDER as may be on the site of the work and necessary for
performance of the work.
c. Failure of SUBDIVIDER to comply with the terms of this
Agreement shall constitute consent to the fig by CITY of a notice of violation
against all the lots in the SUBDIVISION, or to rescind the approval or otherwise
revert the SUBDIVISION to acreage. The remedy provided by this Subsection C
is in addition to and not in lieu of other remedies available to CITY.
SUBDIVIDER agrees that the choice of remedy or remedies for SUBDIVIDER'S
breach shall be in the discretion of CITY.
d. In the event that SUBDIVIDER fails to perform any obligation
hereunder, SUBDIVIDER agrees to pay ali costs and expenses incurred by. CITY
in securing performance of such obligations, including costs of suit and reasonable
attorney ' s fees.
e. The failure of CITY to take an enforcement action with respect to
a default, or to declare a breach, shall not be construed as a waiver of that default
or breach or any subsequent default or breach of SUBDIVIDER.
10. Warranty. SUBDIVIDER shall guarantee or warranty the work done pursuant
to this Agreement for a period of one year after expiration of the maintenance period and final
acceptance by the City Council of the work and improvements against any defective work or labor
done or defective materials furnished. Where Parkland/Landscape Improvements are to be
constructed in phases or sections, the one year warranty period shah commence after City
acceptance of the last completed improvement. If within the warranty period any work or
improvement or pan of any work or improvement done, furnished, installed, constructed or
caused to be done, furnished, installed or constructed by SUBDIVIDER fails to fulfill any of the
requirements of this Agreement or the Parkland/Landscape Improvement Plans and specifications
referred to herein, SUBDIVIDER shall without delay and without any cost to CITY, repair or
replace or reconstruct any defective or otherwise unsatisfactory part or parts of the work or
structure. Should SUBDIVIDER fail to act promptly or in accordance with this requirement,
SUBDIVIDER hereby authorizes CITY, at CITY option, to perform the work twenty days after
mailing written notice of default to SUBDIVIDER and to SUBDIVIDER's Surety and agrees to
pay the cost of such work by CITY. Should CITY determine that an urgency requires repairs or
replacements to be made before SUBDIVIDER can be notified, CITY may, in its sole discretion,
make the necessary repairs or replacements or perform the necessary work and SUBDIVIDER
shah pay to CITY the cost of such repairs.
11. SUBDIVIDER Not Agent of CITY. Neither SUBDIVIDER nor any of
SUBDIVIDER'S agents or contractors are or shall be considered to be agents of CITY in
connection with the performance of SUBDIVIDER'S obligations under this Agreement.
12. Injury to Work. Until such time as the Parkland/landscape Improvements are
accepted by CITY, SUBDIVIDER shall be responsible for and bear the risk of loss to any of the
improvements conslracted or installed. CITY shall not, nor shall any officer or employee thereof,
be liable or responsible for any accident, loss or damage, regardless of cause, happening or
occurring to the work or improvements specified in this Agreement prior to the completion and
acceptance of the work or improvements. All such risks shall be the responsibility of and are
hereby assumed by SUBDIVIDER.
13. Other Agreements. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall preclude CITY
from expending monies pursuant to agreements concurrently or previously executed between the
pardes, or from entering into agreement with other subdividers for the apportionment of costs of
water and sewer mains, or other improvements, pursuant to the provisions of the CITY ordinances
providing therefore, nor shall anything in this Agreement commit CITY to any such
apportionment.
14. SUBDIVIDER'S Obligation to Warn Public During Construction. Until final
acceptance of the Parkland Improvements, SUBDIVIDER shall give good and adequate warning
to the public of each and every dangerous condition existent in said improvements, and will take
all reasonable actions to protect the public from such dangerous condition.
15. Vesting of Ownership. Upon acceptance of work on behalf of CITY and
recordation of the Notice of Completion, ownership of the improvements constructed pursuant to
this Agreement shall vest in CITY.
16. Final Acceptance of Work. Acceptance of the work on behalf of CITY shall be
made by the City Council upon recommendation of the Director of Community Services after final
completion and inspection of all Parkland/Landscape Improvements. The Board of Directors shall
act upon the Director of Community Services recommendations within thirty (30) days from the
date the Director of Community Services certifies that the work has finally completed, as provided
in Paragraph 5. Such acceptance shah not constitute a waiver of defects by CITY.
17. Indemnity/Hold Harmless. CITY or any officer or employee thereof shah not be
liable for any injury to persons or property occasioned by reason of the acts or omissions of
SUBDIVIDER, its agents or employees in the performance of this Agreement. SUBDIVIDER
further agrees to protect and hold hamless CITY, its officials and employees from any and all
claims, demands, causes of action, liability or loss of any sort, because of, or arising out of, acts
or omissions or SUBDIVIDER, its agents or employees in the performance of this Agreement,
including all claims, demands, causes of action, liability, or loss because of, or arising out of, in
whole or in part, the design or construction of the Parkland/Landscape Improvements. This
indemnification and Agreement to hold harmless shall extend to injuries to persons and damages
or taking of property resulting from the design or construction of the parkland/Landscape
Improvements as provided herein, and in addition, to adjacent property owners as a consequence
of the diversion of waters from the design or construction of public drainage systems, streets and
other public improvements. Acceptance of any of the Parkland/Landscape Improvements shall
not constitute any assumption by the CITY of any responsibility for any damage or taking covered
by this paragraph. CITY shall not be responsible for the design or construction of the
Parkland/Landscape Improvements pursuant to the approved Parkland/Landscape Improvement
Plans, regardless of any negligent action or inaction taken by the CITY in approving the plans,
unless the particular improvement design was specifically required by CITY over written objection
by SUBDIVIDER submitted to the Director of Community Services before approval of the
particular improvement design, which objection indicated that the particular improvement design
was dangerous or defective and suggested an alternative safe and feasible design. After acceptance
of the Parkland/Landscape Improvements, the SUBDIVIDER shall remain obligated to eliminate
any defect in design or dangerous condition caused by the design or construction defect, however,
SUBDIVIDER shall not be responsible for routine maintenance. Provisions ofthis pamgraph shah
remain in full force and effect for ten years following the acceptance by the CITY of
Parkland/Landscape Improvements. It is the intent of this section that SLrBDIVIDER shall be
responsible for all liability for design and construction of the Parkland/Landscape Improvements
installed or work done pursuant to this Agreement and that CITY shah not be liable for any
negligence, nonfeasance, misfeasance or malfeasance in approving, reviewing, checking, or
correcting any plans or specifications or in approving, reviewing or inspecting any work or
The improvement security shall not be required to cover the provision of this
construction.
paragraph.
18.
Sale or Disposition of SUBDIVISION. Sale or other disposition of this property
will not relieve SUBDIVIDER from the obligations set forth herein. If SUBDIVIDER sells the
property or any portion of the property within the SUBDIVISION to any other person, the
SUBDIVIDER may request a novalion of this Agreement and a substitution of security. Upon
approval of the novation and substitution of securities, the SUBDIVIDER may request a release
or reduction of the securities required by this Agreement. Nothing in the novation shall relieve
the SUBDIVIDER of the obligations under Paragraph 17 for the work or improvement done by
SUBDIVIDER.
19. Time of the Essence.
Time is of the essence of this Agreement.
20. Time for Completion of Work Extensions. SUBDIVIDER shall complete
construction of the improvements required by this Agreement no later than
· In the event good cause exists as determined by the City. Engineer, and if otherwise permitted
under the tentative map condition, the time for completion of the improvements hereunder may
be extended. The extension shall be made by writing executed by the Director of Community
Services. Any such extension may be granted without notice to SU'BDIVIDER'S Surety and shall
not affect the validity of this Agreement or release the Surety or Sureties on any security given
for this Agreement. The Director of Community Services shall be the sole and f'mal judge as to
whether or not good cause has been shown to entitle SUBDIVIDER to an extension. Delay, other
than delay in the commencement of work, resulting from an act of CITY, or by an act of God,
which SUBDIVIDER could not have reasonably foreseen, or by storm or inclement weather which
prevents the conducting of work, or by strikes, boycotts, similar actions by employees or labor
organizations, which prevent the conducting or work, and which were not caused by or
contributed to by SUBDIVIDER, shall constitute good cause for
an extension of time for completion. As a condition of such extension, the Director of
Community Services may require SUBDIVIDER to funfish new security guaranteeing
performance of this Agreement as extended in an increased amount as necessary to compensate
for any increase in construction costs as determined by the Director of Community Services.
21. No Vesting of Rights. Performance by SUBDIVIDER of this Agr,eement
shall not be construed to vest SUBDIVIDER'S rights with respect to any change in any change
in any zoning or building law or ordinance.
22. Notices. All notices required or provided for under this Agreement shall be
in writing and delivered in person or sent by mail, postage prepaid and addressed as provided in
this Section. Notice shall be effective on the date it is delivered in person, or, if mailed, on the
date of deposit in the United States Mail. Notices shall be addressed as follows unless a written
change of address is fled with the City:
Notice to CITY:
City Clerk
City of Temecula
43200 Business Park Drive
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
Notice to SUBDIVIDER:
Lennar Homes of California, Inc.
c/o Lennar Communities, Inc.
Harveston Project
24800 Chrisanta Drive
Mission Viejo, CA 92691
23. Severability. The provisions of this Agreement are sevemble. If any portion of
this Agreement is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder of the
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect unless amended or modified by the mutual consent
of the parties.
24. Callimp. The captions of this Agreement are for convenience and reference
only and shall not define, explain, modify, limit, exemplify, or aid in the interpretation,
construction or meaning of any provisions of this Agreement.
25. Litigation or Arbitration. In the event that suit or arbitration is brought to
enforce the terms of this contract, the prevailing party shall be entitled to litigation costs and
reasonable attorney' s fees.
26.
into the terms of this agreement.
27. Entire Agreement.
Incorporation of Recitals. The recitals to this agreement are hereby incorporated
This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement of the
pardes with respect to the subject matter. All modifications, amendments, or waivers of the terms
of this Agreement must be in writing and signed by the appropriate representative of the parties.
In the case of the CITY, the appropriate party shall be the City Manager.
IN WITN~S WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed by CITY, by and through its Mayor.
SUBDIVIDER
CITY OF TEMECULA
Name: Thomas Banks
Title: Vice President
By:
Mayor
By:
Name:
Title:
(Proper Notarization of SUBDIVIDER'S signature
is required and shall be attached)
ATTF. ST:
By:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
By:
Name:
City Engineer
By:
Name:
Director of Community Services
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Peter Thorson
City Attorney
Ex'H'I~IT A
(Attach the basis for the estimate of the cost of improvements.)
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
WINCHESTER CREEK PARK
(Slope Revisions)
April 4, 2000
Prepared by Alaa Chaabani, Landscape Planner
Description
Irrigation
Tree - 24" Box
Shrubs - 5 gal.
Shrubs - 1 gal.
Groundcover Flats (12"oc)
Erosion Control Mat
Weed Abatement
90 Day Maintenance
Quantity
1
36
150
195
17,200
1
17,200
1
Item
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
JN 15-100014.001
Unit Item Cost
LS $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00
EA $ 250.00 $ 9,000.00
EA $ 18.00 $ 2,700.00
EA $ 6.00 $ 1,170.00
SF $ 0.35 $ 6,020.00
LS $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00
SF $ 0.10 $ 1,720.00
LS $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00
Subtotal: $ 25,110.00
10% Contingency: $ 2,511.00
TOTAL: $ 27,621.00
Total
Since ENGINEER has no control over labor, materials, equipment or services furnished by others or over the Contractor(s)' method of
determining pdces, or over the cempetive bidding or market conditions, its opinions of probable Project Cost and Construction Cost
provided heroin are to be made on the basis of its experience and quailificetions and represents its best judgment as an experienced
and qualified professional engineer, familiar with the construction industry; but ENGINEER cannot and does not guarantee that
proposals, bids or actual Project or Construction Cost will not vary from its opinion of probable cost. If pdor to the Bidding or
Negotiafdng Phase, OWNER wishes greater assurance as a to Project Cost, it shall employ an independent cost estimator.
Approved by:
ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
State of California
County of
personally appeared
~ersonally known
before me,
to me - OR -
i'~u Cemrn'#1227574
~ NOTARY PUaLIC-CALIFORNIA
............
SS.
[] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence to be the person('~,~ whose namej~s~
~ subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me tha~s~ executed
the sam~ i,~h~ authorized
capacity(~), and that by~h~'/~
signatures~ on the instrument the personS,
or the entity upon behalf of which the
person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
NOTAR~
/
OPTIONAL INFORMATION
The information below is not required by law. However, it could prevent fraudulent attachment of this acknowl-
edgement to an unauthorized document.
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER (PRINCIPAL)
[] INDIVIDUAL
[] CORPORATE OFFICER
[] PARTNER(S)
[] ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
[] TRUSTEE(S)
[] GUARDfAN/CONSERVATOR
[] OTHER:
DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
NUMBER OF PAGES
DATE OF DOCUMENT
OTHER
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
NAME OF PERSON(S) OR EN'rlTYUES)
RIGHT THUMBPRINT
OF
SIGNER
APA 5/,99 VALt,EY-SIERRA. 800-362-3369
PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE
WINCHESTER CREEK PARK
(Slope Revisions)
April 4, 2000
Prepared by Alaa Chaabani, Landsca
Description
Irrigation
Tree - 24" Box
Shrubs - 5 gal.
Shrubs - 1 gal.
Groundcover Flats (12"oc)
Erosion Control Mat
Weed Abatement
90 Day Maintenance
Item
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
De Planner
Quantity
1
36
150
195
17,200
1
17,200
1
JN 15o100014.001
Unit Item Cost
LS $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00
EA $ 250.00 $ 9,000.00
EA $ 18.00 $ 2,700.00
EA $ 6.00 $ 1,170.00
SF $ 0.35 $ 6,020.00
LS $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00
SF $ 0.10 $ 1,720.00
LS $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00
Subtotal: $ 26,110.00
10% Contingency: $ 2,611.00
TOTAL: $ 28,721.00
Total
Since ENGINEER has no control over labor, materials, equipment or services furnished by others or over the Contractor(s)' method of
determining prices, or over the competive bidding or market conditions, its opinions of probable Project Cost and Construction Cost provided
herein are to be made on the basis of its experience and quailifications and represents its best judgment as an experienced and qualified
professional engineer, familiar with the construction industry; but ENGINEER cannot and does not guarantee that proposals, bids or actual
Project or Construction Cost will not vary from its opinion of probable cost. if prior to the Bidding or Negotiating Phase, OWNER wishes
greater assurance as a to Project Cost, it shall employ an independent cost estimator.
Approved by: ~ '~I/OO
Bond No. 111 2744 3510
CITY OF TEIVIECU'LA Premium: $110. O0
PARKLAND/LANDSCAPE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND
V~rlEREAS, the City of Temecula, State of California, and Lennar Homes of California,
Inc. (hereinaRer designated as "Principal") have entered into an Agreement
whereby Principal agrees to install and complete certain parHand Improvements, which said
Agreement, dated 19 , and identified as Project Tract 29286, 1 PA 31
Winchester Creek Park , is hereby referred to and made a part hereof; and
Vd-IEREAS, Principal is required under the terms of the Agreement to furnish a bond for
the Faithful Performance of the Agreement;
The American
NOW, THEREFORE, we the Principal and Insurance Company as surety, are held
and firmly bound unto the City of Temecula, California, in the penal sum of $ 27,621.00
lawful money of the United States, for the payment of such sum well and truly to be made, we
bhid ourselves, our heirs, successors, executors and administrators, jointly and severally.
The condition of this obligation is such that the obligation shall become null and void if the
above-bounded Principal, Ms or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors, or assigns, shall in
all things stand to, abide by, well and truly keep, and perform the covenants, conditions, and
provisions in the Agreement and any alteration thereof made as therein provided, on his or their
part, to be kept and performed at the time and in the manner therein specified, and in all respects
according to his or their true intent and meaning, and shall indemnify and save harmless the City
of Temecula, its officers, agents, and employees, as therein stipulated; otherwise, this obligation
shall be and remain in full force and effect.
As a part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to the face amount specified
therefor, there shall be included costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable
attorney's fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing such obligation, all to be taxed as costs
and included in anyjudgement rendered.
The surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or
addition to the terms of the Agreement or to the work to be performed thereunder or the
specifications accompanying the same shall in anyway affect its obligations on this bond, and it
does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the
terms of the Agreement or the work or to the specifications.
///
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been duly executed by the Principal and
Surety above named, on April 17 ,1~ 2000.
SURETY
THE ANERICAN ~NSURANCE COI~PANY
BY:
Patricia Brebner
Attorney-in-Fact
(nTLE)
PRINCIPAL
LENNAR H0~ES OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
(NAME)
Vice President
(TITLE)
ae21_ P. White
(NAME)
Vice PresS. dent
(TITLE)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Peter Thorsen
City Attorney
California All-Purpose Acknowledgment
State of California )
) ss
County of Orange )
On April 18. 2000 before me, Dee Baker, Notary Public, personally appeared
David Evans and Michael P. White personally known to me to be the persons
whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they
executed the same in their authorized capacities and that by their signatures on the
instrument the persons or the entity upon behalf of which the persons acted, executed the
instrument.
Witness my hand and official seal.
Dee Baker, Notary Public
Description of Attached Document
Title or Type of Document: Citv of Temecula. Parklan&Landscape Faithful
Performance Bond No. 111 2744 3510
Document Date: April 17. 2000
Signer(s) Other Than Named Above:
Number of Pages:
Patricia Brebner
Two (2)
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT No. 5907
State of California
County of Orange'
On April 17, 2000
DATE
personally appeared Pab-i, cia Brebner
[] personally known to me - OR - []
before me, Rhonda C. Abel, Notary Public
NAME. TITLE OF OFFICER - E.G., "JANE DOE, NOTARY PUBLIC"
NAME(S) OF SIGNER(S)
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.
OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and
could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form.
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER
DESCRIPTION OF A'FrACHED DOCUMENT
[] INDIVIDUAL
[] CORPORATE OFFICER
TiTLE(S)
[] ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
[] TRUSTEE(S)
[] GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
[] OTHER:
LIMITED
GENERAL
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
NUMBER OF PAGES
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
NAME OF PERSON(B) OR ENT1TY(IES)
The American Insurance Company
DATEOFDOCUMENT
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
S4087/GEEF 2/98 ~ 1993 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION · 8236 Remmet Ave., P.O. BOx 7184 · Canoga Park, CA 91309-7184
CITY OF T~VEECULA
Bond No. 111 2744 3510
Premium included in charge
for performance bond
PARKL~/~SC~E LABOR AND MATERIALS BOND
Vv'H]=.REAS, the City of Temecula, Sate of Callforms, and Lennar Homes of
California, Inc,. (hereinafter designated as "Principal") have entered into an Agreement whereby
Principal agrees to install and complete certain ParEand Improvements, which said Agreement,
dated , 19 , and identified as Project Tract 29286, 1 PA 31 ,
Winchester Creek Park
is hereby referred to and made a part hereof; and
WI-~REAS, under the terms of said Agreement, Principni is required before entering
upon the pe~ormance of the work, to ffie a good and sufficient payment bond with the City of
Temecula, to secure the claims to which reference is made in Title 15 (commencing with Section
3082) of Pan 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code of the State of C~lifomia; and
The American
NOW, THEREFORE, we the principal and Insurance Company as Surety, are held
and ftrrnly bound unto the City of Temecula, C~lifornia, and all contractors, subcontractors,
laborers, materialmen, and other persons employed in the performance of the aforesaid
Agreement and referTed to in Title 15 of the Civil Code, in the penal sum of $ 13,810. ~qawful
money of the United Sates, for materials furnished or labor thereon of any kind, or for mounts
due under the Unemployment Insurance Act with respect to such work or labor, that Surety wilt
pay the same in an mount not exceeding the amount set forth.
As a pan of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to the face mount specified
therefor, there shall be included costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable
attorney' s fees, incurred by City in successfully enforcing such obligation, all to be taxed as
costs and included in any judgement rendered.
It is hereby expressly stipulated and agreed that this bond shall insure to the benefit of
any and all persons, companies and corporations entitled to fie claims under Title 15
(commencing with Section 3082) of Part 4 of Division 3 of the Civil Code, so as to ~ve a fight
of action to them or their assigns in any suit brought upon this bond.
If the condition of this bond is fully performed, then this obligation shall become null and
void; otherwise, it shall be and remain in full force and effect.
The surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or
addition to the terms of the Agreement or to the work to be performed thereunder or the
specifications accompanying the same shall in anyway affect its obligations on this bond, and
it does hereby waive notice of any such changes, extension of time, alteration or addition to the
terms of the Ageement or to the work or to the specifications.
2
IN WITNESS WI4~,REOF, this instrument has been duly executed by the Principal a~d
Surety above named, on April 17 , ~ 2090
(Seal) (Seal)
SL~_ETY
THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY
By:
Patricia Brebner
(Name)
Attorney-in-Fact
(Title)
PRINCZPAL
LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
By: ~'~ ~
(Name)
Vice President
(Title)
hael P. White
Vice President
(Title)
APpROVFrD AS TO FORM:
Peter Thorson
City Attorney
California All-Purpose Acknowledgment
State of California )
) ss
County of Orange )
On April 18.2000 before me, Dee Baker, Notary Public, personally appeared
David Evans and Michael P. White personally known to me to be the persons
whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they
executed the same in their authorized capacities and that by their signatures on the
instrument the persons or the entity upon behalf of which the persons acted, executed the
instrument.
Witness my hand and official seal.
Dee Baker, Notary Public
Description of Attached Document
(]~1111111/1t I~J~/11
Title or Type of Document: City of Temecula, Parkland/Landscape Labor and
Materials Bond No. 111 2744 3510
Document Date: April 17. 2000
Signer(s) Other Than Named Above:
Number of Pages:
Patricia Brebner
Three (3)
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT No, 9907
State of California
County of Orange'
On April 17, 2000 before me, RhondaC. Abel, Notary Public
BATE NAME, TITLE OF OFFICER - E.G., "JANE DOE, NOTARY PUSLIC"
personally appeared Pa~icia Brebner
NAME(S) OF SIGNER(S)
[] 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,
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and
could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form.
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER
DESCRIPTION OF ATTACHED DOCUMENT
[] INDIVIDUAL
[] CORPORATE OFFICER
TITLE(S)
[] PARTNER(S) 8
[] ATTORNEY-IN-FACT
[] TRUSTEE(S)
[] GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
[] OTHER:
LIMITED
GENERAL
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
NUMBER OF PAGES
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENTITY(IES)
The American Insurance Company
DATE OF DOCUMENT
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
S4067/GEEF 2/98 { 1993 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION · 8236 RemmetAve., P.O. BOX 7184 · Canoga park, CA 91309-7184
CITY OF TE~iECULA
Bond No. 111 2744 3510
Premium included in charge for
performance bond
PARKLAND/LANDSCAPE WARKANTY BOND
WFiFaREAS, the City of Temecula, State of California (hereinafter designated as "City"),
Lennar Homes of
and California. Inc. (heremailer designated as "Principal") have entered into an
Agreement whereby Principal agrees to install and complete certain designated Parkland
Improvements, which said Agreement, dated 19 , and identified as
Project Tract 29286, 1 PA 31 , iS hereby referred to and made a part hereof; and
Winchester Creek Park
WI4~REAS, Principal is required to warranty the work done under the terms of the
Agreement for a period of one (1) year following acceptance thereof by City against any
defective work or labor done or defective materials furnished, in the mount of ten percent
(10%) of the estimated cost of the improvements;
The American
NOW, TI-IEREFORE, we the Principal and Insurance Company as surety, are held
and fn-mly bound unto the City of Temecula, California, in the penal sum of $2,762.10 ,
lawful money of the United States, for the payment of such sum well and truly to be made, we
bind ourselves, our heirs, successors, executors and administrators, jointly and severally. The
condition of this obligation is such that the obligation shall become null and void if the above-
bounded Principal, his or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors, or assigns shall in all
things stand to, abide by, well and truly keep. and perform the covenants, conditions, and
provisions in the Agreement and any alteration thereof made as therein provided, on his or their
pan, to be kept and performed at the time and in the manner therein specified, and in. all
respects according to his or their true intent and meaning, and shall indemnify and save harmless
the City of Temecula, its officers, agents, and employees, as therein stipulated; otherwise, this
obligation shall be and remain in full force and effect.
As a part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to the face amount specified
therefor, there shall be included costs and reasonable expenses and fees, including reasonable
attomey's fees, incurred by City m successfully enforcing such obligation, all to be taxed as
costs and included in any judgement rendered.
The surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration or
addition to the terms of the Agreement or to the work to be performed thereunder or the
specifications accompanying the same shall in anyway affect its obligations on this bond, and
it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration or addition to the
terms of the Agreement ~r to the work or to the specifications.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been duly executed by the Principal
and Surety above named, on April 17 , ~ 2000.
(Seal) (Seal)
STJRETY
THE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY
'~;;,:; ~~-
Patricia Brebner
(Name)
Attorney-in-Fact
(Title)
PRINCIPAL
LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
By: ~/"~"~'~ ~v~.~
By:
Vice President
(Title)
M~ichael P. White
(Name)
Vice President
(Tree)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Peter Thorson
City Attorney
California All-Purpose Acknowledgment
State of Califomia )
) SS
County of Orange )
On April 18, 2000 before me, Dee Baker, Notary Public, personally appeared
David Evans and Michael P. White personally known to me to be the persons
whose names are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they
executed the same in their authorized capacities and that by their signatures on the
instrument the persons or the entity upon behalf of which the persons acted, executed the
instrument.
Witness my hand and official seal.
Dee Baker, Notary Public
Description of Attached Document
Title or Type of Document: City of Temecula. Parkland/Landscape Warranty
Bond No. 111 2744 3510
Document Date: April 17. 2000
Signer(s) Other Than Named Above:
Number of Pages:
Patricia Brebner
Three (3)
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT No. 5907
State of California
County of Orange'
On April 17, 2000
personally appeared Pan~cia Brebner
[] personally known to me - OR - []
before me, Rhonda C. Abel, Notary Public
NAME. TITLE OF OI=FICER - E.G., "JANE DOE, NOTARY PUBLIC"
NAME(S) OF SIGNER(S)
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,
OPTIONAL
Though the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and
could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form.
CAPACITY CLAIMED BY SIGNER
DESCRIPTION OF A'R'ACHED DOCUMENT
[] INDIVIDUAL
[] CORPORATE OFFICER
T1TLE(S)
[] PARTNER(S) F~ LIMITED
GENERAL
[] A'I'FORNEY-IN-FACT
[] TRUSTEE(S)
[] GUARDIAN/CONSERVATOR
[] OTHER:
TITLE OR TYPE OF DOCUMENT
NUMBER OF PAGES
SIGNER IS REPRESENTING:
NAME OF PERSON(S) OR ENT~TY(IES)
The American Insurance Company
DATE OF DOCUMENT
SIGNER(S) OTHER THAN NAMED ABOVE
S4067/GEEF 2/98 O 1993 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION · 8236 RernmetAve., P.O. Box 7184 · Canoga Park, CA 91309-7184
F]gEMAN~ FUND INSURANCE COMPANY
NA~0NAL 8URETI CORP0~ATION ASSOCt, TED INDEMNITY COBPOP, ATION
TI~ ,~Io~-PJCAN INS',.~ANCE COMPANY AMERICAN AIrf0MOBI],E INSURANCE COMPANY
GENERAL POWER OF ATrOE*~'T
ll~qOW ALL ~ ~Y T~]5 PP, ESF, NT5: That X=/I~I~VaA~S FUND ]G'~SU'/t.A~C~ 'CO~A,.NY~
$I.HIE/'Y CORPORATION, an [llln~s corporalion, THE A},4~:RlCAN INSURANCll COMPA.NY,
Nebr**~=. ASSOCIATED :INDE~/NITY CORK)RATION. a California corporation, and AMER/CAN AUTOMO BILR INSURANC~
COMPANY. a Missoux~ co~oralion. (herb-in collect~ve]~ called '~he Companies") does e~ch hcreby appoint Pacr ic fa M. Whir: · or
Patr~.cia Brebner of Cos~:a Mess, CA
true and lawfuJ Attonacy(s)*in-Yact, with ~ power of authority hereby confcn-,a;l in ~cir nant~, place and .~rAli, to ex~cu~,, seal,
~,~ow~lge and deUver any ~d ~/t beads, unden,~juas, reco~dumcu or other whuP.,u ob/ij~s in ~c umrc d~ercof ........
C~m~n~anddulyaues*zdby~C~mpan~f~m:n~ry~he~ebyT~ti~andc~ef~.mi~a~t~d~idAu~s)*~n*~t~yd~h~
~ficm relating ~6eto, by hcsi~lc, ~ ~y ~w~ of a~omcy, any revocation of ~y ~w~ d a~, or such ~si~le si~at~ or f~i~le S~I Sbe~ be valid ~d
· y of ~rch , a00~ .
On this ~ ?n r~ day of ?~'~,b . ._2D/1D._, before nag ]~.r. senally came ~4~r~n R. Kolbeck
u) me known, who, Ixjns by mc duly sworn, did depose and say:. the he is a Vice-l~udem of each company, dcsc~hed in and wldch exectmd
~ above ins~nm~.~ thal he knows the seals of the said Companies; tha~ Llx stair affixed to ~e said thstnammt are such company scab; Iha[
~hcy wae so mffxand by ~ d ~e Board of DimcuDrs of said companies ~d that he si~ed his nmne thereto by fib order.
IN WITNESS WH~.X01=, I have he~*umo sex my band and affixed my dficia] seat, the day ~d year heein first above wrincn.
lr, d~ ,_~d-d~ned, ~sid~ut Assinant S~ of ~h co~ny, ~ ~Y ~i'~Y ~at ~e f~e~g ~ ~hd ~ O~
~ ~ls · ~]1 force ~d hu not ~ ~vd~; ~ ~e ~ ~cle ~ of ~e By*hws ~ ~h com~uy, ~d ~ ~oJu~om
d ~ B~ of~; s~ f~ in ~ ~ff 0f ~. ~ n0w ~ f~
$i~ud~m~of~. Da~ l'/th ~yof April , 2000
ITEM 11
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City ManagedCity Council
APPROVALC~'
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOROFFINAN Y-----
CITYMANAGER
-lJ/~'William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
May 9, 2000
Professional Design Services Agreement
Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Deployment in Temecula
Project No. PW99-05
PREPARED BY: (~Ali Moghadam, Senior Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council:
Approve a Professional Design Services Agreement with Minagar and Associates for the
design of the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Deployment in Temecula in the amount
of $81,625.00 and authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement.
Authorize the City Manager to approve change orders, not to exceed the contingency amount
of $8,162.50, which is equal to 10% of the agreement amount.
BACKGROUND: In our continuous efforts to improve traffic flow within the City and keep
pace with the growth in the western Riverside County region, the City of Temecula has taken a pro-
active role in utilizing new innovations and the state of the art technology to reduce congestion and
improve the quality of life for the residents of Temecula.
In addition to numerous roadway improvement projects, the City implemented a project in which
most of the traffic signals on major corridors in the City were interconnected and synchronized. This
project was funded in its entirety by a Federal Grant under Congestion Management Air Quality
(CMAQ), which was administered by Caltrans. This project was completed in 1998 and has
improved traffic flow on major corridors within the City considerably.
Recently, the City received authorization from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to
implement the Intersection Traffic Monitoring Program funded by the Transportation Equity Act for
21st Century (TEA-21). The total grant is in the amount of approximately $197,000, which requires
a fifty percent (50%) local match. The TEA-21 funds are also administered by Caltrans and require
authorization pdor to award of design contract and construction contract. The City also appropriated
a matching fund to supplement the Intersection Traffic Monitoring project.
The scope of this project includes installation of a "back bone" communication system and traffic
monitoring cameras at several key intersections. Upon completion of the project, City staff will have
the capability of monitoring the traffic flow at major intersections and modifying the signal timing from
the City Hall by using the existing interconnect system. The cameras will provide a real time image
of the intersections, which in addition to improving the signal timing, could be used for incident
management as well as special event coordination. The system will be designed to provide
accessibility to Caltrans for monitoring purposes as well as potential future expansion to include
R:\agdrpt\2OOO\OEOg\pw99-OEminagar agrmt
such as Police Department and California Highway Patrol. The future expansion may include installation
of changeable message signs and advanced traveler information system (Highway Advisory Radios).
The City also requested that a CMAQ grant, which was originally requested by the County of Riverside,
be transferred to the City, The scope of work as identified by the Riverside County Transportation
Department and RCTC includes installation of interconnect facility on Winchester Road between
Margarita Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. The total amount for this project is approximately
$320,000. It is staffs intentions to combine the TEA-21, CMAQ and City funds to implement a showcase
project in the City of Temecula.
Following approval from FHWA and Caltrans, City staff prepared and mailed a Request for Proposals
(RFP) to several firms specializing in Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) projects. After reviewing
the proposals received from five (5) consulting firms, three (3) top ranked firms were invited for an
interview. The interview panel included City and Caltrans staff. Based on the interviews and firms'
responsiveness to the City's RFP, expertise, experience and knowledge of the project, the panel
members unanimously recommended the consulting firm of Minagar and Associates. Minagar and
Associates has extensive experience in the field of transportation, specifically in ITS design and
deployment. The total fee for design of a Citywide ITS Master Plan and preparation of plans and
specifications for Intersection Traffic Monitoring System is $81,625. We anticipate completion of the
project by January, 2001.
FISCAL IMPACT: The Intersection Traffic Monitoring System Project is funded by Development
Impact Fees - Street Improvements, TEA-21 and CMAQ. Adequate funds for this agreement are
available in Account No. 210-165-607-5802, in the amount of $81,625.00 and the contingency amount
of $8,162.50 for a total cost of $89,787.50.
ATTACHMENT:
1. Project Location
2. Project Description
3. Professional Services Agreement
2
R:\agdrpt\2OOO\OSOg\pw99-OEminagar agrrnt
p. o
~ E
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGREEMENT
FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES
INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM (ITS)
DEPLOYMENT IN TEMECULA
PROJECT NO. PW99-05
THIS AGREEMENT, is made and effective as of May 9, 2000, between the City of
Temecula, a municipal corporation ("City") and Minagar & Associates, ("Consultant").
consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on May 9, 2000, and shall remain
and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed, but in no event later than May 9,
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 schedute 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 City 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 herein 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 Eighty One Thousand Six
Hundred Twenty Five Dollars and No Cents ($81,625.00) 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 City'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 twenty five
thousand dollars ($25,000.00). 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 City disputes any of consultant's fees it shall give written
notice to Consultant within 30 days of receipt of a invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the
invoice.
1
r 'clp~projects~pw99-05~minagar agrmt
5. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT WITHOUT CAUSE.
a. The City 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 City 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 City
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 City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this
Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City 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, City 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 wdtten 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 of 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 City 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 City 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-
fled and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of City 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 City to make transcnpts 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 City and
may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant.
With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Consultant shall make
2
r:\cip~projects\pw99-05~minagar agrmt
available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City, 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 rouse 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 defend, indemnify, protect
and hold harmless the City, 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 City, its officers, agents and employees may sustain
or incur orwhich may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property
adsing out of Consultant's negligent or wrongful acts or omissions adsing 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 City.
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 O0 01 11 85 or 88.
(2)
Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06
92 covering Automobile Liability, cede 1 (any auto). If the Consultant
owns no automobiles, a non-owned auto endorsement to the General
Liability policy described above is acceptable.
(3)
Workers Compensation insurance as required by the State of
California and Employers Liability Insurance. If the Consultant has no
employees while performing under this Agreement, workers
compensation insurance is ROt 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. rf Commercial General Liability
Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either
the general aggregate limit shaft 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.
3
r:~cip~projects~pw99-05~rnlnagar agrmt
(3)
Worker's 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: Two million ($2,000,000) 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 City, 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 City, its officers, officials,
employees or volunteers.
(2)
For any claims related to this project, the Consultant's insurance
coverage shall be pdmary insurance as respects the City, its officers,
officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured
maintained by the City, 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 City.
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 City. Self
insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements.
f. Verification of Coveraqe. Consultant shall furnish the City 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 on
4
r:%cip~projects~pw99-05~minagar agrmt
forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before
work commences. As an alternative to the City's forms, the Consultant's 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 City a wholly independent
contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant
shall at all times be under Consultanrs exclusive direction and control. Neither City 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 City. Consultant shall not incur or have the
power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City 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, City shall not pay salanes, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing
services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to
Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.
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
City, 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 pedormance of this Agreement shall
be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City'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. 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 City 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. City 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 City and to provide City with the opportunity
to review any response to discovery requests provided by Consultant. However, City's right to
review any such response does not imply or mean the fight by City to control, direct, or rewrite said
response.
5
r:,,c~p~oro)ects~pw99-05Vninagar agrmt
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
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:
City of Temecula
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, California 92589-9033
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, California 92590
Attention: City Manager
To Consultant:
Minagar & Associates
6 Venture, Suite 315
Irvine, California 92618
Attention: Fred Minagar, P.E., Vice President
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
Cib'- Because of the personal nature of the services to be rendered pursuant to this Agreement, only
Fred Minagar, P.E., Vice President shall perform the services described in this Agreement. Fred
Minagar may use assistants, under their direct supervision, to perform some of the services under
this Agreement. Consultant shall provide City fourteen (14) days' notice prior to the departure of
Fred Minagar from Consultant's employ. Should he or she leave Consultant's employ, the City 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 City Council 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 City 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.
6
r:~cip~projects~pw99-05~minagar agrrnt
17. PROHIBITED INTEREST. No member, officer, or employee of the City of
Temecula or of a local public body shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in the contract of the
proceeds thereof during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter.
Furthermore, the contractor/consultant convenants and agrees to their knowledge
that no board member, officer or employee of the City of Temecula has any interest, whether
contractual, non-contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, or in the business of the
contracting party other than the City of Temecula, and that if any such interest comes to the
knowledge of either party at any time, a full and complete disclosure of all such information wilt be
made, in writing, to the other party or parties, even if such interest would not be considered a conflict
of interest under Article 4 (commencing with Section 1090) or Article 4.6 9commencing with Section
1220) of Division 4 of Title I of the Government Code of the State of California.
178. 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.
19. 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.
CITY OF TEMECULA
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
Attest:
Susan W, Jones, CMC, City Clerk
Approved As to Form:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
7
r:~cip~orojects~pw99-05'cntnagar agrmt
CONSULTANT
Minagar & Associates
6 Venture, Suite 315
Irvine, CA 92618
(949) 727-3399
Fred Minagar, P.E., Vice President
By:
Name:
Title:
(Signatures of two corporate officers required for Corporations)
8
r:~cip~prolects~pw99-05~rninagar agrmt
EXHIBIT A
TASKS TO BE PERFORMED
9
r:~cip~projects~pw99-05~minagar agrmt
SCOPE OF WORK AND SERVICES
The scope of work and services for the project is to provide plans and specifications that will
include all work necessary to complete the functional and administrative tasks for the design,
installation, construction and integration of the City's CCTV systems and ATMS to a fully
operational final stage. The following tasks, at the minimum are envisioned by the City for the
project:
Locations of Temecula's CCTV System
Consultant shall evaluate the feasibility of CCTV installation at the pre-selected list of seven (7)
locations in the City. Consultant shall then present a technical memorandum to the City listing
the available alternatives for expansion as needed, and recommend the best alternative.
Several elements shall be considered in the evaluation of the appropriate means for proposed
and future expansion. These include but need not be limited to:
· Expandability
· Proven Technology in the Traffic Engineering Practice
· Maintenance
· Integrity
· Reliability
· Capital Cost
· Life Cycle
· Future Compatibility
· Connection to Caltrans District 8 Systems
· Flexibility
· Cost-effectiveness
The Consultant shall field test, then recommend the best CCTV camera system for installation
in Temecula. Consultant shall take into consideration the special Temecula Valley's
topography, right-of-ways, and interstate highway systems at locations below and any other
location(s) the Consultant and/or the City may deem appropriate within the available budget:
1. Interstate 15 ramp signals at Rancho California Road
2. interstate 15 ramp signals at Winchester Road
3. Rancho California Road at Jefferson Avenue
4. Rancho California Road at Ynez Road
5. Winchester Road at Jefferson Avenue
6. Winchester Road at Ynez Road
7. Winchester Road at Margarita Road
The following communications system media shall be explored independently or in conjunction
with one another, contingent upon available funding, conduit capacity and/or technical merits.
· Twisted Pair
· Fiber Optics
· Spread Spectrum Radio
· Telephone Dial Up
R:cip\projects%pw99-O5\minagar scope
Develop Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS & E) for the CCTV System
Based upon the recommended analysis in Task 1.0, and upon concurrence of the City staff,
Consultant shall field review each proposed CCTV location, City of Temecula's designated
area for the new TOC, Caltrans District 8 TMC and existing communications infrastructure
before preparing design plans, specifications and detailed construction cost estimates. The
Consultant shall consider all aspects of the existing communication system(s) within the City as
well as Caltrans District 8 TMC, while designing the CCTV system.
The construction plans shall include, but need not be limited to:
· Base maps showing detailed information of splicing locations connecting to the existing
traffic signals, etc.
· Cables and equipment
· Existing controller locations
· CCTV locations
· Hub locations
· Conflicting utilities and utility poles
· Complete equipment diagram
· Pole attachment details
· Pullbox details
· Communications details
· Other pertinent details
Prepare plans according to the following criteria:
· Preliminary Design Submittal (60%)
· Preliminary Final Design Submittal (95%)
· Final Design Submittal (100%)
· For CCTV Camera Locations Use 1"=20' Scale
· For Interconnect Design Plans Use 1 "=40' Scale (for Overhead and Underground)
· All the Design Plans shall comply with the latest Caltrans and FHWA requirements
Design of Temecula's TOCISystems Architecture
The City envisions to designate an area in the City Hall as the Traffic Operations Center
(TOC). The Consultant will assist the City in the implementation of its ATMS systems. The
Consultant shall prepare a complete list of all elements of hardware & software, large screen
display system, video switching integration of Graphical User Interface (GUll, workstation and
so on for procurement, installation, implementation, integration and testing requirements. The
design of Temecula's new TOC at a minimum must include:
· Identification of items to be purchased
· Compliance with the FHWA's Open System/Open Architecture and Modular Layout
· A system architecture base diagram
Compliance with the National ITS Architecture
Conformity with the Regional Showcase Architecture (e.g. Kernel-Seed Concept)
· Adherence to Class E "Center-to-Center" Interfacing (National ITS and NTCIP Protocols)
· Utilization of the Showcase Protocols for the ITS Field Elements
· Interface Temecula TOC & Caltrans District 8 TMC (i.e. "Seed" & "Kernel" Interface)
2
R:cip/prolects/pw99-05!m~nagar scope
Data Base and Graphics for Temecula and Caltrans Traffic Signals
Application of Interface Definition Language (IDL) Interfaces for all the Objects( e.g. CCTV,
CMS and etc.)
Systems Implementations
The Consultant shall assist the City in evaluation and selection of the equipment. The
Consultant shall also assist the City in providing information during bidding and construction
process.
Training the City Staff
The Consultant shall include in the PS &E that the equipment manufacturer shall provide the
required training to both City's engineering and maintenance staff members. Workshops shall
be provided to cover usage, operation, maintenance and trouble-shooting aspects of the
system.
Evaluation of the System and Preparation of Final Report
The Consultant shall evaluate the operational efficiency and benefits of the system and
prepare a final report as required by FHWA or Caltrans.
Note: This task may be deleted if not required by FHWA and/or Caltrans.
PHASE II - Interconnect Design
Minagar & Associates shall field survey the area and complete the PS & E for the design of
interconnect of three (3) signalized intersections along Winchester Road between Margarita
Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. The distance is approximately three (3) miles. The
following technologies shall be explored for the interconnect design.
· Fiber optic
· Twisted Pair
· Spread Spectrum
· Others
PS & E package shall be prepared under the requirement and approval of Caltrans District 8.
The PS & E design requirements shall comply with the aforementioned standards stated in
Phase I. The work shall comprise the following tasks:
· Analyzing Routing
· Type of Interconnect
· Splicing
· Hub Locations
· Placing Conduit
· Pull Boxes
· Splice Vaults
· Meet with Caltrans
· Prepare PS & E
· Obtain Caltrans Approval
3
R:cip\projects/pw99-OS~rninagar scope
Interconnect Design Field Survey
Winchester Road between Margarita Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road shall be field
inspected in reference to the best route for the interconnect routing, All the intersections
including the following four (4) signalized intersections shall be inspected:
1. Winchester Road and Margarita Road
2. Winchester Road and Roripaugh Road
3. Winchester Road and Nicolas Road
4, Winchester Road and Murrieta Hot Springs Road
Different interconnect technologies to be reviewed and selected.
Development of PS & E
PS & E design package shall be prepared in accordance with the Caltrans design standards
and in conformance with the Phase I requirements.
4
R:cip%projecls/pw99-05\minagar scope
EXHIBIT B
PAYMENT RATES AND SCHEDULE
10
r:%cip%,orolects~pw99~o5%minagar agrmt
-Boc~
I.._
" ' ~'=1 ~1:-.]
.I
~ -; .-.
:.~ ~ ,.
~ ~}~. >
~i i ,: i:-,.
,,
~ :- ;
': · ~.~' ~ :; : - . i ~ ..
s.!~ .-:._
:; .-- ~' .:. " --
"'':~i::z. :_ -
_.: ,:l.~i-~
'..4
' I '!~'
_ .~= ::.' ..-.,
::'-~~" :: <.': .:: .~! ~!.1 _,~
4 :,i:.f
City of Temecula iTS Deployment Project
Combined Total Cost Proposal & Schedule of Bill Rates
Minagar & Associates
· HOUrly: R.a~; ::'
Professional Services .' .. · ' ·
Project Manage" 840,25
Project Engineer 32.55
Engineer 18.50
Senior Technician 15.50
Graphics/Word Processor/Clerical 12.50
Total Manhours
Total Direct Salary Costs
Man Hours
SUBTOTAL SALARY & O. H COSTS (Overhead @ 2,875 x Salary)
[DireCi::E~p~nses
Travel:
Mileage 2450
Rental Car (per day) 0
Per Diem 20
Computer (per hour) 320
Reproduction (plans) 140
Reproductions (copiesi 730
Phone/Fax/Delivery/FedEx
Miscellaneous (Film & Dev)
Field Data Collectlon(Traf. Counts)
TOTAL DIRECT EXPENSES
SUBTOTAL DIRECT EXPENSES (Total Dir. Expenses X 1.05)
· . SalaW'C°st'
160 $6,440
245 7,975
365 6,753
210 3,255
45 563
t025
824,985
TOTAL COST
80.32
850
8100
~15
88.00
~0.06
8784
0
2,000
4,800
1,120
44
480
1 O0
0
$9,328
9794
$81,625
GRAND TOTAL COST
04/21/00
~81,625
ITEM 12
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINANC
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
May 9, 2000
Completion and Acceptance for 1-15 Southbound Auxiliary Lane at Rancho
California Road, Project No. PW98-08
PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDATION:
Scott Harvey, Associate Engineer- Capital Projects
That the City Council:
1. Accept the project for the I-15 Southbound Auxiliary Lane at Rancho Califomia Road, Project No.
PW98-08, as complete; and
2. File a Notice of Completion, release the Performance Bond, and accept a one (1) year
Maintenance Bond in the amount of 10% of the contract; and
3. Release the Materials and Labor Bond seven (7) months after filing of the Notice of Completion,
if no liens have been filed.
BACKGROUND: On August 24, 1999, the City Council awarded the contract to Riverside
Construction Company for an amount of $450,000.00. Three contract change orders for an amount
of $30,609.84 was approved by the City Manager. Also, there were some increases and decreases
in quantity extension costs totaling amount of -$20,757.60. This brings the total cost of the project
to $459,852.42.
The Contractor has completed the work in accordance with the approved plans and specifications
and within the allotted contract time to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Caltrans. The
construction retention for this project will be released on or about 35 days after the Notice of
Completion has been recorded.
FISCAL IMPACT: The total bid amount for this project was $450,000.00. Contract change order
nos. 1 through 4 were approved in the amount of $30,609.84. With some quantity extension costs
of -$20,757.60, bringing the total cost of the project to $459,852.24. This project is funded through
Redevelopment Agency and Capital Project Reserves funds. These funds have been appropriated
in Account No. 210-165-605-5804.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Notice of Completion
2. Maintenance Bond
3. Contractor's Affidavit
!
F:\DEpTS\PVV~AGDRPT/2OOO%O6Og\PW98 OB.ACC.DOC
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 Riverside Construction Company to
perform the following work of improvement:
I-15 Southbound Auxiliary Lane at Rancho California Road, Project No. PW98-08
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 May 9, 2000. That upon
said contract the SAFECO Insurance Company of America was surety for the bond given by the said
company as required by law.
5. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of
Temecula, County of Riverside, State of California, and is described as follows: PROJECT NO. PW98-08.
6, The street address of said property is: 1-15 Freeway and Rancho California Road.
Dated at Temecula, California, this 9th day of May, 2000.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
Susan W. Jones CMC, City Clerk
I, Susan W. Jones CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California and do hereby certify under penalty
of perjury, that the foregoing NOTICE OF COMPLETION is true and correct, and that said NOTICE OF
COMPLETION was duly and regularly ordered to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of
Riverside by said City Council.
Dated at Temecula, California, this 9'h day of May, 2000.
Susan W. Jones CMC, City Clerk
R:%cip\projects\pw98%pw98-O8%completNAUX ,not
Bond #5952890
PremiL~n Included
CITY OF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
MAINTENANCE BOND
PROJECT PVV98-08
1-15 SOUTHBOUND AUXILIARY LANE AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD
KNOWALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENT THAT:
Pd_Versic]e~ Cr)nR~-n]c'f~nn C n :111 ~ M,q~n q+-T-~p~- ~;~Y'~r~. CA cI?~Fy)
NAME A% 2YORESS'
COIVTRAC TOR'S
a CnT~rafi nn
(ffil in whether a Corporation. ParTnership or individual)
hereinafter called Principal, and
SAFECO Insurance Company of America, 2677 N. Main Street, ~600. Santa Aria, CA 92705
NAME AND ADDRESS OF SURETY
hereinafter called SURETY, are held and firmly bound unto CITY OF TEMECULA,
hereinafter called OWNER, in the penal sum of Forty Five Thousand
DOLLARS and ~b CENTS
~'0~5,000 ) in lawful money of the United States, said sum being not less than ten
( %) of the Contract value payable by the said City of Temecula under the terms of the
Contract, for the payment of which, we bind ourselves, successors, and assigns, jointly and
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 the 24th day of Aucrust ,19 99, a copy
of which is hereto attached and made a part hereof for the construction of PROJECT PW98-08, I-
15 SOUTHBOUND AUXILIARY LANE AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD.
WHEREAS, said Contract provides that the Principal will furnish a bond conditioned to guarantee
for the period of one (1) year after approval of the final estimate on said job, by the OWNER,
against all defects in workmanship and materials which may become apparent during said period;
and
WHEREAS, the said Contract has been completed, and the final estimate was approved onNa~ch
~, :~ -2D00o
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH, that if within one year
from the date of approval of the final estimate on said job pursuant to the Contract, the work done
under the terms of said Contract shall disclose poor workmanship in the execution of said work.
and the carrying out of the terms of said Contract, or it shall appear that defective materials were
furnished thereunder. then this obligation shall remain in full force and virtue, otherwise this
instrument shall be void.
IvlAIt~TENANCE BOND M 1 R \cLp~ofolects;awgS~ow98-08~b~ddoc
As a part of the obligation secured hereby and in addition to the face amount specifiedl costs and
reasonable expenses and fees shall be included, including reasonable attorneys' fees incured by
the City of Temecula in successfully enforcing this obligation, all to be taxed as costs and
included in any judgment rendered.
This Surety hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration, or addition
to the terms of the Contract, or to the work to be performed thereunder, or to the specifications
accompanying the same, shall in any way affect its obligations on this bond, and it does hereby
waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration, or addition to the terms of the
Contract, or to the work, or to the Specifications.
Signed and sealed this 3re] day of
,~C{2000
(Seal)
SURETY,
By: .
T.!/nFta K
(Name)
(Title)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attomey
PRINCIPAL
By: ,.~ (~.,T~MON JR.
(Name
pRE~IDENT/IVlANAGIrR
(Na(-,m>' ~L~u~
(Title' ~/S~
MArNTENANCE BOND M-2 R/crD',prolects%pw98tpw98-08~ld<~c
SAFECOTM
POWER
OF ATTORNEY
SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
HOME OFFICE SAFECOPLAZA
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98185
No. 10182
KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS:
That SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, each a Washington Corporation, does each hereby
appoint
its true and lawful attomey(s)-in-fact, with fall authority to execute on its behalf fidelity and surety bonds or undertakings and other documents of a similar character
issued in the Course of its business, and to bind the respective Company thereby.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA have each executed and
attested these presents
this 1 lth day of ,rune , 1999
R.A. PIERSON, SECRETARY W. RANDALL STODDARD, PRESIDENT
CERTIFICATE
Extract from the By-Laws of SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
and of GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA:
"Article V, Seelion 13 - FIDELITY AND SURETY BONDS .,, the President, any Vise President, the Secretary, and any Assistant Vise President appointed for that
purpose by the offiser in charge of surety operations, shall each have authonty to appoint individuals as attorneys-in-fact or under other appropriate titles with authority to
execute on behalf of the Company fidelity and surety bends and other documents of similar character issued by the company ~n the course of its business,.. On any
instrument making or evidencing such appointment, the signatures may be affixed by facsimile. On any instrument senfemng such authority or on any bond or
undertaking of the company, the seal, or a facsimile thereof, may be impressed or affixed or in any other manner reproduced; provided, however, that the seal shall not
be necessary to the validity of any such instrument or undertaking,"
Extract from a Resolution of the Board of Directors of SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
and of GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA adopted July 28, 1970.
"On any certificate executed by the Secretary or an assistant ssczetary of the Company setting out, (i) The provislons of Articie V, Section 13 ofthe By-Laws, and
(ii) Acopy of the power-of-attomey appointment, exscuted pursuant therete, and
(iii) Cortitying that said power-of-attomey appointhnent is in full force and effect,
the signature of the sorttrying offiser may be by facsimile, and the seal of the Company may be a facsimile thereof,"
I, R.A, Pierson, Secretary of SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and of GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, do hereby sertify that the
foregoing extracts of the By-Laws and of a Resolution of the Board of Directors of these corporations, and of a Power of Attomey issued pursuant thereto, are true and
correct, and that both the By-Laws, the Resolution and the Power of Attemey are still in full forse and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the facsimile seal of said Corporation
this 3rd day of March ,2000
R.A. PIERSON, SECRETARY
S 0974/SAEF 7/98 ® Registered trademark of SAFECO Corporation
6/11/99 PDF
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California
County of
ss.
personally appeared
Name(s) of S~gnerls)
,/personally known to me
v/proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence
Place Notary Seal Above
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.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
S~gnatute of Notary Pubhc
OPTIONAL
Though the information below Is not required by law. it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document
and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachrnent of this form to another document
Description of Attached Document
Title or Type of Document:
Doc.. ent Date:'5 / 7/
Signer(s) Other Than Named Above:
Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer
Signers Name: Individual
Corporate Officer -- Title(s):
Partner-- Limited: General
-,Attorney in Fact
Trustee
Guarman or Conservator
Other:
Signer is Representing:
CITYOF TEMECULA, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT AND FINAL RELEASE
PROJECT PVV98-08
1-15 SOUTHBOUND AUXILIARY LANE AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD
RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION
P.O, BOX 1148
This is to certify that RIVERSIDE. CA 9'~K~.114~, (hereinafter the "CONTRACTOR") declares
to the City of Temecula, under oath, that he/she/it has paid in full for all materials, 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 work of improvement known as PROJECT PW98-08, 1-15
SOUTHBOUND AUXILIARY LANE AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD, situated in the City of
Temecula, State of California, more particularly described as follows:
1-15 SOUTHBOUND AUXILIARY LANE AT RANCHO CALIFORNIA RD
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:
Description 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.
Dated:
CONTRACTOR
By: S~,~ - ~
RELEASE R-1 R:%csp~prolects~v°J~pw984)8'i~Joc
ITEM 13
ORDINANCE 2000-03
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA AMENDING PORTIONS OF CHAPTER
5.09 OF THE TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE
REGULATING ADULT BUSINESSES (PLANNING
APPLICATION PA00-0041)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1 Public headngs have been held before the Planning Commission, on
March 15, 2000, and City Council of the City of Temecula, State of California, on April
25, 2000, pursuant to the Planning and Zoning law of the State of California, and the
Municipal Code of the City of Temecula.
Section 2 Section 5.09.030 of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
... ReQular and substantial course of conduct shall mean any Adult Business
where one or more of the following conditions exist:
1. The area(s) devoted to the display of Adult Matedal exceeds
f'~een percent (15%) of the total display area of the business or 100 square feet
whichever is less. Display area shall include the area of the racks or any other means to
display the adult materials and the walkways and areas used to view or access the
displayed materials; or
2. Any Adult Material depicting Specified Anatomical Areas or
Specified Sexual Activities on the extedor of its packaging is displayed in a manner
which is accessible to persons under the age of eighteen (18) years. For the purposes
of this Chapter such Adult Material shall not be deemed accessible to persons under the
age of eighteen (18) if an area within the business is established for the placement of
such material and is labeled "adults only"; or
3. The business or concern presents any type of live entertainment
charectedzed by an emphasis on Specified Sexual Activity or Specified Anatomical
Areas, or performers, models or employees appeadng in public dressed only in lingerie
on any four (4) or more separate days within any ninety (90) day period...."
Section 3 Section 5.09.030 of the Temecula Municipal Code is hereby further
amended to read as follows:
... Specific sexual activities shall include any of the following:
5. Striptease, or the removal of clothing, or the weadng of
transparent or diaphanous clothing, including mannequins or live models dressed only in
lingerie or other coverings to the point where Specified Anatomical Areas are exposed or
shown."
R:Ords 2000-03 I
Section 4 Severability. The City Council hereby declares that the provisions of
this Ordinance are severable and if for any reason a court of competent jurisdiction shall
hold any sentence, paragraph, or section of this Ordinance to be invalid, such decision
shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Ordinance.
Section 5 The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall
cause the same to be posted as required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 9m day of May, 2000.
ATTEST:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, do hereby certify
that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2000-03 was dully introduced and placed upon its first
reading at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 25t~day of April, 2000 and that
thereafter, said Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City
Council on the 9t" day of May, 2000, by the following vote:
AYES: 0
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
R:Ords 2000-03 2
TEMECULA COMMUNITY
SERVICES DISTRICT
ITEM 1
MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
MARCH 28, 2000
An adjourned meeting of the City of Temecula Community Services District was called to order at
7:48 P.M., at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California. President
Comerchero presiding.
ROLLCALL
PRESENT:
5 DIRECTORS: Nagger, Pratt, Roberrs, Stone, and
Comerchero
ABSENT: 0 DIRECTORS: None
Also present were General Manager Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and City Clerk Jones.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No input.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of February 8, 2000.
2 Completion and Accel~tance of the Rotary Park Improvement Project - Project
No. PW98-09CSD - for the Temecula 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.
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;
Minutes.csd\032800 1
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.
MOTION: Director Stone moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 3. The motion
was seconded by Director Naggar and voice vote reflected unanimous approval.
DISTRICT BUSINESS
4
Temecula Valley Museum Update
RECOMMENDATION:
4.1 Receive and file a report concerning the Temecula Valley Museum.
Community Services Director Parker briefly reviewed the item and introduced Museum Services
Manager Ott, who, in turn, provided an overview of the staff report (as per agenda material),
highlighting object collections, exhibitions, and programs, including the active docent/volunteer
program.
In response to Director Stone, Community Services Director Parker and Museum Services Manager
Ott noted that the School District usually schedules its fields trips at the first part of the school year
and that since the Museum did not open until November 1999, greater efforts would be taken, this
year, to promote the use of the Museum.
General Manager Nelson noted that the topic of promoting the utilization of the Museum to the
School District would be placed on the Subcommittee's agenda.
It was the consensus of the District to receive and file the report.
DEPARTMENTAL REPORT
No additional comments.
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES REPORT
Community Services Director Parker invited the public and advised that on Wednesday, March 29,
2000, at 6:00 P.M., in the City Council Chambers, the City would be hosting a Community
Workshop to gather information from the community with regard to the feasibility study for the
development of a Children's Museum.
GENERAL MANAGER'S REPORT
No comments.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS' REPORTS
Director Stone requested that the review of the median improvement project on Rancho California
Road be expedited, that the display of art in medians be explored, and that the improvement be
considered as part of the City's Capital Improvement Plan.
Minutes.csd\032800 2
Community Services Director Parker advised that staff is exploring the possibility of displaying art in
public places.
Director Comerchero suggested the utilization of Development Impact Fees (DIF) as a financial
component for displaying art in public places
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:56 P.M., the Temecula Community Services District meeting was formally adjourned to Tuesday,
April 11, 2000, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California.
ATTEST:
Jeff Comerchero, President
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk/District Secretary
[SEAL]
Minutes.csd~032800 3
ITEM 2
APPR(~
CITY A'I'FORNEY
DIRECTOR Of FINA
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OFTEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
Board of Directors
Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Services ~~)
May 9, 2000
TCSD Proposed Rates and Charges for FY 2000-2001
PREPARED BY:
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopta resolutionentitled:
Cathy McCarthy, Development Services Administrator
That the Board of Directors:
RESOLUTION NO CSD 00-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
ACKNOWLEDGING THE FILING OF A REPORT WITH RESPECT
TO THE PROPOSED RATES AND CHARGES FOR FISCAL YEAR
2000-2001 AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC
HEARING IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
BACKGROUND: The Temecula Community Services District (TCSD) operates under the authority of
Community Services District Law and provides residential street lighting, perimeter landscaping and
slope maintenance, recycling and refuse collection, and street and rood maintenance services in the City
of Temecula. The boundaries of the TCSD are corerruinous with the City, and the City Council also
serves as the Board of Directors of the TCSD.
The four current service levels of the TCSD include:
1. Service Level B - Residential Street Lighting.
2. Service Level C - Perimeter Landscaping and Slope Maintenance.
3. Service Level D - Recycling, Refuse Collection and Street Sweeping.
4. Service Level R - Streets and Roads.
In summary, the TCSD Rates and Charges for Service Levels B, C, and R have not increased from last
year. For Service Level D, the rate and charge is proposed to increase $3.12 from last year. This is due
to an increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI).
The TCSD is required to complete an annual levy process which includes adopting a resolution
accepting the filing of a report on the proposed rates and charges necessary to provide the
aforementioned services; noticing each affected property owner in the City; and conducting a public
hearing to consider approving the proposed rates and charges.
Staff recommends that the Board of Directors adopt the resolution to accept the filing of the report on
the proposed rates and charges for FY 2000-2001 and schedule a public hearing concerning these
issues for June 13, 2000. Sift will then proceed with noticing each affected property owner in the City
t
regarding the proposed rates and charges and the June 13 h pUbliC hearing.
FISCAL IMPACT: The revenue generated from the TCSD FY 2000-2001 Rates and Charges will fund
residential street lighting; perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance; recycling and refuse collection;
and street and road maintenance services in the City of Temecula. The proposed TCSD levy budget
for FY 2000-2001 is $3,521,460.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution of Intention for FY 2000-2001 TCSD Rates and
Charges.
Preliminary Levy Report for FY 2000-2001.
RESOLUTION NO. CSD 00-
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
ACKNOWLEDGING THE FILING OF A REPORT WITH RESPECT
TO THE PROPOSED RATES AND CHARGES FOR FISCAL YEAR
2000-200t AND SETTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC
HEARING IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
HEREBY FINDS, RESOLVES, DECLARES, DETERMINES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:
Section '1. Upon incorporation of the City of Temecula, effective December 1, 1989,
voters approved the formation of the Temecula Community Services Distdct CTCSD"), to provide
specified services to properties within its jurisdiction.
Section2. Pursuantto Govemment Code Sections 61621 and 61621.2, the TCSD has
prescribed, revised and collected rates and charges for the services furnished by it, and has elected to
have these rates and charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner, by the same persons, and
at the same time as, together with and not separately from, property taxes collected within the TCSD
in the same manner prescribed by Government Code Sections 61765.2 to 61765.6, inclusive. The
TCSD proposes to continue such rates and charges for the operation, maintenance, servicing and
administration of street lighting, perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance, refuse collection, and
street and road improvements for the 2000-2001 fiscal year. All laws applicable to the levy, collection,
and enforcement of property taxes, including, but not limited to, those pertaining to the matters of
delinquency, correction, cancellation, refund and redemption, shall be applicable to these rates and
charges. except for California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 4831.
Section 3. Pursuant to Government Code Section 61621.2, the TCSD has caused a
written ("Report") to be prepared and filed with the Secretary of the TCSD, which Report contains a
description of each parcel of real property and the proposed amount of the rates and charges for Fiscal
Year 2000-2001. The Report is based upon a budget adopted by the Board of Directors for the proposed
services for specitic areas where such services are provided including necessary staff and
administrative expenses. A summary of the Report containing the proposed rates and charges is
aftached hereto as Exhibit A, entitled "Project Summary", and incorporated herein by this reference. A
copy of the Report is on file in the office of the Secretary of the TCSD, and is available for public
inspection.
Section 4. The Board of Directors hereby acknowledges the filing of the Report, and
appoints the 13*h day of June, 2000, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as feasible, in the City
Council Chambers at City Hall, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula, California, 92590, as the time
and place for the public hearing on the Report and the proposed rates and charges. At the public
hearing, the Board of Directors will hear and consider all objections or protests, if any to the Report. The
Board may continue the headng from time to time.
Section 5. The Distdct Secretary is hereby directed to give notice of the filing of the
Report and of the time and place of the headng on the Report pursuant to the requirements of
Government Code Section 61765.2.
Section 6. The Distdct Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Directors of the Temecula Community
Services Distdct this 9th day of May, 2000.
Jeff Comerchero, President
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk/District Secretary
[SE q
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE )
CITY OF TEMECULA )
SS
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. CSD 00- was duly adopted by the
Board of Directors of the Temecula Community Services District at the regular meeting thereof, held on
the 9th day of May, 2000, by the following vote of the Board of Directors
AYES: DIRECTORS:
NOES: DIRECTORS:
ABSENT: DIRECTORS:
EXHIBITA
PROJECT SUMMARY
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
On July 1, 1999, Muni Finandal, Inc. was retained by the City of Temecula to prepare the Annual
Levy Report for the Temecula Community Services Distdct (TCSD) for the Fiscal Year 2000-2001.
Pursuant to the Community Services District Law, Division 3 of Title 6 of the Government Code of the
State of California, commenting with Section 61000 et seq., the TCSD has the power to levy and collect
rates and charges in order to carry on its operations and to provide the services and facilities furnished
by it.
The levy and collection of the rates and charges is accomplished by the identification and
description of each parcel within a specific service level. A Service Level is a defined area that provides
a spedtic service, operation and maintenance and/or program to only those parcels contained within that
service level.
The TCSD is currently composed of four (4) service levels. The descriptions of the service
levels are as follows:
Service Level B - Residential Street Lii:lhts. Operations, maintenance, utility costs and
administration of all residential street lights.
Service Level C - Perimeter Landscepin{:l and Slope Maintenance. Operations,
maintenance, utility costs, improvements, and administration for all perimeter
landscaping and slope maintenance areas maintained by the TCSD.
Service Level D - Recvdina, Refuse Collection, and Street Sweepina. Operations and
administration of the recycling and refuse program, and street sweeping services for all
single-family residential homes.
Service Level R - Street and Roads. Construction installation, and maintenance of
unpaved streets and roads,
The Financial Analysis contained herein contains each Service Level including with their totals for Fiscal
Year 2000-2001 to be as follows:
SERVICE LEVEL/LEVY BUDGET
$/SFR
Service Level B $ 351,944 $ 25.68
Service Level C $ 559,842 Vadable
Service Level D $2,597,956 $175.68
Service Level R $ 11,718 Vadable
TOTAL TCSD LEVY FY 2000-2001
$3,521 ,.460
The Levy and Collection amounts for all non-exempt parcels within the TCSD for the Fiscal Year
2000-2001 are as shown on the Levy Roll on file with the City Clerk/District Secretary.
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENGINEER'S ANNUAL LEVY REPORT
Temecula Community Services District
Appendix A -- Collection Roll
Fiscal Year 2000/2001
INTENT MEETING:
PUBLIC HEARING:
May 09, 2000
June '13, 2000
Corporate Office
28765 Single Oak Drive
Suite 200
Temecuta, CA 92590
Tel: (909) 699-3990
Tel: (800) 755-MUNI (6864)
Fax: (909) 699-3460
Regional Offices
· Jacksonville, FL
· Kansas City, MO
· Oakland, CA
· Phoenix, AZ
· Sacramento, CA
· Seattle, WA
· Washington, DC
· Whittier, CA
ENGINEER'S REPORT AFFIDAVIT
Establishment of Annual Rates and Charges for the:
Temecula Community Services District (TCSD)
City of Temecula
Riverside County, State of California
This Report and the information contained therein, reflect the proposed budget for each
of the various services provided by the District and the rates and charges applicable to
those services as they existed at the time of the passage of the Resolution of Intention.
Reference is hereby made to the Riverside County Assessods maps for a detailed
description of the lines and dimensions of parcels within the District. The undersigned
respectfully submits the enclosed Report as directed by the City Council.
Dated this ~.. day of ,2000.
MuniFinancial
District Engineer
On Behalf of the City of Temecula
B.y: .
JPir%eMc~G'M~nager, Special District Services
By: ~~t.4,~/'~~,~-
Richard Kopecky
R. C. E. # 16742
i NO. 16742
· ~.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................1
I1. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS .............................................................................3
A. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF THE DISTRICT AND SERVICES ........................................... 3
B. BUDGET AND lEVY SUMMARY ...................................................................................3
C, DISTRICT SERVICES AND CHARGES ...........................................................................5
Ill. CHANGES TO THE DISTRICT ..............................................................................10
A. RECENT MODIFICATIONS TO THE DISTRICT (PRIOR TO 2000/2001 ) ...........................10
B. MODIFICATIONS OF THE DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000/2001 ...............................10
IV. DISTRICT BUDGETS ............................................................................................14
V. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT ..........................................................................'!7
APPENDIX A -- 200012001 COLLECTION ROLL .......................................................19
Temecula Community Services District
Engineer's Annum Levy Report
Fiscal Year 2000/01
INTRODUCTION
Upon incorporation of the City of Temecula ("City"), effective December 1, 1989,
voters approved the formation of the Temecula Community Services District
("District") to provide specified services to properties within its jurisdiction
previously provided by the County of Riverside ("County"). The boundary of the
District is coterminous with the City boundary, and includes all parcels within the
City with the City Council acting as the Board of Directors ("Board") for the
District. The District collects property-related fees and charges (Charges) in
order to provide services and maintain the improvements within the District. The
District was formed, and Charges are set and established, pursuant to the
Community Services District Law, Title 6, Division 3 of the California Govemment
Code ("CSD Law").
Each fiscal year, an Annual Levy Report is prepared, filed and approved by the
Board. This Annual Levy Report describes the District, any changes to the
District and the proposed Charges for the fiscal year. The Charges contained in
the Annual Levy Report are based on the historical and estimated cost to service
properties within the District. The services provided by the District and the
corresponding costs are budgeted and charged as separate Service Levels and
include all expenditures, deficits, surpluses, and revenues. Each parcel is
charged for the services provided to the parcel.
The District provides residential street lighting, perimeter landscaping and slope
maintenance, and refuse collection in numerous residential developments as
well as road improvement and maintenance within specified areas of the District.
Pursuant to Government Code Sections 61621 and 61621.2, the District has
prescribed, revised and collected rates and charges for residential street lighting
(Service Level B), perimeter landscaping and slope maintenance (Service Level
C), refuse collection (Service Level D), and road improvement and maintenance
(Service Level R) services furnished by the District, and has elected to have
these rates and charges collected on the tax roll in the same manner, by the
same persons, and at the same time as, together with and not separately from,
its general taxes in the manner prescribed by Government Code Sections
61765.2 to 61765.6, inclusive.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 61621.2, this Engineer's Annual Levy
Report ("Report") is prepared and presented to the Board to prescribe Service
Level B, Service Level C, Service Level D and Service Level R Rates and
Charges for the parcels and territories within the District.
The word "parcel," for the purposes of this Report, refers to an individual property
assigned its own Assessment Number by the Riverside County Assessor's
MuniFinancial
Page 1
Temecula Community Services District
Engineer's Annual Levy Report
Fiscal Year 2000/01
Office. The Riverside County Auditor/Controller uses Assessment Numbers and
specific Fund Numbers, to identify on the tax roll, properties charged for District
services.
A Public Hearing is held each year before the Board to allow the public an
opportunity to hear and be heard regarding the District. Following consideration
of all public comments and written protests at the noticed Public Hearing, and
review of the Engineer's Annual Levy Report, the Board may order amendments
to the Report or confirm the Report as submitted. Following final approval of the
Report, and confirmation of the Charges, the Board shall order the levy and
collection of Charges for Fiscal Year 2000/2001. In such case, the levy
information will be submitted to the Riverside County Auditor/Controller, and
included as Charges on the property tax roll for the various services provided in
Fiscal Year 2000/2001.
MuniFinancial Page 2
Temecula Community Services District
Engineer's Annual Levy Repor~
Fiscal Year 2000/0I
PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS
General Description of the District and Services
The boundary of the District is coterminous with the City boundary, and
includes all parcels within the City of Temecula. The District provides certain
property related services and improvements consisting of four (4) separate
and distinct services referred to as Service Levels. Each parcel within the
District is charged proportionately for only those services attributable to the
parcel. Each Service Level has differing costs depending upon the services
provided. All parcels identified within a Service Level share in the cost of the
service. The costs associated with the service are proportionately spread
among all properties within that Service Level to which the service is
provided. Services and improvements provided through the District include
residential street lighting; perimeter landscape maintenance and slope
protection; a refuse and recycling collection program; and road improvement
construction and maintenance. The Service Levels are identified as follows:
· Residential Street Lighting
· Perimeter Landscaping and Slope Maintenance
· Refuse Collection
· Road Improvement and Maintenance
Bm
Budget and Levy Summary
Each Service Level provides different and specific services and
improvements to various parcels within the District. Only the parcels that the
services and improvements are provided for are included in each of the
Service Levels. The "Total Levy Units" and the resulting "Charge Per Levy
Unit" (shown in Table I), reflect a method of apportionment that most fairly
proportions the costs of the services to the parcels in that Service Level. The
"Total Levy Units" for Service Levels B, C, and D is based on a per parcel
count. For Service Level R, levy units are based on a Parcel Development
Unit (PDU), which is similar to a per parcel count, but makes a distinction
between developed and undeveloped parcels. For a more complete
description of the methods used for calculating the "Total Levy Units" used for
each Service Level, please refer to (Section V), Method of Apportionment.
MuniFinancial Page 3
0 C) O0000 ("J
0 0(::)0000 '~' O0
d dddc::;~d ~ dd
~ c ~O0 0 c tyn,'
.~. .-
n- 0 Q ._
a~ ._o
Temecula Community Services District
Engineer's Annual Levy Report
Fiscal Year 2000/01
C. District Services and Charges
Service Level B, Residential Street Lighting -- includes all developed
single family residential parcels and residential vacant parcels for which the
District provides on-going servicing, operation, and maintenance of local
street lighting improvements. The current rate and charges for Service Level
B is $25.68 per residential parcel and shall be applied to parcels within the
following Tracts and subdivisions for Fiscal Year 2000/2001.
Service Level B Tracts
11087-01 20130-00 21082-01 22148-00 23100-07 23483-00
11087-02 20130-01 21082-02 22203-00 23101-01 24131-00
12189-01 20130-02 21082-03 22204-00 23101-02 24131-01
12189-02 20130-03 21082-04 22208-00 23101-03 24131-02
12189-03 20130-04 21340-00 22593-00 23101-04 24131-03
12189-04 20130-05 21340-01 22593-01 23101-05 24132-00
12189-05 20130-06 21340-02 22593-02 23101-06 24132-01
12189-06 20153-00 21340-03 22627-00 23125-00 24133-00
12189-07 20154-00 21340-04 22627-01 23125-01 24133-01
13060-01 20319-00 21340-05 22715-00 23125-02 24133-02
13060-02 20643-00 21340-06 22715-01 23125-03 24133-03
13060-03 20644-00 21340-07 22715-02 23126-00 24133-04
13060-04 20703-01 21430-01 22716-00 23128-00 24133-05
13060-05 20703-02 21561-00 22716-01 23142-00 24134-00
13060-06 20703-03 21672-01 22716-02 23143-02 24134-01
13060-07 20735-01 21672-02 22716-03 23143-03 24134-02
13060-08 20735-02 21672-03 22716-04 23143-04 24134-03
18518-00 20735-03 21672-04 22761-00 23177-00 24135-00
18518-01 20735-04 21673-00 22762-00 23220-00 24135-01
18518-02 20735-05 21673-01 22786-00 23267-00 24135-02
18518-03 20735-06 21673-02 22915-00 23267-01 24135-03
18583-00 20735-07 21673-03 22915-01 23267-02 24182-01
19872-00 20735-08 21674-00 22915-02 23267-03 24182-02
19872-01 20735-09 21674-01 22915-03 23267-04 24184-00
19872-02 20848-00 21674-02 22916-00 23371-01 24184-01
19872-03 20879-00 21674-03 22916-01 23371-02 24185-01
19872-04 20879-01 21675-00 22916-02 23371-03 24185-02
19872-05 20881-00 21675-01 22916-03 23371-04 24186-00
19939-00 20882-00 21675-02 22962-00 23371-05 24186-01
19939-01 20882-01 21675-03 23100-01 23371-06 24186-02
19939-02 20882-02 21675-04 23100-02 23371-07 24186-03
20079-00 20882-03 21675-05 23100-03 23371-09 24232-00
20079-01 20987-00 21675-06 23100-04 23371-10 25004-01
20079-02 21067-00 21760-00 23100-05 23371-11 26488-PM
20079-03 21082-00 21765-00 23100-06 23371-14 27827-00
27827-01
27827-02
27827-03
28309-00
28503-00
28510-00
28510-01
28510-02
28510-03
28526-00
28553-00
28553-01
29033-00
MuniFinancial Page 5
Temecula Community Services District
Engineer's Annual Levy Report
Fiscal Year 2000/01
Service Level C, Perimeter Landscaping and Slope Maintenance --
includes all developed single family residential parcels and residential vacant
parcels for which the District provides on-going servicing, operation, and
maintenance of perimeter landscaped areas and slopes within the public
right-of-ways and dedicated easements adjacent to and associated with
certain tracts and subdivisions. The level of maintenance required within
these tracts and subdivisions vary depending on operating costs, and
therefore six (6) rate levels have been established within Service Level C.
The rate and charges for each of the six service levels in Service Level C are
as follows:
· The approved rate for C-1 is $ 46.00 and is currently charged $46.00
· The approved rate for C-2 is $ 89,00 and is currently charged $89.00
· The approved rate for C-3 is $116.00 and is currently charged $116.00
· The approved rate for C-4 is $175.00 and is currently charged $175.00
· The approved rate for C-5 is $ 70.00 and is currently charged $0.00
· The approved rate for C-6 is $225.00 and is currently charged $0.00
The current rate and charges for Service Level C is per residential parcel and
shall be applied to parcels within the following Tracts and subdivisions for
Fiscal Year 2000/2001.
T~ctName
PRESLEY DEVELOPMENT
RANCHO SOLANA
THEVINEYARDS
MONTEVISTA
Service Level C Tracts
Rate Level C-1
Tract Numbers
23267-00 23267-01 23267~02 23267-03 23267-04 26861-00 26861-01
26861~02 26861-03
22593-00 22593-01 22593-02
20879-00 20879-01
28309-00
MuniFinancial
Page 6
Temecula Community Services District
Engineer's Annual Levy Report
Fiscal Year 2000/01
TmctName
MORRiSON HOMES
RIDGEVIEW
WINCHESTERCREEK
WOODCREST COUNTRY
22148-00
20735-07
20130-00
21340-00
21340-07
21561-00
Rate Level C-2
Tract Numbers
20735`08 20735`09 20881-00 21764`00
20130-01 20130-02 20130-03 20130-04
21340-01 21340-02 21340-03 21340-04
22208-00
20130-05 20130-06
21340-05 21340-06
Tract Name
MARTINIQUE
RANCHO HIGHLANDS
SADDLEWOOD
VINTAGE HILLS
23128-00
20643-00
18518-00
22715-00
22716-04
22916-02
Rate Level C-3
Tract Numbers
20644-00 21760-00 22203-00 22204-00 22761-00 22762-00
18518-01 18518-02 18518-03
22715-01 22715-02 22716-00 22716-01 22716-02 22716-03
22915-00 22915-01 22915-02 22915-03 22916-00 22916-01
22916-03
Tract Name
BARCLEY ESTATES
MEADOWVIEW
SIGNET SERIES
TRADEWINDS
VILLAGE GROVE
25004-01
21765`00
20882-00
23125-00
21672-01
21673-03
21675-02
Rate Level C-4
Tract Numbers
20882-01
23125-01
21672-02
21674-00
21675-03
20882`02 20882-03
23125-02 23125-03
21672-03 21672-04 21673-00
21674-01 21674-02 21674-03
21675-04 21675-05 21675-06
21673-01 21673-02
21675-00 21675-01
MuniFinancial Page 7
Temecula Community Services District
Engineer's Annual Levy Report
Fiscal Year 2000/01
Tract Name
TEMEKU HILLS
Rate Level C-5
Tract Numbera
23371-01 23371-02 23371-03 23371-04 23371-05 23371-06
23371-08 23371-09 23371-10 23371-11 23371-13 23371-14
23371-F 28482-01 28482-02 28482-03 28482-04 28526-00
23371-07
23371-15
29033-00
TractName
WOODSIDE
Rate Level C-6
Tract Numbera
28510-00 28510-01 28510-02 28510-03
Service Level D, Refuse Collection -- provides for the operation and
administration of the refuse collection program including recycling and street
sweeping services for all single family residential homes within the District.
The current rate and charges for Service Level D is $175.68 per single family
residential home (developed residential parcel) and will be applied to all
parcels that have been identified as developed residential homes. Pursuant
to Proposition 218, the District may increase the rate and charges for this
service after conducting an additional protest hearing on the matter. Mailed
ballot proceedings are not required to establish Service Level D rates and
charges.
Service Level R, Roads -- provides funding for construction, improvement,
service and maintenance of public streets and roads throughout the District.
The services provided may include, but are not limited to: renovation or
restoration due to damage; flood and drainage control; repairs and re-
grading; and upgrades of the existing areas as required for unpaved roads.
All parcels identified within Service Level R, share in the cost of the services
provided. The costs associated with the services are proportionately spread
among all parcels within various areas (rate levels) of the Service Level R.
Service Level R currently has two (2) rate levels. The level of maintenance
required within these two (2) areas vary due to operating costs, and therefore
separate rate levels have been established. Only the parcels within each of
MuniFinancial Page 8
Temecula Community Services District
Engineer's Annual Levy Report
Fiscal Year 2000/01
the two (2) boundary areas will be charged for the costs associated with
servicing and maintaining the roads and streets in the area.
Rate Level R-I --The parcels within this rate level consists of seventy-
five (75) assessable parcels that have direct access to roads or streets
that are serviced and maintained through the District. This rate level
provides funding for servicing and maintenance of: Nicolas Road;
Greenwood Lane; Liefer Road; Gatlin Road; Pala Vista. A total of 1.068
miles of roads are serviced and maintained in this area.
Rate Level R-2 --The parcels within this rate level consists of fifty-six (56)
assessable parcels that have direct access to roads or streets that are
serviced and maintained through the District. This rate level provides
funding for servicing and maintenance of: Ormsby Road; Santiago Road;
Lolita Road; and John Warner Road. A total of 1.003 miles of roads are
serviced and maintained in this area.
MuniFinancml Page 9
Temecula Community Services District
Engineer's Annual Levy Report
Fiscal Year 2000/01
III. CHANGES TO THE DISTRICT
Changes or modifications to the District structure, if any, could include, but are ,
not limited to: changes or expansion in the existing improvements or in the types
of services provided; addition of new services or Service Levels; restructuring of
the current Service Levels; inclusion of parcels into the District or Service Levels;
or revisions in the method of apportionment. Changes or modifications within the
District that may affect the levy are outlined in the following.
A. Recent Modifications to the District (Prior to 200012001)
On March 4, 1997, the voters of Temecula approved a Special Tax to fund
citywide community services. This Special Tax replaced two, existing Service
Levels, previously charged through the Community Services District.
· Community Services, Parks, and Recreation -- that provided for the
maintenance, service and operation of all public parks and recreation
services within the City.
· Service Level A, Arterial Street Lighting and Medians -- that provided
servicing, operation, and maintenance of traffic signals, street lighting and
landscaped medians along arterial streets.
Beginning in Fiscal Year 1997/1998 these two Service Levels were replaced
by the Special Tax and no longer charged through the District.
Modifications of the District for Fiscal Year 200012001
The most notable modification to the District for Fiscal Year 2000/2001 is
related to the addition of improvements and expansion of existing services as
a result of new development. When a new residential tract is developed, the
District accepts additional improvements for maintenance and servicing.
Along with acceptance of the improvements, the parcels within those tracts
are included in the appropriate Service Levels. The improvements and
services for Service Levels B and C are typically tract or development specific
and therefore, all parcels within a tract or development are included in these
two Service Levels when the District accepts the improvements. Additionally,
individual residential parcels are included in Service Level D when a new
single family residential unit is identified.
MuniFinancial Page 10
Temecula Community Services District
Engineer's Annual Levy Report
Fiscal Year 2000/0I
Service Level B
Inclusions to Service Level B (Residential Street Lighting) include the 1,195
residential parcels within the following Tracts:
Tmct To~l Numberof Tract To~l Numberof Tract To~l Number of
Number' Panels Units Number Panels Uni~ Number Panels Uni~
23100-06 32 31 23100-07 30 29 23101-03 8 8
23101-05 27 27 23101-06 37 37 23143-02 72 64
23143-03 114 105 23143-04 87 80 24182-02 63 61
24185-02 260 242 24186-03 58 56 26488-PM 4 4
28503-00 44 33 28510-00 42 39 28510-01 82 79
28510-02 76 76 28510-03 50 50 28526-00 47 44
25553-00 30 30 28553-01 30 30 29033-00 71 70
The rates and charges to
subdivision were previously
the Board for inclusion.
be applied to the above referenced tracts and
approved by the property owners and adopted by
The number of units for each of the tracts referenced for inclusion in Service
Level B represent the total number of residential parcels and lots within that
tract. Although these tracts have been fully subdivided or a tract map has
been approved, the actual Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN's) for each of
the individual residential parcels may not have been established by the
County Assessor's Office. In such cases, the APN's currently recognized by
the County are assigned and charged for the number of residential lots
associated with each parcel within the tract. The new APN's for each of the
individual residential parcels and lots are expected to be established by the
time the levy is submitted to the County, but if not, the existing APN's will be
charged based on the number of residential lots associated with each APN.
Service Level C
Inclusions to Service Level C (Perimeter Landscaping and Slopes) for Fiscal
Year 2000/2001 are identified in the following.
Rate Level #1 -- No New Tracts
Rate Level #2 -- No New Tracts
Rate Level # 3 -- No New Tracts
Rate Level # 4 B No New Tracts
MuniFinancial Page 11
Temecula Community Services District
Engineer's Annual Levy Report
Fiscal Year 2000/01
Rate Level # 5 --
Tract Total Number of Tm~ Total Number of Tract Total Number of
Number Parcels Uni~ Number Pamels Uni~ Number Pamels Units
23371-01 34 27 23371-02 44 36 23371-03 169 147
23371-04 123 119 23371-05 79 74 23371-06 30 28
23371-07 48 45 23371-08 2 84 23371-09 69 67
23371-10 27 25 23371-11 116 112 23371-13 1
23371-14 24 24 23371-15 13 0 23371-F 1 74
28482-1&2 1 1 28482-3&4 1 194 28526-00 47 44
29033-00 71 70
The rates and charges to be applied to the above referenced tracts and
subdivision were previously approved by the property owners and adopted by
the Board for inclusion. Properties within these tracts are subject to a rate
and charge of $70.00 per parcel (residential lot), however no charges will be
applied for this Rate Level in Fiscal Year 2000/2001.
Rate Level # 6 --
Tract Total Number of Tract
Number Parcels Units Number
28510-00 42 39 28510-01
28510~03 50 50
Total Number of Tract Total Number of
Parcels Units Number Parcels Units
82 79 28510-02 76 76
The rates and charges to be applied to the above referenced tracts and
subdivision were previously approved by the property owners and adopted by
the Board for inclusion. Properties within these tracts are subject to a rate
and charge of $225.00 per parcel (residential lot), however no charges will be
applied for this Rate Level in Fiscal Year 2000/2001.
The number of units for each of the tracts referenced for inclusion in Service
Level C represent the total number of residential parcels and lots within that
tract. Although these tracts have been fully subdivided or a tract map has
been approved, the actual Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN's) for each of
the individual residential parcels may not have been established by the
County Assessor's Office. In such cases, the APN's currently recognized by
the County are assigned and charged for the number of residential lots
associated with each parcel within the tract. The new APN's for each of the
individual residential parcels and lots are expected to be established by the
time the levy is submitted to the County, but if not, the existing APN's will be
charged based on the number of residential lots associated with each APN.
MuniFinancial Page 12
Temecula Community Services District
Engineer's Annual Levy Report
Fiscal Year 2000/01
Service Level D
A total of 1,359 new developed residential parcels have been added to
Service Level D (Refuse Collection) for Fiscal Year 2000/2001. New single
family residential units are identified each year and included in Service Level
D based on updated County Assessor's data, City building permits and the
waste hauler's updated service records.
The actual cost per household last year for this service was $172.56. For
Fiscal Year 2000/2001, the rate and charge is proposed to be $175.68, an
increase of $3.12 for actual service costs, as provided in the City's franchise
agreement with the contracted waste hauler (CR&R).
Service Level R
There are no new inclusions to Service Level R (Roads), proposed for the
current fiscal year.
MuniFinancial Page 13
Temecula Community Services District
Engineer's Annual Levy Report
Fiscal Year 2000/01
DISTRICT BUDGETS
The Tables on the next three (3) pages shows the District budget for Fiscal Year
2000/2001.
2000/2001 DISTRICT BUDGET
Temecula Community Services District
Operating Budget Department Summary for the Year Ending June 30, 2001
BUDGET ITEM Account Level B I Level C I Level D I Level R I Total
No, t92 193 194 195 District
PERSONNEL SERVICES
Salades and Wages 5100 $3,137 $111,013 $24,985 $0 $139,135
Deferred Compensation 5101 0 0 0 0 0
PERS Retirement 5102 O 0 0 0 0
State Unemployment 5103 0 0 O Q 0
Medicare FICA 5104 0 0 0 0 0
Auto Afiowance 5106 0 0 0 0 0
Life Insurance 5108 0 0 0 0 0
Unemployment Training Tax 5109 0 0 0 0 0
DisaUility Insurenee 5110 0 0 0 0 0
Workers Compensation 5112 0 0 Q O 0
Health Insurance 5113 O 0 O Q 0
Dental Insurance 5114 0 0 0 0 0
Medical Reimbursement 5115 0 0 0 Q 0
Vision Insurance 5116 0 0 0 0 0
Chid Care Reimbursement 5117 0 0 0 0 0
TemporaW Help 5118 0 0 0 0 0
Pad-Time (Project) 5119 0 8,903 0 0 8,903
Pad-Time Re6rement 5120 0 0 0 0 O
Ove~me Wages 5121 0 900 0 0 900
Compensated Absences 5126 0 0 0 0 0
Life & Acddent Insurance 5190 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal (Personnel Services) $3,137 $120,816 $24,985 $0 $148,938
MuniFinancial Page 14
Temecula Cogunity Services Distrlc~
Engineer's Annual Levy Report
Fiscal Year 2000/01
2000/2001 DISTRICT BUDGET
Temecula Community Services District
Operating Budget Department Summary for the Year Ending June 30, 2001
BUDGET ITEM Account I Level B Level C } Level D Level R Total
NO. ~92 193 194 ~95 District
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
Repair & Maint. - FaciljSes 5212 $0 $53,230 $0 $0 $53,230
Repair & Maintenance-Vehicles 5214 0 0 0 0 0
Maintenance Supplies 5218 0 0 0 0 0
Office Supplies 5220 0 0 0 0 0
Phnting 5222 0 0 0 0 0
Legal Documents/Maps 5224 0 0 0 0 0
Election Costs (Offset by developer deposits) 5225 12,000 12,000 0 0 24,000
Dues and Memberships 5226 O 0 2,610 0 2,610
Publications 5228 0 0 0 0 0
Postage and Packaging 5230 0 0 0 0 0
Properly Tax Admin Fees 5231 2,800 1,200 2,700 80 6,780
Rent - Facilities 5234 0 0 0 0 0
Rent - Equipment 5238 0 0 0 0 0
Equipment Lease 5239 0 0 0 0 0
UtiliSes 5240 0 140,600 0 0 140,600
Small tools/Equipment 5242 0 0 0 0 0
Uniforms 5243 0 0 0 0 0
Signs 5244 0 0 0 0 0
Legal Sen/ices 5246 O 0 0 0 0
Consulting Services 5248 0 40,000 0 0 40,000
Other Outside Sen/ices 5250 0 0 0 0 0
Advertising 5254 0 0 4,000 0 4,000
Public Notices 5256 4,900 2,400 5,600 0 12,900
Conferences 5258 0 0 0 0 0
Professional Meetings 5260 0 0 0 0 0
Staff Training/Education 5261 0 0 0 0 0
Mileage 5262 0 0 0 0 0
Fuel Expense-City Vehicles 5263 0 0 0 0 0
Council Discretionary 5267 0 0 0 0 0
Blueprints 5268 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal (5200's) $t9,700 $249,430 $~4,910 $80 $284,'120
MuniFinancial Page 15
Temecula Community Services District
Engineer~s Annual Levy Report
Fiscal Year 2000/01
2000/2001 DISTRICT BUDGET
Temecula Community Services District
Operating Budget Department Summary for the Year Ending June 30, 2001
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
Waste Hauling
Street Ligh6ng
Vehicles
Information Systems
Support Services
Facilities
Assessment Engineehng
Refund of Prior Year Assessmerits
City Admin Charges / (Sports 190-183)
Subtotals (5300's)
Operating Expenses
Emergencey Road Maintenance
Landscape Maintenance
Landscape Rehabilitation
Subtotals (5400ta)
Other Expeditums
Operating Transfers Out
Subtotals (5900's)
Capital Outlay
Debt Sendice
Subtotal
Total Direct DIstrict Costs
ACcL ~ Level B ~ Level C Level D I Level R I Total
No. 192 t93 194 195 District
5315 $0 $0 $2,597,956 $0 $2,597,956
5319 360,000 0 0 0 360,000
5330 0 0 0 0 0
5335 0 0 0 0 0
5340 0 0 0 0 0
5345 o 0 0 0 0
5350 0 0 0 0 0
5370 0 0 0 0 0
5375 0 0 0 o 0
5380 0 0 0 0 0
$360,000 $0 $2,597,956 $0 $2,967,956
5400 0 0 0 0 0
5402 0 0 0 17,080 17,080
5415 0 307,900 0 0 307,900
5416 0 42,000 0 0 42,000
$0 $349,900 $0 $11~080 $369,980
5900 0 0 0 0 0
5901 0 0 0 0 0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
$9 $9 $g $9 $9
$382,837 $720,146 $2,637,851 $17,160 $3,757,994
EXPENDITURES
Reserve Collection (Contingency) ,
Total Direct District Costs
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
0 0 0 0 0
382,837 720,146 2,637,851 17,160 3,757,994
$382,837 $720,146 $2,637,851 $17/60 $3,157,994
REVENUES
Reserve Reduction (Conthbution)
Other Revenue SOurces
General Fund
Fund Balance
Rates and Charges (Balance to Levey)
TOTAL REVENUES
0 0 0 0 O
27,600 66,000 14,080 500 108,099
0 0 0 0 O
3,293 94,304 25,895 4,942 128,434
351,944 559,842 2,597,956 11,718 3,521.461
$382,837 $720,146 $2,637,851 $17,160 $3,757.994
MuniFinanc~l Page 16
Temecula Community Services District
Engineer's Annual Levy Report
Fiscal Year 2000/01
METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
As in past years, the cost to provide services within the District will be fairly
distributed among each eligible property.
The following is the formula used to calculate each property's District charges by
the per parcel (residential lot) method.
Service Level B (Residential Street Lighting); Service Level C (Perimeter Landscaping
and Slopes); and Service Level D (Citywide Recycling and Refuse):
Total Balance to Levy/Total Parcels (in Service Level) = Parcel Charge
The Rate Per Levy Unit for Service Level R is based on a Parcel Development
Unit (PDU), which is similar to a per parcel charge, but makes a distinction
between developed and undeveloped parcels.
Service Level R (Reads):
Parcel Development Units = 1.0 for Developed Parcels
Parcel Development Units = 0.5 for Undeveloped Parcels
Total Balance to Levy/Total Parcel PDU (in rate Level) = Parcel Charge
The following tables reflect the levy calculations for each Service Level.
PARCEL CHARGE CALCULATIONS FOR
SERVICE LEVEL B
Property Type
Single Family Residential
Single Family Vacant
Parcel Charge per Parcel
Unit X Parcel -- Charge Multiplier
1.00 $25.68 $25.68 Per Parcel
1.00 $25.68 $25.68 Per Parcel
MuniFinanc~d Page 17
Temecula Community SeNaces District
Engineer's Annual Levy Report
Fiscal Year 2000/01
PARCEL CHARGE CALCULATIONS FOR
SERVICE LEVEL C
Parcel
Property Type Unit
Single Family Residential Rate C-1 1.00
Single Family Residential Rate C-2 1.00
Single Family Residential Rate C-3 1.00
Single Family Residential Rate C-4 1.00
Single Family Residential Rate C-5 1.00
Single Family Residential Rate C-6 1.00
Charge per Parcel
X Parcel -- Charge Multiplier
$46.00 $46.00 Per Parcel
89.00 89.00 Per Parcel
116.00 116.00 Per Parcel
175.00 175.00 Per Parcel
70.00 70.00 Per Parcel
$225.00 $225.00 Per Parcel
Note: Although Rate Levels C-5 and C-6 have been established at $70.00 and $225.00 respectively,
properties within these two Service Levels are not being charged for Fiscal Year 2000/2001.
PARCEL CHARGE CALCULATIONS FOR
SERVICE LEVEL D
Property Type
Single Family Residential
Parcel Charge per Parcel
Unit X Parcel -- Charge Multiplier
1.00 $175.68 $175.68 Per Parcel
PARCEL CHARGE CALCULATIONS FOR
SERVICE LEVEL R
Parcel
Property Type Unit
Single Family Residential Rate R-1 1.00
Single Family Vacant Rate R-1 0.50
Single Family Residential Rate R-2 1.00
Single Family Vacant Rate R-2 0.50
Charge Parcel
X per Unit = Charge Multiplier
$115.26 $115.26 Per Parcel
115.26 57.64 Per Parcel
121.92 121.92 Per Parcel
$121.92 $60.96 Per Parcel
MuniFinancial Page 18
Temecula Community Services District
Engineer's Annual Levy Report
Fiscal Year 2000/01
Appendix A -- 2000/2001 COLLECTION ROLL
Parcel identification, for each lot or parcel within the District, shall be the parcel as
shown on the County Assessor's map for the year in which this report is prepared.
A listing of parcels within this District, along with the charges, has been submitted to
the City Clerk and, by reference, is made part of this report.
MuniFinancial Page 19
ITEM 3
APPROVAL3E_~
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OFFINANCE
GENERAL MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
TEMECULACOMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
General Manage~Board of Directors
William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
May 9, 2000
Authorization to solicit construction bids for the "Rancho Califomia Sports Park
Parking Lot Rehabilitation" project, Project No. PW00-05.
PREPARED BY: Greg Butler, Senior Engineer - Capital Projects
Brian Gulllot, Assistant Engineer - Capital Projects
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors approve the plans and specifications and
authorize the Public Works Depadment to solicit construction bids for the "Rancho California Sports
Park Parking Lot Rehabilitation" project, Project No. PW00-05.
BACKGROUND: The project is located at the Rancho California Sports Park, south of
Rancho Vista Road and west of Margarita Road. The existing parking lots on the north side of the
facility are in poor condition with cracked pavement and poor drainage. The project improvements
consist of the rehabilitation of the existing pavement surface through removal and replacement of
the pavement surface. Additionally, a trash enclosure will be constructed as part of this project.
Plans and specifications are available for inspection in the office of the Director of Public Works.
The engineer's construction estimate is $185,000.
FISCAL IMPACT: The "Rancho California Sports Park Parking Lot Rehabilitation" project is
funded by Capital Project Reserves for Fiscal Year 1999-2000.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Location Map
2. Project Description
F:\DEPTS\PW%AGDRPT~000\0509\PW00-05Bid.doc
ITEM 4
APPROVAL
CITY A'I'I'ORNEY
TEMEGULA COMMUNITY SERVICE8 DISTRICT
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
General Manager/Board of Directors
Herman Parker, Director of Community Services(~
DATE: May 9, 2000
SUBJECT:
Award of Construction Contract for the Rancho California Sports Park Tot
Lot ADA Upgrade- Project No. PW00-04CSD
PREPARED BY:/tj/~Nilliam G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Laura Bragg, Assistant Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Directors:
Award a contract for the Rancho California Sports Park Tot Lot ADA Upgrade, Project No.
PW00-04CSD, to McLaughlin Engineering & Mining, Inc. for $92,187.00, and authorize the
President to execute the contract.
Authorize the General Manager to approve change orders not to exceed the contingency
amount of $9,218.70, which is equal to 10% of the contract amount.
BACKGROUND: On February 22, 2000, the Board of Directors approved the plans and
specifications, and authorized the Department of Public Works to solicit public construction bids.
The Rancho California Sports Park Tot Lot does not address current safety standards and ADA
requirements. The existing equipment will be replaced with similar equipment on a rubberized
surface that meets these current safety standards and ADA requirements. This project will improve
access for the disabled. This project will include removal and replacement of rubber play surface,
tot lot play equipment, curb and sidewalk, removal and disposal of unsuitable material and
replacement with play sand, and is included in the Five Year Capital Improvement Program.
The Engineers estimate for this project is $100,000.00.
Four (4) bids were publicly opened on April 24, 2000 and results are as follows:
1. McLaughlin Engineering & Mining, Inc ........................................................$ 92,187.00
2. Sean Malek Engineering & Construction, Inc ...............................................$ 94,125.00
3. Zasueta Contracting, Inc .............................................................................$100,545.00
4. Malibu Pacific Tennis Courts .......................................................................$105,082.35
Staff has reviewed the bid proposals and found McLaughlin Engineering & Mining, Inc. to be the
lowest responsible bidder for this project.
r:~agdrpt\99\0713\pw97-25 awd/smc
The specifications allow Thidy (30) working days for completion of this project. Work is expected
to begin in June 2000 and be completed by the end of August 2000.
A copy of the bid summary is available for review in the City Engineers office.
FISCAL IMPACT: The Rancho California Sports Park Tot Lot ADA Upgrades, PW00-04CSD is
a Capital improvement Project funded by Community Development Block Grant and Development
Impact Fees - Park & Recreation for Fiscal Year 1999-2000. Adequate funds are available in
Account No. 210-190-145-5804 for the construction contract of $92,187.00 plus the 10% contingency
of $9,218.70 for a total project cost of $101,405.70.
ATTACHMENT:
Project Location
Project Description
Construction Contract
2
r:\agdrpl\99\O713\pw97-25,awdlsmc
<
CITY OF TEMECULA
TEMECULA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CONTRACT
FOR
PROJECT NO. PWOO-O4CSD
RANCHO CALIFORNIA SPORTS PARK
TOTLOTADA UPGRADE
THIS CONTRACT, made and entered into the 9th day of May, 2000, by and between the City of
Temecula, Community Services District a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as
"DISTRICT", and McLaughlin Engineering & Mining, Inc., hereinafter referred to as
"CONTRACTOR."
WITNESSETH:
That DISTRICT and CONTRACTOR, for the consideration hereinafter named, mutually
agree as follows:
1.a,
CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The complete Contract includes all of the Contract
Documents, to wit: Notice Inviting Bids, Instructions to Bidders, Proposal, Performance
Bond, Labor and Materials Bond, Specifications entitled PROJECT NO. PWOO-O4CSD,
RANCHO CALIFORNIAL SPORTS PARK TOT LOT ADA UPGRADE, Insurance Forms,
this Contract, and all modifications and amendments thereto, the State of California
Department of Transportation Standard Specifications (1992 Ed.) where specifically
referenced in the Technical Specifications, and the latest version of the Standard
Specifications for Public Works Construction, including all supplements as written and
promulgated by the Joint Cooperative Committee of the Southern California Chapter of
the American Associated General Contractors of California (hereinafter, "Standard
Specifications") as amended by the General Specifications, Special Provisions, and
Technical Specifications for PROJECT NO. PW00-04CSD, RANCHO CALIFORNIA
SPORTS PARK TOT LOT ADA UPGRADE Copies of these Standard Specifications are
available from the publisher:
Building New, Incorporated
3055 Overland Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90034
(213) 202-7775
The Standard Specifications will control the general provisions, construction materials,
and construction methods for this Contract except as amended by the General
Specifications, Special Provision, and Technical Specifications for PROJECT NO. PW00-
04CSD, RANCHO CALIFORNIA SPORTS PARK TOT LOT ADA UPGRADE.
In case of conflict between the Standard Specifications and the other Contract
Documents, the other Contract Documents shall take precedence over, and be used in
lieu of, such conflicting portions.
CONTRACT CA- | R \C IP\PROJECTS\99\99-16/contract
Where the Contract Documents describe portions of the work in general terms, but not in
complete detail, it is understood that the item is to be furnished and installed completed
and in place and that only the best general practice is to be used. Unless otherwise
specified, the CONTRACTOR shall furnish all labor, materials, tools, equipment, and
incidentals, and do all the work involved in executing the Contract.
The Contract Documents are complementary, and what is called for by anyone shall be as
binding as if called for by all. Any conflict between this Contract and any other Contract
Document shall be resolved in favor of this Contract,
SCOPE OF WORK. CONTRACTOR shall perform everything required to be performed,
shall provide and furnish all the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable equipment,
and all utility and transportation services required for the following:
PROJECT NO. PWOO-O4CSD
RANCHO CALIFORNIA SPORTS PARK
TOT LOT ADA UPGRADE
All of said work to be performed and materials to be furnished shall be in strict accordance
with the Drawings and Specifications and the provisions of the Contract Documents
hereinabove enumerated and adopted by the DISTRICT.
DISTRICT APPROVAL. All labor, materials, tools, equipment, and services shall be
furnished and work performed and completed under the direction and supervision, and
subject to the approval of DISTRICT or its authorized representatives.
CONTRACT AMOUNT AND SCHDULE. The DISTRICT agrees to pay, and
CONTRACTOR agrees to accept, in full payment for, the work agreed to be done, the
sum of: NINETY TWO THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED EIGHTY SEVEN DOLLARS and
NO CENTS ($92,187.00), the total amount of the base bid.
CONTRACTOR agrees to complete the work in a period not to exceed Thirty (30)
working days, commencing with delivery of a Notice to Proceed by DISTRICT.
Construction shall not commence until bonds and insurance are approved by DISTRICT.
CHANGE ORDERS. All change orders shall be approved by the Board of Directors,
except that the General Manager is hereby authorized by the Board of Directors to make,
by written order, changes or additions to the work in an amount not to exceed the
contingency as established by the Board of Directors.
PAYMENTS
UNIT PRICE BID SCHEDULE:
Pursuant to Section 20104.50 of the Public Contract Code, within thirty (30) days
after submission of a payment request to the DISTRICT, the CONTRACTOR shall
be paid a sum equal to ninety percent (90%) of the value of the work completed
according to the bid schedule. Payment request forms shall be submitted on or
about the thirtieth (30th) day of each successive month as the work progresses.
The final payment, if unencumbered, or any part thereof unencumbered, shall be
made sixty (60) days after acceptance of final payment and the CONTRACTOR
CONTRACT CA 2 R:ICIP\PROJECTS\99~99-16\contrac/
=
filing a one-year Warranty and an Affidavit of Final Release with the DISTRICT on
forms provided by the DISTRICT.
Payments shall be made on demands drawn in the manner required by law,
accompanied by a certificate signed by the General Manager, stating that the work
for which payment is demanded has been performed in accordance with the terms
of the Contract, and that the amount stated in the certificate is due under the terms
of the Contract. Partial payments on the Contract price shall not be considered as
an acceptance of any part of the work.
Interest shall be paid on all undisputed payment requests not paid within thirty (30)
days pursuant to Public Contracts Code Section 20104.50. Public Contract Code
Section 7107 is hereby incorporated by reference.
In accordance with Section 9-3.2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works
Construction and Section 9203 of the Public Contract Code, a reduction in the
retention may be requested by the Contractor for review and approval by the
Engineer if the progress of the construction has been satisfactory, and the project
is more than 50% complete. The District hereby delegates its authority to reduce
the retention to the Engineer.
WARRANTY RETENTION. Commencing with the date the Notice of Completion is
recorded, the DISTRICT shall retain a portion of the Contract award price, to assure
warranty performance and correction of construction deficiencies according to the
following schedule:
CONTRACT AMOUNT
$25,000 0 $75,000
RETENTION PERIOD RETENTION PERCENTAGE
180 days 3%
$75,00- $5O0,000
180 days
$2,250 + 2% of amount in
excess of $75,000
Over $500,000
One Year
$10,750 + 1% of amount
in excess of $500,000
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES - EXTENSION OF TIME. In accordance with Government
Code Section 53069.85, CONTRACTOR agrees to forfeit and pay to DISTRICT the sum
of One Thousand dollars ($1000.00) per day for each calendar day completion is
delayed beyond the time allowed pursuant to Paragraph 4 of this Contract. Such sum
shall be deducted from any payments due to or to become due to CONTRACTOR. Such
sum shall be deducted from any payments due to or to become due to CONTRACTOR.
CONTRACTOR will be granted an extension of time and will not be assessed liquidated
damages for unforeseeable delays beyond the control of, and without the fault or
negligence of, the CONTRACTOR including delays caused by DISTRICT.
CONTRACTOR is required to promptly notify DISTRICT of any such delay.
WAIVER OF CLAIMS. On or before making each request for payment under Paragraph 6
above, CONTRACTOR shall submit to DISTRICT, in writing, all claims for compensation
as to work related to the payment. Unless the CONTRACTOR has disputed the amount
of the
CONTRACT CA-3 R \CIP\PROJECTS\99\99-16\COn~ract
10.
11.
12.
payment, the acceptance by CONTRACTOR of each payment shall constitute a release of
all claims against the DISTRICT related to the payment. CONTRACTOR shall be
required to execute an affidavit, release, and indemnity agreement with each claim for
payment.
PREVAILING WAGES. This is a Federal assisted project and Davis-Bacon Fair Labor
Standards Act (VVage # CA990036 of the wage determination Mod #9 Published 09/24/99
10 days prior to bid opening) will be enforced. Whenever there is State funding involved,
the highest of the two (State and Federal) wage decision prevails.
Federal Labor Standards Provisions 4010 of the U.S Department of Housing and Urban
Development is incorporated into this contract and attached.
All contractors shall be verified for eligibility through the current HUD List of Debarred,
Suspended, or Ineligible Participants, and the General Services Administration's
Consolidated List of Debarred, Suspended, and Ineligible Contractors prior to being
authorized to participate on this project.
Any Sub-tier Contract(s) resulting from this contract must contain the same contractual
language as the original contract.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 1773 of the Labor Code of the State of California,
the Board of Directors has obtained the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the
general rate for holiday and overtime work in this locality for each craft, classification, or
type of workman needed to execute this Contract, from the Director of the Department of
Industrial Relations. These rates are on file with the City Clerk. Copies may be obtained
at cost at the City Clerk's office of Temecula. CONTRACTOR shall post a copy of such
wage rates at the job site and shall pay the adopted prevailing wage rates as a minimum.
CONTRACTOR shall comply with the provisions of Section 1773.8, 1775, 1776, 1777.5,
1777.6, and 1813 of the Labor Code.
Pursuant to the provisions of 1775 of the Labor Code, CONTRACTOR shall forfeit to the
DISTRICT, as a penalty, the sum of $25.00 for each calendar day, or portion thereof, for
each laborer, worker, or mechanic employed, paid less than the stipulated prevailing rates
for any work done under this Contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in
violation of the provisions of the Contract.
TIME OF THE ESSENCE. Time is of the essence in this contract.
INDEMNIFICATION. All work covered by this Contract done at the site of construction or
in preparing or delivering materials to the site shall be at the risk of CONTRACTOR alone.
CONTRACTOR agrees to save, indemnify, hold harmless end defend DISTRICT, its
officers, employees, and agents, against any and all liability, injuries, or death of persons
(CONTRACTOR's employees included) and damage to property, arising directly or
indirectly out of the obligations herein undertaken or out of the operations conducted by
CONTRACTOR, save and except claims or litigations arising through the sole active
negligence or sole willful misconduct of the DISTRICT.
CONTRACTOR shall hold the County of Riverside, its officers, agents and employees
free and harmless from any liability whatsoever , including wrongful death, based or
asserted upon any act or omission of principal, its officers, agents, employees or
CONTRACT CA 4 R:\CIP\PROJECTS\99\99-16\contracl
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
Subcontractors relating to or in any way connected with or arising from the
accomplishment of the work, whether or not such acts or omissions where in furtherance
of the work required by the Contract Documents and agrees to defend at his expense,
including attorney fees, DISTRICT, County of Riverside, its officers, agents, employees
and Independent Architect in any legal action base on any such alleged acts or omissions.
The CONTRACTOR shall indemnify and be responsible for reimbursing the DISTRICT for
any and all costs incurred by the DISTRICT as a result of Stop Notices filed against the
project. The DISTRICT shall deduct such costs from Progress Payments or final
payments due to the DISTRICT.
GRATUITIES. CONTRACTOR warrants that neither it nor any of its employees, agents, or
representatives has offered or given any gratuities or promises to DISTRICT's employees,
agents, or representatives with a view toward securing this Contract or securing favorable
treatment with respect thereto.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST. CONTRACTOR warrants that he has no blood or marriage
relationship, and that he is not in any way associated with any DISTRICT officer or
employee, or any architect, engineer, or other preparors of the Drawings and
Specifications for this project. CONTRACTOR further warrants that no person in its
employ has been employed by the DISTRICT within one year of the date of the Notice
Inviting Bids.
CONTRACTOR'S AFFIDAVIT. After the completion of the work contemplated by this
Contract, CONTRACTOR shall file with the General Manager, its affidavit stating that all
workmen and persons employed, all firms supplying materials, and all subcontractors
upon the Project have been paid in full, and that there are no claims outstanding against
the Project for either labor or materials, except certain items, if any, to be set forth in an
affidavit covering disputed claims or items in connection with a Stop Notice which has
been filed under the provisions of the laws of the State of California.
NOTICE TO DISTRICT OF LABOR DISPUTES. Whenever CONTRACTOR has
knowledge that any actual or potential labor dispute is delaying or threatens to delay the
timely performance of the Contract, CONTRACTOR shall immediately give notice thereof,
including all relevant information with respect thereto, to DISTRICT.
BOOKS AND RECORDS. CONTRACTOR's books, records, and plans or such part
thereof as may be engaged in the performance of this Contract, shall at all reasonable
times be subject to inspection and audit by any authorized representative of the
DISTRICT.
INSPECTION. The work shall be subject to inspection and testing by DISTRICT and its
authorized representatives during manufacture and construction and all other times and
places, including without limitation, the plans of CONTRACTOR and any of its suppliers.
CONTRACTOR shall provide all roasonable facilities and assistance for the safety and
convenience of inspectors. All inspections and tests shall be performed in such manner
as to not unduly delay the work. The work shall be subject to final inspection and
acceptance notwithstanding any payments or other prior inspections. Such final
inspection shall be made within a reasonable time after completion of the work.
CONTRACT CA-5 R\CIP\PROJECTS\99\99 16\contract
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
DISCRIMINATION. CONTRACTOR represents that it has not, and agrees that it will not,
discriminate in its employment practices on the basis of race, creed, religion, national
origin, color, sex age, or handicap.
GOVERNING LAW. The District and Contractor understand and agree that the laws of
the State of California shall govern the dghts, obligations, duties and liabilities of the
parties to this Contract and also govern the interpretation of this Contract. Any litigation
concerning this Contract shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court
with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Temecula Community Services District. In the
event of litigation between the parties concerning this Contract, the prevailing party as
determined by the Court, shall be entitled to actual and reasonable attorney fees and
litigation costs incurred in the litigation.
PROHIBITED INTEREST. No member, officer, or employee of the City of Temecula
Community Services District or of a local public body shall have any interest, direct or
indirect, in the contract of the proceeds thereof during his/her tenure or for one year
thereafter.
Furthermore, the contractor/consultant covenants and agrees to their knowledge that no
board member, office or employee of the City of Temecula Community Services District
has any interest, whether contractual, non-contractual, financial or otherwise, in this
transaction, or in the business of the contracting party other than the City of Temecula,
Community Services District and that if any such interest comes to the knowledge of
either party at any time, a full and complete disclosure of all such information will be
make, in writing, to the other party or parties, even if such interest would not be
considered a conflict of interest under Article 4 (commencing with Section 1090) or Article
4.6 (commencing with Section 1220) of Division 4 of Title I of the Government Code of the
state of California.
ADA REQUIREMENTS. By signing this contract, Contractor certifies that the Contractor
is in total compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Public Law 101-
336, as amended.
WRITTEN NOTICE. Any written notice required to be given in any part of the Contract
Documents shall be performed by depositing the same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid,
directed to the address of the CONTRACTOR as set forth in the Contract Documents,
and to the DISTRICT addressed as follows:
William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
City of Temecula City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033 OR 43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92589-9033 Temecula, CA 92590-3606
CONTRACT CA-6 R:\C[P%PROJECTS\99\99-16\Contract
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be executed on the
date first above written.
DATED:
CONTRACTOR
McLaughlin Engineering & Mining, Inc.
41934 Main St., #107
Temecula, CA 92590
(909) 699-7957
By:
Wayne White, Vice President
DATED:
CITY OF TEMECULA
COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Jeff Comerchero, President
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
CONTRACT CA-? R:\CIP\PROjECTS\99\99-16\contfact
ITEM 5
CITY ATTOR~';'~'ROVAL~,~~
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
Board of Directors
Herman D. Parker, Director of Community Servi~el~
May 9, 2000
Temecula High Hopes Program Presentation
PREPARED BY: Julie Cr~e-Pelletier, Recreation Superintendent
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of Directors:
Receive and file this report and video presentation on the Temecula High Hopes program.
BACKGROUND: As a direct result of a request made by a citizen for the City of
Temecula to offer a program for adults with special needs, the High Hopes program has become a
reality. In September of 1999, the Community Services Department officially introduced the High
Hopes program to the citizen's of Temecula, This program is designed to offer adults ages 18 years
and older, with special needs, the opportunity to meet, socialize and engage in positive social and
recreational interactions. Currently, the program is held at the Mary Phillips Senior Center on the
1st and 3rd Friday of each month.
With the help of city staff, volunteers and local businesses the program has been a tremendous
SUCCESS.
Tonight we have a special video presentation that illustrates the success of the program
FISCAL IMPACT: None
R:\CROWEJ~AGENDAS\High Hopes.doc
REDEVELOPMENT
AGENCY
ITEM 1
MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING
OF THE TEMECULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
MARCH 28, 2000
An adjourned regular meeting of the City of Temecula Redevelopment Agency was called to
order at 7:56 P.M., at the City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive, Temecula.
ROLLCALL
PRESENT: 5 AGENCY MEMBERS: Comerchero, Naggar, Pratt,
Roberts, and Naggar
ABSENT: 0 AGENCY MEMBER: None.
Also present were Executive Director Nelson, City Attorney Thorson, and City Clerk Jones.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No input.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1 Minutes
RECOMMENDATION:
1.1 Approve the minutes of 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 Redevelopmerit Project
Area No. 1-1988.
MOTION: Agency Member Comerchero moved to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 - 2.
The motion was seconded by Agency Member Stone and voice vote reflected approval with the
exception of Agency Member Stone who abstained with regard to Item No. 2.
DEPARTMENTAL REPORT
No additional comments.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT
No comments.
Minutes\032800 I
AGENCY MEMBERS' REPORTS
No comments.
ADJOURNMENT
At 7:57 P.M., the Temecula Redevelopment Agency meeting was formally adjourned to
Tuesday, April 11, 2000, at 7:00 P.M., City Council Chambers, 43200 Business Park Drive,
Temecula, California.
Ron Roberts, Chairman
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk/Agency Secretary
[SEAL]
Minutes\032800 2
ITEM 2
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL R~"'
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINAN
EXECUTIVE DIRECTO
CITY OF TEMECULA
REDEVELOPMENTAGENCY
AGENDA REPORT
Executive Director/Redevelopment Agency Members
William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
May 9, 2000
Old Town Streetscape Project
RECOMMENDATION: That the Agency Members approve an appropriation of $114,000,00
from Redevelopmerit Tax Increment Fund Balance to fund a settlement agreement.
BACKGROUND: On June 11, 1998 the City acting pursuant to our cooperative
agreement with the Redevelopment agency, awarded a contract to Valley Crest Landscape Inc. in
the amount of $4,551,432.00. The project improved Front Street from Moreno Road to First Street
and Main Street from Mercedes Street to the Murrieta Creek Bridge providing new storm drain
system, pavement section, curb, gutter, sidewalks, boardwalks, lighting, and sound system along
with additional architectural improvements.
During construction, a portion of the storm drain system was completed by Valley Crest Construction
under protest, which resulted in a claim being filed against the City. The claim involved additional
work required while working around utilities and handling saturated soil conditions in the trench
excavation. The claim has been satisfactorily negotiated. An appropriation of $114,300.00 is
necessary to fund the settlement agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT: The total contract award amount for this project was $4,551,432.00 including
the 10% contingency. Contract change orders number 1 through 3 were approved in the amount
of $249,417.16, for a total project cost of $4,387,082.16. This project is funded from RDA bond
proceeds.
F \DEPTS~PW~AGDRPT~2000\05091VALLEY CREST DOG
ITEM 14
APPROVA
CITY ATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OF FINA
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Gary Thornhill AICP, Deputy City Manager
May 9, 2000
Planning Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627) - Appeal of
Conditions of Approval No.'s 27 and 28 by the project applicant [Margarita Canyon
LLC]; and Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the project by the
adjacent property owners to the south)
Prepared by: John De Gange, Project Planner
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department recommends that the City
Council:
DENY the project applicant's appeal of Conditions of Approval No.'s 27 and 28 for
Planning Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28627);
DENY the appeal of the approval the project by the adjacent property owners to the
south for Planning Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28627);
UPHOLD the approval by the Planning Commission of Planning Application No.
PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28627); and
4. ADOPT a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 00-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DENYING
THE PROJECT APPLICANT'S APPEAL OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NO.'S
27 AND 28 AND DENYING THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO THE SOUTH APPEAL
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL, AND UPHOLDING THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA97-0307 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 28627) - A REQUEST TO
SUBDIVIDE 'I'VVO PARCELS TOTALLING 38 ACRES INTO 11 COMMERCIAL
LOTS AND ONE OPEN SPACE LOT LOCATED ADJACENT TO INTERSTATE '15,
SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF OLD TOWN FRONT STREET AND
HIGHWAY 79 (S)/ WESTERN BYPASS CORRIDOR (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NUMBER 922-210-047), BASED UPON THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF
APPROVAL ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307pa97.AppeaI.CC.doc
BACKGROUND:
On March 15, 2000 the Planning Commission approved Planning Application No, PA97-0307
(Tentative Parcel Map 28627). Prior to the March 15th hearing this item was continued on four
occasions (October 20, 1999, November 3, 1999, December 8, 1999 and February 16, 2000)
primarily due to unresolved issues associated with distance between the I-15 Southbound off-ramp
and the proposed placement of the access into the site.
Since the March 15th Planning Commission meeting two separate appeals pertaining to this project
have been filed. The first of these is an appeal of Conditions of Approval No.'s 27 and 28 which has
been filed by the project applicant. The second is an appeal of the approval of the overall project
filed by an attorney representing the neighboring property owners to the south. This appeal is based
on concerns that the approval of this project in its proposed configuration leaves the properties to
the south permanently landlocked given that the only realistic point of access to these properties
is through the site in question.
DISCUSSION:
Applicant's Appeal of Conditions 27 and 28
Condition 27
As approved by the Planning Commission on March 15, 2000, Condition No. 27 is as follows: "The
Developer shall submit an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for Roadway and Utility Purposes along
Western Bypass Corridor for an additional 12 feet above and beyond the proposed 88 feet
dedication. The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works and
City Attorney." The purpose of this condition is to secure additional right-of-way on the south side
of the future Western By-pass Corridor along Lots 1 and 12 to allow for a second left-turn pocket
into the project without jeopardizing the Western By-Pass' capacity and providing a safe transition
for eastbound traffic coming from the west, past the project site.
The applicants are appealing this condition based on their opinion that the requirement for an
additional 12 feet of right-of-way dedication along this portion of the site is unnecessary and
significantly reduces the developable area of lot 1 of the subdivision. In addition, they have stated
that the condition has been written in a vague manner and assumes that the project will generate
hazardous traffic conditions that may never exist.
Condition No. 27 is necessary to provide for the dual left turn lanes which are necessary to relieve
the congestion and queuing problems on SR 79/the future Western By-pass Corridor caused by this
project as further discussed in the next section (discussion for Condition No. 28).
Condition No. 28
As approved by the Planning Commission Condition No. 28 reads: "The Developer shall submit an
Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for Roadway and Utility Purposes along westerly proposed property
boundary for adequate right-of-way to construct an alternative access street across Lots 8, 9 and
10. The form of the offer shaft be subject to the approval of the Director of Pubtic Works and City
Attorney."
This condition requires that the access into the site be relocated in the event that it is determined
that the increased traffic generated by the development of Phase II of the map warrants it (as
established in Condition No. 5i). The condition requires that dedication be provided for right-of-way
through portions of Lots 8, 9 and 10 for the purpose of establishing an alternative access. This
right-of-way would be utilized with the relocation of the project access if at some point in the future
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307pa97.AppeaI.CC.doc
2
traffic generated from the project was determined to be at a level where unsafe conditions
(particularly with respect to the stacking and hazardous weaving movements) would occur around
the left turn movement into the site ins stipulated in Condition No. 5i].
The applicant's appeal of this condition is based on their opinion that there is no factual or legal
nexus for this condition. In addition, the applicants have stated that in their opinion this condition
represents a taking of their property without just compensation. Their appeal implies that the
purpose of the Condition is for the City to exact right-of-way for future freeway interchange
improvements that have not yet been designed or finalized. The applicants have also indicated that
they feel this condition is vague and ambiguous and that it is redundant in light of Condition No. 5ii.
In Staff's opinion, this condition is required to address unsafe traffic conditions caused by this
project's proposed access point. The location of the applicant's proposed access creates a
condition where there is insufficient spacing between the existing signals for the southbound I-15
off ramp and the signal at Old Town Front Street which will ultimately result in problems in queuing
and weaving for traffic attempting to make left turns into the site. As a consequence traffic flow will
be disrupted and motorist safety throughout the interchange area will be significantly impacted. This
condition has been included to ensure that if the traffic generated by this project reaches a threshold
where safety is impacted, there is a mechanism which will mitigate this project's impacts. Without
Condition No. 28 the impacts generated by this project can not be adequately mitigated.
The development of the project, as proposed by the applicant, will cause a substantial increase to
traffic volumes on State Route 79 South/Western Bypass between Old Town Front Street and the
Interstate 15 (I-15) interchange. Although the applicant's traffic study and subsequent revisions
prepared by the applicant's traffic consultant (Robert Kahn, John Kain and Associates Inc.) indicates
acceptable interim operating conditions, it is the opinion of the City's Engineers that the proposed
location of the project's access will adversely impact traffic flows in the vicinity of the project, the
Interstate 15/State Route 79 interchange and Old Town Front Street. Congestion and difficult
vehicular movements will occur at intersections within the project's vicinity due to substandard
intersection spacing (160 feet) between the 1-15 Southbound Ramp and Old Town Front Street, and
the traffic volumes generated by the proposed project (7,909 ADT). In the opinion of the City's
Engineers, the applicant's engineer's report is based on faulty assumptions and severely
underestimates the volume of traffic which will use the left turn lanes over the next few years.
Another problem is that the increased traffic volumes and the inadequate spacing between the 1-15
ramps and the project access will increase conflicting vehicular movements. Because of the short
distance between intersections and the projected heavy left-turn movements into the project, 1-15
southbound vehicles wishing to access the site will be forced into hazardous merging situations.
This situation will also cause the traffic to back-up on the 1-15 southbound ramp while vehicles wait
to get an opportunity to enter the left-turn pocket in order to access the site. The anticipated heavy
left-turn movement into the site (351 vehicles during p.m. peak hour) and lack of adequate storage,
will also cause gridlock at the 1-15 southbound ramp signal.
Problems related to safety, queuing, merging and weaving are of serious concern to both the City
and to Caltrans, which is responsible for the interchange and its signals. Because of safety and
traffic flow issues, Caltrans now specifies that new signals are to be located a minimum of 410 feet
from freeway ramp signals, with a preferred spacing of 525 feet. The many existing examples of
signals spaced much more closely to interchanges illustrate that even where operations have been
optimized as much as possible, acceptable traffic operation is rarely maintained during peak hours,
particularly as traffic volumes increase. The proposed project access is not directly subject to
Caltrans regulations; most significantly, Caltrans policy does not govern its placement because the
intersection is outside of Caltrans' right-of-way. Rather, Caltrans policy serves as a statewide
industry standard for proper practice and design. In the case of a signal in such close proximity to
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307pa97.Appe:dCC.doc
3
adjacent signals, the provision of space for queuing and to serve a variety of traffic movements is
critical. Although in this case the traffic signal cannot be relocated, the project's access driveway
to the site can be relocated to the west in order to reduce its impact to the nearby traffic signals.
The weaving and merging movement required for motorists exiting from southbound 1-15 and
accessing the new development will be very difficult, and at times, impossible. Drivers performing
this traffic movement will be required to turn right from the ramp; merge and weave across at least
two lanes of traffic; enter the westbound left turn lane at the development intersection; and, most
frequently, come to a stop while awaiting the opportunity to make their left turn. This maneuver
would have to be safely completed in a distance significantly less than the 160 feet between
intersections. With forced lane changes and rapid acceleration/deceleration within the traffic stream,
it is staffis opinion that this movement will greatly compromise safety and hamper the flow of through
traffic.
In summary, the location of the access road at the intersection of SR-79 (S) and Old Town Front
Street (as it is being proposed by the applicant) is contrary to proper engineering practice, and
insufficient spacing from existing signals will result in problematic queuing and weaving. As a
consequence traffic flow will be disrupted and motorist safety throughout the interchange area will
be reduced.
It should be noted that a traffic signal at the intersection of Old Town Front Street and Highway
79(S), is not needed until the Western Bypass Corridor is constructed. However, the access to the
site as proposed, will necessitate operation of the traffic signal at the intersection of Old Town Front
Street and Highway 79(S) which is 160 feet west of the ~-15 southbound off-ramp. For reference,
the spacing between the intersections of Front Street/Jefferson Avenue and 1-15 southbound ramp
is approximately 600 feet on Rancho California Road and 400 feet on Winchester Road.
Condition No. 28 in conjunction with Condition 5i require the applicant to relocate the access into
the project to a location approximately 250 feet to the west of the applicant's proposed access in
the event that it is determined that the increased traffic generated by the development of Phase II
of the map, warrants it. Staff does recognize that the relocation of the project's access 250 to the
west creates a less than ideal situation. New challenges, such as offset access points and back to
back left-turn pockets between Old Town Front Street and the access point into the site are
introduced. Moving the access point westerly; however, reduces Caltrans' and staff's concerns
related to merging, intersection level of service and safety. Staff feels that the shortcomings
associated with these conditions are far less impactive to the operation of the southbound ramp
signal and overall traffic flow in the vicinity of the interchange, because by relocating the access to
the west, a greater distance is provided for the vehicles from the southbound off ramp to merge and
weave to the westbound left-turn lanes into the site. The additional spacing between the ramp signal
and the project's access, will improve safety and the operational capacity of Highway 79(S) by
minimizing grid locks and backing up the traffic on the 1-15 southbound ramp. It should also be
noted that when the Western Bypass corridor is ultimately constructed, the access to the site could
be modified to provide for more efficient and safer circulation.
Conditions 27 and 28 have been included for the approval of this project as the feasible method of
mitigating the traffic problems that will be caused by the proposed project and which have been
detailed in the discussion above. At the March 15th meeting the Planning Commission concurred
and approved the project with these conditions included.
F:\Dep/s\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307pa97.Appcal.CC.dOC
4
Appeal by Neiqhborinq Properties to the South
A second appeal with respect to this project was received following the Planning Commission's
approval on Mamh 15th. This appeal was filed by Tyler & Dorsa, LLP on behalf of the McLaughlin
Family who currently own property south of the subject site. This appeal requests that the City
Council reconsider the Planning Commission's approval of Planning Application No. PA97-0307
without a Condition of Approval requiring the applicant to provide permanent legal access to the
properties to the south. Currently these properties consisting of approximately 175 acres have no
legal access to their properties and are effectively landlocked. The appellant's contention is that
allowing this map to be developed without requiring the applicant to provide access to these
properties results in the underutilization of these parcels which is poor planning and public policy.
This appeal acknowledges that though it is not mandatory for the City to require the applicant to
provide access it is the City's legal right to do so. The appellants also acknowledge that they
currently have no access rights as a result of the failure of owners of these properties, at that time,
to acquire an easement from a previous owner of the subject property and based on the decision
from previous litigation between the McLaughlin's father and the previous owner of the property.
Following the testimony from both the applicants for Tentative Parcel Map 28627 and the appellants,
the Planning Commission, after a short period of discussion, determined that this issue should be
resolved between the two parties involved. The consensus of the Planning Commissioners present
was that the City should not involve itself in what they stated was a private matter between property
owners. As a consequence, no action was taken relative to this issue and no condition was added
to the Conditions of approval.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There are no direct fiscal impacts to the City associated with this project.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
With the approval of Planning Application No. PA97-0307 the Planning Commission adopted a
Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project with the Finding that though the project could
potentially have a significant impact on the environment with respect to Air Quality and
Transportation/Traffic that mitigation measures included with the initial study, conditions of approval
included with the approval of the project and revisions to the project made and agreed to by the
project proponent mitigate these impacts to a level of insignificance.
During the analysis of this project staff determined that the traffic generated from this project will
significantly increase traffic volumes and coupled with the fact that there is substandard and Limited
spacing between the intersection of Old Town Front Street (where the project will take access) and
the 1-15 southbound ramp signal, congestion and unsafe vehicular movements will result and
hazardous merging situations will be created. To mitigate the impacts associated with these
conditions, Condition of Approval No. 28 was added by staff and approved by the Planning
Commission. If the applicant's appeal is granted and Condition No. 28 is deleted, it is staffs opinion
that the impacts associated with the inadequate spacing between the freeway off ramp and the
applicant's access and the associated hazards resulting from unsafe weaving and merging
movements will not be adequately mitigated.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307pa97.AppeaLCC,doc
5
FINDINGS:
The proposed land division based the design or improvement of the project and as
conditioned by the Conditions of Approval contained in this repod is compatible with the
General Plan. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The
project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation Highway / Tourist.
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 and Development Code. 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.
As conditioned, the design of the proposed land division or 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 land division. The map proposes access to take access from
the future Western Bypass Corridor and will not obstruct any easements.
As conditioned, the map conforms to the logical development of the site, and is compatible
with the health, safety and welfare of the community and access and circulation are
adequate for emergency vehicles. The project has been reviewed by the City's Traffic
Engineer, Public Works Department and Fire Departments. These departments have
conditioned the map to ensure public health, safety and welfare.
As conditioned, the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish
or wildlife or their habitat.
Though the site contains a small area of Riversidian Sage Scrub, a plant association
that the California Gnatcatcher is known to inhabit, a biology study for the site
indicates that none of these animals inhabit the site. In addition, mitigation measures
that mitigate any potential impacts to wildlife and habitat have been included within
the design of the project and are included within the mitigation monitoring program
for the project. These mitigation measures address all impacts associated with the
development of the site and the potential impacts development of the site will have
on wildlife or habitat off-site.
II.
The project will generate a substantial increase in traffic along SR 79 (S) between
1-15 and Old Town Front Street. Project generated traffic will create an adverse
impact on traffic in the area resulting from queuing, merging and weaving between
the 1-15 off ramp and Old Town Front Street access to the site. Conditions of
Approval are reasonable conditions which will mitigate this adverse impact by
providing an alternative access point to the site from the west side of the project, and
are reasonable conditions which reduce the impact of project generated traffic in the
area surrounding the project.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307pa97.AppeaI.CC.doc
6
Attachments:
1. City Council Resolution No. 00- denying the applicants appeal, denying the neighboring
property owners appeal and approving Planning Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative
Parcel Map 28627) - Page 8
a. Exhibit A - Conditions of Approval - Page 12
2. March 15, 2000 Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 13
3. February 16, 2000 Planning Commission Staff Report- Page 14
4. December 8, 1999 Planning Commission Staff Report- Page 15
5. November 3, 1999 Planning Commission Staff Report- Page 16
6. October 20, 1999 Planning Commission Staff Report- Page 17
7. Environmental Initial Study Prepared for PA97-0307- Page 18
8. Appeal Documentation From Margarita Canyon LLC- Page 19
9. Appeal Documentation From Tyler & Dorsa, LLP- Page 20
F:\Depts\PLANNING%STAFFRPT\307pa97.AppeaI.CC.doc
7
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 00-
PA97-0307 (TPM 28627)
F:\DEPTSXPLANN1NG\STAFFRPT\307pa97.AppeaI.CC.doc
8
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 00-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA DENYING THE PROJECT APPLICANT'S APPEAL OF
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NO.'S 27 AND 28 AND DENYING
THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO THE SOUTH APPEAL OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL, AND UPHOLDING THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA97-0307 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO.
28627) - A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE TWO PARCELS
TOTALLING 38 ACRES INTO 11 COMMERCIAL LOTS AND ONE
OPEN SPACE LOT LOCATED ADJACENT TO INTERSTATE 15,
SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF OLD TOWN FRONT
STREET AND HIGHWAY 79 (S)/ WESTERN BYPASS CORRIDOR
(ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 922-210-047), BASED UPON
THE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF
REPORT AND SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
WHEREAS, Margarita Canyon LLC filed Planning Application No. PA97-0307, in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development Code;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0307 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. PA97-0307 on
October 20, 1999, November 17, 1999, December 8, 1999, February 16, 2000 and March 15, 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, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due
consideration of the testimony, the Commission recommended approval of Planning Application No.
PA97-0307;
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing pertaining to the appeal Conditions
of Approval No.'s 27 and 28 by the project applicant and an appeal of the project by neighboring
property owners to the south for Planning Application No. PA97-0307 on May 9, 2000, at which time
interested persons had opportunity to, and did testify either in support or opposition to Planning
Application No. PA97-0307;
WHEREAS, the City Council received a copy of the Commission proceedings and Staff
Report regarding Planning Application No. PA97-0307;
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
FefeFence.
Section 2. Findinqs. The City Council, in approving Planning Application No. PA97-
0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627) hereby makes the following findings
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRIrF\307pa97 .Appeal. CC.doc
9
A. The proposed land division based the design or improvement of the project and as
conditioned by the Conditions of Approval contained in this report is compatible with the General
Plan. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The project is
consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation Highway / Tourist.
B. 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 and Development Code. 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.
C. As conditioned, the design of the proposed land division or 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 land division. The map proposes access to take access from the
future Western Bypass Corridor and will not obstruct any easements.
D. As conditioned, the map conforms to the logical development of the site, and is
compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community and access and circulation are
adequate for emergency vehicles. The project has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer,
Public Works Department and Fire Departments. These departments have conditioned the map
to ensure public health, safety and welfare.
E. As conditioned, the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements
are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat.
Though the site contains a small area of Riversidian Sage Scrub, a plant
association that the California Gnatcatcher is known to inhabit, a biology
study for the site indicates that none of these animals inhabit the site. In
addition, mitigation measures that mitigate any potential impacts to wildlife
and habitat have been included within the design of the project and are
included within the mitigation monitoring program for the project. These
mitigation measures address all impacts associated with the development
of the site and the potential impacts development of the site will have on
wildlife or habitat off-site.
II.
The project will generate a substantial increase in traffic along SR 79 (S)
between 1-15 and Old Town Front Street. Project generated traffic will create
an adverse impact on traffic in the area resulting from queuing, merging and
weaving between the 1-15 off ramp and Old Town Front Street access to the
site. Conditions of Approval are reasonable conditions which will mitigate
this adverse impact by providing an alternative access point to the site from
the west side of the project, and are reasonable conditions which reduce the
impact of project generated traffic in the area surrounding the project.
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 granted.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307pa97 .Appeal .CC.doc
10
Section 4. Conditions. The appeal of Joyce McLaughlin, Ray McLaughlin Jr., and
Donald McLaughlin to PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627) is hereby denied. The appeal of
the applicant, Margarita Canyon LLC to PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627) is hereby denied.
The City of Temecula City Council hereby approves Planning Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative
Tract Map No. 28627) a request to subdivide a 38 acre parcel into 11 commercial lots and one open
space lot located adjacent to Interstate 15, southwest of the intersection of Old Town Front Street
and Highway 79 (S)/ Western Bypass Corridor (Assessor's Parcel Number 922-210-047), subject
to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by
this reference.
Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.
Section 6. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of
Temecula this ninth day of May, 2000.
ATI'EST:
Jeff 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 Resolution
No. 00- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a regular
meeting thereof held on the ninth day of May, 2000, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
F: \DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307pa97.Appeal. CC.doC
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
F:\DEIYrS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307pa97.AppeaI.CC.doc
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA97-0307 - Tentative Parcel Map No. 28627
Project Description:
The subdivision of two parcels totaling 38 acres
into 11 commercial lots and one open space lot
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
922-210-047
March 15, 2000
March 15, 2003
PLANNING DIVISION
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department -
Planning Division a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County
Clerk in the amount of 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 Dollar ($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
applicant has not delivered to the Community Development Department -
Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the project
granted shall be void by reason of such failure of to satisfy this 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 the City's Subdivision Ordinance, unless
modified by the conditions listed below. A time extension may be approved in
accordance with the State Map Act and City Ordinance, upon written request, if
made 30 days prior to the expiration date.
The 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, judgments, 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
F:\Depts\PLANNING\T M\97-0307 TPM 28627 Margarita Canyon\307pa97.COA(TPM)Mar 15,2000 (PC MOD).doc
body including actions approved by the voters of the City, concerning the
Planning Application. City shall promptly notify 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 defense.
The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the
approved Mitigation Monitoring Program.
The applicant and the City shall immediately undertake the preparation of the
following:
i)
Preparation of overall traffic thresholds based upon the goal of ensuring
that the aggregate development of the parcels within Phase II of Tentative
Parcel Map 28627 is done at a density and intensity of square foot
development and provided that the aggregate for all lots in Phase II does
not exceed the safe level of traffic flow as determined jointly by the
Director of Public Works and by the applicant's traffic engineer of
generally accepted professional traffic engineering standards.
Preparation of a mutually acceptable Development Agreement, as such is
defined in California Government Code Section 65864 that serves to
implement the traffic thresholds set forth in subsection (i) above. The
Development Agreement shall include other terms necessary and
desirable, including but not limited to the City's agreement to use its best
efforts to expedite the Project Study Report (PSR) being prepared for the
California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) in regard to
freeway related improvements.
In the event the applicant and the City are unable to process the
Development Agreement or the development agreement is not adopted
by the parties, the physical development of the parcels in Phase II shall
be subject to and regulated by the traffic thresholds established in
Subsection (i) hereinabove. No development of the parcels in Phase II
shall occur, notwithstanding any condition to the contrary, until the traffic
thresholds identified in Subsection (i) above are approved jointly by the
Director of Public Works and the applicant's traffic engineer.
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 appropriate fee set forth in
that ordinance or by providing documented evidence that the fees have already
been paid.
The applicant shall receive approval for the purchase of off-site property from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game,
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\T M\97-0307 TPM 28627 Margarita Canyon\307pa97.COA(TPM)Mar 15,2000 (PC MOD).doc
2
and submit a mitigation plan to the Planning Department which details how the
applicant has set aside sensitive areas and has met the requirements of the U.S
Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game for the
off-site mitigation of off-site property to compensate for the taking of the
Riversidian Sage Scrub on site, if required.
Development of the site shall preserve the entire amount of Riparian Woodlands
on site. No grading or clearing shall occur in this area. Development of the site
shall be designed so that all utility extensions are underground and that graded
surface water run off and spillage drains away from Murrieta and Temecula
Creeks. This area shall be fenced off prior to any grading activities to prevent
any disturbances to wetland or vegetation areas. The project will be conditioned
to re-vegetate all graded and disturbed areas near the channels with native tree
and plant species. The applicant shall prepare a Biological Mitigation Plan to
ensure project compliance with the mitigation monitoring program.
10.
At the time of the submittal of a development proposal or the submittal of a
grading plan for the project site the applicant shall submit a biological survey at
the appropriate time of the year to determine if the California Gnatcatcher, the
Quino Checkerspot Butterfly or any other endangered or threatened species
inhabit the site, if the habitat is a designated habitat. This biological survey
shall propose appropriate mitigation for development of the site. This biological
survey shall be submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California
Department of Fish and Game for review and approval. The applicant shall
prepare a Biological Mitigation Plan to ensure project compliance with the
mitigation monitoring program. (Modified by the Planning Commission on
March 15, 2000)
11.
The applicant shall obtain a 404 Permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and a 1603 Streambed Alteration Permit from the California Department of Fish
and Game, if required. The applicant shall prepare a Biological Mitigation Plan to
ensure project compliance with the mitigation monitoring program.
12.
When future development is proposed on the site a Phase II archaeological study
shall be conducted. This study shall establish appropriate mitigation to address
any significant impacts that may occur.
Prior to Recordation of the Final Map
13. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division:
a. A copy of the Final Map.
A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following
notes:
1)
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.
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\T M\97-0307 TPM 28627 Margarita Canyon\307pa97.COA(TPM)Mar 15,2000 (PC MOD).doc
3
2) This project is within the 100-year floodplain.
3) This project is within a dam inundation area.
4) This project is within a Liquifaction Zone.
5) This project is within a Subsidence Zone.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
14.
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the
subdivision, however solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall
be permitted with Planning Director approval.
Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits
15.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any
use allowed by this permit.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
16.
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
17.
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. The tentative map shall show the location of all
right-of-way corridors as specified within these conditions of approval.
18.
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.
19.
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.
20.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the California Department of
Transportation prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or
proposed State right-of-way.
21.
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.
22.
The Developer shall provide the required street improvements as directed by the
Director of Public Works as part of the phased map.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\T M\97-0307 TPM 28627 Margarita Canyon\307pa97.COA(TPM)Mar 15,2000 (PC MOD}.doc
4
23.
The map may be phased in two phases. Phase I to include Parcels 1 and 12 and
Phase II to include Parcels 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.
24.
Prior to approval of Phase II or any subsequent phases, the Developer shall
submit a Traffic Study to determine the Level of Service (LOS) of impacted
intersections. The LOS should be "D", peak hour or better as determined by the
Director of Public Works before any furlher maps are approved.
Prior to Approval of the Parcel 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:
25.
As deemed necessary by the Depadment of Public Works, the Developer shall
receive written clearance from the following agencies:
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Health Department
Cable TV Franchise
Community Services District
General Telephone
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
California Fish & Game
Army Corps of Engineers
Caitrans clearance shall only be required to demonstrate the satisfaction of any
condition or conditions that the City of Temecula imposes on the planning
application pursuant to this Resolution No. that arc within thc
jurisdiction of Caltrans. (Modified by the Planning Commission on March 15,
2000)
26.
The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of
Temecula standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works:
Improve Western Bypass Corridor (Major Highway Standards modified to
88' R/W) to include dedication of full width street right-of-way within
underlying properties including the remainder section to the north of
Western Bypass Corridor, 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).
Improve Front Street (Principal Collector Highway Standards - 78' R/W) to
include dedication of full width street right-of-way, installation of full width
street improvements, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights,
F:\Depts\PLANNING\T M\97-0307 TPM 28627 Margarita Canyon\307pa97.COA(TPM)Mar 15,2000 (PC MOD).doc
5
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
drainage facilities, signing and striping, utilities (including but not limited to
water and sewer).
The Public Works Director may require, and the Developer shall promptly
construct to the specifications imposed by the City, an additional twenty
four (24) foot wide Roadway at the point located approximately 250 feet
west of the currently proposed extension of Front Street. The Public
Works Director shall, in writing, direct the Developer to commence the
construction of the Roadway only upon his determination that the traffic
use arising from the physical improvements of parcels 1 and 12 of Parcel
Map 28627 exceed the traffic thresholds established pursuant to
Condition No. 5 of this Resolution No.
The Developer shall submit an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for Roadway and
Utility Purposes along Western Bypass Corridor for an additional 12 feet above
and beyond the proposed 88 feet dedication. The form of the offer shall be
subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works and City Attorney.
The Developer shall submit an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for Roadway and
Utility Purposes along westerly proposed properly boundary for adequate right-
of-way to construct an alternative access street across Lots 8, 9 and 10
frocway accccc rampc across the site. The form of the offer shaft be subject to
the approval of the Director of Public Works and City Attorney. The Planning
Commission retains the authority to modify this condition if conditions
change. (Modified by the Planning Commission on March 15, 2000)
The Dovclopcr shall submit an Irrcvocablc Offer of Dedication for Roadway and
Utility Purposes along Front Street for an additional 24 fcct above and beyond
the proposed 78 foot dedication. The form of thc offer shall be subject to thc
approval of the Director of Public Works and City Attorney, (Deleted by the
Planning Commission on March 15, 2000)
All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement
transitions per Caltrans' standards for transition to existing street sections.
Relinquish and waive right of access from Western Bypass Corridor on the
Parcel Map other than the one access which shall be restricted to right in-right
out only.
Relinquish and waive right of access to and from State Route 79 South on the
Parcel Map.
The Developer shall conduct a warrant analysis for the signal at the intersection
of Western Bypass Corridor/State Route 79 South and Front Street.
The Developer shall modify the said signal accordingly.
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%
F:%DeptS%PLANNING\T M\97-0307 TPM 28627 Margarita Canyon\307pa97.COA(TPM)Mar 15,2000 (PC MOD).doc
6
36.
37.
38.
39.
minimum over A.C. paving.
Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard Nos. 207, 207A
and/or 208.
Street lights shall be installed along the public streets and shall be
designed in accordance with Ordinance No. 461.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City
Standard Nos. 400 and 401.
Design of street improvements shall extend a minimum of 300 feet
beyond the project boundaries to ensure adequate continuity of design
with adjoining properties.
Minimum centerline radii shall be in accordance with City Standard No.
113.
d. All reverse curves shall include a 100-foot minimum tangent section.
e. All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
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 concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be
conveyed through curb outlets per City Standard No. 301.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\T M\97-0307 TPM 28627 Margarita Canyon\307pa97.COA(TPM)Mar 15,2000 (PC MOD),doc
7
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
section. Prior to City Council approval of the Parcel Map, the Developer shall
make an application for reapportionment of any assessments with appropriate
regulatory agency.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid.
An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with
the Parcel 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:
The delineation of the area within the 100-year floodplain.
Special Study Zones.
Geotechnical hazards identified in the project's geotechnical report.
Archeological resources found on the site.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an
Environmental Constraints Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to
the subject property.
A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic
and hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District for approval prior to recordation of the
Parcel Map or the issuance of any permit. A permit from Riverside County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District is required for work within their right-of-
way.
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.
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.
Bus bays will be provided at all existing and future bus stops as determined by
the Department of Public Works.
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be
delineated and noted on the Parcel Map.
Easements for joint use driveways shall be provided prior to approval of the
Parcel Map or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage
facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the Parcel 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
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\T M\97-0307 TPM 28627 Margarita Canyon\307pa97.COA(TPM)Mar 15,2000 (PC MOD).doc
8
Works. On-site drainage facilities located outside of road right-of-way shall be
contained within drainage easements and shown on the Parcel Map. A note
shall be added to the Parcel Map stating "drainage easements shall be kept free
of buildings and obstructions."
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
50.
As deemed necessary by the Depadment of Public Works, the Developer shall
receive written clearance from the following agencies:
· San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
· Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
· Planning Department
· Department of Public Works
· Riverside County Health Department
· Community Services District
· General Telephone
· Southern California Edison Company
· Southern California Gas Company
· Caltrans clearance shall only be required to demonstrate the satisfaction of
any condition or conditions that the City of Temecula imposes on the planning
application pursuant to this Resolution No. that are within the
jurisdiction of Caltrans. (Modified by the Planning Commission on March
15, 2000)
51.
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.
52.
A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and
submitted to the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check.
The repeal shall address all soils conditions of the site, and provide
recommendations for the construction of engineered structures and preliminary
pavement sections.
53.
A Geetechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering
geologist and submitted to the Department of public Works with the initial grading
plan check. The report shall address special study zones and identify any
geetechnical hazards for the site including location of faults and potential for
liquefaction. The report shall include recommendations to mitigate the impact of
ground shaking and liquefaction.
54.
Provisions to mitigate drainage and the storm drain improvements as shown on
Tentative Parcel Map 28627 are conceptual and may require modification. The
design of the storm drain system will be determined upon review and approval of
the grading and storm drain improvement plans. A Drainage Study shall be
prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the Department of
Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The study shall identify storm
F:\Depts\PLANNING\T M\97-0307 TPM 28627 Margarita Canyon\307pa97.COA(TPM)Mar 15,2000 (PC MOD).doc
9
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream
of the site. It shall identify all existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public or
private, drainage facilities intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be
conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of receiving the storm water runoff
without damage to public or private property. The study shall include a capacity
analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or upsizing of
drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided
as part of development of this project. The basis for analysis and design shall be
a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years.
This development must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources
Control Board and Ordinance No. 99-10. No grading shall be permitted until an
NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be
exempt. Direct discharge of runoff from the site into Murrieta Creek is prohibited
and urban pollutants shall be mitigated as approved by the Department of Public
Works.
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.
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.
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.
The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps as Flood Zone
"A" and is subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of
any plans, the Developer shall demonstrate that the project complies with
Chapter 15.12 of the Temecula Municipal Code for development within Flood
Zone "A". A Flood Plain Development Permit is required prior to issuance of any
permit. Commercial subdivisions may obtain a LOMR at their discretion.
A Flood Plain Development Permit and Flood Study shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works for review and approval. The flood study shall be in
a format acceptable to the Department and include, but not be limited to, the
following criteria:
Drainage and flood protection facilities which will protect all structures by
diverting site runoff to streets or approved storm drain facilities.
Adequate provision shall be made for the acceptance and disposal of
surface drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
The impact to the site from any flood zone as shown on the FEMA flood
hazard map and any necessary mitigation to protect the site.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\T M\97-0307 TPM 28627 Margarita Canyon\307pa97.COA(TPM)Mar 15,2000 (PC MOD),doc
10
Identify and mitigate impacts of grading to any adjacent floodway.
The location of existing and post development 100-year floodplain and
floodway shall be shown on the improvement plan.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
61.
Parcel Map 28627 shall be approved and recorded; except that Parcel 12, which
is existing Lot 11, MB 15 15/726, San Diego County Records, may proceed
subject to the conditions of approval of the development application for that lot
regardless of whether PM 28627 has been recorded at the time building permits
are sought for the project.
62.
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.
63.
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform 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.
64.
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
65.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall
receive written clearance from the following agencies:
· Rancho California Water District
· Eastern Municipal Water District
· Department of Public Works
66.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and
public agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public
Works.
67.
All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans
and City standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
68.
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.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\T M\97-0307 TPM 28627 Margarita Canyon\307pa97.COA(TPM)Mar 15,2000 (PC MOD),doc
11
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
Prior to the Issuance of a Building Permit
69.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be
submitted to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from
School Mitigation fees.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
70.
Final fire and rife 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.
71.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for commercial
land division per CFC Appendix Ill-A, Table A-ill-A-1. The developer shall
provide for this project, a water system capable of delivering 4000 GPM at 20
PSI residual operating prossure with a 4 hour duration. The required fire flow
may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes in design,
construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire
Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all
information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A)
72.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per
CFC Appendix Ill-B, Table A-Ill-B-1. Super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2"
outlets) shall be located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public
streets. Hydrants shall be spaced at 350 feet apart and shall be located no more
than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department access road(s)
frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall be available from any adjacent
hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire hydrants may be required.
(CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B)
73.
Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius
on any cul-de-sac shall be forty-five (45) feet. (CFC 902.2.2.3)
74.
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)
75.
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. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
76.
Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have
approved Fire Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion
of the facility or any portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department
access roads shall be an all weather surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVW with
a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( CFC sec 902)
77. Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not
F:\DeptS\PLANNING\T M\97-0307 TPM 28627 Margarita Canyon\307pa97.COA(TPM)Mar 15,2000 (PC MOD).doc
12
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)
78.
Prior to building construction, dead end road 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)
79.
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 )
80.
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)
81.
All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or
gates obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the
Knox Rapid entry system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (CFC
902.4)
Special Conditions
82.
Prior to issuance of building permits, fuel modification plans shall be submitted to
the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval for all open space areas
adjacent to the wildland-vegetation interface. (FC Appendix II-A)
83.
Prior to issuance of building permits, plans for structural protection from
vegetation fires shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and
approval. The measures shall include, but are not limited to, enclosing eaves,
noncombustible barriers (cement or block walls), and fuel modification zones.
(CFC Appendix II-A)
OTHER AGENCIES
84.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of
Riverside Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated October 2,
1997, a copy of which is attached.
85.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District transmittal dated
November 10, 1997. a copy of which is attached.
86.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho
California Water District's transmittal dated October 1, 1997, a copy of which is
attached.
F:\Depts\PLANNING\T M\97-0307 TPM 28627 Margarita Canyon\307pa97.COA(TPM)Mar 15,2000 (PC MOD).doc
13
87.
88.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in Eastern
Information Center's transmittal dated October 13, 1997, a copy of which is
attached.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations sot forth in the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) transmittal datcd October 20, 1907 and
Dccombcr 8, 1000, copics of which arc attached. (Deleted by the Planning
Commission on March 15, 2000)
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the
above Conditions of Approval. I further understand that the property shall be maintained
in conformance with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to
make to the project shall be subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant Signature
F:\Depts\PLANNING\T M\97-0307 TPM 28627 Margarita Canyon\307pa97.COA(TPM)Mar 15,2000 (PC MOD),doc
14
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
MARCH 15, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307pa97.AppeaI.CC.doc
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
0/?/8//V4
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
March 15, 2000
Planning Application PA 97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627) - Margadta Canyon,
located adjacent to Interstate 15, southwest of the intersection of Old Town Front Street
and Highway 79 (S)/Westem Bypass Corridor
Prepared By:
John De Gange, Project Planner
Recommendation:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA97-0307 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
NO. 28627), A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 37 ACRE
PARCEL INTO 11 COMMERCIAL LOTS AND ONE OPEN
SPACE LOT LOCATED ADJACENT TO INTERSTATE 15,
SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF OLD TOWN
FRONT STREET AND HIGHWAY 79 (S) I WESTERN
BYPASS CORRIDOR (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER
922-210-047).
ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning
Application No. PA97-0307(Tentative Parcel Map 28627); and
ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627).
BACKGROUND
At the February 16, 2000 meeting the Planning Commission continued this item to this date at the
applicanrs request. Just prior to the wdting of this report, the applicants, their representatives and staff
met to go over the conditions which were of concern to the applicant.
R:Xstaffrpt\307pa97pcm~m4.doc
The current map and associated conditions of approval are a modification to what has been brought
forward to the Planning Commission at previous meetings. Below is a summary of the modifications
that have been made to the map and the conditions that are being proposed to address staffs concems
relative to the applicant's proposed access into the site and the associated traffic impacts:
· The map includes the Not-A-Part parcel at the southwest comer of the Western Bypass
Corridor and the proposed extension of Old Town Front Street.
The map will be developed in two phases. The properties fronting the Western Bypass
Corridor (Lots 1 and 12) are considered Phase I, and all the remaining parcels are Phase
II. Development of the lots in Phase II shall not be allowed for a minimum of one year and
the development of acceptable traffic flow standards. Within this one-year period the
applicant and the City shall work to establish a Development Agreement. The Development
Agreement will apply the conditions under which the lots in Phase II will be developed and
will address any right-of-way needs with respect to any future interchange improvements.
Though the applicant's proposed access point will initially be allowed, the applicant will
provide an access easement approximately 250 feet south of the location of applicant's
proposed access. This easement would become the access road into the project site if
traffic impacts at this intersection warrant it at some future time when the site is developed.
Traffic thresholds will be developed for traffic impacts that all future Phase II projects will be
reviewed against. If the traffic generated by the proposed projects in Phase II exceeds the
aggregate thresholds, that particular scope of development will be prohibited.
Staff feels that the map as currently proposed in conjunction with the conditions of approval that have
been developed, addresses the concerns associated with the proposed location of the applicant's
access. A detailed analysis of the revised map will be presented at the meeting.
Attachments:
1. PC Resolution No. - - Blue Page 3
2. Conditions of Approval for TPM 28627 - Blue Page 6
3. Staff Report (From 2-16-2000 PC Meeting) - Blue Page 18
4. Staff Report (From 12-8-1999 PC Meeting) - Blue Page 19
5. Staff Report (Cover Memo from 11-3-1999 PC Meeting) - Blue Page 20
6. Staff Report (From 10-20-1999 PC Meeting) - Blue Page 21
R:~staffrpt~307pa97pcmgm4.doc
2
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 00~
R:\a~ffq}t~07pa97pcm=m4.doc
3
PC RESOLUTION NO. 00-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-
0307 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 28627), A REQUEST TO
SUBDIVIDE A 37 ACRE PARCEL INTO 11 COMMERCIAL LOTS
AND ONE OPEN SPACE LOT LOCATED ADJACENT TO
INTERSTATE 15, SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF OLD
TOWN FRONT STREET AND HIGHWAY 79 (S)/ WESTERN
BYPASS CORRIDOR (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 922-210-
047)
WHEREAS, Margarita Canyon, LLC filed Planning Application No. PA97-0307 in accordance
with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0307 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. PA97-0307 on
October 20, 1999, November 17, 1999, December 8, 1999, February 16, 2000 and March 15, 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, at the conclusion of the Commission hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA97-0307;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES
RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
reference.
That the above recitations are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by
Section 2. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission, in approving Planning
Application No. PA97-0307, hereby makes the following findings as required in the City's Subdivision
Ordinance:
A. The proposed land division based on the design or improvement of the project and as
cenditjoned by the Conditions of Approval contained in this report is compatible with the General Plan.
The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The project is consistent with the
Ger~erel Plan Land Use designation Highway / Tourist.
B. 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 and Development Code. 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.
C. As conditioned, the design of the proposed land division or 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 land division. The map proposes access to take access from the future Western Bypass
Corridor and will not obstruct any easements.
R:\staffrpt\307pa97pcmem4.doc
4
D. As conditioned, the map conforms to the logical development of the site, and is
compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community and access and circulation am adequate
for emergency vehicles. The project has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer, Public Works
Department and Fire Departments. These departments have conditioned the map to ensure public
health, safety and welfare.
E. As conditioned, the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are
not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat. Though the site contains a small area of Riversidian Sage Scrub, a plant
association that the California Gnatcatcher is known to inhabit, a biology study for the site indicates that
none of these animals inhabit the site. In addition, mitigation measures that mitigate any potential
impacts to wildlife and habitat have been included within the design of the project and am included within
the mitigation monitoring program for the project. These mitigation measures address all impacts
assodated with the development of the site and the potential impacts development of the site will have
on wildlife or habitat off-site.
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 granted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby conditionally
approves Planning Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28627) a request to subdivide
a 37 acre parcel into 11 commercial lots and one open space lot located adjacent to Interstate 15,
southwest of the intersection of Old Town Front Street and Highway 79 (S)/ Western Bypass Corridor
(Assessor~s Parcel Number 922-210-047),subject to the project specific conditions set forth on Exhibit
A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this fifteenth day of March, 2000.
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 fifteenth day of March,
2000 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANN!~';G COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\staffrpt\307pa97pcmcra4.doc
5
EXHIBITA
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA97-0307 - Tentative Parcel Map No. 28627
Project Description:
The subdivision of a 37-acre parcel into 11 commercial lots
and one open space lot
Assessor's Parcel No,:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
922-210-047
March 15, 2000
March 15, 2003
PLANNING DIVISION
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division a
cashiers 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 Dollar ($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 applicant has not delivered to the Community
Development Department - Planning Division the check as required above, the approval for the
project granted shall be void by reason of such failure of to satisfy this 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 the City's Subdivision Ordinance, unless modified by the conditions listed
below. A time extension may be approved in accordance with the State Map Act and City
Ordinance, upon written request, if made 30 days pdor to the expiration date.
The applicant and owner of the real prepere/subject to this condition shall hereby agree to
indemnify, 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, officars, employees, consultants, contractors,
legal counsel, and agents from any and all claims, actions, awards, judgments, 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
notify 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 defense.
The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation
Monitoring Program.
R:\staffrpt\307pa97pcm¢m4.doc
7
5. The applicant and the City shall immediately undertake the preparation of the following:
Preparation of overall traffic thresholds based upon the goal of ensuring that the
aggregate development of the parcels within Phase II of Tentative Parcel Map 28627
is done at a density and intensity of square foot development and provided that the
aggregate for all lots in Phase II does not exceed the safe level of traffic flow as
determined jointly by the Director of Public Works and by the applicant's traffic engineer
of generally accepted professional traffic engineering standards.
ii)
Preparation of a mutually acceptable Development Agreement, as such is defined in
California Government Code Section 65864 that serves to implement the traffic
thresholds set forth in subsection (i) above. The Development Agreement shall include
other terms necessary and desirable, including but not limited to the City's agreement
to use its best efforts to expedite the Project Study Report (PSR) being prepared for the
California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) in regard to freeway related
improvements.
In the event the applicant and the City are unable to process the Development
Agreement or the development agreement is not adopted by the parties, the physical
development of the parcels in Phase II shall be subject to and regulated by the traffic
thresholds established in Subsection (i) hereinabove. No development of the parcels
in Phase II shall occur, notwithstanding any condition to the contrary, until the traffic
thresholds identified in Subsection (i) above are appreved jointly by the Director of
Public Works and the applicant's traffic engineer.
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
6. 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 appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by providing
documented evidence that the fees have already been paid.
The applicant shall receive approval for the purchase of off-site property from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game, and submit a mitigation plan
to the Planning Department which details how the applicant has set aside sensitive areas and
has met the requirements of the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service and the Califomia Department
of Fish and Game for the off-site mitigation of off-site property to compensate for the taking of
the Riversidian Sage Scrub on site, if required.
Develeoment of the site shall preserve the entire amount of Riparian Woodlands on site. No
grading or clearing shall occur in this area. Development of the site shall be designed so that
all utility extensions are underground and that graded surface water run off and spillage drains
away from Murrieta and Temecula Creeks. This area shall be fenced off pdor to any grading
activities to prevent any disturbances to wetland or vegetation areas. The project will be
conditioned to re-vegetate all graded and disturbed areas near the channels with native tree and
plant species. The applicant shall prepare a Biological Mitigation Plan to ensure project
compliance with the mitigation monitoring program.
10.
At the time of the submittal of a development proposal or the submittal of a grading plan for the
project site the applicant shall submit a biological survey at the appropriate time of the year to
determine if the California Gnatcatcher, the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly or any other
endangered or threatened species inhabit the site. This biological survey shall propose
appropriate mitigation for development of the site. This biological survey shall be submitted to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Califomia Department of Fish and Game for review
and approval. The applicant shall prepare a Biological Mitigation Plan to ensure project
compliance with the mitigation monitoring program.
R:\~taffrpfi307pa97pcmcm4.doc
11.
The applicant shall obtain a 404 Permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and a 1603
Streambed Alteration Permit from the California Department of Fish and Game, if required. The
applicant shall prepare a Biological Mitigation Plan to ensure project compliance with the
mitigation monitoring program.
12.
When future development is proposed on the site a Phase II archaeological study shall be
conducted. This study shall establish appropriate mitigation to address any significant impacts
that may occur.
Prior to Recordation of the Final Map
13. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division:
a. A copy of the Final Map.
b. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes:
1)
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.
2) This project is within the 100-year floodplain.
3) This project is within a dam inundation area.
4) This project is within a Liquifaction Zone.
5) This project is within a Subsidence Zone.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
14.
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however
solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning Director
approval.
Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits
15.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed by
this permit.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
16,
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
17.
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. The tentative
map shall show the location of all fight-of-way corridors as specified within these conditions of
approval.
18. 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.
R:\slaffrpt\307pa97pcmera4.doc
9
19. An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the Department of Public Works pdor to
commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed City fight-of-way.
20.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the California Department of Transportation
prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed State right-of-way.
21.
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.
22.
The Developer shall provide the required street improvements as directed by the Director of
Public Works as part of the phased map.
23.
The map may be phased in two phases. Phase I to include Parcels I and 12 and Phase II to
include Parcels 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.
24.
Prior to approval of Phase II or any subsequent phases, the Developer shall submit a Traffic
Study to determine the Level of Service (LOS) of impacted intersections. The LOS should be
"D", peak hour or better as determined by the Director of Public Works before any further maps
are approved.
Prior to Approval of the Parcel 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:
25.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written
clearance from the following agencies:
San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
Rancho California Water District
Eastern Municipal Water District
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau
Planning Department
Department of Public Works
Riverside County Health Department
Cable TV Franchise
Community Services Distdct
General Telephone
Southern California Edison Company
Southern California Gas Company
California Fish & Game
Army Corps of Engineers
Caltrans clearance shall only be required to demonstrate the satisfaction of any condition or
conditions that the City of Temecula imposes on the planning application pursuant to this
Resolution No. that are within the jurisdiction of Caltrans.
26.
The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula standards
unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Department of Public
Works:
a. Improve Westem Bypass Corridor (Major Highway Standards modified to 88' R/W) to
include dedication of full width street fight-of-way within underlying properties induding
the remainder section to the north of Western Bypass Corridor, 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).
R:\stafftnpt~307pa97pcn~m4.doc
10
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
Improve Front Street (Principal Collector Highway Standards - 78' R/W) to include
dedication of full width street right-of-way, installation of full width street improvements,
paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, drainage facilities, signing and striping,
utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer).
The Public Works Director may require, and the Developer shall promptly construct to
the spedfications imposed by the City, an additional twenty four (24) foot wide Roadway
at the point located approximately 250 feet west of the currently proposed extension of
Front Street. The Public Works Director shall, in writing, direct the Developer to
commence the construction of the Roadway only upon his determination that the traffic
use arising from the physical improvements of parcels I and 12 of Parcel Map 28627
exceed the traffic thresholds established pursuant to Condition No. 5 of this Resolution
No.
The Developer shall submit an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for Roadway and Utility Purposes
along Western Bypass Corridor for an additional 12 feet above and beyond the proposed 88 feet
dedication. The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works
and City Attorney.
The Developer shall submit an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for Roadway and Utility Purposes
along westerly proposed property boundary for adequate right-of-way to construct freeway
access ramps across the site. The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of the
Director of Public Works and City Attorney.
The Developer shall submit an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication for Roadway and Utility Purposes
along Front Street for an additional 24 feet above and beyond the proposed 78 feet dedication.
The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Public Works and City
Attorney.
All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement transitions per
Caltrans' standards for transition to existing street sections.
Relinquish and waive right of access from Westem Bypass Corddor on the Parcel Map other
than the one access which shall be restricted to right in-dght out only.
Relinquish and waive right of access to and from State Route 79 South on the Parcel Map.
The Developer shall conduct a warrant analysis for the signal at the intersection of Western
Bypass Corridor/State Route 79 South and Front Street.
The Developer shall modify the said signal accordingly.
Unless otherwise approved the following minimum chteda shall be observed in the design of
the street improvement plans:
Street centedine grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00% minimum over
A.C. paving.
b. Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard Nos. 207, 207A and/or 208.
Street lights shall be installed along the public streets and shall be designed in
accordance with Ordinance No. 461.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos. 400 and
401.
R:\staffrpt\307pa97pcmgra4 .doc
11
b. Design of street improvements shall extend a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project
boundaries to ensure adequate continuity of design with adjoining properties.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
c. Minimum centedine radii shall be in accordance with City Standard No. 113.
d. All reverse curves shall include a 100-foot minimum tangent section.
e. All street and driveway centedine intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
Landscaping shall be limited in the comer cut-off area of all intersections and adjacent
to driveways to provide for minimum sight distance and visibility.
All concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed through
curb outlets per City Standard No. 301.
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.
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.
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.
All easements and/or right-of-way dedications shall be offered for dedication to the public or
other appropriate agency and shall continue in forco until the City accepts or abandons such
offers. All dedications shall be free from all encumbrances as approved by the Department of
Public Works.
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 Parcel Map, the Developer shall make an application for
reapportionment of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency.
Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid.
An Environmental Constraints Shect (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the Parcel 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:
The delineation of the area within the 100-year floodplain.
Special Study Zones.
Geotechnical hazards identified in the project's geotechnical report.
Archeological resources found on the site.
The Developer shall comply with all constraints which may be shown upon an Environmental
Constraints Sheet recorded with any underlying maps related to the subject property.
R:\s~affrpt\307pa97pcraera4.doc
12
43.
A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic
calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District for approval prior to recordation of the Parcel Map or the issuance of any permit. A
permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District is required for work
within their right-of-way.
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.
45.
The Developer shall notify the City's cable 'T'V Franchises of the intent to Develop. Conduit shall
be installed to cable TV Standards at time of street improvements.
Bus bays will be provided at all existing and future bus stops as determined by the Department
of Public Works.
47.
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be delineated and
noted on the Parcel Map.
48.
Easements for joint use driveways shall be provided prior to approval of the Parcol Map or
issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
49.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage facilities,
utilities, etc., shall be shown on the Parcel Map if they are located within the land division
boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for review and recorded
as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage facilities located outside of
road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements and shown on the Parcel Map.
A note shall be added to the Parcel Map stating "drainage easements shall be kept free of
buildings and obstructions."
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
50.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive written
clearance from the following agendes:
· San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
· Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation Distdct
· Planning Department
· Department of Public Works
· Riverside County Health Department
· Community Services District
· General Telephone
· Southern California Edison Company
· Southern California Gas Company
· Caltrans clearance shall only be required to demonstrate the satisfaction of any condition or
conditions that the City of Temecula imposes on the planning application pursuant to this
Resolution No. that are within the jurisdiction of Caltrans.
51.
A Grading Plan shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer in accordance with City of
Temecula standards and appreved 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.
R:\ataffqDt~307pa97pcmcm4.doc
52.
53.
55.
57.
58.
59.
60.
A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall address all soils
conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the construction of engineered
structures and preliminary pavement sections,
A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering geologist and
submitted to the Department of public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address spedal study zones and identify any geotechnical hazards for the site including location
of faults and potential for liquefaction. The report shall include recommendations to mitigate the
impact of ground shaking and liquefaction.
Provisions to mitigate drainage and the storm drain improvements as shown on Tentative Parcel
Map 28627 are conceptual and may require modification. The design of the storm drain system
will be determined upon review and approval of the grading and storm drain improvement plans.
A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the
Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The study shall identify storm
water runoff quantities expected from the development of this site and upstream of the site. It
shall identify all existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public or pdvate, drainage facilities
intended to discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of
receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or pdvate property. The study shall
include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all fadlities. Any upgrading or upsizing of
drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be provided as part of
development of this project. The basis for analysis and design shall be a storm with a
recurrence interval of one hundred years.
This development must comply with the requirements of the National Pollufant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control Board and
Ordinance No. 99-10. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice of Intent (NOI) has
been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. Direct discharge of runoff from the site into
Murrieta Creek is prohibited and urban pollutants shall be mitigated as approved by the
Department of Public Works.
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.
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 cashiers check or money order,
pdor 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.
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.
The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps as Flood Zone "A" and is
subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans, the Developer
shall demonstrate that the project complies with Chapter 15.12 of the Temecula Municipal Code
for development within Flood Zone "A". A Flood Plain Development Permit is required pdor to
issuance of any permit. Commercial subdivisions may obtain a LOMR at their discretion.
A Flood Plain Development Permit and Flood Study shall be submitted to the Department of
Public Works for review and approval, The flood study shall be in a format acceptable to the
Department and include, but not be limited to, the following criteria:
R:\ataffrpt\307pa97pcmem4.doc
Drainage and flood protection facilities which will protect all structures by diverting site
runoff to streets or approved storm drain facilities.
Adequate provision shall be made for the acceptance and disposal of surface drainage
entering the property from adjacent areas,
The impact to the site from any flood zone as shown on the FEMA flood hazard map and
any necessary mitigation to protect the site,
Identify and mitigate impacts of grading to any adjacent floodway.
The location of existing and post development 100-year floodplain and floodway shall
be shown on the improvement plan.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
61.
Parcel Map 28627 shall be approved and recorded; except that Parcel 12, which is existing Lot
11, MB 15 15/726, San Diego County Records, may proceed subject to the conditions of
approval of the development application for that lot regardless of whether PM 28627 has been
recorded at the time building permits are sought for the project.
62.
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.
63.
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform 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.
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
65.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive wdtten
clearance from the following agencies:
· Rancho California Water District
· Eastem Municipal Water Distdct
· Department of Public Works
66.
All necessary certificat;ons and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public agencies
shall be submitted as required by the Depadment of Public Works.
67.
All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approvod plans and City standards
to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
68.
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.
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
Prior to the Issuance of s Building Permit
69.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School Distdct shall be submitted to the
Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation fees.
R:\staffrpt\307pa97pcmem4.doc
FIRE DEPARTMENT
70.
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 reiatad codes which are in force at the
time of building plan submittal.
71.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for commercial land division
per CFC Appendix Ill-A, Table A-Ill-A-1. The developer shall provide for this project, a water
system capable of delivering 4000 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating pressure with a 4 hour
duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval process to reflect changes
in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection measures as approved by the Fire
Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has taken into account all information as
provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A)
72.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC Appendix
Ill-B, Table A-ill-B-1. Super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be located on Fire
Depadment access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shaft be spaced at 350 feet
apad and shall be located no more than 210 feet from any point on the street or Fire Department
access read(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)
73.
Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul-de-
sac shall be forty-five (45) feet. (CFC 902.2.2.3)
74.
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)
75.
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)
76.
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 podion
of an extedor wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all weather
surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVVV with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet. ( CFC sec 902)
77.
Fire Department vehicJe access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than twenty-
four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance ef not less than thirteen (13) feet six (6)
inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1)
78.
Pdor to building construction, dead end road 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)
79.
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, sparing 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)
R:\staffrpt\307pa97pcmem4.doe
80.
Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy or building final, "Blue Reflective Markers" shall
be installed to identity fire hydrant locations. (CFC 901.4.3)
81.
All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates obstructing
Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry system for
emergency access by firefighting personnel. (CFC 902.4)
Special Conditions
82.
Prior to issuance of building permits, fuel modification plans shall be submitted to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for review and approval for all open space areas adjacent to the wildland-
vegetation interface. (FC Appendix II-A)
83.
Prior to issuance of building permits, plans for structural protection from vegetation fires shall
be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval. The measures shall
include, but are not limited to, enclosing eaves, noncombustible ban'iers (cement or block walls),
and fuel modification zones. (CFC Appendix II-A)
OTHER AGENCIES
84.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside
Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated October 2, 1997, a copy of which is
attached.
85.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County Flood
Control and Water Conservation Distdct trsnsmittal dated November 10, 1997, a copy of which
is attached.
86.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Rancho Califomia Water
District's transmittal dated October 1, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
87.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in Eastern Information Centers
transmittal dated October 13, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
88.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Califomia Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) transmittal dated October 20, 1997, 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 Signature
R:\slaffnpt\307pa97pcmem4.doc
17
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
FEBRUARY 16, 2000 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
F:\DEPTS\PLANNINGXSTAFFRPT\307pa97.Appeal ,CC.doc
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning Commission
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
February 16, 2000
Planning Application PA 97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627) ~ Margarita Canyon,
located adjacent to Interstate 15, southwest of the intersection of Old Town Front
Street and Highway 79 (S)/ Western Bypass Corridor
Prepared By:
Recommendation:
John De Gange, Project Planner
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
1. ADOPT a Resolution entitled:
PC RESOLUTION NO. 2000-__
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING
APPLICATION NO. PA97-0307 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP
NO. 28627), A REQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE A 37 ACRE
PARCEL INTO 11 COMMERCIAL LOTS AND ONE OPEN
SPACE LOT LOCATED ADJACENT TO INTERSTATE 15,
SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF OLD TOWN
FRONT STREET AND HIGHWAY 79 (S) / WESTERN
BYPASS CORRIDOR (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER
922-210-047).
ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning
Application No. PA97-0307(Tentative Parcel Map 28627);
and
ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627).
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFP, FI'\307pa97pCmem3 .doc
ANALYSIS
At the January 19, 2000 meeting the Planning Commission continued this item to this date because
at that time the issues pertaining to the location of the proposed access into the site were still
unresolved. During the time between the last meeting and this meeting staff and the applicant met
and conceptually agreed on how the project could be revised to address staff's concerns relative
to the spacing of their proposed access. Listed below are the items which the applicant and staff
conceptually agreed upon:
· The map will is to be revised to include the not-a-paRd parcel at the southwest corner of
the Western Bypass Corridor and the proposed extension of Old Town Front Street.
Though the applicant's proposed access point will initially be allowed, the applicant will
provide an access easement approximately 250 feet south of the location of applicanrs
proposed access. This easement would become the access into the project site if traffic
impacts at this intersection warrant it at some future time when the site is developed.
Staff wilt develop a threshold for traffic impacts that all future projects will be reviewed
against. If the traffic generated by any proposed projects exceed these thresholds
development will be prohibited.
The map will be developed in phases. The properties fronting the Western Bypass
Corridor will be considered phase I and all the remaining parcels will be phase II.
Development of the lots in Phase II shall not be allowed for a minimum of one year.
Within one year of the approval of this map, a development agreement will be reached.
The development agreement will outline the conditions under which the lots in Phase II
will be developed and will address any finalized plans with respect to the future
interchange improvements.
Just prior to the writing of this report, the applicant submitted a revised map. The revisions to this
map include the inclusion the parcel at the southwest corner of the Western Bypass Corridor and
the proposed extension of Old Town Front Street that was previously designated as Not-A-PaRd on
this map, an indication that the project will be developed in two phases with the parcels fronting the
Western Bypass Corridor being Phase I and the remaining parcel as Phase II, and the placement
of and access easement 250 feet west of the applicant's proposed access point.
Staff feels that the applicant's proposal, in concept, will address the concerns associated with the
proposed location of the applicant's access and as a consequence is in the process of drafting
additional conditions of approval and modifying others. A detailed analysis of the revised map and
including a resolution and revised conditions will be prepared and presented at the meeting.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307pa97pcmem3.doc
2
A'I'I'ACHMENT NO. 4
DECEMBER 8, 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307pa97 .Appeal. CC .doc
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
December 8, 1999
Planning Application No. PA97-0307
(Tentative Parcel Map 28627)
Prepared By: John De Gange, Project Planner and All Moghadam, Senior Engineer
RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
ADOPT the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Planning
Application No. PA97-0307(Tentative Parcel Map 28627);
ADOPT the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Planning
Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627);
and
ADOPT Resolution No. 99- approving Planning
Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627)
based upon the Analysis and Findings contained in the Staff
Report, public testimony received at the public hearing, and
subject to the attached Conditions of Approval.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT:
Margarita Canyon LLC
REPRESENTATIVE:
Lohr & Associates/Markham and Associates
PROPOSAL:
To subdivide an approximately 37 acre pamel into 10 commemial lots
and one open space lot (TPM 28627).
LOCATION:
Adjacent to Interstate 15, southwest of the intersection of Old Town
Front Street and Highway 79 (S)/ Western Bypass Corridor
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
HTC (Highway/Tourist Commercial)/OS (Open Space)
EXISTING ZONING:
HT (Highway/Tourist Commercial)/OS-C (Conservation)
SURROUNDING ZONING:
North: HT (Highway/Tourist Commercial)
South: OS-C (Conservation)/HR (Hillside Residential)
East: Interstate 15
West: OS-C (Conservation)/HR (Hillside Residential)
EXISTING LAND USE: Vacant
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRFF\307PA97.PC2.doC
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
North: Gas Station/Mini-Mart
South: Vacant
East: 1-15, commercial retail center, apartments, single-family
residences
West: Vacant
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Acreage for the Project (Gross)
Total Acreage for the Project (Net)
Number of Lots
Number of Open Space Lots
Average Lot Size (gross)
Average Lot Size (net)
Minimum Lot Size
36.8 acres
12.61 acres
10
1 (10.48 acres )
2.46 acres
1.26 acres
1.04 acres (gross)
0.51 acres (net)
BACKGROUND
An application for this project was formally submitted on September 8, 1997. A Development
Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on October 9, 1997, with written comments being
provided shortly after. At the applicant's request, this project originally went before the Planning
Commission on October 20, 1999 despite the fact that staff had not yet deemed the application
complete due to outstanding, unresolved traffic issues. As a consequence, at the October 20th
meeting, staff's recommendation was for denial and that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be
prepared. At this meeting, the item was continued to November 3, 1999, at the applicant's request.
At the November 3rd meeting, the Planning Commission granted staff's request to continue the
project in order provide staff time to consider options which potentially could mitigate the traffic
concerns which resulted in staff recommending denial and that an EIR be prepared. Since that
time, staff has evaluated various site access alternatives and has prepared a condition of approval
that will mitigate traffic impacts created by the applicant's proposal. Consequently, this report
presents analysis, findings and conditions which would allow staff to recommend approval of this
project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project is a subdivision of approximately 37 acres into ten commercial lots and one open
space lot. The site is located adjacent to Interstate 15 to the east, Murrieta Creek to the west and
Temecula Creek to the south. The applicant is proposing to extend Old Town Front Street from
its current intersection with the future Western Bypass Corridor into the project site ultimately
terminating in a cul-de-sac. As proposed. all the lots for development will front and take access
from the extension of Old Town Front Street.
The project proposes ten commercial lots ranging in size from 1.04 to 11.29 gross acres (0.51 to
4.64 net acres). Lots 7,8,9 and 10 all have significant areas which are within the 100-year
Floodway (Zone AE) and these areas are being excluded from development. The open space lot
which comprises 10.48 acres consists mainly of the Murrieta and Temecula Creek Channels. The
applicant is proposing to keep this area as open space in perpetuity with the future possibility that
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC2.doc
2
ownership can be transferred over to an appropriate agency or can be used for a mitigation land
bank.
ANALYSIS
Traffic Issues
The development of the project, as proposed by the applicant, is expected to cause a substantial
increase to traffic volumes on State Route 79 South/Western Bypass between Old Town Front
Street and the interstate 15 (I-15) interchange. Although the applicant's traffic study and
subsequent revisions prepared by the applicant's traffic consultant (Robert Kahn, John Kain and
Associates Inc.) indicates acceptable interim operating conditions, it is staffs opinion that the
proposed location of the project's access will adversely impact traffic flows in the vicinity of the
project, the Interstate 15/State Route 79 interchange and Old Town Front Street. Congestion and
difficult vehicular movements will occur at intersections within the project's vicinity due to
substandard intersection spacing (160 feet) between the 1-15 Southbound Ramp and Old Town
Front Street, and the traffic volumes generated by the proposed project (7,909 ADT).
Another concern is that the increased traffic volumes and the inadequate spacing between the I-15
ramps and the project access will increase conflicting vehicular movements. Because of the short
distance between intersections and the projected heavy left-turn movements into the project, I-15
southbound vehicles wishing to access the site will be forced into hazardous merging situations.
This situation will also cause the traffic to back-up on the I-15 southbound ramp while vehicles wait
to get an opportunity to enter the left-turn pocket in order to access the site. The anticipated heavy
leff-tum movement into the site (351 vehicles during p.m. peak hour) and lack of adequate storage,
will also cause gridlock at the 1-15 southbound ramp signal.
Problems related to safety, queuing, merging and weaving are of serious concern to both the City
and to Caltrans, which is responsible for the interchange and its signals. Because of safety and
traffic flow issues, Caltrans now specifies that new signals are to be located a minimum of 410 feet
from freeway ramp signals, with a preferred spacing of 525 feet. The many existing examples of
signals spaced much more closely to interchanges illustrate that even where operations have been
optimized as much as possible, acceptable traffic operation is rarely maintained during peak hours,
particularly as traffic volumes increase. The proposed project access is not directly subject to
Caltrans regulations; most significantly, Caltrans policy does not govern its placement because the
intersection is outside of Caltrans' right-of-way. Rather, Caltrans policy serves as a statewide
industry standard for proper practice and design. In the case of a signal in such close proximity to
adjacent signals, the provision of space for queuing and to serve a variety of traffic movements is
critical. Although in this case the traffic signal cannot be relocated, the project's access driveway
to the site can be relocated to the west in order to reduce its impact to the nearby traffic signals.
The weaving and merging movement required for motorists exiting from southbound 1-15 and
accessing the new development would be difficult, and at times, impossible. Drivers performing
this traffic movement will be required to turn right from the ramp; merge and weave across at least
two lanes of traffic; enter the westbound left turn lane at the development intersection; and, most
frequently, come to a stop while awaiting the opportunity to make their left turn. This maneuver
would have to be safely completed in a distance significantly less than the 160 feet between
intersections. With the likelihood of forced lane changes and rapid acceleration/deceleration within
the traffic stream, it is staffs opinion that this movement will greatly compromise safety and hamper
the flow of through traffic. Coupled with queued traffic between the interchange and the proposed
access location, the weaving movement is even more cumbersome and disruptive to traffic flow.
This operation will continually deteriorate with the significant increase in traffic volume forecasted
within the City's General Plan. Queues extending through upstream intersections create significant
F:\DEFFS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\30?PA97.PC2.doc
3
traffic problems. The resulting gridlock is disruptive to turning movements and cross-street flow,
and may impact motorist and pedestrian safety.
In summary, the location of the access road at the intersection of SR-79 (S) and Old Town Front
Street (as it is being proposed by the applicant) is contrary to proper engineering practice, and
insufficient spacing from existing signals will result in probtematic queuing and weaving. As a
consequence traffic flow will be disrupted and motorist safety throughout the interchange area will
be reduced.
It should be noted that a traffic signal at the intersection of Old Town Front Street and Highway
79(S), is not needed until the Western Bypass Corridor is constructed. However, the access to the
site as proposed, will necessitate operation of the traffic signal at the intersection of Old Town Front
Street and Highway 79(S) which is 160 feet west of the 1-15 southbound off-ramp. For reference,
the spacing between the intersections of Front Street/Jefferson Avenue and I-15 southbound ramp
is approximately 600 feet on Rancho California Road and 400 feet on Winchester Road.
Caltrans and the City have requested that the applicant investigate the feasibility of moving their
access westerly to reduce the project's impacts to less than significant, but the applicant has
refused. Because the only remaining environmental concern is the project's access and the
resulting impacts to the intersection operations, staff proposes that the project be approved
conditionally with a condition requiring that the project be redesigned so that the access is
relocated westerly a minimum of 250 feet from the intersection of Old Town Front Street.
Staff recognizes that the relocation of the project's access westerly approximately 250 creates a
less than ideal situation. New challenges, such as offset access points and back to back left-turn
pockets between Old Town Front Street and the access point into the site are introduced. Moving
the access point westerly; however, reduces Caltrans' and staffs concerns related to merging,
intersection level of service and safety. Staff feels that the shortcomings associated with this
proposal are far less impactive to the operation of the southbound ramp signal and overall traffic
flow in the vicinity of the interchange, because by relocating the access to the west, a greater
distance is provided for the vehicles from the southbound off ramp to merge and weave to the
westbound left-turn lanes into the site. The additional spacing between the ramp signal and the
project's access, will improve safety and the operational capacity of Highway 79(S) by minimizing
grid locks and backing up the traffic on the 1-15 southbound ramp. It should also be noted that
when the Western Bypass corridor is ultimately constructed, the access to the site could be
modified to provide for more efficient and safer circulation.
Map Reconfiquretion
Staffs concerns relative to the proposed location of the project's access and the resulting traffic
impacts, has necessitated the addition of proposed conditions of approval which require the
applicant to redesign the project with the access relocated a minimum of 250 west of the current
proposed access point. Because these conditions require the redesign of the map, a number of
specific criteria have been included to insure that the project will still be in compliance with the
City's General Plan and Development Code, and it will not create any new environmental impacts.
These criteria which are contained within the conditions of approval include:
1)
2)
3)
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC2 .doc
A revised map must be submitted to Public Works and Planning staff for approval
prior to final recordation of the map.
The redesigned map shall have the same number of lots and the same amount of
net developable acreage as was being proposed in the original map.
The redesigned map shall comply with all standards and requirements specified in
the Development Code.
4)
The redesign of map shall not disturb any riparian habitat, and development shall
occur completely outside the floodway.
When the applicant submits the redesigned map, in accordance with these conditions, staff will
review it to insure compliance with all the criteria specified above. Once staff is satisfied that all
these criteria have been met and has approved the map, it will then be moved forward for final
recordation.
Biological Issues
The project site is approximately 37 acres of vacant property which includes portions of the
Murrieta and Temecula Creek Channels. A biological impact report for the project site was
prepared. This report reveals that the ultimate development of the proposed project site will result
in the removal of 30 acres of onsite Non-Native Grassland, the removal of approximately 0.5 acre
of the total Riversidian Sage Scrub onsite, and the preservation of the entire six acres of Riparian
Woodland within the boundaries of the project site.
It has been determined that impacts to biological resources and the loss of this habitat as a result
of this project will not be significant because: 1 ) the 30 acres of non-native grassland which will be
removed is not considered a significant resource; 2) the six acres of Riparian Woodlands will be
preserved; 3) and of the one acre of Riversidian Sage Scrub, 0.5 acres will be preserved on site
and the other 0.5 acres will be mitigated with the purchase of off-site property.
The Riparian Woodlands and jurisdictional wetlands will be preserved with the exception of 0.07
acres of area associated with a small unnamed drainage channel which bisects the site and flows
into Murdeta Creek as identified within a Wetlands Delineation study for the project site conducted
by LSA Associates. For this small area, the applicant will be required to mitigate through obtaining
a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to the Federal Clean Water
Act and a Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Permit from the California Department of Fish and
Game.
The project site contains significant biological resources and the proposed project has the potential
to impact these biological resources. However, these impacts will not be significant if the mitigation
measures described above and appropriate conditions of approval for this project are implemented.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study was prepared for this project and distributed on October 1, 1999. Findings within
this initial study indicated that the project, as the applicant is proposing it, would have a potentially
significant impact on the environment. This finding was based on the fact that the project will
significantly increase traffic volumes, which coupled with the fact that there is substandard and
limited spacing between the intersection of Old Town Front Street (where the applicant proposes
the project will take access) and the I-15 southbound ramp signal, congestion and unsafe vehicular
movements will result and hazardous merging situations will be created. As a consequence, staff
originally recommended that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be required for the project.
Since that time, staff has analyzed various alternative locations for the project's access and has
come to the conclusion that if the access point into the site is relocated approximately 250 feet west
of its current proposed location, the impacts associated with the limited spacing between
intersections and the resulting unsafe vehicular movements and the hazardous merging situations,
can be largely mitigated. Therefore, staff is proposing a condition of approval requiring that the
access into the site be relocated approximately 250 feet to the west. It is staffs opinion that if this
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC2.dOC
5
condition is included and implemented, the concerns relating to the above discussed traffic impacts
can be mitigated to a level of insignificance and staff would recommend that the Planning
Commission adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. If this condition is not included,
it is staff's opinion that the traffic impacts are not adequately mitigated and that this project may
have a significant effect on the environment and therefore, it is recommended that an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be required.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The project is consistent with the General Pian's policies and is also consistent with the zoning
standards regarding the HTC district as specified in the Development Code. The project as
proposed by the applicant, however, does not comply with the General Plan Circulation Element
Policy 1.2 which requires an evaluation of potential traffic impacts associated with new
development prior to project approval, and requires adequate mitigation measures prior to, or
concurrent with, project development; and Policy 1.4 which requires new development to pursue
trip reduction and transportation systems management measures to reduce and limit congestion
at intersections and along streets within the City. It is staffs opinion, though, that if the condition
requiring the access into the site to be relocated approximately 250 west of the applicant's
proposed access point is included that the project is in compliance with all components of the
General Plan Circulation Element.
With respect to the applicant's proposal, where location of the access road into the site is only 160
from the intersection of the i-15 on and off ramps and the extension of the future Western Bypass
Corridor, it has been staffs position that although the traffic study and its subsequent revisions
prepared by the applicant's traffic consultant indicate an acceptable interim operation condition, the
project will increase traffic volumes, cause congestion and unsafe vehicular movements, and create
hazardous merging situations. Given these concerns with the applicant's proposal, it would be
staffs recommendation that an EIR be prepared. However, if the project is conditioned to relocate
the project access 250 feet to the west of its current proposed location, staff feels that the traffic
concerns discussed above would be mitigated and that the project could be approved with a
mitigated negative declaration based upon the mitigation measures contained in the mitigation
monitoring program, the analysis and Findings within this staff report, and based on the conditions
of approval prepared for the project.
FINDINGS
Plannin~l Application No. PA97-0307 {Tentative Parcel Map 28627)
The proposed land division based the design or improvement of the project and as
conditioned by the Conditions of Approval contained in this report is compatible with the
General Plan. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The
project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation Highway / Tourist.
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 and Development Code. 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.
As conditioned, the design of the proposed land division or 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 land division. The map proposes access to take access from
the future Western Bypass Corridor and will not obstruct any easements.
F:~DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRFF\307PA97.PC2.doc
6
As conditioned, the map conforms to the logical development of the site, and is compatible
with the health, safety and welfare of the community and access and circulation are
adequate for emergency vehicles. The project has been reviewed by the City's Traffic
Engineer, Public Works Department and Fire Departments. These departments have
conditioned the map to ensure public health, safety and welfare.
As conditioned, the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat. Though the site contains a small area of Riversidian Sage
Scrub, a plant association that the California Gnatcatcher is known to inhabit, a biology
study for the site indicates that none of these animals inhabit the site. In addition, mitigation
measures that mitigate any potential impacts to wildlife and habitat have been included
within the design of the project and are included within the mitigation monitoring program
for the project. These mitigation measures address all impacts associated with the
development of the site and the potential impacts development of the site will have on
wildlife or habitat off-site.
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
PC Resolution - Blue Page 8
Conditions of Approval - Blue Page 12
Initial Study- Blue Page 13
Exhibits - Blue Page 14
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan Map
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307PA97PC2.doc
7
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA APPROVING PLANNING APPLICATION NO.
PA97-0307 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 28627), A REQUEST
TO SUBDIVIDE A 37 ACRE PARCEL INTO 10 COMMERCIAL
LOTS AND ONE OPEN SPACE LOT LOCATED ADJACENT TO
INTERSTATE 15, SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF OLD
TOWN FRONT STREET AND HIGHWAY 79 (S)/ WESTERN
BYPASS CORRIDOR (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 922-210-
047)
WHEREAS, Margarita Canyon, LLC filed Planning Application No. PA97-0307 in
accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan and Development, which the City has adopted
by reference;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0307 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. PA97-0307 on
October 20, 1999, November 17, 1999 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 hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission approved Planning Application No. PA97-0307;
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 Temecuia Planning Commission, in approving Planning
Application No. PA97-0307, hereby makes the following findings as required in Section 7.1 of
County Ordinance No. 460:
A. The proposed land division based the design or improvement of the project and as
conditioned by the Conditions of Approval contained in this report is compatible with the General
Plan. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The project is
consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation Highway / Tourist.
B. 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 and Development Code. 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.
C. As conditioned, the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements
will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of,
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC2.doc
9
property within the proposed land division. The map proposes access to take access from the
future Western Bypass Corridor and will not obstruct any easements.
D. As conditioned, the map conforms to the logical development of the site, and is
compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community and access and circulation are
adequate for emergency vehicles. The project has been reviewed by the City's Traffic Engineer,
Public Works Department and Fire Departments. These departments have conditioned the map
to ensure public health, safety and welfare.
E. As conditioned, the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements
are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure
fish or wildlife or their habitat. Though the site contains a small area of Riversidian Sage Scrub,
a plant association that the California Gnatcatcher is known to inhabit, a biology study for the site
indicates that none of these animals inhabit the site. In addition, mitigation measures that mitigate
any potential impacts to wildlife and habitat have been included within the design of the project and
are included within the mitigation monitoring program for the project. These mitigation measures
address all impacts associated with the development of the site and the potential impacts
development of the site will have on wildlife or habitat off-site.
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 granted.
Section 4. Conditions. That the City of Temecula Planning Commission hereby
conditionally approves Planning Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Tract Map No. 28627) a
request to subdivide a 37 acre parcel into 10 commercial lots and one open space lot located
adjacent to Interstate 15, southwest of the intersection of Old Town Front Street and Highway 79
(S)/ Western Bypass Corridor (Assessor's Parcel Number 922-210-047),subject to the project
specific conditions set forth on Exhibit A, attached hereto, and incorporated herein by this
reference.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC2.doc
Section 5. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this eighth 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 eighth day of
December, 1999 by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
F:\DEPTS\PLANNINGXSTAFFRPT\307PA97.PC2.doc
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF TEMECULA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Planning Application No. PA97-0307 - Tentative Parcel Map No. 28627
Project Description:
Assessor's Parcel No.:
Approval Date:
Expiration Date:
The subdivision of a 37-acre parcel into 10 commercial
lots and one open space lot
922-210-047
December 8, 1999
December 8, 2001
PLANNING DIVISION
Ten Calendar Days Prior to the City Council Hearing
Within Forty-Eight (48) Hours of the Approval of this Project
The applicant shall deliver to the Community Development Department - Planning Division
a cashier's check or money order made payable to the County Clerk in the amount of 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 applicant has not
delivered to the Community Development Department - Planning Division the check as
required above, the approval for the project granted shall be void by reason of such failure
of to satisfy this 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
indemnify, 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, judgemerits, 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 notify 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
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~307pa97.COA(TPM).doc
action the City deems to be in the best interest of the City and its citizens in regards to such
defense.
If subdivision phasing is proposed, a phasincl plan shall be submitted to and approved by
the Planning Manager.
The applicant shall comply with all mitigation measures contained in the approved Mitigation
Monitoring Program.
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 appropriate fee set forth in that ordinance or by
providing documented evidence that the fees have already been paid.
The applicant shall receive approval for the purchase of off-site property from the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game. Submit a mitigation
plan to the Planning Department which details how the applicant has set aside sensitive
areas and has met the requirements of the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service and the California
Dept. of Fish and Game for the off-site purchase of off-site property to compensate for the
taking of the Riversidian Sage Scrub on site.
Development of the site shall preserve the entire amount of Riparian Woodlands on site.
No grading or clearing shall occur in this area. Development of the site shall be designed
so that all utility extensions are underground and that surface water run off and spillage
drains away from Murrieta and Temecula Creeks. This area shall be fenced off prior to any
grading activities to prevent any disturbances to wetland or vegetation areas. The project
will be conditioned to revegetate all graded and disturbed areas near the channels with
native tree and plant species. The applicant shall prepare a Biological Mitigation Plan to
insure project compliance with the mitigation monitoring program.
10.
At the time of the submittal of a development proposal or the submittal of a grading plan for
the project site the applicant shall submit a biological survey at the appropriate time of the
year to determine if the California Gnatcatcher, the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly or any
other endangered or threatened species inhabit the site. This biological survcy shall
propose appropriate mitigation for development of the site. This biological survey shall be
submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and
Game for review and approval. The applicant shall prepare a Biological Mitigation Plan to
insure project compliance with the mitigation monitoring program.
11.
The applicant shall obtain a 404 permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and a 1601
Streambed Alteration Permit from the California Department of Fish and Game. The
applicant shall prepare a Biological Mitigation Plan to insure project compliance with the
mitigation monitoring program.
12.
When future development is proposed on the site a Phase II archaeological study shall be
conducted. This study shall establish appropriate mitigation to address any significant
impacts that may occur.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~307pa97.COA(TPM).dOC
2
Prior to Recordation of the Final Map
13. The following shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division:
a. A copy of the Final Map.
b. A copy of the Environmental Constraint Sheet (ECS) with the following notes:
1)
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.
2) This project is within the 100~year floodplain.
3) This project is within a dam inundation area.
4) This project is within a Liquifaction Zone.
5) This project is within a Subsidence Zone.
c. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's)
1)
CC&R's shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director. The
CC&R's shall include liability insurance and methods of maintaining open
space, recreation areas, parking areas, private roads, exterior of all
buildings and all landscaped and open areas including parkways.
2)
No lot or unit in the development shall be sold unless a corporation,
association, property owner's group or similar entity has been formed with
the right to assess all properties individually owned or jointly owned which
have any rights or interest in the use of the common areas and common
facilities in the development, such assessment power to be sufficient to
meet the expenses of such entity, and with authority to control, and the duty
to maintain, all of said mutually available features of the development. Such
entity shall operate under recorded CC&R's which shall include compulsory
membership of all owners of lots and/or dwelling units and flexibility of
assessments to meet changing costs of maintenance, repairs, and services.
Recorded CC&R's shall permit enforcement by the City for provisions
required as Conditions of Approval. The developer shall submit evidence
of compliance with this requirement to, and receive approval of, the city prior
to making any such sale. This condition shall not apply to land dedicated to
the City for public purposes.
3)
Every owner of a unit or lot shall own as an appurtenance to such unit or lot,
either (1) an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, or (2) a
share in the corporation, or voting membership in an association owning the
common areas and facilities.
4)
In addition to the other provisions described in this section which must be
included in the CC&Rs, the applicant shall also include the following text in
the CC&Rs:
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~307pa97.COA(TPM).dOC
3
Consent of City of Temecula
Condition No. 15.C.1) of the Conditions of Approval of Planning
Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28627)
require the City to review and approve the CC&Rs for the Tract.
Declarant acknowledges that the City has reviewed these CC&Rs
and that its review is limited to a determination of whether the
proposed CC&Rs properly implement the requirements of the
Conditions of Approval for the Tract. The City's consent to these
CC&Rs does not contain or imply any approval of the
appropriateness or legality of the other provisions of the CC&Rs,
including, without limitation, the use restrictions, private easements
and encroachmerits, private maintenance requirements, architecture
and landscape controls, assessments procedures, assessment
enforcement, resolution of disputes or procedural matters.
In the event of a conflict between the Conditions of Approval of the
land use entitlemerits issued by the City for the Tract or federal,
state or local laws, ordinances, and resolutions and these CC&Rs,
the provisions of the Conditions of Approval and federal, state or
local laws, ordinances, and regulations shall prevail, notwithstanding
the language of the CC&Rs.
These CC&Rs shall not be terminated, amended or otherwise
modified without the express written consent of the Planning
Manager of the City of Temecula.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~307pa97.COA(TPM).doc
4
Consent of the City of Temecula
Condition No. 15.C.1) of the Conditions of Approval of Planning
Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28627)
requires the City of Temecula to review and approval the CC&Rs for
the Tract. The City's review of these CC&Rs has been limited to a
determination of whether the proposed CC&Rs properly implement
the requirements of the Conditions of Approval for the Tract. The
City's consent to these CC&Rs does not contain or imply any
approval of the appropriateness or legality of the other provisions of
the CC&Rs, including, without limitation, the use restrictions, private
easements and encroachments, private maintenance requirements,
architecture and landscape controls, assessments, enforcement of
assessments, resolution of disputes or procedural matters. Subject
to the limitations set forth herein, the City consents to the CC&Rs.
Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager
Approved as to Form:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
14.
The proposed Tentative Parcel Map (TPM 28627) shall be redesigned so that the proposed
access road into the site is a minimum of 250 feet west of the intersection of existing Front
Street and Highway 79(S) (the future Western Bypass Corridor). This revised map must
be submitted to Public Works and Planning staff for approval prior to final recordation of the
map. The redesigned map shall have the same number of lots and the same amount of net
developable acreage as was being proposed in the original map. The redesigned map shall
comply with all standards and requirements specified in the Development Code.
Development of the site shall not disturb any riparian habitat and shall occur completely
outside the floodway.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
15,
Roof-mounted mechanical equipment shall not be permitted within the subdivision, however
solar equipment or any other energy saving devices shall be permitted with Planning
Director approval.
Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permits
16.
All of the foregoing conditions shall be complied with prior to occupancy or any use allowed
by this permit.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
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.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRP~307pa97.COA(TPM).doc
5
General Requirements
17,
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.
18.
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.
19.
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.
20.
An Encroachment Permit shall be obtained from the California Department of Transportation
prior to commencement of any construction within an existing or proposed State right-of-
way.
21.
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 mytars.
22.
Tentative Parcel Map 28627 shaft be redesigned to locate the proposed southerly
access road a minimum of 250 feet west of the intersection of existing Front Street
and Highway 79 South. The parcel configuration and alignment of access road shaft
be revised to reflect westerly entrance into the subdivision.
Prior to Approval of the Parcel 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:
23.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
· San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
· Rancho California Water District
· Eastern Municipal Water District
· Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
· City of Temecula Fire Prevention Bureau
· Planning Department
· Department of Public Works
· Riverside County Health Department
· Cable TV Franchise
· Caltrans
· Community Services District
· General Telephone
· Southern California Edison Company
· Southern California Gas Company
· Fish & Game
· Army Corps of Engineers
24. The Developer shall construct the following public improvements to City of Temecula
standards unless otherwise noted. Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the
Department of Public Works:
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~307pa97,COA(TPM).dOC
6
25.
26.
27.
The proposed southerly access road shall be located a minimum of 250 feet
westerly of the centerline of the intersection of existing Front Street and Highway
79 South. The location and alignment of the access road shall be approved by the
Director of Public Works and the Planning Director. Tentative Parcel Map 28627
shall be revised to reflect the realignment of the access road and the revised
parcel configuration.
The Developer shall offer for dedication for street right-of-way the portion of Lot
11, Town of Temecula, Map Book 15, Page 726, San Diego County, lying north
of the southerly of the southerly right-of-way line of the future extension of the
Western Bypass Corridor.
Improve the access road (Principal/Industrial Collector Street Standard No. 103 -
78' RAN) from the future extension of the Western Bypass Corridor including the
section extended along the entire easterly boundary of and within the underlying
lot described as Lot 11, Town of Temecula, Map Book 15, Page 726, San Diego
County, to the terminus of the proposed cul-de-sac 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
and utilities (including but not limited to water and sewer).
All street improvement design shall provide adequate right-of-way and pavement
transitions per Caltrans standards for transition to existing street sections.
Unless otherwise approved the following minimum criteria shall be observed in the
design of the street improvement plans:
Street centerline grades shall be 0.5% minimum over P.C.C. and 1.00%
minimum over A.C. paving.
Driveways shall conform to the applicable City Standard Nos. 207, 207A and/or
208.
Street lights shall be installed along the public streets shall be designed in
accordance with Ordinance No. 461.
Concrete sidewalks shall be constructed in accordance with City Standard Nos.
400 and 401.
Design of street improvements shall extend a minimum of 300 feet beyond the
project boundaries to ensure adequate continuity of design with adjoining
properties.
Minimum centerline radii shall be iq accordance with City Standard No. 113.
All reverse curves shall include a 100-foot minimum tangent section.
All street and driveway centerline intersections shall be at 90 degrees.
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 concentrated drainage directed towards the public street shall be conveyed
through curb outlets per City Standard No. 301.
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.
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.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT%307pa97.COA(TPM),doc
7
28.
Relinquish and waive right of access to and from Western Bypass Corridor and State
Route 79 South on the Parcel Map.
29.
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.
30.
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.
31.
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 Parcel Map, the Developer shall make an
application for reapportionment of any assessments with appropriate regulatory agency.
32. Any delinquent property taxes shall be paid.
33.
An Environmental Constraints Sheet (ECS) shall be prepared in conjunction with the
Parcel 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:
The delineation of the area within the 100~year floodplain.
Special Study Zones.
Geotechnical hazards identified in the project's geotechnical report.
Archeologicat resources found on the site.
34.
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.
35.
The Developer shall provide a development agreement addressing their participation in
the construction of the Western Bypass Corridor. The form of the development
agreement shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City Attorney.
Alternatively, the Developer shall record a written offer to participate in, and wave all
rights to object to the formation of an Assessment District, a Commdnity Facilities
District, or a Bridge and Major Thoroughfare Fee District for the construction of the
proposed "Western Bypass Corridor" or "Medians in accordance with the General Plan".
The form of the offer shall be subject to the approval of the City Engineer and City
Attorney.
36.
A copy of the grading and improvement plans, along with supporting hydrologic and
hydraulic calculations shall be submitted to the Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District for approval prior to recordation of the Parcel Map or the
issuance of any permit. A permit from Riverside County Flood Control and Water
Conservation District is required for work within their right-of-way.
37. All utility systems including gas, electric, telephone, water, sewer, and cable 'IV 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.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRP'R307pa97.COA(TPM).dOC
8
38. 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.
39.
Bus bays will be provided at all existing and future bus stops as determined by the
Department of Public Works.
40.
This development must enter into an agreement with the City for a "Trip Reduction Plan"
in accordance with Ordinance No. 93-01.
41.
Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be required and shall be
delineated and noted on the Parcel Map.
42.
Easements for sidewalks for public uses shall be dedicated to the City where sidewalks
meander through private properly.
43.
Easements for joint use driveways shall be provided prior to approval of the Parcel Map
or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
44.
Easements, when required for roadway slopes, landscape easements, drainage
facilities, utilities, etc., shall be shown on the Parcel Map if they are located within the
land division boundary. All offers of dedication and conveyances shall be submitted for
review and recorded as directed by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage
facilities located outside of mad right-of-way shall be contained within drainage
easements and shown on the Parcel Map. A note shall be added to the Parcel Map
stating "drainage easements shaft be kept free of bufidings and obstructions."
Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits
45.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
· San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
· Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
· Planning Department
· Department of Public Works
· Riverside County Health Department
· Caltrans
· Community Services District
· General Telephone
· Southern California Edison Company
· Southern California Gas Company
46.
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.
47.
A Soils Report shall be prepared by a registered Civil or Soils Engineer and submitted to
the Department of Public Works with the initial grading plan check. The report shall
address all soils conditions of the site, and provide recommendations for the
construction of engineered structures and preliminary pavement sections.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~307pa97.COA(TPM).doc
9
48.
A Geotechnical Report shall be prepared by a registered engineer or engineering
geologist and submitted to the Department of public Works with the initial grading plan
check. The report shall address special study zones and identify any geotechnical
hazards for the site including location of faults and potential for liquefaction. The report
shall include recommendations to mitigate the impact of ground shaking and
liquefaction.
49.
Provisions to mitigate drainage and the storm drain improvements as shown on
Tentative Parcel Map 28627 are conceptual and may require modification. The design
of the storm drain system will be determined upon review and approval of the grading
and storm drain improvement plans. A Drainage Study shall be prepared by a
registered Civil Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works with the
initial grading plan check. The study shall identify storm water runoff quantities
expected from the development of this site and upstream of the site. It shall identify all
existing or proposed off-site or on-site, public or private, drainage facilities intended to
discharge this runoff. Runoff shall be conveyed to an adequate outfall capable of
receiving the storm water runoff without damage to public or private property. The study
shall include a capacity analysis verifying the adequacy of all facilities. Any upgrading or
upsizing of drainage facilities necessary to convey the storm water runoff shall be
provided as part of development of this project. The basis for analysis and design shall
be a storm with a recurrence interval of one hundred years.
50.
This development must comply with the requirements of the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the State Water Resources Control
Board and Ordinance No. 99-10. No grading shall be permitted until an NPDES Notice
of Intent (NOI) has been filed or the project is shown to be exempt. Direct discharge of
runoff from the site into Murrieta Creek is prohibited and urban pollutants shall be
mitigated as approved by the Department of Public Works.
51.
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.
52.
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.
53.
The Developer shall obtain letters of approval or easements for any off-site work
performed on adjoining propedies. The letters or easements shall be in a format as
directed by the Department of Public Works.
54.
The site is in an area identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps as Flood Zone "A"
and is subject to flooding of undetermined depths. Prior to the approval of any plans,
the Developer shall demonstrate that the project complies with Chapter 15.12 of the
Temecula Municipal Code for development within Flood Zone "A". A Flood Plain
Development Permit is required prior to issuance of any permit. Commercial
subdivisions may obtain a LOMR at their discretion.
55.
A Flood Plain Development Permit and Flood Study shall be submitted to the
Department of Public Works for review and approval. The flood study shall be in a
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~307pa97.COA(TPM).doc
10
format acceptable to the Department and include, but not be limited to, the following
criteria:
Drainage and flood protection facilities which will protect all structures by
diverting site runoff to streets or approved storm drain facilities.
Adequate provision shall be made for the acceptance and disposal of surface
drainage entering the property from adjacent areas.
The impact to the site from any flood zone as shown on the FEMA flood hazard
map and any necessary mitigation to protect the site.
Identify and mitigate impacts of grading to any adjacent floodway.
The location of existing and post development 100-year floodplain and floodway
shall be shown on the improvement plan.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permits
56. Parcel Map 28627 shall be approved and recorded.
57.
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.
58.
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform 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.
59.
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
60.
As deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works, the Developer shall receive
written clearance from the following agencies:
· Rancho California Water District
· Eastern Municipal Water District
· Department of Public Works
61.
All necessary certifications and clearances from engineers, utility companies and public
agencies shall be submitted as required by the Department of Public Works.
62.
All improvements shall be constructed and completed per the approved plans and City
standards to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
63.
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.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~307pa97.COA(TPM).doc
11
BUILDING AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT
Prior to the Issuance of a Building Permit
64.
A receipt or clearance letter from the Temecula Valley School District shall be submitted
to the Planning Department to ensure the payment or exemption from School Mitigation
fees.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
65.
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.
66.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set a minimum fire flow for commercial land
division per CFC Appendix Ill-A, Table A-Ill-A-1. The developer shall provide for this
project, a water system capable of delivering 4000 GPM at 20 PSI residual operating
pressure with a 4 hour duration. The required fire flow may be adjusted during the approval
process to reflect changes in design, construction type, or automatic fire protection
measures as approved by the Fire Prevention Bureau. The Fire Flow as given above has
taken into account all information as provided. (CFC 903.2, Appendix Ill-A)
67.
The Fire Prevention Bureau is required to set minimum fire hydrant distances per CFC
Appendix Ill-B, Table A-Ill-B-1. Super fire hydrants (6" x 4" x 2-2 1/2" outlets) shall be
located on Fire Department access roads and adjacent public streets. Hydrants shall be
spaced at 350 feet apart and shall be located no more than 210 feet from any point on the
street or Fire Department access road(s) frontage to a hydrant. The required fire flow shall
be available from any adjacent hydrant(s) in the system. The upgrade of existing fire
hydrants may be required. (CFC 903.2, 903.4.2, and Appendix Ill-B)
68.
Maximum cul-de-sac length shall not exceed 1320 feet. Minimum turning radius on any cul-
de-sac shall be forty-five (45) feet. (CFC 902.2.2.3)
69.
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)
7O.
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. GVW. (CFC 8704.2 and 902.2.2.2)
71.
Prior to building final, all locations where structures are to be built shall have approved Fire
Department vehicle access roads to within 150 feet to any portion of the facility or any
portion of an exterior wall of the building(s). Fire Department access roads shall be an all
weather surface designed for 80,000 Ibs. GVW with a minimum AC thickness of .25 feet.
( CFC sec 902)
72.
Fire Department vehicle access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than
twenty-four (24) feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than thirteen (13)
feet six (6) inches. (CFC 902.2.2.1)
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT~307pa97.COA(TPM).doc
12
73.
Prior to building construction, dead end road 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)
74.
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 )
75.
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)
76.
All manual and electronic gates on required Fire Department access roads or gates
obstructing Fire Department building access shall be provided with the Knox Rapid entry
system for emergency access by firefighting personnel. (CFC 902.4)
Special Conditions
77.
Prior to issuance of building permits, fuel modification plans shall be submitted to the Fire
Prevention Bureau for review and approval for all open space areas adjacent to the
wildland-vegetation interface. (FC Appendix II-A)
78.
Prior to issuance of building permits, plans for structural protection from vegetation fires
shall be submitted to the Fire Prevention Bureau for review and approval. The measures
shall include, but are not limited to, enclosing eaves, noncombustible barriers (cement or
block walls), and fuel modification zones. (CFC Appendix II-A)
OTHER AGENCIES
79.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the County of Riverside
Department of Environmental Health's transmittal dated October 2, 1997, a copy of which
is attached.
80.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the Riverside County
Flood Control and Water Conservation District transmittal dated November 10, 1997, a copy
of which is attached.
81.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set fodh in the Rancho California
Water District's transmittal dated October 1, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
82.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in Eastern Information
Center's transmittal dated October 13, 1997, a copy of which is attached.
83.
The applicant shall comply with the recommendations set forth in the California Department
of Transportation (Caltrans) transmittal dated October 20, 1997, a copy of which is
attached.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRP~307pa97.COA(TPM).dOc
13
By placing my signature below, I confirm that I have read, understand and accept all the above
Conditions of Approval. 1 further understand that the property shall be maintained in conformance
with these conditions of approval and that any changes I may wish to make to the project shall be
subject to Community Development Department approval.
Applicant Signature
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRP"~307pa97.COA(TPM).doc
14
October 2, 1997
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE * HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALI
City of Temecula Planning Department
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula~ CA 92589
ATTN: John De Gange:
RE: TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 28627: A PORTION OF THE TOWN OF TEMECULA
AS SHOWN BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK 15, PAGE 726 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAN
DIEGO COUNTY, QLLIFOILN!A, AND A PORTION OF THE RANCH TEMECULA,
WHICH RANCHO WAS GRANTED BY PATENT DATED JANUARY 18, 1860, AND
RECORDED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY
IN LIBER 1 OF PATENTS AT PAGE 37 THEREOF, AND A PORTION OF THE PAUBA
LAND AND WATER COMPANY'S SUBDIVISION OF TEMECULA RANCHO AS SHOWN
BY MAP ON FILE IN BOOK I1, PAGE 507 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA.
(14 LOTS)
Dear Gentlemen:
1. The Department of Environmental Healthhas reviewed Tentative Parcel Map No. 28627 and
recommends:
A water system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as approved by the ~vater
company and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the plans of the water system shall be
submitted in triplicate. with a minimum scale not less than one inch equals 200 feet, along with the
original drawing to the City of Temecula. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, Iocation
of valves and fire hydrants: pipe and joint specifications, and the size of the main at the junction of
the new system to the existing system. The plans shall comply in all respects with Div. 5, Part 1.
Chapter 7 of the California Health and Safety Code, California Administrative Code. Title 11,
Chapter 16, and General Order No. 103 of the Public Utilities Commission of tt-.e State of
California, when applicable. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and water company
with the following certification: "l certify. that the design of the water system in Parcel Map No.
28627 is in accordance with the water system expansion plans of the Eastern Municipal Water
District and that the water services, storage, and distribution system will be adequate to provide
~vater service to such Parcel Map". This certification does not constitute a guarantee that it will
supply water to such Parcel Map at any specific quantities, flows or pressures tbr fire protection or
any other purpose. This certification shall be signed by a responsible ot'~cial of the water
company. The plans must be submitted to the City of Temecula's Office to review at least TWO
WEEKS PRIOR to the request tbr the recordation of the final map,
John M. Fanning. Director
4065 County Circie Drive · Riverside. CA 92503 · Phone (909) 358-5316 · FAX (909) 358-5017
(Mailing Address - P.O, Box 7600 · Riverside, CA 92513-7600)
City of Temecula Planning Dept.
Page Two
Attn.: John De Gange
October 2, I997
This subdivision has a statement from Eastern Municipal Water District agreeing to serve domestic
water to each and every, lot in the subdivision on demand providing satisfactory financial
arrangements are completed with the subdivider. It will be necessary for financial arrangements to
be made PRIOR to the recordation of the final map.
4. This subdivision is within the Eastern Municipal Water District and shall be connected to the
sewers of the District. The sewer system shall be installed according to plans and specifications as
approved by the District, the City of Temecula and the Health Department. Permanent prints of the
plans of the sewer system shall be submitted in triplicate, along witl~ the original drawing, to the
City of Temecula. The prints shall show the internal pipe diameter, location of manholes, complete
profiles, pipe and joint specifications and the size of the sewers at the junction of the new system to
the existing system. A single plat indicating location of sewer lines and waterlines shall be a
portion of the selvage plans and profiles. The plans shall be signed by a registered engineer and the
sewer district with the/Bllowing certification: "I certify that the design of the sewer system in
Parcel Map No. 28627 is in accordance with the sewer system expansion plans of the Eastern
Municipal Water District and that the waste disposal system is adequate at this time to treat the
anticipated wastes fi:om the proposed Parcel Map". The plans must be submitted to the City of
Temecula's Office to review at least two weeks PRIOR to the request for the recordation of the
final map.
5. [t will be necessary. for financial arrangements to be compietely finalized PRIOR to recordation of
the final map.
6. It will be necessary. tbr the annexation proceedings to be completely finalized PRIOR to the
recordation of the final map.
Sincerely,
Gregor Dellenbach. Environmental Health Specialist IV
GD:dr
(909) 275-8980
DAVID P. ZAPPE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL
AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT
November 10, 1997
1995 MARKET STREET
RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
909/275-1200
909/788-9965 FAX
42125.1
City of Temecu]a
Planning Department
43174 Business Park Drqve
Temecula, CA 92590
Attention: Mr. John De Gange
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Re: Parcel Map 28627
PA 97-0307
The District does not normally recommend conditions for land divisions c
other land use cases in incorporated Cities. The Oistrict also does not ple
check City land use cases, or provide State Oivision of Real Estate letter
or other flood hazard reports for such cases. Oistric
comments/recommendations for such cases are normally limited to items c
specific interest to the District including District Master Drainage Pla
facilities, other regional flood control and drainage facilities which coul
be considered a logical component or extension of a master plan system, an
District Area Drainage Plan fees (development mitigation fees). In additior
information of a general nature is provided. The District has not reviews
the proposed project in detail and the following comments do not in any wa
constitute or imply District approval or endorsement of the proposed projet
with respect to flood hazard, public health and safety or any other suc
issue.
Tentative Parcel Map 28627 is a proposal for subdivision of 33.9 acres int
14 commercial lots along the future extension of Front Street, southeast c
the intersection of Highway 79 and Interstate 215.
This project is subject to severe flood hazard from Murrieta Creek. Tk
southwestern portion of the site is within the 1OO year Zone AE flood plai
limits for Murrieta Creek as delineated on Panel No. 060742 0010A of tr
Flood Insurance Rate Maps issued in conjunction with the National Floc
Insurance Program administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agent
(FEMA). The Oistrict's confluence study of Murrieta Creek and Temecula Creek
determined the tOO-year flood elevation to vary between 994.0 and 994.E
All the elevations on the 01strict maps are based on 1929 NGVD. The his
water mark during the flood of Janduty 1993 was 991.5. The pad elevatior
shown on the drawing is above the elevation. for the Districts confluent
study. Because of the extreme hazard posed by Murrieta Creek, the Cit
should consider not allowing development to proceed adjacent to the creE
until the ultimate improvement can be constructed. Property adjacent to tr
creek and within the flood plain should be conditioned to construct tr
required Improvements or participate in a financing mechanism such as E
assessment district to ensure necessary Improvements are constructed.
City of Temecula
Re: Parcel Map 28627
PA 97-0307
-2- November 10, 1997
If the City chooses to allow development to proceed, it should condition the
application to provide all studies, calculations, plans or other informatior
needed to meet FEMA requirements. This project is located within the limit~
of the District's Murrieta Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan for whic~
drainage fees have been adopted; applicable fees should be paid by cashier'~
check or money order to the Flood Control District or City prior to issuanc~
of building or grading permits. Fees to be paid should be at the rate ir
effect at the time of issuance of the actual permit,
Questions regarding this matter may be directed to me at 909/275-1214.
Very truly yourS,
STUART E. MCKIBBIN
Senior Civil Engineer
SM:slj
October 1, 1997
Mr. John De Gange
City of Temecula
Planning Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Post Office Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
SUBJECT:
WATER AVAILABILITY
PARCEL MAP 28627, APN 922-210-047
PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0307
Dear Mr. De Gange:
Please be advised that the above-referenced property is located within
the boundaries of Rancho California Water District (RCWD/District).
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.
The District requests that all easements dedicated to the Rancho
California Water District be shown on the recorded parcel map.
If you have any questions, please contact an Engineering Services
Representative at this office.
Sincerely,
RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT
/~x__ ~,-~--~-,-'-'~"----'
Steve Brannon, P.E.
Development Engineering Manager
97/SB:eb194/F012/FCF
c: Laurie Willjams, Engineering Services Supervisor
CALIFORNIA
HISTORICAL
RESOURCES
INFORMATION
SYSTEM
Eastern Information Center
OeDar~rnent of AnthroDOiogy
University Of California
Riverside, CA 92521-0418
Phone (909) 787-5745
Fax(909) 787-5409
October 13, 1997
John De Gange
City of Temecula
Planning Department
P. O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Case No.: PA97-0307
Applicant: Jim Roberts (Margarita Canyon LLC)
Dear Mr. De Gange:
Please fmd enclosed our comments for one project transmittal as requested by the Planning
Department. If you have any questions, please contact the Fa~tern Information Center at
(909) 787-5745 (please specify the case number and the date on which we submitted our
comments).
PA-0307 ............................................. ASAP
Sincerely,
Jennifer Bybee
Information Officer
Enclosure
CALIFORNIA
HISTORICAL
RESOURCES
INFORMATION
SYSTEM
Eastern Information Center
DeDar~ment of AnthropoJogy
University of California
Riverside, CA 9252%0418
Phone (909) 787-5745
Fax (909) 787-5409
CUL I, RESOURCE REVIEW
DATE: October 13, 1997
RE: Case Transmittal Reference Designation: PA97-0307
Records at the Eastern Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System have been
reviewed to determine if this project would adversely affect prehistoric or historic cultural resources:
__ Th~ proposed project area has not been surveyed for cultural rcsouB:es and contains or is sdjacen¢ to known cultural re,dice(s). A
__ A Phase I cultural rgsourcc study (MF #
__ There is a low probability of cultural resources. Further study is not recommended.
COMMENTS: Two sites fall within this project area. Although one site has been partially tested, both sites should
be thoroughly tested to deterre. me their significance before gradIng or construction occurs. Both sites are listed on
the National Register as part of the Mumeta Creek Archaeological District.
If you have any questions, please contact us.
Eastern Information Center
EEWRMSXTRANSMiT
STATE OF CAUFORNIA - BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 8, PO. BOX 231
SAN BERNARDINO, CA 92402
TDD (909) 383-4609
October 20, 1997
Mr. John I. DeGange
Project Planner
City of Temecula
Planrang Department
P. O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Dear Mr. DeGange:
08-Riw15-3.1/3.7
Planning Application No. PA 97-0307: Tentative Parcel Map 28627
A recent review of this proposal by Caltrans' Traffic Engineers has made it clear this
proposal is not acceptable as presented on Tentative Parcel Map 28627, dated September 1997.
Their findings are as follows:
The proposed access to Front Street is too close to the existing 1-15 ramps to be
safe and provide acceptable traffic patterns on the city's street as well as the 1-15
ramps.
· It is in conflict with a plan by the city to upgrade Front Street and the ramps
terminating there as well as the city's proposed future "Western Bypass."
If this proposal is to go forward it must propose a different point of access to the
local road system. Perhaps a connection to the city's proposed "Western Bypass"
would be a more suitable location.
Please send the following to this office at the earliest opportunity:
· Grading Plans shall depict both existing and proposed contour lines.
· Drainage Plans shall depict all existing and proposed drainage facilities and
structures, including any State facilities.
Site/Plot Plans.
· Landscaping Plans shall depict all proposed signage in addition to landscaping
layout.
Mr. John I. DeGange
October 20. 1997
Page 2
Street Improvement Plans -- shall depict all proposed improvements, including
signalization.
· Additional items of concern may be expressed upon receipt of the above requested
documents.
If you have any questions, please contact Cecil Karstensen at (909) 383-5922 or FAX
(909) 383-7934.
Very truly yours,
Chief, Office of Riverside County
Transportation Planning
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 8
464 W Fourth Street, 6th FToor MS 726
San nernaraino, CA 92401-1400
PHONE (909) 383-6327
FAX (909) 383-6890
GRAY OAVIS. Governor
December 8, 1999
08-Riv-15-3.422
Mr. John De Gange
Planning Department
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033
Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Dear Mr. De Gange:
DEC 0 9
Notice of Proposed Negative Declaration, Case Number PA97-0307 for
Tentative Parcel Map 28627, Margarita Canyon LLC, Applicant
We have received the above noted document identifying environmental impacts and
mitigation measures associated with future development of Parcel Map 28627. We
agree that by requiring the described relocation of project access as a condition of
approval, impact to existing southbound Interstate 15 off/on ramps may be minimized.
However, potential impacts to TPM 28627 arising from a planned future modification of
these ramps have not been directly assessed. Revision of parcel map access and lot
configuration must be coordinated with ramp modification plans currently being
prepared to ensure compatibility between both improvement projects.
Notification of pending development activity for TPM 28627 will be forwarded to other
District offices and staff. When revised development plans for TPM 28627 are
available, please forward copies to us for further review. Any remaining Distdct
concerns will then be addressed and returned for continued parcel map application
processing.
If an exchange of preliminary project information is desired prior to redesign of parcel
map access, a meeting to discuss all pertinent issues may be arranged here at Distdct
Headquarters. We recommend that such a meeting be held to help identify and thus
avoid unforeseen conflicts arising with future site development. We also recommend
that all parties having an interest in this situation be invited to attend this meeting. This
would include project applicants or representatives as well as all City and affected
Caltrans staff.
Mr. John De Gange
December 8, 1999
Page 2
Thank you for providing us this notification of proposed project negative declaration. If
you have other questions or would like to schedule a meeting please contact Ms. Rosa
F. Clark at (909) 383-6908 for assistance.
Sincerely,
LINDA GRIMES, Chief
Office of ForecastingtlGR-CEQA Review
c: Frank Lehr, Freeway Operations
Patdck Hsu, Highway Operations ·
Terd Panks, Project Management
Khalil Saba, Project Management
Christy Conners, Design Team "J"
CITY OF TEMECULA
CASE NO. - PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0307
(TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28627)
EXHIBIT A
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 8, 1999
VICINITY MAP
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC2.doc
15
CITY OF TEMECULA
EXHIBIT B - ZONING MAP DESIGNATION - HT (HIGHWAY/TOURIST COMMERCIAL)/
OS-C (CONSERVATION)
EXHIBIT C - GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION - HTC (Highway/Tourist Commercial)/OS (Open Space)
CASE NO. - PA97-0307 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28627)
PLANNING COMMISSION DATE - DECEMBER 8, 1999
F:\DEPTS\PLANNINGXSTAFFRPT\307PA97.pC2.doc
16
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
NOVEMBER 3, 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307pa97.ADpeaI.CC.dOc
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commis ~/
Debbie Ubnosk~,~lanning Manager
November 3, 1999
Planning Application PA 97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627) - Margadta
Canyon, located adjacent to Interstate 15, southwest of the intersection of Old
Town Front Street and Highway 79 (S)/Westem Bypass
Prepared By: John De Gange, Project Planner
Recommendation: Continuance to December 1, 1999
At the October 20, 1999 Planning Commission Meeting the applicant requested that this item be
continued to this meeting. Since that time, staff has met with the applicant and the applicant's
representatives to discuss the outstanding traffic issues which prevent staff from recommending
approval for the project.
At this time, staff is currently analyzing alternatives for the current proposal which could potentially
mitigate the concams staff has with the project. As a consequence staff is asking for an additional
30 days to complete this analysis. It is felt that a continuance to the December 1, 1999 meeting
would allow staff the necessary time to evaluate these alternatives.
For background and an analysis of the project to this point, a copy of the staff report prepared for
the October 20th meeting is being included for your review.
F:\DEFl'S\PLANNING~STAFFRFI~307PA97PCMEM.doc
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
OCTOBER 20, 1999 PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307pa97 .Appeal,CC .doc
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING
CITY OF TEMECULA
PLANNING COMMISSION
October 20, 1999
Planning Application No. PA97-0307
(Tentative Parcel Map 28627)
Prepared By: John De Gange, Project Planner
EXISTING LAND USE:
SURROUNDING
LAND USES:
R:'xSTAFFRFF\307PA97.PC.doc
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
EXISTING ZONING:
SURROUNDING ZONING:
HTC (Highway/Tourist Commercial)/OS (Open Space)
HT (Highway/Tourist Commercial)/OS-C (Conservation)
North:
South:
East:
West:
Vacant
HT (Highway/Tourist Commercial)
OS-C (Conservation)/HR (Hillside Residential)
Interstate 15
OS-C (Conservation)/HR (Hillside Residential)
North: Gas Station/Mini-Mad
South: Vacant
RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department - Planning Division Staff
recommends the Planning Commission:
1. MAKE a determination based on the Findings contained within the Initial
Study prepared for this project that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
be prepared in order to address the potentially significant impacts identified
within the analysis of this Initial Study;
2. ADOPT Resolution No. 99- denying Planning Application No. PA97-0307
(Tentative Parcel Map 28627), based upon the Analysis and Findings
contained in the staff report.
APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT: Margarita Canyon LLC
REPRESENTATIVE: Lohr & Associates/Markham and Associates
PROPOSAL: To subdivide an approximately 37 acre parcel into 10 commercial lots
and one open space lot (TPM 28627).
LOCATION: Adjacent to Interstate 15, southwest of the intersection of Old Town
Front Street and Highway 79 (S)/ Western Bypass Corridor
East: 1-15, Commercial retail center, apartments, single-family
residences
West: Vacant
PROJECT STATISTICS
Total Acreage for the Project (Gross)
Total Acreage for the Project (Net)
Number of Lots
Number of Open Space Lots
Average Lot Size (gross)
Average Lot Size (net)
Minimum Lot Size
36.8 acres
12.61 acres
10
I (10.48 acres )
2.46 acres
1.26 acres
1.04 acres (gross)
0.51 acres (net)
BACKGROUND
An application for this project was formally submitted on September 8, 1997. A Development
Review Committee (DRC) meeting was held on October 9, 1997, with written comments being
provided shortly after. From the initial DRC meeting, staff has requested that the applicant supply
various items and specified studies to evaluate the impacts associated with the project. The
applicant has supplied all the items which have been requested since the time the application was
submitted; however, it is staffs determination that the traffic study prepared by the applicant's traffic
consultant still inadequately addresses the traffic impacts generated by the project and has not
proposed adequate mitigation for these impacts. Consequently, the application has not yet been
deemed complete. Despite this, the applicant has requested that the project be brought forward
to the Planning Commission.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This project is a subdivision of approximately 37 acres into ten commercial lots and one open
space lot. The site is located adjacent to Interstate 15 to the east, Murrieta Creek to the west and
Temecula Creek to the south. The applicant is proposing to extend Old Town Front Street from
its current intersection with the future Western Bypass Corridor into the project site ultimately
terminating in a cul-de-sac. As proposed, all the lots for development will front and take access
from the extension of Old Town Front Street.
The project proposes ten commercial lots ranging in size from 1.08 to 11.29 gross acres (0.51 to
4.64 net acres). Lots 7,8,9 and 10 all have significant areas which are within the 100-year
Floodway (Zone AE) and these areas are being excluded from development. The open space lot
which comprises 10.48 acres consists mainly of the Murdeta and Temecula Creek Channels. The
applicant is proposing to keep this area as open space in perpetuity with the future possibility that
ownership can be transferred over to an appropriate agency or can be used for a mitigation land
bank.
ANALYSIS
Biological Issues
The project site is approximately 37 acres of vacant property which includes portions of the
Murrieta and Temecula Creek Channels. A biological impact report for the project site was
prepared. This report reveals that the ultimate development of the proposed project site will result
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.dOC
2
in the removal of 30 acres of onsite Non-Native Grassland, the removal of approximately 0.5 acre
of the total Riversidian Sage Scrub onsite, and the preservation of the entire six acres of Riparian
Woodland within the boundaries of the project site.
It has been determined that impacts to biological resources and the loss of this habitat as a result
of this project will not be significant because: 1 ) the 30 acres of non-native grassland which will be
removed is not considered a significant resource; 2) the six acres of Riparian Woodlands will be
preserved; 3) and of the one acre of Riversidian Sage Scrub, 0.5 acres will be preserved on site
and the other 0.5 acres will be mitigated with the purchase of off-site property.
The Riparian Woodlands and jurisdictional wetlands will be preserved with the exception of 0.07
acres of area associated with a small unnamed drainage channel which bisects the site and flows
into Murrieta Creek as identified within a Wetlands Delineation study for the project site conducted
by LSA Associates. For this small area, the applicant will be required to mitigate through obtaining
a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to the Federal Clean Water
Act and a Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Permit from the California Department of Fish and
Game.
The project site contains significant biological resources and the proposed project has the potential
to impact these biological resources. However, these impacts should not be significant if the
mitigation measures described above and appropriate conditions of approval for this project are
implemented.
Traffic Issues
The development of the proposed project is expected to cause a substantial increase to traffic
volumes on State Route 79 South/Western Bypass between Old Town Front Street and the
Interstate 15 (I-15) interchange. Although the traffic study and subsequent revisions prepared by
Robert Kahn, John Kain and Associates Inc. indicates acceptable interim operating conditions, it
is Staffs opinion that the proposed location of the project's access will adversely impact traffic flows
in the vicinity of the project, the Interstate 15/State Route 79 interchange and Old Town Front
Street. Congestion and unsafe vehicular movements can be expected at intersections within the
project's vicinity due to substandard intersection spacing (160 feet) between 1-15 Southbound
Ramp and Old Town Front Street, and the traffic volumes generated by the proposed project (7,909
ADT).
Another concern is the increase in conflicting movements due to the spacing between the 1-15
Southbound Ramps and the proposed project's access. Because of the short distance between
intersections and the projected heavy left-turn movements into the project, 1-15 Southbound
vehicles wishing to access the site could be forced into hazardous merging situations. This situation
could also cause the traffic to back-up on 1-15 while waiting to get to the left-turn pocket in order
to access the site. The anticipated heavy left-turn movement into the site (307 vehicles dudng p.m.
peak hour) and lack of adequate storage, could also cause gddlock at the I-15 Southbound ramp.
It should be noted that that a traffic signal at the intersection of Old Town Front Street and 79 South
is not needed until Western Bypass Corridor is constructed. However, the access to the site as
proposed, will necessitate operation of the traffic signal at the intersection of Old Town Front Street
and 79 South which is 160 feet west of the I-15 Southbound off-ramp. For reference, the spacing
between the intersections of Front Street/Jefferson Avenue and 1-15 Southbound ramp is
approximately 600 feet on Rancho California Road and 400 feet on Winchester Road.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.doc
3
Throughout the processing of this project Staff has maintained that the traffic study and subsequent
revisions submitted for the project have not adequately addressed the traffic issues discussed
above nor has adequate mitigation measures been proposed. Consequently, the Initial Study
prepared for this project recommends the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report due to
the significant impacts associated with associated with the project traffic.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An Initial Study was prepared for this project and distributed on October 1, 1999. Findings within
this initial study indicate that the proposed project will significently increase traffic volumes and
coupled with the fact that there is substandard and limited spacing between the intersection of Old
Town Front Street (where the project will take access) and the I-15 southbound ramp signal,
congestion and unsafe vehicular movements will result and hazardous merging situations will be
created. As a consequence, this project may have a significant effect on the environment and it
is recommended that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be required.
SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS
The proposed project is consistent with a majority of the General Plan's policies and is also
consistent with the zoning standards regarding the HTC district as specified in the Development
Code. The project, however, does not comply with the General Plan Circulation Element Policy
1.2 which requires an evaluation of potential traffic impacts associated with new development prior
to project approval, and requires adequate mitigation measures prior to, or concurrent with, project
development; and Policy 1.4 which requires new development to pursue trip reduction and
transportation systems management measures to reduce and limit congestion at intersections and
along streets within the City.
It is staffs determination that although the traffic study and its subsequent revisions prepared by
the applicant's traffic engineer indicate an acceptable interim operation condition, the project as
currently proposed will increase traffic volumes, cause congestion and unsafe vehicular
movements, and create hazardous merging situations. For these reasons, staff is recommending
that the Planning Commission deny the project as it is presently proposed based on the Findings
within the Initial Study that this project could potentially have a significant effect on the environment
because the traffic study and its subsequent revisions prepared by the applicant's traffic engineer
do not adequately address the traffic issues discussed above and adequate mitigation measures
have not been proposed.
FINDINGS (For Denial)
Planning Application No, PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627)
The proposed land division and the design or improvement of the projects is consistent with
the General Plan land use designations of Highway/Tourist Commercial and Open Space.
The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. This project
proposes ten commercial and one open space parcels on approximately 37 acres and
therefore is consistent with the Highway/Tourist Commercial and Open Space
designations. The project as proposed is not consistent with the General Plan Circulation
Element Policies 1.2 which requires an evaluation of potential traffic impacts associated
with new development prior to project approval, and requires adequate mitigation measures
prior to, or concurrent with, project development; and Policy 1.4 which requires new
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.dOc
4
development to pursue trip reduction and transportation systems management measures
to reduce and limit congestion at intersections and along streets within the City.
The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements could potentially
cause serious public health problems in that the proposed project will significantly increase
traffic volumes, coupled with the fact that there is substandard and limited spacing between
the intersection of Old Town Front Street (where the project will take access) and the I-15
southbound ramp signal. As a consequence, congestion and unsafe vehicular movements
will result and hazardous merging situations will be created.
The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements wilt not conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within
the proposed land division. The project will take access from the extension of Old Town
Front Street at the Western Bypass Corridor, and will not obstruct any easements.
The map as proposed, conforms to the logical subdivision of the site,; however, the it is not
compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community in that the proposed project
will significantly increase traffic volumes and coupled with the fact that there is substandard
and limited spacing between the intersection of Old Town Front Street (where the project
will take access) and the 1-15 southbound ramp signal. As a consequence, congestion and
unsafe vehicular movements will result and hazardous merging situations will be created.
The subdivision is, however, compatible with the surrounding areas and the site will be
developed pursuant to the General Plan, and the Development Code, both of which
regulate commercial parcels and development.
The design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements could potentially be
mitigated by the mitigation measures contained within the biological impact study conducted
for this project. As a consequence, the project is not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
Damage to any known fish, wildlife or habitat on the project site or off-site could be
potentially mitigated.
Attachments:
PC Resolution - Blue Page 6
Initial Study - Blue Page 10
Exhibits - Blue Page 39
A. Vicinity Map
B. Zoning Map
C. General Plan Map
F:~DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRFr\307PA97.PC.doc
5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
PC RESOLUTION NO. 99-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TEMECULA DENYING PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-
0307 (TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28627), ADJACENT TO
INTERSTATE 15, SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF OLD
TOWN FRONT STREET AND HIGHWAY 79 (S)/ WESTERN
BYPASS CORRIDOR (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 922-
210-047)
WHEREAS, Margarita Canyon LLC filed Planning Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative
Parcel Map No. 28627) in accordance with the City of Temecula General Plan, Development Code
and Riverside County Subdivision Ordinance, which the City has adopted by reference;
WHEREAS, Planning Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627) 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. PA97-0307
(Tentative Parcel Map 28627) on October 20, 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 hearing and after due consideration of the
testimony, the Commission considered all facts relating to Planning Application No. PA97-0307;
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. Findings. That the Temecula Planning Commission, in approving Planning
Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map 28627), hereby makes the following findings as
required in Section 7.1 of County Ordinance No. 460.
A, The proposed land division and the design or improvement of the projects is
consistent with the General Plan land use designations Highway/Tourist Commercial and Open
Space. The project as proposed is not consistent with the General Plan Circulation Element
Policies 1.2 and 1.4. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. This
project proposes 10 commercial and one open space parcels on approximately 37 acres and
therefore is consistent with the Highway/Tourist Commercial and Open Space designations.
B. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements could
potentially cause serious public health problems in that that the proposed project will significantly
increase traffic volumes and coupled with the fact that there is substandard and limited spacing
between the intersection of Old Town Front Street (where the project will take access) and the I-15
southbound ramp signal, congestion and unsafe vehicular movements will result and hazardous
merging situations will be created.
R: \STAFFRPT\307PA97, PC .doc
7
C. The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, proper~y within the
proposed land division. The project will take access from the extension of Old Town Front Street
at the Western Bypass Corridor, and will not obstruct any easements.
D. The map as proposed, conforms to the logical subdivision of the site,; however, the
it is not compatible with the health, safety and welfare of the community in that the proposed project
will significantly increase traffic volumes and coupled with the fact that there is substandard and
limited spacing between the intersection of Old Town Front Street (where the project will take
access) and the 1-15 southbound ramp signal, congestion and unsafe vehicular movements will
result and hazardous merging situations will be created. The subdivision is, however, compatible
with the surrounding areas and the site will be developed pursuant to the General Plan, the
Development Code, all of which regulate commercial parcels and development. Future
development of commercial lots potentially will be compatible and sensitive to surrounding
development. The proposed subdivision potentially could provide adequate access and circulation
for emergency vehicles and may not impact existing circulation or emergency vehicle access.
E. The design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements could
potentially be mitigated so that it is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or
substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Damage to any known fish,
wildlife or habitat on the project site or off-site could be potentially mitigated.
Section 3. Environmental Compliance An Environmental Initial Study was prepared for
this project. Findings within this initial study indicate that the proposed project will significantly
increase traffic volumes and coupled with the fact that there is substandard and limited spacing
between the intersection of Old Town Front Street (where the project will take access) and the I-15
southbound ramp signal, congestion and unsafe vehicular movements will result and hazardous
merging situations will be created. As a consequence, this project may have a significant effect
on the environment and it is recommended that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be required.
Section 4. PASSED, DENIED AND ADOPTED this twentieth day of October, 1999.
Ron Guerriero, Chairperson
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.doc
8
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 twentieth day of October, 1999
by the following vote of the Commission:
AYES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
PLANNING COMMISSIONERS:
Debbie Ubnoske, Secretary
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.doc
9
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Environmental Checklist
Project Title
Lead Agency Name and Address
Contact Person and Phone Number
Project Location
Project Sponsor's Name and Address
General Plan Designation
Zoning
Description of Project
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Other public agencies whose approval
is required
Planning Application No. PA97-0307 - Tentative Parcel Map 28627
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
John De Gange, Project Planner
(909) 694-6400
Adjacent to Interstate 15, southwest of the intersection of Old Town
Front Street and Highway 79 (S)/ Western Bypass Corridor
Margarita Canyon LLC
27740 Jefferson, Suite 200, Temecula, CA 92590
Highway/Tourist Commercial (HTC)
Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT)
A proposal to subdivide an approximately 37 acre parcel into 10
commercial lots and one open space lots (TPM 28627)
The project site is approximately 37 acres of vacant property which
includes a portion of the Murrieta and Temecula Creek Channels.
The site is adjacent to Interstate 15 to the east, commemial areas to
the north across the future Western Bypass Corridor, a vacant open
space area across Temecula Creek to the south, and a vacant area
zoned Hillside Residential area to the west across Murrieta Creek.
Riverside County Fire Department, Riverside County Health
Department, Temecula Police Department, Eastern Municipal Water
District, Rancho California Water District, Southern California Gas
Company, Southern California Edison Company, General Telephone
Company, and Riverside Transit Agency
Location Map
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.dOC
11
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.
Aesthetics
Agricultural Resources Population and Housing
Air Quality
Biological Resources Water
Cultural Resources
Geologic Problems
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Earlier Analyses
Determination
(To be completed by the lead agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant impact on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION wilt 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 significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIN 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
John De Gange. Project Planner
Printed name
For
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.doC
12
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting information Sources
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
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?
Potentially
Significant
impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
,/
Less Than
Significant
No
,/
Comments:
1.a.
No Impact. The project site is adjacent to Interstate 15 and the ultimate development of the site will not
directly impact any scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not located in an area where there is a
scenic vista. Further, the City does not have any designated scenic highways. As a consequence no
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project or the future development of the site.
1.b.
No Impact. There are no designated scenic resources in the vicinity of the project site. The project site
includes a portion of the Murrieta Creek Channel, however, the project as proposed will preserve the
channel and all future development will not directly impact the channel. There are no scenic resources
within the project site within the view of a scenic highway. As a consequence, no significant impact to
scenic resources will result from the proposed project or the future development of the site.
1.C.
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is approximately 37 acres of
vacant property which includes a portion of the Murrieta and Temecula Creek Channels. A majority of the
site is composed of disturbed non-native grassland (30 acres). The remaining portion of the site is
comprised of Riparian Woodland (six acres) and Riversidian Sage Scrub plant communities (one acre).
The portion of the site which consists of drainage channels could potentially have significant visual
character given the presence of Riparian Woodland vegetation. The ultimate complete development of
all 37 acres of the property would significantly degrade the visual character and quality of the site and
surrounding properties. As mitigation, the project proposes to preserve the entire six acres of Riparian
Woodland and one half acre of the one acre portion of the Riversidian Sage Scrub. For the one half acre
of Riversidian Sage Scrub that will be developed, the project proponent will be required to pumhase one
half acre of Riversidian Sage Scrub off-site in compliance with the requirements of the California
Department of Fish and Game's Natural Communities Conservation Program (NCCP) [based on the
Evaluation Logic Flow Chart contained in Attachment "A" of the Biological Impact Report]. After mitigation,
any potential impacts could be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
1.d.
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Though this project only rapresents a subdivision
of the property into commercial lots, the ultimate buildout on the property will have a potentially significant
impact from light and glare. The project will produce and result in light/glare, as all development of this
nature results in new light sources. All light and glare has the potential to impact the Mount Palomar
Observatory. The project will be conditioned to be consistent with Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance
Regulating Light Pollution). After mitigation, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.dOC
2. Agricultural Resources. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model
to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. 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?
Conflict with the existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
2a. ,2c. No ImpacL The project site is not currently in agricultural production and in the historic past has not ever
formerly been used for agricultural purposes. In addition this property is not considered prime or unique
of Farmland of statewide importance pursuant the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency or the City of Temecula's General Plan. In addition, the project will not
involve changes in the existing environment which would result in the conversion of farmland to non-
agricultural uses. Therefore, there is no significant impact related to this issue.
2b.
No Impact. The project site does not have an agricultural zoning designation by the City of Temecula, and
the site is not regulated by a Williamson Act contract. As a consequence there is no impact related to this
issue.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.doc
14
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project:
Issuss 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?
Less Than
Potenti~ly SignificantWith LessThan
Significant Mitigation Significant NO
,(
Comments:
3.8.
Less Than Significant ImpacL The proposed project represents only a subdivision of vacant property into
commercial lots; however, the analysis within this document has evaluated the potential development of
the site with commercial uses. The project as proposed will comply with State and national ambient air
quality standards. Although the project exceeds the air quality management policies in the current Air
Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and emissions thresholds established in South Coast Air Quality
Management District's (SCAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 1993), the City of Temecula's
General Plan EIR has addressed development of the site and proposed adequate mitigation for any
impacts. The analysis provided in 3b. below, discusses the project's compliance with the AQMP.
Therefore, no significant impacts related to conflicts with air quality plans will result from the proposed
project
3.b.
Less Than Significant Impact. This project represents only a subdivision of vacant property into
commercial lots; however, this analysis has evaluated the potential development of the site with
commercial uses. The project proposes to provide for 12.61 net acres of developable land. Pursuant to
the City of Temecula's Development Code this site can ultimately be developed with 164,788 square feet
of commercial uses based on a target Floor Area Ratio of 0.30. Though this figure exceeds the
SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 1993) threshold for impacts associated with commercial
development, this figure is consistent with target Floor Area Ratio (FAR) anticipated within the City's
General Plan. The General Plan established target floor area ratios within various land uses in order to
determine the intensity of uses and the impacts upon the environment. The General Plan EIR evaluates
the impacts of development at the target FAR. The analysis conducted for this project assumes that the
ultimate development of the site will be at the target FAR for the Highway/Tourist zoning district. It is
anticipated that the development of the site will be less than the densities anticipated by the General Plan
and analyzed within the General Plan EIR. The General Plan EIR has established mitigation measures
for impacts associated with air quality through The General Plan's policies and guidelines. Consequently
a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.dOC
3.c.
3.d.
3.e.
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in item b. above, though the project when ultimately
developed, will exceed the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 1993) thresholds for impacts
associated with commercial development, the City of Temecula's General Plan EIR has addressed the
impacts to air quality for a project on this site and established appropriate mitigation measures. Therefore,
all potential impacts resulting from cumulative net increases of any cdteria pollutants have been addressed
within the policies and guidelines of the City of Temecula's EIR and mitigated for. As a consequence a
less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
No Impact. The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no significant
pollutants in proximity to the project nor is it anticipated that the project will generate poliutants. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No Impact. Though this project only represents a subdivision of the property into commercial lots, the
ultimate buildout on the property may create objectionable odors during the construction phase of the
project. These impacts, however, will be shod in duration and are not considered to be significant.
Consequently no impacts would result from this project.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
a. 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?
b. 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?
c. 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?
d. 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?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.doc
Comments:
4.a.,b.,d.
Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is approximately 37 acres of
vacant property which includes a portion of the Murrieta and Temecula Creek Channels. A majority of the
site is composed of disturbed non-native grassland (30 acres). The remaining portion of the site is
comprised of Riparian Woodland (six acres) and Riversidian Sage Scrub plant communities (one acre).
A biological impact report for the project site was prepared by Principe and Associates in December of
1997. This study reveals that the ultimate development of the proposed project site will result in the
removal of all 30 acres of onsite Non-Native Grassland, the removal of approximately 0.5 acres of the total
Riversidian Sage Scrub onsite, and the preservation of the entire six acres of Riparian Woodland within
the boundaries of the project site. The study determined that the habitat within the Non-Native Grassland,
however is not considered to be a significant biological resource and the loss of this habitat is not
considered to be significant.
Development of the project site will also result in the removal of 0.5 acres of the one acre total of
Riversidian Sage Scrub which is considered a Sensitive Natural Plant Community. The study determined
that based on the Evaluation Logic Flow Chart included within the Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub,
Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP), Conservation Guidelines (Calif. Dept. of Fish and
Game, Nov. 1993), the onsite Riversidian Sage Scrub has a lower potential value for long-term
conservation given the fact that it is unoccupied by the Coastal California Gnatcatcher, and given that it
is a small isolated patch with no linkage to any other similar habitat.
The project site also contains six acres of Riparian Woodlands and jurisdictional wetlands. As proposed;
however, the project preserves almost the entire area with exception of 0.07 acres of area associated with
a small unnamed drainage channel which bisects the site and flows into Murrieta Creek as identified within
a Wetlands Delineation study for the project site was conducted by LSA Associates. For this small area
the applicant will be required to mitigate through obtaining a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act and a Section 1601 Streambed
alteration Permit from the California Department of Fish and Game.
As mitigation for potential impacts created by the proposed project to the 30 acres of Non-Native Grassland
and the one acre of Riversidian Sage Scrub the applicant shall be conditioned to: 1 ) comply with the
requirements established in the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Long-term Habitat Conservation Plan, primarily
through the payment of a mitigation fee; 2) preserve the 0.5 acre portion of Riversidian Sage Scrub on site
and mitigate the loss of the other 0.5 acres with the purchase of off-site habitat at a ratio of 1:1 as deemed
appropriate by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game in compliance with
the interim goals established withiq th3 NCCP Program; 3) preserve the entire six acres of Riparian
Woodlands habitat; 4) comply with the t LS. Fish and Wildlife Service protocol and obtain clearance for the
Endangered Quino Checkerspot Butterfly by conducting additional field surveys prior to the issuance of
grading permits to determine if the host plant for the species are present in which case an adult survey
would be required; 5) design future development plans so that surface waters and spills drain away from
Murrieta and Temecula Creeks in order to avoid runoff contamination; 6) install utility extensions
underground; 7) revegetate all graded and disturbed areas near the channels with native tree and plant
species in order to reduce impacts from the project; 7) the applicant shall be required to prepare a
Biological Mitigation Plan to insure project compliance to the mitigation measures contained in this
document.
With the implementation of the above mentioned mitigation measures and associated conditions of
approval for this project, the impacts associated with project would be reduced to less than significant.
4.c. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. In October of 1998 a Wetlands Delineation study
for the project site was conducted by LSA Associates. The study determined that approximately 5.62
R:~STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.doc
4.e.
acres of the site met the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers criteria for jurisdictional wetlands and 5.93 acres
fell within the jurisdiction of the Calif. Department of Fish and Game. Of the acreage delineated as
jurisdictional wetlands a 0.07 acre portion of the site is proposed to be filled which will result in the loss of
wetlands and riparian habitat. The lost wetlands area will be from a small unnamed drainage channel
which runs through the center of the project and flows into Murrieta Creek. The wetlands areas within
Murrieta and Temecula Creeks will be unaffected.
The loss of the wetlands/jurisdiction waters will require the project proponent to obtain a 404 Permit from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act and a Section
1601 Streambed alteration permit administered by the California Department of Fish and Game. As
mitigation for the lost wetlands the applicant will be required to obtain the necessary permits from the
above referenced agencies prior to the issuance of grading permits. After mitigation, this project would
have a less than significant impact.
No Impact. The City of Temecula does not have any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, therefore there is no impact associated with this project relative to this issue.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located within the fee area for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat
(SKR) Long-Term Habitat Conservation Plan. All development within this fee area is required to pay a
mitigation fee. This project will be required to pay a mitigation fee for the SKR. In addition, the subject site
contains approximately one acre of Riversidian Sage Scrub which places the property within the jurisdiction
of the NCCP program. The project will be conditioned to comply with all requirements of the NCCP
program or develop their own habitat plan under the provisions of the NCCP. As a consequence a less
than significant impact is anticipated.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.doc
18
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in Section 1506.57
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 1506.57
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
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
5.a.
No ImpacL Based on a previously conducted Phase I cultural resource study it has been determined that
there are no known historical resources on site, which the project would impact based on a previous. As
a consequence no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
5.b.d.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The General Plan and an earlier
Archaeological Investigation conducted by the Archaeological Research Unit at the University of California
at Riverside in December of 1988 identifies a sensitive archaeological area along Murrieta Creek which
may extend into the subject site. Due to the potential for deposits in the area and at the recommendation
of the UCR Eastern Information Center (within correspondence dated October 13, 1997), future
development of the proposed site will be required to conduct a Phase II archeological investigation on site
prior to the approval any development project. It is anticipated that when future development is proposed
on the site and a Phase II archaeological study is conducted that this study would propose mitigation to
address any significant impacts that may occur. As a consequence a less than significant impact is
anticipated.
5.c.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The General Plan identifies that the area
could potentially be within a highly sensitive paleontological area. Due to the potential for deposits in the
area, future development of the proposed site will be conditioned to have an on site-monitor during grading
operations. The potential for future significant impacts will be determined and fully mitigated when future
development proposals are considered. As a consequence, a less than significant impact is anticipated.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.doc
19
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project?
i)
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
ii)
iii)
iv)
b.
c. ,/'
d.
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.
Strong seismic ground shaking?
Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
Landslides?
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
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 (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
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:
6.a.i. No ImpacL 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.
6.a.ii, iv,b., and d.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. 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 building construction, which
is consistent with the Uniform Building Code standards. Further, the project will be conditioned to provide
soil reports pdor to grading and recommendations contained in this report are followed dudng 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, a less than
significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
6.c.,a.iii
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The ultimate development of the site may
have a significant impact on people involving liquefaction and subsidence or unstable soil conditions from
excavation, grading or fill. Potential impacts could be mitigated by compliance with State of California
Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone development criteria and construction in accordance with the Uniform
Building Code standards. A soils report shall be required as part of the development and shall contained
R: \STAFFRIrI'\307PA97. PC .doc
20
6.e.
recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to mitigate any potentially significant
impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure (including liquefaction), erosion, changes in
topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill and expansive soils. Erosion control
techniques will be included as a condition of approval for development projects at the site. Potential
unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill will be mitigated through the use of landscaping and
proper compaction of the soils. After mitigation measures are performed, a less than significant impact
is anticipated as a result of this project..
No Impact. Septic sewage disposal systems are not proposed for this project. The ultimate development
of the site will be required to hook up to the existing public sewer system. Therefore, no impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.dOC
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transportation, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Crate 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?
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?
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?
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
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
No
Impact
,f
Comments:
7,a.
No Impact. Though this project only rapresents a subdivision of the property into commercial lots, the
ultimate buildout of the property will involve construction. Construction associated with the development
of the property will involve the use of chemical agents, solvents, paints and other hazardous materials that
are associated with construction activities. The amount of these chemicals present during construction,
however, is limited and is not considered a significant hazard. As a consequence, no significant impact
is expected form the routine use and disposal of these materials.
7.b.
No Impact. The future development of the site will be commercial uses. It is anticipated that the future
uses within the project site 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.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.doc
22
7.c.
7.d.
7.e.,f.
7.g.
7.h.
No Impact. Future development of the project site will be with commercial uses. This site is not within
one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The operation of construction equipment and
machinery during the development of this site may emit some hazardous emissions and or handle some
hazardous material. However, these emissions and material should be of limited quantities over a short
duration of time. Since this project site in not within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school,
and will not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste, no impacts are anticipated.
No ImpacL 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.
No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public
or private airstrip. No impact upon airport uses will result from this proposal.
No Impact. The project will take access from maintained public streets and will therafore not impede
emergency response or evacuation plans. No impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No Impact. This project site is adjacent to 1-15 to the east and Murrieta Creek to the west. Though the
site is located in the vicinity of large open space areas, it is not located in a high fire area. As a
consequence no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.doe
23
18.
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)?
c. 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?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site ,/'
or area, including through the alteration of the course of a
stream or dver, or substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding
on- or off-site?
e. 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?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ,/'
g. Place housing within a lO0-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 lO0-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?
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Comments:
8.a. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project will not violate any water
quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The subdivision, and subsequent 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. With
mitigation a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC,dOC
24
8.b.f.
8.c.d.
8.e.
8.g.
8.h.i.
8.j.
No Impact. 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.
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed 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 surface runoff is expected whenever
development occurs on previously permeable ground. Previously permeable ground will be rendered
impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape 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. A
less than significant impact is associated with this project.
Less Than Significant Impact. Due to the small scale of the proposed subdivision, and ultimately the
future commercial development, the project will not create or contdbute 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. A less than significant impact is associated with this project.
No ImpacL This project represents a subdivision of property into commercial parcels. Since no residential
property is effected, no impact is associated with this project.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated, The project may expose people or
property to water related hazards such as flooding. According to the Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District, the project site is in area which is subject to severe flood hazard from Mumeta
Creek. Further, the site is located within the limits of the 100-year (Zone AE) floodplain/floodway as
delineated on Panel No. 060742 0010B of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps issued in conjunction with the
National Flood Insurance Program administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
In its current configuration; however, the project is designed with all pads for future development being
elevated above the floodway/floodplain. This project and all future development of the site will be
conditioned so that the developer will be required to file a floodplain development permit with the
appropriate approvals from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District if any
portion of the site is to be developed within the floodplain. In addition, future development will be
conditioned to pay a mitigation charge to the Murrieta CreekJTemecula Valley Drainage Plan.
In addition, the project is located within a dam inundation area as identified in the City of Temecula General
Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Impacts can be mitigated by utilizing existing emergency
response systems and by assuring that these systems continue to maintain adequate service provision
as the City develops. With the incorporation of mitigation measures a less than significant impact is
anticipated as a result of this project.
No Impact. 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.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.doc
25
9. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
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
Significant
Impact
Lass Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
ColTiments:
9a.,b.
No Impact. The subject site is vacant and is bordered by Murfieta Creek on the west and Interstate 15
on the east. These two features provide an existing physical barrier to the surrounding properties to the
east and west. The property to the north is comprised primarily of existing commercial uses. The
properties to the west and south are vacant and zoned Open Space. Therefore, the proposed subdivision
of this property will not 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). As a consequence no impact is associated with this project.
9.c.
Less Than SignificantlmpacL The project is located within the fee area for the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat
(SKR) Long-Term Habitat Conservation Plan. All development within this fee area is required to pay a
mitigation fee. This project will be required to pay a mitigation fee for the SKR. In addition, according to
a biological study conducted by Principe and Associates in December of 1997 the subject site contains
approximately one acre of Riversidian Sage Scrub which places the property within the jurisdiction of the
NCCP program. The project will be conditioned to comply with the NCCP program or develop their own
habitat conservation plan under the provisions of the NCCP program. As a consequence a less than
significant impact is anticipated.
R: ~STAFFRPT\307PA97. PC .doc
26
10. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
impact Incorporated Impact
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?
b. 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?
No
Comments:
10.a.b. No Impact. 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.
R: \STAFFRPT\307PA97. PC .doc
27
11. 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
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
impact
No
Impact
Comments:
11.a.
Less Than Significant Impact. This project site is designated for commercial development. 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 commercial
development. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
11.b.
No Impacts. Development of the project site will be with commercial uses. It is anticipated that the uses
conducted on site will not generate activities which would expose persons to or generate excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. No impacts are anticipated.
11.c.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project will ultimately result in the development of the site with
commercial uses which will create noise levels greater than that currently emanating from the vacant land.
However, those noises will not be substantial nor constant 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.
11.d.
Less Than Signi~cantlmpacL 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 annoying. However, this source of noise from construction of the project
will be of short duration and therefore would not be considered significant. Furthermore, construction
activity will comply with City ordinances regulating the hours of activity in residential areas. A less than
significant impact would be anticipated.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.doc
28
11 .e.f. No Impact. This project is not within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, therefore, people
residing in the project area will not be exposed to excessive noise levels generated by an airport.
Consequently no impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.dOC
29
12. 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 roads 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
Significant
Impact
Less Than
SignificantWith
Mitigation
incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Comments:
12.a.
No Impact. The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The
project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designation of Highway/Tourist
Commercial (HT). The proposed subdivision will eventually result in the development of commercial uses,
which will cause some people to relocate to, or within the Temecula area. 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.
12.b.c. No Impact. The project will not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing as the site is
vacant property zoned Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT). Therefore, the project will neither displace
housing nor people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. No impacts are anticipated as
a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.doC
30
13. 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?
c. Police protection? ,/
d. Schools? ,/
e. Parks? ,/
f. Other public facilities? ,/
Less Than
Potentially Significant With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Comments:
13.a.,b.,c.,e.,f.
Less Than Significant Impact. 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. However, the project will contribute its fair sham through the City's
Development Impact Fees to the maintenance or provision of services from these entities. Due to the
project's relative small scale, less than significant impacts are anticipated.
13.d.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project will have a less than significant impact upon, or result in a
need for new or altered school radiities. The project will not cause significant numbera 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.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97,PC.dOc
14. RECREATION. Would the project:
~ssues and Supporhng 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?
b. 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?
Less Than
Potentially SignificantWith Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant NO
Impact Incorporated Imgact Imgact
Comments:
14.a.b. Less Than Significant ImpacL The project will have a less than significant impact in the demand for
neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project will not cause significant
numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula. However, it will result in an incremental
impact or in an increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The
same is true for the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or opportunities. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97,PC.dOc
32
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
Issues and Suppoiting 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
Significant
Impact
Less Than
SignificantWith
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
impact
NO
Comments:
15.a.
Potentially Significant Impact. The development of the project and its proposed access on the south
side of Highway 79 SouthNVestern Bypass at Front Street, will cause a substantial increase in traffic and
could have potential for significant impact at this intersection and the I-15 southbound ramps.
Due to the substandard and limited spacing between the intersection of Old Town Front Street and 1-15
southbound ramp signal (160 feet) and the high traffic volumes generated by the project (7,909 ADT),
congestion and unsafe vehicular movements could be expected at intersections in the vicinity of the
project.
Although the traffic study prepared by the applicants consultant and its subsequent revisions indicate an
acceptable interim operation conditions, staff believes that the site access as proposed, will adversely
impact the traffic flow in the vicinity of the project at the I-15 interchange.
15.b.
Potentially Significant Impact. This project could potentially cumulatively exceed the level of service
standard (LOS "E") established within the County's Congestion Management Plan (CMP). State Highway
79(S), and Interstate 15 are roads which are within the County's CMP. Though the traffic study conducted
by the applicant's traffic engineer states otherwise, City staff has determined that this project will be
responsible for a significant increase in traffic volumes. This increase in traffic volumes coupled with the
close spacing between the intersection at the extension of Old Town Front Street and Western Bypass
Corridor with the southbound on and off ramps for 1-15, may lead to congestion and gridlock on State
Highway 79(S) and could potentially cause southbound traffic on 1-15 to back up. As a consequence a
potentially significant impact may result from this project.
15.c. No Impact. Neither the subdivision of the project site nor the future development of this property will result
in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that
R: \STAFFRPT\307PA97 PC .doc
33
results in substantial safety risks. This site is not within the French Valley Airport's flight overlay district
and therefore will have no impact on the project.
15.d.
15.e.
15.f.
15.g.
Potentially Significant ImpacL. The proposed project could substantially increase hazards due the
location of the intersection of the extension of Old Town Front Street and the Western Bypass Corridor in
terms of its spacing with the southbound on and off ramps for 1-15. After reviewing the traffic study and
subsequent revisions prepared by the applicant's traffic engineer, City staff has determined that will
generate significant traffic volumes. These increased traffic volumes coupled with the close spacing
between the intersection at the extension of Old Town Front Street and Western Bypass Corridor with the
southbound on and off ramps for 1-15, may lead to significant traffic congestion. The added congestion
combined with close spacing of the Old Town Front Street and 1-15 ramps could result in unsafe vehicular.
The traffic study submitted for this project does not adequately address this issue, therefore this project
could have a potentially significant impact.
Less Than Significant Impact. This project is a subdivision of vacant property into commercial lots and
as a consequence it is difficult to determine what the ultimate impacts on emergency access will be at this
time. All subsequent development projects on parcels within this project will be evaluated to determine
the impacts to emergency access. Future development of the site will be conditioned to meet all applicable
standards in place at the time of development. Emergency access to nearby uses will not be affected by
this project given that the project is generally surrounded by undevelopable propedies. As a consequence
the project will have a less than significant impact.
No Impact. This project represents a subdivision of vacant land into commercial lots, no specific
development is being proposed at this time. Consequently it is not possible to determine specific parking
requirements for the site, however, any subsequent development of the proposed parcels will be required
to comply with the City's Development Code parking requirements for commercial uses. Therefore, no
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project as proposed does not currently conflict with adopted policies,
plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. When future development is proposed for the
site, individual projects will be reviewed to determine if the provision of alternative transportation
opportunities will be appropriate. As a consequence, a less than significant impact is anticipated.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.dOC
34
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
Less Than
Potenti~ly Significant With Less Than
Significant 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 project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity
to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal
needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
f. ,/
NO
,/'
Comments:
16.a.,b., e.
No Impact. The project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements, require the construction of
new treatment facilities, nor affect the capadty 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 te comply with the
Regional Water Quality Control Board standards that will be monitored by the Depadment of Public Works.
No significant impacts are anticipated.
16.c.
No ImpacL 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 along Old Town Front Street at the northern end of the
site. The design of the existing system is sufficient 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 Murdeta Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage Plan. No significant impacts are anticipated.
16.d. No Impact. 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
R:\STAFFRPT\307PAg7.PC.doe
35
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.
16.f.g. Less Than Significant ImpacL The project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity. Any potential
impacts from solid waster created by this development can be mitigated through participation in Source
Reduction and Recycling Programs, which are implemented by the City. No significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.doc
36
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
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? ("Cumulatively
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
Less Then
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
NO
Comments:
17.a.
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The ultimate development of the site has potential
to impact habitat for fish or wildlife species. The project proposes to disturb 0.5 acres of Riversidian Sage
Scrub, however, if the project were approved mitigation measures would be included to reduce this to a
less than significant impact. In addition, the project proposes to disturb 0.07 acres of wetlands. If
approved the project would be conditioned to mitigate this impact by obtaining a Section 404 Permit from
the Army Corps of Engineers and a Section 1601 Permit from the Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game. A less
than significant impact would result if mitigation measures are incorporated.
17.b.
Potentially Significant Impact. The project could have a potentially significant impact with respect to
traffic impacts. City staff has determined that the project could potentially generate increased traffic
volumes which could cumulatively effect traffic in the vicinity of the project.
17.c.
No Impact. This project and the future development of the site 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. If approved,
no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\STAFFRPT\307PA97.PC.doc
37
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.
C,
Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
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.
18.b.
18.c.
No eadier analyses specifically related to this project site were used. However, a number of studies were
conducted for a previous subdivision (Tentative Parcel Map 23987) which included this property. These
studies include: "A Reevaluation of Archaeological Sites Recorded on TPM 23987" prepared by The
Archaeological Research Unit at UCR (December 1988); A Biological Assessment conducted by Tierra
Madre Consultants (October 1988); A Stephens Kangaroo Rat Study conducted by Friesen Biological
Surveys for TPM 19851 (undated); two Geotechnical Investigations conducted by Schaefer Dixon
Associates (Apd11988 and February 1989).. With the exception of the archeological study, none of these
studies were used in this analysis due to their age. Reference was only briefly made to this document.
The City's General Plan and Final Environment Impact Report were used as a referenced source in
preparing this initial Study
There were no earlier impacts which affected this project.
The recommendation of this Initial Environmental Study is that an Environmental Impact Report be
prepared. As a consequence no Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared.
2.
3.
4.
5.
SOURCES
City of Temecula General Plan.
City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
The City of Temecula Development Code.
Focused Traffic Analysis for TPM 28627 prepared by RKJK & Associated - May 1999 (with subsequent
amendments)
Biological Impact Report for TPM 28627 prepared by Principe & Associates - December 1997
Delineation of Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters for TPM 28627 prepared by LSA Associates -
October 1998
A Reevaluation of Archaeological Sites Recorded on TPM 23987 prepared by The Archaeological
Research Unit at UCR (December 1988)
R:\STAFFRPTX307PA97.PC.dOC
38
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307pa97.AppeaI.CC .doc
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
Environmental Checklist
Project Title
Lead Agency Name and Address
Contact Person and Phone Number
Project Location
Project Sponsor's Name and Address
General Plan Designation
Zoning
Description of Project
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
Other public agencies whose approval
is required
Planning Application No. PA97-0307 - Tentative Parcel Map 28627
City of Temecula
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula, CA 92589-9033
John De Gange, Project Planner
(909) 694-6400
Adjacent to Interstate 15, southwest of the intersection of Old Town
Front Street and Highway 79 (S)/ Western Bypass Corridor
Margarita Canyon LLC
27740 Jefferson, Suite 200, Temecula, CA 92590
Highway/Tourist Commercial (HTC)
Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT)
A proposal to subdivide an approximately 37 acre parcel into 10
commercial lots and one open space lots (TPM 28627)
The project site is approximately 37 acres of vacant property, which
includes a portion of the Murrieta and Temecula Creek Channels.
The site is adjacent to Interstate 15 to the east, commercial areas to
the north across the future Western Bypass Corridor, a vacant open
space area across Temecula Creek to the south, and a vacant area
zoned Hillside Residential area to the west across Murrieta Creek.
Riverside County Fire Department, Riverside County Health
Department, Temecula Police Department, Eastern Municipal Water
District, Rancho California Water District, Southern California Gas
Company, Southern California Edison Company, General Telephone
Company, and Riverside Transit Agency
Location Map
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.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.
Aesthetics
Agricultural Resources Population and Housing
Air Quality
Biological Resources Water
Cultural Resources
Geologic Problems
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Earlier Analyses
Determination
(To be completed by the lead agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant impact 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 significant effects (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.
',! v//'i
Signature Date
John De Ganqe, Project Planner
Printed name
For
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
2
1, AESTHETICS. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting information Sources
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Comments:
1.a.
No Impact. The project site is adjacent to Interstate 15 and the ultimate development of the site wilt
not directly impact any scenic vista or scenic highway. The project is not located in an area where
there is a scenic vista. Further, the City does not have any designated scenic highways. As a
consequence no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project or the future
development of the site.
1.b.
No Impact. There are no designated scenic resources in the vicinity of the project site. The project
site includes a portion of the Murrieta Creek Channel, however, the project as proposed will preserve
the channel and all future development will not directly impact the channel. There are no scenic
resources within the project site within the view of a scenic highway. As a consequence, no significant
impact to scenic resources will result from the proposed project or the future development of the site.
1.C.
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is approximately 37 acres of
vacant property, which includes a portion of the Murrieta and Temecula Creek Channels. A majority of
the site is composed of disturbed non-native grassland (30 acres). The remaining portion of the site is
comprised of Riparian Woodland (six acres) and Riversidian Sage Scrub plant communities (one
acre). The portion of the site, which consists of drainage channels, could potentially have significant
visual character given the presence of Riparian Woodland vegetation. The ultimate complete
development of all 37 acres of the property would significantly degrade the visual character and quality
of the site and surrounding properties. As mitigation, the project proposes to preserve the entire six
acres of Riparian Woodland and one half acre of the one acre partial, of the Riversidian Sage Scrub.
For the one half acre of Riversidian Sage Scrub that will be developed, the project proponent will be
required to purchase one half acre of Riversidian Sage Scrub off-site in compliance with the
requirements of the California Department of Fish and Game's Natural Communities Conservation
Program (NCCP) [based on the Evaluation Logic Flow Chart contained in Attachment "A" of the
Biological Impact Report]. After mitigation, any potential impacts could be mitigated to a level of
insignificance.
1.d.
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Though this project only represents a
subdivision of the property into commercial lots, the ultimate buildout on the property will have a
potentially significant impact from light and glare. The project will produce and result in light/glare, as
all development of this nature results in new light sources. All light and glare has the potential to
impact the Mount Palomar Observatory. The project will be conditioned to be consistent with
Ordinance No. 655 (Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution). After mitigation, no significant impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
3
2. Agricultural Resources. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional
model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project:
Less Than
Potentially SignificantWith Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant NO
]mpact rncorporated impact Impact
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
a. 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?
Comments:
2a.,2c. No Impact. The project site is not currently in agricultural production and in the historic past has not
ever formerly been used for agricultural purposes. In addition this property is not considered prime or
unique of Farmland of statewide importance pursuant the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
of the California Resources Agency or the City of Temecula's General Plan. In addition, the project
will not involve changes in the existing environment, which would result in the conversion of farmland
to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, there is no significant impact related to this issue.
2b.
No Impact. The project site does not have an agricultural zoning designation by the City of Temecula,
and the site is not regulated by a Williamson Act contract. As a consequence there is no impact
related to this issue.
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
4
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable quality
management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. 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?
Less Than
Potentially SignificantWith Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant NO
Impact Incorporated {napact ~mpaot
,/
Comments:
3.a.
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project represents only a subdivision of vacant property
into commercial lots; however, the analysis within this document has evaluated the potential
development of the site with commercial uses. The project as proposed will comply with State and
national ambient air quality standards. Although the project exceeds the air quality management
policies in the current Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and emissions thresholds established in
South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 1993),
the City of Temecula's General Plan EIR has addressed development of the site and proposed
adequate mitigation for any impacts. The analysis provided in 3b. below, discusses the project's
compliance with the AQMP. Therefore, no significant impacts related to conflicts with air quality plans
will resutt from the proposed project
3.b.
Less Than Significant Impact. This project represents only a subdivision of vacant property into
commercial lots; however, this aPalysis has evaluated the potential development of the site with
commercial uses. The project pro~'bses to provide for 12.61 net acres of developable land. Pursuant
to the City of Temecula's Development Code this site can ultimately be developed with 164,788
square feet of commercial uses based on a target Floor Area Ratio of 0.30. Though this figure
exceeds the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 1993) threshold for impacts associated
with commercial development, this figure is consistent with target Floor Area Ratio (FAR) anticipated
within the City's General Plan. The General Plan established target floor area ratios within various
land uses in order to determine the intensity of uses and the impacts upon the environment. The
General Plan EIR evaluates the impacts of development at the target FAR. The analysis conducted
for this project assumes that the ultimate development of the site will be at the target FAR for the
Highway/Tourist zoning district. It is anticipated that the development of the site will be less than the
densities anticipated by the General Plan and analyzed within the General Plan EIR. The General
Plan EIR has established mitigation measures for impacts associated with air quality through The
General Plan's policies and guidelines. Consequently a less than significant impact is anticipated as a
result of this project.
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
5
3.c.
3.d.
Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in item b. above, though the proiect when ultimately
developed, will exceed the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 1993) thresholds for
impacts associated with commercial development, the City of Temecula's General Plan EIR has
addressed the impacts to air quality for a project on this site and established appropriate mitigation
measures. Therefore, all potential impacts resulting from cumulative net increases of any criteria
pollutants have been addressed within the policies and guidelines of the City of Temecula's EIR and
mitigated for. As a consequence a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
No Impact. The project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants. There are no significant
pollutants in proximity to the project nor is it anticipated that the project will generate pollutants. No
significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
No ImpacL Though this project only represents a subdivision of the property into commercial lots, the
ultimate buildout on the property may create objectionable odors during the construction phase of the
project. These impacts, however, will be short in duration and are not considered to be significant.
Consequently no impacts would result from this project.
4. 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?
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?
Less Than
Potentially SignificantWith Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant NO
impact Incorporated Impact Impact
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
6
Comments:
4.a.,b.,d.
Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is approximately 37 acres of
vacant property, which includes a portion of the Murrieta and Temecula Creek Channels. A majority of
the site is composed of disturbed non-native grassland (30 acres). The remaining portion of the site is
comprised of Riparian Woodland (six acres) and Riversidian Sage Scrub plant communities (one
acre).
A biological impact report for the project site was prepared by Principe and Associates in December of
1997. This study reveals that the ultimate development of the proposed project site will result in the
removal of all 30 acres of onsite Non-Native Grassland, the removal of approximately 0.5 acres of the
total Riversidian Sage Scrub onsite, and the preservation of the entire six acres of Riparian Woodland
within the boundaries of the project site. The study determined that the habitat within the Non-Native
Grassland, however is not considered to be a significant biological resource and the loss of this habitat
is not considered to be significant.
Development of the project site will also result in the removal of 0.5 acres of the one-acre total of
Riversidian Sage Scrub that is considered a Sensitive Natural Plant Community. The study
determined that based on the Evaluation Logic Flow Chart included within the Southern California
Coastal Sage Scrub, Natural Community Conservation Planning (NCCP), Conservation Guidelines
(Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game, Nov. 1993), the onsite Riversidian Sage Scrub has a lower potential
value for long-term conservation given the fact that it is unoccupied by the Coastal California
Gnatcatcher, and given that it is a small isolated patch with no linkage to any other similar habitat.
The project site also contains six acres of Riparian Woodlands and jurisdictional wetlands. As
proposed; however, the project preserves almost the entire area with exception of 0.07 acres of area
associated with a small unnamed drainage channel which bisects the site and flows into Murrieta
Creek as identified within a Wetlands Delineation study for the project site was conducted by LSA
Associates. For this small area the applicant will be required to mitigate through obtaining a Section
404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water
Act and a Section 1601 Streambed alteration Permit from the California Department of Fish and
Game.
As mitigation for potential impacts created by the proposed project to the 30 acres of Non-Native
Grassland and the one acre of Riversidian Sage Scrub the applicant shall be conditioned to: 1) comply
with the requirements established in the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Long-term Habitat Conservation
Plan, primarily through the payment of a mitigation fee; 2) preserve the 0.5 acre portion of Riversidian
Sage Scrub on site and mitigate the loss of the other 0.5 acres with the purchase of off-site habitat at a
ratio of 1:1 as deemed appropriate by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Caiif. Dapt. of Fish
and Game in compliance with the interim goals established within the NCCP Program; 3) preserve the
entire six acres of Riparian Woodlands habitat; 4) comply with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
protocol and obtain clearance for the Endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly by conducting
additional field surveys prior to the issuance of grading permits to determine if the host plant for the
species are present in which case an adult survey would be required; 5) design future development
plans so that surface waters and spills drain away from Murrieta and Temecula Creeks in order to
avoid runoff contamination; 6) install utility extensions underground; 7) revegetate all graded and
disturbed areas near the channels with native tree and plant species in order to reduce impacts from
the project; 7) the applicant shall be required to prepare a Biological Mitigation Plan to insure project
compliance to the mitigation measures contained in this document.
With the implementation of the above mentioned mitigation measures and associated conditions of
approval for this project, the impacts associated with project would be reduced to less than significant.
R:%CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
7
4.c.
4.e.
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. In October of 1998 a Wetlands Delineation
study for the project site was conducted by LSA Associates. The study determined that approximately
5.62 acres of the site met the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers criteria for jurisdictional wetlands and
5.93 acres fell within the jurisdiction of the Calif. Department of Fish and Game. Of the acreage
delineated as jurisdictional wetlands a 0.07-acre portion of the site is proposed to be filled which will
result in the loss of wetlands and riparian habitat. The lost wetlands area will be from a small-
unnamed drainage channel which runs through the center of the project and flows into Murrieta Creek.
The wetlands areas within Mumeta and Temecula Creeks will be unaffected.
The loss of the wetlands/jurisdiction waters will require the project proponent to obtain a 404 Permit
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act and a
Section 1601 Streambed alteration permit administered by the California Department of Fish and
Game. As mitigation for the lost wetlands the applicant will be required to obtain the necessary
permits from the above referenced agencies prior to the issuance of grading permits. After mitigation,
this project would have a less than significant impact.
No Impact. The City of Temecula does not have any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, therefore there is no impact associated with this project relative to this issue.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project is located within the fee area for the Stephen's Kangaroo
Rat (SKR) Long-Term Habitat Conservation Plan. All development within this fee area is required to
pay a mitigation fee. This project will be required to pay a mitigation fee for the SKR. In addition, the
subject site contains approximately one acre of Riversidian Sage Scrub that places the property within
the jurisdiction of the NCCP program. The project will be conditioned to comply with all requirements
of the NCCP program or develop their own habitat plan under the provisions of the NCCP. As a
consequence a less than significant impact is anticipated.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource 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 des~my a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique Geologic feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Less Than
Potentially SignificantWith Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact incorporated Impact Impact
Comments:
5,a.
No Impact. Based on a previously conducted Phase I cultural resource study it has been determined
that there are no known historical resources on site, which the project would impact. As a
consequence no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
5.b.d. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The General Plan and an earlier
Archaeological Investigation conducted by the Archaeological Research Unit at the University of
California at Riverside in December of 1988 identifies a sensitive archaeological area along Murrieta
Creek which may extend into the subject site. Due to the potential for deposits in the area and at the
recommendation of the UCR Eastern Information Center (within correspondence dated October 13,
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
8
5.c.
1997), future development of the proposed site will be required to conduct a Phase II archeological
investigation on site prior to the approvat any development project. It is anticipated that when future
development is proposed on the site and a Phase II archaeological study is conducted that this study
would propose mitigation to address any significant impacts that may occur. As a consequence a less
than significant impact is anticipated.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The General Plan identifies that the
area could potentially be within a highly sensitive paleontological area. Due to the potential for
deposits in the area, future development of the proposed site will be conditioned to have an on site-
monitor during grading operations. The potential for future significant impacts will be determined and
fully mitigated when future development proposals are considered. As a consequence, a less than
significant impact is anticipated.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project?
Less Than
Potentially SignificantWith Less Than
Significant Mitigateon Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Issues and Suppoding 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? ,/
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 (1994), creating substantial
risks to life or property?
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:
6.a.i. No Impact. 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.
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2,doc
9
6.a.ii, iv,b., and d.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. 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 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, a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
6.c.,a.iii
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The ultimate development of the site
may have a significant impact on people involving liquefaction and subsidence or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading or fill. Potential impacts could be mitigated by compliance with
State of California Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone development criteria and construction in
accordance with the Uniform Building Code standards. A soils report shall be required as part of the
development and shall contained recommendations for the compaction of the soil which will serve to
mitigate any potentially significant impacts from seismic ground shaking, seismic ground failure
(including liquefaction), erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading or fill and expansive soils. Erosion control techniques will be included as a condition of
approval for development projects at the site. Potential unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading or fill will be mitigated through the use of landscaping and proper compaction of the soils.
After mitigation measures are performed, a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this
project.
6.e.
No Impact. Septic sewage disposal systems are not proposed for this project. The ultimate
development of the site will be required to hook up to the existing public sewer system. Therefore, no
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EtS2.doc
10
! 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transportation, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
Crate 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?
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?
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?
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
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
SignificantWith
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Comments:
7,a.
No ImpacL Though this project only represents a subdivision of the property into commercial lots, the
ultimate buildout of the property will involve construction. Construction associated with the
development of the property will involve the use of chemical agents, solvents, paints and other
hazardous materials that are associated with construction activities. The amount of these chemicals
present during construction, however, is limited and is not considered a significant hazard. As a
consequence, no significant impact is expected form the routine use and disposal of these materials.
7.b.
No Impact, The future development of the site will be commercial uses. It is anticipated that the
future uses within the project site 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.
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
11
7.c.
7.d.
7.e.,f.
7.g.
7.h.
No Impact. Future development of the project site will be with commercial uses. This site is not within
one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. The operation of construction equipment and
machinery during the development of this site may emit some hazardous emissions and or handle
some hazardous material. However, these emissions and material should be of limited quantities over
a short duration of time. Since this project site in not within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school, and will not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste, no impacts are
anticipated.
No Impact. 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.
No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a
public or private airstrip. No impact upon airport uses will result from this proposal.
No Impact. 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.
No Impact. This project site is adjacent to 1-15 to the east and Murrieta Creek to the west. Though
the site is located in the vicinity of large open space areas, it is not located in a high fire area. As a
consequence no impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
R:~CEQA%307PA97 - EIS2.doc
8. 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 that 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
Less Than
Potentially SignificantWith Less Than
Significant M~tiga~on Significant NO
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
polluted runoff?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
g. Place housing within a lO0-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?
Comments:
8.a. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project will not violate any water
quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The subdivision, and subsequent 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. With mitigation a less than significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
8.b.f. No Impact. 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
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
13
8.c.d.
8.e.
8.g.
8.h.i.
8.j.
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.
Less Than Significant impact. The proposed 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 siltat/on and/or flooding on- or off-site. Some
changes to absorption rates, drainage patterns and the rate and amount of surface runoff is expected
whenever development occurs on previously permeable ground. Previously permeable ground will be
rendered impervious by construction of buildings, accompanying hardscape 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
that is created. A less than significant impact is associated with this project.
Less Than Significant Impact. Due to the small scale of the proposed subdivision, and ultimately the
future commercial 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. A less than significant impact is associated with this project.
No ImpacL This project represents a subdivision of property into commercial parcels. Since no
residential property is effected, no impact is associated with this project.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The project may expose people or
property to water related hazards such as flooding. According to the Riverside County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District, the project site is in area that is subject to severe flood hazard from
Murrieta Creek. Further, the site is located within the limits of the 100-year (Zone AE)
floodplain/floodway as delineated on Panel No. 060742 0010B of the Flood Insurance Rate Maps
issued in conjunction with the National Flood Insurance Program administered by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). In its current configuration; however, the project is
designed with all pads for future development being elevated above the floodway/floodplain. This
project and all future development of the site will be conditioned so that the developer will be required
to file a floodplain development permit with the appropriate approvals from the Riverside County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District if any portion of the site is to be developed within the
floodplain. In addition, future development will be conditioned to pay a mitigation charge to the
Murrieta CreelgTemecula Valley Drainage Plan.
In addition, the project is located within a dam inundation area as identified in the City of Temecula
General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Impacts can be mitigated by utilizing existing
emergency response systems and by assuring that these systems continue to maintain adequate
service provision as the City develops. With the incorporation of mitigation measures a less than
significant impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
No Impact. 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.
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - BS2.doc
14
9. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
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
Significant
Impact
Less Than
SignificantWith
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
,f
Comments:
9a.,b.
No Impact. The subject site is vacant and is bordered by Murrieta Creek on the west and Interstate
15 on the east. These two features provide an existing physical barrier to the surrounding properties
to the east and west. The property to the north is comprised primarily of existing commercial uses.
The properties to the west and south are vacant and zoned Open Space. Therefore, the proposed
subdivision of this property will not 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). As a consequence no impact is associated with this
project.
9.c.
Less Than Significant ImpacL The project is located within the fee area for the Stephen's Kangaroo
Rat (SKR) Long-Term Habitat Conservation Plan. All development within this fee area is required to
pay a mitigation fee. This project will be required to pay a mitigation fee for the SKR. In addition,
according to a biological study conducted by Principe and Associates in December of 1997 the subject
site contains approximately one acre of Riversidian Sage Scrub that places the property within the
jurisdiction of the NCCP program. The project will be conditioned to comply with the NCCP program
or develop their own habitat conservation plan under the provisions of the NCCP program. As a
consequence a less than significant impact is anticipated.
10. 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?
Less Than
Potentially SignificantWith Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant NO
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
,/
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
15
Comments:
10.a.b. No ImpacL The project will not result in the loss of available, known mineral resources or 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.
11. 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 levets?
Less Than
Potentially SignificantWith Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Comments:
11.a.
Less Than Significant Impact. This project site is designated for commercial development. 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 commercial
development. Less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
11.b.
No Impacts. Development of the project site will be with commercial uses. It is anticipated that the
uses conducted on site will not generate activities that would expose persons to or generate excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. No impacts are anticipated.
11.c.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project will ultimately result in the development of the site with
commercial uses that will create noise levels greater than that currently emanating from the vacant
land. However, those noises will not be substantial or constant and are not anticipated to create a
substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
11.d.
11.e.f.
without the project. Therefore, only less than significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this
project.
Less Than Significant Impact. 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 annoying. However, this source of noise from construction
of the project will be of short duration and therefore would not be considered significant. Furthermore,
construction activity will comply with City ordinances regulating the hours of activity in residential
areas. A less than significant impact would be anticipated.
No Impact. This project is not within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, therefore,
people residing in the project area will not be exposed to excessive noise levels generated by an
airport. Consequently no impact is anticipated as a result of this project.
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
C,
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 roads 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?
Less Than
Potentially SignificantWith Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Comments:
12.a.
No ImpacL The project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. The
project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designation of Highway/Tourist
Commercial (HT). The proposed subdivision will eventually result in the development of commercial
uses, which will cause some people to relocate to, or within the Temecuta area. However, due to its
limited scale, it will not induce substantial growth beyond what is projected in the City's Genera! Plan.
No significant effects are anticipated as a result of this project.
12.b.c.
No Impact. The project will not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing as the site
is vacant property zoned Highway/Tourist Commercial (HT). Therefore, the project will neither
displace housing or people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. No impacts are
anticipated as a result of this project.
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
13.
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:
Less Than
Potentially SignificantWith Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant NO
impact Incorporated Impact Impact
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? ,/
c. Police protection? ,/
d. Schools?
e. Parks?
f. Other public facilities? ,/
,f
Comments:
13.a.,b.,c.,e.,f.
Less Than SignificantImpact. 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. However, 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 the project's relative small scale, less than significant impacts are anticipated.
13.d.
Less Than Significant Impact. 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.
R:\CEQA\307PA97 EIS2.doc
14. 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?
Less Than
Potentially SignificantWith Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact ~ncorporated Impact Impact
Comments:
14.a.b. Less Than Significant ImpacL The project will have a less than significant impact in the demand for
neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities. The project will not cause significant
numbers of people to relocate within or to the City of Temecula. However, it will result in an
incremental impact or in an increase in demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other
recreational facilities. The same is true for the quality or quantity of existing recreational resources or
opportunities. No significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. 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
Less Than
Potentially SignificantWith Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impac[ Incorporated impact Impact
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
19
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e. Result in inadequate emergency access?
f. Result in inadequate parking capacity?
g. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks?
Comments:
15.a.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The development of the project and
its proposed access on the south side of Highway 79 SouthANestem Bypass at Front Street, will cause
a substantial increase in traffic and could have potential for significant impact at this intersection and
the I-15 southbound ramps.
Due to the substandard and limited spacing between the intersection of Old Town Front Street and 1-
15 southbound ramp signal (160 feet) and the high traffic volumes generated by the project (7,909
ADT), congestion and unsafe vehicular movements could be expected at intersections in the vicinity of
the project. There is a particular concam with the west bound left turn movement into the site. Traffic
attempting to enter the project could potentially back up to the southbound I-15 ramp signal.
Although the traffic study prepared by the applicants consultant and its subsequent revisions indicate
acceptable intedm operation conditions, staff believes that the site access as proposed, will adversely
impact the traffic flow in the vicinity of the project at the I-15 interchange.
The map will be developed in two phases. The properties fronting the Western Bypass Corddor (Lots
1 and 12) are considered Phase I, and all the remaining parcels are Phase II. Development of the lots
in Phase II shall not be allowed for a minimum of one year and the development of acceptable traffic
flow standards. VVithin this one-year period the applicant and the City shall work to establish a
Development Agreement. The Development Agreement will apply the conditions under which the lots
in Phase II will be developed and will address any right-of-way needs with respect to any future
interchange improvements.
Though the applicant's proposed access point will initially be allowed, the applicant will provide an
access easement approximately 250 feet south of the location of applicant's proposed access, This
easement would become the access road into the project site if traffic impacts at this intersection
warrant it at some future time when the site is developed.
Traffic thresholds will be developed for traffic impacts that all future Phase II projects will be reviewed
against. If the traffic generated by the proposed projects in Phase II exceeds the aggregate
thresholds, that particular scope of development will be prohibited.
15.b. Less Than Significant Impact Vtrlth Mitigation Incorporated. This project could potentially
cumulatively exceed the level of service standard (LOS "E") established within the County's
Congestion Management Plan (CMP). State Highway 79(S), and Interstate 15 are roads which are
within the County's CMP. Though the traffic study conducted by the applicant's traffic engineer states
otherwise, City staff has determined that this project will be responsible for a significant increase in
traffic volumes. This increase in traffic volumes coupled with the close spacing between the
intersection at the extension of Old Town Front Street and Western Bypass Comdor with the
southbound on and off ramps for 1-15, may lead to congestion and gridlock on State Highway 79(S)
and could potentially cause southbound traffic on 1-15 to back up. As a consequence a potentially
significant impact may result from this project.
If the site access is relocated approximately 250 feet to the west of the current proposed alignment, a
greater distance for vehicle merging will be provided. This will be particularly beneficial to vehicles
making a left turn into the site from the south bound 1-15 off ramp. Relocating the access to the
proposed location west of the applicant's current proposed location will increase the merging distance
from 160 feet to approximately 400 feet, This will reduce the project's impact on Highway 79(S)/
Western Bypass Corridor. The project will be conditioned to modify the project's access to a location
250 feet from the current proposed alignment. VVith the incorporation of this condition is has been
determined that after mitigation is incorporated this project will have a less than significant impact.
R:~CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
20
15.c.
15.d.
15.e.
15.f.
15.g.
No ImpacL Neither the subdivision of the project site nor the future development of this property will
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 dsks. This site is not within the French Valley Aiq~ort's flight
oveday district and therefore will have no impact on the project.
Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project could
substantially increase hazards due the location of the intersection of the extension of Old Town Front
Street and the Western Bypass Corridor in terms of its spacing with the southbound on and off ramps
for 1-15. After reviewing the traffic study and subsequent revisions prepared by the applicant's
consultant, City staff has determined that the project will generate significant traffic volumes. These
increased traffic volumes coupled with the close spacing between the intersection at the extension of
Old Town Front Street and Western Bypass Corddor with the southbound on and off ramps for 1-15,
may lead to significant traffic congestion which could result in traffic backing up on lanes on the south
bound 1-15.
The map will be developed in two phases. The properties fronting the Westem Bypass Corridor (Lots
I and 12) are considered Phase I, and all the remaining parcels are Phase II. Development of the lots
in Phase II shall not be allowed for a minimum of one year and the development of acceptable traffic
flow standards. Within this one-year pedod the applicant and the City shall work to establish a
Development Agreement. The Development Agreement will apply the conditions under which the lots
in Phase II will be developed and will address any right-of-way needs with respect to any future
interchange improvements.
Though the applicant's proposed access point will initially be allowed, the applicant will provide an
access easement approximately 250 feet south of the location of applicant's proposed access. This
easement would become the access road into the project site if traffic impacts at this intersection
warrant it at some future time when the site is developed.
Traffic thresholds will be developed for traffic impacts that all future Phase II projects will be reviewed
against. If the traffic generated by the proposed projects in Phase II exceeds the aggregate
thresholds, that particular scope of development will be prohibited.
Less Than Significant ImpacL This project is a subdivision of vacant property into commercial lots
and as a consequence it is difficult to determine what the ultimate impacts on emergency access will
be at this time. All subsequent development projects on parcels within this project will be evaluated to
determine the impacts to emergency access. Future development of the site will be conditioned to
meet all applicable standards in place at the time of development. Emergency access to nearby uses
will not be affected by this project given that the project is generally surrounded by undevelopable
properties. As a consequence the project will have a less than significant impact.
No ImpacL This project represents a subdivision of vacant land into commercial lots, no specific
development is being proposed at this time. Consequently it is not possible to determine specific
parking requirements for the site; however, any subsequent development of the proposed parcels will
be required to comply with the City's Development Code parking requirements for commercial uses.
Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project as proposed does not currently conflict with adopted
policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. When future development is
proposed for the site, individual projects will be reviewed to determine if the provision of alternative
transportation opportunities will be appropriate. As a consequence, a less than significant impact is
anticipated,
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2,doc
21
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
Potemily · ~i!~lifi~an~ With.
Issues and Supporting~ Information Sources · · : ' · ....! .. .
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ,/
applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b. 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?
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources, or are
new or expanded entitlements needed?
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ,/'
f. ,/
g. ,/
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Comments:
16.a.,b., e.
No Impact. 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 Ran 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 stand~:ds that will be monitored by the Department of
Public Works. No significant impacts are anticipated.
16.c.
No Impact. 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 along Old Town Front Street at the
northern end of the site. The design of the existing system is sufficient 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 Mumeta Creek/Temecula Valley Area Drainage
Plan. No significant impacts are anticipated.
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2,doc
22
16.d.
16.f.g.
No Impact. 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 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.
Less Than Significant Impact. The project will not result in a need for new landfill capacity. Any
potential impacts from solid waster created by this development can be mitigated through participation
in Source Reduction and Recycling Programs, which are implemented by the City. No significant
impacts are anticipated as a result of this project.
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
· · 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
restdct the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major pedods of
California history or prehistory?
Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
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?
Comments:
17.a.
Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. The ultimate development of the site has
potential to impact habitat for fish or wildlife species. The project proposes to disturb 0.5 acres of
Riversidian Sage Scrub, however, if the project were approved mitigation measures would be included
to reduce this to a less than significant impact. In addition, the project proposes to disturb 0.07 acres
of wetlands. If approved the project would be cenditioned to mitigate this impact by obtaining a
Section 404 Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers and a Section 1601 Permit from the Calif. Dept.
of Fish and Game. A less than significant impact would result if mitigation measures are incorporated.
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2.d~c
23
17.b.
17.c.
Less Than Significant IIF~th Mitigation Incorporated. The project could have a potentially
significant impact with respect to traffic impacts. City staff has determined that the project could
potentially generate increased traffic volumes, which could cumulatively effect traffic in the vicinity of
the project.
The map will be developed in two phases. The properties fronting the Western Bypass Corridor (Lots
1 and 12) are considered Phase I, and all the remaining parcels are Phase II. Development of the lots
in Phase II shall not be allowed for a minimum of one year and the development of acceptable traffic
flow standards. Within this one-year pedod the applicant and the City shall work to establish a
Development Agreement. The Development Agreement will apply the conditions under which the lots
in Phase II will be developed and will address any right-of-way needs with respect to any future
interchange improvements.
Though the applicant's proposed access point will initially be allowed, the applicant will provide an
access easement approximately 250 feet south of the location of applicant's proposed access. This
easement would become the access road into the project site if traffic impacts at this intersection
warrant it at some future time when the site is developed.
Traffic thresholds will be developed for traffic impacts that all future Phase II projects will be reviewed
against. If the traffic generated by the proposed projects in Phase II exceeds the aggregate
thresholds, that particular scope of development will be prohibited.
No ImpacL This project and the future development of the site 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. If
approved, 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.
C=
Eadier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
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 eadier analysis.
Mitigation meRsures. 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 whicn they address site-specific conditions for the project.
18.a.
An earlier Environmental Initial Study was conducted for this project and circulated on September 30,
1999. The proposed determination of this study was that an Environmental Impact Report would be
required for this project due to there being potentially significant impacts associated with the project.
The analysis in this study provides mitigation for these potentially significant impacts.
A number of studies that were conducted for a previous subdivision (Tentative Parcol Map 23987)
which included this property. These studies include: "A Reevaluation of Archaeological Sites
Recorded on TPM 23987" prepared by The Archaeological Research Unit at UCR (December 1988);
A Biological Assessment conducted by Tierra Madre Consultants (October 1988); A Stephens
Kangaroo Rat Study conducted by Friesen Biological Surveys for TPM 19851 (undated); two
Geotechnical Investigations conducted by Schaefer Dixon Associates (April 1988 and February 1989).
R:\CFQA\307PA97 - EIS2.doc
24
With the exception of the archeological study, none of these studies were used in this analysis due to
their age. Reference was only briefly made to this document. The City's General Plan and Final
Environment Impact Report were used as a referenced source in prepadng this Initial Study.
18.b. There were no earlier impacts which affected this project.
18.c.
2.
3.
4.
5.
A Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared has been prepared for this project and is attached
to this document,
SOURCES
City of Temecula General Plan.
City of Temecula General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report.
South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
The City of Temecula Development Code.
Focused Traffic Analysis for TPM 28627 prepared by RKJK & Associated - May 1999 (with
subsequent amendments)
Biological Impact Report for TPM 28627 prepared by Pdncipe & Associates - December 1997
Delineation of Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters for TPM 28627 prepared by LSA Associates -
October 1998
A Reevaluation of Archaeological Sites Recorded on TPM 23987 prepared by The Archaeological
Research Unit at UCR (December 1988)
R:\CEQA\307PA97 - EIS2,doc
25
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Planning Application No. PA97-0307 (Tentative Parcel Map No. 28627)
Aesthetics
General Impact:
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings.
Mitigation Measure:
Preserve the entire six acres of Riparian Woodland and one half
acre of the one acre portion of the Riversidian Sage Scrub. For
the one half acre of Riversidian Sage Scrub that will be
developed. the project proponent will be required to purchase one
half acre of Riversidian Sage Scrub off.site or a greater amount as
required by State and Federal wildlife agencies in compliance with
the requirements of the California Department of Fish and Game's
Natural Communities Conservation Program (NCCP) [based on
the Evaluation Logic Flow Chart contained in Attachment "A" of
the Biological Impact Report prepared for the project].
Specific Process:
Receive approval for the purchase of off.site property from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of
Fish and Game, Submit a mitigation plan to the Planning
Department which details how the applicant has set aside
sensitive areas and has met the requirements of the U.S Fish and
Wildlife Service and the California Dept. of Fish and Game for the
off-site purchase of off.site property to compensate for the taking
of any Riversidian Sage Scrub.
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.
Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works and Planning Department.
General Impact:
Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Mitigation Measure:
Use lighting techniques that are consistent with Ordinance No.
655.
Specific Process:
Submit lighting plan to the Building and Safety Department for
approval.
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.
Responsible Monitoring Party :Building and Safety Department.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\307pa97.MMP.doc
1
Bioloc~ical Resources
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including
but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds).
Pay Mitigation Fee for impacts to Stephen's Kangaroo Rat.
Pay $500.00 per gross acre to mitigate the regional impacts on
the Stephen's Kangaroo Rat caused by urbanization.
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:
Preserve the entire 6 acres of Riparian Woodland on-site. Avoid
runoff contamination to Murrieta and Temecula Creeks, install
utility extensions underground, and revegetate all graded and
disturbed areas near the channels with native tree and plant
species.
Specific Process:
Development of the site shall preserve the entire 6 acres of
Riparian Woodlands on site. No grading or clearing shall occur in
this area. Development of the site shall be designed so that all
utility extensions are underground and that surface water run off
and spillage drains away from Murrieta and Temecula Creeks.
This area shall be fenced off prior to any grading activities to
prevent any disturbances to wetland or vegetation areas. The
project will be conditioned to revegetate all graded and disturbed
areas near the channels with native tree and plant species.
Prepare a Biological Mitigation Plan to insure project compliance
to the mitigation measures contained in this document.
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or any site development
modification, which ever occurs first.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Department of Public Works and Planning Department.
General Impact:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including
but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals and birds).
Mitigation Measure:
Requirement of biologic survey prior to the issuance of a grading
permit or at the time of the submittal of a development proposal
for the site (which ever occurs first).
Specific Process:
At the time of the submittal of a development proposal or the
submittal of a grading plan for the project site the applicant shall
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\307pa97.MMP.doc
2
submit a biological survey at the appropriate time of the year to
determine if the California Gnatcatcher, the Quino Checkerspot
Butterfly or any other endangered or threatened species inhabit
the site. This biological survey shall propose appropriate
mitigation for development of the site. This biological survey shall
submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California
Department of Fish and Game for review and approval. Prepare a
Biological Mitigation Plan to insure project compliance to the
mitigation measures contained in this document.
Mitigation Milestone:
Upon submittal of a development proposal or prior to the issuance
of a grading permit (which ever comes first).
Responsible Monitoring Party: Planning Department
General Impact:
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
Mitigation Measure:
Preserve the entire amount of Riparian Woodlands habitat on site.
Mitigate for any lost jurisdictional wetlands under the terms of a
404 Permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and a 1601
Permit from the California Department of Fish and Game.
Specific Process:
Obtain a 404 permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and a
1601 Streambed Alteration Permit from the California Department
of Fish and Game. Prepare a Biological Mitigation Plan to insure
project compliance to the mitigation measures contained in this
document.
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Department of Public Works and Planning Department.
Cultural Resources
General impact:
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique archeological resource or
site or unique geologic feature.
Mitigation Measure:
An earlier Archaeological Investigation conducted by the
Archaeological Research Unit at the University of California at
Riverside in December of 1988 identified a sensitive
archaeological area along Murrieta Creek which may extend into
the subject site. Due to the potential for deposits in the area and
at the recommendation of the UCR Eastern Information Center
(within correspondence dated October 13, 1997), future
development of the proposed site will be required to conduct a
Phase II archeological investigation on site prior to the approval
any development project.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\307pa97.MMP.dOC
3
Specific Process:
When future development is proposed on the site a Phase II
archaeological study shall be conducted. This study shall
establish appropriate mitigation to address any significant impacts
that may occur.
Mitigation Milestone:
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit or the submittal of a
subsequent development application, which ever occurs first.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Public Works Department and Planning Department.
General Impact:
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resoume or
site or unique geologic feature.
Mitigation Measure:
The General Plan identifies that the area could potentially be
within a highly sensitive paleontological area. Due to the potential
for deposits in the area, future development of the proposed site
will be conditioned to have an on site-monitor during grading
operations. The potential for future significant impacts will be
determined and fully mitigated when future development
proposals are considered.
Specific Process:
Place a condition on this project that grading will cease if cultural
resources are encountered during grading.
Mitigation Milestone:
During grading operations.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Public Works Department and Planning Department.
Geoloqic Problems
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Expose people to impacts from seismic ground shaking.
Ensure that soil compaction is to City Standards.
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.
Prior to the issuance of 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.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\307pa97.MMP.doc
4
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.
Hvdroloav
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).
General Impact:
Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would
impede or redirect flood flows.
Mitigation Measure:
The applicant shall obtain a floodplain development permit to
ensure all finished floors are a minimum of one (1) foot above the
base flood elevation.
Specific Process: Submit a floodplain development permit to the Public Works
Department for approval.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\307pa97.MMP.dOC
5
Mitigation Milestone: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works.
Transportation/Circulation
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Payment of Development Impact Fee for road improvements and
traffic impacts.
Payment of the Public Facilities Development Impact Fee as
required by, and in accordance with, Chapter 15.06 of the
Temecula Municipal Code.
Prior to the issuance of building permits.
Responsible Monitoring Party:Building and Safety Department.
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Increase in vehicle trips or traffic congestion.
Payment of Development Impact Fee for traffic signal mitigation.
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.
General Impact:
Increase in vehicle trips and traffic congestion whereby effecting
the Level of Service (LOS) for intersections in the vicinity and
increasing hazards associated with increased trips and traffic
congestion.
Mitigation Measure:
The project has been conditioned to relocate the site's access
approximately 250 feet to the west of the current proposed access
location, which effectively eliminates the extension of Old Town
Front Street to the south of Highway 79(S)/Western Bypass
Corridor.
Specific Process:
Redesign the map with the access into the project shifted to a
location approximately 250 feet from the current proposed
alignment and receive the appropriate approvals from the Public
Works and Planning Departments.
Mitigation Milestone: Prior to recordation of a final map.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\307pa97.MMP.dOC
6
Responsible Monitoring Party: Department of Public Works and Planning Department
Noise
General Impact:
Mitigation Measure:
Specific Process:
Mitigation Milestone:
Expose people to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in
ambient noise levels.
Construction activity shall comply with City ordinances regulating
the hours of activity in residential areas.
City inspectors shall periodically monitor the construction site to
ensure compliance.
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.
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.
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\CEQA\307pa97.MMP,doc
7
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
APPEAL DOCUMENTATION FROM MARGARITA CANYON LLC
F:~DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307pa97.AppeaI.CC.doc
City of Temecula
Community Development Department
43200 Business Park Drive * Temecula · CA · 92590
P.O. Box 9033, Temecula · CA * 92589-9033
(909) 6946400 , FAX (909) 694-6477
:iAR s o 0
Appeal
Origieal Case Number(s)
A. PURPOSE
PA 97-0307, TPM 28627
The purpose of the appeal procedure is to provide a method of recourse for persons aggrieved by or
dissatisfied with an action taken by an administrative agency of the City in the administration or
enforcement of any provisions of the Development Code.
B. FIIJNG RF. QUIREM'FNTS
1. Development Application.
2. Appeal Form.
3. Filing Fee.
C. NOTICE OF APPEAl, - TIME, I,I1VllT
A notice of an appeal by any individual who is aggrieved by or dissatisfied with a decision made by
him or in his behalf, or with any action, order, requirement, decision or determination shall not be
acted upon unless ~ed within fifteen (15) calendar days after service of written notice of the decision.
D. NOTICE OF APPEAL - CONTENTS
Appealing the decision of: Planning Commission - March 15, 2000
(Specify Director of planning or planning Commission AND ~.:tion Date)
Specify exac~y what is being appealed: Conditions 27 and 28.
Reason or justification to support the appeal. Appellant must submit with this appeal each issue which
the appellant alleges was wrongly determined together with every agreement and a copy of every item
of evidence. (Attach separate sheet of paper if necessary).
See Attachment "A"
Desired action to be token:
Delete Conditions 27 and 28.
In the event any Notice of Appeal applicant fails to answer any information set forth above, then
the request will be returned to the appellant, with a statement of the deficiencies. The appellant
shall be allowed ~e (5) calendar days in which to reffie the notice of appeal.
ATTACHMENT "A"
Applicant is appealing Conditions 27 and 28 tbr the following reasons:
6~mdition 27
1. Condition 27 should be stricken as it is unnecessary_ for safe traffic flow.
2. Condition 27 is vague and assumes certain traffic conditions that may not exist.
3. Notwithstanding these objections, applicant believes a reasonable compromise
could be agreed to if Condition 28 is stricken.
Condition 28
l. There is no factual or legal nexus to support Condition 28. Neither staff nor the
commission has provided sufficient grounds to justify this condition. Condition
28 should be stricken.
2. Condition 28 is vague and ambiguous.
3. Condition 28 is a taking of applicant's property without just compensation in an
attempt to provide access to an as yet undefined freeway off and on ramps.
4. Condition 28 is unnecessary and redundant in view of Condition 5(ii).
ATTACHMENT NO. 9
APPEAL DOCUMENTATION FROM TYLER & DORSA LLP
F:\DEPTS\PLANNING\STAFFRPT\307pa97.AppeaI.CC.doc
20
City of Temecula
Cmmmmity Developm,~ Deparmleut ~-
43200BmimmParkl)rlve, Temecu/a * CA * 92S90
P.O. Box 9033, Temecuh · CA * 92589-9033
(909) 694-64~0 * FAX (909) 694-6477
Appea
Os~iaal Cuc ~umber(s)
A,
Appeallag th~ decision of:
Planning Application Nos. PA97-0307; PA99-0307;
PA99-0382 (Tentatzve Parcel Map
TIm purpose of ~he ~ procedure is to provide a method of recourse for persons aggzitwed by or
dissalisfied ~Am an a~on ~ka by an adminLi~:.~vc ageac7 of the CRy in the administration or
effforc.~oast of any provisions of the Development Code.
1. Development Al~Hcation.
2. Al, p~Fonn.
3. Filing Fee.
NOT~CF~OF Ai'PFAL - Tn,~:,
A nofic~ of an ~ by any individual who is aggrieved by or ,~h,=~igSed with a d_,~__'sion made by
~ ulxm unle~ film wimi. fifteen (15) calendar days afi~ s~=vice of writran notic~ of the
NOTIC]: OF AVPI:~T- - CONrhNT~
2000
Temecula Planning Commission on March 15,
(SF¢~fY ~ 0tP~m~ ~ Phnn~I C~m~on AND Ac~a 1~)
5p~fyexsc~y what is be/rig appealed: The conditional approval of Planning
Application Nos. PA97-0307; PA99-0307; PA99-0382 (Tentative Parcel
Map 28627) without creating, as an additional condition of approval to
this application, the requirement that the Applicant grant permanent
legal access to the properties to the south of the Applicant's property.
Reason or justification to support the at,peal. AppeLlant must submit with this appeal cach issu~ which
the aplP. llant alle~ was wrongly determined together ';.'L'-': ~;'e:'/~:;c..'nen: and a copy of every item
of evidence. (Attach sepante sheet of lnper if
See Addendum to Appeal attached heretoo
The Appellants are requesting the City of Temecul~, as a condition of
approval, require the Applicant to grant permanent legal access to the
property owners located to the south of Applicant's property.
In th~ ~,~xt any No~i~ of Appea~ applicant f~i]_~ to answer any inEormat~on set forth above,
the x~lue~t wi~ be r~urned ~o the apl~ll_~nt, with a mmment of the de~d~mcies. The appeZant
shall be allowed five (5') calendar da~s in which m rcfde the notice of app~.
ADDENDUM TO APPEAL
APPLICATION NOS. PA97-0307; PA99-0307; PA99-0382
(TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 28627)
As described more fully below, the City of Temecula has the legal right to require the
Applicant to provide permanent legal access to the properties to the south of the
Applicant's property. There is approximately 175 acres of property located south of
the proposed subdivision which at this time is landlocked. The Appellants (the
McLaughlin family) own two parcels totaling approximately 64 acres. The only
reasonable way to obtain access to the property south of the Applicant's property is
by crossing a portion of the southernmost lot in the proposed Parcel Map.
Good public policy and planning calls for the City of Temecula to encourage the most
effective and beneficial use of real property. The property south of the proposed
development is now landlocked and, therefore, significantly underutilized. Requiring
a condition of access will allow the full utilization of the property south of the
proposed development.
Finally, if the City requires access to the southern properties, there will be little or no
impact/hardship on the applicant
THE CITY OF TEMECULA HAS THE LEGAL RIGHT TO CREATE, AS A
CONDITION OF APPROVAL TO THE APPLICATION BY MARGARITA CANYON,
LLC, A REQUIREMENT THAT PERMANENT LEGAL ACCESS BE GRANTED TO
THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO THE SOUTH
The requested condition is consistent with the Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code § §
66410, et. seq.), California case law, and the recently passed Temecula Subdivision
Ordinance,
A. SUBDIVISION MAP ACT (GOV. CODE § § 66410, et. see.)
The California Subdivision Map Act allows cities to require a subdivider to dedicate or
make an irrevocable offer of dedication of real property within the subdivision for
streets, alleys, including access riQhts and abutter's riQhts, drainage, public utility
easements, and other public easements. See Gov. Code § 66475. (Emphasis added).
The purposes underlying the various enactments of the Subdivision Map
Act (Gov. Code §§ 66410, et. seq.) have been to control the design of
subdivisions for the benefit of adjacent landowners, prospective
purchasers, and the public in general, and to prevent fraud and
exploitation. Morehart v. County of Santa Barbara (1992) 11 Cal. App.
4th 948. (Emphasis added).
B. CALIFORNIA CASE LAW SUPPORTS CREATING A CONDITION OF
ACCESS
There is an abundance of California case law which provides that there is no vested
right to own or develop property in a specific manner.
In the case, Dinosaur Development, Inc. v. White (1989) 216 Cal. App. 3d 1310, the
Court determined that a government entity may impose conditions on the grant of
permits or privileges. Dinosaur Development was a case regarding two property
owners with abutting properties where both properties were landlocked. The property
owner closest to the public road (Parcel A) filed an application requesting to subdivide
his property. The owner of Parcel B objected to Applicant's subdivision plan because
it would leave his property landlocked and he would therefore be unable to develop the
property in the future.
The County ultimately required the owner of Parcel B to build a road which would give
access to the owner of Parcel A to his property. The owner of Parcel B then sued the
owner of Parcel A in an attempt to recover the cost of building the road which
benefitted Parcel A. The Court determined that the County had the right to create the
condition of access and that the owner of Parcel B had no obligation to pay for the
building of the road, which acted as an improvement to his property.
The Court in Dinosaur Develol~ment determined that such conditions do not amount
to compulsion because the property owner remains free either to accept or to reject
the conditions. The Court further determined that the fact that the County acted as
a result of a neighbor's demand was unimportant. What was important was that the
County was acting within the scope of its powers and that its action arose within the
context of an official proceeding initiated at the landowner's request to be allowed to
develop its property in a specified manner.
The following cases support the proposition that there is no vested right to own or to
develop property in a specific manner:
Save Oxnard Shores v. California Coastal Commission (1986) 179 Cal. App. 3d
140, 151;
Whalers Villaqe Club v. California Coastal Commission (1985) 173 Cal. Appo 3d
240, 253;
City of Carmel Bv The Sea v. Board of Supervisors (1977) 71 Cal. App. 3d 84,
93, fn. 4.
The Courts have granted broad discretion to local authorities to regulate land use. As
part of that discretion, government entities may impose conditions on the grant of
permits and privileges. Such conditions do not amount to compulsion because the
property owner remains free either to accept or to reject them. Dinosaur, 216 Cal.
App. 3d at 1318-19.
C. TEMECULA SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
Because the application at issue was filed in 1997, it appears the Temecula
Subdivision Ordinance does not retroactively apply. However, it is instructive as to the
City's rights and duties to surrounding property owners in this situation. Section
16.30.140(D) of the Temecula Subdivision Ordinance states:
The types of dedications, easements, or grants of fee title, that a
subdivision may be subject to shall include, but shall not be limited to:
streets, alleys, access rights, drainage, public utility, landscape, slope,
and sewer. (Emphasis added)
II.
GOOD PUBLIC POLICY AND PLANNING CALLS FOR THE CITY OF TEMECULA
TO ENCOURAGE THE MOST EFFECTIVE AND BENEFICIAL USE OF REAL
PROPERTY
Arguably it should be the goal of all governmental agencies, and specifically in this
case the City of Temecula, to encourage the most effective and beneficial use of real
property. Requiring a condition of access will allow for the full utilization of the
property south of the Applicant's proposed development. At this time, the 175 acres
south of the Applicant's property, which is presently landlocked, is obviously
significantly underutilized as a result of being landlocked.
While the purpose of this appeal is to state numerous reasons why the City should
create the requested condition, a more important question to be asked is why the City
would NOT create a condition requiring access to the southern properties. As
discussed in more detail below, allowing access across the Applicant's property will
have little or no impact on the developers.
III.
IF THE CITY REQUIRES ACCESS TO THE SOUTHERN PROPERTIES THERE WILL
BE LITTLE OR NO IMPACT/HARDSHIP ON THE APPLICANT
The property owners to the south of the Applicant's property have agreed to pay for
the reasonable costs of the creation of access, including map revisions, building the
required roads, and other reasonable costs involved in creating access. As such, any
hardship on the Applicant would be minimal, at best. The Applicant has indicated that
they are not sure how they will ultimately develop the southernmost parcel of their
3
planned subdivision, where access would be required. The Appellants are willing to
accept a floating easement at this time and are willing to pay the reasonable amount
of whatever surveys and revisions may be required at a later date, after the Applicant
has determined what it will ultimately do with that 11 acre parcel. Again, the position
of the property owners to the south is reasonable and little or no impact would be felt
by the developers if the City grants the Appellants' request.
IV. FURTHER DOCUMENTATION IN SUPPORT OF APPEAL
Exhibit A: Letter dated March 15, 1991 from City of Temecula, City Senior Planner,
Steve Jiannino and Planning Director, Gary Thornhill.
The attached correspondence is a letter from Mr. Jiannino and Mr. Thornhill to
Gregory Erickson of Bedford Property. The letter regarded Bedford's tentative
parcel map on the same property which is at issue herein. At that time, the City
was going to require the applicant to show access to adjoining property to the
South. (See Point 3 on Page One of the attached Exhibit A).
Exhibit B: Correspondence dated December 2, 1999, to City of Temecula Planning
Department from counsel for Appellants regarding planning application number PA97-
0307.
Exhibit C: Correspondence dated December 22, 1999, to the City of Temecula
Planning Department from counsel for Appellants regarding planning application
number PA97-0307.
RonaldJ, Parks ~~91 '
I Par, ricia H. Birdsall
Mayor ~'o Tern
I
I
Mr. Grecjory A. Erlckson
Bedford Properties
PO Box 9015
Temecula, CA 92390-0738
J. Sal MuAoz
Counolmembef
David E Dixon
C,ty Manager
{714) 694-t 989
t714) 694-1999
SUBJECT: Tentative Parcel Map No. 23987 and
Change of Zone No. 5288
Dear Mr. Erickson:
I n order to complete the processing of the above mentioned projects, please
submit the following additional material/information:
Twenty (20) copies of Tentative Parcel Map showin9 current blue
line border for the property;
Amended Traffic Study - showing conflict with proposed street and
freeway ramps, study calls out drlveway not public street
intersection for your project;
Since you are subdividing the subject property into parcels below
40 acres in size, you will have to show access to adjoining property
to the south;
Need to show the latest Flood right-of-way, approximately ~O0 ft.;
and
A development proposal, plot plan, submittal could be beneficial for
your Change of Zone request. Due to the )ack of access and other
potential impacts, it appears that commercial zoning may not be
appropriate for this site.
Please note that I have previously discussed the needs for the current map
and updated traffic study with your engineer, Webb, Hawkins and
Associates.
1
I
EXHIBIT
!~i~l:~!'~ ' ~" :r Gregory a. Erlckson
, " March 15, 1991
..~ :
I ·: Page Z
I
Due to the pending law suit between adjoining neighbors and Bedford
Properties, this case has been idle for quite some time, Therefore, it is
Staff's recommendation that you withdraw the current appllcation and
submit your project when the law suit is finally disposed of, the Flood
Control alignment and right-of-way is flnalized, and a circulation pattern
for Front Street. the 1-15 ramps. and proposed intersection are complete.
Also you should consider submitting a complete development package
showing proposed building types, buffer treatment for the freeway, creek
and adjacent property to the south, along with the change of zone and
subdivision request.
If you have any further questions regarding this project, please contact
me at (71~) 69u,-6~00.
Sincerely.
Steve Jiannino
Senior Planner
·/t--.~-' "
~ary Thornhill
Planning Director
SJ :ks
cc: Webb, Hawkins and Associates
EXHIBIT A
Rivenide Count~O~ce
41877 Enterpine Circle North
Suite 210
Temecula, California 92590
Telephone: (909) 296-0700
Fax: (909) 296-0578
Please Reply To:
Riverside County Office
TYLER, DORSA & DUKE, LLP
Attorneys at Law
Orange Count~Ofi~ce
1200 Quail Street
Suite 140
Newport Beach, California 92660
Telephone: (949) 955-2425
Fax: (949) 955-2978
TO~
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
City of Temecula
Community Development Department
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
Paul J. Eldridge, Esq.(
March 30, 2000
Planning Application Nos. PA97-0307,
(Tentative Parcel Map 28627)
PA 99 -0307;
PA99-0382
Attached hereto please find an appeal to the Planning Commission decision made on
March 15, 2000 regarding the above mentioned Planning Application. The Appeal is
made on behalf of Joyce McLaughlin, Ray McLaughlin, Jr., and Donald McLaughlin.
Ri~ersideCountvOl'~ce
41877 Enterprise Circle North
Suite 210
Temecula, California 92590
Telephone: (909) 676-2121
Fax: (909) 6954411
Please Reply To:
Riverside County Office
TYLER & DORSA, LLP
Attorneys at Law
Oranft County O~ce
1440 North Harbor Blud.
Ninth Floor
Fullerton, California 92835
Telephone: (714) 449-3356
Fax: (714) 449-0399
December 2, 1999
VIA FACSIMILE TO (909) 694-6477
AND CONFIRMED VIA CERTIFIED U.S. MAIL
City of Temecula, Planning Department
Attn: John De Gange
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RE: Planning Application No. PA97-0307
Tentative Parcel Map 28627
Dear Mr. De Gange:
As you are aware this office represents Joyce McLaughlin, Donald McLaughlin and Ray
McLaughlin, Jr. I want to make it very clear from the outset that the Mclaughlins are
generally NOT opposed to the development of the property in question. They would
like to see the property utilized to the fullest extent possible and would like to see
Margarita Canyon, LLC benefit from the full utilization of the property.
However, one issue with which the McLaughlins are concerned is their lack of access
to their property located south of the proposed subdivision. The McLaughlins own two
parcels of real property south of the proposed parcel map described above. There are
a total of five parcels owned by private individuals which are located south of the
parcel map in question.
This is a formal request on behalf of the McLaughlins that the Planning Commission
require, as a condition of approval to the tentative parcel map, the granting of
permanent legal access to the five parcels south of the proposed development. The
Planning Commission clearly has authority to require access to surrounding properties
as a condition to approving any tentative map proposed.
In Dinosaur Development, Inc. v. White (1989) 216 CaI.App.3d 1310, a landowner
applied for approval of a subdivision plan. As a condition of approval and as the result
EXHIBIT
December 2, 1999
City of Temecula, Planning Department
Attn: John De Gange
Page 2
of the demand of neighboring landowners, whose land was landlocked, the
government entity (in this case the county) required the landowner to extend the
proposed access road from the nearest public thoroughfare so that it served the
neighbor's land as well as the landowner's. The landowner brought an action against
the neighboring property owners for restitution, the main issue being whether the
neighboring property owners would be required to pay any part of the construction of
the access road.
The court in Dinosaur Development. Inco held that the landowner was not entitled to
restitution, notwithstanding that the county imposed the access requirement as a
result of the neighbor's demands. The county's conduct did not constitute coercion,
since there is no vested right to own or develop property in a specific manner.
Government entities may impose conditions on the grant of permits or privileges. Such
conditions do not amount to compulsion because the property owner remains free
either to accept or to reject them. The court held that the fact the county acted as
the result of the neighbor's demands was unimportant; what was important was that
the county was acting within the scope of its powers, and that its action arose within
the context of an official proceeding initiated at the landowner's request to be allowed
to develop its property in a specified manner.
While the issue in Dinosaur Development, Inc. related to who would be responsible to
pay for the costs of access to surrounding landlocked properties, the case clearly
supports the McLaughlins' position here. It is within the purview of the Temecula City
Planning Commission to create a condition requiring legal access be granted to the
properties south of the development at issue. In Dinosaur Development. Inc. the
county conditioned approval of a subdivision map on the developers commitment to
providing access to other landlocked properties in the immediate vicinity of the
development. The court found in Dinosaur Development, Inc. that the party requesting
the conditional approval and who benefitted from the county's conditional approval
was NOT required to pay the costs of the grading and preparation of the access road
to their landlocked property.
The McLaughlins are requesting a reasonable route of legal access to their property.
They are not demanding this legal access at no cost to themselves. They are willing
to pay the costs involved in the preparation of the access. Further, the McLaughlins
are more than willing to accept a "floating" access at this time, the specific route of
access being determined at a later date.
The hardship on the developers, Margarita Canyon, LLC, would be
It would appear there is already permanent legal access in favor of
Water District for access to the pumping station which is located to
minimal at best.
the Metropolitan
the southeast of
EXHIBIT
December 2, 1999
City of Temecula, Planning Department
Attn: John De Gange
Page 3
the property. Access from that point to the southern edge of the developer's property
is approximately 300 feet.
In March of 1991 a previous owner of the property now owned by Margarita Canyon,
LLC approached the city with a tentative parcel map (No. 23987) for the property.
One of the conditions to the development of the property, stated by Steve Jiannino,
Senior Planner for the city of Temecula, and Gary Thornhill, Planning Director for the
city of Temecula, was that the developer would have to allow access to the adjoining
property to the south. I have attached a copy of a letter dated March 15, 1991 from
Steve Jiannino and Gary Thornhill to the previous developer of the property which sets
forth the condition of access to the properties to the south of the proposed
development.
It is arguable that the role of any public agency and/or entity should be to encourage
and to facilitate the most beneficial use of real property. At this time the properties
south of the proposed development are landlocked and have an extremely limited use.
Giving conditional approval based on granting legal access to those properties would
significantly increase the utility of the properties to the south of the development while
creating little or no hardship on the developers of the property.
There are other issues of access which take on a more public nature in regard to the
property south of the proposed development. Specifically, as I am sure you are aware,
there is an ancient Indian burial ground directly south of the property in question.
Right of passage to Indian burial grounds has been established through Federal case
law and statute. There is also a potential issue in regard to access to waterways,
rivers and streams pursuant to California Government Code Section 66478.4(a). The
Temecula Creek and the Santa Margarita River converge to the south and west of the
proposed development. There is a potential issue of public access to these
waterways, rivers and/or streams by and through the proposed development.
In conclusion, the McLaughlins are requesting the planning commission require, as a
condition to approval of the proposed development, the granting of access to the
property south of the proposed development. There is law which clearly supports this
type of condition and the condition would not create any undue hardship on the
developers of the property. We do appreciate your consideration of these matters,
Please contact me with your questions and/or comments in regard to this request.
Ve~ly urs _
P
aul J. Eldridge, q.~
PJE/kac
cc: Clients
EXHIBIT
41877 Enterprise Circle North
Suite 210
Temecula, California 92590
Telephone: (909) 676-2121
Fwe: (909) 695-4411
Please Reply To:
Riverside County Office
TYLER & DORSA, LLP
Attorneys at Law
1440 North Harbor Bled.
Ninth Floor
Fullerton, California 92835
Telephone: (714) 4~9-3356
Fax: (714) 449-0399
December 22, I 999
VIA FACSIMII..E TO (909) 694-6477
AND CONFIRMED VIA CERTIFIED U. S, MAIL
City of Temecula, Planning Department
Attn: John De Gange
43200 Business Park Drive
Temecula, CA 92590
RE:
Planning Application No. PA97-0307
Tentative Parcel Map 28627
Dear Mr. De Gange:
This letter is written in response to correspondence and memorandums submitted to
the city from Margarita Canyon LLC's ( the "Applicant") counsel, Alhadeff, Cannon,
Rose, Solar and Parks, LLP. It is also a response to various statements made by
Applicant's counsel at the Planning Commission Hearing on December 8, 1999.
Specifically, I will address two issues raised by Applicant's counsel in regard to
access to the properties to the south of the Applicant property: 1 ) The prior litigation
surrounding the access issue is not relevant to the Planning Commission's present
decision regarding access; and 2) the McLaughlins are not claiming a "right" of access,
but rather are claiming the Planning Commission has a "right" to require legal access
to the property south of the Applicant's property as a condition of approval to Planning
Application No. PA97-0307.
THE PRIOR LITIGATION REGARDING THE RIGHT OF ACCESS IS NOT RELEVANT
TO THE McLAUGHLINS' REQUEST OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
The issue of access to the property south of the Applicant Property has been litigated
in the past. However, that litigation is not relevant to the McLaughlins' request that
legal access be granted to the property owners to the south of the Applicant's
property. This information is not relevant because the McLaughlins are not claiming
EXHIBIT
LJecernDer Z ;', '1 ~
City of Temecula, Plannin
Attn: John De Gange
Page 2
'epartment
that they have a "right" of access across Applicant's propertyJ The issue before the
Planning Commission is not whether the McLaughlins have a legal enforceable right of
access at this time. The issue is whether the Planning Commission has the right to
condition approval of applicant's application on access to the Southern properties2
The case referred to by counsel for the Applicants (Kaiser Development Co, v. Andrew
McLaughlin, et. al.) is not the only Riverside County Superior Court case relating to
access issues and the property in question. Ray McLaughlin, Sr. purchased property
south of the applicant's property from Alex Elliott in 1979. At the time McLaughlin
purchased the property he believed he had an easement across the Applicant's
property. When it was discovered that Elliott had never obtained an easement, but
rather had obtained a revocable license, Elliott was sued for failure to disclose the fact
that there was no permanent access to the property purchased (McLaughlin v, Elliot}.
This suit settled before trial to the benefit of the McLaughlins in that Elliott obtained
an option to purchase an easement across the Applicant's property for $5,000 and
gave McLaughlin a significant reduction in the purchase price of the property. Further,
Elliott, McLaughlin and others were to share in the purchase price of a permanent
easement across the Applicant's property. When the time came to purchase the
easement, Elliott would not or could not front the money required of him to purchase
the easement and eventually the option expired. As such, Ray McLaughlin, Sr. lost
whatever right he might have had to purchase an option from the predecessor in
interest of the Applicant's property.
THE McLAUGHLINS ARE NOT CLAIMING A "RIGHT" OF ACCESS. BUT RATHER
ARE CLAIMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAS A "RIGHT" TO REQUIRE
LEGAL ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY SOUTH OF THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY AS
A CONDITION OF APPROVAL TO PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PA97-0307
The McLaughlins have requested that the Commission create a requirement of legal
access to the southern properties. This request is entirely consistent with the
Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code Section 6641 O, et seq.), California
case law and the recently passed Temecula Subdivision Ordinance.
Ill the McLaughlins were claiming that they did have a "right" of access across the
Applicant's property, the appropriate forum for that claim would be the Riverside County Superior
Court. Further, while this claim is not, at this time, being made by the McLaughlins, it is important
to note that the McLaughlins who have retained this Firm in this matter are Andrew ("Ray") R.
McLaughlin, Jr., Donald A. McLaughlin, and Joyce M. McLaughlin. The Ray McLaughlin who
appealed the Riverside Superior Court's decision in regard to the access issue is Ray McLaughlin,
Sr., the father of Ray McLaughlin, Jr. and Donald McLaughlin. Further, the property to which the
McLaughlin Family now holds title is a different parcel than that property to which Ray McLaughlin,
Sr. held title during the previous litigation of which the Applicants have discussed.
2 This issue is discussed in more detail below.
EXHIBIT
December 22, 1999
City of Temecula, Planninf~
Attn: John De Gange
Page 3
apartment
While the facts of Dinosaur Development, Inc, v. White, (1989) 216 CahApp.3d 1310
are not directly on point, the court clearly stated, "There being no vested right to own
or develop property in a specific manner [citation omitted],[c]ourts have . . . granted
broad discretion to local authorities to regulate residential [or in this case commercial]
land use in order to stabilize economic and social aspects of a neighborhood and to
promote esthetic considerations, family environments, and basic residential character
[citations omitted], As part of that discretion, government may impose conditions on
the grant of permits or privileges." Dinosaur Development, Inc. v. White, (1989) 216
CahApp.3d 1310, 1318.
There is no vested right to own or develop property in a specific manner. Government
entities may impose conditions on the grant of permits or privileges. Such conditions
do not amount to compulsion because the property owner remains free either to
accept or to reject them. The court in Dinosaur Development. Inc. held that the fact
the county acted as the result of a neighbor's demands was unimportant; what was
important was that the county was acting within the scope of its powers and that its
action arose within the context of an official proceeding initiated at the landowner's
request to be allowed to develop its property in a specified manner.
Section 16.30.140(D) of the Temecula Subdivision Ordinance states: "The types of
dedications, easements or grants of fee title that a subdivision may be subject to shall
include, but shall not be limited to: streets, alleys, ACCESS RIGHTS, drainage, public
utility, landscape, slope and sewer." [Emphasis added] Clearly, the McLaughlins'
request of conditional approval is consistent with the Temecula Subdivision Ordinance
and this local ordinance is consistent with the Subdivision Map Act. As such, the
Planning Commission does have a right to create the condition requested by the
McLaughlins.
WHY SHOULD THE PLANNING COMMISSION CREATE
THE REQUESTED CONDITION?
The legal access which the McLaughlins are seeking will not only benefit them, but will
also benefit numerous other property owners who own property south of the
Applicant's property. The McLaughlins own approximately 64 acres of undeveloped
property. There are at least four other parcels south of the Applicant's property with
total acreage (including the McLaughlins' property) equaling approximately 175 acres.
All of the 175 acres is landlocked at this time.
Arguably, it should be the goal of governmental agencies to encourage the most
effective and beneficial use of real property. Requiring a condition of access to the
southern properties will allow those properties to be effectively used by the owners
of those properties. If, as shown above, the Planning Commission has the legal right
to create the requirement of access to the properties as a condition of approval to the
EXHIBIT
December 22, 1999
City of Temecula, Planran,
Attn: John De Gange
Page 4
epartment
Applicant's planning application, why wouldn't the Commission create the requested
condition? The condition will not only benefit the McLaughlins, but will benefit all of
the landowners to the south of the property and will create the potential utility of
approximately 175 acres which is now landlocked.
The requested condition will have little or no impact on the Applicant. The
McLaughlins have agreed to pay for the reasonable cost of creating the access,
including map revisions and other associated costs. The Applicant has indicated they
are unsure how they will develop the 11 acre parcel across which access would be
required. Again, this does not create a problem because the McLaughlins are willing
to accept "floating" access at this time until the Applicants have determined how they
will use the 11 acre parcel. As such, any hardship on the Applicant would be minimal
at best
CONCLUSION
The Planning Commission has the right, legally, to require permanent legal access to
the properties south of the Applicant's property as a condition of approval to the
Applicant's tentative parcel map and planning application. Imposing the requested
condition will encourage the development and most effective and beneficial use of
approximately 175 acres of real property which at this time is landlocked. The
condition will create little or no hardship on the Applicant. As such, the McLaughlins
hereby respectfully request the Planning Commission to include the requirement of
legal access to the southern properties as a condition of approval to Planning
Application No. PA97-0307.
Finally, in the event the Applicant submits further paperwork, documentation or
correspondence relating to the access issue, please forward that information to me at
your earliest convenience at the above Riverside County address listed above. Also,
in the event further meetings are scheduled (prior to the January 19, 2000
Commission hearing) between the Applicant and the Planning Department which relate
to the access issue, please contact me as I would like to be a participant in those
meetings. If you have any questions or comments regarding these matters, please
contact me at (909) 676-2121.
PJE/kac
cc: Clients
EXHIBIT
· .~
%
ITEM 15
CITY MANAGER N ~
TEMECULA CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
City Manager/City Council
FROM:
Jim O'Grady, Assistant City Manager
DATE: May 9, 2000
SUBJECT: Consideration of Sponsorship Request for the Temecula Valley International
Film Festival
Prepared by: Gloda Wolnick, Marketing Coordinator
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
1)
2)
Consider the sponsorship request of $30,000 for the Temecula Valley International Film
Festival.
Approve a transfer of $30,000 from the Community Service funding to the Economic
Development sponsorship budget.
DISCUSSION: Staff has received the sponsorship request in the amount of $30,000 for
the 6u' Annual Temecula Valley International Film Festival, which is attached for your review.
Due to the timing of the event in September 2000, the Temecula Valley International Film
Festival is requesting that the City release the funds to the Festival in May to operate and
promote its Film Festival. The Temecula Valley Film Council will be exhibiting at the Show Biz
Expo in June at the Los Angeles Convention Center. The Film Council would like to have
printed materials and posters available to distribute promoting the Festival at this international
film industry trade show.
Representatives of the Temecula Valley International Film Festival met with the Economic
Development Sub-committee, Councilmembers Jeff Comerchero and Ron Roberts, on Apdl 25,
2000, to discuss their funding. As a result of this meeting, the Sub-committee recommends that
this request move forward for Council consideration.
The Temecula Valley International Film Festival will provide 60 - 70 films which will include:
special tributes, studio films, independent films, foreign films, student films as well as presenting
several additional lifetime achievement recipients in vadous categories. Also, for the first time
the Cinematographefs Association will be bdnging their First Time Director Series to the
Festival. This is a series of films that is only shown in Los Angeles, New York, Chicago and
now Temecula.
Another addition to this year's event is the participation of the Filmmakers Alliance. They will
be presenting a sedes of digitally produced films, which have not been shown at any Film
Festival before. Temecula will be the first city to screen these technologically innovative films
using digital technology to a wide general audience.
~TEMEC_FSI OI\VOLI\DeptS\CITYMGR\WOLNICKG~AgendareI~rtS~Filrn Festival 'OO. doc
This year, one of the Festival's sponsors will be Indiespace.corn, an Intemet company that has
worked with the Santa Monica Film Festival and Newport Beach Film Festival in advertising and
hosting an on-line film market for our film participants. This will prove to be an exciting part of
the Festival utilizing the Intemet.
A sampling of the schedule of events planned over the four day pedod include:
Opening Night Premiere & Reception
General Screenings
Filmmakers Workshop Series
Black Tie Awards Gala
Filmmakers' Hot Air Balloon Race
Post Screening Parties
Digital Technology Day
Closing Night Wrap Party/Viewers Choice Awards
The event will take place September 14 - 17, 2000, at a theater location in Temecula. Final
arrangements are currently being negotiated with Bruce Sanborn of the Movie Experience at
Tower Plaza. The Festival's subsequent events will be held at locations in the City of
Temecula.
The Film Festival will be organized and presented by Cinema Entertainment Alliance and Nova
Pictures in ceoperetion with Temecula Valley Film Council and the Theater Foundation. The
Women's Club and the Playhouse will also be supporting the Festival. The Film Council is fully
supportive of this arrangement. Peter Barnett of Nova Pictures, will be the Festival Director. He
will provide a strong background of managerial, production, and finance experience, which will
prove beneficial for the Festival. Jo Moulton and Eve Craig, Founder and Co-Founder of the
Temecula Valley Film Council and Film Festival will serve as this years Festival Advisors. The
Festival's core management team's qualifications are attached for your review (see attachment
E).
In line with the Festival's commitment to promoting the arts and providing an environment for
creativity through education, a portion of the proceeds will go towards a scholarship grant to an
area graduating high school senior. In addition, half of the Opening Nigh ticket sales proceeds
will go towards the fundraising efforts of the Theater Foundation for a Performing Arts Theater in
Old Town Temecula.
The event attracted approximately 5,000 in attendance in 1999 with the attendance expected to
increase to 10,000 this year. The Film Festival's pdmary intended market, the filmmakers,
composed the majority of last years audience. Plans for the 2000 event include an information
campaign to the community about what a film festival is all about. VVith the proper marketing of
the Festival locally, affordable ticket pdces, fewer screening days, and an information campaign,
the attendance from the community is expected to increase.
The '99 Festival publicity consisting of newspaper, magazine, radio and trade publications
coverage combined with their respective circulation numbers, received approximately 6 million
impressions. The Festival was also included in several international listings of upcoming film
festivals, and covered by the Hollywood Reporter and Variety publications and websites.
Publicity for the 2000 event will include a direct mail campaign to film industry professionals, a
public relations campaign to major industry trade publications, internet, pdme national and local
television news/entertainment programs. The local newspapers will be the Festivel's pdmary
advertising vehicles consisting of a media mix of broadcast, print and outdoor advertising will be
\\TEMEC_FSIOI\VOLI\Depts\CITYMGR\WOLNICKG~AgendareF2rts~Film Festival '00.doc
scheduled two months before the Festival. Information speaking engagements with local
service organizations, Community Theater, school and civic groups will also be scheduled.
As part of the FY1999-2000 Community Services Budget, the Council will be considering
funding from this account. There will be no commissions paid to any party of the City of
Temecula's sponsorship.
FISCAL IMPACT: A transfer from the FY1999-00 Community Services funding line item is
required to fund this request for $30,000 to the Temecula Valley International Film Festival,
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - Advertising Agreement
Attachment B - Sponsorship Package
Attachment C,- Business/Media Plan and Budget
Attachment D - Recap of 1999 Temecula Valley Film Festival
Attachment E - Key Festival Management Qualifications
\\TEMEC_FSIOI\VOLI~Depts\CITYMGR\WOLNICKG~Agendarei~rtS~Filrn Festival 'OO.doc
ATTACHMENT A - ADVERTISING AGREEMENT
SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN
CITY OF TEMECULA AND
TEMECULA VALLEY INTERNATIONAL FILM FEST1VAL
This Agreement, made this 9th day of May, 2000, by and between the CITY OF
TEMECULA, (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and TEMECULA VALLEY
INTERNATIONAL FILM COUNCIL, a California nonprofit corporation (hereinafter referred to
as ('~VIFC").
A. TVIFC will operate the "6th Annual Temecula Valley International Film Festival"
on September 14-17, 2000. The Temecula Valley International Film Festival is a special event
located at the TBD Theater in Temeeula. Locations of the Festival's subsequent events
are to be determined but will be located in the City of Temecula. Attendance in previous years
has been between 5,000 - 7,000+ people for the event. The anticipated attendance for the 2000
Festival is estimated at 10,000.
B. The City of Temecula desires to be a Major Sponsor of the 2000 Temeeula Valley
International Film Festival.
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between the parties as follows:
A. In exchange for the payment of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000.00), the City of
Temecula shall be designated as a 'Wlajor Sponsor" of the 2000 Temecula Valley International
Film Festival. In exchange for being a Major Sponsor, the City of Temeeula will receive the
benefits as listed in Attachment B.
B. Within 60 days after conclusion of the Film Festival, TVIFC shall prepare and
submit to the City Manager a written report evaluating the Film Festival event, its attendance,
media coverage, description of the materials in which the City was listed as a Major Sponsor
and a financial statement of the revenue and expenses of the Film Festival.
C. TVIFC agrees that it will defend, indemnify and hold the City and its elected
officials, officer, agents, and employees flee and harmless from all claims for damage to persons
or by reason of TVIFC's acts or omissions or those of TVIFC's employees, officers, agents, or
invites in connection with the Temecula Valley International Film Festival to the maximum
extent allowed by law.
D. TVIFC shall secure from a good and responsible company or companies doing
insurance business in the State of California, pay for and maintain in full force and effect for the
duration of this Agreement a policy of comprehensive general liability and liquor liability in
which the City is named insured or is named as an additional insured with TVIFC and shall
furnish a Certificate of Liability by the City. Notwithstanding any inconsistent statement in the
policy or any subsequent endorsement attached hereto, the protection offered by the policy shall;
Include the City as the insured or named as an additional insured covering
all claims arising out of, or in connection with, the Temecula Valley
International Film Festival.
R:\WOLNIcKG~Agendareports\Film Festival 'OO.doc 4
Include the City, its officers, employees and agents while acting within the
scope of their duties under this Agreement against all claims arising out
of, or in connection with Temecula Valley International Film Festival.
Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
(A)
Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage
provided on ISO-CGL Form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88.
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 endorsement to the
General Liability policy described above is acceptable.
(c)
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.
(D)
Professional Liability Insurance shall be written on a policy form
providing professional liability for the Consultants profession.
Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits no less
than:
(A)
GeneralLiability: One million dollars ($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.
(B)
Automobile Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per
accident for bodily injury and property damage.
(c)
Worker's Compensation/Employer's Liability: Worker's
Compensation as required by the State; and Employer's Liability:
One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or
disease.
(D)
Professional Liability Coverage: One million dollars ($1,000,000)
per claim and in the aggregate.
(E)
Liquor Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single
limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property
damage.
R:\WOLNICKG%Agendarepor~\Film Festival '00. doc 5
The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against the City,
its officer, officials, employees and volunteers for losses arising from the
Temecula Valley International Film Festival.
Bear an endorsement or shall have attached a rider whereby it is provided
that, in the event of expiration or proposed cancellation of such policy for
any reason whatsoever, the City shall be notified by registered mail,
postage prepaid, return receipt requested, not less than thirty (30) days
beforehand.
Any deductible or self-insured retention must be declared to and approved
by the City. At the option of the City, either the insurer shall reduce or
eliminate such deductible or self-insured retention as respects the City, its
officers, officials and employees or TVIFC shall procure a bond
guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim
administration and defense expenses.
E. Should any litigation be commenced between the parties, hereto, concerning the
provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party concerning the provisions of this Agreement,
the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees, in addition
to any other relief to which it may be entitled.
R:\WOLNICKG~Agendareports\Film Festival 'O0. doc 6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused its corporate name and seal to be
hereunto subscribed and affixed by Chairperson and attest to by the City Clerk, both thereunto
duly authorized, and the Temecula Valley Film Council, has hereunto subscribed this Contract
day, month, and year hereinabove written.
DATED:
TEMECULA VALLEY INTERNATIONAL
FILM FESTIVAL
CITY OF TEMECULA
BY:
Jo Moulton
Founder and Advisory Board
Temecula Valley International Film Festival
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
City of Temecula
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Peter Thorson, City Attorney
R:\WOLNICKG%Agendareports\Film Festival 130. doc 7
ATTACHMENT B - SPONSORSHIP PACKAGE
City of Temecula as Major Sponsor ($30,000)
Benefits Include:
· RecognitionofCityofTemecula'ssponsorshipinallfestivalcollateralmaterials.
· Recognition ofCity ofTemecula's sponsorship in all applicable Broadcast and Print
Media advertising, signage and press releases.
· Acknowledgment of City of Temecula's sponsorship prior to and after every film
screening and filmmaking workshops.
· Full page, black & white Inside Cover Page, City ofTemecula ad in the program.
· l 0 complimentary tickets to the Opening Night Premiere and Reception.
· I-'~complimentar~ tickets to the Black Tie Awards Gala and Closing Night Wrap.
· 10 complimentary tickets to all Festival workshops/panel discussions/seminars.
· 10 complimentary. tickets to all Nightly Networking Opportunity Parties.
· 10 complimentary tickets to any pre-festival fundraising events.
· 100 regular screening tickets for giveaway to city employees
· Festival Souvenirs (festival shirts, mugs & hats)
· Access to the VIP Hospitality Suite.
· Acknowledgment of City of Temecula representatives at the Opening Night Premiere
& Post Premiere Reception, Black Tie Awards Gala, Closing Night Wrap Party.
· Opportumty to incorporate Festival Logo in any City of Temecula Marketing efforts,
insertion of City logo in the festival website and in the program sponsors' logo page.
· Opportunity for City ofTemecula to enhance community relations by involving City
officials and employees in different aspects of the festival (from festival presenters to
hosts/hostesses in all prime festival special events).
As Host City, the City will always be acknowledged as a cooperative entity in the event
titling regardless of which the eventthai Presenting or Title sponsor will be.
TVIFF will secure from a good and responsible company or companies doing insurance
business in the State of Califomia, pay for and maintain in full force and effect for the
duration of the event a policy of comprehensive general liability and liquor liability in
which the City of Temecula is named insured or as an additional insured covenng all
claims arising out of, or in connection with, the 2000 6th Annual TVIFF.
Coverage will provide the following minimum limits:
General Liability - $1,000,000 combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury,
personal injury and property damage.
Liquor Liability - $1,000,000 combine single limit per occurrence for bodily injury,
personal injury and property damage.
ATTACHMENT C - BUSINESS/MEDIA PLAN AND BUDGET
MARKETING PLAN
The 6th Annual Temecula Valley lnt'! Film Festival's marketing strategy will
consist of the following:
INTERNET MARKETING
In the past five years, a real revolution has taken place, one that offers events such as the
6t~ Annum Temecula I/alley Int'l Film Festival, greater reach and greater impact than
any other marketing innovation of the past century- the Interact, more specifically, the
World Wide Web. With our own web site, www.tviffcom, the festival is guaranteed 24-
hour worldwide exposure.
This year the TVIFF will have an Internet sponsor. Indiespace.tom will provide the Web
page, Internet advertising, links to film industry vendors, and an On-line Film Market for
all participants that includes streaming trailers. Owner Jeanne Novak has represented the
Santa Monica film Festival and Newport Beach Film Festival. This new partnership will
provide a new and exciting approach to expanding the festival's audience.
DIRECT MAIL
Informative and timely brochures, updates, reminders and bulletins will be sent via direct
mail campaign to filmmakers, film distributors, production companies, talent agents,
publicists, and film schools.
PUBLICITY & MEDIA RELATIONS
Extensive public relations campaign before, during and after the festival.
Major industry trade publications (Hollywood Reporter, Daily Variety, Semen Int'l) and
area newspapers (Arts' and Entertainment, Guide. Calendar Sections) will be aggressively
pursued for story editorials about the Festival.
Prime national and local television news/entertainment programs such as Entertainment
Tonight, Access Hollywood will be tappod for strategic story placements.
Festival fact sheets will be distributed to travel publications, local event calendar guides,
chambers of commerce, area schools, area organizations. Information speaking
engagements with local service organizations, Community Theater, school and civic
groups will be scheduled.
ADVERTISING
Although local newspapers will be the festivat's primary advertising vehicles, a media
mix of broadcast, print and outdoor advertising will be scheduled two months before the
festival. Cross promotions with festival sponsors and advertisers will be aggressively
encouraged. Display billboards in malls, on semen advertising in theaters, posters, free
standing inserts or brochures and ticket giveaways are just a few of the high impact
promotional ideas planned to advertise the festival.
The 6th Annual Temecula Valley Int'l Film Festival
Sponsorship Package Elements
The festival sponsorship package is tailored to meet the individual sponsor needs. The following
are a variety of programs included in the sponsor benefits package based on sponsor level of
pamcipanon:
Advertising: Advertisement in the 2000 Official Program. Sponsor recogmtion in the TVIFF
event advertising in print/broadcast media, whenever applicable. (Time and space allotment will
dictate sponsor recogmfion availability)
Publicity: Extensive distribution of press release announcement of sponsorship. On site
interviews of sponsors in print/broadcast media may be arranged, whenever possible.
Corporate Logo: Placement in corporate sponsor page of event official Program. Placement in
event program with the sponsored film screening(s) or event. Placement/mention on
prmtPoroadcast media advertisements, whenever applicable. Placement on the TVIFF web site.
Corporate Banner:. Placement of sponsor banner at any or all festival theater and special event
venues for the full rim of the festival, whenever possible. (Subject to venue approval)
Corporate Signage: For sponsors ofspaci~c film screening (s) or special festival events, a
sponsor sign display board will be created to announce sponsorship of the screening (s) or event.
Corporate Literature: Sponsor literature, brochures or promotional items may be displayed,
distributed at various festival venues throughout the full run of the festival. Information and
corporate tables will be set up in the lobbies of the festival theater venues, the festival box office,
media center and the Hospitality Suite.
Web Site: WWW,TVIFF.COM is the official year-round site of the TVIFF. Sponsorship is
acknowledged with sponsor logos and brief sponsor bio. Hyperlinks to sponsor websims can be
established.
Specific Corporate Identification: Depending on sponsor level of participation, a sponsor
name may be attached to a specific portion of the film festival, as the "Official" supplier of
product or service.
Hospitality Suite: Sponsors will have access m the Hospitality Suite. This suite is reserved for
special festival guests, filmmakers and sponsors.
Ticketing and Special Passes: All sponsors will receive complimentary tickets and passes to
all performances, workshops and special festival parties. Ticket and Pass allotment will depend
on level of sponsorship.
2000 6m Annual Temecula Valley Int'l Film Festival
SCHEDULE OF EVENTS
Opening Night Premiere & Reception
Thursday, SepL I 4, Cocktails at 6:30pm/Premiere, 7:30 - Reception at 9:30prn, Tickets: $10
General Screenings
Thursday, Sept 14- ,'~'unday, Sept 17, From 1 :OOpm to 11 :OOpm, General Admission,
Black Tie Awards Gala
Sponsor TBD, Friday, September 15, 6PM, cocktai~ 7PM dinner, Lifetime Achievement Awards
presentationanddanc~ Tickets, $75perpersmt
Filmmakers Workshop Series
Saturday, Sept. l 6 through Sunday, Sept 17- I O:OOam-3: OOpnt Industry experts lead dialogues,
workshops and pand discussions on various film-industry related topic~ Tickets, $12 per persuit
Post Screening Networking Opportunity Parties
Friday, Sept l S - Sunday, Sept 17,Hospitality Suite, 6PM.
Live entertainment, samples of various cuisines. Party and mingle with filmmaker~ $5 cover charg~
Closing Night Wrap PartylViewer's Choice Awards
Sponsor, TBD. 5;unday, Sept 17, 6pnt Announcement-winners for Best Feature Film, Best Foreign
Film, Best Short Film, Best Student Film, Best Documentary, Best Animallint Tickets, $10/persott
How to Purchase Tickets
General Admission tickets and special festival ticket packages may be purebased through the TVII~F
at the Hospitality Suite or at the Festival HQ starting September 1, 2000. To purchase ticket by
phone or mail please make checks or money order payable to TN/1FF and mail to: TVI~'p', 27740
Jefferson Ave, Suite 100, Tomecola, Ca 92590. If paying by credit card, please fill out the following,
sign and return this portion to above-mentioned address.
VISA , MC
Prim Name:
Address:
Telephone (HOME)
, AMEX , Discover Acct # Exp. Date:
Signature:
OFFICE:
AH pass and ticket orders by phone will be hdd at WII .I. CALL at the Festival Box
Office. Pick Up at WILL CALL starts September 17, 2000. All ticket sales are final.
No refunds or exchanges. For info, call TVIFF at (909) 699-6267 or www,tviff. com or write us c/o
TVIFF, 27740 Jefferson Ave. Suite 100, Temecula, Ca 92590.
A Word about Screenings, Workshops and Special Events
Due to circumstances beyond our control, some or all schedules of screenings, workshops and special
events may be subject to change with little or no advance notice. Daily updates will be posted at the
theater venue, the Festival Box Office and the Festival Hospitality Suite. No refunds or exchanges,
except in case of a program or special event cancellation.
Seating is available at all screenings on a first come-tint served bask. We recommend that you come
15 minutes before your scheduled screening time.
Festival rims are not rated. Parental discretion advised on some ~ms. Films not in English will be
presented with English subtitles.
2000 6m Annual Temecula Valley Int'l Film Festival Budllet
Expenses
Collateral Printing $5,000
Graphics Design $3,500
Publicity/Media Relations/Advertising $22,500
Special Guests/Filmmaker/Workshop Presenter Expenses $27,500
Transportation $1,000
Accommodations $1,000
Trophies/Plaques/Certificates $1,000
Cash Prizes $3,000
Security (3 days) $1,000
t6MM-2000 Projector Rental $3,500
Party Expenses
Opening Night $1,000
Gala Night $I0,000
Closing Night Wrap $1,000
Party supplies/Diicor/Rentals $5,000
Festival Management Expenses
StatFCEA/Nova Pictures $25,000
Event Coordinator/Sponsor Dev. $1,500 + cog.
Volumeers Coordinator $1,000
Logistics Coordinator $1,000
Commissions $10,000
Print/Fraffic/Screeinngs Coord. $3,000
$41,500
Miscellaneous
Theater Rental (5/4 days) $10,000
Festival Operations on site Office $1,000
Postage/Freight $2,000
Merchandise (shirts/hats/mugs) $2,000
Telephone/Fax $2,000
Insurance $3,000
Signage InstallationjBanners $3,000
Permits/Fees $500
Schotarship Awards $2,500
Contingency
$23,500
$5,000
TOTAL FESTIVAL BUDGET $131,000
2000 6th Annual Temecula Valley Int'l Film Festival
Projected Income
Sponsorships
580,000
Ticket/Merchandise/Event Sales
$65,500
General Admission Tickets @ $5
5 screenings in 5 theaters for 4 days @ $5 per film with an average viewer attendance of no less than 50 per
screening, $25,000
Opening Night Premiere & Reception @ 510
$10 x 300 paid attendees, $3,000
Black Tie Awards Gala @ $75
$75 x 300 paid attendees, $22,500
Closing Night Wrap @ S10
$10 x 300 paid attendees, $3,000
One Day Pass @ $20
$20 x 100 paid attendees,
$2,000
Workshops, @ 512
$12 x 100 paid attendees,
$t,200
Merchandise
T shins ~ $10 x 100, $l,000
Mugs ~ $5 xl00, $500
Souvenir Programs @ SIx 300, $300
Entry Fees
200 x $25= $5,ooo
200 x sic)= $2,000
Total Projected Income:
Less Event Expenses:
Projected Net Proceeds
$145,500
$131,000
$14,500.00
ATTACHMENT D - RECAP OF 1999 TEMECULA VALLEY FILM FESTIVAL
1999 5th Annual Temecula Valley Int'! Film Festival
Wrap-up Report
By Jo Moulton
Over-all, the film festival achieved once again its primary purpose of
bringing the film industry to town so that they may have first hand
opportunity of seeing what our area has to offer in terms of their production
plans for the future. Filmmakers from all over dropped in every day of the
eight days that the festival ran. Media coverage was extensive. The
combined cash and in-kind sponsorships from the business community were
very strong. Attendance, although below expectations, showed a marked
increase from previous years. Ticket sales were enough to cover the cost of
the event.
One thing that was made pretty clear based on this year' s attendance
(approx. 5,000), Temecula does not have a solid base of sophisticated film
festival audience, as yet. There is no question community residents knew
about the event. Opening Night, Gala Night and Closing Night receptions
were well artended. But the screenings and workshops, although they had
increased attendance from the previous years, still scrapped for audience
share. It is obvious the parties and the other peripheral activities created to
make the event more festive are popular. But in order for Temecula to be a
serious contender in the film festival circuit- a strong showing at the box
office is needed. Filmmakers have to feel secure in the knowledge that the
community does support emerging, fresh, innovative cinematic works of art.
For all the social and political national interest in ridding mainstream cinema
of smut, gore and violence, Temecula actually is ahead of the game by
having its very own film festival, which showcases axtistic, cultural,
educational and entertaining film product. More work needs to be done
towards increased community awareness and active participation. The
knowledge that this community appreciates art and culture in addition to
their appreciation for little league baseball, soccer and swim meets is
encouraging. A real challenge but encouraging.
Attached is a complete list of film festival participants, an event feedback
compilation sheet, media impressions/marketing coverage generated by the
event and the festival income/expense financial report.
Film Festival Participants
Ataturk
Tolga Omek
4115 Wisconsin Ave.#301
Washington, D.C. 20016
Bad Timing
Eric Addison
8110 High St., La Mesa, CA91941
The Beloved
Sarlta Siegel
118A Panorama Road
Christchurch 8, New Zealand
Beer Run
Steven Oritt
2605 Tildcn Ave.. LA. CA 90064
Betty
The Climb
Same River Twice
C/o: Stuart Strutin
Panorama Entertainment Corp.
125 N. Main St.
Port Chester, NY 10573
Between Girls
Julie Blumberg
725 '/'z N. Edinburgh Ave. #1, LA, CA 90046
Between Shadow
Chad Park
1501 Edris Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90035
The Big Empty
La Cucaracha
Lel~ of Center Productions
Jack Perez
507 N. Vista Street
Los Angeles. CA 90036
Bongwater
AI Uzielli
369 S. Doheny Dr., BI-L CA 90211
Bloody Date
Eric Jaspers
R. Hogerbcetstraat 15-111
1052 VM Amsterdam, Netherlands
A Boy's Life
FilmFAN Pictures, Inc.
Matt Zboyosld / Dylan Trivette
#5 Kimberly Ave., Asheville, NC 28804
Burning Black Widows
Joe Vidauretta
1519 RollIn St.#D, So. Pasadena, CA 91030
The Business Card
P. Patrick Hogan
227 N. Belmom St. #5, Glendale. CA 91206
Canvas
Mike Erasquin
1874 Greenfield #2, LA~ CA 90025
Call Me Fishmacl
Stephen Dovas
202 St. James Pi., Brooklyn, NY 11238
Casanova Falling
Bigel/Mailer Films-Chris Connolly
443 Greenwich St #3A. NY, NY 10013
Cat's Cradle
Simon Bowler
1326 N. Sycamore Ave., L& CA 90028
Children's Crusade
Marion Bomschier
Promenadengasse 18, CH-8001 Zurich
Chronicle of Love
Mayo Films, Ltd.
Tzipi Trope
2 Wash. Sq. Village, NY, NY 10012
Crickets & Potatoes
Graham Streeter
520 So. Burnside Ave. Suite 10-L
Los Angeles. CA 90036
Daylight Hours Only
Tamam Tmcz
23731 Valle Del Oro #202, Newhall, CA91321
The Dirt on Mom
Doug Abetie
12800 N.E. 191't Circle
BattleGround, WA 98604
Deadly Squirrel
Jason Walker
P.O. Box 486, Moorooka, QLD. Australia 4105
Detention
Contact: JR Roberts
2317 Stratford Ct., Fort Worth. TX 78103
The Devolution of Ethan Chadwick
Chris We~ Young
3733 N. Clark St. #3W, Chicago, IL 60613
Digital Gremlln For Windows
Juli¢ Goldman
272 6th Ave. #2P,, Brooklyn, NY 11215
Dream Pador
Mike Dahl/Jonathan Lawrence
1037 Rolling Hills M~nor#40
Fullerton, CA 92835
Neal Fredericks
7230 Franklin Ave. #311, LA, CA 90046
The Elevator
Chuck Rose
636 Burnside Ave.#107, LA, CA 90036
Entropy
Dan Green
1950 N. Tamarind Ave. #102, LA, CA90068
First Date
Eric Chambers
1631 16th St., Santa Monica, CA 90404
Frank Finds Out
Peep Show
Charlie Call
607 N. Rossmore Ave. #203
Los Angeles, CA
l~eight
Mark Norberg
14947 Dickens St.#8, Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
freshmen
Tom Huang
1210 Idaho Ave. #103, LA, CA90025
Gristle
Andrew Murray
51 Imperial Ave.,Bondi NSW 2026,Anslralia
From the Top of the Key
Jhn Fleigner
821 Third St., # 109, Santa Monica, CA 90403
GetaJob
Jason Wolk
9903 Santa Monica BI.. #814, BH, CA 90212
The Gift
Gita Donovan
134 N. Sycamore Ave., Lk CA90036
Gnase Monkey
Grog Bennett
(323) 634-7898
Homecoming
Michael D' Acldario
1811 Ocean Front Wallc#5
Vemce, CA 90291
A Hard Day's Night
C/o Miramax Films
(212) 941-3800
Inconceivable
Robert Weis
1925 Robin Rd., San Marino, Ca 91108
Insha Allah
Hani Narouz
549 N. Kenmore Ave., LA. CA 90004
In Search of the Famous Hoosier Breaded Pork Tenderloin Sandwich
Jensen Rufe
17411 TamO'ShamerDr.
Poway, CA 90264
Jesus 2000
Eric Cooper
P.O. Box 6407, Malibu, CA 90264
Just Add Love
David Cole
139 Forest Ave.
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
Just A Matter of Time
Oliver Olsen
4-185 Parkside
Toronto, Ontario M6R-2Y9
Just Outside the Door
John Tranchina
11 Cambridge Way, Wayside, NJ 07302
Just Sue Me
Neva Fricd~nn
Award Entertainmant
3255 Cahuenga Blvd. West/4100
Los Angeles, CA 90068
Keepers of the Frame
I~ndy Gitsch
1685 S. Colorado Blvd.#S-139
Denver, CO 80222
Killing Off
Jud Cremata
906 Pacific Ave. #18, Venice, CA 90291
Los 3 Cielos
Octavio Gasea
Ojinaga #22 10, Chihuahua
Mexico. 31020
Lovers on the Bridge
Contact: Miramax Films
(212) 941-3800
The Last Tzaddik
Michael Zaidan
8575 Wonderland Ave.. LA, C A
Le Bateau
Vanessa Newell
138 N. Detroit, LA, CA90036
Life of Love
Vinny Lee
8811 Woodley Ln
Garden Grove, CA 92841
Life Ain't No Crystal Stair
Renford Reese
3801 W. Temple Ave., Pomona, CA 91768
Loe Light Louis
Hans Van Westerlaak
P.O. Box 1024, 4801 BABREDk
Netherlands, 31-76-5219324
The Lost Kingdom
Lee Hsiang Hsiu
#3, Ln 3l, Jen Hsin St., Sanchi=ung
Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C.
Maria On the Flowers
Victoria Arias Fmasa
225 W. 14th SL #5E
New York, NY 10011
Motel
Nicholas D. Tabarrok
#2-134 Shuter St., Toronto, Ontario
M5A1VB, Canada
Mr. Willard Swallows A Fly
Tanna Herr
1785 N. Los Robles Ave.
Pasadena, CA 91104
My New Best Friend
Karen Rosin
938 Malcolm Ave.
Los Angeles, Ca 90024
My Turn
Susan Weisshaar
Not Not Now
Jennifer Treur
P.O. Box 1154
Crows Nest, NSW 1585 Australia
Opie Gone Mad
Andy Johnson
504 Selway St., Glendale, CA 91206
1001 Nights
Tom's Midnight Garden
Hyperion Studio
111 N. Maryland Ave. #200
Glendale, CA 91206
The Perfect Candidates
Brian Harris Krmsky
1774 El Cerrito PI. ~4, LA, CA 90028
Plug
Jamie Waese/IVlener Gourjian
14259 Dickens St.#8
Sherman Oaks, CA 91423
Rats
Phil SeneAter
Spot Prod. Inc.
546NE85mST.
Seat0e, WA 98115
Return of Paul Jarrett
Clark Jarrat
1723 So. Amherst Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Rose's
Contact: 'Karchi Pe~man
311 S. Calhoun St.#100X
Tallalms'see, FL 32301
Run Lola Run
Sony Pictures Classic
Melody Korenbrot
8271 Melrose Ave., Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90046
Running SfiB
Peter LoGreco
451 N. Orange Grove Ave.
Salute
Sung-Wu Pink
3301 Honolulu Ave.#49, Tujunga, CA 91042
Santero
Shadow Catcher Productions
Kirk Ellis
3205 Lo~vry Rd., LA. CA 90027
Scrapbook
Piano Player Prod./Kurt Huenne
475 E. Orange Grove Ave., Suite L
Burbank, CA 91501
The Set Effect
Bany Rubinow
8419 Star Hand Ave., West Hills, CA 91304
Shergar
Blue Rider Pictures
2800, 28th SL #105. Santa Mortica, CA 90405
Slings & Arrows
James Cude
2028 Sanborn Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90027
Sounds of the Mountain, Dances of the Ocean
Juggling The Old and New: Women in Modern Talwan
Greeting the New Year in Talwan
Contact: Kao Jen Hwan
6300 Wilshire Blvd. #1510, LA< CA 90048
Puso Ng Pasko, Bata, Bata, Paano Ka Ginawa, Hanggang Kaila Kita Mamahalin, Ang Lalaki sa
Bithay Ni Solya
Star Cinema Films/Thellie Gasfro
~1-1 Set. Borromeo St. (Justnag Compound)
ABS-CBN Annex, Quezon City 1103, Philippines, (632) 4147819/Fax (632) 4138704
Stolen Heart
Bach'ood FilmstTeny O'Brien
Smart Bliss
Neil Greive
3023 Cardiff Ave.. LA, CA 90034
Suits
Tcna~y Film Company
Eric Weber
P.O. Box 608, Tenally, NJ 07670
Survivors
Brett Levner
55 Eastend Ave., NY, NY 10028
Sway
Mikael Kreuzriegler
138 N. Detroit. LA CA90036
Taking the Plunge
Lisa Haisha
8424-A Santa Monica, BI., LA, CA 90069
The Tell -Tak Vibrator
Jill Chamberlain
998 Amsterdam Ave. ~4B, NY, NY 10025
Temps
Five Sisters Productions
Maria Burton
171 Pier Ave.#207
Santa Monica, CA 90405
10 Seconds
Christophe Joly
3236 Descanso Dr.
Silver Lake, CA 90026
Tigers Made In Haven
John Ealer
727 ~/z Levering Ave., LA, CA 90024
Third Crusade
Ali Filter
3554 V'mton #206, LA, CA 90034
Trapped
Manatec Films/Ralph Wa~nan
1677 Winder St. #A, San Diego, CA 92103
Trinket
Brook Young
11028 % O~sego St.
North Hollywood. CA 91601
Until 8PM
Marco Niemeijer
Prinsengxacht 611
1016 HT Amsterdam
Vietnam: Long Time Coming
Seventh Art Releasing
Maria Bjorkdahl
Vincent
Greg Twitbutt
1820 Ardmore Ave. #2A
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
Wedding Band
High Altitude Films
Contact: Paltick Reaves
550 So. Barrington,#1214, LA, CA 90049
Which Way Por Favor
Eugene Cofsky
4465 Nogales Dr.
Tarzana, CA 91356
Who You Know
James McCabe
6200 Mossway, Baltimore, MD 21212
Yellow Badge of Courage
Peter J. Barnett
6496 Ivarene Ave.
Hollywood, CA 90068
Zoltar from Zoron
Eric Paesel
808 ¼ N. Fuller Ave., LA_CA 90046
The Distraction
Greg Termant
San Francisco, CA
A Boy & His Toaster
Got Rights, It's Gotta Be the Shoes
Jedi
The Creative and Performing Arts Academy of San Diego
Paintball Apocalypse
Ground Grauer
The Tommy Gibbons Story
Windows, Scorpion
Red Handed, Trashicon
The Grauer Academy of San Diego
A Shoe Carnival Adventure
Victory over Violence
Being a Meteorologist
Whenever You Ride A Bike
Web Site, I Am, COPS
Hanff Letterman's Top 10
Andrew Robinson Elementary School of Jacksonville Florida
Cultural Heritage
Espanola High School of Espanola,
New Mexico
Alien Invaders
Cleveland High School, Cleveland, Oregon
Soaring Minds, Play Stuff
In Search of the Singrainian Crystals
A Comedy of Elements
Back to the Past
Childr~n's School ofLa 3olla, CA.
High School Jealousy
Notlie Gonzalcz
Temecula, Ca
Diversity
Choices, Alcohol & Drug Use
Diversity: Free Your Mind
Sexual Responsibility
Academy of Our Lady of Peace High School
San Diego, Ca
1999 5th Annual Temecula Valley International
Film Festival Winners
1999 TVIFF VIEWERS' CHOICE
FIRST PLACE WINNERS
Feature Film Cate~orv
The Climb
Director: Bob Swalm
Producers: Mark & Pamela McClaffctty
Foreign Film Category
Shergar (England)
Writer/Director: Denis Lewiston
Pnxhccrs: Walter Josten, Brian Agnew, Jeff Geoffray
Short Film Category
Caught in the Act
Writer/Producer/Director: Jus~ Zackham
Co-Producers: Lonnie Schuyler/Glenn Garland
Student Film Category
The Last Tzaddik (AFI)
Writer/Director: Michael Zaidan
Producer: Joseph Smith
Cast: Irais'tim Malota, Chris Mulkey, William B. Davis
Rodhey Scott
Animation
PLUG (USC)
Director: Meher Gourjian
Producer: Jaime Waese
Documentan'
The Return of Paul Jarrett
Director: Clark Jarrett
JURY SEI,ECTION
FIRST PLACE WINNERS
Scrapbook
Director: Kurt Kuenne
Producer: Richard Kuenne
Shergar
Opie Gone Mad
WriterDirector: Andy Lee Johnson
Producers: Ralph W'mter/IVlike Tarzian
Tigers Made In Heaven (USC)
Writer/Director: John Ealer
Exec. Producer: Scott Files
Producers: Lucy Butler, Caleb Burk,
1001 NIGHTS
Director: Mike Smith
Vietnam Long Time Coming
Producers: Jeny Blumenthal,.Pcter Gilbert
& Gordon Quinn
1999 5th Annual Temecula Valley lnt'i Film Festival
MEDIA IMPRESSIONS & EVENT MARKETING COVERAGE
Total audience reached by the festival based on press clippings collected and broadcast
monitored during the month of May and June 1999 only.
Based on press clippings from various newspapers and publications such as the Los
Angeles Times, San Diego Union Tribune, North County Times, The Press Enterprise,
The Californian, The Community Publications Group, San Bernardino Sun, Inland
Entertainment Round Up, The Business Press, The Temecula Valley Business Journal,
Hollywood Reporter, Daily Variety, Daily Bulletin plus Internet/World Wide Web
exposure, combined estimated impression is 6,000,000.
The Press Enterprise printed and distributed 60,000 TVIFF General Information
brochures throughout all zones &Riverside County.
The Press Enterprise, The Californian, North County Times and The Community
Publications Group ran Festival advertising staffing middle of May through the third
week of June. Advertising and editorials about the event included prime space in the
Press Enterp~se's The Guide, Arts and Entertainment as well as The Californian and
North County Times' Preview.
Palm Plaza included the Festival in their monthly shopping center coupon book
distributed to 20,000 shoppers in Temecula and Murrieta.
The Movie Experience in Muraleta and Temecula as well as the Temeku Cinemas ran on
screen slide advertising in all their 34 screens in between movies - two weeks prior..
Broadcast coverage included mentions, promo ads and ticket giveaways in KNX Radio,
1070 AM, KPBS, San Diego, KATY Radio and K-FROG. Combined estimated
listening audience of 1,200,000.
Cable TV included promotional plugs on TCI and Media One. Cable areas covered are
Temecula, Murrieta, Lake Elsinore, Hemet, Moreno Valley, Menifee and Corona. Event
promos aired for three weeks straight.
Promotional Info Sheets about the Young Filmmakers Showcase and the Filmmaking
Workshops were distributed throughout the Temecula Unified School District schools,
San Diego and Riverside colleges.
TVIFF General Information brochures, special events invitations were mailed and
distributed to schools, production companies, tv and film distributors and
Temecula/Murrieta residents.
HERE'S WHAT THEY SAID ABOUT THE:
1999 5th Annual Temecula Vallev International Film Festival:
"Just wanted to thank you for all you and your staff dM to make the TFIFF happen. We met
great people, made good contaas, saw a few really good films, got great positive feedback on
our film, enjoyed the gala and the workshops, and loved the location. We !eft quite happy.
Thank you. '
James McCabe, Director, '~Yho You Know", Baltimore, MD
"I want to say thank you for your hospitality... Everyone was very nice and helpful ~Fe had a
great stay and we enjoyed the festival immensely. l~e were also very pleased with the reception
our ~'dm received by the audiences and other ftimmakers...we were thrilled to be invited to
participate in the festival I really appreciate the opportunity to screen my film three times,
have time to network with other fdmmakers, and to participate on all the other activities wish
you the best for next year!"
Phil Seneker, Prod/Director of"rats!" Seattle, WA
'We are still coming down from a great trip to LA and Temecuh~ Everyone we rnet at the
festival were so pleasant-it makes my heart warm to remember all the organizers, volunteers
andfilmmaking teams we met. ..Thanks for the support you gave our.fdr~ The extra
screenings-made the trip really great for u~ cspedally to be one of the favorites"
Jennifer Treur, Director/Writer, '~Not Not Now ", Sydney, Australia
"It was a great experience screening my film in Temecula... I got some nice feedback and
support from those who attendett The theaters were among the best l've sereened at and l
enjoyed exploring Temecuht I hope to get the chance to screen some of my future projects
ther~ '
Jim Fleigner, Director, "From th, Top of the Key", Los Angeles, CA
"We had a great time for the few days that we could be in Temecultk You organized a great
festival You showed manyftlmsfromfirst and second timers, which wouldn't get shown
anywhere els~ You gave everyone three screenings, which other festivals often don't d~ And
there were always a number of j~dms showing. The balloon ride and the car rally were
wonderful addition~ Good luck on futurefestivals!'
Greg & Re~e Termant, Producer/Direotor: '~l"he Distraction", San Francisco, CA
"Thank you for making the TVIFF an enjoyable experienc~ I had a lot of fun while there, and
I appreciate all the efforts of you and your staff of volunteer~ Thanks.l''
John Tranchina, Director, "Just Outside the Door", Dallas, Texas
"We've heard good things about your annual event P!~ send us info on your next on~ "
Joan Kalb, San Diego, CA
"I attended the Festival all day/night on Saturday and Sunday. I enjoyed it very much. I look
forward to nex~ year.
Chados Patroske, cDatrosk@qualcomm.com
1999 TVIFF INCOME/EXPENSE REPORT
INCOME
Cash Sponsors
Ticket Sales
Entry fees
Sub Total Cash Income
In-Kind/Trade Sponsorships
TOTAL CASH INCOME
TOTAL IN-KIND DONATIONS
$57,500.00
$11,911.35
$1,265.00
$70,676.35
$70,500.00
$70. 676.35
$70, 500. 00
EXPENSE
Printing $9,992.90
(Graphics Design, Pre-Press and Printing of all festival collateral pieces)
Staff/Consultant Fees/Commissions
Publicity/Advertising
Rentals (Projectors/theater/tables/linen/chairs)
CaterinWEnte~tainment (food, paper goods, beverage, liquor)
Insurance
Scholarship
Mist. (Permits/Postage/Security/Supplies/fees/trophies/phone)
Sub Total Expenses
In Kind/Trade Expenses
TOTAL CASH EXPENSES
TOTAL CASH INCOME
$17,515.00
$11,54&62
$6,867.70
$13,301.87
$1,397.00
$2.000.00
$8,058.25
$70,679.34
$70~00.00
$70,679.34
$70,676.35
NET INCOME (LOSS) ($2.99)
ATTACHMENT E - KEY FESTIVAL MANAGEMENT QUALIFICATIONS
MANAGEMENT TEAM
The Temecula Valley International Film Festival core management team is composed of
independent film industry professionals and local community film festival advocates:
· Jo Moulton & Eve Craig, Founder & Co-Founder of the Temecula
Valley Film Council and Temecula Valley International Film Festival
Both will serve as this year's Festival Advisors.
· Peter J. Barnett, Festival Director
· Kevin Haasarud, Film Program Director
· Maggi Allen, Operations / Logistics Coordination
· Megan Barnett, Sponsor Development, LA
· Ellen Watkins, Event Coordination & Sponsor Development, Temecula
· Stacy Sievek, Film PrinFTraf~c & Theater Screenings
· Maryann Edwards, Black Tie Awards Gala Chairperson
· Andrea Cunningham - Opening Night & Presenters Chairperson
· Steve Phelps - Film Indust.rv Worl~hops Chairperson
· Cathy Forbes - Closing Night Chairperson
· Linda Wunderlich - Publicity/Media Relations, Temecula
· Mike Kerrigan - Publici.tv/Media Relations, LA
· Sunny Thomas- Film Selection Review Group Chairperson
Together, the above group make a formidable team of talented and committed group of
creative individuals with combined experiences exceeding 60 years in motion picture,
television, public relations, event management and non-profit fundraising activities.
Key Festival Management Team Bio's
Jo Moulton, Founder/Advisor
With over 20 years of Broadcast Comrnumcations and entertainment industry experience. she
holds a BA in Mass Communications ~'om the University of the Philippines. She began her
career as a Production Assistant and rose through the ranks to head up the Entertainment Division
of KBS-TV. Channel 9 in Manila, Philippines. While at KBS-TV, she produced and directed
variety shows (Superstar), action-comedy(Dragon Force),game shows, (Clubhouse 9) rock
concerts, political and sporting events. Assignments included the Miss Universe Beau.iv Pageant,
the Olympic Games, Commodores. Michael Jackson, Dioune Warwick and Bee Gees Asian
concert tours. In 1977, she moved to Los Angeles and joined KABC-TV Eyewitness News for 8
years. In 1989. she moved to Temecula and with Eve Craig and Jim Meyler, she helped establish
~e Arts Council of Temecula Fallel2 and ~e Annual Temecula Falley Arts Festival. hi 1992. she
rounded the I'emecula Valley Film (;ounctl, which to date, markets the City of Temecula as a
location-filming destination. Temeeula has since been host to films, tv series episodes,
commercials. music videos and print photography- bringing positive economic irapact and
exposure to the area. In 1995, she fotmded the Temecula Valley lnt '1 Film Festival. Now in its
6th year. the festival has shown more than 350 films with several having their wo~d or U.S.
premieres at the event. In 1997, she produced the San Diego World Film Festival that showcased
the best of mamstream films (The Truman Show) with the best of independant films (Smoke
Signals). SDWFF attracted an unusual show of major studios' support. Its Advisory Board
consisted of studio heads such as Sony's John Calley and MGM/UA's Lindsay Doran and
industry professionals like Ronald Bass, James Cameron, Richard Donner, Paula Wagner,
Jacqueline Bissott, Julia Roberts, Tom Cmiso, Nicole Kidman and Met Gibson.
In addition to creating, producing and managing special projects, Ms. Moulton works free-lance
for various indie film productions, national & regional filmjTV commercials (1998 Volksu,agen &
1999 ('heEv ('ars & 7hicks) and music videos (for Midnight Records & Silvereision). She is
currently Co- Producer of an Irish/Canadian film project, Dolphin Bay, sot for filming in Ireland.
She is also supervising the development of B. Scott Purdy's sci-fi sories, The Starbright Trilogy.
Eve Craig, Co-Founder/Advisor
Helen Evadne Meyler Craig has had a distinguished career as a tTue arts advocate. Her devotion
to the promotion of the arts started long before she reached Temecula. As coordinator for the
Music Center Building Fund of Los Angeles, Eve helped raise $18.5 million for the Dorothy
Chandler Pavilion. She also raised funds for the arts while serving as President of the Municipal
Arts Gallery Association, the Hollywood Bowl Patroness Comnurtee & as host for the LA Civic
Light Opera special events honoring Katherine Hepburn, Angela Lansbury and Carol Chamung.
In Temecula. it is hard not to see Eve Cralg's contribution to the promotion of the arts and culture
in die community the last twelve years. From the minute she set foot in quaint small town
Temecala from urban downtown Los Angeles in 1989. she became a charter member of the
Temecula Valley Arts Council. She headed up the city's first ever Arts Festival in 1990. She has
chaired or assisted with each of Temecula's 10 arts festivals, the annual Mayor's Ball and the
Concert on the Green. in 1992 she helped do Moulton establish the Temeeula Valley Film
Council. In 1994, she helped organize the city's first Int'l Film Festival and the annual Black Tie
Awards Gala, which has awarded Lifetime Achievement Awards to indusUy notables such as
Howard W. Koch, Robert Wise, Carl Reiner, Karl Maiden and Shirley Jones.
For this year's event, Eve Craig with Jo Moulton will serve as the festival advisor.
Peter J. Barnett, Festival Director
Mr, Barnett is the Supervising Producer on "The Thin Green Line" for the Outdoor Life Network
and has produced the award winning films "Yellow Badge of Courage" and "Mulligans" starnag
Tippi Hedren, Recently he wrote and produced several conunercial spots airing on MTV, FX~
Nick-at-Night and E! He is Distributing and representing the award winning and critically
acclaimed Canadian feature "Extraordinary Visitor", while developing several projects, including
fiction/non-fiction books and screenplays in many genres.
He is co-founder of Arcaae Films, Inc. and founder of Nova Pictures Inc. that distributes,
develops and packages properties for numerous projects, as well as commercials. He has vast
experience in Television/feature production fmance having worked In production finance for HBO
on "Arliss", "Lloyd What Happened", "Lansky", "The Rat Pack" and "Poodle Springs", also for
New Line Cinema on "Amehcan History X" and "Alone" for ShowTime.
At Walt Disney Pictures he was responsible for budgeting several motion pictures to include "Mr.
Wrong", "Eddie", "The Rock" and "Con Air". Mr. Barnett worked in production accounting on
Disney's "Standing Room Only", Hollywood Picture's "Spy Hard" and Touchstone Picture's
"Romy & Michele". As a screenwriter he was furalist for the annual Chesterfield Screenwriting
Competition. Dunng the past he has hosted a monthly writing senunar for aspiring young writers.
Mr. Barnett is a graduate of California State University Northridge, holding a degree in Film and
Television Production. He also gradunted with honors liom Webster University receiving a
Masters in Business Management.
In addition to his Film/IN experience Mr. Barnett is a Major in the United States Marine Corps
where he served as a combat helicopter pilot and intelligence officer. He is a recipient of two Air
Medals for Heroic Achievement, awarded by the President of the United States. He served during
the Gulf War and continues his service as reserve mobilization and public relations officer in
Encino, CA.
Mr. Barnett is a member of the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences, Independent Film
Project, American Film Institute, American Cinematheque, Scriptwriters Network The Alex Film
Society and the Hollywood Arts Council.
Mr. BumetI is married and lives in Hollywood with his incredible wife and two ureazing children.
Keyin Haasarud
Mr. Haasarud is currently the Film Program Director of the prestigious and popular HBO
sponsored US Comedy Arts Festival in Aspen. He has served as film programmer for
1995, 1996 and 1997 Temecula Valley International Film Festivals. He comes back this
year to once again lend his expertise in programming selected features, shorts,
documentaries, animation and student films.
Mr. Haasarud's filmmaking credits include the documentary. series Science of the Souh a
Jungian Perspective for HBO, and the award winning short, Angel, Arizona (Sundance
Channel). He got his start with Roger Corman at his Concorde/New Horizon Studio,
later spending five years with HBO Original Programming, developing shows that
included the Lar .rv Sanders Show, Tracey 7ktkes On, Kath. v & Mo Show, the Ben Stiller
Show and Denms Miller Live.
2000 6th Annual Temecula Valley International Film Festival
Honorary Advisory Board
(In Alphabetical Order)
Albert Berger, Producer, "Election ", "King of the Hill"
Fred Caruso, Producer, "The Skulls ", "Blue Velvet ", "The Rat Pack"
Eve Craig, Co-Founder, Temecula Valley Film Council
Yorg Egan, President, Kodak Entertainment
Robert Faust, Festival Director, Los Angeles Independent Film Festival
Terry Gilmore, VP, Paradise Chevrolet, Cadillac, Oldsmobile
Kevin Iiaasarud, Program Director, HBO/US Comedy Arts Fest in Aspen
Michael Hill, Vice President of Production HBO
Jo Moulton, Founder, Temecula Valley [nt'l Film Festival
Herbert Margolis, President, Cinema Entertainment Alliance
Dan Stephenson, Chairman/CEO, Rancon Corporation
Pamayla Zioikowski, VP, MarPam Productions
PAST LIFETIME ACHIEVEMENT AWARD HONOREES
Howard W. Koch, Producer (1995)
Robert Wise, Director (1996)
Carl Reiner, kFriter/Director/Comedian (1997)
Karl Malden, Actor (1998)
Shirley Jones, Actress (1999)
YR 2000 Nominated Recipients
Burt Reynolds
Alan Alda
Lauren Bacail
ITEM 16
APPROVAL
CiTY ATTORNEY ~
-fj
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
City Manager/City Council
Genie Roberts, Director of Finance
May 9, 2000
SUBJECT: Annual Adjustment of Development Impact Fees
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the following resolution:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA CONFIRMING THE ADJUSTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-01 TO BE EFFECTIVE
JULY 10, 2000 PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 15.06 OF THE
TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE AND RESOLUTION NOS. 97-94 AND
98-30
BACKGROUND: On May 27, 1997, the City Council adopted a schedule for residential and non-
residential development impact fees ("DIF"). These fees were based on a study completed by David
M Griffith & Associates (DMG), which determined the total amount of DIF required to mitigate the
impacts of development through Temecula's build out, and further broke down the fees into specific
development categories.
Using the DIF study as a basis, the Council adopted residential development fees at 100%, and non-
residential fees at 36% of the total DIF recommended by DMG. In addition, the non-residential DIF
were adopted with a caveat that they be reviewed each year by the Council so that development
trends could be considered prior to applying an additional escalation factor of 10%. This additional
10% per year escalation was based on the Council's having adopted the non-residential fees at 36%
of the fees recommended by DMG On December 8, 1998, the City Council adopted the first annual
adjustment of 10% to the non-residential fees.
On April 24, 2000, staff met with the Economic Development Subcommittee members Jeff
Comerchero and Ron Robeds to discuss the proposed annual 10% increase. Based on the number
of permits issued over the past six years, development in Temecula has continued to increase, even
with the adopted DIF. Therefore, the committee concurred with the proposed increase since
development appears to have remained constant
H TEMEC FS1011VOL I IDEPTSLRNANCE~NOR TONL ~AGENDASIRESOL UTION 5 ! OO DOC 5/3/00
A development summary by square footage is as follows:
Commercial Development
Fiscal Year
94-95
95-96
96-97
97-98
98-99
99-00*
Total
Square
FootaRe
63,204
84,393
274,762
1,198,250
732,797
460,657
2,814,063
Industrial Development
Fiscal Year Square
FootaRe
94-95 416,814
95-96 178,619
96-97 427,826
97-98 867,137
98-99 526,838
99-00* 311,122
Total 2,728,356
*Projected through June 30, 2000
Since development appears not to have been negatively affected by the adoption of DIF, Staff
recommends that the 10% increase pursuant to Resolution 97-94 and 98-30 continue for non-
residential DIF.
FISCAL IMPACT: If the fees are set applying the 10% escalation factor to non-residential
development, then the City will have a projected gross DIF revenue increase of $110,500 (see
Attachment B) in Fiscal Year 2000/01.
Attachments:
A. DIF Calculated with DIF Fee Increase
B. DIF Revenue Comparison with DIF Fee increase
C. Resolution No. 2000
D. Exhibit A to Resolution No. 2000
II TEMEC FS I Ol ~ VOL 1 ~DEPTSIFINANCEINORTONL IA GENDA S~RESOL UTION 5 1. O0 DOC 5/4/00
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES CALCULATED
WITH DIF FEE INCREASE
COMPONENT
Street System
Improvements
TYPE OF LAND USE
CURRENT
FEES
WTrH
10% DIF
FEE INCREASE
Residen'dal Attached 526.437 526,44
ResidehEel Detached 751.022 751.02
Offx~ 0,815 0.921
Retail Commercial 2,519 2.844
Sef~ce Commercial 1.25~ 1,422
Business Parldlndustrisi 0.597 0,674
Traffic Signals end
Traffic Control
systems
Remidentiel Attedned 79,326 79.33
Residential Detached 112.293 112,29
Office 0,123 0,140
Rill Commerdel 0,3'/9 0.432
Sen.ice ~ 0.190 0.216
Business Perk/Industrial 0.090 0.103
Residential Attached 121,565 121.56
Rmddentisi Detached 228.706 228.71
Office 0.043 0.048
Retail Commen::il 0.106 0.118
Senice Comrnerciel 0,059 0.066
Business Perk/Industfe4 0.036 0.040
Fire Protection
Facilities
Residential Attached 43.269 43,27
Residential Detached 56.661 56.66
Office 0,123 0.125
Retail Commercial 0.020 0,023
Service Commercial 0.018 0.018
Business Park/Industrial 0.014 0.016
Park end Recreation Residerlsi Attached 1,245.523
Improvements Residen~si Detached 1,659.667
Office
Retail Commem.,lal
Service Commercial
Business Park/Indusbkl
1,245.52
1,659.67
0
0
0
0
Ubraries Residential Attached 160,713 160.71
Residential Detached 214.283 214.28
Offx~ 0
Retail Commercial 0
Sen/ice Commercial 0
Business Perldlndustfe4 0
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT Residential Attached 2,176.832 2,176.832
IMPACT FEE PER Residential Detached 3,022,633 3,022.633
UNIT OffK~ 1.1(35 1.235
Retail Commercial 3.024 3.418
Sen, ice Commercial 1.524 1.722
Business Park/Indus'0~l 0.737 0,833
NOTE: Fees for residential development am calculated per dwelling unit. Fee for non-residential
development ere calculated per square foot of gross building area,
ATTACIg~qTA
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES PROJECTED REVENUE COMPARISON
WITH DIF FEE INCREASE
Residential
Office
Retail Comm
Service Comm
Bus Park/Ink
TOTAL DIF
WITHOUT FEE INCREASE OVER FIVE YEARS
FY00/01 FY00/01 FY02/03 FY03/04 FY04/05 I TOTAL }
2,341,400 2,400,630 2,278,750 2,470,050 2,896,000 12,386,830
253,920 44,900 44,900 134.700 134,700 613,120
1,067,940 785,170 902,400 326,800 467,940 3,550,250
152,400 228,600 76,200 304,800 38,100 800,100
145,200 145,200 145,200 181,500 181,500 798,600
3,960,860 3,604,500 3,447,450 3,417,850 3,718,240 18,148,900
Residential
Office
Retail Comm
Service Comm
Bus Park/Ink
TOTAL DIF
WITH FEE INCREASE OVER FIVE YEARS
FY00/01 FY00/01 FY02/03 FY03/04 FY04/05 ~ TOTAL }
2,341,400 2,400,630 2,278,750 2,470,050 2,896.000 12,386,830
283,820 50,750 50.750 152,250 152,250 689,820
1,107,340 824,570 941,800 356,350 507,340 3,737,400
172,200 258,300 86,100 344,400 43,050 904,050
166,600 166,600 166,600 208,250 208,250 916,300
4,071,360 3,700,850 3,524,000 3,531,300 3,806,890 18,634,400
TOTAL INCREASE
FY00/01 FY00/01 FY02/03 FY03/04 FY04/05 ~ TOTAL
110,500 96,350 76,550 113,450 88,650 485,500
ATTACHMENT B
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA CONFIRMING THE ADJUSTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000-01 TO BE EFFECTIVE
JULY 10, 2000 PURSUANT TOO CHAPTER 15.06 OF THE
TEMECULA MUNICIPAL CODE AND RESOLUTION NOS. 97-94
AND 98-30
NOW BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Temecula as follows:
Section 1. The City Council of the City of Temecula does hereby find, determine and declare as
follows:
A. On May 27, 1997, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 97-09 establishing Chapter 15.06
of the Temecula Municipal Code, Public Facilities Development Impact Fee CDIF"), which was
modified by Ordinance No 97-14 on August 26, 1997, and was furlher modified by Ordinance No.
98-05 on April 14, 1998
B. On May 27, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 97-45 which established the
Development Impact Fees. This Resolution was restated and modified by Resolution 97-94 on
August 12, 1997, and was further modified by Resolution No. 98-30 on April 14, 1998.
C. The City Council adopted residential DIF as recommended in a Development Impact Fee
Study conducted by David M, Griffith and Associates ("DMG"), and adopted non-residential DIF at
36% of the amount recommended by DMG
D. Resolution 98*30 provides for an automatic annual adjustment of both residential and non-
residential DIF based on the percentage increase or decrease, if any, of the Engineering News
Record Building Cost Index ("BCI") for the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area BCI for the twelve month
period prior to May 1 of the year in which the change will be effective.
E. Exhibit B to Resolution 98-30 contains projected fees for seven (7) years with no escalation
applied to residential DIF and an escalation of 10% per year applied to non-residential DIF.
F. Non-residential development in Temecula has not declined since DIF were adopted in May
of 1997and subsequently adjusted by 10% in December of 1998.
Section 2. Exhibit A to Resolution 97-94 is hereby amended by Exhibit A to this Resolution. This
amended Exhibit A sets forth the levels of development impact fees for the city of Temecula to
collect for residential and non-residential development effective July 10, 2000, pursuant to the
schedule of adjustments established in Resolutions 97-94 and 98-30.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Temecula this
ATTEST:
Jeffrey E. Stone, Mayor
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
[SEAL]
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby certify that Resolution
No. 2000- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a
h
regular meeting thereof held on the 9t day of May 2000, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Susan W. Jones, CMC
City Clerk
HTEMEC FSIOI~VOL I%DEPTS~FINANCEINORTONL~AGENDASIRESOLUTION S I OO D OC 5/3/00
CITY OF TEMECULA
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES CALCULATED
WITH DIF FEE INCREASE
COMPONENT
Street System
Improvements
Traffic Signals and
Traffic Control
Systems
CURRENT
TYPE OF LAND USE FEE8
Re~dential Attached 526.44
Resider, f~ Detached 751.02
Office 0.921
Retail Commercial 2,844
Sen~ice Commercial 1.422
Business Park/Industrial 0.674
Residential Attached 79.33
Residential Detached 11229
Office 0,140
Retail COmmercial 0,432
SenAce Commercial 0,216
Busines~ Park/Indusb-ial 0,103
Coqxx'ate Facilities
Fire Protection
Faciliffim
Park and Recreation
Improvements
Residential Attec~ed 121
Residential Detached 228.71
Office 0.048
Retail COmrnetcial 0.119
Seaice COmmercial 0.066
Business Perk/Industrial 0.040
Resident~l Attedned 43.27
Residential Detached 56.66
Office 0.125
Retail COmmercial 0,023
Service Comrnercl 0.018
Business Park/Industrisi 0.016
Residenffial Attached 1,245.52
Residen~al Detached 1,659,67
Office 0
Retail Commercial 0
Service Ccmmercial 0
Business Park/Industrial 0
Ubmd~
Residential Attached 160.71
Residential Detached 214.28
Office 0
Retail Commercial 0
Service Comrnerdal 0
Busine~ Park/Indumrisi 0
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT Residential Attached 2,176.832
IMPACT FEE PER Residential Detached 3,022,633
UNIT Office 1.235
Retail Commercial 3,418
Service COmmercial 1.722
Business Park/industrial 0,833
NOTE: Fees for residential development ere calculated per dwelling unit. Fees for non-residential
development ere calculated per aquare foot of gross building ares.
EXHIBIT A
ITEM 17
CITY OFTEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
CiTY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City ManagedCity Council
Jim O'Grady, Assistant City Manager
May 9, 2000
Consideration of methods to facilitate the public's understanding of City
Council agenda items
Councilmember Naggar has requested that the City Council consider methods by which the
general public might be better able to understand City Council agenda materials. Councilman
Naggar will present ideas for discussion at the meeting.
ITEM 18
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
May 9, 2000
Consideration of Establishment of Council Districts
RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to staff on whether to research Establishment of Council
Districts in the City of Temecula.
BACKGROUND: This item was placed on the agenda at the request of Councilman Pratt, who will
present his views at the meeting. Since this will take a considerable amount of staff time to
research, it is being brought forth to the City Council for full Council consideration.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
Agenda Reports\Council Districts
ITEM 19
APPROVAL
CITY MANAGER
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Council/City Manager
Mike Brown, Fire Chief
May 9, 2000
Fire Response/Incident Enhancement Program
RECOMMENDATION:
1.
That the City Council:
Approve the Enhanced Response and Emergency Incident Management Program for two (2)
vehicles.
Approve the purchase agreement with Public Safety Corporation for the "Max Responder"
software and that the City Manager execute the agreement in its final form for a cost of $41,635.
DISCUSSION: Recently, Mayor, Jeff Stone, requested that Fire Department staff investigate
automated technologies for enhancing response and emergency incident management. In doing
this, Fire Department staff worked closely with City staff to find a program that best satisfies this
need. The pdmary goal was to find a program that would improve and standardize our procedures
for mapping and cataloging streets and pre-fire plans and for assisting field units in finding call
addresses using the latest available technology. Secondly, to provide a system that can be easily
updated as new construction and infrastructure is added in the City.
To meet this goal, Fire Department staff identified the "Max Responder" software system which could
be loaded on laptop computers in all front line fire equipment responding in the City. This program
has been specifically designed to enhance response times and provides information that will help
manage incidents for public safety agencies. It provides numerous enhancements that are
compatible with the Arc-View program currently used throughout the County and by City, Geographic
Information Systems (GIS) staff. This software system is provided by the Public Safety Corporation
and is considered a sole source vendor because of the City's current GIS application.
The City's fire fleet currently consists of 10 vehicles. The Fire Department recommends initially,
installing two units to test the system applications and refine as necessary prior to purchasing an
additional eight units. The Medic Squad and Truck Company would be the two vehicles chosen for
this purpose. These two vehicles respond to all areas of the City as pad of our standard response
to medical and fire calls, which would allow the most versatile City-wide testing of the system. Each
of these vehicles will be retrofitted with a ruggedized laptop computer loaded with the "Max
Response" software and peripheral communications equipment. An additional installation cost of
this program is a modification to the seat in the Medic Squad vehicle. To safely provide enough room
within the cab of the vehicle for the laptop and operators, bucket seats will need to be installed. This
is the only vehicle requiring such a modification. Attached is an itemized schedule (Attachment 'A')of
costs for both hardware and software for the purchase, training, installation and implementation of
installation cost of this program is a modification to the seat in the Medic Squad vehicle, To safely
provide enough room within the cab of the vehicle for the laptop and operators, bucket seats will
need to be installed This is the only vehicle requiring such a modification. Attached is an itemized
schedule (Attachment 'A')of costs for both hardware and software for the purchase, training,
installation and implementation of the two units.
Also, attached is a draft copy of the statement of work from the Public Safety Corporation which
will be further defined and included in a contract agreement between the City and Public Safety
Corporation.
The start up time to make the system operational is approximately sixty to ninety days. The total
cost for the initial program is $60,635. Once the system is operational, we recommend testing the
system for an additional sixty to ninety days before recommending additional vehicle retrofits. The
City's ultimate goal will be to outfit all of the responding front line fire equipment used within the
City For informational purposes, the cost for the remaining eight (8) units is estimated at $87,100
and it will be requested in the Fiscal Year 2000-01 Operating Budget.
Finally, staff from Public Safety Corporation will be making a short presentation, at the council
meeting, which will better demonstrate the advantages of using this system,
FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate funds are available to purchase the "Max Responder" software
and the initial two (2) units in the current year Fire Department budget.
ATTACHMENT:
Itemized Schedule of Costs
End User Software License Agreement (Draft)
Public Safety Corporation (Statement of Work)
Enhanced Response and Emergency nc dent Mana.qement Proqram
(Attachment 'A')
SOFTWARE (Public Safety Corporation)
Max Responder Software individual Licenses (2 Units)
Data Administration Module
Data Collection Module
Mobile Modules ($1,400 each)
$4,400
1,500
2,800
Total
$8,700
Training (2 days)
Data Administration $2,000
Data Collection 2,000
Mobile Module 2,000
2 Additional Days 2,000
Total
$8,000
Software Maintenance
Data Administration Module
Data Collection
Mobile Module (2 @ 280 each)
Data Assessment
$800
300
560
$3,500
Total
(1st year - 2 units)
$1,660
$3,500
Data Entry $10,000 $10,000
Installation & Implementation
~nstallation
Travel
Taxes
Total (Contract with Public Safety
Corporation)
$8,000
$1,100
$9,100
$ 475
$41,435
HARDWARE
2 Laptops ($7,000 each)
Docking Station
2 Plotters ($1,000 each)
GIS Antenna
Total (includes tax)
$14,000
$1,200
$2,000
$1,000
$14,000
$1,200
$2,000
$1,000
$18,200
MISCELLANEOUS
Modifications to Medic Squad
Seat (includes Tax)
$1,000
$1,000
$60,635
TOTAL PRORAGM COSTS FOR TWO UNITS
DRAFT
Public Safety Corporation
AOT Public Safety Corporation
48015 Pine Hill Run Road
BuiLding 2, Suite 17
Lexington Park, MD 20653
Phone: 301 863-0422
Fax: 301 866-0889
Email: bschroeder~i>aot.com
Statement of Work
City of Temecula, CA
Public Safety Information Manaliement System
This document, and the information contained herein, is proprietary and confidential to AOT Public
Safety Corporation (PSC). Disclosure of this document or the information contained herein to any third
party, corporation, agency or other entity, or use of this document or the information contained herein
except in connection with the PSC project described herein, is strictly prohibited.
Table of Contents
DRAFT
|. l ]V[AXRESPONDER PROJECT OVERVIEW .......................................................................... 3
1.2 ]V[AXRESPONDERTM 1.0 SOFTWARE OVERVIEW ............................................................ 3
1.3 OVERViEW OF CLIENT RESPONSIBILITIES ...................................................................... 4
~~t"~J~g'~/la~l/'j~/fl~]' ~lr
2.1 PROGRAMMING TECHNOLOGY EMPLOYED ......................................................................... 4
2.2 SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DATA ADMINISTRATION AND DATA COLLECTION
MODULE 5
2.3 SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS FOR ]V[OBILE DATA COMPUTERS ............................................ 5
2.4 MAXRESPONDERTM SUMMARY OF FEATURES ............................................................... 5
2.5 ]V[AXRESPONDERTM OP[IONAI, CUSTOMIZATION AND ENHANCEMENTS ....................... 6
2.6.20l~lional kVireless ................................................................................7
3.1 TI]V[ELINE OF INSTALLATION SCHEDULE ......................................................... 7
3.2 T~INING SERVICES ......................................................................................................8
3.3 TECHNICAL SUPPORT ....................................................................................................S
6.1 M[AXRESPONDERTM SOFTWARE APPLICATION INDIVIDUAL LICENSES ....... 11
6.2 TRAINING ....................................................................................................................11
6.3 OP'I iON AL SOFTWARE ]V[AINTENANCE ......................................................................... 12
6.4 OI' I'IONAI ENHANCEMENTS ........................................................................................ 12
6.5 OPTIONAl DATA ASSESSMENT .................................................................................... 13
6.6 OPTIDNA L DATA ENTRY ..............................................................................................13
6.7 OPI'IONAL INSTALLATION & IMPLEMENTATION COSTS ............................................... 13
Public Safety Corporation Statement of Work for City o[ Temecula, CA Confidential ~ Proprietary
Page 2 of 15
I Overview
DRAFT
This Statement of Work provides a description of the products and services to be
provided for this specific project. Within this document, 1 ) "Client" refers to City of
Temecula.
One of the optional deliverables for this project is MaxResponderTM. Acceptance
testing criteria will be based on the Standard Functional Specifications and Acceptance
Test Plans (ATP) for the current production version(s) of the proposed software,
modified to include any additional functionality described in this Statement of Work.
Any work activities or software functionality outside of the capabilities of the current
production version of the proposed software will be described within this document if it
is to be provided as a part of this project. Additional work activities and software
functionality not described in the Statement of Work will be considered a change order
to this project.
N#x## l y l# ftw#ye OY#P eW
The project will include a phased delivery and installation of the then-current
production version of MaxResponderTM. MaxResponderTM operates on any Windows
operating system, compatible with Windows NT, 95/98. The following modules are
available to the client.
Data Administration Module
· Combines and Manages Database
· Electronic Map Info and Building Records
· Strategic Pre-plans and floor plans geo-liked to GIS layers
· Comprehensive Management Tool
· Incorporates Large Data Sets into user-friendly information for all mobile
responders
Public Safety Corporation Statement of Work for City of Temecula, CA Confidentfat ~ Proprietary
Page 3 o[ 15
Data Collection Module
DRAFT
· Remote data entry of building pre-plans, inspections and structure data into the
database
· Incorporate Intelligence Data
Mobile Module
· Universal, in-vehicle capability to bring together on one screen, a graphic
display of all relevant information
· Displays address matching, routing, maps, pre-plans, floor plans, and imbedded
reference guides.
Successful implementation of this project requires the Client to complete a variety of
software configuration tasks and data migration efforts. It may also require that
Application Programming Interface code be developed by PSC to link MaxResponder to
Temecula GPS or wireless systems. The Client will need to contract separately for API
link efforts with PSC.
This Statement of Work does not include any Client requests for work or items not
described in this Statement of Work or the Purchase/Licensing Agreement, including
but not limited to custom software.
2 Functional Description of MaxRespondeP" Software
If included in the Licensing Agreement, this project will include the Delivery and
Installation of the then-current production of MaxResponderTM . Interfaces to
MaxRespondeffM are described in a separate section of this Statement of Work.
MaxResponderTM is compatible with Windows NT 4.0 network and Windows 95/98 and
comes with the following software applications.
· Microsoft Access or DataEngine 2.0 for its database
· MapObjects 2.0
· Visual Basic 6.0
Public Safety Corporation Statement of Work for City of Temecula, CA Confidential fz Proprietary
· GDT Data (or ,oca, da,a w,th add,,iona,,ntegrationserv,ces,DRAFT
Future capabilities will include Windows 2000 Operating System.
ZJ #y~te~ #~~t~ ~ ~# ~t# ~ty#~ #~#~t~ ~Nle~ M~I#
Minimum requirements or better are as follows:
· Screen Resolution
· Disk Space free for Application
· RAM minimum
600X800 (SVGA) minimum
40 meg free
64 meg
Z,7 Sy#tea II~t# fay II~ 9at# .eaa~atapt
Minimum requirements and recommended configurations for Mobile Data Client Units
that will allow for proper performance of all proposed application functionality.
· CPU Type/Speed
· Memory
· Disk Space
· Display resolution(s)
· Network adapters Ethernet 10/100
· Network client software/drivers
Other Hardware
· Ruggedized Laptop
Pentium II, 200 MHZ or better
64 Megs or better
6 Gigabytes or better
600x800 minimum and 800 or better
NiTS
10basel0
TCP/IP
Recommend Backlit KeyBoard with
removable Hard Drive
The following is a summary list of features available with the current production
version of MaxResponder:
Public Safety Corporation Statement of Work for City of Temecuta, CA Confidential ~ Proprietary
Po ~ e 5 of 15
· Pan across the geospatial database
· Zoom in/out a fixed amount; full extent; or to previously activated extent
· Locate an incident and provide directions of an alternative road network from the
station
· Restore the screen
· Remove added graphics and/or points from view
· Measure a distance
· Identify a location or object on map with a point and click tool
· Create a circular area and identify features within the included area
· Create a point-to-point directions for an alternative road network of
· Show floor plans or optional photos for selected building/site
· Show Pre-plans or intelligence data for site
· Online integrated NAERG, Chem-Bio, and Explosive Devices programs
· Print map, information reports, Pre-Plans etc.
There are numerous custom enhancements that can be incorporated into the various
modules of MaxResponder. At this time no enhancements are planned.
MaxResponderTM is designed to interface with Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) and
Records Management System (RMS) through any Open Database Connectivity (ODBC)
database.
Public Safety Corporation Statement of Work for City o[ Temecula, CA Confidential ~ Proprietory
Page
Custom programming may be required. This functionality can be specified and
negotiated under a separate SOW at a later date.
MaxResponderTM is designed to interface with wireless data systems. Typically address or
incident location (address, lat/long, place names) are stripped out and automatically entered into
the find or route tools.
PSC will program an automatic link to the selected vendor if or when one is chosen. This
functionality can be specified and negotiated under a separate SOW at a later date.
3 Project Manalenmt
PSC will appoint a Project Manager with the authority to make certain decisions
relevant to the project and have direct access to PSC's management for resolving
problems beyond the Project Manager's immediate authority. The Project Manager
shall coordinate with the Client through written and telephone conversations with the
objective of creating the project plan and project schedule, review the project and its
progress, and review the current task list and upcoming milestones. The Client and
PSC have agreed that the respective Project Managers will be the primary points of
contact for this project.
· .! TW NEgTNST LI TNII LT
· Optional 1 week to Assess Data
· Optional 1 Month for Data Entry
· 5 Days for Training
· Installation
o 5 Days for Loading and Testing of Data
o 5 Days of Go-live support
o 10 Days for Test and Evaluation, Review and Operation
For specifics on the Schedule, see Attachment 1.
Public Safety Corporation Statement of Work for City of Temecula, CA Confidential ~ Proprietary
Pa~e 7 of 15
D AFT
There are various training packages and courses offered by PSC. The Client may
purchase additional training sessions at a mutually agreeable time at PSC's standard
rate (not including expenses.)
· Training days are a maximum of eight hours in length.
At a minimum PSC recommends the following training for each Client.
· One person completes the Data Administration Module Course.
· Anyone employing the Data Collection Module completes one of the DCM
courses.
· Anyone employing the Mobile Module completes one of the DCM courses.
PSC can provide training to clients. Training is available to the clients at their site or at
PSC's Lexington Park, Maryland facility.
For training courses at the Client's site, the Client is responsible for providing adequate
training facilities, including a conference room with adequate space and
seating/conference table space, white board, overhead projector, and computer projector
(capable of 1024x768 resolution).
For hands-on training at the Client's site, the Client's is responsible to provide the
following:
· Workstation for each
· Appropriate Module installed on the Workstation
In addition to MaxResponderTM provided training, PSC recommends that the Client
have staff complete training in the administration of the selected Mobile Data computer
hardware and network interconnections.
88 Ta N t ppaPt
Telephone Support is provided through a toll free number between the hours of 8:00 am
to 5:00 pm Eastern Standard Time. There is also support through email to technical
support on the web site. There will also be On-Line database of known suggested fixes.
Optional Technical Support is available according to the tollowing table.
Public Sa[ety Corporation Statement o[ Work Jar City o[ Temecula, CA Confidential Et Proprietary
Page 8 o[ 15
Support Services
Installation Specialist
Training Support Specialist
Database Administrator
Sr Public Safety Analyst
Sr Data Base Administrator
Public Safety Analyst
4 Software Escrow Optin
Upon the Clients discretion, PSC can maintain a Master Preferred Escrow Agreement
with Data Securities International (DSI) - San Diego and will deposit MaxResponder'rM
system software into a Software Escrow Account on a quarterly basis.
Client will be named as a Preferred Beneficiary on the Software Escrow Agreement.
Cost for this additional service is $1,495.00 for the first year, and $650.00 per year,
thereafter. Non-payment of the annual fees will terminate client rights to the Software
Escrow service.
5 REFERENCES AND USER BASE
A complete installation list including location, contact name and telephone number is
provided below.
CAD:
Naval Air Station, Patuxent River Maryland
Contact: Mr. Rick Blotske
Phone: (301) 342-4256
Public Sa[ety Corporation Statement o[ Work Jar City o[ Temecula, CA Con[idential rf Proprietary
Contact:
Phone:
FRMS:
Marine Corps Base - Camp Lejeune
Deputy Fire Chief Elizabeth Huffman
(910) 451-5956
Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune (Phase 3)
Contact: Deputy Fire Chief Elizabeth Huffman
Phone: (910) 451-5956
Marine Corps Base - Camp Pendleton (Reviewing Proposal for
Implementation)
Contact: Chief Robert Praytar
Phone: (760) 725-3375
MaxResponderTM
Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton
Contact: Chief Robert Praytar
Phone: (760) 725-3375
MaxResponderTM EM2000 EOC:
Tri-County Project Impact (Emergency Operating Center and Field Deployable
for Emergency Management Systems)
Contact: Elaine Lancaster
Public Safety Corporation Statement of Work for City of Ternecula, CA Confidential ~ Proprietary
Pa~e 10 of 15
Phone:
(301) 884-2144
6 COSI ESTIMATE
Listed below are the specifications and pricing for MaxResponder (in vehicle software),
training, technical support, and related services. This is an estimate based on the RFP.
The products and services associated with this project are listed below.
QTY
1
Initial Procuremerit for Licenses
Item Price per item
Data Administration Module
?Fatal
$4,400 $4,400
1 Data Collection Module(s9 $1,500 $1,500
2 Mobile Module(s) $1,400 $2,800
Total For Licenses $8,700
Training
Public Safety Corporation Statement of Work for City of Temecula, CA Confidential ~ Prol~rietary
No of Max No. Item No of Hours Price per
Modules Of Persons and sessions item
per Class
Total
1 2 Data Administration $2,000 $2,000
3 Data Collection Module 2 sessions 6 $2,000 $2,000
Train the Trainer hours each
2 3 Mobile Module Train 2 sessions at 6 $2.000 $2,000
the Trainer hours each
Travel costs will depend on how many actual trips are made for training purposes. We would
hope to accomplish all training in one visit requiring with an estimated $2,000 in additional
travel.
#8 Dpm#sl ftwBPeMB ts# m
QTY
1
1
2
Projected Maintenance Costs per Year
Item Price per Price Ior
item 1 Year
Data Adtninistration Module $800 $800
Data Collection Module(s9
$300 $300
Mobile Module(s) $280 $560
Total for maintenance
$1,660
Wt wslE s e ts
To be determined.
Public Sa[ety Corporation Statement o[ Work Jar City o[ Temecula, CA Con[idential ~ Proprietary
Page 12 of 15
#5
Data Assessment
Data assessment of the client's GIS and
tabular data can be performed as an
option. This would require the client to
provide PSC digital copies of all its data
(geospatial, imagery, pre plan, and floor
plan). PSC would then provide the
tools and processes to assist the client in
installing MaxRespondeFu .
$3,500
Total
$3,500
9 tiaalgat#B y
Data Entry
Data Emry of the client GIS and tabular $10,000
data can be performed as an option.
This includes task 6.5. We will perform
analysis prior to loading.
If the client wishes, PSC can take their
entire data file (must be received within
5 days of contract award and load and
enter the clients data into
MaxResponde~~t and deliver a
populated database.
Total
$10,000
$10,000
$10,000
Installation
Public Safety Corporation Statement of Work for City of Temecula, CA Confidential ~ Proprietary
Page 13 of ~5
Installation and checkout 2-day Go-Live
Support
0r
Installation and checkout 5-day Go-Live
This is on-site support during initial
start up and test. Fixes, data edits, re
loads etc as required will be performed
Total
Travel
$3000
$8000
$1,100
Tbd
Attachment 1
Public Sa[ety Corporation Statement at Work tar City at Temecula, CA Con[idential ~ Proprletory
Page 14 at 15
1 2
Projected Schedule
Weeks
4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
,
Contract Award
Client Provide Data
To PSC
Optional PSC Data
Assess & Develop
Implementation Plan
Deliver Max
Licenses
Data Loading
Temecula
Undertakes
Optional PSC Loads
Data
Installation of
Software
Training
()plil,nal Go Live,
On Site Support
Public Safety Corporation Statement of Work for City of Temecula, CA Confidential & Proprietary
Page 15 of 15
05/02/00 14:33 FAX 301 843 5499 AOT. Inc. ~902
Public Safety Corporation
103 Paul Mellon Court, Suite A
Waldorf, Maryland 20602
T011 Free: 1-877-559-6555
www.maxresponder.com
DRAFT
END USER SOFT1VARE LICENSE AGREEMENT
This Agreement bctween AOT Public Safety Corporation (PSC), located at 103 Paul
Mellon Court, Suite A, Waldor~ Maryland 20602; and, the City of Temeeuh (End User) with
its principal place ofbasiness at 43200 Business Park Drive, Temea~a, California 92590.
WHEREAS, PSC has created and markets a soih~are proprietary product called
MaxResponde~TM, (also referred to as '~oitware"), an integrated suite of software applications
operating in a GIS-based environment to provide the fn'st responding emergency personnel a
means to access its stored data, to ~a~ilkate siVafloral awareness, and to provide sumdard
reference haTard and threat guides;
WHRREAS, the Soihrare has been developed at PSC's private ex~do,,~ for
commercial marketplace and is not in the public domain; and,
WI~R. REAS, the End User desires to obtain a non-transferable, non-excmsive X/~ense to
use MaxResponder
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties ag~':e as
Scope dLicense. The End User is hereby licensed perpetually (or for so long as the
PSC has the exclusive right to its intellectual property) to use some of PSC's selfware on
the End Users single system, network or multiple illdependent systenx: as sl~ed on
Sch~ul~ A, System
Payment. The End User sh~ll pay PSC fo~ th~s license, as stak\t {.. n r~61F./lvX, J3,
Payment Tams.
Training to End User. [ftralnln_q is to he provided, it shall be provided as s~ i~d on
Schedule C, Training Term~
Technical SuppOrt. PSC ~ha11 pro~ ide End Users with tcc."'xjcal suppw, t by ~.,'-.lephone.
electronically, and by publication for vD additional fee for one (i) year. PSC m-'inialn~ a
website to facilit~ its technical support.
Upgrades. The End User and PSC may execute upgrade agreements in con~,-efion
with this [.iceroe Agreement or at a later time. The license for use of any upgrades to the
Software or its docmnent~on supplied through such atlnmlen*s ~h~ll be covem:t by the
terms of Ihin License AgreemealL
MaxResponder End User Agreement
Rev O0 - 1/28/00
05/02/00 14:33 FAX 301 843 5499 AOT. I~c. ~003
AOT Public Safety Corporation
MaxResponder End User Agreement
Rev O0 - 1/28/00
Page2of9
10.
ll.
Annual Software Maintenance Support. One year after the signing oftM. License
Agreement, the End User shall have the option to enter inlo an Annual SoRware
Mnintermnce Support Agreemere with PSC exclusively. The fee for ~ mainlcnan~
agreeingot nhall be 20% of the price paid for this License and nhnll be paid dLrect]y to PSC.
Not for Commercial Use or Resale. Use of the SoRware is ii,nitcd to use by the End
User. The End User may not use this Soihnre for commercial purI~os~s. The End Us~
may Dot resell, or otherwise transfer for value, the Soilware.
Removal, Transfer, or Modification of Software. The Eni User .k.l! keep all cop'ms
of the Software at the actmR site(s) ofinstalhtion and in no other place (except that one
back-up copy may be kept at the End Users usual location for keeping computer data
back-ups). The End User shall not remove the Softwan: outside the United States. The
End User nh~ll not modify nor authorize modification of the Sofasale in any manner
withore express wd~en permission of PSC.
Reproduction and Copyright. The Software is protected under the Copyrigb~ hws of
the United States. The End User may not copy, or allow anyone else to copy ov otherwise
z~produce, any part of the Software without prior wtiRen con~evt ofPSC, exc~=pt to store
and/or instaft a copy of the Software oa a storage device, such as a nawork ~:'.~.'er, used
only to nm the SoRware on other computers over an internal netwm'r~ The Software
m.~t be copied as a whole and each copy nmst include thin Licea~ Agrcemellt. AI[ Other
cop}4ng is prohibited.
Updating and Copying Limitations. The MaxResponder Daw Admi, dqrmion Module
("MDAM") ha~ two features which prevent updating or replicatlq~_~ any unlicen~ .A Data
CoLlection and Mobile modules (collectively refen~ to here as "Modules").
The End Uaer is cautioned that the MDAM is progr~,,,~ed to interact only with that
number of Modules for which license~, have been purehasecL The MDAM has k~en
programmed speclfnc~ to not interact with any Module after th~ MDAh{ reco~nigs that
the End User has reached its mmaber of licensed Modules.
Each Max Responder Module will generme a unique machine ID .~m~) upcn
MDAM will provide updates to each computer. The IVIDAM will only profile ~ata
updates to computen which have a U:~vlID that matches a UMID on the MDA~I master
list.
Tracking. There is a traeklng database embedded in the IVIDAM. This enables d~e
bIDAM and PSC to track the reg/sU'a6nn humben of those Modules that are bring
r~plicated. This provides a license monitoring tool for the MDAM and for PSC. By
signing this ~ i the End User agrees that PSC has the right to request that
05/02/00 14:34 FAX 301 843 5499 AOT, Inc. ~004
AOT Public Safety Corporation
MaxResponder End User Agreement
Rev OO - 1/28700
Page 3 of 9
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
thi,~ tracldno,, ~ be provided to PSC via-email for audit purposes. (See also Paragraph
18).
Limitations on Reverse Engineering, Deeompilation and Dinassembly. The End User
may not revers~ engineer, alecompile, or disassemble the Software.
Separation of Components. TI~ Software is licensed as a single product. hs
component pans may not be separated.
Notices of Intell~tuai Property Rights. The End User ~hall assure that PSC's notices
of intellectual property (e.g., pa~X, traden~rk~ aJ~ COpy~ notices), ffany, ghali remain
visible on the Software when displayed electronically or when oulput created by it is
printed oui.
Warrsn~ and Disclaimer. The Software will perform substnmlnll~ in ac~ ordan~
Witdl its accolllpallyiI~ doctr~nelltation. A~ to th~ Sol~ and it~ dOclll~l~ ,~r J.
WARRANYIES OF MERCHANTAB~.ITY OR FITNESS OF USE FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE, KN~PRESS OR IMPLED, EXCEPT FOR THOS~
COlCrAII~D IN THIS AGREEMENT, ARE DISCLAIMBD AND WAI~D i~Y PSC.
The Sofiwaxe is licensed "as is" and PSC does not guarantee that the Sofia-axe -,~.;ll m~et
'all requiremenls" of the F.r~d U~J's b'Ll~ll~ or all requireme~s of the Softwar: with
which/t inleracts. PSC shall not be re.iponsih!e for any dama~ cc;.s~)~enm! c r
otl~rwise, that may be suffinred by the End 'Lls~ or its ~nt~loyees ~ r a~c~s in the use of
the Software. (Such damaSes shall include bu~ not be limited to lost ~t~f~., lost .'~ales, all
actions ~ in ton, prima facie tort, or any other cause of an arisin~ out of ~ use or
performance ofthe Software.)
Termination. The lieense shall termi~,e immediaWly fithe End User does not comply
with any term of this License A~r~nent, incb,_din~ but not ]~,it~ to, nonpa~ILtcnt of
license fees, nonpayment of contracted for vr~int~nanet sea'vices, r~r/tov,~ oftt~ Software
to other locations, unauthorized copyihg of the Sofiv,'are, or mod~fyhg tb.~ So.~t:;are in
ally Ix~anl~er. The End User may termirate tiffs license at any time by .~:o inct~:atL, g in
writing to PSC.
Return/Deitruetion of Software. Upon ~.~.~ninatiOn, thi.~ liC~D5,' 5h~-i~. c~;,as~, Ill copies
of the Soih~a~e and documentation ~hall be retllrned tO PSC or d~-~ro~.ed, at P~C's
option Any use of the Sottware after termination is not aulhorized b7 PS [: and ~ be
comiderext by PSC to be inliinS~nt of its intellectual property ri~ts
Proteetion of PSC Trade Seerets and Intellectual Property, Except as ~r;~ted by
PSC and pennkted under thi~ L~cnse Agreement, the End User shall not at any time
during or after The term of this License Agreement allow the copying of the Software or
its documentation by any person, or permit any other person to authorize copying or rnnlce
copies of the Software, its documeutalion, or any part of it. The ':~k~ Use.- shall ~ot
05/02/00 14:35 FAX 301 843 5499 AOT, Inc. ~ 005
AOT Public Safety CorDoration
MaxResponder En~l User Agreement
Rev O0 - 1/28/00
Page 4o~9
19,
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
alecompile, reverse engineer, or ~inn,-~emble the Software. Only the End Users employees
or agents understanding th~ basic terms of thi.~ license ~nd who are aware of PSCs
ownership of the Software shall have access to any facility for copying the Sofivv-are or
decomp~in~, disas~nh~ng. or modifyin~ it. PSC hereby gram th~ right to the End Use~
to copy th~ licen.4,d Software as neces~ry to ks hard disks or other such storage medium
to eflicicnfiy operate the Soib,vare on the End Usex's single-user system, multiple-user
system, or network~ as authorized by this License Agreement.
Audits. PSC may rn~ke reasonable e:~am~tions of the End Users computer
installations to ascertain that the End User is complying with the linmations upon copying
stated in this License Al~emenL If such an exath~tion shows an7 non-compliance, PSC
may tel'minnte thi.~ License Agz~'ment, and tl~ End Use~ shall pay all ~xi~-lses of sveh
examination.
Iajunetive Relid. The misuse, copying, or disclosure of the Software wfil give rise to
irreparable injury to PSC, and leave PSC inadequately compensated in damages,
Accordingly, PSC may seek and obtain injunctive relief against the End Usex's breach or
threatened breach, in addition to any odin' legal remedies, such as suit for copyrigl~
ihfiiugement, which may be avnihhle. The End User further admowledge. s and agrees that
these covenants are necess~/for the protection of PSC's legltin,'~te business im:~-sts and
aw reasonable in scope and content.
Related Software. This License ASr~emer~ may be executed voucm'z e, r41y al~vg with an
agreemere with other soilware companies that covers cer~xin applieslion ~:',twiu~ that
works with the Software. The End User ackl,~wlalges tt~t tle other software c~mpanies
and PSC are each responsible for differera f,,mctio~s and that ':.here axe n~ repr,~t rotations
or agreements regarding the Software ,3the-,. than those contained in ~ License
Governing Law. The law of the State of lVah-fiand shall gov.'-~n this License -~.~;reement.
Assignments, Transfers. This License Agreanent, the rights, duties, and oblig~i~ns in
thk license, or the Software and its documentation my not be assigned or transferred by
the End User.
Notices. Notices W parties shall be .,~ the a.;dx~sses stated above.
Consent to Jurisdiction, Venue, an J SeFv~ze, All legal pn>ceed~i~a re',,ting to the
subject matter of this License Agreement shall be mniataincd in cotW. s skdng w. ~ the
Sta~ Of MARyln-d. The End User consents and agre;'~ that jurLsdiction and ven~ ~ for such
proceedings shall lie exclusively with ~uch courts. Service off ~cess ic any Sul a
proceeding may be made by certified mail, retun:receipt requested, addressed In the pan'y
where i~ is to receive notice.
05/02/00 14:36 FAX 301 843 5499
AOT Public Safety Corporation
MaxResponder End User Agreement
Rev 00 - 1/28/00
AOT, Inc.
Page 5of9
~006
26.
27.
28.
Severability. ffany provision of thi~ LicelBe Agreenle~ is held invalid or otherwise
une~orceable, the enforceabflity of the remaining provisions shall not be impaired
No Waiver. · The faiktre by any party to cxercis~ any right stated in thi-~ License
Agreement shall not be deemed a waive~ of the right.
Complete Agreement. This Liceuse Agreement sets forth the entire .r~te,~taeclin~ of
the pazties as to its subject matter nn~t may not be modified except by furTier written
oarcement.
WHEREAS, the pro'ties have executed this License Agreement on the dates indicated
The AOT Pubfie Safety Corporation
Date:
L,M. Gr~inger, President
The City Of Temeeula
Date:
05/02/00 14:36 FAX 301 843 5499 AOT, Inc. ~007
AOT Public Safety Corporation
MaxResponder End User ABreement
Rev O0 - 1/28/00
PaBe 6 of 9
SCHEDULE A: SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS
One (1) MaxResponderTM Dam Admlni~a~ion module.
One (1) May, Responder TM D~t~ Collection modules.
Two (2) MaxResponderTM Mobile modules.
05/02/00 14:36 FAX 301 843 5499 AOT. Inc, ~ 008
AOT Public Safety Corporation
MaxResponder End User Agreement
Rev O0 - 1/28/00
PaSe 7 of 9
SCI~IEDULE B: PAYMENT TERMS
QTY
1
Item
Data Administration Module
Price per item
$4,400
Total
$4,40O
1 Data Collection Module(s)
$1,500
$1,500
2 Mobile Module(s) $1,400
$2,800
Total
$8,700
1. Payment shall be wi,hh~ thirty days of receipt ofth~ sofcwarg.
_ 06/02/00 14:36 FAX 301 843 5499 AOT. Inc. ~009
AOT Public Safety Corporation
MaxResponder End User A~reement
Rev O0 - ]./28/00
Page8of9
SCHEDULE C: TRADIING TERMS
PSC TRAINING POLICY
· rn the following training~
PSC recomrneads that all End Useas complete, at a n'nnitra~:
· One person complete the Data Administration Module Course.
· Anyone employing the Data Collection Module complete one of the DCM courses offerexl
by PSC, an approved Reseller, or a tl'aln~l traiilex.
· Anyone employing th~ Mobile Module complete one of tlz Mobile Module courses
offered by PSC, an approved Re,seller, or a trained trainer,
Data ~,dmlni~tration Module
Data Collection Modul~
F~nd User
PSC TRAINING OFFERINGS
Nos. of individuals Hours
Requiremems
2maximum 12
Two 6 hou~ sessions
-Workstation for each
-Mobfie Modul~ or
Data Collection
10rrmxim~n
8 Computer for each
One 8 hour session
or Two 4 hour sessions
Data Collection Module
Train the Trainers
3 maximum 12 Computer for each
Two 6 hour sessions
Mobile Module
End User
lOmaximum
8 Computer for each
On~ 8 hour session
or two 4 hour sessions
Mobik: Module
Train the Tmi~ers
3 mindmum 12 Computer for each
Two 6 hour sessions
Mobile Module 20 maximum 2 Computer for each
Basic One 2 hour session
05/02/00 14:37 FAX 301 843 5499 AOT, Inc. ~010
AOT Public Safety Corporation
MaxResponder End User Agreement
Rev O0 - 1/28/00
Page 9 of 9
SCHEDULE C: TRAINING TERMS
PSC TRAINING COSTS
Training is availshie at the End User' s site or at PSC's Le~dn~on Park, Maryland facility.
If training is given at any site other than PSC's facility, the End User shall pay for the
tralnlnZ and reimburse PSC for its trainer's travel costs.
Data Adm/ni~,ra~ation Module
Data Collection Modul~
Train the Trainers
Dam Collection Module
End User
Mobfie Module
End User
Mobile Module
Train the Trainers
Mobile Module
Basic
$2,000 plus travel
$2,000 plus travel
$2,000 plus travel
$1,200 plus navel
$2,000 plus travel
$500 plus travel
0
(b
'0
0
0
X
II
ID
!
Z"~'n>ZS'
= N (D "'
m~ 0 12-n~f~O ~'
II
0
=,.:=-~c~-~moo-m mcr.~.H
~'-~'n =~w zo-~-
u:,~o~-...= w_.=-a~'
.~n::E-,wno="~'
~.w -w =~o _.'u
;-o a'® ~ = =_.,o
ow~'a .~'n
=~' = -'a ~ ~ i~.o o.
~0.-, CD
--. :~ :~
_ c_.n~'--,
~o..,~.:,~ ~.==<
~. o~.
=~'o® _~ o';S.
w =
N
NI
0
0
II
,=l.
II
~D
~ 0
~ 0
.-~
0
0
~-~
IIIII
ITEM 20
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL
CITY ATTORNEY ~
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE
CITY MANAGER
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
/l~William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
May 9, 2000
Via Cordoba Multi-Way Stop Controls
PREPARED BY: All Moghadam, Senior Engineer - Traffic
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
1. Consider the recommendation of the City Council Subcommittee to install Multi-Way Stop
Controls on Via Cordoba at Via Salito/Corte Bravo, Loma Linda Road and Corte Zorita.
2. If the City Council Subcommittee's recommendation is approved by the City Council, adopt a
resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 00-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ESTABLISHING MULTI-WAY STOP
INTERSECTIONS AT 1) VIA CORDOBA AND VIA
SALITO/CORTE BRAVO; 2) VIA CORDOBA AND LOMA LINDA
ROAD; AND 3) VIA CORDOBA AND CORTE ZORITA
if the City Council Subcommittee's recommendation is approved by the City Council, direct
staff to perform an evaluation of the Multi-Way stop controls after a period of three (3)
months.
4. Ratify Council action on April 25, 2000 directing the removal of traffic circle improvements on
Via Cordoba.
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 three
(3) intersections along Via Cordoba due to increased vehicular volumes and speeds. A survey
of vehicular speeds and a warrant analysis for the use of Multi-Way stop controls was
performed along Via Cordoba. The results were presented to the Public/Traffic Safety
Commission at their meeting of June 24, 1999. The Public/Traffic Safety Commission approved
staff's recommendation to deny a request for Multi-Way Stop Controls on Via Cordoba.
Subsequently, the Public/Traffic Safety Commission's decision was appealed at the City Council
meeting of July 13, 1999.
R:\agdrpt\2000\0509\\viacordobastopsigns/ajp
1
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.
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.
Following receipt of the public testimony, the Commission recommended the installation of
permanent circles and forwarded the matter to the City Council for further consideration.
At the meeting of March 28, 2000, the City Council received the same presentation of the
results of the evaluation and effectiveness of the temporary traffic calming devices. Following
receipt of the public testimony, the City Council continued the item and scheduled a meeting
between the residents and a City Council subcommittee comprised of Mayor Stone, Mayor Pro-
Tem Comerchero, Public Works Director Hughes and Police Chief Domenoe. The City Council
also committed the Police Depadment to dedicating a Police Officer to provide neighborhood
traffic enforcement throughout the City. To date, enforcement efforts on Via Cordoba have
resulted in the issuance of thirty-four (34) citations over a seventeen (17) hour period. The
majority of the citations were issued to residents living within a one-mile radius of Via Cordoba.
On April 22, 2000, a neighborhood workshop was held to discuss the effectiveness of the
temporary traffic calming devices and to consider other alternatives to reduce vehicular speeds
on Via Cordoba. Following a discussion of several alternatives, the residents were polled on
whether the City should remove the temporary traffic calming devices and associated signs and
pavement markings. An overwhelming majority of the residents wanted the devices removed
and replaced by Multi-Way stop controls. As a result of the workshop, staff was directed to
agendize the issue for the City Council's consideration of temporary Multi-Way stop controls al
three locations along Via Cordoba. Several residents believed that the added enforcement has
been effective in reducing vehicular speeds and should be given more time prior to installation
of Multi-Way stop controls.
At the meeting of April 25, 2000, the City Council approved the recommendation of the City
Council Subcommittee to direct the Public Works Department to remove the temporary traffic,'
calming devices and associated signs and pavement markings. The removal work was
performed on April 27, 2000.
During the workshop, staff pointed out that the intended use of stop signs is to assign right of
way at intersections or where there is strong evidence that overall traffic safety can be
improved, and should not be used solely for controlling vehicular speeds. The City Council
Subcommittee considered staff's in put while reviewing options to control speeds along Vial
Cordoba, but the Subcommittee believed that Multi-Way stop controls combined with increased
enforcement may help control vehicular speeds. The Subcommittee recommended that the City
Council consider installing the stop signs and then evaluate the stop sign's effectiveness after a
period of three months.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funds are available in the Public Works Department Routine Street
Maintenance Account No. 001-164-601-5402.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. 00-__
2. Exhibit "A" - Location Map
3. Exhibit "B" - Agenda Report and Minutes - City Council Meeting of March 28, 2000
R:\agdrpt\2000\0509\\viacordobastopsigns/ajp
2
RESOLUTION NO. 00-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA ESTABLISHING A MULTI-WAY STOP
INTERSECTIONS AT 1) VIA CORDOBA AND VIA
SALITO/CORTE BRAVO; 2) VIA CORDOBA AND LOMA LINDA
ROAD AND; 3) VIA CORDOBA AND CORTE ZORITA
THE CITY OF TEMECULA DOES RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council has considered the facts justifying the need for the temporary
stop signs proposed for the locations described in this resolution. The City Council hereby finds
and determines that installation of the stop signs pursuant to this resolution will enhance the
public health safety and general welfare at these locations and the proposed stop signs will not
create any adverse conditions in the area.
Section 2. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the installation of the stop
signs will be evaluated following a three (3) month period and the results of the evaluation will
be presented to the City Council.
Section 3. Pursuant to Section 10.12.100, of the Temecula Municipal Code, the following
Multi-Way Stop locations are hereby established in the City of Temecula.
Via Cordoba at Via Safito/Corte Bravo
Via Cordoba at Loma Linda Road
Via Cordoba at Corte Zorita
Section 4. The City Clerk shall cedify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Temecula at a
regular meeting held on the 9th day of May, 2000.
Jeffery E. Stone, Mayor
ATTEST:
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
R:\agdrpt\2000\O509\\viacordobastopsigns/ajp
3
(SEAL)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss
CITY OF TEMECULA )
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, do hereby cerLify that
Resolution No. 00- was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of
Temecula at a regular meeting thereof held on the 9t" day of May, 2000, by the following vote:
AYES: 0
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk
R:~agdrpt\2000\0509\\viacordobastopsigns/ajp
4
EXHIBIT "A" - LOCATION MAP
Exhibit "B"
7.3
Adopt a resolution entitled:
RESOLUTION NO. 2000-24
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
COUNCIL BUSINESS
8 NeiQhborhood Traffic Calmincl ProQram - Approved Staff Recommendation adding the
following:
1. An additional 8 hour enforcement shift to the police department
2. A neighborhood hotline to report traffic violations or repeat offenders
3. Establish a sub-committee consisting of Mayor Stone and Traffic
Commission Chairman Darryl Connerton, to put together the SAF-T NET
Program. S(Safer)A(Avenues)F(For)-T(Temecula) N(Neighborhood)
E(Enforcement) T(Team).
(5-0-0) MN/RR
RECOMMENDATION:
8.1 Approve the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program.
9
Evaluation of Traffic Circles on Via Cordoba - Continued the item scheduling a
meeting with residents and a Council subcommittee comprised of Mayor Stone,
Mayor Pro Tem Comerchero, Public Work Director Hughes and Police Chief
Domenoe. This meeting to be coordinated with Mr. Kelley, President of the
Homeowner's Association. It was further directed that random law enforcement
would take place at least three times a week in the morning, afternoon and evening.
(5-0-0) JC/RR
RECOMMENDATION:
9.1 Find the teml3orary 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 neighbornood representatives
to implement Stage I Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program strategies to address
the problem.
R:~Agenda\032800
10
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
' APPROVAL ~
CITY MANAGER :,~"' ~
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
~j'~William 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 I 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.
R:~agdrpt\O0\0328\vlacordoba%alp
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 Cone Bella
Donna. Temporary median islands were installed at Loma Linda Road, Corte Rosa, and Cone
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.
LOCATION
Btw. Via Quivera and
Via Salito/Cone Bravo
Btw. Via Lucia and
Loma Linda Road
Btw. Cone Valle and
Cone Rosa
Btw. Cone Zorita and
Cone Bella Donna
Volume (ADT)
Speed (85 %)
Volume (ADT)
Speed (85 %)
Volume (ADT)
Speed (85 %)
Volume (ADT)
Speed (85 %)
BEFORE INSTALLATION
(Survey date 9/21199)
2,078
32 MPH
1.277
31 MPH
2,071
33 MPH
1,708
31 MPH
AFTER INSTALLATION
(Survey date 1 I/17/99)
1,821
33.5 MPH
1.304
33 MPH
2,046
33 MPH
1,593
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 percentfie 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:~agclrpt\00\0328',viacor~oba~alp
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 illegat 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 Against traffic calming
devices on Via Cordoba devices on Via Cordoba
2 4
2 12
I 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 contro~
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
Do you feel that the temporary traffic circles
and median islands have slowed traffic?
How long should the temporary median be
tested?
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?
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
QUESTIONS RESPONSE
5. Do you want the street returned to the way Yes
~ that it was no circles or median islands? No
(None)
6. What should the final medians be made of? Landscaped flowers
and trees
Plain colored brick
(Neither Imp.)
(Either Imp.)
( ) - represents responses other than the predetermined responses
TOTAL
RESPONSES
18
19
1
26
2
9
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 predetermined responses and a request for general comments. The residents
were asked to return the survey form pdor 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 SUDDOrt permanent improvements, while 45% of the respondents are ODDOSed 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',vlacordoDa\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, wn~cn
is responsible for this area, performed a "mock run" on Via Cordoba. Although, the vehicle d~d
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 stabon
personnel during the four-month evaluation pedod 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. Chades 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. Robert 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 Quivera
and Via Salito/Corte
Bravo
Btw. Via Lucia and
Loma Linda Road
Volume (ADT)
Speed (85~ %)
Volume (ADT)
Speed (85t" %)
BEFORE
INSTALLATION
OF DEVICES
2,078
32 MPH
1,277
31 MPH
AFTER NEW DATA
INSTALLATION SURVEYED
OF DEVICES 03/10/00
1,821 1,665
33.5 MPH 33.5 MPH
1,304 1,131
33 MPH 30 MPH
5
R:~agdrpt\00\0328\wacordoba\alp
LOCATION
B, tw Corte Valle ancl
CoRe Rosa
Btw. Corte Zorita
ancl CoRe Bella
Donna
Volume (ADT)
Speed (85t" %)
VoLume (ADT)
Speed (85~h %)
BEFORE
INSTALLATION
OF DEVICES
2,071
33 MPH
1,708
31 MPH
AFTER
INSTALLATION
OF DEVICES
2,046
33 MPH
1,593
30 MPH
NEW DATA
SURVEYED
03/10/00
1,729
32.5 MPH
1,391
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 ADT 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
and Via Salito/Corte
Bravo
Btw. Via Lucia and
Loma Linda Road
Btw. Cone Valle and
Cone Rosa
Btw. Cone Zorita
and Corte Bella
Donna
Volume (ADT)
Speed (85 %)
Volume (ADT)
Speed (85r" %)
Volume (ADT)
Speed (85"~ %)
Volume (ADT)
Speed (85 %)
SA TURDA Y
(03/1 f/O0)
1,299
33.5 MPH
1,061
30 MPH
1,749
32.5 MPH
1.427
32.5 MPH
SUNDAY WEEKDAY
(03/12/00) A VERA GE
1,288 1,665
32.5 MPH 33.5 MPH
910 1,131
30 MPH 30 MPH
1,527 1,729
33 MPH 32.5 MPH
1,212 1,391
33 MPH 30 MPH
As shown, the weekend data collected indicates that the overall 85th percentlie 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
suDstantiates this fact.
6
R:~agdrpt\00\0328\viacordoba\alp
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 curo, 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 ddver 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:~agcirpt\00\0328 ,v~acordoba\alp
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. Funnermore
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 diverting 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 staffs 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 1 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
A'I'rACHMENTS:
1. February 10, 2000 Public/Traffic Safety Commission Agenda Report (with attachments)
2. February 10, 2000 Public/Traffic Safety Commission Meeting Minutes
8
R:~ag~rpt\00',0328~wacordoDa\alp
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.
Norle.
Deputy Director of Public Works Parks,
Senior Engineer Moghadam,
Associate Engineer Gonzalez,
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 Januar'v' 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 wdtten. 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 fie 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
Council 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 circJe), 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
significantly 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 concern had been regarding the aesthetics
of the temporary devices, relaying that staff had dadfled 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
concems 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 written 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 concern with respect to cut-through traffic in their area due to drivers avoiding
the traffic circles.
VV'~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 [:)el Coronado to Via
Saltio them 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
queded 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 query with
respect to that question.
The following individuals were in favor of the installation of the traffic circle devices:
[] Mr. Chades Hankley
[] 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 vaded 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 fifteen percent (15%) of the ddvers 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:
Mr. William Kelley
a Mr. Robert Garcia
a Mr. Mado Carvatal
Ms. Candace Whirmore
31542 Via San Cados
31775 Via Cordoba
31645 Via Cordoba
31795 Via Cordoba
The above-mentioned residents expressed the following comments:
Relayed difficulty maneuvering around the traffic drdes.
,, Noted that the piethore 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 traffic
circles versus the median islands.
Noted that if stop signs were installed in conjunction with the traffic circles,
they would be more effective.
,r 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.
· ~ Queried the number of citations issued before and after the installation of the
devices.
z Recommended that there be increased enforcement to control speed in the
area.
,r Relayed that the devices restricted easy access to residential driveways.
Noted that when the sun'ounding mad improvement projects ware complete,
the volumes and speeds would most likely be significantly 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
concem with regard to the plethora of signage; and clarified 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. Garcia, Commissioner Edwards clarified that photo radar enforcement was
currently illegal in Califomia.
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 condudincl remarks, as follows:
Commissioner Katan relayed that per his visits to the area, it was his opinion that the
traffic drcles did appear to reduce vehicle speed, concuffing 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 Katsn'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.
Wifh raspeot to the survey results, Commissioner Coe relayed the following comments:
that the study was flawed, that there should have been additional evaluation pedods in
additional locations (i.e., the downhill portions), 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 drcles were installed, the
permanent devices would be effective in reducing speeds.
It was noted for the record Oqat 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; reiterated the close percentage of residents
opposed, versus in favor of the calming devices; relayed her previous hopes that the
traffic circles would have been proven effective in order for the Commission to be able to
present viable solutions to community concerns; 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 pemaps 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 peded 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 alternate 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 Edwards recommended
that the issue be forwarded to the Council 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 traffic 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 staff's 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 Council, 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 specific 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 prior speed and volumes analysis if additional areas were
surveyed, noting that there would be no comparison data.
In concurrence wiffi Commissioner Edward's comments, Commissioner Katan
recommended moving fie matter forward to the City Council for consideration at this
time; noted that in light of the fact that the data revealed that these particular calming
devices were ineffective, his concem 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 percaption that the traffic circles were effective
(noting that the data did not support this concept), and that the median islands were
ineffective, recommended that additional traffic circles be installed.
Senior Engineer Moghadam provided a brief history of the matter, noting the residents
original 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, altamate 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 Wonks Hughes and
the City Council in order to investigate funding appropriations for the proposal to
redesign and install altemate T-intersections devices.
Chairman Connerton provided additional dadficetion 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 - Marclarita 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 staff's recommendation to install
an additional left-turn 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 variant criteria standard for installing stop signs; and for Commission
Katan, relayed additional information regarding the data.
After additional Commission discussion ensued, Chairman Connorton 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
associated 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.
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 cornmaRts.
COMMISSION REPORTS
Commissioner Katan challenged the residents on Via Cordoba, and
Commissioner Coo, who had previously commented on the effectiveness of
traffic circles in alternate cities (i.e., Seattle) to provide the associated data to
staff or the Council.
In light of the future plans for a Councilmember 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 furbher 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
the first phase of the project; provided additional information regarding the
detoured area, and the restricted access points, during the road improvement
project pedod 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
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA REPORT
Public/Traffic Safety Commission
All MOghadam, P.E., Senior Engineer, Traffic
February 10, 2000
Item 2
Evaluation of Traff~c Circles - 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 demonsnation 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 Public/Traffic 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 Cornmission'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, the Public/Traffic Safety Cornnussion considered a request from
representatives of the Bridlevale Homeowners Association (HOA) to evaluate the need for Multi-way stop
con~xols 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/Trsffic Safety Commission's decision
to deny the request for Multi-way stop controls on Via Cordoba. However, staff was directed to install
temporary n'affic circles on Via Cordoba to address neighborhood speeding concerns. 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 demonsration program and identified the types of temporary traffic calming devices that could
be expected on Via Cordoba. The le~r 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 me 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 Corm BeBa Donna, which are four-way
intersections. Temporary. median islands were installed at Loma Linda Road, Corte Rosa, and Corte Zofita,
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 both the traffic
circle and median island locations. The approximate cost for the research, dam 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 vehicle volume dam, and speed da~a before and after instalhtion
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 I Volume (ADT)
Via Salito/Corte Bravo I Speed (85* %)
Btw. Via Lucia and I Volume (ADT)
Loma Linda Road I Speed (85* %)
Btw. Corm Valle and[ Volume (ADT)
Corm Rosa ~ Speed (85* %)
Btw. Corm Zorita and ', Volume (ADT)
I Corte Bella Donna Speed (85* %')
BEFORE (9/21/99)
,-.2,078
· 32 MPI-t
1,277
31 MPI-I
2,071
33 MPH
1,708
31 MPH
A/'Tt~R ( 11 / 17/99)
1,821
33.5 MPH
1,304
33 MPH
2,046
33 MPI'I
1393
30 MPH
As shown, the before and after evaluation indicates 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 85* percentile speeds increased by I to 2 miles per hour at two of the locations.
Additionally, our observation of vehicle speeds at the temporary waffle 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 lefi-mrns (againm
opposing traffic), failure to yield to vehicles in the circle area, and potential vehicle versus pedestrian cenfiicts
as vehicles maneuvered around the circles. The problems observed at the median islanu locations were
elimination of on-sweet 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 deterrmne
perceived effectiveness of the temporary waffle calming devices. Dating the evaluation period staff received
input from approximately 24 residents of Via Cordoba and adjacent sweets regarding the traffic calrmng
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 this installation. The positive "feedhack" received included the circles are wonderful, these are
better 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 I--Iintergardt 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 miming 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
Unl~own
In favor of traffic calming Against traffic calming devices on
devices on Via Cordoha Via Cordoba
2 4
2 12
1 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
ques|ions 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 ltmt 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 medium 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
3
In addition to the information shown above, a survey form was hand delivered ID residents of Via Cordoba
and the adjacent sweets on February 3, 2000. The survey asked, ~if the residents believed that the temporary
~raffic calming devices have been effective in reducing overall vehicle speeds along Via Cordoba' and 'if ~he
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 date, the results of the survey will 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 Slation 84, which is responsible
for litis area, performed a "mock run" on Via Cordoba. 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.
Independem studies that have been 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.
The decision to start using traffic circles aM/or raised median islands as a means of reducing neighborhood
vehicle speeds on a citywide basis will need to consider potential design, censtruc~on and maintenance costs.
The cost to design and consnet 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 die estimated cost to construct the circles.
The cost to design and consu'uct 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, gu~r and sidewalk
area will need to be modified to provide a "narrowing" effect. The estimated cost to consa'uct 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 malnteuance 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 dam, Staff has received numerous requests to implement some type of traffic calming device at
approximately ten (10) locations llu'oughout the City. Based on the estimated cost previously stated, the
construction of traffic circles at the 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 participate 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 island improvements outweighs the direct benefits received
from the improvements. Therefore, staff recommends litat the temporary ~affic calming devices on Via
Cordoba 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 swiping. These funds axe available in
the Public Works signing and swiping 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 Data
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, CAUFORNIA
DATE:
August27,1999
TO:
Bill Hugt~es, Director of Public Works / City Engineer
MEETING OF: August 24, 1999
AGENDA
ITEM NUMBER:
Item No. 19
SUBJECT:
Appeal of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission Denial to Install Stop Signs
on Via Cordoba for Speed Control
The motion was made by Councilmember Comerthem, seconded by Councilmember
Roberrs to approve staff recommendation.
Sift was directed to place two or three temporary circles/medians on Via Cordoba w~ile
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
19.2
Deny a request for multi-way stop controls along Via Cordoba at Code Zorita,
Loma Linda Road, and Corte BravoNia Saltio intersections;
Provide direction to the Public Works Traffic Division to establish a standard policy
for addressing speeding problems in residential areas to be approve~t by me
Public/Treffic Safety Commission and City Council, respectively.
The motion camed by the following vote:
AYES: 4
NOES: 0
ABSENT: 0
ABSTAINED: 1
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Comerchero, ~ndemans, RobeRs, Stone
None
None
Ford
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY Of RIVERSIDE )
CiTY OF TEMECULA )
SS
I, Susan W. Jones, C,~ Clerk of the City of Temecula, California, DO HEREBY
CERTIFY, under penalty of pequry, the foregoing to be the official act. ion taken by the City
Coun~l at the above meeting.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 27th day of August. 1999.
usan Jo es CMC
~ I
APPROVAL
CITYATTORNEY
DIRECTOR OFFtNANC5
CITYMANAGER
TO.
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/Cily Councd
William G. Hughes. Director of PuPlic Works/City Engineer
August 24, 1999
Appeal of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission Demal to Install Stop Signs
On Via CordoDd for Speed Control
PREPARED BY: Allie Kuhns, Semor Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Councd
Deny a request for Multi-Way Stop Controls along Via CordoDd at the Cone Zonta, Loma
Linda Roaq. and CoRe Bravo/Via Saltio intersections.
Prow0e direction to the Public Works Traffic Division to establish a standard policy for
addressing speeding problems In residential areas to he approved hy the Public/Traffic
Safety Commission and City Council, respectively,
BACKGROUND: In July 1999, a request was received from representabves of the
Bnd/evale Hamsowners Assoaation to evaluate the need for Multi-Way stop controls at ~ntersections
along Via CordoDd due to ~ncreaseo traffic volumes and vehicle speeds. An evaluation of traffic
conditions was performed that inclucleo 24-hour volume counts, survey of venlcle speeds and Multi-
Nay stop warrant analyses at three locations along Via CordoDd. The warrant analys~s performed
at each of the locations deterrnlnea that MulthWay stop controls were not justified on V~a CordoDd
at Cone Zonta. Loma Linda Road and Cone Bravo/Via Sahto
At their meeting of June 24, 1999 fine Public/Traffic Safety Commission approveO the Staff
recommenclatlon to deny a request for Multi-Way Stop Controls on Via CorqoDa at Cone Zonta.
Loma bnda Roacl and CoRe Bravo/Via Salito Cop~es of the minutes of the june 24 1999 meeting
along with the staff report and attacl~ments documenting the stop sign warrant analysis are provided
for information
Dunng Pubhc Comments at the July 13 1999 CZty Council meeting, two residents who hve on or near
V~a CoraoPa requested an appeal to the PubhcJTraf~c Safety Commission s decision and asked that
the City Council agena~ze the issue 'he residents are requesting that the C~ty Council const0er the
Retaliation of Multi-Way stop controls aidrig V~a CotdoRa Io control vemc~e soeeas
The Colttans Traffic Manual indicates tnat MulthWay Slop controls may De useful at locations where
the volume of traffic on Intersecting roads is approxlmaety equal and/or where a Combination of high
speed resinclod s~gnt distance and an accident history ~ndlcales that assignmere of right-of-way ~s
necessary Multi-Way controls are recornmenaec~ wnere there ~s strong ev,aence that overall traffic
safety can De FnproveO and shoulq not De used solely for controlling vemcie speeds
%tua~e5 nave shown mat wren stop S~gns are fnstallea at locations trot go not satlsfv me minimum
Res~nems commonly express me concern aoout excessive speeds on nearly every residential Street
in the City of Temecula. -' speed survey performed In May 1999 indicates that although some
speeding noes occur on the roadway, the rna)onty of dnvers are travelling at a reasonable and
prudent speed for conditions on Via COrQODa. "he speeds observed on Via CordoPa are enforceable
and consistent w~th vehicle speeds observeO OR other City streets that are primonly residential.
The Cityw~de enforcement of existing speed limits on residential streets has shown that the residents
of the area commit a majority of the wotations. Through enforcement of the posted 25-MPH speed
limit along Via CordoPa. the Temecula Police Department has proven that Via CordoPa is no
exception to this City~wde finding. Most traffic citations for exceeding the posted speed limit on Via
Coraol:a were issued to residents of Via Cordoba and adlacent streets, Recently, the Police
Department placecl their radar trailer on Via Coraoba to remmd dnvere of the posted speed limit. This
effort wdl continue as time and availability of the radar trader permits. until dnvers ladcome more
aware of the 25 MPH posted speed limit.
Another Concern expressed Dy the residents was that there was a nigh volume of "cut-through" traffic
on Via Cordoba. In May 199g, traffic volume data was collected at two locations along Via Corcloba,
The count data indicates that Via Cordoha comes approximately 2,400 vehicles per day between
Loma Llnda 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~gnificant amount of "cut through" traffic along this corndot. In fact the number of vehicles
travelling on Via CordoDd is appropriate for the approximately 300 single-famdy dwelling umts that
directly access Via Cotaloha. This finding Is further substantiated Dy the Police Oepartment's speed
v~olatlon citations issued along Via Cotaloha.
By installing unwarranted stop s~gns or other traffic controls on Via Cordoba the City would be setting
a precedence for installing unwarranted traffic Controls along residential collector streets that were
designed to prowde access between residential nelghbornooOs and reg~onat roadway facdities,
Therefore, it Is staffs recommendatton that the Councd deny the request to install stop signs along
Via CordoDd at the Corte Zorlta. Loma L&nda Rod0. and Cone Bravo/Via Soltic intersections.
Along with the recommendation to deny the ~nstallatlon of stop s~gns on Via Cordoba. Staff
recommends that a policy ae developed to address speeding concerns in residential areas. This
policy wdl provtde standard procedures for evaluating the need for traffic control dewcos ~n all
resldenhal areas so thal ;3ns~stency ~n addressing this msue CaR be maintained Cityw~de
2
FISCAL IMPACT: ';one
ATTACHMENTS:
1 June 24 1999 PuD~lc. JTraffic Safety Commission Agenc~a Resort Iwltn attacnments l
2. ;,.me 24 1999 Purmc. jTrafflc Safety Commission Meet!n~ M~nu~es
Multh.,%'ay Stop vVarran~lng Software
35/1Te9
Ma!or Street: Via Comona
Minor Street: Corte Zorlta
Date of Analysm: 05/17,'99
Name of Analyst: jg
Case Number:
Comments:
85'"% Speed of Major Street: 25
A/ARRANT ANALYSIS SUMMARY
WARRANT 1 - Acczdent Expenence
NOT SATISFIED - The accident warrant of 5 or more reportable acclr~ents of a correctable type is
not met with 0 accidents over a 12-month period,
WARRANT 2 - Minimum Traffic Volumes
NOT SATISFIED - The 100% venlcular warrant of 500 entenng vehicles for any 8 hours of the clay
Is not met with 0 hours meeting the warrant
WARRANT 3 - Vehicular & Peciestnan Traffic from Minor Roaa
NOT SATISFIED - The comD~ne~ total Of 200 vemcles ancl peclestnans from the minor approach is
'~ot me~ w~tn 0 hours meeting the warrant
~la Csrooca at Loma Lmoa Roao
Vluttl-Way Stop Warranting Software
:5/17,'99
Ma!or Street: Via Cor0oOa
Minor Stree,,: Lorna Linda Roao
Date of Ana~ys~s: 05/17/99
Name of Analyst: ~g
Case Number:
Comments:
85'~% Speed of Major Street: 25
WARRANT ANALYSIS SUMMARY
WARRANT I -Accident Expenence
NOT SATISFIED - The accident warrant of 5 or more reportable acadents of a correctable type is
not met with 0 acclclents over a 12-month period.
WARRANT 2 - Miramum Traffic Volumes
NOT SATISFIED - The 100% vemcular warrant of 500 entenng vehicles for any 8 hours of the day
is not met w~th 0 hours meeting the warrant.
WARRANT ,3 - Vehicular & Pedestrian Traffic from Minor Roan
NOT SATISFIED - The comblneo total of 200 vemcles ano peoestnans from the minor approach is
not met wttb 0 hours meeting the warrant
V~a CordoDa at CoRe Bravo/Via Salt~o
Mulh-Way Stop Warranting Software
05/17'99
Major Street V~a Cordoba
Minor Street CoRe Bravo/V~a Salho
Date of AnaWsm 35/17/99
',jame of Analyst .:g
Case Number
Comments:
~=5'''-~' Speeo cf Malor Street 25
~%'ARRANT ANALYSIS SUMMARY
WARRANT 1 - ;,cclaent Experience
NOT SATISFIED - The acclnent warrant of 5 or more reportable acc=clents of a ccrrectat~le type ~s
not met with 0 accl0ems over a 12-month perloo.
WARRANT 2 - Minimum Traffic Volumes
NOT SATISFIED - The 100% venlcular warrant of 500 entering vemctes for any 8 hours of the 0ay
~s not met w~th 0 hours meeung the warrant,
WARRANT 3 - Vehicular &Pedestnan Traffic from Minor Roaa
NOT SATISFIED - The comomecl total of 200 veh~cjes aria pe0estnans from the minor approac.~ ~s
not met w~th 0 hours meeting the warrant.
EXHIBIT "C"
LETTER TO RESIDENTS OF
VIA CORDOBA
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 tbe demonstration
site improvements for this traffic calming program,
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 slow 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 Cotaloha, 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 aesigned
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 snown 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 Loma
Linda Road, Corte Zorita, and Corte Rosa. Where Via Cordoba intersects with Via
Sattio 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
EXHIBIT "D"
BEFORE AND AFTER VOLUME
AND SPEED DATA
F
~0'71 ~DT
33 MfH
'~07~
XX~'=
~5~92 AD
CITY OF TEMECULA
VIA CORODOBA S/0 CORTE VALLE
"R SPEED SURVEY
Time
!2:00 09/21
01:00
02:O0
03:00
04:00
OS:O0
06:00
07:00
08:00
09:00
10:00
lhO0
0- 6- Ii-
!0 !5 20
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
1 0
0 0
1 0
1 4
1 !
0 0
0 2
1 0
COIIFfS UNLIMITED. INC.
9O9.247.6716
WESTSOUP
21- 26- 3i- 36- 41-
i 0 0 0
0 0 2 0
0 0 I 0
I 1 0 0
0 I i 0
4 4 3 I
I3 20 9 2
I8 46 I3 3
8 21 I1 7
I1 12 I2 3
8 6 6 I
9 16 i2 2
12:00 pm 0 0 0 3 7 16 14 5 0
OhO0 0 0 1 0 6 17 ii 0 0
02:00 1 0 1 8 20 31 I0 3 I
03:00 0 0 0 3 13 25 9 6 0
04:00 0 1 0 3 14 35 17 3 0
05:00 0 0 i 6 29 37 23 3 0
06:00 t 0 2 I 41 51 9 1 1
07:00 0 0 1 2 14 21 I0 1 0
08:00 0 1 0 0 12 15 5 3 0
09:00 0 0 1 0 10 14 9 3 0
10:00 0 0 0 2 1 4 3 2 0
H'QO 0 0 0 I 0 4 1 I 1
.orals 2 3 12 37 240 397 I99 50 6
zs 2 3 12 37 240 397 I90 50 6
Speed Statistics.
15th Percentlie Speed : 21 MPR
Median Speed (50th percentlie): 27 MH
Average Speed - All Vehicles: 28 MPH
8SLh Percentfie Speed : 32 MPR
95tb Percentlie Speed : 36 MPR
i0 MPE Pace Speed : 21-30 MPE
in-her of Vehicles in Pace: 637
Percent of Vehicles zu Pace: 67.i9t
Number of Vehicles > 55 MPE : 0
Percent of Vehicles > 50 MPE: JOt
46- 51- 56-
50 55 EO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Site Code: 000800157707
Start Dane: 0921.'099
File I.D.: TEVCEOCV
Page :
61- 50th
999 T:tal Pot. 1
2 32 34
I *
3 24 29
3 29 34
I2 27 33
45 27 32
87 27 32
49 20 34
38 28 33
25 26 33
41 27 33
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
i2 28 34
8 20
949 27
949
CITY OF TEMECULA
VIA COEODOEA E/O CORTE VALLE
24 ER SPEED SURVEY
=in 0-
Time I0
!2:00 09/21
0h00
02:00
03:00
04:00
05:00
06:00
07:00
08:00
09:00
10:00
lhO0
11- iS- 21-
15 SO 25
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 I 1
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 i 2
0 3 9
0 1 11
1 I 9
I 2 15
0 1 B
1 2 9
COUNTS UNLIMITED, INC.
909.247.6716
EASTBOUND
2G- 31- 3G- 41-
30 35 40 45
2 i i 0
2 0 0 0
1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0
0 I 1 1
1 4 1 0
!2 16 0 1
44 12 6 O
35 14 3 1
17 11 8 2
13 9 7 1
10 12 5 4
51- 5G-
55 ~0
Site Code: 000000157707
Start Date: 09/21/1099
File I.D.
Page : I
61- 50th 85th
999 Total Pct.
4 29
2 27 29
3 24 20
2 19 34
4 34 39
9 29 34
41 28 33
74 27 32
64 27 32
5S 27 36
39 28 36
44 29 37
12:00 pm
01:00
02:00
03:00
04:00
05:00
06:00
07:00
08:00
09:00
10:00
11:00
"'" TOtalS
als
I 1 4 6 14 10 4 2
0 1 0 8 22 12 5 2
0 0 0 16 26 !2 7 0
0 0 2 21 37 34 12 3
0 1 2 26 37 29 15 2
0 4 7 41 58 29 4 i
0 1 5 44 37 23 0 2
O 3 6 14 24 11 5 0
0 0 1 7 11 13 4 1
1 1 1 3 9 7 0 3
0 0 0 1 5 7 5 0
0 1 0 1 ] I 0 0
3 it 42 252 420 269 93 26
3 16 42 252 420 269 93 26
42 28 34
50 28 34
61 27 33
110 28 34
112 28 34
144 26 32
112 26 31
63 2~ 33
37 29 34
25 28 33
18 32 37
6 26 29
1122 27
1122
Speed Statistics.
15th Percentlie Speed : 22 NPH
Median Speed (50th percentlie): 27 NPH
Average Speed - All Vehicles: 29 NPB
BSth Percentih Speed : 33 MPl
95th Percentlie Speed : 38 NPB
10 MPB Pace Speed : 26-35 MPH
Number of Vehicles in Pace: 689
Percent of Vehicles in Pace: 6t.35%
gumher of Vehicles 5 MUR : 0
Percent of Vehzcl- > 55 MPE: .001
CITT OF TEMECULA
VIA COEDOBA E/O CORTE VALLE
' uR SPEED SURVEY
;,~ Int. 0-
Time Total 15
12:00 11/I7 2 0
01:00 0 0
02:00 ] 0
03:00 2 0
04:00 9 0
5:00 18 2
06:00 ]l 0
07:00 69 3
08:00 57 0
09:00 38 I
10:00 36 0
Ih00 42 0
I6
20
21 26
0
0
0 2
I
3 0
1 6
6 17
I9 28
7 16
7 15
12 13
COUNTS UNLIMITED. INC.
909.247.6716
WESTBOUN~
]I 36 41 46
I 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 1
0 0 0
2 ] 1
6 ] 0
4 2 0
!4 2 0
I3 3 0
13 0 0
11 1 1
II 2 2
12:00 pm 84 2 3 20 31 22 5 0
0h00 72 1 3 IS 29 I9 5 0
02:00 60 0 1 15 26 I2 4 2
03:00 63 0 0 I0 ]0 18 4 1
04:00 74 2 4 26 26 13 3 0
05:00 94 i 4 20 39 26 3 0
06:00 57 0 3 16 26 10 2 O
07:00 65 0 2 13 33 1S 2 0
08:00 47 0 3 9 22 9 4 0
09:00 25 0 0 1 I6 6 1 l
1O:OO 13 0 2 2 5 3 1 0
_11:00 2 0 0 1 0 I 0 0
Totals 963 12 36 223 401 229 50 9
5i 56 61
55 E0 65
Site Code: 00000015!578
Start Date: 11/17/1999
File I.D.: TEVCEOCV
Page :
66 71 76
?0 '~ 9999
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
1 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
1 * *
Grand Total 963 i2 36 223 401 229 50 9 1 0 t 0 1 0 0
Speed Statistics.
15th Percentih Speed : 22 MPB
Median Speed (5Orb percentih): 27 MPB
Average Speed - All Vehicles : 28 MPR
85th Percemtih Speed : 33 MPR
9Sth Percemtih S~eed : 36 MPR
10 MPE Pace Speed : 26-35 MPR
Number of Vehicles in Pace: 630
Percent of Vehicles in Pace: 65.40t
Number of Vehicles > 55 NP~ : 2
Percent of Vehicles > 55 MPR: .21t
CITY O[ TEMECULA
VIA COIDOBA E/O CORTE VALLE
24 BI SPEED SURVEY
COUNTS UNLIMITED. INC.
909.2{7.S716
EASTBOUI{D
~in int. 0- 16 21 26 ]i ]6 41 4G
Time Total 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
I2:00 11/I7 4 0 0 1 0 2 1 0
01:00 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
02:00 3 0 0 0 I 1 1 0
03:00 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0
04:00 5 1 0 2 0 0 1 1
05:00 8 0 1 2 2 2 1 0
06:00 47 1 0 19 16 7 4 0
07:00 72 1 6 20 21 21 2 I
08:00 S2 0 2 20 21 16 2 1
09:00 26 0 0 6 I2 8 0 0
I0:00 38 I 7 10 13 4 2 1
11:00 46 1 1 11 16 14 3 0
12:00 pm 86 2 3 17 32 25 5 2
OhOO 71 0 0 i8 26 21 S 0
02:00 62 0 0 11 34 11 6 0
03:00 92 1 2 17 34 25 11 2
04:00 105 I 4 26 42 26 6 0
05:00 118 0 2 19 66 25 6 0
06:00 92 0 6 2t 45 14 4
07:00 57 1 i 18 i7 15 5 0
08:00 30 1 1 2 15 6 4 1
09:00 25 0 0 1 8 13 2 1
1Q:QO 19 O 0 5 S 7 2 0
ll:0O 12 0 0 2 2 4 3 1
~" Totals 1083 ll 37 258 430 267 77 11
51 56
55 60
0
0
0
0
0
61
66
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 ~
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 8
0 8
0 ~
t $
Speed Statistics.
ISth Percentlie Speed : 22 NPE
Median Speed {50th perceutih): 27 MPE
Average Speed - All Vehicles : 28 MPR
85th Percentlie Speed : 33 MPH
95th Percentlie Speed : 37 MPE
10 MPE Pace Speed : 2~-35 MPE
Number of Vehicles in Pace: 697
Percent of Vehicles in Pace: 64.34%
Number of Vehicles > 55 MM : 0
Percent of Vehicles > 55 MPE: .001
Site Code: 000000151578
Start Date: 11/i7/1999
File I.D.: TEF'^"V
Page : 1
71 76
'~ 9999
Grand Total I083 11 37 250 430 267 77 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CITY OF TKMMCIILA
VIA COEDOBA E/O VIA ZORITA
~' nR SPEED SIVEY
Tiie l0
12:00 09/2I
01:00
02:00
03:00
04:00
OS:O0
06:00
07:00
08:00
09:00
i0:00
lhO0
CDUI{TS~ILIMITND. INC.
909.P47.67iS
WESTBOUND
ii- 16- 21- 26- 21- 36- 41-
15 20 25 30 :n 40 45
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 2 O 0
0 0 0 0 I 0
0 1 0 1 0 0
I 2 0 1 0 0
O 0 3 1 3 0
1 0 10 20 2 1
2 1 17 35 14 3
I 2 5 I2 9 0
0 3 II I3 4 0
0 2 9 8 2 3
0 4 14 20 2 1
46- 51-
50 55
0
56-
60
Site Code: 00000015771{
Start Date: 09/21/1999
File I.D.: TEVCEOCZ
Page : !
6i- 50th SHth
999 Tzzal Pct. Pct.
3 0 , '
0 2 27 29
0 1 + 34
0 2 19 29
3 4 I7 19
0 7 29 33
O 34 26 29
O 72 27 32
O 30 27 33
0 31 28 29
0 2& 2~ 32
0 41 25 2N
12:00 pm
OhO0
02:00
03:00
04:00
OS:O0
06:00
07:00
08:00
09:00
10:00
jl:O0
'otala
0 I 0 14 17 6
0 0 0 13 iS 4
1 0 5 26 28 10
0 2 3 22 20 5
1 0 5 lS 37 9
0 1 4 25 39 6
0 1 6 33 41 7
1 0 I IS 19 9
i 1 0 8 13 1
I 1 0 11 12 2
O 0 O 4 7 0
0 0 O 0 3 0
S 12 3) 256 364 96
S 12 39 256 364 96
1 0
1 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
I 0
2 0
1 0
2 0
2 1
1 O
1 0
21
21 1
39 26 31
31 26 31
70 25 29
51 24 29
68 26 29
77 26 29
90 25 29
46 26 31
2( 2( 29
30 26 32
12 26 20
5 28 3)
799 26
799
Speed Statistics.
15th Percentlie Speed : 21 MPE
Median Speed (50th percentlie): 26 MPE
Average Speed - All Vehicles: 27 MPE
85th Percentih Speed : 30 MPE
9Sth Percentile Speed : 33 MPE
!0 MPR Pace Speed : 21-30 MPS
Number of Vehicles in Pace: 620
Percent of Vehicles in Pace: 77.508
Number of Vehicles > 55 MPH : 0
Percent of Vehicles > SS MPH: .00%
CITY OF TEMEULA
VIA C0~DDBA E/0 VIA ZORITA
24 B1 SPEED SUIUNY
~in 0- 6-
Time !0
12:00 09/21
0h00
02:00
03:00
04:00
05:00
06:00
07:00
08:00
09:00
10:00
ll:00
11- i6- 21-
!5 20 25
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
1 I 1
1 0 1
0 2 !1
0 3 11
0 0 6
0 t 0
0 1 11
0 1 9
COUNTS UNLIMITED, INC.
909.247.6716
EASTBOUND
26- 31- 36- 41- 46- 5I-
]0 25 40 45 50 55
I i 0 0 0
1 1 0 0 0
I 0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0 0
3 0 I 1 0
I 3 I 0 0
ll d 0 0 0
44 8 1 0 0
30 13 2 0 I
13 11 6 0 0
17 15 1 0 0
13 13 1 0 0
6i-
Site Code: 000000157714
Start Date: 09/21/1999
File I.D.:
Page : 1
50th
?:tal Pct. Pct.
2 29 34
2 29 34
2 29 40
1 ' 10
8 26 30
7 31
30 26 31
67 27 29
52 28 32
39 20 34
45 27 32
38 21 32
12:00 pm
OhOO
02:00
03:00
04:00
OS:OO
06:00
07tOO
08:00
Og:OO
lO:OO
lh00
~" Totals
0 0 5 7 18 G 1 0 0
0 0 0 9 22 9 I 0 1
0 0 3 9 27 16 I 0 0
0 1 2 17 39 20 4 1 0
0 0 0 16 41 18 6 0 0
1 1 7 26 64 8 2 1 0
0 1 3 33 40 12 3 0 1
0 1 1 12 19 13 3 0 0
1 0 1 6 I4 4 1 2 0
0 O 0 1 8 4 2 I 0
0 0 0 1 2 7 3 2 0
0 O 1 0 O 1 0 0 0
3 S 33 195 429 189 40 8 4
3 S 33 i95 429 189 40 8 4
39 27 31
42 21 32
56 27 32
84 21 32
81 27 33
110 2i 29
93 26 31
49 21 33
29 27 33
it 21 31
15 33 39
2 I! 34
909 21
909
$~eed S
1Stb Percemtih Speed
Median Speed BOth percentih
Average Speed - All Vehicles
B5th Percentlie Speed
95tb Percentlie Speed
I0 MPR Pace Speed
Number of Vehicles in Pace
Percent of Vehicles in Pace
Number of Vehicles > 55 NPN
Percent of Vehicles > 55 MPH:
22 NPH
27 MPE
28 NPl
32 MPM
36 MPH
21-30 MPH
624
G0.G5t
0
CITY OF TEMECULA
VIA CORDOBA E/O CORTE ZCR!TA
~' qR SPEED SURVEY
J int.
Tile Total
I2:00 11/I7 2
01:00 1
02:00
03:00 2
04:00 4
05:00 10
06:00 35
07:00 58
08:00 5G
09:00 23
10:00 29
11:00 44
12:00 pm 7G
01:00 45
02:00 4~
03:00 73
04:00 69
OS:O0 77
06:00 70
07:00 34
00:00 24
00:00 19
lO:O0 14
11:00 B
'otals 822
20
2i 26
25 !0
0 2 0
0 0 I
0 2 0
1 1 0
1 2 0
4 4 2
I1 13 9
14 25 10
I3 25 9
9 I2 1
12 10 2
14 16 8
COUNTS UNLIMITED. INC.
909.247.6716
WESTBOUI{D
40 45 50
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
I
1
0
0
0
4 20 34 15 1 1
5 13 19 8 0 0
1 8 28 6 1 0
4 24 32 G 4 0
5 23 33 7 0 0
0 20 48 B I 0
2 14 39 10 2 1
O 4 IS 13 2 0
1 4 10 7 2 0
0 0 8 9 1 1
0 2 4 6 2 0
O O 2 4 2 O
41 213 384 141 23 S
51 56 dl 6G
55 60 E5
Site Code: ~00000151575
Start Date: !i/17/1999
File !.D.: TEVCEOCZ
Page · '
71 7~
~5 ~999
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
· S t
Grand Total 822 9 41 213 384 I41 23 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~
Speed Statistics.
15tb Percentlie Speed : 2I MPH
Median Speed (50th percentlie): 27 MPH
Average Speed - All Vehicles : 28 MPR
85th Percentile Speed : 31 MPH
95tb Percentlie Speed : 34 MPE
10 MPE Pace Speed : 21-30 MPR
Number of Vehiclee in Pace: 597
Percent of Vehicles in Pace: 72.43{
Number of Vehicles > 55 MPH : 6
Percent of Vehicles > 55 MPH: .73i
CITY OF TEMECULA
VIA CORDOBA S/0 CORTE ZORITA
24 HR SPEED SURVEY
. :in Int. 0-
Time Total !5
12:00 1i/17 2 0
01:00 1 0
02:00 2 0
03:00 1 0
04:00 7 0
05:00 13 1
06:00 23 2
07:00 61 1
00:00 43 1
09:00 26 1
10:00 30 I
11:00 29 1
12:00 pm 73 1
01:00 55 2
02:00 49 0
03:00 56 2
04:00 61 1
05:00 40 I
06:00 SO 1
07:00 51 2
08:00 40 1
09:00 10 O
10:00 10 1
11:00 1
~-, Tetals 771 20
i6 21
20 25
2
0
0
1
i
3
9
41
22
i3
17
17
9 33
11 26
27
22
38
30
20
27
24
I2
3
0
104 396
26
]0
0
0
1
0
3
S
5
11
8
8
5
7
28
15
12
16
10
30
13
16
11
5
4
1
215
3I
35
0
0
1
0
2
2
0
3
0
1
1
COUNTS UNLIMITED, iNC.
909.247.6716
RASTBOF~D
40 45 50
1 0
1 0
1 0
5 0
2 0
2 0
0 0
2 0
0 0
I 0
1 O
0 0
30 '
51 56 ~1 S6
55 60 65 70
0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 3
0 0 0 1
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
ir I t 6 f
Site Code: 000000151575
Start Date: 11/17/I999
Pile I.D.: TEVP'
Page : 1
71 7~
75 9999
Grand Total 771 20 104 396 215 30 0 0 0 0 0
Speed Statistics.
15th Percemtih Speed : 19 MPR
Median Speed (50th percentale): 23 MPE
Average Speed - All Vehicles: 25 MPR
85th Percentale Speed : 20 MPH
95th Percentih Speed : 29 MPR
i0 MPE Pace Speed : 21-30 MPR
Number of Vehicles in Pace: SiX
Percent of Vehicles in Pace: 79.32t
Number of Vehicles > 55 MPH : 6
Percent of Vehicles > 55 MPH: .78t
O 0 0 6
CITY OF TEMECULA
VIA CO/DOBA S/O VIA DEL CORONADO
,a Int. 0- 16
Time Total !5 20
12:00 ii/17 !
01:00 0
02:00 1
0]:0O 0
04:00 10
05:00 64
06:00 83
07:00 85
08:00 82
09:00 32
10:00 43
11:00 31
COUFYS Ill{LIMITED, INC.
909.247.6716
WESTBOUND
21 26 31 36 41 46
25 ]0 ]5 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 17 29 11 2
9 I6 30 20 4
10 16 38 1S 0
20 30 24 5 0
4 10 14 2 0
10 14 13 2 2
4 I0 I4 3 0
12:00 pm 43 1 2 3 8 23 5 1 0
01:00 (6 I 2 13 28 19 1 1 1
02:00 39 0 2 5 12 1S 2 2 0
0]:00 45 0 I 8 18 14 2 I 0
04:00 47 1 1 5 I8 19 3 0 0
05:00 55 0 2 5 22 22 4 0 0
06:00 44 1 O 3 14 18 6 2 0
07:00 31 0 1 4 II II 3 1 0
08:00 21 O O 3 6 lO 2 O 0
09:00 8 O O O 0 5 3 O O
lO:OO 7 1 0 0 1 4 1 O 0
I1:00 5 0 0 I 2 0 2 0 0
Totals 851 11 22 !lO 256 330 100 19 1
5I 56
55 60 65
Site Code: 000000151563
Star: Dace: i!,'17/I~99
File I.D.: TEVCSOVC
Pa~e : !
66 71 76
70 '5 9999
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
, , ,
Grand Total 851 I1 22 110 20( 330 I00 19 I 0 0 I 1 0 0
Speed Statistics.
15th Percentile Speed
Median Speed (50th percentlie
AveraSe Speed - All Vehicles
85th Percentlie Speed
95th PercentSic Speed
iO MPH Pace Speed
Number of Vehiclee ia Pace
Percent of Vehicles in Pace
{usher of Vehicles > 55 MPR
Percent of Vehicles > 55 MPH:
23
30
30
34
38
26-35
68.83t
2
.23t
MPE
MPH
MPN
SPa
CITY OF TEMNCULA
VIA CORDOBA E/O VIA DEL CORONADO
24 RR SPEED SURVEY
~ln int. 0- 16
Time Total 15 20
12:00 I1/17 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
07:00 31 0
08:00 79 2
09:00 20 1
10:00 29 I
11:00 48 0
21 26
25
4
0
0
I
1
2 i
0
10
21 31
5
10 9
I1 18 13
COUNTS UNLIMITED. INC.
909.247.6716
EASTBOU~
31 36 41 46
]5 40 45
2 0
0 0
1
0 0
1 0
I 0
0 1
7 4
16 2
7 2
0
5
12:00 pm 89 2 2 17 30 26 i0 0 0
01:00 67 1 5 18 20 19 2 1
02:00 42 1 0 I1 14 9 7 0 0
03:00 78 0 2 7 33 3I 4 1 0
04:00 90 1 3 2i 30 29 5 1 0
05:00 130 0 1 I4 50 54 0 2 1
06:00 BB 0 3 17 43 22 3 0 O
07:00 62 O 3 II 27 19 2 0 0
08:00 43 0 3 8 17 11 4 0 0
09:00 27 0 1 5 9 11 1 0 0
10:00 13 0 0 4 3 5 1 0 0
11:00 12 0 0 2 5 1 4 0 0
n'v Totals 970 11 34 192 362 294 66 6 3
51 56 61 66
E5 60 65 'Q
Site Code: 000000151563
Start Date: !i/I7/1999
File I.D.:
Page :
7I 76
~ 9999
Grand Total 970 II 34 192 362 294 66 6 3 0 0 0 0 2 0
Speed Statistics.
IStb Percentlie Speed : 22 MPE
Median Speed (50th percentih): 28 MPE
Average Speed - All Vehicles: 29 MPN
85th Percentih Speed : 33 MPH
95th Percentile Speed : 37 MPE
I0 MPH Pace Speed : 2G-35 MPN
Number of Vehicles in Pace: 65~
Percent of Vehicles in Pace: 67.61t
Number of Vehicles > 55 MPE : 2
Percent of Vehicles > 55 MPN: .21t
CITY OF TEMMCULA
VIA C02000A M/O VIA IgC!A
*' ~R SPEED SURVEY
.a O- 6-
I2:00 09/21
01:00
02:00
03:00
04:00
05:00
06:00
07:00
08:00
09:00
10:00
lhOO
ii-
COUlrPS UNLIMIHD. iNC.
909.247.671G
WESTBOUND
i6- 21- 26- 31- 36- 41-
20 25 30 35 40 45
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
t 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 2 2 0 0
0 2 10 4 1 0
3 16 24 8 0 0
0 21 31 13 2 1
1 I4 33 10 4 0
3 7 10 7 0 0
0 8 10 1 0 0
3 13 7 2 1 0
46- 51- 56-
50 55 60
Site Code: 00000015770G
Start Date: 09/21/1999
File I.D.: TEVCNOVL
hoe : !
61- 50th B5th
?~9 Tc:al Pet. Pct.
0 ,
I , 29
0 *
I '
4 20 32
17 27 32
53 26 29
68 27 32
64 27 32
28 26 32
I9 26 28
26 23 21
12:00 pm
01:00
02:00
03:00
04:00
0S:00
06:00
07:00
08:00
09:00
10:00
_JJ:O0
,orals
0 0 0 13 11 3 2
0 0 5 7 7 3 0
0 0 2 10 20 5 2
2 1 4 4 16 5 0
0 0 1 I0 I7 11 1
2 2 4 23 21 2 1
i 1 2 I1 31 4 1
0 0 6 5 10 3 i
t 0 2 4 5 3
I 0 O 3 7 2 2
0 0 1 2 2 0 0
0 I 2 1 0 2 1
9 8 40 183 284 90 20
9 B 40 103 284 90 20
29 25 31
22 23 29
57 26 29
32 26 29
40 27 32
55 23 28
51 26 29
25 25 2g
i6 21 33
15 21 34
5 22 21
7 24 34
635 2l
63S
Speed Statistics.
ISth Percentlie Speed : 21 MPE
Median Speed (50th percentih): 26 MPH
Average Speed - All Vehicles: 26 MPH
85th Percentih Speed : 31 MPR
9Sth Percentlie Speed : 34 MPH
l0 MPR Pace Speed : 21-30 MPR
Number of Vehicles in Pace: 467
Percent of Vehiclea in Pace: 73.13t
Number of Vehicles > 55 NPN : 0
Percent of Vehicles > 55 MPE: .00%
CI~ OF TEMECULA
VIA CORDOBA W/O VIA ~C!A
24 BR SPEED SURVEY
Jin 0- 6-
Time
12:00 09/21 0
0hO0 0
O2:OO
03:00 0
04:00 0
OS:O0 0
04:00 !
07:00 0
08:00 0
09:00 0
10:00 O
11:00 1
i1-
!5 20
21-
25
0 0
0 0
O 0
1 0
1 0
2
3 4
9 15
18 1O
14 7
5 4
11
COUNTS UNLIMITED. iNC.
909.247.6716
EASTBOUND
31- 36- 41-
25 40 45
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
7
4
5
3
46- 5t-
50 55
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
56- 61-
t0 999
Site Code: 000000157706
Start Date: 09/21/!999
Pile I.D.: TEv'
Page : !
5Oth 85tu
Total Pot. Pot,
, 34
e
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
01:00 0
02:00 0
03:00 1
04:00 0
05:00 0
00:00 0
07:00 0
08:00 0
09:00 1
lO:O0 0
11:00 0
2
0 4 11 1{ 4 1
0 2 5 7 5 2
0 1 1S 9 4 0
2 9 28 12 6 1
2 3 11 29 12 O
2 8 25 44 13 1
2 8 34 31 8 1
2 O 11 14 6 O
1 0 7 8 5 O
I 0 3 7 3 O
I i 3 I0 4 1
1 0 1 3 0 0
17 4t 210
17 46 218 240 97 14
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
I 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0
34 24 29
21 27 33
30 23 29
59 23 28
57 27 31
97 24 29
94 24 28
35 20 31
21 24 32
15 27 31
20 27 32
5 21 28
642 24
G42
Speed Statistics.
15th Percentlie Speed : 20 MPH
Median Speed {50th percenCile): 26 MPR
Average Speed - All Vehicles: 26 MPH
85th PercenUle Speed : 31 MPR
9S~h Percencih Speed : 33 MPR
10 MPE Pace Speed : 21-30 MPH
Number of Vehicles in Pace: 458
Percent of Vehicles in Pace: 71.45{
Number of Vehicles > 55 MPH : 0
Percent of Vehicles > 55 MPH: .00%
CITY OF TEMEC~'I
VIA CORDOBA E/O VIA LUCIA
~' nR SPEED S~VEY
.d lnt.
Tiie Total 15
I2:00 11/17
01:00 0
02:00 2
03:00 1
04:00 8
05:00 22
06:00 22
07:00 47
00:00 57
09:00 28
10:00 32
lh00 34
16 21
20 25
0
0
0
1
2
2
1
4
2
2 7
1 I2
2 5
26
30
0
0
1
0
0
3
9
I8
26
13
19
8
9
12
COUI{TS ~IMITED. INC.
909.247.6716
WESTBOUND
31 36 41 46
]5 40 45 50
0 0 0
0 0 0
1 0 0
0 0 0
3 2 0
10 3 0 0
1 0 0
3 0 i
0 0 0
2 0 0
2 1 0
6 1 0
51 55
55 60
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12:00 pm 50 1 1 9 16 18 5 0 0 Q Q
01:00 55 1 3 13 25 13 0 0 0 0 Q
02:00 45 1 3 9 23 6 1 t 1 0 O
03:00 39 1 2 10 9 13 3 0 1 0 0
04:00 47 1 4 17 19 4 1 1 0 0 0
OS:OO 50 0 0 11 24 19 3 1 0 0 1
06:00 36 1 2 12 14 6 1 0 0 0 O
OT:OO 35 0 0 7 19 8 1 0 0 0 0
08:00 23 i I 6 8 3 4 0 0 O 0
09:00 13 1 Q 2 5 2 3 0 0 Q 0
10:00 6 0 1 1 3 1 0 0 O O O
11:00 I O 0 0 0 1 0 O 0
Totals 643 14 34 163 251 147 43 ? 3 t 1
6i ~6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
, ,, ,
Speed
a 0 rcentile)~ 27
Average Speed - All Vehicles: 28 MPI
SEth Percentile Speed : 33 MPE
9Rh Percentlie Speed : 37
10 MPH Pace Speed : 21-30 NPE
Rumher of Vehicles in Pace: 414
Percent of Vehicles in Pace: 62.43t
Number of Vehicles > 55 MPR
Percent of Vehicles > 55 MPD: .ISt
Site Code: 000000151569
Start Date: 11/I7/!999
File I.D.: TNlCEOVL
PaVe : 1
71 76
~5 9999
0
0
0
0
0
Grand Total 663 I4 34 163 251 147 43 7 3 0 1 0 0 0 e
CITY OF TSMRCULA
VIA CORDOBA E/O VIA
24 RE SPEED SURVEY
LUCIA
COUNTS UNLIMITED, iNC.
909.247.6716
EASTBOUND
~i: Int. 0- i& 21 26 2! ]6 41 46
Time Total !5 20 25 ]0 25 40 45 S0
12:00 11/17 2 0 0 0 0 i 0
OhO0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0
02:00 1 0 0 0 0 0 i 0
03:00 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
04:00 2 0 0 0 1 I 0 0
05:00 4 0 0 2 1 1 0 0
06:00 21 1 0 9 7 2 1 1
07:00 26 1 4 6 12 3 O 0
08:00 56 0 3 I5 29 8 1 0
09:00 19 2 1 9 4 3 0 0
10:00 20 1 1 5 2 9 1 1
11:00 32 0 2 8 I0 9 3 0
12:00 pm 44 O 1 I3 14 Ii 3 1
0h00 54 1 2 12 27 9 3 O
02:00 45 i O 12 17 !3 1 0
03:00 54 O I 14 I5 I4 9 1
04:00 58 1 1 11 22 21 2 0
05:00 75 2 0 I7 35 19 2 '0
06:00 54 1 1 13 24 12 3 0
07:00 30 1 0 11 10 7 1 0
08:00 12 O O 4 6 1 1 0
09:00 13 O Q 0 6 5 2 O
1O:OO lO O O 1 3 5 1 O
lhO0 7 O 0 0 2 4 I 0
n-. Totals 641 13 17 163 2{7 I50 37 4
51 56 61
55 60 65
Site Code: 000000151569
Start Date: 11/I7/1999
File I.D.: TEVr
Page : 1
71 76
75 9999
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 Q
0 Q
O O
0 O
0 O
Q O
0 O
0 Q
O Q
0 Q
O Q
O 0
1
Grand Total 641 13 17 iS3 247 158 37 4 O 0 0 1 0 1 Q
Speed Statistics.
15th Percentih Speed
Median Speed (SOth percentile
Average Speed - All Vehicles
85th Percemtih Speed
95th Percentih Speed
10 MH Pace Speed
Rumher of Vehicles in Pace
Percent of Vehicles in Pace
Rumher of Vehicles > 55 MPR
Percent of Vehicles > 55 MPH:
22 MPH
27 MPR
28 MPR
33 MPE
36 MPR
21-30 MPE
410
63.94%
2
.3t{
EXHIBIT "E"
LETTER AND SURVEY TO RESIDENTS OF
VIA CORDOBA
of Temecula
Park Dnve-Temecula. CA 92590,Mailing Address: PO. Box 9033 -Temecuia. C,'~ 92589-9033
· Fax (909} 694-~,475
February 1. 2000
Re: Via Cordoba Traffic Calming Prototype Pro~am
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 "before" 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 All Moghadam, Senior Engineer or me at
(909) 694-6411.
Sincerely,
William G. Hughes
Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Enclosures
CC:
All Moghadam. Semor Engineer
Jerry. Gonzalez. Associate Engineer
Via Cordoba
Survey of Traffic Calming Devices
Do you believe that the temporan/traffic calming devices (traffic circles and median islands)
have been effective in reducing overall vehicle speeds on Via Cotaloha?
YES NO
2. 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
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.)
CITY OF TEMECULA
ENGINEERING/
PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT
ALL ABOUT
ROUNDABOUTS
ROUNDABOUTS
Each year the Clly receNes numerous requests to reauce me traffic
congesuon on streets tnrougnou[ the Gly Citizens also express concerns
about the safety of the streets where tney hve In an effort to reduce traffic
congestion and ~mprove safety, the C~ty has recently considered the use of
roundabouts
Roundabouts are used throughout Europe and ~n several countries arcuric
the world to reduce ~nlury accidents, traffic delays, fuel consumption, a~r
pollution, and to enhance intersection beauty. They nave also successfully
been used to control traffic speeds in certain residential ne~ghbornoods If
properly constructed, they are considered one of the safest types of
Intersection design
A roundabout ~s a c~rcular mtersect~on similar to the traffic circle used
prewously In the U.S., The major differences between a traffic circle and a
roundabout are:
Yield at Entry: At roundabouts the entenng traffic y~elds the right-of-way to the
circulating traffic. This y~eld-at-entry rule keeps traffic from locking up and
allows free flow movement
Deflection: The entry and center :sland of a roundabout deflects entenng
traffic to slow traffic and reinforce the 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 y~eld~ng at the entry rather than stopping and wa~hng
tor a green hght. delay ~s s~gnificantly reduced.
4 Capacity: Intersections w~th a high volume of left turns are better handled
by a roundabout than a mulh-phasea traffic s~gnal
5. Aesthetics: A reduction ~n delay corresponds to a decrease in fuel
consumphon and air polluhon. In addition, the central ~slana prowdes an
opportunity to provide landscaping.
Standard Intersection
Roundabout Intersection
· = Confhct Point
Figure 1
HOW TO DRIVE A ROUNDABOUT
As you approach a roundabout, there will be a YIELD sign and dashed
yield limit line. Drivers need to stow down, watch for pedestrians and
bicyclists, and be prepared to stop, if necessary. When you enter, yield to
cimulating 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 s~gnal and
watch for pedestrians and bicyclists as you exit.
Left turns are completed by travehng around the center island (see Figure
2).
Figure 2
Important Contacts
Public Works Information:
(909) 694-6411
City Hotline:
(909) 694-6445, Option 1
Traffic Hotline:
(909) 694-6445, Option 6
City Website:
www. ci. temecula. ca
ITEM 2 1
APPROVAL
CiTY ATTORNEY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF TEMECULA
AGENDA REPORT
City Manager/City Council
'l~/¢{William G. Hughes, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
May 9, 2000
"Trees for Temecula" - Street Tree Replacement Program
PREPARED BY:
Beryl Yasinosky, Management Analyst
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council receive and file this report regarding the
implementation of our Street Tree Replacement Program to replace damaged or missing trees
in specific residential neighborhoods within the City right-of-way areas.
BACKGROUND: In accordance with the City's General Plan and Development
Code, guidelines and policies have been established to ensure that all proposed landscape
amenities are coordinated through a carefully planned streetscape program that reflects
positively upon the City's image and character. In order to uphold this objective, the Public
Works Maintenance Division, through a private contractor, maintains and trims the street trees
planted in the City's right-of-way areas.
in conjunction with these services, a recent inventory within the residential neighborhoods of
Rainbow Canyon and Starlight Ridge has identified approximately 1,000 trees missing or
removed from the right-of-way. Although the scope of our maintenance contract provides for
the replacement of diseased or damaged trees, the City has not implemented a tree-replanting
program for missing trees.
In response to numerous requests from residents living in these developments, the Public
Works Department proposes to embark on a trial tree-planting program to replace the missing
street trees within the communities of Rainbow Canyon and Starlight Ridge. This replanting
program will be completely funded within our existing tree trimming budget. Most importantly,
the program would include a community outreach phase by which we would notify each resident
proposed for tree planting, provide them with a picture of the tree, and ask for their concurrence
in planting the tree.
Our current contractor has successfully implemented similar programs in other cities. Based on
their experience, approximately 60% of the residents responded positively to the request for
trees. If the proposed demonstration program in the Rainbow Canyon and Starlight Ridge
communities is successful, staff will recommend that the program be extended over a ten-year
period to include other developments within the City.
R:\agdrpt~000~50g~streettreeprogram
1
FISCAL IMPACT: Approximately $70,000 is available within the existing Fiscal Year
1999-2000 budget and contract to implement this demonstration program. If successful, this
program would be budgeted for, and implemented, over a ten-year period to replant trees in
neighborhoods on an annual basis.
ATTACH M E N TS:
Sample Resident Notification Letter
R:\agdrpt~2000~509~streettreeprogram
2
City of Temecula
43200 Bus~ness Park Dr~/e · Temecula, CA 92590 · Mailing Address: P O Box 9033 ', Temecula, CA 92589-9033
(909) 694-6444 · Fax (909) 694-1999
May 9, 2000
Resident
Address
City, State, Zip
RE: Municipal Tree Planting
Dear Resident:
Temecula is embarking on a reforestation campaign eutitled "Trees for Temecula". The
City will be planting a street tree at your address within the next couple of weeks. If you
do not want a tree planted, please return the enclosed postcard by May 23, 2000. The tree
species will be determined by the existing tree plan for your street. The selection was
made based upon the City of Temecula's Master Street Tree Pallette and the performance
and history within the City, as well as characteristics specific to that tree such as growing
space, root structure and general resistance to insects and disease. A photograph of the
tree is enclosed for your review.
We trust you will be pleased with your new tree. Trees beautify our City, increase
property value and enhance community safety. The city maintains street trees, but we ask
that you take the responsibility of watering your tree as needed. After the planting has
been completed, you will receive an educational door hanger that will explain procedures
for proper care and maintenance of your new tree.
Thank you for your time and cooperation in this matter. If you have any concerns, we
would like to hear form you. Please call the City of Temecula Public Works Department
at 909-694-6411 or our tree maintenance contractor, West Coast Arborisis, Inc. at 1-800-
521-3714.
Sincerely,
William G. Hughes
Director of Public Work/City Engineer